U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

73–659 PDF 2012

U.S. FOREST SERVICE LAND MANAGEMENT: 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

ACHIEVING HEALTHIER NATIONAL FORESTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY,

AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 27, 2012

Serial No. 112–32

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Vice Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel 

TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, AND FORESTRY

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Ranking 

Minority Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

BRENT BLEVINS, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

WITNESSES

Tidwell, Tom, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 126

Barth, Gary, Director, Business and Community Services, Clackamas County, 

Oregon City, OR ................................................................................................... 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Hoover, Gregory A., Ornamental Extension Entomologist, Senior Extension 

Associate, Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural Sciences, 

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA ....................................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Watkins, Charles ‘‘Chuck’’, Chief Operating Officer, Rex Lumber, Graceville, 

FL; on behalf of Federal Forest Resource Coalition .......................................... 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Zimmer, Gary, Certified Wildlife Biologist®, Coordinating Wildlife Biologist, 

Ruffed Grouse Society, Laona, WI ...................................................................... 47

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Armstrong, Marcia H., Supervisor District 5, Siskiyou County, CA, submitted 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 63

Muse, Rhonda, National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire, submitted e-mail .......................................................................................... 108

Petik, Jerry, Director, Grand River Grazing Cooperative Association, submitted statement .................................................................................................. 86

(1)

U.S. FOREST SERVICE LAND MANAGEMENT: 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

ACHIEVING HEALTHIER NATIONAL FORESTS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, AND FORESTRY, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Thompson, Stutzman, Tipton, 

Southerland, Hultgren, Ribble, Holden, Schrader, McIntyre, Costa, 

and Sablan. 

Staff present: Brent Blevins, Tamara Hinton, Patricia Straughn, 

Lauren Sturgeon, Wyatt Swinford, Heather Vaughan, Suzanne 

Watson, Liz Friedlander, Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons, John 

Konya, Jamie Mitchell, and Caleb Crosswhite 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing to review the U.S. Forest Service land 

management and its impact on the health of our National Forests. 

The question of the health of our National Forests is an important one for Members of our Subcommittee, a number of whom represent National Forests in different regions of the country. As 

Chairman of this Subcommittee and a representative whose district 

includes the Allegheny National Forest, I have a keen appreciation 

for the value of our nation’s National Forests. 

The health of our National Forest is an issue of vital importance 

for rural America. Not only are our National Forests a source of 

immense natural beauty, but they provide us with natural resources, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and serve as 

economic engines for our local communities. By promoting healthier 

forests, everyone wins. Healthier National Forests are more sustainable for generations to come due to decreased risk of catastrophic fires and invasive species outbreaks. Rural economies will 

benefit economically from increased timber harvest. We can continue to support a diverse population of wildlife through active land 

management practices such as prescribed burns. 

Our National Forests are not museums and never were intended 

to sit idle. I say this frequently, National Forests are not National 

2

Parks. This is why the U.S. Forest Service is housed in the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture rather than the Department of the Interior. Our National Forests are meant to provide timber, oil, natural 

gas, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and clean drinking 

water for rural communities across America. 

For today’s hearing, we will focus on a few specific areas of forest 

management. Now, I want to draw particular attention to the timber harvest occurring in our National Forest system. Timber harvesting is an important means for achieving healthier National 

Forests and is crucial to supporting rural economies. Yet, the level 

harvesting on most National Forests is nowhere near the target 

each Forest Plan recommends. The Forest Service’s timber harvest 

has dropped dramatically from a high of 12.7 billion board feet in 

1987. Last year, we harvested a mere 2.4 billion board feet, though 

that has increased slightly over the last 10 years. 

Now, I am sure I speak for many in this room when I say I was 

pleased by USDA’s announcement last month that it intended to 

increase the annual harvest to 3 million board feet off National 

Forest land by 2014. However, for the sake of our forest health and 

the health of our rural economies, I believe we can and must go 

beyond that figure. I look forward to hearing about some of the 

tools the Forest Service is using to increase its timber harvest like 

stewardship contracting. I am also interested in learning about the 

steps the Forest Service is taking to simplify the process of harvesting timber. 

Another important factor affecting forest health is invasive species outbreaks. In recent years, we have seen numerous outbreaks 

of invasive species such as the pine bark beetle in the West, emerald ash borer in Pennsylvania in other areas in eastern United 

States. Invasive species outbreaks can’t be avoided. However, we 

can be sure that our forests are managed in such a way that they 

are more resistant during outbreaks. We want to also be certain 

that the remnants from the outbreaks do not become hazardous 

fuel. Catastrophic wildfires are a perfect example of what can happen when our forests are not well managed. The country witnessed 

a series of wildfires during the last decade that were the worst we 

have seen in more than 50 years. I am concerned that the frequency and intensity of these fires is a result of forests that have 

not been adequately managed. 

In 1736, as a famous Pennsylvania said, ‘‘an ounce of prevention 

is worth a pound of cure.’’ Many people have heard Benjamin 

Franklin’s maxim but are unaware of its origins. He was referring 

to the threat of fire in Philadelphia and the steps that could be 

taken to reduce fire-related risks. I believe his advice is no less 

sage today than it was 276 years ago. 

And we have taken steps to reduce the threat of wildfires and 

reduce the associated costs to the agency, but more work remains 

to be done. I am going to be certain that our National Forests are 

managed so that they are good neighbors with adjoining state and 

private forests and do not pose an unnecessary fire threat. 

Last, the Forest Service recently released its preferred alternative for its planning role. This Subcommittee held a hearing to 

review the planning rule last May, and I look forward to hearing 

how the changes will impact forest management practices. 

3

I want to welcome Chief Tidwell and thank him for appearing before us today. I have had the opportunity to work extensively with 

Chief Tidwell and the Forest Service since I was elected and I look 

forward to continue to collaborate to promote healthier National 

Forests across America. 

I also look forward to hearing from our second panel of witnesses 

today. We have a wide variety of stakeholders who will tell us what 

the Forest Service does well and what they should be doing better. 

I particularly want to welcome Mr. Gregory Hoover, who is testifying on our second panel this morning. Mr. Hoover is a constituent 

from the Penn State Agricultural Extension who brings considerable experience in research in combating various invasive species, 

including the emerald ash borer, which has been a problem in 

Pennsylvania. 

And finally, I want to recognize—I know he is in the room—Mr. 

Ross Gorte of the Congressional Resource Service who is retiring 

this week after 29 years of service. Ross has been a valuable resource on forestry matters for Members and staff of this Committee, including my own staff, and I wish him a very enjoyable retirement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing to review U.S. Forest Service land management and its impact on the health of our National Forests. 

The question of the health of our National Forests is an important one for Members of our Subcommittee, a number of whom represent National Forests in different regions of the country. 

As Chairman of this Subcommittee and a representative whose district includes 

the Allegheny National Forest, I have a keen appreciation for the value of our nation’s National Forests. 

The health of our National Forests is an issue of vital importance for rural America. 

Not only are our National Forests a source of immense natural beauty, but they 

provide us with natural resources, recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, and 

serve as economic engines for the local communities. 

By promoting healthier National Forests, everyone wins. 

Healthier National Forests are more sustainable for generations to come due to 

decreased risk of catastrophic fires and invasive species outbreaks. 

Rural economies will benefit economically from increased timber harvests. 

We can continue to support a diverse population of wildlife through active land 

management practices such as prescribed burns. 

Our National Forests are not museums and were never intended to sit idle. 

I say it frequently, but National Forests are not National Parks. 

This is why the U.S. Forest Service is housed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, rather than the Department of the Interior. 

Our National Forests are meant to provide timber, oil, natural gas, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and clean drinking water for rural communities 

across America. 

For today’s hearing, we will focus on a few specific areas of forest management. 

I want to draw particular attention to the timber harvests occurring in our National Forest system. 

Timber harvesting is an important means for achieving healthier National Forests 

and is crucial to supporting rural economies. 

Yet the level of harvesting on most National Forests is nowhere near the target 

each forest plan recommends. 

The Forest Service’s timber harvest has dropped dramatically from a high of 12.7 

billion board feet in 1987. 

Last year, we harvested a mere 2.4 billion board feet, though that has increased 

slightly over the last ten years. 

4

I am sure I speak for many in this room when I say that I was pleased by USDA’s 

announcement last month that it intended to increase the annual harvest to 3 billion board feet off National Forest land by FY 2014. 

However, for the sake of our forests’ health and the health of our rural economies, 

I believe we can and must go beyond that figure. 

I look forward to hearing about some of the tools the Forest Service is using to 

increase its timber harvest like stewardship contracting. 

I am also interested in learning about the steps the Forest Service is taking to 

simplify the process of harvesting timber. 

Another important factor affecting forest health is invasive species outbreaks. 

In recent years, we have seen numerous outbreaks of invasive species such as the 

Pine Bark Beetle in the West and the Emerald Ash Borer in Pennsylvania and other 

areas in the eastern United States. 

Invasive species outbreaks are inevitable. 

However, we can be sure that our forests are managed in such a way that they 

are more resistant during outbreaks. 

We must also be certain that the remnants from the outbreaks do not become hazardous fuel. 

Catastrophic wildfires are a perfect example of what can happen when our forests 

are not managed well. 

The country witnessed a series of wildfires during the last decade that were the 

worst we’ve seen in more than 50 years. 

I am concerned that the frequency and intensity of these fires is a result of forests 

that have not been adequately managed. 

In 1736, a famous Pennsylvanian said ‘‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound 

of cure.’’

Many people have heard Benjamin Franklin’s maxim but are unaware of its origins. 

He was referring to the threat of fire in Philadelphia and the steps that could be 

taken to reduce fire-related risks. 

I believe his advice is no less sage today than it was 276 years ago. 

We have taken steps to reduce the threat of wildfire and reduce the associated 

costs to the agency, but more work remains to be done. 

I want to be certain that our National Forests are managed so that they are good 

neighbors with adjoining state and private forests and do not pose an unnecessary 

fire threat. 

Last, the Forest Service recently released its preferred alternative for its planning 

rule. 

This Subcommittee held a hearing to review the planning rule last May and I look 

forward to hearing how the changes will impact forest management practices. 

I want to welcome Chief Tidwell and thank him for appearing before us today. 

I have had the opportunity to work extensively with Chief Tidwell and the Forest 

Service since I was elected and I look forward to continuing to collaborate to promote healthier National Forests across America. 

I also look forward to hearing from our second panel of witnesses today. 

We have a wide variety of stakeholders who will tell us what the Forest Service 

does well and what they should be doing better. 

I particularly want to welcome Mr. Gregory Hoover, who is testifying on our second panel this morning. 

Mr. Hoover is a constituent from Penn State’s Agricultural Extension who brings 

considerable experience in researching and combating various invasive species, including emerald ash borer, which has been a problem in Pennsylvania. 

And, finally, I want to recognize Mr. Ross Gorte of the Congressional Research 

Service, who is retiring this week after 29 years of service. 

Ross has been a valuable resource on forestry matters for Members and staff of 

this committee, including my own staff and I wish him an enjoyable retirement. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Holden, for his opening statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Holden, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. HOLDEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank Chief Tidwell and our other witnesses and guests for coming 

today to discuss the U.S. Forest Service land management and the 

5

challenges and opportunities for achieving healthier National Forests. 

This hearing presents an opportunity for Members of this Subcommittee to get reacquainted with the national framework for forest land management and to learn how we can best assist the 

agency in maintaining and improving the health of the 155 National Forests and 20 grasslands in the National Forest System. 

As we discuss reauthorization of the current farm bill under tight 

budgetary constraints and even tighter budgetary expectations, it 

is important to hear from those in and around our forest communities about which programs are working and which are not, and 

what we can do better to promote both a healthy forest and a 

hearty economy. The Forest Service should always consider the 

multiple uses of our National Forest land, including timber production, habitat preservation, natural resource management, and 

recreation and ensure local economic development and environmental protections work in harmony instead of in competition with 

each other. We need to make sure the Forest Service and its partners work together to improve forest restoration and conservation 

while promoting a robust forest industry that supports local stakeholders and results in restored jobs and a vibrant rural economy. 

Only in partnership can we ensure the viability of our forest land 

and forest communities in the 21st century. 

I look forward to today’s expert testimony and the opportunity to 

listen, learn, and question those on the forefront of this very important issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holden follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

PENNSYLVANIA

I would like to thank Chief Tidwell and our other witnesses and guests for coming 

today to discuss U.S. Forest Service land management and the challenges and opportunities for achieving healthier National Forests. 

This hearing presents an opportunity for Members of the Subcommittee to get reacquainted with the national framework for forestland management and to learn 

how we can best assist the agency in maintaining and improving the health of the 

155 National Forests and 20 Grasslands in the National Forest System. 

As we discuss reauthorization of the current farm bill under tight budgetary constraints and even tighter budgetary expectations, it is important to hear from those 

in and around our forest communities about which programs are working, which are 

not, and what we can do better to promote both a healthy forest and hearty economy. 

The Forest Service should always consider the multiple uses of our National 

Forestland including timber production, habitat preservation, natural resource management and recreation and ensure local economic development and environmental 

protections work in harmony instead of in competition with each other. 

We need to make sure the Forest Service and its partners work together to improve forest restoration and conservation while promoting a robust forest industry 

that supports local stakeholders and results in restored jobs and a vibrant rural 

economy. Only in partnership can we ensure the viability of our forestland and forest communities in the 21st century. 

I look forward to today’s expert testimony and the opportunity to listen, learn and 

question those on the forefront of this important issue.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Now, the chair would request that other Members submit their 

opening statements for the record so that the witnesses may begin 

their testimony to ensure there is ample time for questions. 

6

And I would like to welcome—we have one witness, our first 

panel, Mr. Tom Tidwell, Chief, the Forest Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture. Chief Tidwell, please begin when you 

are ready. 

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

once again it is a privilege to be here today to discuss the challenges and the opportunities for achieving healthier National Forests. I appreciate the support this Subcommittee has shown the 

Forest Service in the past and I look forward to working with you 

to help address this very important issue that we are facing on our 

National Forests today. 

Our ability to sustain the National Forests and provide all the 

benefits that the public wants and needs is increasingly at risk. 

The droughts that we are seeing, the invasive species, more development in the wildland-urban interface, uncharacteristically severe 

wildfires, unprecedented outbreaks of insect and disease, all of 

these stresses and disturbances are affecting America’s forests. The 

Forest Service recognizes that we need to increase the pace and 

scale of our restoration, our active management of our National 

Forests to address these threats, these threats to the resiliency of 

our National Forests and watersheds, to address the threats to the 

health and safety of America’s forest-dependent communities. We 

also recognize a need for a strong integrated wood products industry to provide the skills to do the restoration work and to be able 

to use the markets to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. 

There are between 65 and 82 million acres of our National Forests that need some form of restoration, and we are committed to 

increasing the number of acres treated by 20 percent over the next 

3 years. This will not only increase forest health but it will increase 

jobs and increase timber harvest to 3 billion board feet. Now, how 

are we going to get this done? Well, I have a series of opportunities 

I want to share with you. 

And the first one is to increase our collaboration with projects 

like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, 

which is proving to be a very effective model for increasing the 

amount of work that is being accomplished and increasing the 

number of jobs that are being created. We want to be able to demonstrate that we can restore more acres with our pilot authority for 

a more efficient integrated resource restoration budget structure. 

We are going to complete our wildland fire management strategy 

that will reduce wildland fire hazards to communities by thinning 

forests, helping private landowners to remove fuels and hazards on 

their property, and increasing the effectiveness of our suppression 

efforts. 

We are going to continue to implement our bark beetle strategy 

to deal with 18 million acres of dead and dying timber out West 

on our National Forests by focusing our timber harvest in areas to 

protect the public and communities and slowing the spread where 

we can. We want to continue to work with Congress to make permanent our stewardship contracting authority, which has proven to 

be a very effective tool to increase the implementation of restoraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
7

tion work, timber harvest, and increase jobs. And we need to continue to explore ways to expand our markets for wood products 

through our work at our Forest Products Lab and to continue to 

develop the science: on how we need to manage our forests to protect wildlife, to provide clean water, to provide the recreational settings that 170 million people enjoy every year. 

And then, of course, we are going to move forward with implementing our new planning rule, which is going to reduce the time, 

reduce costs to revising our plans to ensure that our Forest Plans 

address the need for restoration of our National Forests. We are 

also working on improving the efficiency of our NEPA processes 

through our work with CEQ to reduce the time and cost of doing 

analyses saving time and be able to implement the projects and put 

people back to work. 

The opportunities are here for us to increase the health of our 

National Forests and I look forward to working with Congress to 

implement these opportunities. Restoring our National Forest to 

ensure that they provide the benefits, the goods and services, the 

benefits of clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, the recreational 

opportunities like hunting and fishing, the economic activity that 

employs hundreds of thousands of Americans, it is a good investment for America. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

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

to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding U.S. Forest 

Service Land Management: Challenges and Opportunities for Achieving Healthier 

National Forests. 

Today, people understand that forests provide a broad range of values and benefits, including biodiversity, recreation, clean air and water, forest products, erosion 

control and soil renewal, and more. We have National Forests in 42 states and Puerto Rico that comprise a land area of nearly 193 million acres. Our mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands for 

present and future generations. The Forest Service does this through working with 

numerous Federal, state, and local partners, citizens, and industry. 

Our collective ability to sustain the nation’s forests and provide ecosystem services is increasingly at risk. Drought, invasive species, loss of open space, 

uncharacteristically severe wildfires, uncharacteristically severe outbreaks of insects 

and disease—all these stresses and disturbances are affecting America’s forests on 

an unprecedented scale. 

The Forest Service is responding by restoring the functions and processes characteristic of healthy, resilient ecosystems. Our goal is to sustain and restore ecosystems that can deliver all the benefits that Americans want and need. Due to 

changing climate, we may not be able to restore them to their original condition, 

but we can move them toward ecological integrity and health. The Forest Service 

recognizes that increasing the pace and scale of restoration and active management 

of the National Forests is critically needed to address these threats to the resiliency 

of our forests and watersheds and the health and safety of America’s forest-dependent communities. 

The Forest Service also recognizes the need for a strong forest industry to help 

accomplish forest restoration work. A vibrant industry can provide both the manpower and the know-how to undertake mechanical treatments and other restoration 

activities. Forest industry also lowers the cost of restoration to the taxpayer by providing markets for forest products. The Forest Service is committed to increasing 

the number of acres being mechanically treated by 20% over the next 3 years. This 

increase would allow the Forest Service to increase the number of acres and waterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
8

1 Cassandra Moseley and Max Nielson-Pincus, ‘‘Economic Impact and Job Creation from Forest and Watershed Restoration: A Preliminary Assessment’’ (Ecosystem Workforce Program 

Briefing Paper #14; winter 2009; Institute for Sustainable Development, Eugene, OR). 

sheds restored across the system, while supporting jobs and increasing annual forest 

products sale to 3 billion board feet of timber. A critical part of this effort is building 

public support for forest restoration and management activities. To this end, the 

Forest Service continues to emphasize the importance of collaboration among diverse stakeholders in developing restoration projects on National Forest lands. Such 

collaboration not only results in better projects, but it also reduces the risks of litigation. 

An additional benefit of this restoration work is job creation. For example, 

through implementation of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 

(including the use of stewardship contracts), the proponents of projects on National 

Forest lands anticipate creating or maintaining 1,550 jobs. The benefits of maintaining a robust forest industry flows not only to local communities but also to the Forest Service itself as the agency relies on local forest contractors and mills to provide 

the work force to undertake a variety of restoration activities. A study has shown 

that every million dollars spent on activities like stream restoration or road decommissioning generates from 12 to 28 jobs.1 In addition, restoring the health and resilience of our forests generates important amenity values. Healthy, resilient forests 

and grasslands are magnets for outdoor recreation, with more than 170 million visits per year to the National Forest System. That in turn leads to jobs and economic 

opportunity. 

The Forest Service continues to work toward restoring more land to accomplish 

restoration objectives, maintain a robust forest industry, and in turn create jobs. We 

are striving to efficiently implement existing programs and policies, as well as pursuing a number of new policies and initiatives to increase the pace of forest restoration and conservation through collaboration and management of the National Forests. The aim of these efforts is to move beyond the conflicts which have characterized forest policy in the past and toward a shared vision that allows environmentalists, forest industry, local communities, and other stakeholders to work collaboratively toward healthier forests and watersheds, safer communities and more vibrant local economies. 

Within the framework of the overall restoration program, the Forest Service is focused on the role of active forest management—including hazardous fuels reduction, 

reforestation, stream restoration, road decommissioning, forest thinning and harvesting, prescribed fire, and a range of other practices—as important tools to accomplish needed restoration work. The following are a series of actions that will allow 

the agency to further restoration and management on the National Forests: 

Investing in restoration projects with partners though the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program. In Fiscal Year 2012, the Forest Service received slightly less than the full $40 million authorized by the CFLR Act. The Secretary funded ten new projects, in addition to the continued funding for ten projects 

selected in 2010. Three additional high priority collaborative projects were also 

funded from other appropriated FS funding. These 23 projects have demonstrated 

that collaboration among stakeholders can facilitate large, landscape scale restoration, thereby improving forest health, reducing wildfire risk, restoring fire-adapted 

ecosystems, and increasing timber and biomass production from our National Forests. 

Current CFLR projects range from longleaf pine restoration in Florida to restoration of several forest types on both public and private land in the Sierra Nevada. 

One example is the Four Forest Restoration Initiative in Arizona, where we are 

working with partners to implement a collaborative landscape-scale restoration 

strategy across 2.4 million acres on the Coconino, Kaibab, Apache-Sitgreaves, and 

Tonto National Forests. This project will implement treatments in dry ponderosa 

pine that is overgrown and in need of thinning and under-burning to restore the 

role of fire in this fire-adapted forest type. 

Watershed Condition Framework (WCF). This framework provides a consistent 

and comprehensive approach for classifying the condition of the 15,000 watersheds 

that comprise the National Forests and Grasslands, and for prioritizing our restoration needs. The WCF informs project planning by identifying the essential suite of 

projects to improve a watershed’s condition and aids in project location effectiveness. 

The WCF also will inform Integrated Resource Restoration project planning and implementation. 

Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR).—This approach is a better way for the 

agency to align its budgeting to focus on landscape scale restoration projects across 

resource areas, and with partners, by combining the restorative focus of several line 

9

items into a single item. It combines work done under vegetation and watershed 

management, forest products, wildlife and fish habitat management, hazardous 

fuels, legacy roads and trails, and road decommissioning into a single account. IRR 

will provide the Forest Service flexibility to focus on priority work using a more integrated approach to management and allows the needs of the land to drive what 

work gets done. In FY12 this program is being piloted in Forest Service Regions 1, 

3, and 4. The emphasis in these regions will be on program integration, and the 

outcomes will be measured using traditional targets such as timber volume sold, 

miles of road decommissioned, acres of hazardous fuels treated, and miles of stream 

habitat restored, while also including new measures related to the watershed condition framework. The three pilot regions, located in North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, 

Nevada, Utah, western Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico, have already determined the condition class of all 5,926 watersheds containing significant portions of 

NFS lands. Among them, 78 priority watersheds were selected for restoration activities in the next 3 to 5 years. The IRR pilot regions will have increased flexibility 

to focus restoration treatments on the priority watersheds in a more efficient manner. 

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. (Cohesive Strategy)—The 

Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009 

charged the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to create a cohesive wildfire 

management strategy. Federal Land Managers responded by working through the 

Wildland Fire Leadership Council to direct the development of the Cohesive Strategy. The Cohesive Strategy is a collaborative process with active involvement of all 

levels of government and non-governmental organizations, as well as the public, to 

seek national, all-lands solutions to wildland fire management issues. The Cohesive 

Strategy addresses the nation’s wildfire problems by focusing on three key areas: 

(1) Restore and Maintain Landscapes, (2) Fire Adapted Communities, and (3) Response to Fire. 

The Cohesive Strategy will soon be moving into Phase III where a trade-off analysis of national risk will be conducted. We expect one result will be a better understanding of how the Forest Service can play a larger role in restoring and maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems and landscapes within an all-lands context. This understanding should help focus and support efforts that I’ve already described under Integrated Resource Restoration and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program. 

The Forest Service Bark Beetle Strategy.—Bark beetles have impacted nearly 18 

million acres of National Forest System lands. The Bark Beetle Strategy, developed 

in 2011, focuses management efforts on priority treatment areas to ensure human 

health and safety and to reduce hazardous fuel conditions. In FY 2011, a total of 

approximately 16,800 acres were treated to reduce safety hazards to forest visitors, 

50,100 acres were reforested, and 237,000 acres were thinned to improve resilience, 

producing approximately 300 million board feet of timber, 153,800 green tons of biomass, and resulting in removal of hazard trees along 978 miles of road. 

Use of Stewardship Contracting.—This tool helps the Forest Service to acquire additional restoration services. Stewardship contracting allows the Forest Service to 

offset the value of the services received with the value of forest products removed 

pursuant to a single contract or agreement. Reauthorizing this authority and expanding the use of this tool is crucial to our ability to collaboratively restore landscapes at a reduced cost to the government. In Fiscal Year 2011, 19% of all timber 

volume sold was under a stewardship contract and funded activities such as watershed and wildlife habitat improvement projects, trails projects, road decommissioning, and hazardous fuels reduction. 

Expand markets for Forest Products. Struggling markets have made it more difficult for the Forest Service to undertake restoration projects. The Forest Service is 

taking steps to assist in the development of new markets for woody biomass utilization and green building materials by working toward providing a reliable and predictable supply of biomass for potential investors through 20 coordinated resource 

offering protocol studies. In addition, the Forest Service is working in partnership 

with two other USDA Agencies on 12 Wood to Energy emphasis areas that will assist in creating jobs. The Forest Service continues to promote wood as a green building material. 

Rigorous, applied research supports new and emerging markets with innovations 

that enhance and diversify the forest products industry. The Forest Products Lab 

(FPL), located in Madison, Wisconsin, plays a key role in research related to forest 

products markets. The FPL’s mission is to identify and conduct innovative wood and 

fiber utilization research that contributes to conservation and productivity of the 

forest resource, thereby sustaining forests, the economy, and quality of life. 

10

Since 1993, the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) has focused some of its research 

effort on characterizing small-diameter logs and woody biomass, identifying potential uses, and providing technology that can help rural-based communities create 

successful businesses from the by-products of sustainable forest management. FPL 

research projects are exploring the potential of the small-diameter roundwood as a 

structural material for uses such as bridges, boardwalks, trail structures, picnic 

shelters, storage sheds, and other rustic-type buildings. Other FPL research is finding other innovative ways to use underutilized woody biomass. 

Restoration Research.—Our research staff develops new technologies and brings 

cutting-edge science to land managers that bears on the sustainable management 

of the nation’s forests and rangelands. Long-term research from our experimental 

forests and rangelands contribute to an understanding of the impacts of forest disturbance on natural and cultural resources. This knowledge assists land managers 

in forest restoration—restoring the functions and processes characteristic of healthy 

forested ecosystems. 

To restore Sierra Nevada forest ecosystems, for example, our researchers have 

recommended an emphasis on the ecological role of fire, adaptive strategies for 

changing climate conditions, and the importance of diverse forest structures. In the 

South, Forest Service research has helped focus our Longleaf Pine restoration efforts. There the objective is to reestablish the natural structure and function in 

these ecosystems by adjusting species composition, modifying stand structure, and 

facilitating ecological processes, such as periodic fire and longleaf pine regeneration. 

Implement a new forest planning rule.—The new rule corrects the inefficiencies 

of the 1982 planning procedures and provides a modern framework for planning in 

order to sustain and restore the health and resilience of our National Forests. The 

final rule provides an efficient planning process to guide management of National 

Forest System lands so that they are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability, with resilient ecosystems and watersheds, diverse 

plant and animal communities, and the capacity to provide people and communities 

with a range of uses including timber, grazing, minerals and energy as well as hunting and fishing, sustainable recreation, wilderness, and cultural uses. 

This rule was developed in the most collaborative effort the agency has ever used 

in rule making, possibly ever in its history. The rule reflects what people told us 

as well as the experience of the agency gained over thirty years of land management 

planning. We have created a final rule that emphasizes restoration, public involvement, and sustainable management to provide benefits and services both today and 

for future generations. 

New Objections Process.—Another tool that has been helpful in building relationships and improving agency decision making is use of the objections process prior 

to a decision, rather than using an appeals process after a decision is made. Our 

experience with the objections process for hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act indicates that the process tends to 

increase direct dialogue between the agency and stakeholders and often results in 

resolution of concerns before a decision is made, and thus better, and more informed 

decisions result. One example is the Sportsman’s Paradise Fuels Reduction Project 

on the Mt. Hood National Forest. This project was initiated by local homeowners, 

who along with the Oregon Department of Forestry and an environmental group 

worked collaboratively to develop recommendations for the District Ranger. The 

most positive aspect of this effort is that the Sportsman’s Paradise homeowner’s 

group, which previously had not engaged with the Forest Service became an active 

participant in the project planning process resulting in new relationships. The Mt. 

Hood National Forest received an objection from a participating environmental 

group. After discussions with the group, the District Ranger made some minor revisions to the project which resulted in the group withdrawing their objection. Upon 

implementation, the authorized work will reduce the risk of potential catastrophic 

fire loss for approximately 900 acres surrounding the Sportsman’s Paradise community of approximately 170 lots. 

The 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a provision for the Secretary 

to expand and establish a pre-decisional objection process in lieu of the appeal requirements of the Appeal Reform Act. This provision allows the agency to apply the 

positive experience gained from use of the pre-decisional objections process for 

Herger Feinstein Restoration Act authorized fuel reduction projects. We have begun 

work on drafting the regulations. 

Improved efficiency of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for 

restoration.—A robust comprehensive and extensive Planning/NEPA program is 

needed to accomplish the hundreds of thousands of acres of natural resource 

projects we do across the country each year. We continuously strive to save time 

and money in this program. The agency has initiated a NEPA learning networks 

11

project to learn from and share the lessons of successful implementation of streamlined NEPA analyses. The goal of this effort is to ensure that the agency’s NEPA 

compliance is as efficient, cost-effective, and up-to-date as possible. Specifically we 

are looking at expanding the use of focused environmental assessments (EAs), 

iterative environmental impact statement (EIS) documentation, expanding categories of actions that may be excluded from documentation in an environmental 

as or an environmental impact statement, and applying an adaptive management 

framework to NEPA. Our landscape-scale NEPA projects will also increase efficiencies by analyzing across broad swaths of land, avoiding repetitive NEPA analysis. For example, our Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project on the Black Hills 

National Forest will implement a landscape-scale adaptive approach for treating future pine beetle outbreaks. We are also preparing for the NEPA decision on the 

Four Forest Restoration Initiative project in the Southwest for landscape-scale forest 

restoration projects. 

In summary, in the 21st century the Forest Service will continue to strive to 

adopt and improve our ability to meet our mission of sustaining the health, diversity 

and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands for present and future generations. Doing so will require working closely with our partners, including Congress and local governments. 

I want to thank the Committee for its interest, leadership, and commitment to 

our National Forests, their surrounding communities and the forest products infrastructure. 

This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief, for your testimony. 

The chair would like to remind Members that they will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were 

here at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of arrival and I appreciate the Members’ understanding. 

I now will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Once again, Chief, thanks for your leadership and your testimony. I am going to come right back to the thing I led with in my 

opening statement. Most National Forests are not harvesting anywhere near how much their individual Forest Plans call for as a 

sustainable yield. And how specifically will the preferred Planning 

Rule encourage more harvesting on National Forests? How far will 

that move us towards meeting those sustainable yield goals? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, with our new Planning Rule 

as we move forward to revise our current plans, this Planning Rule 

will require that we have components that address the restoration 

needs on our National Forests. So it will be required that every forest will address what needs to be done out there on those National 

Forests to ensure that we are providing for healthy, productive National Forests. 

From that effort, by working with the public, we also are required in this new plan to be able to establish what is going to be 

the expected timber harvest. I think this will be a better approach 

than what we did under the 1982 rule where we developed an allowable sale quantity that basically set a maximum amount of harvest which could occur but it never did predict what we would expect to be able to produce when we deal with all the multiple use 

and also with the budgets we can expect. So under this Planning 

Rule, we are going to have a much better estimation of the amount 

of harvest that is going to occur, the amount of biomass that needs 

to be removed, and I think it will prove to be a better approach, 

especially for industry to be able to make their investments around 

those numbers versus what we did with the 1982 rule. 

12

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I remain troubled by the Forest Service’s apparent reluctance—and I expressed my concern in our hearing last May—to deal with the viability standard. The language in 

the existing rule has been a magnet for litigation and so my question is why hasn’t the Forest Service acted to improve the viability 

standard? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, I share your concerns with 

the problems we had with the 1982 rule when it came to viability 

for two reasons. Our approach that we used in 1982 rule didn’t 

work. The approach of using management indicator species is not 

science-based and it did not produce the results that we wanted to 

ensure we had wildlife diversity. With our new Planning Rule, we 

have taken an approach to focus on providing the ecological conditions, the habitat that species need to be able to thrive. And we believe by focusing on the habitat that we are going to satisfy the majority—85, 90 to maybe 95 percent—for all the needs for wildlife diversity. 

In those few cases where we need to do something else, where 

there is scientific evidence that we need to do something else to ensure a species doesn’t trend towards listing, then we will take some 

additional steps to deal with the viability of those species. And we 

want to use an approach that is science-based and will do a better 

job, first of all, to provide for wildlife and to ensure that we are 

doing what we can to prevent a species from being listed. 

The CHAIRMAN. In my district within the multiple uses, shale gas 

production obviously is one viable use and it has ramped up dramatically. There is a strong chance that some level of production 

will be occurring in the National Forest since 93 percent of the 

mineral rights are privately owned. Have you given any thought to 

forests like the Allegheny? How would this preferred Planning Rule 

impact water withdrawals in areas such as the Allegheny National 

Forest? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The question was how would it affect water? 

The CHAIRMAN. The water withdrawal which is kind of a key 

component for shale gas, for the process of extracting shale gas. 

There is a large water requirement. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, with the new Planning Rule, we will be required to address the access needs and to also be able to have a 

component that addresses energy production. And so we will be required to be able to look at what we need to do on a forest like the 

Allegheny to ensure that we have the standards and guides in 

place that will allow the private interests to be able to access their 

private minerals. 

As far as the water that is necessary, we are going to be focused 

on the surface impacts to minimize those as much as we can. But 

as far as the water, we will work with the state through the state’s 

requirements to deal with subsurface water or in a few cases where 

there are federally owned minerals working with the BLM. But the 

focus for the Forest Service is going to be on managing that surface 

resource. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Schrader, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having this hearing today. I think it is extremely important. I think 

13

everybody is concerned about the health of our National Forest and 

I agree with your comment about them being National Forests and 

not National Parks. And so we have to look at a new paradigm. 

I would suggest—and I am really worried, Chief—that the management styles we have tried in the past and despite all your best 

efforts and the agency’s best efforts that given the litigious society 

we live in that so far it is not working, just not working. So while 

I wish you the best on your new approach, I would like to see the 

Committee get your targets for the new plan and how the plan is 

going to be implementing them and hopefully some benchmarks as 

we hit those going forward. 

The biggest concern I guess I have along the lines of my opening 

remark here is that we are not focusing on the health of the communities that live and nest inside our National Forests, and despite these strategies, the overstock is growing. And I would ask 

one basic question up front. Why is it that most states and local 

communities actually are able to harvest at a greater level and still 

provide the sustainable benefits you describe with the diverse species, healthy streams and that sort of thing? Why are they harvesting at higher levels for their small acres than our National Forest? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Congressman, I think one of the differences 

is that our mandate to manage the National Forest under multiple 

use where we need to address all of the different benefits that the 

public wants and needs off of these lands and then be able to find 

that——

Mr. SCHRADER. So you are suggesting that the states and counties don’t have that same goal? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I think at least my experience with states and a 

few counties is that they are often under state law required to look 

at how to maximize more of the revenue to provide for State School 

Trust, for instance. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, that is not true in my state. I can tell you 

that much. And I will tell you that both in our state forests and 

on our county forests we actually do a better job of harvesting timber while meeting all the same guidelines in terms of diverse multiple use that you are talking about. 

How has our strategy worked with regard to the bark beetle? 

How many acres are not being infested now as a result of the strategy that the National Forest Service is implementing? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, the bark beetle strategy has been focused on 

providing for public safety and community safety and then in the 

few areas where we can make a difference to slow the spread is 

where we have been focused. So the bark beetles’ spread is actually 

starting to decline but it is primarily in areas where we just basically are running out of forested areas, at least mature forested 

areas where the bark beetles have actually run through that area. 

We are having some limited success in places like the Black Hills. 

We are in the Ponderosa Pine type where we are trying to quickly 

move to each of the new outbreaks and be able to deal with that 

small area to be able to slow down that——

Mr. SCHRADER. How about my neck of the woods, which is Oregon and Northern California? 

14

Mr. TIDWELL. We are using the same strategy there, when we 

see a new outbreak to be able to move quickly in there, to be able 

to take out the trees that are infested, to be able to slow down that 

spread. 

Mr. SCHRADER. So it is still spreading. That would indicate to me 

it is not working very well. 

Mr. TIDWELL. The bark beetles are a native pest and we have always had to deal with bark beetle infestation. 

Mr. SCHRADER. So are we doing better with the emerald ash 

borer, gypsy moth and some of these others? Are we doing much 

better with them, then? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are struggling with all the invasives. The emerald ash borer is another significant problem, especially here in 

the East. And it is one of the things that it is essential that we 

are able to maintain our research efforts to be able to try and find 

some type of a biological control for that pest. 

Mr. SCHRADER. With all due respect it doesn’t sound like we are 

being as successful perhaps as we would like to be. And I hope that 

with the new rule and new orientation that we will be doing a little 

bit better. 

You refer to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Those are good initiatives. We have some of those in my 

home State of Oregon and really like them. How many are there 

if I may ask? 

Mr. TIDWELL. With the Fiscal Year 2012 appropriations bill, we 

were able to receive full funding for that authority and so we now 

have 20 projects that have been identified and we have three more 

that we hope to bring on next year. 

Mr. SCHRADER. So that is not a whole lot across the United 

States of America. It is hard for me to conceive we are going to get 

to even your limited target increase of 3 billion board feet when we 

have only 20+ projects that really seem to be making a difference, 

and offering a new approach. Do you really think you are going to 

hit your targets with 20 projects? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Projects are just part of our strategy to move forward. But they will 

provide the model about how to look at much larger landscapes. 

Many of these projects are looking at 100,000 acres at a time. That 

is where we can really make a difference, to be able to use these 

projects as a model, to be able to demonstrate the difference by 

looking at large landscapes with a commitment to provide the funding over multiple years. It is going to encourage investment to be 

able to make sure that the mill owners and the loggers have the 

equipment that they need to be able to do the work. And so we expect that through these demonstration areas we can then encourage this approach across much larger areas than we currently are. 

Mr. SCHRADER. In Oregon where we are looking at different ways 

to manage what has been known historically as our O&C lands. We 

are maybe looking at turning some of them over to the National 

Forest Service, for work and stewardship while also providing a 

trust concept to manage some of the lands. We want to find that 

balance between preserving our old growth and making sure that 

the values in different parts of my state are respected. There has 

been a discussion draft circulated regarding the strategy and apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
15

proach there. I wonder if you have seen it and if you could comment on that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Congressman, I haven’t seen that discussion draft 

but I will look forward to having the opportunity to look at it and 

look forward to working with you to find this balance. It is one of 

the things we spend a lot of our time on, finding this balance of 

the different uses on every piece of our National Forest. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, those people that think setting them aside 

is the answer and we see that is not the case based on your testimony. And there are those that think that thoughtful management 

under some of the states’ Forest Practice Managements Act and 

setting aside a certain amount of wilderness but setting aside some 

certainty for our communities and our employers that would like 

to get jobs created back in America is where we should be going. 

And I will make sure you get that draft, sir. Thank you for coming. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ribble, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Tidwell, thanks for being here. I also want to express my 

personal appreciation to you for attending a forestry conference 

that I hosted in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. And it was very beneficial 

for those folks that care about our forests in Wisconsin to have you 

there, and I very much appreciated your time. 

I want to just read a quote from your testimony and then just 

talk a little bit about that. ‘‘Our collective ability to sustain the nation’s forests and provide ecosystem services is increasingly at risk. 

Drought, invasive species, loss of open space, uncharacteristically 

severe wildfires, uncharacteristically severe outbreaks of insects 

and disease, all of these stresses and disturbances are affecting 

America’s forests on an unprecedented scale.’’

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Well, it seems to me that all of these threats except 

drought could be improved by using the army of experts already 

available to us that are provided by the U.S. timber industry. And 

it would be at no cost to the taxpayers simply by allowing and 

speeding up the process for them to harvest timber. I mean if we 

have a loss of open space, let’s take some trees out. Wildfires, as 

you are aware, are caused by a bunch of different sources—drought 

being one of them—but also space that is too compact. Invasive 

species and outbreaks of insects and diseases can happen when we 

have single types of trees growing in a single area. And all of these 

are improved by a more robust management of the forest. 

I would like to ask a question specific to my district at the 

Chequamegon National Forest. Right now, the plan that the Forest 

Service has is to allow roughly 130 million board feet per year to 

be harvested there but we are only harvesting at 50 percent of that 

level. I am curious. This has been going on for a number of years. 

Why does this continue to happen and what can we as Congress 

do to facilitate your agency to use the resources more efficiently so 

we can harvest more timber there? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Congressman, once again, the allowable sale quantity is a requirement that we had in our 1982 regulations that established the maximum amount of harvest. The amount that is 

16

harvested each year is based on the analysis of the work that needs 

to be done and then the ability to get those decisions implemented. 

On your forest in the past we have struggled a little bit with the 

appeals and litigation. I am pleased to know that our folks have 

now worked through some of those issues and that some of our previous decisions that were held up, we are now going to be able to 

move forward with those. 

And so the way to move forward to be able to do more of the 

work that we need to do there is to continue to work with the communities to be able to reach agreement on the type of work that 

needs to be done and then to move forward and to be able to use 

that integrated wood products industry, those skilled folks that 

know how to do the work. We rely on them to be able to do this 

work. 

We also want to be able to look at much larger areas so it would 

improve our NEPA efficiencies so we are not spending as much 

time or as much of our funding on doing the analysis, but to be 

able to look at these large areas so that we can do one analysis 

that will cover tens of thousands of acres at one time and to be able 

to allow that amount of work to go forward over the next few years. 

We are also looking at how we can be more efficient in our timber sale layout, to do some things like sample weight scaling or 

designation by prescription, instead of doing the level of marking 

that we have done in the past so that we can be more efficient with 

our resources so we can actually get more work done. 

But you are right. We rely on the timber industry to be able to 

do the work that needs to be done in these National Forests, and 

it is essential that we work together to be able to find ways to get 

more of these acres treated, get more of this biomass removed that 

needs to be removed and thus create more jobs and keep those 

mills operating. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I am glad you mentioned NEPA. Are there reforms 

that need to happen there to basically lower timber sale costs and 

speed up the process? Are there things that we ought to be looking 

at on NEPA? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we are. We are looking at several things that 

NEPA allows us, and one of them is to look at using what we are 

calling an adaptive EIS. We look at hundreds of thousands of acres 

at one time, and to develop the analysis in the way that not only 

will address the issues we need to deal with today but also will 

allow us to move toward the next—where we have an insect and 

disease outbreak or if we have a windstorm that comes through—

to be able to move forward and do that work without any additional analysis. 

The other thing that we are working very closely with CEQ is 

how to do a better job to focus our analysis. We are definitely doing 

more analysis than we need to and most of this has been driven 

by past court decisions. And I accept the knowledge that we have 

a tendency to take the last ruling and then apply it across the 

board whether we probably need to or not. So we are doing a better 

job stepping back and really doing more of a focused NEPA just to 

address the issues that need to be addressed. And CEQ has been 

very helpful to provide some guidance on this to help our folks 

have a little more confidence. 

17

The challenge that our employees have is that they know if we 

do this outstanding level of NEPA analysis, we can get the decision 

implemented. For them to take a chance to do a little bit less, it 

is not just that that project is not going to go forward; it is also 

that the jobs are not going to be created. There is opportunity of 

potential for another mill to close. So it puts a lot of pressure on 

our folks to make sure that as they move forward that they can implement this and be successful because that is what we are focused 

on is getting the work done, not just completing the analysis, not 

just making a decision. We want to be able to implement that decision. So our work with CEQ is going to help build more confidence 

about how we can do this to be more effective, more efficient and 

really be able to reduce the amount of time we are spending on 

doing our analysis but at the same time to be able to address the 

issues, provide for the protections for the environment that the 

public wants, but at the same time, improve the health of our National Forests. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Okay. Thank you very much, Chief. Again, thank 

you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, sorry I went over time. If there is a little chance 

to circle back, I would appreciate that. And I yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and now it is my pleasure 

to recognize Mr. Sablan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And good morning, Mr. Tidwell, Chief, welcome. 

You were discussing earlier in your testimony that the 1982 viability rule didn’t work and you said the new rule focused on it. How 

exactly is the new rule adjusted to make work what didn’t work in 

the 1982 rule? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, the 1982 rule we relied on what is called 

management indicator species. We relied on being able to track the 

population of an individual species that would then indicate that 

we are providing for the diversity of wildlife in the whole. And the 

science has borne out that that approach doesn’t work. So what we 

are doing with the new Planning Rule is to take the approach to 

focus on providing ecological conditions, the habitat needs of species to be able to provide for by far the majority of the species. And 

then when we have situations where there is scientific evidence 

that there is a species at risk, then we are required to take some 

additional steps to ensure we are doing what we can to provide 

those additional habitat requirements to ensure we are doing what 

we can to prevent listing. This is a better ecological approach that 

in our view will do a better job to provide for diversity and where 

we need to address the viability of specific species. 

Mr. SABLAN. And thank you. I join my colleague from Oregon in 

looking forward to the new rule working. 

In the second panel, one of the witnesses sets the cost of Forest 

Service for NEPA compliance at over $300 million, $356 million exactly. Is the Forest Service the source of this estimate? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Could you please restate the question? I am sorry; 

I couldn’t hear it. 

Mr. SABLAN. On the second panel there will be a witness, Mr. 

Watkins, who sets the cost of the Forest Service for NEPA compliance at $356 million. Is the Forest Service the source of this estiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
18

mate, and if so, how was it determined? How did they come up 

with $356 million? Because I am leading to a second question. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, that is the cost for doing all the NEPA analysis that we do that deals with forest restoration, timber harvest, 

along with everything else that we do. We do about 3,600 analyses 

each year in the Forest Service, and so some of the things that I 

have laid out about how to do a better job is to focus on much larger landscapes to be able to address all the restoration needs 

through one decision. Those are going to increase the efficiency and 

it is my expectation that we will be able to reduce the costs of 

doing that analysis. 

Mr. SABLAN. So the $356 million is fairly accurate? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It is. 

Mr. SABLAN. And it comes from your——

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. SABLAN. So are you saying that the EIS that you referred to 

earlier reduced NEPA compliance? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It won’t reduce NEPA compliance; it will just allow 

us to be able to do a better job to meet NEPA compliance. And so 

it is just so that we will be more efficient to be able to do the analysis that needs to be done and not to do additional analyses that 

really aren’t necessary to address the issues that have been raised 

through the public involvement process. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Mr. Tidwell. I come from the islands so 

we are not one of the 42 states. I am from Northern Mariana Islands and I can understand my colleagues’ concerns also and your 

relationship with the timber industry. We import our timber from 

Oregon, too, so we still have to ship that. 

But we thank you, sir, for all you do and thank you for joining 

us this morning. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman, and now recognize the 

gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks for being here, Chief Tidwell. I am pleased to hear some 

of your testimony. We have had a few conversations in terms of our 

ability to be able to harvest in Colorado downed or standing dead 

timber to be able to turn that into biomass to be able to keep a 

mill going and also some problems that we have with our utilities 

as well, being able to get in and clear out under those lines. But 

what do you see as the biggest impediment to managing forest in 

the bark beetle epidemic? 

Mr. TIDWELL. You know, probably just the scale of the work that 

needs to be done right away to protect our communities and provide for the public safety. And then the biggest challenge, especially there in Colorado, is the loss of the infrastructure, the integrated wood products industry to be able to use this material and 

to be able to have markets that will offset the cost of removing it. 

That is, I would say, in Colorado one of the biggest challenges. And 

where I have worked in other parts of the country where we have 

lost that wood products industry, it is very expensive for us to be 

able, then, to do the restoration work to be able to thin out these 

forests not only to protect the communities from wildfire but just 

to improve overall forest health. 

19

That is why we are focused on doing everything we can to be 

able to maintain the infrastructure that we currently have and 

then in a few places be able to look at using long-term stewardship 

contracts to be able to provide the incentive for someone to come 

in and make a new investment, either in a new mill or in a new 

operation. Those are the things that I look at as some of the biggest challenges that we have. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. Could you maybe describe for us a few of the 

ideas that you have in terms of our local Forest Service officers exercising creativity and having some regulatory flexibility to be able 

to address some of those concerns? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I have talked about the NEPA efficiencies——

Mr. TIPTON. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL.—so that we can look at these much larger landscapes, I mean instead of looking at 500 to 1,000 acres at a time, 

to be looking at tens of thousands of acres so that we can have one 

analysis that will cover a lot of country and provide a lot of work 

over many years. The other thing is through our stewardship contracts. We have found that this contracting authority has been very 

beneficial. We find that we have less appeals, less lawsuits when 

we are using stewardship contracting authority, and it allows us to 

be able to do multiple-year contracts, to have contracts up to 10 

years that will encourage someone to make the investment. 

The other thing is to look at using all the flexibility we have with 

when we are laying out a project, instead of in the past, I often 

would go out there and mark every tree that needed to be cut. We 

have other flexibilities to be able to use either weight scaling or 

this designation by prescription so that we can lay out how we 

want the area to look afterwards and then be able to then let the 

timber operator go in there and remove the trees based on that 

prescription. And we find this is another way that we can save 

some of the cost and make it a little bit easier for us to be able 

to get more work done. These are some of the things that we are 

looking at. 

We also are doing everything that we can to work with the industry, especially with some of the past timber sale contracts that 

they have purchased when we had a better market and be able to 

do everything we can to adjust those rates, or in the case there in 

Colorado, to actually cancel some timber sales that just were no 

longer economically viable because it is essential that we do what 

we can to be able to maintain the industry. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. Could you speak maybe briefly a little bit to 

the importance of the existing utility infrastructure on Forest Service lands, providing electricity to America which we need, and how 

we can help protect that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, it is essential that we work with utility companies, they can maintain their lines and that they are able to do 

the clearing underneath all those power lines so when we do get 

a fire started, we don’t lose that line. So one of the things there 

with the challenges with the mountain pine beetle outbreak, especially in your state and other parts of the West, is that utility companies were faced with a much larger job to be able to clear those 

20

lines and not only the material underneath the lines but any of the 

trees that had fallen——

Mr. TIPTON. I am going to run out of time. Could you maybe just 

give a little touch and let us know are there any regulatory or legal 

impediments to the Forest Service to use contractors for the utilities themselves as contractors to be able to remove underneath the 

lines? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I believe we have the flexibility in our current authorities to work with the utility companies to be able to remove 

what they need to underneath their lines and then also to be able 

to work with them to actually address adjacent areas, too. It is one 

of the things we are looking at is being able to use that contracting 

flexibility for not just within the permit but also how we can work 

together to be able to get more of the work done where they have 

the equipment in place. 

Mr. TIPTON. So just to be clear, so you don’t see any legal impediments——

Mr. TIDWELL. We are looking into our current authorities and I 

would like to get back to you on that. If I find that we have exhausted our flexibility and there is a need for additional flexibility, 

I would like to come back to you with that. 

Mr. TIPTON. Okay. I would appreciate that. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I think we have a request for one more round if that is okay with the chief. And I will 

start that out with my 5 minutes. 

Chief, I want to come back to stewardship contracts. You had 

talked about those with Mr. Tipton and you obviously identified the 

key role that they play within our forests. I believe within your 

written testimony it was like 19 percent of the timber that was 

harvested was under stewardship contracts. And I appreciate that 

you identified the long-term—my question really has to do with the 

economic benefit to the communities. Now, obviously, there are 

some long terms that you address. The healthy forests are good for 

our communities because they keep that viable forest available for 

timbering and all the other uses and then obviously fire safety. 

And this is just a point of clarification; I am not sure about this. 

Do stewardship contracts have the same short-term economic benefits that other timber sales have in terms of monies coming back 

into the local counties and communities and school districts that a 

traditional timber sale would have? 

Mr. TIDWELL. With the stewardship contract, there aren’t any of 

the revenues that are set aside to go back to the counties. But the 

difference is that in the number of jobs that are created because 

through a stewardship contract we look at the landscape and look 

at all the work that needs to be done, and then we put together 

one contract that not only does the timber harvest but it also does 

the roadwork, the culvert replacement, the trail improvement. And 

all of that then creates jobs so that the revenue that would come 

from the biomass from the timber harvest, it goes back into the site 

to do more work. So it creates more jobs. So the economic benefits 

are in more jobs that are created through a stewardship contract 

versus a timber sale contract. We need both and we are going to 

continue to hopefully have both authorities so that we can look at 

21

any one project and pick what is the right tool. Is the timber sale 

contract the right tool or should we use a stewardship contract? 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate hearing that because that 

would be what I would hope for is we would use it to expand both. 

The one thing I wouldn’t want to see obviously is that that 19 percent of production next year go to 25 percent of production because 

that tells me that on the traditional timber sales—and you worked 

your way up the ranks to position chief so you have lived in those 

rural communities and you know how important economically the 

lifeblood is of timbering really is the key function within those communities. It can either crush a community or keep it economically 

viable. 

So you noted in your testimony that the market for forest products is critical for forest restoration efforts. And Forest Service policies have arguably contributed to the struggling markets that you 

reference. ‘‘Dramatic reductions in timber sales in some parts of 

the country decimated market ecology of the local timber industry.’’ 

And I would appreciate your thoughts on ways the Forest Service 

can partner with industry to facilitate the development of consistent, sustainable markets for forest products across the different 

regions of the National Forest System. What did you have in mind 

when you identified that in your testimony? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, one of the things, we can do a better job to 

work with the industry to be able to lay out our planned program 

of work in conjunction with what is expected to come off of state 

or private land. For instance, right now, we have a very high demand for our timber sales. I think last year, even in this market 

which, as explained to me, one of the most difficult especially 

softwood markets that we have had in a long, long time, but we 

were able to sell 98 percent of the timber sales that we put up last 

year and that is because of being able to work together. And so in 

markets like this where we see a significant reduction in the 

amount of timber sales on private land there is a greater need for 

us to be able to work with the industry to be able to have more 

of our restoration work ready to go in times like this. 

These are the sort of things that, ideally, we need to be able to 

do a better job in the future to have more of an all-hands approach 

on the work done, but at the same time, we are doing what we 

need to do to support the industry and especially in these tough 

times that we are facing right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief. 

And I recognize Mr. Schrader, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Chief, for listening to us and responding to our 

concerns and questions. 

One of the species I am most worried about in the forest areas 

is called the human species and rural America is slowly dying on 

the vine here. I would hope that in your landscape NEPA analysis 

you would take that into account a little bit. 

In my state, the NEPA analysis does not work very well. In some 

of the testimony we are going to hear later it actually is so costprohibitive that very few sales get done and frankly a lot of the 

sales are not subscribed to at all. So that would be an indicator 

22

that indeed things are terribly wrong and I look forward to you 

changing things there. 

I would hope that part of the strategy might be to use HFRA 1 

and maybe even go to a HFRA 2. We are trying to work that 

through our process here to look at Class II and Class III lands. 

How are you trying to approach Class II and Class III forests? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we want to be able to look at the work that 

needs to be done on the landscape and then to be able to move forward and implement that decision. Once again we want to use all 

the authorities we currently have in place and to make sure that 

we are using the right authorities so that we actually can implement the decision. We made a lot of good decisions in the past and 

we often win in court. I mean we win——

Mr. SCHRADER. Not in my state you don’t. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well——

Mr. SCHRADER. The other states you do but not my state. 

Mr. TIDWELL. The majority of the time we will win, but what 

happens is it takes years. And so we will go 2 or 3 years——

Mr. SCHRADER. You have a statement in here, Mr. Tidwell, ‘‘due 

to changing climate, we may not be able to restore them’’—talking 

about our river and ecosystems—‘‘to their original condition but we 

can move them toward ecological integrity and health.’’ You know 

what the courts in Oregon say? They say even if originally the 

streams were at a certain temperature that is not necessarily conducive to anadromous fish, you have to do it even better than what 

history has. I mean that is the type of stuff we are up against in 

Oregon. You know, out West it is a little different than back East 

here. We have huge, huge obstacles to get this done. 

In your new landscape NEPA analysis, it is going to take longer 

because it is obviously watershed-wide and trying to be more comprehensive. What assurances do you have from the legal community or some of the more extreme environmental groups that they 

are not going to sue you on a project-by-project basis after you do 

all that work? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I am confident as we move forward and we 

do the work and we do the required analysis that we will be able 

to implement those decisions. The other thing that we see that is 

changing is that we have a lot of support from the conservation 

community and a lot of the environmental groups that want to 

work with us, and especially on these large-scale projects that——

Mr. SCHRADER. Would you agree—I am sorry, again; I have limited time, too, and I apologize for interrupting. But would you 

agree that the constant litigation is a huge barrier to getting any 

of these management projects done in our National Forest? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Litigation takes up a lot of time and has been a 

barrier. However, we are doing a better job to have less appeals 

and less litigation. In fact, last year in 2011 we only had three percent of our timber sales that were litigated, which is the lowest 

level of any time that I can ever remember. So these things that 

we are doing——

Mr. SCHRADER. It is just not doing it. 

Mr. TIDWELL.—this collaborative approach is making a difference. 

23

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, I appreciate that, Chief. I know your intentions are honorable and good and I don’t want to be a contrarian. 

It is just that in the real world that I live in, in my state, where 

1⁄4 of the land mass of Oregon is National Forest System, my communities are dying. And I would ask you to put your attention on 

that. 

And by the way, you do have the analysis draft I talked about 

to deal with our O&C-enforced lands out West. I urge you to take 

a look at that if you don’t mind. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Sure. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Ribble for an additional 5 minutes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. 

And the comments from my good friend from Oregon resonate 

with me a bit because I want to talk about a small community in 

northeastern Wisconsin called Laona. They are right in the heart 

of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, which used to have 

one of the most robust timber harvesting areas in the state. Now, 

due to lost employment and lost harvesting capacity, we are about 

to lose our school district. If we lose our school system, we lose our 

community. There is no reason for families to stay; there is no reason for children to come home. And without those jobs, we are 

going to lose those communities. 

And so to my colleague from Oregon, I completely appreciate the 

dilemma your communities find themselves in because Wisconsin 

has the same problem. 

Chief Tidwell, along that same line in following up with Representative Schrader, in Wisconsin you have been a bit more successful on some of your court challenges and court cases. In fact, 

300 million board feet of sales have passed through the court challenges now and are ready to be harvested; yet only 65 million 

board feet will be sold this year. Why the discrepancy? Can you 

help me understand that a little bit? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Congressman, when we were able to work 

through those past decisions, we can move forward with them. It 

takes a little bit of time to then be able to get out there and be 

able to put that decision on the ground, to be able to prepare the 

timber sales. So we have actually sent some additional money up 

to that region and the region itself had already focused on moving 

forward with that. And so there is a little bit of a lag to be able 

to move our limited resources to move forward in an area. Ideally, 

it would be nice if we had additional resources that we could just 

quickly move there, but as you have heard from the other Members 

that we are dealing with this same issue everywhere across the 

country in all of our National Forests. And so there has been a little bit of a lag and I would hope that not only will they be able 

to increase it this year but then also next year they will be able 

to put those additional sales up. 

Mr. RIBBLE. On behalf of several hundred school children, I 

would ask you to hurry. 

Just another comment. Back in 1987 we were harvesting about 

12.7 billion board feet off our National Forests. With your proposed 

plan you want to get back to 2.6 billion, maybe to 3 billion by 2014. 

24

That is still only about 20 percent of where we were at 2 decades 

ago. Right now, some of my lumber mills are importing lumber 

from Canada when we should be exporting to Canada. If we really 

want to talk about the job paradigm, that would be one way of getting there. Rather than buying Canadian timber, let’s harvest our 

own. 

But going back to my question earlier about forest fires, insect, 

open spaces, all your comments, will annual forest harvest of 3 billion board feet be enough to address the nearly 82 million acres of 

National Forest lands in need of restoration? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The answer is no. We will need to be able to do 

more. Of that 65 to 82 million, there are a lot of those areas we 

will treat with just fire. A lot of it is not commercial timberland. 

But there are a minimum of 121⁄2 million acres that we know we 

have to use mechanical tree timber harvesters on to restore those 

acres. And so to be able to do that along with maintaining all the 

other areas—because we have to also continue to do the maintenance and not just the restoration—we are going to need to do 

more. I am optimistic as we move forward with implementing this 

list of opportunities I laid out today that we are going to continue 

to be able to increase our efficiencies to be able to actually treat 

more acres and thus will produce more saw timber, more biomass. 

I feel confident that we are going to be able to do this and that 

we are going to do this with our current budgets. That is the other 

thing that my estimations are all based on the President’s budget 

request. If that doesn’t hold true, then I will probably have to be 

up here having another discussion with you. But with a flat budget, we feel that we can increase the number of acres we are treating and increase the amount of saw timber by 20 percent. When 

we get the 3 billion and talk about the successes we have had 

there, then we will be talking about what else we need to do to be 

able to move forward. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thanks again for being here. 

And I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and now recognize my colleague from Florida, Mr. Southerland, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tidwell, thank you very much. And I want to say how much 

I appreciated your personal visit to my office to discuss our forests. 

And I want to really echo the sense of urgency. As a small business 

owner who had never served in elected office before, you can imagine my dismay that this city has no sense of urgency when it comes 

to really meeting the needs of the American people. The communities that are dying, the children who, unfortunately, are not 

going to be able to go to rural schools because we are not producing 

what is our responsibility to produce. And I have been here 15 

months and yet that aggravation and anger that is inside of me 

has not subsided because I am interested in results and I am not 

interested nor are the American people in talk. And that is cheap 

and that doesn’t put food on the table for the American people, the 

hardworking men and women who are struggling to survive. 

And you have a very unique opportunity in your position. I was 

pleased with our visit but I am going to hold you accountable to 

results because I do believe that we must do more than just talk. 

25

The American people expect a Congress, for example, to pass a 

budget and yet we haven’t. So they are aggravated and they should 

be. 

Our small communities, especially around our National Forests, 

expect us to harvest our timber and yet we don’t. So therefore, the 

same aggravation that I think is leveled at us is leveled at your 

department and your agency because we are not doing what the 

American people need us to do. 

Closer to my home, Florida, the Apalachicola National Forest is 

critical to the rural communities around the Apalachicola National 

Forest. And now, I mean, we are only cutting 6.8 percent of its annual growth. The mortality rate exceeds the harvest rate. And you 

may have addressed this and if you have before I came in a few 

moments ago I apologize, but I would ask you to state again does 

that create any sense of urgency deep inside of you? Because the 

anger that I feel about this place that doesn’t even sometimes appear to be listening to the cries and the hurts of the American people. Deep inside of you does that statistic, 6.8 annual growth when 

our mortality rate is higher than that, what does that produce inside of you? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It produces what I have shared, the urgency for us 

to be able to increase the pace and the scale of our restoration 

work, the active management of our National Forest to be able to 

address the forest health concerns. And so I share your same concerns and it is one of the reasons why we are focused on doing 

what we can to improve our efficiencies so that we can get more 

work done out there on the ground, get more——

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. But let me say this—the American people 

work faster than your people, something I have noticed about government, okay? Give me two serious, serious people that are out 

there in the private sector, okay, they are risking their life each 

and every day in one of the most dangerous professions in the 

country, okay, but what creates more fear in them than the danger 

of their job is the danger of defaulting——

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND.—on the skidders and the loaders and the 

bunchers, okay, that they are leveraged against and then to come 

in and have to deal with people that have no sense of urgency, that 

are not in a hurry, that don’t work fast. You can see the aggravation of the American people. What I am saying is: several of my 

colleagues have said hurry. We need hurry. And I want to be honest and I don’t want to be mean-spirited, but there is a sense of 

urgency that I do not see. And these numbers do not bear out that 

there is this sense of urgency that the American people have. 

The President can talk about jobs being the number one priority 

in his Administration, but quite honestly, sir, that is not true. It 

is just not true. Because if it were in the sense of urgency that you 

claim is inside of you would bear out in increased production from 

our National Forest in helping our communities and our schools 

that we made reference to all over this country. Do you understand 

how what the rhetoric that is said does not match the facts? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Congressman, I share your urgency. I have 

lived in those rural communities. Our employees live in those rural 

communities. I know exactly what you are talking about. And that 

26

is why you will see that each of the last few years we have been 

increasing the amount of work, increasing the timber harvest that 

has been occurring without an increase in budget, without changes 

in the authorities or in the laws, but we have been able to do that. 

And we are going to continue to maximize these efficiencies so that 

we can get more work done. 

I share with you that urgency. The other reason why we are 

doing everything we can to work with the industry to do rate adjustments on contracts, to do everything we can to keep them in 

business so that they can do the work, so that they can employ people to be able to get the work that has to be done on these National 

Forests. So I share the urgency but I also——

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I want to be very candid. I know I am over 

my time and I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I know that if you look 

at the number of mills we had in this country in 1970 compared 

to what we have now, what you just said is banter. And I want to 

be very polite, okay, but you can’t eliminate because of policy—

hundreds of mills in this country—and the statement you just 

made hold any validity with the American people that are in the 

timber industry. America needs what we say to match what we do, 

to restore integrity that we lost a long time ago with the American 

people. And you are on the frontlines of that and I urge you, I implore upon you to make sure that our banter matches our actions. 

Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I have gone over and I yield back 

time that I have exceeded. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank the gentleman. And Chief, I want 

to thank you for being here. Obviously, this is a Subcommittee 

that—I think we share the same passion as you do and that is vibrant healthy forests and vibrant rural communities. And I will say 

our public policy for forestry for decades has been hijacked through 

the courts and special interest groups that self-fund their organizations by suing your agency and keeping us from having healthy forests and keeping us from having healthy rural communities. But 

I know your commitment to work with us to bring a new public policy along the issue of forestry that has vibrant healthy forests and 

vibrant healthy communities. 

You know, it is a sad fact today that in many rural communities 

across this great nation that the number one endangered species 

are the citizens in the communities that are located in or near our 

National Forests. And, it is all of our job to change that obviously 

and get them off that endangered species list. 

So thank you, Chief. We really appreciate you coming in. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Okay. Well, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is fine. 

I would like to now welcome the second panel of witnesses to the 

table. We have our second panel of witnesses here, and as they find 

their place at the table, we will proceed with some introductions. 

I want to thank our second panel and for purpose for the introduction of the first speaker, our first witness, I will turn to my 

good friend from Oregon, Dr. Schrader. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

We are really pleased to have Gary Barth, Director of Business 

and Community Services from my home County of Clackamas, Oregon. As director, Gary oversees the Economic Development DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
27

partment, county parks, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation 

District, county libraries, property resources, and quite a bit of my 

county’s efforts, and management of nearly 3,000 acres of countyheld forestland. Prior to his public service career, he worked in the 

financial industry, earned a business degree from Portland State, 

an MBA from University of Portland. 

I really appreciate Mr. Barth for coming. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. It is my pleasure to introduce our second witness to the panel, and that is Mr. Gregory 

Hoover from the Department of Entomology at the great land-grant 

university, Pennsylvania State University. And he has over his lifetime dedicated himself to healthy forests and the studies of all 

those bugs that just provide a tremendous risk to healthy forests 

and the wildlife habitat and all the good things that come with it. 

So Mr. Hoover, I want to thank you for being here to testify. 

And I now turn to my good friend from Florida, Mr. Southerland, 

for purposes of introduction. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a 

great honor to have our constituents here from our districts. And 

today, I am proud to introduce Chuck Watkins. Chuck is the Chief 

Operating Officer of Rex Lumber Company, which operates businesses in multiple areas throughout Florida. The family-owned 

company is a founding member of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, which represents purchasers of Forest Service timber across 

the country. The coalition has members in more than 24 states 

with approximately 650 member companies representing 350,000 

workers and about $19 billion in payroll. 

I want to say that Rex Lumber Company traces its roots back to 

northwest Florida back to 1926, 10 years prior to the establishment 

of the Apalachicola National Forest, which I made reference to a 

few moments ago in my questioning. Rex currently operates mills 

throughout my district in Bristol and Graceville, Florida, and other 

regions of the country employing 434 people and sourcing much of 

their materials from the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida. 

Mr. Watkins, thank you so much for being here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Now, for purposes of introduction, Mr. Ribble, from Wisconsin. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is an honor today to introduce Gary Zimmer. Gary is the lead 

wildlife biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society in charge of the Society’s four regional biologists. As an interesting side note, Mr. 

Zimmer spent 20 years in the U.S. Forest Service. He coordinated 

multifaceted district fish, wildlife, and endangered and threatened 

species program. He has been in a small town that I referenced 

with Mr. Tidwell of Laona, Wisconsin. He is acutely aware of what 

is going on in our National Forests in northern Wisconsin. And his 

role with the Ruffed Grouse Society is increased public understanding of the role of forest management to society members, 

landowners, and the general public and to provide technical and financial assistance in support of habitat development on public 

lands and habitat management. 

Mr. Zimmer, it is an honor to have you here and thank you for 

coming. 

Mr. Chairman? 

28

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

We will begin with our testimony now. Mr. Barth, please begin 

when you are ready. The timing system is in front of you there, 

and please proceed with your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GARY BARTH, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICES, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON 

CITY, OR 

Mr. BARTH. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Congressman 

Schrader, and Subcommittee Members. I certainly appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today on the opportunities and challenges 

facing the management of our National Forests. And as Congressman Schrader said, my name is Gary Barth. I am the Director of 

Business and Community Services for Clackamas County, Oregon. 

As the Director of Business and Community Services, I oversee 

a diverse number of divisions that include county libraries and 

urban park and recreation district, county-owned forest land, a 

county-wide park system, and the economic development team. My 

job title reflects the recognition of the integral relationship that exists between economic vitality and the services we provide to offer 

improvement to the quality of life of our citizens. 

In my position I have a unique perspective on seeking to improve 

all aspects of the ‘‘triple bottom line’’ so often discussed and considered in establishing public policy. How do we produce economic 

value, ensure environmental responsibility, and provide for social 

benefits? I believe that our county’s management of our 3,000 acres 

of the county-owned forest land is a great example of delivering 

that ‘‘triple bottom line’’ to our local residents through good stewardship of public assets. My testimony is intended to provide greater detail on how we manage our forests and how our approach 

could serve as a model for needed changes in Federal forest management policies. 

As Congressman Schrader mentioned, the State of Oregon is 

vastly made up of Federal forests and Clackamas County even 

more so. Seventy-five percent of Clackamas County is forestland. 

We are perceived as an urban county. We are part of the greater 

Portland metro region, one of three counties making up the greater 

Portland area, but only five percent of our land is urban, 38 percent is rural agricultural land and over 50 percent is forestland. 

Over 50 percent is in ownership in control of the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM. 

Forests have always been an important part of our economy and 

culture. Unfortunately, employment in our forests and wood products manufacturing has been in steady decline for decades. The primary cause of this decline has been changes in the Federal forest 

management policies. The amount of timber sold on Mt. Hood National Forest has declined 87 percent over the last 2 decades from 

230 million board feet in the late 1980s to an estimated 30 million 

today. But the annual mortality rate is 190 million board feet. Putting that into context, the Mt. Hood National Forest is dying six 

times faster than it is being harvested. The annual growth of the 

forest is 745 million board feet. Again in context, it is growing 25 

times faster than it is being productively harvested. The economic 

opportunity lost through mortality and lack of harvest is enormous, 

29

as is the growing risk to the forest health and the lack of management. 

We are reliant on Federal payments. That is what we are here 

today also talking a little bit about the reauthorization of Secure 

Rural Schools. But since the early 1900s when the National Forest 

System was established, our government has shared in 25 percent 

of the receipts generated off the commodity of the forest. BLM O&C 

lands, once private, were brought back under Federal control at initial commitment to share 75 percent later reduced to 50 percent. 

For decades, Clackamas County received millions of dollars in 

shared timber receipts annually and many local residents were employed in the forest products sector. Through the vast amount of 

land in Federal ownership and the dramatic decline in timber harvest, unemployment has risen, mills have closed, and counties have 

had to deal with devastating declines in revenue. 

Again, this has been partially offset by the introduction of spotted owl guarantee payments in the early 1990s and Secure Rural 

Schools funding from the Self-Determination Act of 2000, since reauthorized twice. However, the current Secure Rural Schools has 

now expired. We received our last payment and because of the calculation in the final year of the reauthorization, our last payment 

was a quarter of what we have historically received on Secure 

Rural Schools. And even that was less than what we had received 

on commodity revenue sharing. 

Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners supports the 

reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools. It is abundantly clear, 

however, that the Secure Rural Schools Act does not represent a 

long-term sustainable funding solution, nor does it provide needed 

employment opportunities. 

Now, specifically about our plan, as mentioned, we have 3,600 

acres of forest owned by Clackamas County. That is roughly split 

1⁄4 in active parks and preservation areas, about 3⁄4 in a Sustainable Timber Harvest Program. All activities in our Timber Harvest 

and Reforestation Program are done in accordance with and actually exceed the requirements of the Oregon Forest Practices Act. 

We manage harvests on a 55 year rotation so that we can grow 

that product locally and we can harvest the amount of annual 

growth. This annual harvest is very outcome-based. We look to generate roughly $750,000 a year in revenue. That pays for the management of our Forest Management Program and provides needed 

funding to support my thousand acres of active park space. I do not 

receive any general fund support for any of my divisions in Business and Community Services. They are all self-funding through 

various other revenue streams, including county parks and forests. 

So we often think what if? What if the U.S. Forest Service lands 

were managed similar to Clackamas County in the way we manage 

our forests. If you just took half of the U.S. Forest Service lands 

in Clackamas County, that would be the equivalent of 90 of my 

3,000 acres. If I can generate $750,000 a year, 90 times that would 

be $67 million per year. That would be enough revenue to certainly 

fund local Forest Service operations and the management of those 

harvests, provide shared receipts to the county comparable to the 

historic levels we used to face, and provide net revenue to the U.S. 

Treasury. The impact on the private sector is just as dramatic. We 

30

harvest 2 million board feet per year. Ninety times that would be 

180 million board feet. That is 17 direct jobs per million board feet. 

That would be 3,000 new high-wage jobs and probably double that 

when you look at the indirect and inducted. Lower unemployment 

equals less dependency on public support. We would have additional revenues coming in for needed public services with less demand. That is a great combination for our county. 

Forest Management legislation, Clackamas County believes that 

Federal legislation is needed to restore responsible management to 

Federal forest lands to provide a sustainable and predictable longterm solution to county revenue needs to restore economic vitality 

to our communities. The current Federal forest management policies are broken and our rural communities and forests are paying 

the price. Ultimately, any legislation should balance economic, social, and environmental values. We in fact exceed Oregon’s Standard Practices Act as well as SFI certification standards in our management practices. 

Congressman Schrader recently joined Congressman DeFazio 

and Walden to release the O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act. 

Similar to the what-if scenario just discussed, that plan would 

manage approximately half of Oregon’s 2.5 million acres of BLM 

O&C lands to yield timber production to benefit 18 O&C counties. 

This stable timber supply would support manufacturing and other 

jobs while providing revenue to cash-strapped counties. I would like 

to commend the efforts of Congressman Schrader and other Members of the Oregon delegation, for proposing management that will 

provide a sustainable and predictable long-term solution to county 

revenue needs and create much-needed employment opportunities 

for our citizens and ensure economic protection. 

As this Committee considers possible legislation for the National 

Forests, I would hope it will look to the management of our forest 

as well as the proposed O&C legislation as examples. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and will be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY BARTH, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY

SERVICES, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON CITY, OR 

Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Congressman Schrader, and Subcommittee 

Members. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the opportunities and 

challenges facing the management of our National Forests. My name is Gary Barth 

and I am the Director of Business and Community Services for Clackamas County, 

Oregon. 

While I have lived here in the Portland area for 3 decades, I also have a strong 

connection to other areas of Oregon. I was born and raised in Springfield, Oregon, 

which was a middle-class, blue collar town with a strong traded-sector employment 

base. A large Weyerhaeuser plant, constructed under the supervision of my wife’s 

grandfather provided significant employment opportunities for the residents of 

Springfield for decades. My uncle, a chemical engineer designed the pulp processing 

system. My father-in-law had a career at that plant, and my wife worked in the office of that plant as her first full time job out of school. 

Numerous other mills and related value chain businesses thrived in Springfield, 

Oregon providing residents with ample employment opportunities and solid living 

wages to support themselves, their families and their community. Timber was a 

competitive economic advantage that helped contribute to a solidly middle class 

community, with good schools, outstanding parks and other public amenities and 

with many career paths to pursue. 

31

My family and I retain a strong connection to Springfield and return often to visit 

family and friends and to attend games at the nearby University of Oregon. 

Sadly, Springfield is a shadow of its former self. It is no longer the vibrant tradedsector community I recall growing up in. Area unemployment rates are among the 

highest in the state and average wages that once mirrored the U.S. average are far 

below that today. My brother is a policeman in Springfield and deals with the negative social effects of serving in an economically depressed community on a daily 

basis. 

It is now clear to me that changes in Federal forest management policies and 

practices have had a profound impact on rural communities like Springfield and others across Oregon, including Clackamas County. As I have reflected on those earlier 

years in Springfield and the turmoil of the past 2 decades, I have a much greater 

appreciation for the importance of sustainable forest management. It remains quite 

personal to me and many other residents of rural Oregon. 

After a lengthy career in the financial services sector, I made the transition several years ago to the public sector in order to serve the public and the community 

in which I live. As the Director of Business and Community Services for Clackamas 

County, I oversee a diverse number of divisions that include county libraries, an 

urban Park & Recreation District, county-owned forest land, a county-wide park system and our Economic Development team. My job title reflects the county’s recognition of the integral relationship that exists between economic vitality and the services we are able to offer to improve the quality of life. In my position I have a 

unique perspective on seeking to improve all aspects of the ‘‘triple bottom line’’ so 

often discussed and considered in establishing public policy; how do we produce economic value, ensure environmental responsibility, while providing for social benefits? How do we accomplish that with limited public funds to stimulate private sector investment? 

I believe that our county’s management of nearly 3,000 acres of county-owned forest land is a great example of delivering that triple bottom-line of environmental, 

economic and social benefits to our local residents. My testimony provides greater 

detail on how Clackamas County manages its forests and how it could serve as a 

model for needed changes in Federal forest management policies that can help revitalize and restore rural, forested communities here in Clackamas County, in Springfield and across the country. 

About Clackamas County 

Clackamas County, Oregon, is located in north-central Oregon, ranging from the 

Portland metropolitan area to the summit of Mount Hood. The county encompasses 

1,879 square miles (1.2 million acres), and has a current population greater than 

375,000. The county encompasses all or part of 15 cities. 

While many might consider Clackamas County part of the Greater Portland urban 

area, that is only a fraction of the county as a whole. Only 5% of Clackamas County’s land area is urban, yet contains 80% of the population and 90% of the jobs. The 

rest of the county is rural and contains some of Oregon’s richest farmland. 57% of 

Clackamas County is in public ownership with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management overseeing nearly all of it. Forested land comprises a staggering 75% of the land in Clackamas County, containing some of the most productive forest land, by many measures, anywhere in the world. Sustainable forest management practices are vital to our perceived ‘‘urban’’ county as well as to the greater 

Portland-Vancouver economic region. 

Since Clackamas County was created in 1843, agriculture and timber, along with 

the associated metals manufacturing and commerce have been the county’s principal 

economic activities. In recent years, as the County and its communities have continued to grow, the County has maintained and developed key industry clusters in advanced metals manufacturing, business & professional services, healthcare, high 

tech and software development, transportation and warehousing, forestry, food and 

beverage processing, and nursery and greenhouses. These clusters combine for over 

50% of Clackamas County’s economic activity. 

Federal Forests 

As a heavily forested county, forests have always been an important part of our 

economy and culture. Unfortunately, employment in forestry and wood products 

manufacturing has been in steady decline for the past 2 decades. The primary cause 

of this decline has been changes in Federal forest management policies. As noted, 

51% of Clackamas County is comprised of Federal forests, including portions of the 

Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests that account for 540,421 acres of the 

county and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees 78,749 acres of the 

county with Oregon & California (O&C) Grant Lands accounting for 52,448 acres 

32

of that total. This has a major impact on our economic livelihood and our ability 

to provide county services. 

Since the National Forest System’s establishment in the early 1900’s the Federal 

Government has shared 25% of the receipts generated from timber harvests and 

other commercial activities with local counties as compensation for our inability to 

tax these lands. The once private BLM O&C Grant Lands, which are unique to Oregon, were brought back under Federal control with an initial commitment to share 

75% of timber harvest receipts. That was later reduced to 50%. For many decades 

Clackamas County received tens of millions in shared timber receipts and many 

local residents were employed in the forest products sector. 

In the 1990’s controversy, lawsuits and changes in Federal policies dramatically 

reduced timber harvest levels on Federal lands. For example, the amount of timber 

sold on the Mt. Hood National Forest has fallen from over 230 million board feet 

(mmbf) in the late 1980’s to approximately 30 mmbf today, an 87% reduction. Yet, 

the annual mortality of the forest is over 190 mmbf. Put in context, the Mt. Hood 

National Forest is dying six times faster than it is being productively harvested. The 

standing timber volume of the forest is 33.6 billion board feet, with an annual 

growth of 745 mmbf. At the current annual harvest rate of 30 mmbf, the forest is 

growing 25 times faster than it is being harvested. The economic opportunity loss 

through mortality or lack of sustained harvest is enormous as is growing risks to 

forest health due to a lack of management. 

Federal Payments 

Due to the vast amount of land in Federal ownership and the dramatic decline 

in timber harvests, counties have had to deal with the associated impacts on revenue. Congress has recognized this through the passage of a number of payment 

programs to partially offset, at least temporarily, these loses. Beginning in the early 

1990’s Congress approved ‘‘Spotted Owl Guarantee Payments’’ to provide payments 

to counties in the Pacific Northwest impacted by reductions in Federal timber sales 

following the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl as an Endangered Species. 

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (SRS) 

was enacted to further transform traditional timber receipt sharing into a nationwide payment program to offset the loss of revenue to rural counties with Federal 

forest land. The SRS program has been reauthorized twice since 2000 with further 

changes made in 2008 that shifted the formula away from actual historical receipts 

to also consider the amount of Federal forest land and local poverty. The current 

SRS expired at the end of 2011 and our county received its last payment in January. 

Clackamas County has relied heavily on SRS payments over the past decade as 

a substitute for the timber receipt revenue we received in the decades prior. For 

most of the program’s life, Clackamas County received approximately $13 million 

annually in Forest Service and BLM O&C payments. The changes made during the 

2008 reauthorization have gradually reduced those payments and the final 2011 

payment was less than $3 million, 1⁄4 the SRS average and significantly lower than 

the timber receipt sharing that existed before SRS. If the program is not reauthorized, and we revert back to actual revenue sharing, Clackamas County’s projected 

2012 payments from the Forest Service and BLM based on today’s harvests will be 

less than $750,000. 

The Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners supports the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act. However, it has become increasingly clear that 

the Secure Rural Schools Act does not represent a long-term, sustainable solution 

for meeting county funding needs. The level of funding provided in 2011, and likely 

to be included in any reauthorization, is inadequate to meet the needs of timber dependent communities in our area. In Clackamas County, our road fund alone will 

experience a loss of up to $3 million per year. The significant reductions in SRS payments in recent years has also meant cutbacks in public safety, natural resource 

protection and assistance to schools. 

Forest Management Legislation 

Clackamas County believes Federal legislation is needed to restore responsible 

management to Federal forest lands to provide a sustainable and predictable longterm solution to county revenue needs and to restore economic vitality to our communities. Our current Federal forest management policies are broken and our rural 

communities and the forests are paying the price. 

Ultimately, any legislation should balance economic, social and environmental values so that significant areas of Federal forest are focused on environmental protections and equally significant areas are focused on producing forest products and ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
33

nomic benefits. Our county’s small forestry program produces a mix of benefits to 

the environment, the economy and local residents. 

Of the 3,600 acres of forest owned by Clackamas County, approximately 2,800 

acres are managed utilizing sustainable forest management practices, including 

scheduled timber harvest and reforestation. All management activities are done in 

accordance with, and actually exceed, the requirements of the Oregon Forest Practices Act. Approximately 850 acres of forest are natural areas and parks where trees 

are only removed for public safety concerns or infrastructure development. 

Clackamas County manages it timber harvests on a 55 year rotation, to approximate annual growth rates and harvest timber that can still be milled locally. This 

translates to approximately 2 million board feet (mmbf) of timber harvested annually from our 2,800 acres of forest land. This annual average harvest has generated 

approximately $750,000 in annual revenue for the county over the last 10 years. 

These revenues cover the cost of managing our forest lands as well as provide funding for the operations and maintenance of our nearly 1,000 acres of parks and preservation land. Our most recent timber sale went to a local mill, yet only produced 

enough raw material for a 2 week production run. The mill advised us that they 

could add a third shift of jobs with minimal capital investment if they could be assured of increased timber availability. 

By comparison, the Forest Service annually sells approximately 30 mmbf of timber from the 1.1 million acre Mt. Hood National Forest and generated less than 

$270,000 in timber receipts for the U.S. Treasury in 2011. The county generates almost three times the revenue from timber harvests as the Forest Service does on 

less than .3% of the acreage. This massive discrepancy has only intensified in recent 

years and underscores the need for reform if counties are expected to return to actual 25% payments. 

The Forest Service is hamstrung by excessive bureaucracy, regulations and administrative costs. These costs typically consume up to 75% of its forest management budget, which severely restricts the amount of on-the-ground work and timber 

volume that can be accomplished. The type of timber sales offered by the Forest 

Service today also generate little-to-no receipts for the U.S. Treasury or local governments due to how the projects are designed and the extensive use of Stewardship 

Contracting Authority. Currently, no receipts are shared with counties for timber 

sales conducted under the Stewardship Contracting Authority. If the counties will 

again return to shared Forest Service receipts then Congress should amend this authority to ensure counties receive 25% of the value of stewardship contracts. 

Clearly if just a portion of the Mt. Hood National Forest were managed similar 

to how Clackamas County manages our forest land there would be significant revenue available to fund county payments and other important projects. Perhaps more 

importantly, it would be a tremendous boost to the local economy with an estimated 

17.4 direct jobs annually per mmbf of timber harvest. This would lessen our citizen’s 

dependence on public assistance while at the same time providing much needed revenue for schools, roads and other public needs. Using the values Clackamas County 

received from its last timber sale, if a little less than 4,000 acres (.7%) of the 

540,421 acres of the Mt. Hood National Forest in Clackamas County was managed 

like this each year it would generate our average Secure Rural School Forest Service 

payment of approximately $8.5 million, deliver over $25 million to the U.S. Treasury 

in receipts and support approximately 1,700 jobs. 

Congressman Schrader recently joined together with Congressman Peter DeFazio 

and Congressman Greg Walden to release the ‘‘O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs 

Act.’’ The plan would manage approximately half of Oregon’s 2.5 million acres of 

BLM O&C Grant Lands by a board of trustees for sustained yield timber production 

to benefit our 18 O&C counties in Oregon. This stable timber supply would support 

manufacturing and other jobs and provide revenue to cash-strapped counties that 

have few options to recover lost income from Federal lands. The legislation would 

also protect all remaining old growth stands on more than 1 million acres. I expect 

our Board of Commissioners to formally adopt a resolution in support of this proposal later this week. 

I would like to commend the efforts of Congressman Schrader and other Members 

of the Oregon delegation to promote the responsible management of Federal forest 

lands that provides a sustainable and predictable long-term solution to county revenue needs, while ensuring environmental protection, stewardship and restoration 

efforts. Our County’s management of its lands shows that these can go hand in 

hand as does the O&C Trust Act. As this Committee considers possible legislation 

for the National Forests I hope it will look to these examples. 

The situation is extremely urgent as our county and other rural counties across 

the country grapple with the reductions in Secure Rural Schools payments. 

34

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be happy to 

answer any questions you might have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Barth. 

Mr. Hoover, you can go ahead and proceed for 5 minutes testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY A. HOOVER, ORNAMENTAL

EXTENSION ENTOMOLOGIST, SENIOR EXTENSION

ASSOCIATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, COLLEGE OF 

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE

UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 

Mr. HOOVER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide 

an entomologist’s view of the impacts and challenges of the 

invasive pests on the management and maintenance of the health 

of our forests. I appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in this matter of great importance and that is the health of our nation’s forests for future generations. 

More than 400 species of invasive forest insects and disease are 

currently established in the United States. Some of these insects 

are able to spread quickly and cause significant economic and ecological impact to our nation’s forest and urban trees. An estimate 

of the management costs associated with invasive insect and mite 

pests in our nation’s forestland is at least $2.1 billion a year. The 

cost of insecticides applied against introduced pest insects is approximately $500 million a year in the U.S. Suburban and urban 

areas of the Northeast through the years have been locations of 

first detection of many invasive forest tree pests. For many years, 

scientists conducting basic and applied research and extension education activities in the disciplines of entomology and plant pathology have a long history of studying the biology and ecology of 

invasive forest pests and strategies and methods for their effective 

management. Collaborative research between entomologists and 

plant pathologists at land-grant institutions, state and Federal 

Government agencies, and others on tree diseases vectored by insects often leads to discoveries that result in the development of decision-making tools for achieving the goal of healthy forest and 

urban landscape trees. 

Some invasive species that impact the health of forest trees on 

which research and extension activities are currently being conducted include the emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, the 

Asian longhorned beetle, and for years the gypsy moth. Some examples of diseases in the forest that are caused by invasive plant 

pathogens include sudden oak death and butternut canker. Some 

insect-vectored tree diseases that many of us are already familiar 

with include elm yellows, oak wilt, beech bark disease, Dutch elm 

disease, and most recently, thousand cankers disease on the black 

walnut. 

In my written testimony, I discuss a few invasive insect pests 

that have impacted the health of our trees in our nation’s forests. 

Additionally, I have highlighted some research that has been conducted on these pests by entomologists, plant pathologists, chemical ecologists, horticulturists, regulatory agency employees, and 

others. Some research priorities associated with these invasive 

35

pests are also suggested that may lead to discoveries allowing for 

more effective management and maintenance of the health of the 

trees in our forests and landscapes. 

Many Members of the Subcommittee have used that word that 

frustrates many forest tree managers and that is the word drought. 

I can only tell you that with wood-boring insects, their olfactory 

abilities to sense trees that are stressed is beyond belief as to what 

we have been able to discover and there still is an awful lot of insight we need to investigate in how they perceive direct attack on 

trees that they can visualize, and when they get closer, there are 

chemical cues. And yes, with some longhorned beetles, when they 

land on the tree, they determine that those plant cells are collapsing due to lack of water. And so we really have our work cut 

out when it comes to wood-boring insects’ attack on trees in our nation’s forests. 

This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you may have regarding the role invasive 

pests play in the challenge of managing and maintaining the 

health of our nation’s forests. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoover follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY A. HOOVER, ORNAMENTAL EXTENSION

ENTOMOLOGIST, SENIOR EXTENSION ASSOCIATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, 

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 

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

to appear before you today to provide an entomologist’s view of the impacts and 

challenges of invasive pests on the health of our forests. I appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in a matter of great importance and that is the management 

and maintenance of the health of the nation’s forests for future generations. 

More than 400 species of invasive forest insects and diseases are currently established in the United States. Some of these insects are able to spread quickly and 

cause significant economic and ecological impact to our nation’s forest and urban 

trees. An estimate of the management costs associated with invasive insect and mite 

pests in our nation’s forest is at least $2.1 billion/year. The cost of insecticides applied against introduced pest insects is approximately $500 million/year in the 

United States. Suburban and urban areas of the Northeast through the years have 

been locations of first detection for many invasive forest tree pests. For many years 

scientists conducting basic and applied research and extension education activities 

in the disciplines of entomology and plant pathology have a long history of studying 

the biology and ecology of invasive forest pests and methods for effective management. Collaborative research between entomologists and plant pathologists at landgrant institutions, state and Federal Government agencies, and others on tree diseases vectored by insects often leads to discoveries that result in the development 

of management strategies and decision-making tools for achieving the goal of 

healthy forest and urban landscape trees. 

Some invasive species that impact the health of forest trees on which research 

and extension activities are currently being conducted include the emerald ash 

borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, Asian longhorned beetle, and gypsy moth. Some diseases in the forest that are caused by invasive plant pathogens include sudden oak 

death and butternut canker. Some insect-vectored tree diseases include elm yellows, 

oak wilt, beech bark disease, Dutch elm disease, and most recently thousand cankers disease on black walnut. 

I would like to discuss a few invasive insect pests that impact the health of trees 

in our nation’s forests. Additionally, I’d like to highlight some research that has 

been conducted on these pests by entomologists, plant pathologists, chemical ecologists, horticulturists, regulatory agency employees, and others. Some research priorities associated with these invasive pests will also be suggested that may lead to 

discoveries allowing more effective management and maintenance of the health of 

the trees in our forests and landscapes. 

36

Emerald Ash Borer 

Ten years ago the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis, was discovered as the 

cause of extensive ash, Fraxinus spp. mortality and decline in southeastern Michigan. The emerald ash borer is responsible for killing more than 40 million ash trees 

throughout much of the Midwest and in some states in the Northeast. This beetle 

is a member of the insect family Buprestidae whose adults are commonly called metallic wood-boring beetles and the larval stages are referred to as flatheaded borers. 

What’s really important to note is evidence suggests that A. planipennis first entered Michigan from China at least 15 years ago prior to its detection in 2002, presumably from solid wood packing materials used to ship manufactured goods. The 

emerald ash borer is now found in at least 15 states and Ontario, Canada. Research 

has demonstrated that spread of the emerald ash borer results primarily from the 

flight of this invasive pest and human transport of infested ash firewood, logs, lumber, and nursery stock. As an example in 2003 emerald ash borer infested nursery 

stock from Michigan was illegally sold to a nursery in Prince George’s County, 

Maryland and sold in Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia. In an attempt to limit 

the all too common human-assisted spread of this invasive pest from areas infested 

with the emerald ash borer, many states imposed orders of quarantines and regulations on the transport of ash trees and ash wood related products. Additionally, Federal quarantines were issued by both the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as well as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 

Early detection of new infestations of the emerald ash borer is important for the 

success of any effective management efforts to protect the health of ash trees. Research has led to the development of sticky traps and associated lures that are being 

used to survey for this invasive pest. The emerald ash borer is very difficult to detect at low population densities. Continued research on the identification of an effective pheromone for the emerald ash borer should be supported. Further research on 

the identification of suitable natural enemies and biological control of this pest 

needs to occur. 

The movement of ash and ash-related products from emerald ash borer infested 

areas continues to be prohibited by Federal quarantines. One frustration is the unintentional movement of ash materials continues to occur due to the lack of awareness and understanding of the quarantine regulations and the impact this species 

has on forest products (baseball bats, etc.) and the green industries. An increase in 

cooperative extension education efforts that target the public and other stakeholders 

groups needs to be supported. 

A survey of communities in Ohio found losses in landscape value for ash trees 

within community boundaries were estimated to be between $800 million and $3.4 

billion assuming the complete loss of ash resulting from the emerald ash borer. Tree 

replacement costs in these communities would range between $300 million and $1.3 

billion. The total losses for these Ohio communities, including ash landscape losses, 

tree removal and replacements, are estimated to range between $1.8 and $7.6 billion 

for a single insect pest in this one state. The potential total costs in Ohio were estimated to be between $157,000 and $665,000 per 1,000 residents. It’s suggested in 

this survey that communities can use these figures to begin developing contingency 

plans for the impact of the emerald ash borer on their budgets. 

Ash should make up no more than 10 to 25 percent of the basal area of a forest. 

If ash exceeds that level and you believe that you have marketable ash trees in the 

forest, you may want to get estimates and consider selling the ash trees. The level 

of urgency will depend on how close your property is to sites known to be infested 

with the emerald ash borer, your overall objectives for the property, and the abundance of ash compared with other species on the site. If you think you have marketable ash trees, work with a professional consulting forester. Decisions about timber 

sales and stumpage values can be complicated and it’s important to work with a 

professional forester. Consulting foresters can help identify the markets that are 

available in an area. They may also know of portable or custom sawmills that can 

be hired to saw ash trees into boards for your own use or sale. It may be important 

to work with neighboring forest landowners. They may be facing a situation similar 

to yours. Often the per-acre costs of setting up a timber sale decrease when larger 

areas are involved. Cooperating with neighbors may lead to lower costs and better 

timber prices for everyone. 

Other tree species may be part of a timber harvest that removes ash. Many forests can benefit from a well-planned harvest in which ash reduction is only one of 

several landowner objectives. A mixed-species sale may be of interest to more buyers 

or result in higher profits for a forest landowner. Again, it is important to work with 

a professional forester to ensure that the productivity and the health of a forest are 

maintained or even enhanced by a harvest. 

37

The emerald ash borer as an invasive, wood-boring pest has already placed tremendous economic pressure on both state and municipal budgets as well as their 

human resources. Scientists estimate the cost of treatment, removal, and replacement of ash trees due to the impact of the emerald ash borer will exceed $10.7 billion over the next 10 years. 

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid 

The hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, is a small, soft-bodied, insect that removes plant cell fluid with its piercing-sucking mouthparts. This forest health pest 

is closely related to aphids and has caused widespread decline and eventual death 

of hemlock trees in the forests and landscapes the eastern United States. The hemlock woolly adelgid is native to Asia and was first detected in the eastern United 

States in 1951 in a park in Richmond, VA. It was first observed in southeastern 

Pennsylvania during the mid-1960s. This pest species is believed to have been unintentionally introduced into the United States on Japanese hemlocks that were 

planned for use in landscapes. The hemlock woolly adelgid spread slowly until the 

late 1970s when this invasive insect pest reached forest areas and began to cause 

death of host trees. This key pest of hemlock has since spread into at least 17 states 

that include those in the Southeast to southern Maine. The hemlock woolly adelgid 

has few natural enemies in eastern North America, and our native eastern hemlock, 

Tsuga canadensis and Carolina hemlock, Tsuga caroliniana are highly susceptible 

to its attack. Currently, insect predators and an insect-killing fungus are the only 

known natural enemies of populations of the hemlock woolly adelgid. To date, it has 

no known parasitoids that reduce its populations on hemlocks. Research conducted 

by entomologists with the USDA-Forest Service, at land-grant institutions, state 

governmental agencies, and their cooperators has been focused on identifying effective management options for the hemlock woolly adelgid on forest and urban trees. 

The hemlock woolly adelgid and an another non-native insect pest that was detected 

in New York in 1908 known as the elongate hemlock scale, Fiorinia externa, poses 

another health risk to our eastern hemlocks. This armored scale insect species is 

attacked by some parasitoids, but it is very difficult to effectively manage when it 

infests forest trees. The elongate hemlock scale and the hemlock woolly adelgid pose 

a very serious threat to the sustainability of hemlock. Research on the biological 

control and the ecology of these pests in our forests needs to be investigated to an 

even greater extent. The loss of hemlocks in our eastern forests will have an impact 

on both wildlife habitat and the survival of wild trout. The loss of hemlock will also 

cause change in the structure and biodiversity of our eastern forests. 

There is often a desire to manage a forest in a way that is most ‘‘natural.’’ However, the current widespread outbreak of the hemlock woolly adelgid is not like any 

other form of natural disturbance known to affect hemlock trees in our forests. Harvesting options and related costs will differ depending on the size structure of hemlock in a particular forest and whether the management goal is aesthetics, wildlife 

habitat, water quality protection, future forest successional dynamics, timber revenue, or a combination of these management goals. Unless timber revenue is the 

main objective, pre-emptive cutting or pre-salvage of uninfested forests is not recommended, as the future interactions between hemlock and the hemlock woolly 

adelgid are uncertain, and cutting could remove potentially resistant hemlock. 

There are a variety of silvicultural alternatives available to forest landowners 

with hemlock stands threatened by the hemlock woolly adelgid. The options range 

from doing nothing to directly influencing vegetation succession with a variety of 

cutting methods, depending on the forest landowner’s objectives, overall hemlock 

health, and stand conditions. All options and associated costs should be considered 

carefully when planning the appropriate management strategies. 

Feeding by the hemlock woolly adelgid on susceptible hemlocks may cause rapid 

decline in tree health, followed by quick mortality. Hemlocks may die within 4 years 

of being infested. Stressed hemlock trees are more susceptible to attack by other insects, mites, or diseases. Eastern hemlock is an ecologically important species in our 

nation’s forests. Hemlock stands provide unique habitat to many forest species that 

are dependent on the dense canopy of hemlocks. Wildlife species such as ruffed 

grouse, turkey, deer, snowshoe hare, and rabbit are afforded cover by healthy hemlocks. Many songbirds use eastern hemlocks as nesting sites, food source, roost sites, 

and winter shelter. Many plant species also inhabit hemlock stands. The impact of 

feeding injury caused by the hemlock woolly adelgid on hemlocks affects and disrupts the entire ecosystem as well as the health of our eastern forests. 

Gypsy Moth 

The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, was accidentally introduced into Massachusetts in l869. By 1902 this pest was widespread in the New England states, eastern 

38

New York, and regions of New Jersey. The gypsy moth was first detected in Luzerne 

and Lackawanna Counties in northeastern Pennsylvania in l932. Heavy defoliation 

and subsequent tree mortality has occurred along mountain ridges in forests comprised primarily of oak. The gypsy moth is often considered the most important insect pest of forest and shade trees in the eastern United States. 

Egg masses are light tan, and each mass may contain 400–600 eggs. A mature 

larva is 50–65 mm long with a yellow and black head. The thorax and abdomen 

have five pairs of blue spots (tubercles) followed by six pairs of brick red spots. The 

pupal stage is dark reddish-brown. Male moths are dark tan and fly readily during 

the day. Females are white with black, wavy markings; they have robust abdomens 

and do not fly, and their wingspan can reach 5 cm. 

Egg masses deposited by females during July overwinter on trees, stones, and 

other substrates in the forest and landscapes. Eggs hatch from late April through 

early May with most eggs hatching by mid-May. Small first instar larvae do not 

feed right after they hatch and can be dispersed by wind. Young larvae feed on foliage and remain on host plants night and day. In late May when about half-grown, 

larvae change their behavior and usually feed in the trees at night, and move down 

to seek shelter in bark crevices or other protected sites during the day. Larvae reach 

maturity from mid-June to early July. Pupation takes place during late June and 

early July. The pupal cases may be observed attached to tree bark, stones, buildings, and other similar sites. Adults start emerging in late June with peak emergence in mid-July. The gypsy moth produces one generation a year. 

This key invasive insect pest is indirectly responsible for causing mortality of susceptible host trees in forests. Heavy defoliation by the larval stage of this pest 

causes stress to infested host plants. Secondary organisms such as the twolined 

chestnut borer, Agrilus bilineatus, and shoestring root rot, Armillaria spp., successfully attack stressed trees causing mortality. 

Preferred host plants for all larval stages of the gypsy moth in the forest include 

oaks, Quercus spp., alder, Alnus spp., aspen, Populus spp., gray birch, Betula 

populifolia, white birch, B. papyrifera, hawthorn, Crateagus spp., larch, Larix spp., 

linden, Tilia spp., mountain ash, Sorbus spp., Lombardy poplar, Populus nigra, willows, Salix spp., and witch-hazel, Hamamelis spp. Plants favored by older larvae but 

not by young larvae include beech, Fagus spp., red cedar, Juniperus spp., chestnut, 

Castanea spp., hemlock, Tsuga spp., plum, Prunus spp., pine, Pinus spp., and Colorado blue spruce, Picea pungens.

Light defoliation in the forest is defined as 0 to 30% loss of foliage and has little 

effect on the health of trees. Defoliation is barely detectable. Moderate defoliation 

is described as 31 to 50% loss of foliage. At this level caterpillars may be abundant 

enough to be a nuisance in an area if not managed. Trees will have enough foliage 

remaining to stay green and little mortality is expected. Heavy defoliation is when 

51% or more of the foliage is removed from a tree. Tree mortality may result from 

one year’s defoliation to hemlock, pine, and spruce in the forest. Deciduous trees can 

normally withstand one year of defoliation, but 2 or more successive years may result in moderate to high mortality. Around the 50% defoliation level, most deciduous 

trees produce auxiliary leaf buds and new foliage by mid-August. Refoliation in the 

same growing season creates a stress to an infested tree. 

A normal outbreak pattern for the gypsy moth may be described as 2 years of 

light infestation with minimal defoliation followed by 2 years of moderate to severe 

defoliation with population collapse after the second year of heavy defoliation. Infestations may flare up in future years; however, caterpillar density and level of defoliation in the forest will probably not be as severe or widespread as encountered 

during an initial infestation. 

Some people are dermally allergic to the caterpillars. The urticating hairs cause 

skin rashes on some humans. This is most noticeable in May when larvae are small. 

Children appear to be more prone to this problem than adults. 

Air temperatures of ¥20°F or colder during the winter will destroy exposed eggs. 

Unfortunately, numerous egg masses are deposited on rocks, near the base of tree 

trunks and these may be covered with an insulating blanket of snow. Freezing temperatures in early May, after hatch, may also kill many larvae in the forest. 

When gypsy moth larvae are half-grown, many of them feed at night and crawl 

down the tree in the morning to seek shelter during the day. Tree trunks may be 

encircled with a 14–18 inch wide piece of burlap or similar material. Place it at 

about chest height and arrange it so it hangs apronlike around the tree trunk. Tie 

off the center of the burlap band with string and fold the top portion down over the 

string. This burlap apron provides a place under which larvae rest and can later 

be killed. The apron must be checked daily, and all ‘‘trapped’’ larvae and pupae 

should be destroyed on valuable trees in a landscape. This technique works best in 

light to moderate infestations from late May through early July or until males begin 

39

to fly. This management method is usually effective enough to keep defoliation levels less than 50% of the tree’s crown. A few shade trees can be well protected with 

this method. Do not expect this technique to be effective on trees that are part of 

a heavily infested forest. 

Male moths readily respond to the female’s sex pheromone. Males can be attracted to traps baited with a synthetic pheromone; however, such traps are not effective control measures. These traps do assist in monitoring an area for low level 

populations of this pest in the forest. 

There are some native predators and parasitoids that attack life stages of the 

gypsy moth in the forest. Several introduced species of fly and wasp parasitoids of 

the gypsy moth are established in Pennsylvania and other states. Parasitoids and 

predators do not provide an immediate solution to a gypsy moth infestation. However, once a gypsy moth population collapses, the value of these natural enemies 

is exhibited by helping maintain populations in forests at low levels for extended 

periods of time. These parasitoids and predators appear to be contributing to stabilizing the gypsy moth population in several areas. Native predators, such as birds, 

white-footed mice, and ground beetles assist in keeping gypsy moth populations in 

the forest at tolerable levels. 

A naturally occurring virus called the ‘‘wilt’’ has resulted in massive mortality of 

caterpillars causing populations to collapse in areas of severe defoliation. Although 

the virus is always present, it seldom affects the larval stage until they are under 

stress, due to overcrowding or reduced food availability in a forest. In recent years 

during wet spring weather, the fungal insect pathogen, Entomophaga maimaiga,

has also caused collapse of heavy infestations of this pest in many areas. 

Several insecticide formulations (microbial, insect growth regulators, etc.) are registered for effective management of this key pest. To maintain good plant health, 

applications should be made before serious defoliation occurs in the forest. When 

healthy egg mass densities are approximately 500/acre, aerial suppression of gypsy 

moth populations is indicated in forest stands with oak and other susceptible trees 

species. Aerial applications of registered formulations should be made according to 

label directions after the majority of eggs have hatched during early to mid-May, 

when larvae are small. Be sure that small larvae have dispersed and they have 

begun to feed causing the characteristic shothole injury to host plant foliage in the 

forest. 

Asian Longhorned Beetle 

The Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis, is an unintentionally introduced, invasive species with the potential to become a major pest in the United 

States. This wood-boring pest is a member of the insect family Cerambycidae whose 

larval stages are called roundheaded borers. The Asian longhorned beetle was first 

discovered around New York City in 1996. Additional infestations were discovered 

in Chicago (1998) and Jersey City, NJ (2002), and Toronto and Vaughan, Ontario, 

Canada (2003). In 2008 a large infestation was found in Worcester, MA. A total of 

66 square miles are now under quarantine with more likely to be added as the area 

is surveyed. As of 2009, established populations of the Asian longhorned beetle have 

been detected in Austria (2001), France (2003, 2004, 2008), Germany (2004, 2005), 

and Italy (2007). 

In the United States, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) has implemented an eradication program whereby all trees with signs of 

an Asian longhorned beetle infestation are removed and destroyed. The eradication 

program for the Asian longhorned beetle has greatly impacted the local areas where 

this invasive species has been found because of the removal of thousands of trees 

that cost states, municipalities, and residents millions of dollars. The United States 

has implemented stricter trade regulations to prevent further introductions of this 

wood-boring pest. The Asian longhorned beetle could pose serious economic and environmental threats to many important stakeholders such as the maple sugar industry, forest products industry, fall-foliage tourism, natural ecosystems, recreational 

areas, and many highly valued landscape and street trees. This is another invasive, 

wood-boring pest that has placed tremendous economic pressure on both state and 

municipal budgets. 

Little was known about ALB when it was first discovered in the United States, 

however, scientists have since provided considerable new information on detection 

and control methods now used by USDA APHIS in their Asian longhorned beetle 

eradication program. Although APHIS is progressing in its goal to eradicate this 

pest that attacks maple, boxelder, buckeye, horsechestnut, birch, willow, and elm, 

additional improvements in control methods are still needed to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and ensure successful eradication of the Asian longhorned beetle. 

40

Thousand Cankers Disease 

Thousand cankers disease or TCD as it’s known, was discovered in Bucks County, 

Pennsylvania in 2011. This insect-vectored disease poses a significant new threat to 

black walnut in Pennsylvania. Thousand cankers disease is a pest complex that is 

caused by the walnut twig beetle, Pityophthorus juglandis, and an associated fungus, Geosmithia morbida. Black walnut, Juglans nigra, is highly susceptible to this 

disease. 

It has been estimated that the value of the walnut nut crop in California is ap- proximately $500 million. The economic value of black walnut for use in many different types of wood products is estimated to be $580 billion. Since Pennsylvania 

is the top producer of hardwoods in the United States, thousand cankers disease is 

of great concern to forest health managers and hardwood products manufacturers. 

The walnut twig beetle is native to North America. Its native range in the Southwest appears to coincide largely with the distribution of Arizona walnut, J. major,

the likely original native host. Records from California suggest that the walnut twig 

beetle may be native to that state. The first published record of a cluster of black 

walnut mortality associated with the walnut twig beetle was in the Espanola Valley 

of New Mexico where large numbers of mature black walnut died in 2001. Similar 

widespread decline also occurred about this time in the Boise, Idaho area where the 

insect was first confirmed in 2003. Black walnut mortality and the walnut twig beetle have been noted in several Front Range communities in Colorado since 2004 and 

in most infested cities the majority of black walnut has since died. The walnut twig 

beetle was detected in Portland, Oregon in 1997. 

Prior to these recent reports, the walnut twig beetle was not associated with any 

significant Juglans mortality. In most areas where the die-offs of black walnut have 

occurred, drought was originally suspected as the cause of the decline and death of 

trees, with the walnut twig beetle as a secondary pest. The widespread area across 

which Juglans spp. die-offs have been recently reported, combined with the documented presence of the associated canker producing fungal pathogen carried by the 

twig beetle, and the occurrence of black walnut death in irrigated sites not sustaining drought, all suggest an alternate underlying cause. 

The first confirmation of the walnut twig beetle and fungus within the native 

range of black walnut was in Knoxville, Tennessee in July 2010. Geosmithia 

morbida was confirmed in samples under regulatory controls in August 2010. The 

potential damage of this disease to eastern forests could be great because of the 

widespread distribution of eastern black walnut, the susceptibility of this tree species to the disease, the capacity of the fungus and walnut twig beetle to invade new 

areas, and apparent ability to survive under a wide range of climatic conditions. 

On J. nigra, the walnut twig beetle prefers to colonize the underside of branches 

in rough areas and prefers branches larger than 1 inch in diameter. Tunneling by 

the walnut twig beetle sometimes occurs in trunks and it prefers the warmer side 

of the tree. Winter is spent in the adult state sheltered within cavities excavated 

in the bark of the trunk. Adults resume activity by late April and most fly to 

branches to mate and initiate new tunnels for egg galleries; some may remain in 

the trunk and expand overwintering tunnels. During tunneling, the Geosmithia 

morbida fungus is introduced and subsequently grows in advance of the bark beetle. 

Larvae develop just under the bark and then enter the bark to pupate. Larval development takes 6–8 weeks to complete. Two overlapping generations were reported 

per season in Colorado. Adult beetles fly from mid-April to late October in Boulder, 

Colorado. The adult walnut twig beetle is estimated to fly one to 2 miles. Peak adult 

captures occur from mid-July through late August. Data suggest that two or more 

generations may be produced annually. Walnut twig beetle populations can reach 

levels of 30 per square inch; a single black walnut tree may produce tens of thousands of beetles. 

Small, diffuse, dark brown to black cankers, caused by Geosmithia morbida, initially develop around the nuptial chambers of the walnut twig beetle in small twigs, 

branches and even the trunk. Geosmithia spp. are associates of bark beetles of hardwood and conifer trees but have not previously been reported as pathogens of 

Juglans or fungal associates of the walnut twig beetle. Branch cankers may not be 

visible until the outer bark is shaved from the entrance to the nuptial chamber; although a dark amber stain may form on the bark surface in association with the 

cankers. Cankers expand rapidly and develop more expansively lengthwise than circumferentially along the stem. On thick barked branches, cankers may at first be 

localized in outer bark tissue and extend into the cambium only after extensive bark 

discoloration has occurred. Eventually multiple cankers coalesce and girdle twigs 

and branches, resulting in branch dieback. The number of cankers that are formed 

on branches and the trunk is enormous; hence the name thousand cankers to describe the disease. 

41

Potential movement of thousand cankers disease may occur on veneer logs, 

sawlogs, burls, stumps, firewood, wood packaging material, nursery stock, scion 

wood for grafting, and natural spread. However, the unexpected discovery of this 

disease deep in native black walnut range, over one thousand miles from the nearest known infestation has confirmed some assumptions while diminishing others. It 

is important to keep in mind that the Tennessee infestation has likely been present 

for 10–20 years. An important question is where else in the native range of black 

walnut could this disease be present but not yet detected. Drought, walnut 

anthracnose, and other symptoms may have masked thousand cankers disease from 

being readily detected. 

Thousand cankers disease is scattered throughout western states and reports of 

walnut mortality are occurring simultaneously in areas that are connected by major 

highways. This distribution along major commerce routes suggests that movement 

of thousand cankers disease and its vector may be human assisted. Extension education programs on thousand cankers disease need to be developed and delivered 

by specialists and educators at our land-grant institutions. Research conducted by 

scientists in both academia and state and Federal Government agencies should play 

a major role in disseminating applied research to stakeholders on this complex, insect-vectored disease of black walnut. Solving problems associated with thousand 

cankers disease will necessitate collaborative as well as interdisciplinary efforts to 

preserve the health of this important tree species. 

Conclusion 

Research priorities on invasive species that impact the health of our forest as well 

as landscape trees needs to be focused on the development of prevention, prediction, 

detection, monitoring, management, and genetic evaluation as well as restoration of 

trees in the forests of our nation. With the global movement of many different products, the sustained health of our forests is being placed at a higher risk for survival. 

We need to be even better stewards of the health of our forests for future generations. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have regarding the role invasive pests play in the challenges of 

managing and maintaining the health of our nation’s forests. 

Some References on Invasive Forest Pests in the United States 

Cranshaw, W. and N. Tisserat. 2008. Pest Alert: Walnut Twig Beetle and Thousand Cankers Disease Of Black Walnut. Colorado State University. http://

wci.colostate.edu/Assets/pdf/ThousandCankers.pdf.

Drooz, A.T. (ed.) 1985. Insects of eastern forests. USDA, Forest Serv., Misc. Publ. 

1426, 608 pp. 

Johnson, W.T. and H.H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that feed on trees and shrubs. 2nd 

ed. rev., Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York, 560 pp. 

Newton, L. and G. Fowler. 2009. Pathway Assessment: Geosmithia sp. and

Pityophthorus juglandis Blackman movement from the western into the eastern 

United States. USDA–APHIS Rev. 19 August 2009. 

Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and 

economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 52: 273–288. 

Seybold, S.J., D. Haugen, J. O’Brien, and A. Graves. 2010. Pest Alert: Thousand 

Cankers Disease. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. Rev. August 2010. 

Sydnor, T.D., M. Bumgardner, and A. Todd. 2007. The potential economic impacts 

of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) on Ohio, U.S., Communities. ARBORICULTURE & URBAN FORESTRY 33: 48–54. 

Tisserat, N., W. Cranshaw, D. Leatherman, C. Utley, and K. Alexander. 2009. 

Black walnut mortality in Colorado caused by the walnut twig beetle and thousand 

cankers disease. PLANT HEALTH PROGRESS.

Websites on Invasive Forest Pests in the United States 

Forest Disturbance Processes—Invasive Species, Northern Forest Research Station, 

USDA-Forest Service: http://nrs.fs.fed.us/disturbance/invasivelspecies/

Orwig, D.A., H. Forest and D. Kittredge. Silvicultural Options for Managing Hemlock Forests Threatened by HWA, Univ. Mass. Extension: http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/

hwa/silvi-mgt/silvi-mgt.shtm

Introduced Species Summary Project, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae) 

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoffburg/invasionlbio/invlspplsumm/

Adelgesltsugae.html

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hoover. 

42

Mr. Watkins, go ahead when you are ready, proceed for 5 minutes testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES ‘‘CHUCK’’ WATKINS, CHIEF

OPERATING OFFICER, REX LUMBER, GRACEVILLE, FL; ON 

BEHALF OF FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE COALITION 

Mr. WATKINS. Good morning. I am here as a representative of 

Rex Lumber. As Mr. Southerland said, we employ 434 people, 

produce about 450 million feet of lumber, and it is important to 

mention as Mr. Ribble said before, we are a gross exporter of lumber. About 20 percent of our lumber is exported out of this country 

to the Caribbean. 

So our mill is sitting on the doorstep of the Apalachicola National 

Forest and in 1980 that mill was built——

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Watkins, hold on. Mr. Hoover, is your microphone still on by chance? 

Mr. HOOVER. It is off. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t know where the feedback is—sorry about 

that, sir. We are used to getting all that feedback here. We don’t 

want it to interfere with your testimony. 

Mr. WATKINS. Is that better? 

The CHAIRMAN. That is great. Please go ahead. I am sorry about 

that. 

Mr. WATKINS. So we built a mill, a lumber-producing facility in 

Bristol, Florida, in 1980 with the kind of verbal agreement with the 

Forest Service that we would get a lot of timber off of that land. 

That land covers a vast, vast area around us. So as that timber 

supply was basically reduced, it took a lot of our area away. Over 

the course of the 1990s and the 2000s, we are forced to buy timber 

and outsource and basically push away from the mill. And we all 

know with fuel costs, what that does to us. The reason was this little bird called the Red Cockaded Woodpecker. Well, we essentially 

reduced a lot of the harvesting on that forest, and so what we have 

found through some studies through between 2000 and 2009 is that 

the density of that forest has gone up by 30 percent and that Red 

Cockaded Woodpecker likes open park spans, pine park-type of an 

environment and its population has actually decreased by 15 percent. So that is a little story of our mill. 

And we wonder as business owners and employers and members 

of our community, why? Why is that happening? Our National Forest supports over 770 Red Cockaded Woodpecker clusters, over 

2,000 black bears, over 60 bald eagle nests, and frankly, we could 

do better. We could certainly do better. 

But I am here representing the Federal Forest Resource Coalition with membership in 24 states. We have 650 member companies, 350,000 employees, and $19 billion payroll. And what we ask 

of you is that the Forest Service has stated that they are going to 

increase their harvest to 3 billion board feet and we are asking to 

increase it again to 31⁄2 billion board feet in 2013. But keep in mind 

that that represents less than ten percent of the growth of our forests. And actually, that represents less than 50 percent of what 

their targets are, what their goals are now. So what we ask as a 

group is that we need some transparency in the Forest Service. We 

need to see what they are doing and understand what they are 

43

doing and see some results. We would like to see some type of 

progress reports. 

The recession from 2008 to 2011 was very tough on our industry. 

Our employment decreased by 50 percent across the country. And 

the ironic part of that is that as we lose these employees and we 

lose these mills and these manufacturing facilities, that actually is 

detrimental to the Forest Service. The Forest Service is losing partners in managing this land, in managing their timber harvests. 

So what we would like to stress to the Committee is that the 

health of the National Forests, the economic health of the member 

companies of our group, and the health of the communities where 

we live are all linked together. We would ask for your support with 

the Forest Service in some transparency, some progress reports in 

assuring that we reach those goals. We are optimistic but we are 

very cautious. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Watkins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES ‘‘CHUCK’’ WATKINS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, REX LUMBER, GRACEVILLE, FL; ON BEHALF OF FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE

COALITION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Holden, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Chuck Watkins, and I am Chief Operating Officer Rex Lumber, which operates businesses in both Florida and Mississippi. Our family owned 

company is a founding member of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC), 

which represents purchasers of Forest Service timber across the country. The coalition has members in more than 24 states, with approximately 650 member companies representing 350,000 workers and about $19 billion in payroll. 

The FFRC supports sustainable management of the National Forests lands to 

produce clean water, enhance wildlife habitat, produce forest products including 

timber and biomass, support rural economic development, and to reduce the threats 

of catastrophic wildfires and insect outbreaks. Our members come from every link 

on the forest products value chain, from loggers to landowners and from large pulp 

and paper facilities to forest bioenergy plants. Our member companies are frequently located in rural areas, which have higher than average unemployment, poverty, and population loss compared to their states’ averages. 

About Rex Lumber 

Rex Lumber traces its roots in Northwest Florida back to 1926, 10 years prior to 

the establishment of the Apalachicola National Forest. Rex currently operates three 

mills in Bristol and Graceville, Florida, as well as Brookhaven, Mississippi. We 

source our raw materials from the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida and the 

Homochitto in Mississippi, as well as from private timberlands. 

Our mills employ 434 people directly. We have the capacity to produce 458 million 

board feet of Southern Yellow Pine lumber, most of which is subsequently pressure 

treated and sold for residential and commercial use. We export our products widely, 

including to the Caribbean where it is preferred for its strength and stability in an 

area known for hurricanes and seismic hazards. We purchase logs from over 100 

local loggers, and employ over 30 other contractors for heavy maintenance and engineering projects on our facility. Our mills are one of the largest employers in our 

communities, where other jobs are frequently lowering paying and less desirable. 

The National Forests in Florida: A Conservation Success Story 

The Homochitto and Apalachicola forests are, like the rest of the National Forests 

east of the Mississippi, conservation success stories. Most of the lands in the eastern 

National Forests were acquired in the 1920’s and 1930’s after an era of ‘‘cut and 

run’’ logging that left watersheds subject to large fires, erosion, and depletion of 

both forests and their wildlife. Although it is hard to imagine today, conservationists 

in the 1920’s and 1930’s feared for the extinction of species like the wild turkey and 

the Whitetail deer. Reforestation and careful management have helped restore the 

1.2 million acres of National Forests in Florida. 

Today, the National Forests in Florida support over 770 Red Cockaded Woodpecker clusters, 60 active bald eagle nests, and over 2,000 Florida Black Bears. In 

44

total, these forests provide habitat for some 145 species of rare plants, and 52 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals. Like much of the National 

Forest system, however, we firmly believe that these forests could produce far more 

of these benefits, while providing a steadier and more reliable source of wood fiber 

to our mills. 

Like most pine forests across the country, our forests are adapted to frequent 

wildfires. Overstocking of pine forests makes it difficult for forest managers to introduce fire, which controls understory vegetation and helps create and maintain the 

habitat preferred by such species as Red Cockaded Woodpecker, gopher tortoise, and 

bobwhite quail. Harvests which produce an open stand condition produce ideal wildlife habitat, while also providing high value sawtimber to a market which needs this 

raw material. 

As you can see from the table we’ve included here, over the last 5 years the National Forests in Florida have been inconsistent in the harvests they have offered. 

Dropping from a high of 42.1 million board feet in 2007 to a low of 21 million feet 

in 2009, the forest has also been inconsistent in the level of sawtimber offered for 

sale.

NF’s in Florida Sold Totals 

Fiscal Year MBF % Sawtimber $ Total (Millions) 

2011 31.9 39% $2.90

2010 22.4 $2.04

2009 21.5 $1.78

2008 25.4 22% $1.99

2007 42.1 36% $3.20

This inconsistent level of harvest makes it difficult for loggers to find consistent 

work to make payments on expensive logging equipment, makes it difficult for mill 

managers to find consistent supplies, and in particular makes it difficult for businesses to make long-term plans and investments. Other forests in the Forest Service’s Southern Region have been able to consistently offer considerably higher volumes of timber for sale, all while meeting their other forest plan objectives for wildlife and plant habitat. 

Increasing the Pace of Forest Restoration 

Recently, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that the Forest Service 

would step up both the pace and scale of their land management. We applaud and 

support this effort, but we believe it does not go far enough to meet the needs of 

the forests or the needs of our rural communities. 

Increased management and forest products outputs, from the current low level of 

2.4 billion board feet nationwide to 3.5 billion board feet in 2013, would provide a 

much-needed economic boost to rural America, creating thousands of jobs. The 

health of the National Forests, the economic health of our member companies, and 

the health of the communities where we live and work, are inextricably linked. Moving from the current projected harvest level of 2.6 billion board feet to 3.5 billion 

board feet could produce some 14,400 direct jobs, with thousands of additional indirect jobs. The current forest plans in place across the country call for a harvest level 

of roughly 6 billion board feet, still only 1⁄2 of the peak harvest levels of the late 

1980’s. 

Even in these challenging wood markets, some FFRC member companies have 

been frustrated by the Forest Service’s lack of commitment to sell adequate log supplies. The result is idled investments, reduced shifts at sawmills, jobs lost to foreign 

competition, and a failure to sustain or enhance a value-added, manufacturing industry that can capture greater domestic and international market share. Our member companies are extremely competitive in the global market, and only need a fairly priced raw material to capture more of those markets. The time available to capture these opportunities is limited, and we urge you to reward the Forest Service’s 

recent initiative by investing in more aggressive management of the National Forests. 

We have worked—and will continue to work—closely with the leadership in the 

Forest Service and USDA to find ways of reducing overhead and making the forest 

products and fuels reductions program more efficient. We believe some of the steps 

taken by the Forest Service in their February 2, 2012 report will help achieve these 

efficiencies. However, other authorities, like allowing the Forest Service to use desVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
45

ignation by description on regular timber sales, much as they do on current Stewardship contracts, will help reduce unit costs even further. 

Investing in Land Management 

We were pleased and thankful that the Omnibus appropriations bill for 2012 set 

a harvest goal of 3.0 billion board feet for 2012. We urge the Agriculture Committee 

to reinforce the importance of this new target by seeking frequent progress reports 

this fiscal year, and asking the agency to increase its outputs in 2013 to 3.5 billion 

board feet. The current annual harvest from the National Forests represents less 

than 10% of annual forest growth, and less than half the allowable sale quantity 

under existing forest plans. In many regions, the Forest Service is falling short of 

its own management goals; including in reacting to the pine beetle outbreak in the 

Rockies, salvaging beetle and drought killed timber in the Southeast, and managing 

aspen habitat in the Lake States. 

Stepping up management, through formal collaboratives where they exist and 

normal timber programs elsewhere, will help address pressing forest health concerns while helping bolster employment in rural communities where unemployment 

is frequently near 20% and poverty is well above state averages. Investing in the 

Forest Service timber program is a very effective job creator, generating 16.5 new 

direct and indirect jobs per million board feet harvested. 

Reducing NEPA Costs 

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality issued a memo on increasing 

the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental reviews required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act in December. The Forest Service has told Congress that 

complying with NEPA and other environmental laws costs them $356 million annually, which is more than the agency spends on timber management, or Research, 

or State and Private Forestry. Saving even a portion of these expenses would free 

up resources to actually manage forests and reduce the threat of wildfire and insect 

outbreaks. 

Timber purchasers across the country report that Forest Service personnel frequently conduct exhaustive NEPA analysis, only to propose and implement small 

scale land management projects which do not meet the objectives the agency set out 

to meet. Examples include leaving higher than called for stand densities, or dropping entire units from proposed sales even though doing so leaves forest stands susceptible to insects and mortality. The Forest Service’s February 2nd report on increasing the pace of forest restoration touches on this subject, but we believe direction from this Subcommittee would help reinforce the urgency of directing the resources to management rather than paperwork. 

When National Forests in the Lake States are up to 75% behind on their management goals for early successional habitat, and the National Forests in the Rocky 

Mountains are falling woefully behind in dealing with a massive, 41 million acre 

and growing pine beetle outbreak, finding some way of reducing NEPA costs is urgently needed. 

Forest Health and Forest Restoration 

2011 demonstrated that the poor health of our National Forests and other Federal 

Forests impacts everyone, from the industries that depend on useable wood fiber to 

casual weekend visitors to the Forests. The large fires in Arizona and New Mexico 

last year forced the closures of popular campgrounds, destroyed dozens of recreational cabins, and forced cancellations of Fourth of July events at popular mountain resorts. Many miles of forest roads and several campgrounds in Arizona remain 

closed. The large scale beetle infestation in the Black Hills has forced local campground owners to spend more than $100,000 annually to remove beetle killed trees 

and spray others in an effort to stop beetles from spreading off of the National Forests. The Pagami Creek fire in Minnesota disrupted popular hiking and canoeing 

areas in an around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Campers, hikers, hunters, 

and skiers all want to visit healthy, green, and growing forests. 

In each of these cases, wood using industries, from start-up biomass plants to 

family run sawmills to internationally competitive pulp and paper facilities, stand 

ready to help the Forest Service to actively manage the National Forests. Opportunities to expand this management, and the benefits that come from it, abound nationwide. 

Reduce Overhead Costs to Expand Meaningful Management 

The Forest Service must reduce overhead and project preparation costs in its land 

management programs, particular forest products, hazardous fuels reduction, and 

salvage sales. Current overhead rates are over 50%, and in some regions, 70% of 

46

appropriated dollars go into NEPA compliance, not project design and implementation. 

Specific approaches currently available to the Forest Service and the Administration that would reduce costs include:

1. Reduce project preparation costs (e.g.,—greater use of designation by description and designation by prescription in lieu of marking);

The Forest Service allows the use of this management technique on some timber 

harvests, including on Stewardship contracts. Expanding its use can help reduce 

costs and move lower value wood fiber at lower costs, which should be a high priority given the slack markets for products like pulpwood and biomass. Allowing purchasers to harvest trees that meet sale specifications, while instituting controls such 

as post-harvest surveys and periodic scaling of sample loads, can reduce costs of sale 

administration to reflect the lower value of wood fiber being removed.

2. Achieve economies of scale by conducting project planning and associated economic analysis and NEPA analysis at larger scales, and then marking all sales 

to reflect the NEPA that is conducted;

As noted above, the Forest Service is spending over $350 million per year on 

NEPA and associated environmental reviews. In many cases, purchasers report that 

the Forest Service staff then mark timber sales that do not meet the objectives outlined in the NEPA documents. This leaves stands more susceptible to subsequent 

bug infestation, mortality, and fires.

3. Declare an emergency on forest lands in Condition Class II and III, in particular in lands impacted by large scale beetle infestations, allowing the use of 

alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance; and

The scale of the current pine beetle infestations in the Rocky Mountains is unprecedented. Yet NEPA analysis continues to take too long, while the infestations 

spread to new areas and threaten the viability of what little remains of the regions 

wood using industry. We urge rapid action to capture value and help prevent further loss of valuable forests and habitat.

4. Move rapidly to implement the new objection authority enacted as part of 

this year’s Omnibus Appropriations Act.

The Fiscal Year 2012 Omnibus Appropriations Act provided for a new, streamlined objection process to apply to all NEPA actions of the Forest Service. This authority, modeled on the objection process authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which this Committee helped create, will allow the Forest Service to consolidate similar objections and work with interested parties to find a way forward 

on vital land management projects. We urge the Forest Service to finalize regulations to implement this important provision as soon as possible. 

Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization 

The FFRC supports long-term reauthorization for Stewardship contracting, which 

was first authorized as a pilot program in 1999. In 2003, the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were granted 10 years authority to enter into 

Stewardship Contracts or Agreements. Stewardship Contracting allows the Forest 

Service and BLM to enter into a variety of different contracts which allow them to 

trade goods (usually timber or biomass) for services (which can cover a variety of 

land management practices, including habitat improvement, fish passage, and other 

activities which would otherwise have to obtained through service contracts). Stewardship Contracting has proven an effective, and increasingly important, mechanism 

to help Federal land management agencies achieve land management goals. Further, in many regions, timber volumes produced through Stewardship Contracts 

make up a significant percentage of the Forest Service’s annual sale program. Authority for Stewardship Contracting expires on September 30, 2013. 

It is important to recognize that Stewardship Contracting is one tool for achieving 

land management goals; in many cases, the same land management results can 

be—and are currently being—achieved with traditional timber sale contracts. Reauthorization of Stewardship Contracting authorities must not be considered a way to 

replace or supplant other contracting tools. 

We recommend minor changes to Stewardship contracting authority which will 

help the Forest Service and BLM to achieve greater program efficiency in the use 

of Stewardship Contracts, while ensuring local support for the projects performed 

using this important tool. They will also help attract a broader variety of potential 

partners who want to support and participate in Stewardship Contracting projects. 

47

We recommend the following minor changes to the existing authority for Stewardship Contracts:

• Provide the Forest Service with the discretion to choose whether to use ‘‘best 

value’’ selection criteria.

• Provide the Forest Service and BLM with greater discretion to select personnel 

responsible for awarding and administering Stewardship contracts and agreements.

• Make retention of existing wood products infrastructure a co-equal objective 

with other goals of Stewardship contracts and agreements.

• Where Stewardship contracts or agreements result in payments to the Forest 

Service, 25% of these payments should be directed to the County where the 

project is being performed.

• Provide liability limitations for operations fires consistent with those in existing 

timber sale contracts. 

Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization 

As this Subcommittee is aware, authority to make guaranteed payments to National Forest Counties from the treasury expired late last year. National Forest 

Counties are facing potentially devastating cuts to services if they are forced to rely 

solely on receipts without policy changes which direct higher levels of harvest and 

revenues. 

The guaranteed funding provided under SRS was never intended to permanently 

replace shared revenue from active management on Federal public lands. Congress 

should not provide further extension of mandatory funds without ensuring a transition that makes improvements in both the health of Federal forests and the economic condition of forest dependent counties through active forest management. 

H.R. 4019, approved last month by the Natural Resources Committee, would help 

re-establish the connection between National Forest management and revenues to 

local communities. 

Alternative land management paradigms, including identification of lands to provide stable funding on a trust-trustee basis, whether in Federal or other ownership, 

should be encouraged, while restoring and strengthening the overall multiple use 

framework on Federal forests. We applaud the Oregon delegation for exploring these 

alternatives for the O&C lands managed by the BLM in Oregon. 

Conclusion 

FFRC appreciates this Subcommittee’s focus on these important issues. The recession of 2008 to 2011 was particularly cruel to the wood products industry. In some 

states, employment in wood using industries dropped by 50% or more. The Forest 

Service has been helpful in offering some timber for sale even in these economically 

trying times. 

However, we believe a more concentrated effort is needed to help ensure that further losses in wood using capacity do not take place near the National Forests. 

Whether the Forest Service is attempting to create early successional habitat for 

grouse and woodcock in the Great Lakes, maintain or improve quail or woodpecker 

habitat in the Southeast, or restoring habitat diversity in older forests in the Pacific 

Northwest, the existence of viable wood consuming mills helps reduce their management costs and improve the quality of life in adjacent communities. We appreciate 

your efforts to keep these issues front and center at the Department, and look forward to working with you to achieve healthier National Forests and more prosperous rural communities.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

I now recognize Mr. Zimmer for 5 minutes of testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GARY ZIMMER, CERTIFIED WILDLIFE

BIOLOGIST®, COORDINATING WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, RUFFED 

GROUSE SOCIETY, LAONA, WI 

Mr. ZIMMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to stray a little bit from my comments just from what 

I have heard today. One point that I would like to make is that 

12 years ago I made one of the toughest decisions—probably almost 

the toughest decision of my life when I left the U.S. Forest Service. 

It was the first organization that really gave me the chance to beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
48

come and exercise my wildlife management skills that I have 

learned and grew up loving as a career. While that lasted we did 

some great work, had a good family relationship with the folks I 

worked with, some of the best people I have ever worked with. 

That changed as things changed in the organization and I became 

a NEPA writer. All I did every day was writing documents, writing 

documents, writing documents, and writing documents. 

I left 12 years ago. One of the documents that I was working on 

12 years ago was one of the documents that Chief Tidwell referred 

to that just finally passed the court system and is now being implemented. I feel good about that. I was part of the start and I guess 

I will be part of the finish. Sitting back in the audience today, I 

realized yesterday would have been my first day I would have been 

eligible for retirement from the U.S. Forest Service. I made a good 

choice because I feel I do a lot more on-the-ground work for the 

benefit of wildlife species, especially those of my constituents in the 

society and those 15,000 members of the society nationwide asked 

me to do. I am not sure in the last 12 years I could have done that 

being employed in a sense by the taxpayer of this nation. 

Also, I would like to say one other thing. I am also proud that 

I have 157 acres of woods in northern Wisconsin that is certified 

under the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative third-party certification process. I join many, many 

other private landowners in the State of Wisconsin, many industry 

landowners, many state and county forests that have this certification. The only large forest landowner in the State of Wisconsin 

that is not certified is our National Forest. That is sad. It is very, 

very sad. We meet all the criteria of all these other landowners and 

I wish the Forest Service would. 

A pilot study was done a few years ago and the ChequamegonNicolet was in that pilot study, and one of the biggest impediments 

to going forward with certification was that they weren’t sustainable. These forests weren’t sustainable and it in part was because 

of litigation. 

I am really here today, though, to emphasize the critical role that 

active forest management plays in sustaining wildlife populations 

dependent on young forest habitats. Today, active forest management through the use of commercial forest provide the only realistic opportunity to maintain the range of forested habitats needed 

to sustain wildlife diversity. Unfortunately, this act of forest management, especially on our National Forests, has fallen well behind 

forest management goals, as you have heard today. As a result, 

young, deciduous forest habitats, those less than 20 years old, have 

decreased by 33 percent over the past decade and has had a significant effect on wildlife habitats. 

In 2007, the American Bird Conservancy listed the early successional deciduous forest habitats in the eastern part of the country 

as one of the nation’s 20 most threatened bird habitats. The dense, 

young forests that provide important protection from predators and 

feeding areas for young birds are being lost at an alarming rate. 

In the absence of fire, even-age silvicultural systems are the most 

appropriate method of regenerating young forest habitats. However, acreage treated using even-age silvicultural prescriptions on 

National Forests in the East has declined by 52 percent since 1995. 

49

In the past 10 years, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 

in northern Wisconsin, one of the most actively managed forests in 

the eastern region, has only met 28 percent of its Forest Plan goals 

for aspen forest type; 28 out of 100 percent is failure in any test 

I have ever taken and it is a failure here, too. And we are currently 

behind on over 17,000 acres in the Forest Plan of aspen forest communities. No species can tolerate this 72 percent drop in habitat. 

Really only through a balanced approach to forest stewardship, 

an approach that recognizes the ecological necessity of periodic disturbance today impacted primarily through commercial forest management, can the needs of our forest wildlife resources be adequately addressed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zimmer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY ZIMMER, CERTIFIED WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST®, 

COORDINATING WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY, LAONA, WI 

Mr. Chairman:

I am a lifelong resident of Northern Wisconsin and live within the boundaries of 

the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (NF). Since 2000, I have been a Wildlife 

Biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society, a nonprofit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to improving the environment for ruffed grouse, American woodcock, 

and other forest wildlife. Eighteen years prior to that, I was a U.S. Forest Service 

employee on the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, the majority of those years as a District 

Wildlife Biologist. From both inside and outside the organization I have seen the 

impacts that a reduction in forest management on our National Forests has had on 

some wildlife populations. 

Periodic forest disturbance is essential to maintain healthy forest ecosystems. Vibrant populations of a diverse array of forest wildlife are critical components of 

healthy forests. In order to maintain the full array of forest wildlife, a landscape 

must support the full array of forest habitats—forests of various types and various 

ages—very young, very old, and ages in between. Today, wildlife dependent 

upon young forest habitats, sustained only through active forest management, are declining as a result of reductions in management of these habitats.

Throughout time across North America, disturbance events have shaped the composition, structure, and distribution of wildlife habitats and, therefore, of wildlife 

populations. Changes in disturbance regimes beyond the range of natural variability 

due to man’s actions, or lack thereof, can affect the sustainability of wildlife populations on altered landscapes. Disturbance agents historically affecting vegetative 

communities included fire, wind, ice storms, disease, insect infestation and grazing. 

Since the early 20th Century, society has worked to minimize the effects of fire on 

the landscape through rigorous suppression in an effort to safeguard lives and property. Today, active forest management through the use of commercial timber harvest provide the only realistic opportunity to maintain the range of forest habitats 

needed to sustain wildlife diversity. 

In February 2007, the American Bird Conservancy classified early successional 

deciduous forest habitats (young forests) in the eastern United States as one of the 

nation’s 20 most threatened bird habitats. Throughout the eastern United States 

today, young (1 to 20 years old) deciduous forest habitats have decreased by 33% 

over the past several decades, while total forest land has increased by approximately 7%. In the absence of fire, young forest habitats are sustained primarily 

through the natural succession of open lands to shrub-dominated fields or through 

the use of silvicultural treatments in existing forest stands. Even-age silvicultural 

systems (clearcut, seed tree, two-aged, shelterwood) are the most appropriate methods to create young forest habitats. 

Acreage treated using even-aged silvicultural prescriptions on National Forests in 

the East has declined by 52 percent since 1995. Over the past 10 years, the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, one of the more actively managed Forests in the Service’s 

Eastern Region, has only met 28% of its Forest Plan goal for aspen management, 

a critical early successional forest species, and is currently over 17,000 acres behind 

in managing its aspen forest communities. Neither we nor the suite of wildlife speVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
50

cies that utilize this important young forest habitat can tolerate a 72% drop in 

available habitat. 

Thick, young forest habitat provides protective cover from predators for many 

wildlife species that are being negatively impacted by a decline in forest management. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Action Plan identifies 27 vertebrate Species of Greatest Conservation Need with declining or vulnerable populations associated with young forest and shrub-like habitat. Included in 

this list are the Kirtland’s warbler, a Federal Endangered Species found primarily 

in regenerating jack pine forests less than 15 years old in Michigan and Wisconsin. 

There are currently an estimated 1,800 breeding pairs of Kirtland’s warblers in the 

world—as compared to 2,260 breeding pairs of northern spotted owls in the U.S. 

alone. The Huron-Manistee NF in central Michigan supports approximately half of 

the global population of the Kirtland’s warbler. 

The New England cottontail rabbit is a candidate for protection under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act. Once found across the Northeast, the New England cottontail rabbit has seen its range shrink by 86% since 1960 as the thicket habitats it 

requires become less and less abundant. 

Another bird found only in young forests and shrub-like habitats is the goldenwinged warbler, a bird petitioned for Federal listing under the Endangered Species 

Act in 2010. It is estimated that 78% of the continents golden-winged warbler population resides in the upper Midwest and is dependent on young aspen forests and 

other shrub-like habitats. The Great Lakes National Forests include some of the primary sources of golden-winged warbler populations in the entire United States and 

some of the last opportunities to halt the downward decline. 

Over 40 species of songbirds in the Eastern United States are considered dependent on young forest habitat. More than half of the 187 species of neo-tropical migratory songbirds that breed in the Midwest use shrub or young-forest habitats to some 

degree during the breeding season. Breeding Bird Survey data document that bird 

species dependent upon shrub-dominated and young forest habitats are approximately twice as likely to be experiencing population declines in the Eastern United 

States as are birds that breed in mature forests. 

Wildlife that rely upon young forest habitats also include the ruffed grouse, the 

state bird of Pennsylvania, and the American woodcock, two important game species 

pursued by over one million sportsmen and women each year in North America. 

These hunters have a significant economic impact, spending an estimated $500 million in local communities. 

Without a doubt, a diverse landscape that includes a wide array of forest ages and 

forest types is essential for the survival of a litany of species. National Forests and 

other public forestlands play an important role in the conservation of wildlife dependent on young forest habitats. Only through a balanced approach to forest stewardship, an approach that recognizes the ecological necessity of periodic disturbance, 

today imparted primarily through commercial forest management, can the needs of 

our forest wildlife resources be adequately addressed. 

Well-intended laws and regulations including the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have guided the management of our National Forests for many decades but have been used by some to 

strangle the agency. It took the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF 8 years and thousands 

of staff hours to complete their latest Forest Plan revision in 2004. As Forest Plan 

implementation began nearly every resource management project that involved timber harvests was appealed and litigated by a single environmental group. Legal 

challenges have resulted in continuing forest health issues, a failure to protect the 

forest from damaging agents and as noted earlier, a significant decline in young forest habitats. The National Forest system is the only publicly owned forest system 

in many eastern states currently lacking third party certification. This is due in 

large part to legal challenges delaying the implementation of approved management 

activities for sustainable forestry. The cost for the Federal Government to implement NEPA on National Forests exceeds well over $300 million annually. 

We must increase the use of active forest management on National Forests if we 

are to safeguard wildlife that requires young forest habitats. We must reduce the 

ability of groups or individuals to tie up habitat management activities for years 

and years at little cost to them, but at a very high cost to those that live and work 

in the vicinity of the National Forests and to the taxpayers of this great nation. 

These forests provide some of the last opportunities to maintain essential 

young forest habitat as an important part of the biodiversity of our National Forests and meet the social and economic demands of the public.

Thank you for your time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Zimmer. 

51

We will now proceed with 5 minutes of questioning, and I will 

take the first 5 minutes. 

Mr. Hoover, you mentioned in your testimony that additional research in identifying suitable natural enemies, pheromones, and biological controls for the emerald ash borer is greatly needed. Has 

there been any success on these fronts? And also what successes 

have there been with other invasive species that you can recount? 

Mr. HOOVER. Well, to effectively manage forest pests, we really 

don’t have the tools in the way of chemical materials, so what 

needs to be relied on and what has been effective are those successes where parasitoids and predators have been released targeting the gypsy moth. There is a rearing facility, USDA facility in 

Brighton, Michigan, that is rearing three parasitoids, two larval 

parasitoids, and one egg parasitoid of the emerald ash borer. In 

Pennsylvania just last year, there were three release sites made of 

those natural enemies of the emerald ash borer. In 2012, there is 

successful establishment and evaluation will be taking place. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the long-range effective management of 

many of these invasive pests in our forests is hinged to establishing 

effective natural enemies to keep their populations at tolerable levels. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. In your experience, has there been 

research—research obviously is incredibly important in this area in 

terms of our previous discussion, the invasive species can change 

the entire characteristic of a forest having all kinds of ramifications. Has there been a positive research partnership between institutions of higher education, private organizations, industry, state 

governments, and Federal Government? And particularly, what has 

the collaboration been that you have seen with the U.S. Forest 

Service on invasive species both in terms of prevention and suppression? 

Mr. HOOVER. It has been my experience in Pennsylvania, we 

formed—instead of having task forces that addressed each individual invasive pest, those have all been consolidated into a Forest 

Pest Council that is made up of state and Federal Government 

agencies, which includes the Forest Service out of their Morgantown office. My experience has been that collaboration between 

state and academia with the Forest Service has been very good in 

the way of human resources, in the way of experimental materials 

that need to be evaluated on a statewide basis. So it has been my 

experience that the Forest Service role in research regarding 

invasives has been what you would want in the way of an interaction that benefits state governments and our National Forest, as 

well as state and private forests. 

The CHAIRMAN. The method of transport appears to be where it 

is carried in. You know, in another situation in California where 

logs were imported and now there is significant outbreak of a specific invasive species—I know in my own National Forest, there are 

signs about, use the firewood that you find; don’t carry wood in and 

out. And I know your role with the agriculture extension, how important is education in terms of preventing invasive species from 

being inadvertently introduced into an area? 

Mr. HOOVER. Well, Mr. Chairman, from a frustrated former biology teacher, I regret to say we have a scientific illiterate society. 

52

And what cooperative extension’s role is is to try to educate the 

public as to the impact of unintentional movement of firewood that 

is infested with invasive wood-boring insects. And so again in collaboration with funding that supports publications, USDA Forest 

Service, along with regulatory agencies have been trying to make 

inroads along with Penn State cooperative extension in the case of 

Pennsylvania trying to provide outreach programming. 

I can give you one specific example where I provided some training to our county extension office. One of the people present there 

was a blogger and they put the information on emerald ash borer 

up on their blog, and lo and behold, someone saw it and said I 

think I have that in my backyard. And as it turns out, the regulatory agencies went there and indeed they had emerald ash borer 

about 30 miles south of State College in Lewistown, Pennsylvania. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I will now recognize Mr. Ribble, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Mr. Barth, thank you for taking the long trip from 

Oregon all the way to Washington, D.C. You had quite a distance 

to come. I think we could transplant you into northern Wisconsin 

and you would feel right at home based on your testimony. We 

could probably transplant you to Pennsylvania or to Florida and 

you would feel right at home. Do you believe this is a national 

problem, the description that you made of your county? 

Mr. BARTH. Absolutely, just listening to some of the comments 

made by the Subcommittee Members, it certainly resonated with 

everything that we deal with on a daily basis. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I would like to invite you sometime to come to northern Wisconsin. I think you would find it beautiful. And our lakes 

and streams are something else. And Representative Schrader and 

Representative Walden who you mentioned in your testimony and 

I have spoken often about the issues in your forest, in ours, and 

they compare very favorably or unfavorably depending on your perspective. 

Mr. Zimmer, thank you for coming from northern Wisconsin. I 

know that you have been a lifelong resident up there and you have 

really dedicated pretty much your entire professional life from your 

college days all the way to today. I would almost describe you as 

an environmentalist. You care about our National Forest, you care 

about the habitat, you care about the wildlife, and yet when I hear 

from the national environmental movement and they contact me, 

they would paint somebody like Mr. Watkins as a person who 

wants to rape and pillage for profit. What has having lived in 

northern Wisconsin having managed those forests, seen the current 

Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest under the National Forest Service 

management and also seeing private land management, what recommendations would you have for Congress and for the Forest 

Service to better achieve their forest management goals? 

Mr. ZIMMER. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you introducing me also today. 

I think three things that really stick out in my mind, one is better accountability. And the accountability has to come down to the 

forest supervisor and regional forester levels at least, but they are 

better held accountable to planned goals and targets rather than 

53

just funded. We recently got the monitoring plan from the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet. It has taken a long time to put together, but 

they came out and they constantly said in there, we achieved our 

funded targets. That is doing the job on the ground. I did hear 

Chief Tidwell mention earlier about wildlife habitat goals in the 

new planning regs, and I hope those goals are carried down in 

something before supervisors have to hold on to. And also things 

like making jobs or retaining jobs in the community should be a 

targeted goal, not just those funded things that come down. 

I think also these forests need better flexibility. You mentioned 

clearly in your statement earlier the forest at ChequamegonNicolet now has over 300,000 million board feet available that is 

through the NEPA process but hasn’t increased their sell hardly at 

all. They have plenty of people in the NEPA, in the planning shop. 

Let’s shift that shop now as any industry as this gentleman over 

here. This gentleman would shift his industry to get things done 

out there. And by doing that, it may not have to cost you a dollar 

more, but we can shift the needs to implementers instead of planners now and even stop the need for anymore NEPA for about 2 

or 3 years on that forest. 

Mr. RIBBLE. How would you advise us and how would you advise 

the nation’s environmental movement that seems to have similar 

goals? I mean they want robust forests; they want habitat. Where 

is the disconnect happening? Is it that they don’t have the science 

or there is a disagreement on science? What is the problem here? 

Why can’t you all get along? 

Mr. ZIMMER. That is a million-dollar question I think. I think it 

is some want it all and I think that is a big part of it. When the 

Forest Service did the last planning process that took nearly 8 

years on the Chequamegon-Nicolet, they tried their darndest to 

work closely with these environmental groups, especially the group 

in Madison which has been the constant appeals in litigants to the 

plan. And they tried their darndest and the result was 40 percent 

of the forest was off-limits to any type of active forest management. 

In my thinking if I got even 40 percent in my ballpark, I would be 

kind of happy. Instead, they weren’t; they wanted more. So they 

want it all. 

They want to actually shut down commercial forests thinking 

that that is a bad thing, and in my mind from a wildlife habitat 

standpoint, at least have some young forest, have some old forest, 

and have all those stages in between. And to have that end of the 

spectrum that meets the needs of young forest, we definitely have 

to have forest management and the use of commercial timber harvest. I understand it. I think those that live in your district understand it but there are a few folks or a few organizations that don’t 

understand that yet. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, would you yield an additional 3 minutes? Thank you. 

Going along the lines since you have had so much experience in 

the National Forest Service yourself, the next round of Forest Plan 

revisions are coming up on the horizon. Right now, in your role at 

the Ruffed Grouse Society, how active do you and your members 

plan on being in that? Will you participate in the hearings? And 

what role does your organization play in that? 

54

Mr. ZIMMER. It is hard to justify to my boss that while we spent 

8 years in discussions to get the last plan through, the result was 

a significant reduction in the target goals—about 1⁄3 reduction in 

the targeted goals for aspen management, which was key to our 

group. It also resulted in about 40 percent of the forest closed to 

harvest and now, even though we did all that work and cooperated 

with the Forest in the management planned discussions, we are 

only getting 28 percent of our aspen targets at this current time. 

Putting that all together, my boss is not too happy with me devoting a lot more time to that. 

And, one other thing I can say is for years, groups, conservation 

organizations, and industry state the Department of Natural Resources and others have been close partners with the National Forests. I think a lot of those partners have been forgotten or lost. And 

in our part of the world, as you know, you want to stick with your 

friends because they should always be there for you. It is tough to 

be a partner and a friend right now to this agency. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes. I was with a constituent not too long ago and 

he asked me, he said, Congressman, do you trust me? And I said, 

well, sure, I trust you. He said, then give me your wallet. And so 

I reached in my pocket and I gave him my wallet. He proceeded 

to pull out a Sharpie and he wrote on my wallet. And it says, develop a sense of urgency. Did you hear that, Mr. Southerland? 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I got it. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Develop a sense of urgency. This is a constituent 

that wrote it on my wallet so every time I open it every single 

day—do you think our Forest Service needs a sense of urgency? 

Mr. ZIMMER. Yes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and recognize my good 

friend from Florida, Mr. Southerland, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I did not 

know that was on the inside of his wallet when I made my comments a few moments ago. 

But thank you all very much for coming. And I find your testimony fascinating and very helpful. And I commend the Chairman 

for this panel and this hearing today. 

You know, Mr. Zimmer, much of your comments were regarding 

culture. And so much of the time we spend as Members, we talk 

about at hearings about symptoms. And we appropriate money towards symptoms but we never get to the core of what the problem 

is. And I found your comments fascinating because you were very 

honest today in your tenure and your retirement and that you left 

an organization that you felt was time to leave. But so many of the 

challenges that I hear you state really deal with a culture that 

really needs a controlled burn to go all the way through it. 

You know, down in north Florida, we have controlled burns down 

pretty well. We have great organizations like Tall Timbers that are 

doing some incredible research to maintain a sustainable forest 

where humans and the environment can get along. I would throw 

out a congratulatory thanks to what they do. You talked about 28 

percent that in any test you have ever taken that represents failure. Twenty-eight percent here in this culture and you get an 

attaboy and you get more dollars appropriated. That is nuts. So I 

55

can see why you wanted to exit. And the sense of urgency that my 

colleague mentioned, it is clearly something that we do not see. 

And that is really just a statement as I listen to your honest testimony today and thank you very much. 

Mr. Hoover, you made some fascinating statements and I enjoyed 

reading through your testimony educating me on some of the issues 

that you find that are very, very disturbing. What would a private 

landowner do by comparison to what the Federal Government is 

currently doing regarding invasive pests? And is there anything 

they could do or should do? You know, what does success look like? 

But really is there a good way that maybe a private landowner 

could and should do compared to what the government is doing regarding invasive pests? 

Mr. HOOVER. I assume, Congressman Southerland, that when 

you said private, you mean a private forest landowner——

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Yes. 

Mr. HOOVER.—or a residential situation? 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Yes. 

Mr. HOOVER. Because as I said, there are complete different 

strategies and tools that exist between a landscape and a forest. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Sure, but I mean I know that we have individual landowners that own sizeable investments and they believe 

in aggressive forest management plans. And there may be nothing 

different I guess, but is there something different that someone 

who didn’t have to deal with the culture that would say you know 

what? There is a need, we are going to meet it today, get it done. 

Mr. HOOVER. Yes, and you are absolutely correct. That is what 

a private landowner has in the way of abilities to use in any state 

based on your question the extension system that is associated 

with every land-grant institution where in Pennsylvania, as an example, we extension foresters who would go out and help a landowner write a management plan for their forestland based on what 

their personal goals are. And those goals may be growing 2x4s——

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. 

Mr. HOOVER.—habitat for wildlife, or aesthetics. And so to compare Federal forest land management with a private landowner if 

they are indeed informed has the ability or maybe more accurately 

the flexibility to bring about management or effective management 

when compared to some of the restrictions that are put on Federal 

landowners or the management of Federal lands. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Very good. Very good. Are we going to have 

another round or could I have just—okay. Thank you very much. 

Now, you mentioned earlier, it is hard right now to be a partner 

and a friend. I would say that to the Service—and I would say oftentimes you have to start. If you are going to have a partner, you 

are going to have a friend, you have to start with a mutually 

agreed-upon goal. What is the purpose of our friendship, of our 

partnership? And unfortunately, I think that we enter into efforts 

assuming that we all have the same common goal. And we don’t, 

which is apparent because if you cared about these rural schools, 

if you cared about these rural communities, then you certainly 

would act in a more concerted effort to increase the hardest rates 

in a management plan. You would sit down and work together. 

56

And that brings me to my next point. Chuck Watkins, again, 

thank you for being here. You know, one of the owners of the family was here last year—Caroline was here to testify and she made 

some statements regarding some things that I found interesting as 

I look back over her testimony. She claimed that there were some 

things, some solutions that could be pushed forward. I am interested in the FFRC’s position on some of the things that she mentioned. She mentioned that, for example, one of the things that 

could be done is streamlining environmental documentation and 

outsourcing fieldwork would get foresters out of the office and into 

the field. That was one thing. 

Number two, including a resource advisory committee. Now, we 

mentioned the word partnership, and to have a resource committee 

where you had participants and stakeholders that worked together 

on a management plan since it is the people’s forests and the taxpayers’ forests. That is a novel idea. 

And then last, that we should require selected National Forests 

to test the feasibility of timber programs self-financing as is now 

done in DOD land. But those were some of the things that I know 

we heard from last year. What does the Coalition think of some of 

these ideas in order to really get us where we need to be in a management plan? 

Mr. WATKINS. Well, the first topic you mentioned were the NEPA 

rules and the costs of those rules. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Yes. 

Mr. WATKINS. You know, if you think of forest and trying to manage the forest efficiently, and when I mean efficiently I mean economically. If you put a lot of effort, there are some instances in certain forests in this country where we spend millions of dollars on 

administration and a NEPA process to just decide we are not going 

to cut, that we are not going to cut that timber, we are not going 

to harvest that timber, or to just cut a lot less of it. In some instances, 70 percent of the value is spent on administration or 

NEPA rules. We spend more on NEPA and those rules than we do 

management of the forest, on state forestry, on education. So, the 

big thing we prefer is we make a plan together. 

So, for example, the Apalachicola Forest, we put a 10 year plan 

together, we do our documentation on our NEPA rules on that and 

follow the plan, streamlined, efficient, it is an economy of scale like 

any good business would do or perform. So in that process, that is 

where we stand. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Well, I think that there is a difference and 

a business owner who is sweating a payroll and working as hard 

as they can, I have often said that our family loves 40 hour workweeks. That is why we squeeze two into every 7 day period. And, 

we understand the difference between activity and productivity. 

Mr. WATKINS. Yes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. It sounds like the culture that is inside of 

many of the agencies and departments of the Federal Government. 

They are interested in activity but they do not know what true, 

positive, healthy productivity really looks like. And so I would say 

before spinning your wheels in working in a partnership—and I 

commend you for wanting that partnership—we have to have a 

clear, concise goal. Why do we exist? What is our purpose? Don’t 

57

spin your wheels. Don’t allow a Federal bureaucracy to eat up your 

time, your resources without that definition. Why do we exist? And 

what does success look like? 

I thank you all for caring and coming here to educate us and we 

need that. And I commend you. We want to be partners with you 

to do what is right for our rural communities and for healthy forests. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, I just commend you on the hearing 

today. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. We will take the opportunity for another round of questions. 

Mr. Barth, I want to start with you. You discussed your work 

with stewardship contracting. In addition to seeing a 25 percent 

share of revenue go to localities, what other changes would you like 

to see to the program? 

Mr. BARTH. Well, some of the concerns with the stewardship contracting and the value is that the revenues stay on the land. I 

think the challenge is, though, that none of the revenue is shared 

again with the locals. And I don’t necessarily know that that is a 

sustainable long-term strategy as well. I think we are even starting 

to hear from our stewardship alliances that if we don’t have more 

productive force economically, we won’t have long-term revenue for 

stewardship. 

Right now, we a very successful Dump Stoppers Program that we 

consider part of our stewardship as well. It is partners with private 

and Federal landowners to clear up illegal dump sites throughout 

all of our wilderness and forested areas. We use our funding from 

our Timber Harvest Program to match grant funding from the 

agencies. Both of our funding streams are at risk now because of 

the Secure Rural Schools payment issues as well as kind of the 

lack of productivity in the harvest. So, it kind of goes hand-inglove. I think we need to have productive, healthy, sustainable forests that regenerate in order to produce the revenue for us to do 

the conservation and the stewardship efforts on the preservation 

lands. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Zimmer, how important is forest diversity? That is what you 

were describing in one of your last responses, having forest in 

many different stages of development and really only evident to me 

through proper management to have that forest diversity. How important is that to wildlife habitat? 

Mr. ZIMMER. Well, to get the full array of wildlife species, some 

require very old forests, some require very young forests, and some 

require those in between or those that replace them. And in our instance, when we are talking about the range of species that utilize 

young forest habitat, that includes over half of the neotropical migratory birds in our part of the world. I think there are 187 listed 

in Midwest, neotropical migratory birds. At least half of them use 

young forest habitats at least some time during the breeding season often to hide their young and to feed their young even if they 

are in older habitats. You need kind of a mosaic; you need different 

sizes; you need the whole ball of wax out there to really truly meet 

the needs of all the wildlife species, at least all of the wildlife species found in our forests. 

58

If you just concentrate on going to one extreme and that is done 

artificially in a sense when we are restricting harvest and restricting disturbance to our forest, we do that with our fire suppression 

efforts especially in the eastern part of the country. So it comes 

down to if we are going to think about those species that need that 

younger end of the spectrum, we are going to have to use this forest management. At the same time, we have to look at these species that utilize older forests and older forest communities. So a 

nice mix of habitats and types of forests out there is essential to 

have the full range of forest wildlife species. 

The CHAIRMAN. And in your opinion that would be consistent 

with good, healthy——

Mr. ZIMMER. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN.—production of timber? 

Mr. ZIMMER. Correct. And commercial forest management is a 

key component of that. It is a key tool. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Watkins, why do you believe that we are not 

harvesting as much on National Forests as each plan generally 

calls for? 

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Thompson, I don’t know the answer to that 

question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. In your time in northwest Florida, what 

has been the overall trend in terms of the health of the National 

Forests? Any observations on that? 

Mr. WATKINS. The forests—like I said, we are cutting a very 

small amount of the growth. The mortality rate is six times the cut 

rate, as you mentioned in Oregon as well. I believe they are actively managing the health of the forest. However, when the densities increase to that level, there is certain habitat there that it 

affects. It certainly creates issue with fire protection and control 

and insect and disease control. So that density has increased over 

30 percent, and that creates problem, particularly when the Forest 

Service tries to control burn of the understory of the forest. It 

makes it extremely difficult. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having 

to step out for a little bit. 

Mr. Zimmer, I actually appreciate your comments. In Oregon 

through this O&C National Forest Service Plan we are trying to 

develop as a delegation, trying to look at the stage which seems to 

be lacking in our state so we get that continuum of biodiversity to 

make it conducive to the panoply of species that are out there. 

Just say if you can real quick your comment on—we have a spotted owl issue out where we come from and so a few years back we 

set aside large swaths of old growth forest which seem to be their 

preferred habitat. Recent data has come in and Fish and Wildlife 

has concluded that that hasn’t helped at all. And indeed, the species is on an accelerated decline. The answer to that was to set 

aside more old growth forest. That doesn’t sound smart to me. 

There is also apparently another species of barred owl that is a 

predator on the spotted owl, at least on their habitats. Does it 

make sense to you to set aside vast amounts of forest when we already concluded through the study that the increased forestland, 

59

old growth, wasn’t really the answer at all? I am not saying we 

shouldn’t have old growth forest, don’t get me wrong, but to increase it even more when that didn’t work in the first place, your 

comment? 

Mr. ZIMMER. Yes, Congressman. One thing, I am not a spotted 

owl expert——

Mr. SCHRADER. Fair enough. 

Mr. ZIMMER.—but I am aware of the influence of the barred owl 

on the spotted owl and it appears at least at this time to be more 

of a factor in the limitations on the populations of spotted owl. It 

is going to be tough to justify having more, as you say, having more 

acreage of old growth for spotted owl. I would hope that when we 

are looking and those that are looking at the Forest Plans in your 

area address that and look at the whole community and the whole 

value of those forests and those that play an important role for 

spotted owl and spotted owl management be maintained——

Mr. SCHRADER. Yes. 

Mr. ZIMMER.—but if it is not needed or isn’t doing the job, that 

decision has to be made by——

Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate your commonsense approach. Hopefully, people will get religion in Oregon and adopt some of what you 

are suggesting here. 

Mr. Watkins, you list in your prepared testimony some recommendations that you thought would be pretty helpful, in terms 

of reducing costs and getting better results. Is the National Forest 

Service implementing them? 

Mr. WATKINS. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Okay. Which speaks volumes. Okay. I would just 

make a comment on Mr. Barth’s testimony, which I appreciate and 

maybe just reiterate what he talked about. On less than 3,000 

acres their annual revenue goal which they seem to get is about 

$750,000. And in our neighboring Mt. Hood forest of 1.1 million 

acres, basically 300 times the size of acreage that Mr. Barth and 

my county manage, they get 1⁄3 of the revenue he gets, about 

$275,000. I think that is a dramatic statement, Mr. Chairman. And 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I now yield to my friend 

from Wisconsin for an additional 5 minutes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to come back 

to Mr. Zimmer. 

You know, since about 1970, there has been a kind of ever-increasing amount of Federal involvement in our forests and in our 

environmental issues, an ever-increasing regulatory burden all 

with the intent of actually improving things at the Ruffed Grouse 

Society would kind of support from my understanding that the 

whole idea here was to make those habitats better. Has kind of the 

onslaught of regulations improved things or not? 

Mr. ZIMMER. Regulations——

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes. 

Mr. ZIMMER.—improved things? 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes. 

Mr. ZIMMER. Well, I am not sure. I think really common sense 

is better. Let us use the specialists we have out there. The Forest 

Service on the Chequamegon-Nicolet is blessed or has been blessed. 

60

In fact, it is the envy of the state folks that they can go to one office and get specialists from all around, trained professionals that 

could do the best management of the job. The state folks often have 

to call others in from academia or find some specialist in another 

state or something like that to help them with an issue, which the 

Forest Service has those professionals. Why do we need more and 

more regulations to hinder the work of people that are paid and 

have the training to do the job? I think that is where it makes 

sense to me to limit the regulations and have the people who are 

your employees—or our employees, the people the taxpayers hire to 

do the best job and limit the restrictions on those people to do that 

job. I worked with many of those folks, top-quality people, many of 

them are frustrated at all the regulations that they have in place. 

And I may say that in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 

plan in 2004, I believe it has 368 standards and guidelines are in 

place to regulate the management of any action on the forest. It is 

endless. And the pages in each document for a site-specific project 

that just shows how many other little things they have to cover is 

just way, way too much. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Watkins, I am assuming that in your line of 

work you have to comply with a number of Federal agencies on the 

regulatory standpoint. What should we as Members of Congress be 

doing? We want to make sure that we have clean air, clean water, 

forests that actually work and produce, but what role have regulations played in your business and what should we be looking at 

doing here? 

Mr. WATKINS. Well, for example, Mr. Zimmer mentioned the SFI, 

that Sustainable Forestry Initiative. That is what we do. Our company is certified, our practices, by our certification, are more stringent than I understand the Forest Service’s own regulations are 

and we don’t have issues. We don’t spend these volumes of dollars 

on administrative tasks where they seem to have to do that. And 

I don’t quite understand that. I would say streamline that process 

and eliminate that overburdening items that are just not necessary. There are other private industries that use certification programs that don’t do that or don’t cost or put that burden on companies. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Surely there is a profit incentive for you to manage 

the forests that you are involved in in a way that is sustainable, 

is that correct? 

Mr. WATKINS. Oh, certainly. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I mean at the end of the day, then, maybe the objectives could actually be met, couldn’t they, that we could have a sustainable forest that is environmentally sound and profitable and 

provides some benefit to the taxpayer? 

Mr. WATKINS. Absolutely. That is the perfect way to do it. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Very good. Thank you. 

And I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

And I want to thank both the Members and the members of the 

panel, the witnesses for coming here, bringing your expertise and 

your specific individual expertise. I thought we had a great diversity on this panel all focused on healthy forests and in the end our 

healthy rural communities. I appreciate everyone’s patience. We 

61

took some liberties in terms of the amount of questions that we did, 

didn’t adhere too well to the clock, but this is a pretty important 

topic that I don’t think we have talked about near enough and deserves a tremendous amount of vetting. We certainly did well 

today, bringing your expertise here to Washington to be able to 

offer that to help us as we look at future forest policies. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to 

any questions posed by a Member. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and 

Forestry is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

62

63

SUBMITTED LETTER BY MARCIA H. ARMSTRONG, SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 5, SISKIYOU

COUNTY, CA 

March 27, 2012

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, 

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Re: Additional comments submitted in connection with today’s hearing on forest 

health, including timber harvests, wildlife management, invasive species, and the 

U.S. Forest Service’s planning rule.

To Whom It May Concern:

My following statements will describe:

(1) In detail, how our local economy and public health and safety has declined 

precipitously since the advent of the Northwest Forest Plan, the listing of various endangered species, and implementation of other environmental and land/

water management regulations;

(2) The scope of environmental and land management regulations that affects 

access to and the continued productive use of local natural resources for the economic benefit, health, safety and enjoyment of local communities;

(3) Certain specific international credos, policies, platforms and programs that 

have unduly influenced various Administrations, the scientific community, Federal agencies, and influential environmental groups;

(4) How those international agendas have been specifically implemented in 

Siskiyou County;

(5) An Appendix showing timber harvest trends for the past two decades on several of our local National Forests.

Siskiyou County joins with other western counties in asking for your assistance 

in:

(a) restoring balance to the management of our National Forests;

(b) recognizing the direct relationship between active forest management and 

multiple use and the economic health, cultural vitality and prospects of our 

local communities and Counties;

(c) mandating a real and substantive voice for local government to communicate local needs and provide input on the management of our Federal lands;

(d) recognizing the value of retaining our surviving timber infrastructure and 

the need for a stable supply of material for our wood products industries;

(e) stepping up the pace and scale of wildland fuel reduction in the name of 

public safety (H.R. 1485 Herger Catastrophic Wildfire Community Protection 

Act [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1485])—providing and 

supporting new opportunities for biomass utilization; and

(f) passing reforms to the Equal Access to Justice Act so that a handful of 

special interests from outside our area cannot hold the active management of 

our National Forests hostage for profit. 

Background on Siskiyou County and its Economy 

Sixty-three % (63%) of the land base in Siskiyou County is in Federal (or state) 

ownership. There are portions of the Klamath National Forest; Shasta-Trinity National Forest; Six Rivers National Forest; Modoc National Forest; and Rogue 

Siskiyou National Forest in Siskiyou County. The Klamath National Forest’s 1.7 

million acres alone comprises 42% of Siskiyou County’s land base. The KNF has 

381,100 acres allocated to wilderness, 396,600 acres allocated to late-successional reserves for the northern spotted owl and old growth species and another 458,000 

acres allocated to riparian reserves for species such as salmon. 161,500 acres are 

designated an Adaptive Management Area. The remaining 300,000 acres (approx. 

17.6% of KNF lands) are ‘‘matrix lands’’ or general forest where timber harvest may 

be conducted, (although not all matrix lands are even technically suitable for timber 

production.)

(Ref: Charnley, Dillingham, Stuart, Moseley, and Donoghue (2008) Northwest 

Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the 

Klamath National Forest and Three Local Communities Northwest Forest Plan.

General Technical Report PNW–GTR–764, August 2008 [http://www.fs.fed.us/

pnw/pubs/pnwlgtr764.pdf])

64

The county also includes the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges, as well as the Lava Beds National Monument. There are various BLM lands 

administered by the Redding, Medford, Ashland and Susanville BLM offices. There 

are lands held in tribal trust for the Karuk and Quartz Valley Indian tribes. 

The entire land base of Siskiyou County is 4,038,843 acres or 6,287 square miles. 

Of this, 1,153,246 acres is in farmland, however only 138,000 acres of these are irrigated. 2,525,216 acres is considered rangeland/woodland/ forest. Our population of 

44,301 classifies the county as ‘‘frontier.’’ There are nine small incorporated cities 

that date back to the California Gold Rush. 

All communities in Siskiyou County are listed on the August 17, 2001, Federal 

Register (Notices) as ‘‘Urban Wildland Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of 

Federal Lands That Are at High Risk From Wildfire.’’ Approximately 3.2 million 

acres in the county are in a high, very high or extreme fire hazard severity zone. 

There have been 564 fires in the county since 2005 that burned 330,000 acres and 

caused in excess of $3.6 million in property damages. The fifth largest fire in California since 1932 occurred in Siskiyou County in 2008. The Klamath Theater Complex fire, which started by lightning, burned 192,038 acres and caused two fatalities. 

Since the year 2000, the county has seen an average of 95 wildfires a year with an 

average of 55,000 acres burned each year. The value of buildings and contents exposed to damage by wildfire are $1,855,175,933 in moderate fire areas; $964,520,981 

in high risk fire areas; and $1,346,823,331 in very high risk fire areas. In total, 671 

critical public structures are located in areas at risk of wildfire. 

The economy of Siskiyou County is based on small business. In 2008, there were 

6,857 non-farm proprietors in Siskiyou County. According to 2007 data, 61% of nonfarming establishments in Siskiyou County had less than 4 employees; 82% had less 

than 10 employees and 93% had less than 20. The Small Business Association has 

documented that the cost of regulations hit small businesses disproportionately 

hard. 

In the year 2000, the average unemployment rate for the year was 7.5%. By 2008, 

it had risen to 10.2%, rising again to 15.8% in 2009. In January of 2012, the unemployment rate was 18.6%, ranking Siskiyou 53rd out of 56 counties in the state. 

There are many forest-dependent communities in our county where local unemployment is estimated from 30–40%. The average wage per job in 2008 was $32,707. 

That was only 63% of the state average. The median household income was 

$36,823—or 60% of the state median. Non-household median income is currently 

$27,718—a ranking of 47th in the state. The AP Economic Stress Index ranks 

Siskiyou County as the 14th most economically stressed county in the United 

States. 

Agriculture is a major economic sector of the county. Our 2010 Siskiyou County 

Annual Crop and Livestock Report indicates that the agricultural valuation in the 

county was $195,711,956 (gross and excluding timber.) According to the USDA Ag 

Census, in 1992 Siskiyou County had 647,446 acres in farms. By 2007, this had 

been reduced to 597,534 acres. In 2000, there were 895 farm proprietors in Siskiyou 

County. This declined to only 730 in 2008. The county lost 81 livestock ranches from 

1992 to 2007, with an accompanying loss of 20,882 fewer cattle and calves in inventory. According to the CA D.O.T. Siskiyou County Economic Forecast, since 1995, 

Siskiyou County’s agriculture industries have experienced substantial job loss of 

about 586 jobs, declining almost 45%. 

During the past 20 years, there has also been a restructuring of size and sales 

in agricultural operations. Since 1992 to 2007, there has been an increase in the 

number of small farms: farms under 10 acres doubled to 80. Farms under 50 acres 

increased 59% to 229. Farms 50–179 acres increased 27% to 228. Farms from 180–

449 acres remained about the same at 79. However, there was a 19% reduction in 

farms 1,000 acres or more to 100 farms in 2007. One aspect of this is land conversion from private to Federal lands. Since 1999, 8,625.71 acres valued at $3,922,179 

have been converted to Federal land. Another 11,236 acres of ranch land in the 

Shasta Valley is currently proposed for conversion to a new wildlife refuge. In addition, the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement seeks to convert 44,479 

acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin to wetlands, (some of which may be 

in Siskiyou County.) It also proposes to secure 21,800 acres of farmland by acquisition or conservation easements in the Scott and Shasta Valleys of Siskiyou County. 

At the same time, farms having less than $2,500 in sales increased 105% to 359. 

Farms selling $2,500–$9,999 stayed about the same at 151. Farms selling $10–

$24,999 decreased 10% to 95. Farms selling $25,000–$49,999 decreased about 18% 

to 60. Farms selling $50,000 to $99,999 decreased 45% to 44 and farms with sales 

in excess of $100,000 increased by 28% to 137. 

Siskiyou County accounts for 15% of the timber harvested in California. At one 

time, it was the second largest timber production area in the state. However, our 

65

forest industries have been devastated by Federal and State regulations. For instance, the forestry section of Siskiyou County’s 1972 Conservation Element of the 

General Plan indicated that there were 17 sawmills in the county (employing 2,055 

people or 24% of the employment base) and 8 wood processing facilities (employing 

294 people or 3% of the employment base). There were 46 logging contractors and 

support establishments employing 501 people or 5% of the employment base. By 

2007, all 17 sawmills were gone. The census indicates that there were a total of 6 

wood products manufacturing establishments (including veneer mills) employing 380 

people (one mill has subsequently closed in Butte Valley). There were 38 Logging, 

Forestry and Support Establishments employing 157 employees. 

There is no doubt that the restrictions on timber harvest from public lands under 

the Northwest Forest Plan have played a significant role in this decline. In 1978, 

239 MMBF of timber was harvested from the Klamath National Forest (KNF), 274 

MMBF from the Shasta Trinity National Forest (STNF) and 73 MMBF from the Six 

Rivers National Forest (SRNF.) In 2008, 20 MMBF was harvested from the KNF, 

22 MMBF from the STNF and 8 MMBF from the SRNF (see Appendix A). 

The Klamath National Forest alone went from having 636 employees in 1993 to 

441 in 2003, a loss of 31%. This job loss was related to a decline in the forest budget 

of 18% between 1993 and 2002 and had a strong impact on local employment opportunities. Declining budgets and staffing caused some of the KNF’s Ranger District 

offices to close or consolidate in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2002, the KNF spent 

a total of $44.5 million procuring land management services. Most of this spending 

(64%) took place between 1990 and 1993. After 1993, contract spending on the KNF 

dropped off sharply. Between 1990–1992 and 2000–2002, contract spending declined 

78%.

(Ref: Charnley, Dillingham, Stuart, Moseley, and Donoghue (2008) Northwest 

Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the 

Klamath National Forest and Three Local Communities Northwest Forest Plan.

General Technical Report PNW–GTR–764, August 2008 [http://www.fs.fed.us/

pnw/pubs/pnwlgtr764.pdf]) 

Regulatory Environment in Siskiyou County 

Siskiyou County has suffered through more than its share of environmental regulations and has experienced long-standing regulatory fatigue. 

* Several local species have been listed under the state and Federal endangered 

species acts: bald eagle; great gray owl; Lost River and shortnose sucker fish; northern spotted owl and associated old growth species, including those under ‘‘survey 

and manage’’; northern CA coastal coho salmon; vernal pool fairy shrimp; Shasta 

crayfish; delta smelt; California red-legged frog; western yellow-billed cuckoo; western pond turtle; Siskiyou salamander; Scott Bar salamander; California wolverine; 

Swainson’s hawk; peregrine falcon; greater sandhill crane; Sacramento splittail fish; 

bank swallow; marbled murrelet; northern goshawk and Oregon spotted frog (candidates.) We have also experienced endangered species reviews of the green sturgeon; Pacific lamprey; Pacific fisher; steelhead trout; McCloud redband trout; and 

spring, fall, and winter run chinook salmon (currently under additional review in 

the Klamath River System and proposed for re-introduction in the Sacramento River 

system in Siskiyou County.) Consultations and opinions are a regular factor in the 

delay of processing timber sales, water quality and other permits. Endangered Species provide rich fodder for outside of the area environmental litigation, particularly 

on National Forest projects.

• Forest Litigation by out-of-county Environmental Groups mostly on the Klamath National Forest projects:

1998 Upper South Fork Timber Sale—Klamath Forest Alliance (KFA) Appeal 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1998/fy98l0075.htm]

1998 Little Horse Peak Research Timber Sale—KFA Appeal [http://

www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1998/fy98l0011.htm]

1998 Jack Timber Sale—KFA, Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center (KSWILD), 

Wilderness Coalition, ONRC Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1998/fy98l0103.htm]

1999 Bald Elk/Hard Rock Timber Sale—KFA Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/

r5/ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99l0013.htm]

1999 Happy Thinning Sale—KFA Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/

appeals/1999/fy99l0014.htm#correction]

1999 Little Deer/Davis Cabin YG Timber Sale—Forest Guardians (FG) Appeal 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99l0019.htm]

66

1999 Bogus Thin Chip Timber Sale—FG Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99l0020.htm]

1999 Kelly Pass YG Timber Sale—FG Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99l0021.htm]

1999 Twice Helicopter Timber Sale—KFA Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99l0075.htm]

2000 Salmon River Flood Road Damage Project—KFA Appeal [http://

www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2000/fy00l0022.htm]

2001 East Fire Salvage Project—KSWILD Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/2001/fy01l0039l40.htm]

2001 Jones CT Timber Sale—National Forest Protection Alliance Appeal 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2001/fy01l0056.htm]

2002 Knob Timber Sale—KFA, KSWILD, Environmental Protection Center 

(EPIC) Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2002/fy02—

0035.htm] [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2003/fy03-0020-

21.htm] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920116/posts]

2003 Beaver Creek—KSWILD EPIC KFA Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/2002/fy02l0035.htm]

2003 Little Grider Fuelbreak—EPIC Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/2003/fy03-0029.htm]

2003 Five Points Timber Sale—KSWILD Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/2003/fy03-0034.htm]

2004 Westpoint Westpoint Vegetation Treatment Project—KSWILD EPIC 

Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2004/fy04-0006.htm]

2005 Meteor Timber Sale—KSWILD, EPIC, American Lands Alliance, 

Cascadia Wildlands Project Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2005/fy05-0004.htm] [http://www.envirolaw.org/cases/

Meteor%20First%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf]

2005 Pomeroy Timber Sale—KSWILD Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/2005/fy05-0015.htm]

2005 Elk Thin Timber Sale—KSWILD Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

ecoplan/appeals/2005/fy05-0023.htm]

2006 Tamarack Timber Sale—KSWILD, Calif. For Alternatives To Toxics Appeal [http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/timber%20appeals.htm]

2007 Tennant WUI Hazardous Fuel Reduction—KSWILD Appeal [http://

users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/timber%20appeals.htm]

2007 Happy Camp Fire Protection Phase 2 (HFRA)—KSWILD Objection 

[http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/timber%20appeals.htm]

2007–08 Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project (Shasta Trinity NF)—KFA, 

Conservation Congress lawsuit [http://dmd-plt.ecosystem-management.org/

appeals/displayDoc.php?doc=VjFab1EyUXhjRmhTYms1cVpXNU9OVl 

JXVWxkYWF6RnhWbGhuUFE9PQ==]

2008 First Creek Forest Health Project—American Forest Resource Council 

Appeal [http://dmd-plt.ecosystem-management.org/appeals/

displayDoc.php?doc=VjFab1EyUXhjRmhTYms1cVpXNU9OVlJXV 

WxkYWF6bFZXbnBKUFE9PQ==]

2010–2011 Elk Creek/Panther Salvage—KSWILD, EPIC, KFA, Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit [http://www.leagle.com/

xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020110325169.xml 

&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR]

• Use of the Federal forest lands of the county, particularly for timber harvest, 

has been severely reduced by the Northwest Forest Plan and Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The current critical habitat designation for the northern spotted 

owl is anticipated to sequester more land from harvest (see previous section on 

economy and Appendix A).

• In 2001, The Biological Opinions for sucker fish and salmon, shut down the 

headgates for water delivery to Federal Klamath Water Project farms. This 

caused mass economic hardship with farmers losing their farms and migrant 

farm workers becoming stranded without work. Protests were held at the 

headgates and a civil disobedience event called the ‘‘Bucket Brigade’’ drew 

20,000 people.

67

• With the concurrent Federal and state listing of the SONCC coho salmon, an 

attempt was made to create a programmatic incidental take permit (ITP) and 

watershed-wide streambed alteration permit. This was challenged by environmentalists and the permit defeated in court as not being restrictive enough. 

With some of the oldest water rights in the state dating back to the 1850–70s 

allocated by long-standing adjudications, permitting requirements and imposed 

conditions are being used in an attempt to redirect private water to instream 

flows for fish. Currently, two lawsuits are underway regarding permitting for 

irrigation diversion and the regulation of groundwater use under public trust 

for fish. Just this week, an environmental group filed a notice of intent to sue 

a municipal water district to remove an earthen dam under the claim that it 

‘‘takes coho salmon.’’

• Recently, a Federal agent from NOAA accompanied by a state fish and game 

warden in full armed flack jacket regalia visited a local rancher on a complaint 

by an environmentalist that they had dewatered a stream through irrigation, 

therefore ‘‘taking’’ listed coho. The rancher was told they were looking into 

whether to prosecute the rancher civilly or criminally. For the past several 

years, many public hearings on fish and water issues now take place with 

armed game wardens present.

• In 1996, the ‘‘17 rivers’’ lawsuit against the U.S. EPA and the SWRCB (CA 

State Water Resources Control Board) brought water quality regulation to the 

county’s major northern water-bodies (Klamath, Scott, Shasta, Salmon Rivers.) 

The lawsuit directed the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads for sediment, temperature, dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Considerable (expensive) efforts must be made to reduce sediment sources from roads. Tailwater recapture 

and recycling systems are being installed and one irrigation district has been 

given a mandate of donating a portion of its adjudicated water right to instream 

flows for fish. New requirements throughout the Klamath River system will require permits for irrigated agriculture.

• Siskiyou County was also among the counties impacted by the state legislature’s moratorium on suction dredge mining for gold—an important historic industry to the area. Gold miners are unable to exercise their Federal mining 

rights.

• Local agricultural operations have been affected by the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. This protected mountain lions, which are a livestock and 

wild game predator. Local deer herds have been decimated by predation, depressing a once robust tourism opportunity for hunters. Depredation permits 

are issued annually and sheep operations have been particularly affected. 

Siskiyou County is the first county in California to see a gray wolf stray into 

its environs—another dangerous predator. Environmentalists have already petitioned the state for protection of the species.

• In 1996, the Federal Government initiated plans to acquire additional lands. In 

1998, the National Forests commenced road decommissioning and implemented 

buffers of non-use around wilderness areas. In 1999, the Presidential ‘‘roadless 

policy’’ was implemented to declare additional areas off limits. This impacted 

the Klamath National Forest which had scheduled an Annual Planned Offer 

from Inventoried Roadless Areas of 1.49 MMBF, which was 4% of Average Volume Offered, 1996–1998. The Shasta Trinity National Forest had an Annual 

Planned Offer from Inventoried Roadless Areas of 3.68 MMBF, or 6% of Average Volume Offered, 1996–1998. Last year, local USFS began another round of 

road recognition, leading up to abandonment and decommissioning of additional 

roads. In 2003, a road that had been closed had to be re-opened for wildfire 

fighting. Its condition contributed to the death of eight firefighters when the engine rolled.

• ‘‘Rangeland Reform’’ restricted traditional use of public land grazing allotments 

for century-and-a-half-old local ranches. In addition, the State Board of Forestry 

has further restricted the management and use of private timber lands. Integrated Pest Management has affected lease lands on Federal refuges. Five-hundred-foot pesticide use restrictions will soon affect riparian farmlands on salmon 

streams.

• There are more than 152 miles of wild and scenic rivers in the County.

• Large areas of northern Siskiyou County have been under discussion for designation as National Monuments. In 2000, President Clinton declared the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument over the border in Oregon. This was originally proposed to include a portion of northern Siskiyou County, but was locally 

opposed. Documents appear to indicate that the Obama Administration is again 

68

considering expanding the Oregon Monument into Siskiyou. Also, a second 

200,000 acre National Monument appears to have also been put forth for consideration, known as the ‘‘Siskiyou Crest.’’ This is widely opposed by local residents. Periodically, expansion of our already substantial Wilderness Areas in 

Siskiyou County has been proposed. For instance, in 2007, the proposed California Wild Heritage Act, S. 493, proposed the addition of 64,160 acres to the 

more than a quarter of a million acre Marble Mountain Wilderness; 19,360 

acres to the 12,000 acre Russian Wilderness; and 51,600 acres to the 19,940 Red 

Butte Wilderness in Siskiyou County. This would have brought Wilderness 

right to the edge of Wildland Urban Interface areas. Portions of the 525,000 

acre Trinity Alps Wilderness and the 182,802 acre Siskiyou Wilderness also fall 

into Siskiyou County. Also, the Castle Crags Wilderness and Mt. Shasta.

• Siskiyou County is the home of three of the four hydroelectric dams on the 

Klamath River that a bi-state group of several parties, including Federal agencies, wants removed. Siskiyou County does not want the dams removed. There 

has already been some litigation on this and it is likely that there will be more. 

Despite: (1) several local water adjudications with continuing jurisdiction by the 

Superior Court; (2) the Klamath River Basin Compact between the States of Oregon and California, ratified on April 17, 1957 which delegates in-county, non 

Federal project jurisdiction over surface water to the Siskiyou County Water 

Conservation District; and (3) state law which leaves jurisdiction over groundwater use to the county; the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement 

(KBRA) establishes a new chartered regional governance structure called the 

Klamath Basin Coordinating Council (KBCC). The Council will implement the 

KBRA resource, water management and fisheries restoration plan in contravention of County and District jurisdiction. The KBCC will include Federal and 

state agencies, tribal representatives, two counties (not Siskiyou,) certain Klamath Project water districts, environmental and commercial fishing groups.

• The Bureau of Reclamation has included the Klamath River system in its 

WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) program [http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/bsp/]. A study will look at the impacts of climate change on water resources and develop potential adaptation 

strategies. The program will create another multi-party regional group to manage water. Although a letter has been sent to the Bureau of Reclamation asking 

for coordination with the Siskiyou Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Siskiyou County, it has been ignored. 

Sustainable Development, Ecosystem Management, Biodiversity and Rewilding 

The American system of policymaking has a clear set of principles governing the 

relations between various actors in the process. Congress, acting on the preferences of the voters who elected it, makes laws that establish the objectives 

for programs. Administrative agencies, with Congressional grants of authority 

and appropriations of funds, implement the objectives established by Congress. 

In pursuing their statutory mandates, agencies are expected to marshal expertise, from both within and outside the agency. The role of the courts is to ensure 

that agencies do not deviate from their statutory mandates.

—Congress and the Administrative State by Lawrence C. Dodd, Richard L. 

Schott, 1979

This section uncovers the reasons for the confusion felt by Counties when comparing the statutes with current Forest Service management direction. It explains 

where we seem to have gone off track and why our National Forests no longer contribute much to the social and economic well-being of local communities and rural 

Counties. It explains why our National Forests experience huge, severe fires that 

threaten forest communities and leave our summers choked with smoke. For some 

reason, we no longer appear to be governing or managing for the people and human 

communities. It is like people are now a parasite to be protected against. 

It is why the proposed Planning Rule stated:

The requirements for ecological sustainability would require responsible officials 

to provide plan components to maintain or restore elements of ecological sustainability. The requirements for social sustainability would require plan components to guide the unit’s contribution to social and economic sustainability. 

sets of requirements recognizes the Agency has more influence over the factors 

that impact ecological sustainability on NFS lands (ecological diversity, forest 

health, road system management, etc.) than it does for social and economic sustainability (employment, income, community well-being, culture, etc.). National 

69

Forest System lands can provide valuable contributions to economic and social 

sustainability, but that contribution is just one in a broad array of factors that 

influence the sustainability of social and economic systems.

Congress authorized presidents of the United States to reserve certain forest 

lands from the public domain by what is now called the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, 

and provided for management of these forest reserves by the Organic Act of 1897:

‘‘. . . to improve and protect the forests . . . securing favorable conditions of 

water flows, and furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of United States citizens.’’ In a later court decision, the court ruled that 

the Secretary of Agriculture may also consider the economic well-being of the 

citizens of a state wherein timber is located in administering national forest 

lands ‘‘for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.’’

As the National Forest System evolved to its current size of almost 193 million 

acres, the U.S. Forest Service managed these lands to provide an increasingly wider 

range of multiple uses and benefits in terms of commodity and amenity resources 

for the American people. Later, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 

(MUSYA) provided that the plans for forest management ‘‘. . . shall provide for 

multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the National Forest System’’ [36 CFR § 200.1(c)(2) (1997). Section 219.1] and that administration of the Forests should be ‘‘. . . for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife 

and fish purposes . . .’’ Multiple-use was defined as ‘‘management of all the various 

renewable surface resources of the National Forest System so that they are utilized 

in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.’’ Sustained 

yield was defined as the ‘‘achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level 

annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the National 

Forest System without impairment of the productivity of the land.’’ [36 CFR § 219.3 

(1997)] 

In 1970, the Bolle Report criticized the Forest Service’s emphasis on timber production and its reliance on clearcutting, and a court decision against the Forest 

Service in the Monongahela National Forest clearcutting case lead to the subsequent passage of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). A fatal flaw in the 

1976 NMFA opened the door to management according to an international platform 

never intended by Congress. NFMA requires that forest planning ‘‘provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the 

specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives’’ [16 U.S.C. sec. 

1604(g)(3)(B)]. Congress ordered the Forest Service to set a goal of diversity in developing its forest plans, but it did not define the meaning of diversity. 

In 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Regulations [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html#Fish%20and%20

wildlife%20resource] for developing forest plans transformed this general guideline 

into a stringent requirement: Sec. 219.19 Fish and wildlife resource ‘‘Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and 

desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, 

a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be 

maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of 

reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. fish and wildlife habitat 

shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species in the planning area.’’ Sec. 219.26 Diversity. ‘‘Forest planning shall provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species 

consistent with the overall multiple-use objectives of the planning area. Such diversity shall be considered throughout the planning process.’’

That regulation directs that effects of alternative management plans be measured 

by ‘‘management indicator species’’ (both vertebrate and invertebrate species) because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management 

activities. The second management directive included a requirement that ‘‘management prescriptions . . . shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal species, so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a 

natural forest.’’

This regulation would eventually lead to a fundamental transformation of forest 

policy when Judge Dwyer ordered the Forest Service to develop ‘‘revised standards 

and guidelines to ensure the northern spotted owl’s viability’’ by March 1992. Then 

Dwyer proceeded to reject the Forest Service’s attempt to adopt the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address Conservation of the Spotted Owl report of 1990, reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
70

quiring the agency to address viability issues related to other species in addition to 

the spotted owl, which led to the creation of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). In developing a response, the Forest Service relied on the 

new science of conservation biology, which had helped to formulate an international 

agenda. Although the act was explicitly designed as a multiple-use statute, the implementation of its viability regulations forced the agency to subordinate timber production and other economic outputs to the preservation of ecosystems.

Ref: Science, Politics, and U.S. Forest Law: The Battle over the Forest Service 

Planning Rule. George Hoberg, June 2003, Discussion Paper 03–19 [http://

ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10604/1/dp030019.pdf] 

U.S. Involvement in an International Platform 

See: History of Dialogue Related to U.S. Government Commitment to Sustainable Forest/Resource Management—Updated October 2002 by Ruth McWilliams 

of the USDA-Forest Service [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/history-updatedoct02.rtf])

1968—UNESCO held a Biosphere Conference on ‘‘ecosystems’’ and ecological planning. Recommendations were to establish natural areas for the preservation of species. 

1970—The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program established a statutory framework for a world network of biosphere reserves. The reserves were to contain three 

elements: one or more core areas securely protected for conserving biological diversity; a clearly defined surrounding buffer zone used for compatible sound ecological 

practices; and an transition area that might contain agriculture activities or settlements where resources are managed collaboratively on a sustainable basis. This pattern was later to be followed by the USFS in the designation of Late Successional 

and Riparian Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas and Matrix Lands. 

1980—The World Conservation Strategy—Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development [http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/WCS-004.pdf] was 

formulated as an international framework for the preservation of species and sustainable development by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

and Natural Resources (IUCN) in cooperation with the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), FAO and UNESCO. 

1983—UNESCO and UNEP jointly convened the First International Biosphere 

Reserve Congress in Minsk, in cooperation with FAO and IUCN. The Congress’s activities gave rise in 1984 to an Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves which was formally endorsed by the UNESCO General Conference. 

1987–88—The Brudtland Commission Report, or Report of the World Commission 

on Environment and Development: Our Common Future [http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm] popularized term ‘‘sustainable development.’’ It defined sustainable development as ‘‘. . . development that meets the needs of the present 

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’’

Note how this is reflected in the current stated USFS mission: ‘‘The mission of 

the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.’’ That is not the mission as stated by the Organic Act or MUSYA. 

1990—Congress directed the Forest Service under The Global Climate Change 

Prevention Act to establish an Office of International Forestry under a new and separate Deputy Chief in the Forest Service to assume a greater role in international 

environmental affairs.

International Forestry, a new ‘‘leg’’ of the Forest Service (along with the National Forest System, Research, and S&PF), was established in 1991 to coordinate and cooperate with other countries on matters dealing with forestry and 

the environment. Although previous programs had worked closely with other 

countries to provide expertise and experience in these matters, the International Forestry program area has given higher priority to engaging in dialogue and cooperation with other countries to solve global resource problems. 

The 1992 signing of the Forest Principles and Agenda 21 at the United Nations 

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)—the ‘‘Earth Summit’’—was coordinated by this new branch of the agency. [http://

www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/firstlcentury/sec8.htm]

1990—The USFS shifted emphasis from ‘‘sustained yield to sustaining ecosystems’’ including ‘‘biological diversity and ecological function’’ or ‘‘ecosystems’’ as 

exemplified in a paper by USFS research scientists entitled ‘‘New Perspectives for 

Sustainable Resource Management’’ (by Kessler, Salwasser, Cartwright and Caplan 

71

(1992) Ecological Applications, Volume: 2, Issue: 3) also known as ‘‘New Forestry’’ 

or ‘‘ecosystem management.’’

1991—‘‘Caring For The Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living’’ [http://

coombs.anu.edu.au/∼vern/caring/care-earth5.txt] was published by the IUCN—The 

World Conservation Union, UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme, and 

WWF—World Wide Fund For Nature. Items included: 4.1. Adopt a precautionary 

approach to pollution; 4.3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 4.5. Adopt an integrated approach to land and water management, using the drainage basin as the 

unit of management; 4.6. Maintain as much as possible of each country’s natural 

and modified ecosystems; 4.8 protect large areas of old-growth forest; 4.9. Complete 

and maintain a comprehensive system of protected areas. 

1991–1992—A series writings from USDA Forest Service employees described 

changes happening at the USFS. ‘‘Research in a New Role’’ by Winifred B. Kessler, 

Asst. Director for Research and Development, New Perspectives Staff, USDA Forest 

Service, states:

The research goal for New Perspectives is to enhance the scientific basis for 

managing the national forests and grasslands in an ecologically sound and socially acceptable manner. New Perspectives presents new research and management challenges that must be addressed from a whole-system perspective. The 

new challenge is to sustain the integrity of landscapes and ecosystems with 

their diverse values, rather than simply sustaining a flow of use outputs . . . 

Increasingly, scientists must take a landscape-level approach in the study of 

ecosystems and natural resource interactions. The time has never been better, 

as new developments in remote sensing and geographic information systems 

provide unprecedented capability for landscape-level research. [http://

www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew910322]

In addition in 1992, Dave Iverson talks about ‘‘ecosystem management’’ and ‘‘overcoming organizational sickness’’ in ‘‘Building Quality into National Forest Management’’ [http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew921014]. 

1992—

The Forest Service participated in a January 1992 conference called ‘‘Defining 

Sustainable Forestry.’’ This conference was attended by ‘‘[e]cologists, foresters, 

economists, and sociologists.’’ The purpose of the conference was to develop the 

idea of ecosystem management. The participants’ ideas were reduced to chapters in a book entitled Defining Sustainable Forestry which was updated and 

published in 1993. In a chapter written by Forest Service officials, the Forest 

Service outlined ‘‘four principles to guide the evolution of ecosystem management’’:

1. Protect land health by restoring or sustaining the integrity of soils, air, waters, biological diversity, and ecological processes, thereby sustaining what 

Aldo Leopold (1949) called the land community and what we now call ecosystems.

2. Within the sustainable capability of the land, meet the needs of people who 

depend on natural resources for food, fuel, shelter, livelihood, and inspirational experiences.

3. Contribute to the social and economic well-being of communities, regions, 

and the nation through cost effective and environmentally sensitive production and conservation of natural resources such as wood, water, minerals, energy, forage for domestic animals, and recreation opportunities, again within 

sustainable capability of the land.

4. Seek balance and harmony between people, land, and resources with equity 

between interests, across regions, and through generations, meeting this generation’s resource needs while maintaining options for future generations also 

to meet their needs.

(from The U.S. Commitment to Agenda 21: Chapter 11 Combating Deforestation—The Ecosystem Management Approach, Susan Bucknum. [http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=delpf])

1992—

The first objective of a strategy for conserving biodiversity must be the development of national and international policy frameworks that foster the sustainable use of biological resources and the maintenance of biodiversity. Additionally, national networks of protected areas must be strengthened and expanded 

to cover all key biomes and ecosystems, and the management objectives of proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
72

tected areas must be harmonized with those for the surrounding ecosystems 

and human communities.

(from Global Biodiversity Strategy Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use 

Earth’s Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably; World Resources Institute 

(WRI), The World Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP), in consultation with Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO), United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO) ‘‘Building a Sustainable Society: The Context for Conserving Biodiversity.’’ [http://pdf.wri.org/globalbiodiversitystrategylbw.pdf])

1992—Rio Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush signs the Framework 

Convention on Climate Change, endorses the Rio Declaration [http://www.un.org/

documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm], the Forest Principles [http://

www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm], and adopts Agenda 

21 [http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/reslagenda21l00.shtml] on behalf of 

the United States of America. This was coordinated by the new International Forestry branch of the U.S. Forest Service. 

Agenda 21 Section II, Conservation and Management of Resources for Development, Chapter 11, Combating Deforestation, Section A: Sustaining the multiple 

roles and functions of all types of forests, forest lands and woodlands is [http://

www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/reslagenda21l11.shtml]. 

According to Hal Salwasser et al., (in Salwasser, Hal; MacCleery, Douglas W.; 

Snellgrove, Thomas A. 1993. An ecosystem perspective on sustainable forestry and 

new directions for the U.S. National Forest System. In: Aplet, Gregory H.; Johnson, 

Nels; Olson, Jeffery T.; Sample, Alaric V.; eds. Defining Sustainable Forestry. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 44–89) Section A posed a mandate for change to U.S. 

Forest Service policy. The historic management policies of the Forest Service 

‘‘focus[ed] on producing and renewing selected resources (such as timber, game fish, 

and livestock forage) or single sectors of forest-related enterprises (such as wood 

products, recreation, and cattle industry).’’ The selected-use policies only considered 

sustaining certain resources and not protecting the forest as a whole. In order for 

the United States to fulfill its commitment to Chapter 11, it needed to assess its 

management directives and implement sustainable management practices which 

was not management for multiple uses but rather for sustaining the forest ecosystem as a whole. The recommended ‘‘activity’’ for attaining sustainable management was to adopt planning techniques that protect the biodiversity of a forest. 

Agenda 21 Section II, Section A, Chapter 11.4 required data collection as to land 

classification, land use, forest cover, endangered species, ecological values, traditional/indigenous land use values, biomass and productivity, correlating demographic, socioeconomic and forest resources information. GAP Analysis—Land use 

classification and biological assessment [http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gap-analysis/

] was later used as a tool to identify areas for set asides/roadless/wilderness and for 

private land regulation or acquisition. 

Agenda 21 Section II, Section B has the major goal for nations to plan for the 

maintenance of their forests as a whole, and not for consumption of particular resources. Enhancing the protection, sustainable management and conservation of all 

forests, and the greening of degraded areas, through forest rehabilitation, 

afforestation, reforestation and other rehabilitative means was specified in Chapter 

11.13:

(b) Establishing, expanding and managing, as appropriate to each national context, protected area systems, which includes systems of conservation units for 

their environmental, social and spiritual functions and values, including conservation of forests in representative ecological systems and landscapes, primary old-growth forests, conservation and management of wildlife, nomination 

of World Heritage Sites under the World Heritage Convention, as appropriate, 

conservation of genetic resources, involving in situ and ex situ measures and undertaking supportive measures to ensure sustainable utilization of biological resources and conservation of biological diversity and the traditional forest habitats of indigenous people, forest dwellers and local communities.

(c) Undertaking and promoting buffer and transition zone management;

This is the Man and Biosphere system of core areas, buffers and transition areas. 

Prior to the adoption of Agenda 21, the U.S. Forest Service’s management objectives were directed toward providing for multiple-use and sustained yield of resources via the Multiple Use—Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (Public Law 86–517). 

Multiple-use management means managing renewable surface resources so that 

they are utilized in a way that best meets the needs of the American public. It does 

not include consideration of effects on sustaining biodiversity.

73

Ref: The U.S. Commitment to Agenda 21: Chapter 11 Combating Deforestation—

The Ecosystem Management Approach, Susan Bucknum [http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=delpf].

From the Rio Declaration, Annex III Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement 

of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests [http://www.un.org/documents/ga/

conf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm]:

Preamble (d) These principles reflect a first global consensus on forests. In committing themselves to the prompt implementation of these principles, countries 

also decide to keep them under assessment for their adequacy with regard to 

further international cooperation on forest issues . . .

Principles/Elements 1.(b) Forest resources and forest lands should be 

sustainably managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations.

Principles/Elements 3.(a) National policies and strategies should provide a 

framework for increased efforts, including the development and strengthening 

of institutions and programmes for the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests and forest lands.

Principles/Elements 8.(e) Forest management should be integrated with management of adjacent areas so as to maintain ecological balance and sustainable 

productivity.

Principles/Elements 8.(f) National policies and/or legislation aimed at management, conservation and sustainable development of forests should include the 

protection of ecologically viable representative or unique examples of forests, including primary/old-growth forests, cultural, spiritual, historical, religious and 

other unique and valued forests of national importance.

Principles/Elements 13.(c) Incorporation of environmental costs and benefits 

into market forces and mechanisms, in order to achieve forest conservation and 

sustainable development, should be encouraged both domestically and internationally.

1992–1993—President Bush did not sign the Convention on Biological Diversity 

in 1993. It was signed by President Clinton in 1994, although never ratified by 

Congress. From Article 8. In-situ Conservation [http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-08]:

(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need 

to be taken to conserve biological diversity;

(b) Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection, establishment and 

management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be 

taken to conserve biological diversity;

(c) Regulate or manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological diversity whether within or outside protected areas, with a view to ensuring their conservation and sustainable use;

(d) Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance 

of viable populations of species in natural surroundings;

(e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas;

(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of 

threatened species, inter alia, through the development and implementation of 

plans or other management strategies; 

* * * * *

(i) Endeavour to provide the conditions needed for compatibility between 

present uses and the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use 

of its components;. 

* * * * *

(l) Where a significant adverse effect on biological diversity has been determined, regulate or manage the relevant processes and categories of activities.

This is the document upon which the infamous map [http://www.proliberty.com/

observer/20091223.htm] entitled ‘‘simulated reserve and corridor system to protect 

biodiversity’’ was based. 

1993—The Helsinki Conference defined ‘‘sustainable management of forests’’ as 

the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that 

74

maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality, and their 

potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic, and social 

functions, at local, national, and global scales, and that does not cause damage to 

other ecosystems. 

1993—The United States became a signatory to The Montreal Process [http://

www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/evolutionle.html]. Countries identified the following 

seven criteria as essential components in the sustainable management of forest ecosystems, as well as 67 different indicators specific for each criteria [http://

www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/rep-pub/1995/santiagole.html] (1) Conservation of biological diversity; (2) Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems; (3) 

Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality; (4) Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources; (5) Maintenance of forest contribution to global 

carbon cycles; (6) Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of societies; and (7) Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management. 

1993—Eldon W. Ross Associate Deputy Chief for Research, USDA Forest Service 

submitted a statement [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/ross-june-93.doc] to the Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe indicating that 

‘‘the United States believes that the conservation and sustainable management of 

forests is on of our most pressing global needs’’ and stating that:

At a Forest Congress held on April 2, 1993, wherein all interests were gathered, 

the President proposed this fundamental question related to harmonizing 

human, biological, and economic imperatives: ‘‘How can we achieve a balanced 

and comprehensive policy that recognizes the importance of forests and timber 

to the economy and jobs of this region, and how can we preserve our precious 

old-growth forests, which are part of our national heritage and that, once destroyed, can never be replaced?’’

This Forest Conference initiated an aggressive assessment, with ensuing announcements to be released this summer.

This situation is an example of a larger commitment by U.S. forest land management agencies towards implementation of Agenda 21. As announced in June 

1992, all U.S. Federal forests are to be managed using an ecological approach. 

This policy will continue to uphold multiple-use, but with an emphasis on blending the needs of people and environmental values—with the result that our national forests and associated ecosystems will be diverse, healthy, productive, 

and sustainable.

1993—Presidential Decision Directive/NSC–16 Environmental Policy on International Desertification, Forest Conservation and Fresh Water Security, The White 

House November 5, 1993 [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/pres-decision-11-

1993.doc] stated:

Our strategy includes bilateral programs to conserve forests and biodiversity 

and maintain existing carbon reservoirs, and support for appropriate activities 

in the proposed World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development, 

the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and other fora to foster international agreement on forest management . . .

The United States is committed to a national goal of achieving sustainable management of U.S. forests by the year 2000.

1993—Vice President Al Gore called for the Federal Government to adopt an approach for ensuring sustainable economic development while also sustaining the environment through ecosystem management. An accompanying report of the National 

Performance Review, Improving Environmental Management [http://

govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/env.html] concluded ‘‘The President 

should issue a directive that: establishes a national policy to encourage sustainable 

economic development and ensure sustainable ecosystems through ecosystem management . . .’’

The White House Office of Environmental Policy (OEP) took the lead for the Federal initiative on ecosystem management by establishing the Interagency Ecosystem 

Management Task Force (IEMTF) to carry out Vice President Gore’s mandate. 

The EPA published an internal working document (NPR) [http://

www.discerningtoday.org/members/Analyses/EPAlEcosystem.htm] outlining the 

Administration’s environmental strategy: Evaluating National Policies/International 

Obligations:

The Executive Branch should direct Federal agencies to evaluate national policies on environmental protection and resource management in light of interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
75

national policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to more effectively achieve international objectives. The State Department, USDI, EPA, 

USFS, NMFS, and other involved agencies should be directed to further develop 

national and international policies related to ecosystem management. In addition, the U.S. should to [sic] develop human population policies that are consistent with sustainable economies and ecosystems. Regional Landscape Planning: ‘‘EPA can take a number of actions that would stimulate land use planning by state and local governments in a constructive manner, and which would 

not result in an overly intrusive Federal role in land use planning. EPA should 

direct grants to states and local governments to form regional planning units 

around ecosystem protection and sustainability values. EPA should provide 

technical assistance to the state and local governments, and will develop a list 

of suggested criteria for use by the state and local governments in their planning decision making.’’

1993—When Congress refused to pass legislation to establish the National Biological Service [http://www.doi.gov/pfm/par/acct1995/ar1995nbs.pdf], DOI Secretary Babbitt unilaterally created it and shifted funding to it. In 1995, the NBS 

report Our Living Resources [http://archive.org/details/ourlivingresourc00unit] outlined trends on the distribution, abundance and health of U.S. plants, animals and 

ecosystems. 

1993—President Clinton created the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the President’s Council on 

Sustainability [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/] by Executive Orders. The Council 

adopted the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development: Towards a Sustainable America: Advancing Prosperity [http://clinton2.nara.gov/

PCSD/Publications/suscomm/indlsuscom.html], The Road to Sustainable Development: A Snapshot of Activities in the United States of America [http://

clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/Snapshot.html], Sustainable Communities 

Task force Report Fall 1997 [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf], 

and Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the 21st 

Century, May 1999 [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TFlReports/

amer-top.html]. 

1993—The Forest Ecosystem Management Team (FEMAT) was chartered (Northern Spotted Owl case). 

1994—The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) was chartered. 

1994—The Ecosystem Management Coordinating Group (IEMCG), focused the resources of 20 Federal agencies to achieve ‘‘comprehensive integrated resource management’’ on an ecosystem basis (see CRS Report to Congress [http://www.cnie.org/

NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv-4f.cfm]). 

1994—President Clinton signed Executive Order 12906, ‘‘Coordinating Geographic 

Data Acquisition and Access: the National Spatial Data Infrastructure’’ [http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12906.pdf]. (GAP Analysis) 

1994—United States GAO Report is issued on Ecosystem Management Ecosystem 

Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach

[http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152537.pdf]. 

1995—The GBA Global Biodiversity Assessment [http://

jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange02/kyoto/articles/

UNEP.pdf] is developed at the behest of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) with funding provided by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) 

provides a blueprint for implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Chapter 10.4—Measures to Conserve and Restore Ecosystems: Ecosystem conservation measures seek to limit human activities in limited geographic areas 

where they may adversely impact populations of species or interfere with ecosystem processes. The goal of conservation biologists is to use conservation 

measures in enough areas to protect a representative array of ecosystems and 

their constituent biodiversity.

10.4.2.1—Protected Areas Protected areas are defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity as ‘‘a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives.’’

10.4.2.2.2—Corridors in Fragmented Landscapes Biotic: movement in a fragmented landscape requires movements between individual fragments (protected 

areas). Corridors of native vegetation linking fragments are commonly seen as 

a solution to this.

10.4.2.2.3—Protection and Management of Fragments: The protection and management of fragments requires a reduction in the deleterious effects of matrixderived influences on remnants and an increase in the area and connectivity of 

76

habitat. This means that representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved, that blocks should be as large as possible, that buffer 

zones should be established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas. (This basic design is central to the ‘‘Wildlands Project’’ in the 

United States. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project land conservation strategy. 

WildEarth, Special issue, 1992).

10.4.4—Restoration and Rehabilitation Landscape restoration aims at improving the design of the existing system of fragments by increasing habitat area 

and connectivity, and by providing buffer zones around existing fragments to 

protect them from external influences.

1995—the President’s National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) established an Ecosystem Working Group. It concluded (1) that pursuit of improved quality of life often threatens the sustainability of ecosystems, (2) continued decreases 

in productivity and vitality of ecosystems which can result in increased deterioration 

of ecosystems that are incompletely understood, (3) the basis for human development has been the availability of healthy natural ecosystems and the resources they 

provide, and (4) that to sustain further human development, the ecological base to 

support it must be sustained. 

1995—The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework for the World Network 

of Biosphere Reserves [http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001038/

103849e.pdf] was completed under UNESCO:

1.1 1. Promote biosphere reserves as means of implementing the goals of the 

Convention on Biological Diversity.

1.1 2. Promote a comprehensive approach to biogeographical classification 

(GAP analysis) that takes into account such ideas as vulnerability analysis.

1.2 4. Link biosphere reserves with each other, and with other protected areas, 

through green corridors and in other ways that enhance biodiversity conservation, and ensure that these links are maintained.

2.1 2. Incorporate biosphere reserves into plans for implementing the sustainable use goals of Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

3.1 7. Integrate biosphere reserves into regional planning.

In 1996 UNESCO began Implementation of the Seville Strategy and Statutory 

Framework of the World Network of Biosphere reserves [http://www.iisd.ca/forestry/ipfhist.html]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) was established 

in 1995 by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development to follow 

up the UNCED recommendations on sustainable forest management. 

1995—The U.S. agreed to the Santiago Declaration [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/santiago3le.html], Statement on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests:

Affirming their commitment to the conservation and sustainable management 

of their respective forests . . . Endorse the non-legally binding Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and 

Boreal Forests annexed to this Statement as guidelines for use by their respective policy-makers . . .

1995—Fourteen Federal agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding to Foster the Ecosystem Approach (OEP 1996) [http://library.fws.gov/Pubs9/ecosystemlapproach98lfiles/introlprojconcept.htm].

The memorandum defines the ecosystem approach as A method for sustaining 

or restoring ecological systems and their functions and values. It is goal driven 

and it is based on a collaboratively developed vision applied within a geographic 

framework defined primarily by ecological boundaries. (Section 1 Definitions).

The goal of the Ecosystem Approach as stated in this interagency memorandum, 

was to: restore and sustain the health, productivity, and biological diversity of 

ecosystems and the overall quality of life through a natural resource management approach that is fully integrated with social and economic goals.

An Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force issues The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies Volume II Implementation 

Issues (Overcoming statutory and jurisdictional barriers to a unified approach) 

[http://www.denix.osd.mil/nr/upload/ecosystem2.htm]. 

1996—The President’s Council on Sustainability issues a report entitled Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and A Healthy Environment for the Future [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TFlReports/

amer-top.html]. This report outlined goals for ‘‘economic prosperity, environmental 

77

protection, and social equity together’’ (known as the 3 e’s). An Excerpt on Sustainable Forest Management, Chapter 5, Natural Resources Stewardship [http://

www.fs.fed.us/sustained/pcsd-1996.doc] includes the statement:

In 1992, during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, the United States announced its commitment to carry 

out ecosystem management on all Federal forest lands. And, at the Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in 1993 in Helsinki, the United 

States declared its commitment to the goal of achieving sustainable management of all U.S. forests by the year 2000.

1996—A Framework for Ecosystem Management in Interior Columbia Basin (including parts of the Klamath and Great Basin) was released. 

1996—The Secretary of Agriculture established Dept.-wide policy on Sustainable 

Development (Scty. Memorandum 9500–6) focusing on sustainable agriculture, sustainable forestry, and sustainable rural community development. 

1997—The President’s Council on Sustainability released Building on Consensus: 

A Progress Report on Sustainable America [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/ProgresslReport.html]. It recommended:

Fully Participate in International Sustainable Development Activities in 1997. 

Next year’s observance of the fifth anniversary of the Earth Summit in Rio will 

provide several opportunities for the United States to demonstrate continued 

international leadership on sustainable development. We encourage you to ensure that the U.S. government fully participates in these fora.

1997—The Rio Earth Summit+5 Resolution [http://www.un.org/esa/

earthsummit/] adopted by the General Assembly includes:

We reaffirm that Agenda 21 remains the fundamental programme of action for 

achieving sustainable development . . . Progress has been made in incorporating the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and 

Development—including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which embodies the important concept of and basis for international partnership; the precautionary principle; the polluter pays principle; and the environmental impact assessment principle . . . Economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development . . . . Sustainable development 

strategies are important mechanisms for enhancing and linking national capacity so as to bring together priorities in social, economic and environmental policies . . . In integrating economic, social and environmental objectives, it is important that a broad package of policy instruments, including regulation, economic instruments, internalization of environmental costs in market prices, environmental and social impact analysis, and information dissemination, be 

worked out in the light of country-specific conditions to ensure that integrated 

approaches are effective and cost-efficient. Unsustainable patterns of production 

and consumption, particularly in the industrialized countries, are identified in 

Agenda 21 as the major cause of continued deterioration of the global environment. While unsustainable patterns in the industrialized countries continue to 

aggravate the threats to the environment, there remain huge difficulties for developing countries in meeting basic needs such as food, health care, shelter and 

education for people. All countries should strive to promote sustainable consumption patterns; developed countries should take the lead in achieving sustainable consumption patterns; developing countries should seek to achieve sustainable consumption patterns in their development process, guaranteeing the 

provision of basic needs for the poor, while avoiding those unsustainable patterns, particularly in industrialized countries, generally recognized as unduly 

hazardous to the environment, inefficient and wasteful, in their development 

processes . . .

1997—The Nairobi Declaration [http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/86/

nairobi.html] of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on the Role and Mandate of UNEP is issued, in which the role of UNEP 

is confirmed as ‘‘the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, that promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the United Nations system and 

that serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment . . .’’

1997—Information Provided by the Government of United States to the United 

Nations Commission on Sustainable Development—Implementation of Agenda 21: 

Review of Progress Made Since the United States Conference on Environment and 

78

Development, 1992 [http://www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/usa-cp.htm] includes the 

statements: 

Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and Management of Land Resources 

. . . With respect to Federal lands, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

and the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) have embraced the Ecosystem 

Approach to land management. The Ecosystem Approach to land management 

entails a comprehensive evaluation of all natural resource areas when making 

land management decisions within both Federal and non-Federal territory . . . 

TNC [The Nature Conservancy] has also helped establish a network of ‘‘Heritage Programmes’’ which are in place in all fifty states. These programmes inventory endangered and threatened species and provide the scientific basis for 

prioritizing and guiding development away from critical habitat areas. The 

USDI National Biological Service (NBS) is establishing mechanisms to collect 

and assess biological information that will assist decision makers in developing 

management and protection strategies. 

Chapter 11: Combating Deforestation 

. . . The U.S. is moving forward to enforce its commitment to sustainable forestry by several measures, including: establishing an ecosystem approach to 

sustainable forest management, inventorying forest area by ecosystem, and adjusting the balance between environmental and commercial use of publicly 

owned lands. It also includes developing domestic criteria and indicators for 

sustainable management of U.S. forests and participating in the development 

of internationally agreed criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests.

1997—The Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 

adopted at the third Conference of the Parties makes explicit reference to land use 

change and forestry under several of its articles. 

1997—A Committee of Scientists is appointed ‘‘to provide scientific and technical 

advice’’ to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service on improvements that can be made in the National Forest System Land and Resource 

Management planning process. Instead, the Committee declared that ecological sustainability should be given priority over social and economic sustainability. In their 

report entitled Sustainability: The Overarching Objective of National Forest Stewardship (no longer available online) they wrote:

Accordingly, based on the statutory framework for the national forests and 

grasslands, the first priority for management is to retain and restore the ecological sustainability of these watersheds, forests, and rangelands for present 

and future generations. The Committee believes that the policy of sustainability 

should be the guiding star for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands to assure the continuation of this array of benefits . . . Sustainability is 

broadly recognized to be composed of interdependent elements, ecological, economic, and social. It operates on several levels. As a collective vision, sustainability means meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. As an approach to 

decision making, it calls for integrating the management of biological and ecological systems with their social and economic context, while acknowledging 

that management should not compromise the basic functioning of these systems.

In Ecological Sustainability: ‘‘A Necessary Foundation for Stewardship’’ is the 

statement:

Ecological sustainability entails maintaining the composition, structure, and 

processes of a system. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) establishes the goals of maintaining species’ diversity and ecological productivity; 

these goals are consistent with the concept of ecological sustainability. The 

Committee recommends that ecological sustainability provide a foundation upon 

which the management for national forests and grasslands can contribute to 

economic and social sustainability. This finding does not mean that the Forest 

Service is expected to maximize the protection of plant and animal species and 

environmental protection to the exclusion of other human values and uses. 

Rather, it means that planning for the multiple use and sustained yield of the 

resources of national forests and grasslands should operate within a baseline 

level of ensuring the sustainability of ecological systems and native species. 

79

Without ecologically sustainable systems, other uses of the land and its resources could be impaired.

1997—The fifth Council on Sustainable Development and the 19th Special Session 

of the UN General Assembly (UNGASS) endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Forests’ (IPF) outcome and recommended a continuation of the intergovernmental 

policy dialogue on forests. Subsequently, the UN Economic and Social Council 

(ECOSOC) established the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) to continue 

this work under the auspices of the CSD. In its final meeting in 1997, the UN Ad 

Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests recommended more than 150 Proposals for 

Action to the international community to address a range of forest problems that 

countries should address at the domestic level. The IPF Proposals cover five themes: 

(1) Implementation of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) decisions related to forests at the national and international levels; 

(2) International cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer; (3) Scientific research, forest assessment, and development of criteria and indicators for 

sustainable forest management; (4) Trade and environment in relation to forest 

products and services; (5) International organizations and multilateral institutions, 

and instruments, including appropriate legal mechanisms. See A Brief to Global 

Forest Policy [http://www.iisd.ca/process/forestldesertificationllandforestintro.htm]. 

1998—A UN Workshop on the Ecosystem Approach produced the Malawi Principles [http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4773E/y4773e0e.htm], twelve principles/characteristics of the ecosystem approach to biodiversity management which 

were presented at the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

1998—Secretary Dan Glickman made these opening remarks [http://

www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4773E/y4773e0e.htm] at the Sustainable Resource 

Management Meeting:

It is my hope and expectation that the same level of commitment that led to 

international development and agreement on the criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, will now occur at the national level as we work 

to implement and build on this framework.

1998—G8 Foreign Ministers, including President Clinton, approved an Action Program on Forests [http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2002/

g8forest2.html]. The action program commits G8 countries (the world’s major industrial democracies) to take specific actions in five areas: monitoring, remote sensing 

data and assessment, national forest programs, protected areas, private sector, and 

illegal logging. G8 members are providing financial and technical resources for work 

to utilize remote sensing, promote decentralization of forest management, consolidate establishment of cross-boundary Peace Parks, encourage public-private partnerships, and strengthen forest law and governance. 

1999—The Presidents Council on Sustainable Development issued a report entitled Natural Resources Management and Protection Task Force Report [http://

clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TFlReports/natural.pdf] which stated:

Convene a National Forestry Advisory Council comprised of a representative 

balance of stakeholders to define and help achieve sustainable management of 

forests on a national basis by the year 2000.

. . . this recommendation would include reviewing the possible classification of 

public and private forestlands in states by management goal categories . . .

The United States announced its commitment to implement ecosystem management on all Federal forestlands at the Earth Summit in June 1992 at Rio de 

Janeiro. The United States also made a commitment to a national goal of 

achieving sustainable management of U.S. forests by the year 2000 at the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in June 1993 at Helsinki, Finland.

1999—Doug MacCleery, Assistant Director of Forest Management for the USDA/

Forest Service, wrote in Ecological Sustainability, Consumption and NIMBYism

[http://www.inwoodlands.org/storage/past-issues/EcologicalSustainability.htm]:

Over the last two decades there has been a substantial shift in the management 

emphasis of public lands in the United States. This shift has increased the emphasis on managing for biodiversity protection and amenity values, and reduced 

commodity outputs. Terms like ‘‘ecosystem management’’ and ‘‘ecological sustainability’’ are used to describe this change in management emphasis, which 

is often referred to as a ‘‘paradigm shift.’’

80

McCleery goes on to decry the fact that consumption patterns have not decreased, 

redirecting timber production to Canada and private forests. He advocates for an individual behavioral ethic of reduction in personal consumption. 

1999—The Board on Sustainable Development, Policy Division, National Research 

Council at the National Academy of Sciences released Our Common Journey

[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309067839] to address the research 

needs for the global commons of atmosphere, land, and water as well as to respond 

to the Academies’ desire to reinvigorate the role of science and development in sustainable development. 

1999—The UNCED Committee on Forestry, Inter-governmental Panel on Forests 

(IPF) [http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X0703e.htm] issued a final report containing 143 proposals for action in four areas relating to the implementation of 

UNCED decisions: (1) formulation and implementation of national forest and land 

use plans, (2) international cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer, (3) forest assessment and development of Criteria and Indicators for sustainable 

forest management, (4) trade and the environment relating to forest products and 

services, international organizations and multilateral institutions and instruments, 

including appropriate mechanisms. 

2000—The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), responding to recommendations of the ad hoc Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), outlined an 

international arrangement on forests and established a new permanent subsidiary 

body, the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF). The international arrangement and UNFF 

were established to facilitate implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, 

provide forum for policy dialogue, enhance coordination of work of international organizations, foster international cooperation, monitor and assess progress, and enhance political commitment to sustainable forest management. 

2000–2005—The UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) operated under a multi-year program of work from 2000–2005, focusing on thematic areas related to sustainable forest management, including: deforestation, forest restoration, biological diversity, forest health, forest products, economic aspects of forests, forest-related scientific 

knowledge, social and cultural aspects, traditional forest-related knowledge, and 

monitoring, assessment and reporting. Also through this process, the Collaborative 

Partnership on Forests (CPF) [http://www.cpfweb.org/en/], a partnership among 

international forest-related organizations, was established to provide a means for 

United Nations agencies and multilateral donors to improve coordination of their efforts to facilitate sustainable forest management. The interagency partnership, 

which includes fourteen key institutions, is contributing to international cooperation 

through work, among other things, on: Sourcebook on Funding Sustainable Forest 

Management [http://www.cpfweb.org/73034/en/]; Streamlining Forest-Related Reporting [http://www.cpfweb.org/73035/en/]; Harmonizing Forest-Related definitions [http://www.cpfweb.org/73036/en/]; Establishing a Global Forest Information 

Service [http://www.cpfweb.org/73037/en/]; Forests and Climate Change [http://

www.cpfweb.org/73031/en/]. 

2000—A Federal MOU was signed on Sustainable Forest Management Data

[http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/commitment.html] making data available on an ongoing basis related to the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators. 

2000—Sustainable Forest and Resource Management, Domestic Actions of the 

Forest Service, List of Actions Being Taken was issued [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/sus-res-mgt-accom-fs-apr21.doc], as was the Integration Of Sustainable Resource Management and Criteria And Indicators In The USDA Forest Service

[http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/sdit-action-plan-2-26-01.doc]. 

2000—The USFS published its USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision) [http://www.fs.fed.us/plan/stratplan.pdf] listing ‘‘Ecosystem Health’’ as its #1 

Goal—Promote ecosystem health and conservation using a collaborative approach to 

sustain the Nation’s forests, grasslands and watersheds. Goal #2 was ‘‘Multiple Benefits to People’’—Provide a variety of uses, values, products, and services for present 

and future generations by managing within the capability of sustainable ecosystems. 

2000—Ruth McWilliams (USDA Forest Service) gave an address to the National 

Planning Conference on ‘‘Healthy Ecosystems . . . Healthy Communities’’ [http://

www.fs.fed.us/sustained/apa-april-2000.doc], stating ‘‘Sustainability is the goal’’ 

and ‘‘Collaboration is the Approach’’. 

2000—At the Federal Interagency Leadership Meeting on Sustainable Forest 

Management, USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger spoke on the U.S. Commitment to Sustainable Forest Management [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/

rominger-aug-00.doc]. Rominger stated:

Sustainable forest management . . . builds on and advances the work of the 

Brundtland Commission that articulated sustainable development in 1987 . . .

81

Action on sustainable forest management is at a critical juncture—internationally and domestically.

* Internationally, the United Nations is establishing a new Forum on Forests. 

This should expedite implementation of existing agreements, provide a policy 

framework, and coordinate the work of international organizations.

* Domestically, the multi-stakeholder Roundtable on Sustainable Forests is 

using the framework provided by the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators 

to move us closer to achieving sustainable forest management. As the Roundtable moves from its first phase of building understanding, to assessment and 

reporting, it’s important that we clearly identify the Federal leadership role.

2000—Regarding the Roundtable on Sustainable Forest, Phil Janik wrote

[http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/ltr-rsf-janik-10-12-2000.doc]:

I am the Federal lead for the Roundtable. In that capacity, I advocate the use 

of the Criteria and Indicators as a common framework for the discussion and 

dialogue at Roundtable meetings. I participate personally in related national 

and international activities. For example, I chaired the eleventh meeting of the 

Montreal Process Working Group, and I work with State Foresters to promote 

the use of the Criteria and Indicators in their endeavors within states.

2001—Doug MacCleery, USDA/Forest Service, wrote a memo on Measuring SFM 

(Sustainable Forest management): What are some of the elements and scales? 

[http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/measuring-smf2.rtf] 

2001—In an address to the Executive Leadership Meeting of the Roundtable on 

Sustainable Forests entitled The Forest Service’s Commitment to Sustainable Forest 

Management And the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/bosworth-sfm-11-14-2001.doc], Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth stated:

Work done by the Brundlandt Commission during the 1980s, the agenda identified at the Earth Summit in 1992, and efforts now underway by Montreal Process countries on the Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests define the basic elements 

of sustainable development and serve as anchors for Federal policy . . .

Last year the Forest Service incorporated these ideas into an updated expression of the agency’s mission. Our long-term Strategic Plan states: ‘‘The mission 

of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity 

of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future 

generations.’’ . . .

At the national level I do intend to continue strong support for sustainability. 

We are advancing use of the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators as a common framework for measuring progress. For example, we used the seven Criteria to organize the 2000 Assessment of Forest and Range Lands, and we are 

applying the Criteria and Indicators to local conditions on six national forests 

in the east and west to test their usefulness and better understand how to integrate processes across scales . . . More work is underway at the ecoregional, 

national, and global levels—and so now the key is to integrate our local to global efforts in ways that make sense.

Bosworth reiterated these ideas in a speech to the Society of American Foresters 

entitled The Forest Service’s Role in Fostering Sustainability [http://www.fs.fed.us/

sustained/2001may29-bosworth.html]. 

2002—The Pinchot Institute published Linkages Between the IPF/IFF Proposals 

for Action and the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators [http://www.fs.fed.us/

global/aboutus/policy/multi/reports/Crosswalk1.pdf]. 

2002—The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation was agreed upon at the World 

Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002) [http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldlSummitlonlSustainablelDevelopment]. It affirmed UN commitment to ‘‘full implementation’’ of Agenda 21, alongside achievement of the Millennium Development Goals [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MillenniumlDevelopmentlGoals] and other international agreements. The Millennium 

Development Goals Report 2010 Environmental Sustainability [http://www.un.org/

millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-

low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf#page=54] includes: Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse 

the loss of environmental resources; Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, 

by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss. 

2002—A memorandum [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/wssd-respons-upd.doc] 

was issued outlining the U.S. Forest Service Responsibilities for Covering and CoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
82

ordinating Activities at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. 

2002—A memorandum from Joel D. Holtrop, Deputy Chief State and Private Forestry, talked about their attendance at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa and discussed the USFS’s commitment to championing sustainable development, including chairing the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests 

(Montreal Process). 

2002—Chief Dale Bosworth addressed Leadership for Sustainable Development 

within the Forest Service [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/leadership-sustainabledevelopment.doc], attaching a Sustainable Development Portfolio of Work [http://

www.fs.fed.us/sustained/final-enclosure.doc], which included such items as: United 

Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF)—Proposals for Action; U.S. assessment underway; World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)—Follow-up to Earth Summit with preparations through Federal interagency, USDA, and FS teams; World 

Forestry Congress—Preparations for 2003 event getting underway; WO-Sustainable 

Development Issues Team (SDIT)—Chartered by Ecosystem Sustainability Corporate Team (ESCT) to advance use of CI through annually updated Action Plan. 

2007—After 15 years of discussions and negotiations on a global approach to protect the world’s forests, countries (meeting at United Nations Headquarters in New 

York ) adopted an agreement on international forest policy and cooperation (International Forest Policy—the instruments, agreements and processes that shape it 

[http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/publications/IntllForestlPolicyl

instrumentslagreements.pdf]), as well as a new multi-year program of work 

through 2015. The new agreement, although not legally binding, aims to promote 

both international cooperation and national action to reduce deforestation, prevent 

forest degradation, promote sustainable livelihoods and reduce poverty for all forestdependent peoples. Another area of disagreement that has long plagued forest negotiations concerned a financing mechanism to mobilize funding for sustainable forest 

management. The agreement calls on countries to adopt, by 2009, a voluntary global 

financing mechanism for forest management. 

2008–2009—A briefing paper entitled ‘‘Completion and Outcomes of the United 

Nations (UN) Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), Third Implementation Cycle (2008–2009), Policy Session on Thematic Areas: Agriculture, Rural Development, Land, Drought, Desertification, and Africa’’ described the USDA and Forest 

Service’s close association with the CSD. This report is no longer available on the 

Net. One section more than adequately documents the fact that USFS policies and 

rules have been heavily molded and driven by an international agenda embraced by 

the Administration, rather than Congressional statute. 

Implementation in the Siskiyou County/Klamath Area 

Tom McDonnell wrote in his Technical Review Of The Wildlands Project And How 

It Is Affecting The Management Of State, Federal And Private Lands In The United 

States [http://citizenreviewonline.org/aprill2002/wildlandslprojectlhistory.htm]:

In the introduction to the Wildlands Project, Dave Foreman states that this 

project serves as a coming together of grass-roots conservation activists and as 

a foundation for their active vision of how to protect and perpetuate native species and systems across the North American continent. He states, ‘‘Our vision 

is continental . . . we seek to bring together conservationist, ecologists, indigenous peoples, and others to protect and restore evolutionary processes and biodiversity.’’ He then states that areas such as National Parks and wildernesses 

are insufficient for they are designed ‘‘to protect scenery and recreation, or to 

create outdoor zoos.’’ He goes on to state that the ‘‘Wildlands Project in contrast 

calls for reserves established to protect wildlife habitat, biodiversity, ecological 

integrity, ecological service and evolutionary processes—that is vast interconnected areas of true wilderness.’’ ‘‘[W]e see wilderness as the home for unfettered life, free from industrial human intervention.’’ He also says that this wilderness will be ‘‘extensive areas of native vegetation in various successional 

stages, off-limits to human exploitation. Vast landscapes without roads, dams, 

motorized vehicles, powerlines, overflights, or other artifacts of civilization.’’ 

Over half the North American land mass is envisioned as making up this massive wilderness reserve system.

The project calls on the establishment of systems of core wilderness areas where 

human activity is prohibited, linked with biological corridors. Around these core 

reserve areas and their interlinking corridors, buffers are to be established. The 

buffer areas are to be managed to restore ecological health. Human activity associated with civilization—agriculture, industrial production, urban centers—

will be allowed to continue outside these buffered regions.

83

Using the Noss model, the activist groups will identify and map all existing protected areas including Federal and state wilderness areas, parks and wildlife 

refuges, heritage areas, monuments, BLM Areas of Critical Concern (ACC) and 

USFS Research Natural Areas (RNA). To assist in this step, activists rely on 

a variety of other maps including: National Park system maps, National Wildlife Refuge maps, Forest Service RNA maps, Bureau of Land Management ACC 

maps, BLM Wilderness Status maps and Nature Conservancy preserve maps.

After all the currently protected areas are laid out onto a single map, the third 

step is to overlay this map of currently protected areas with a map of large 

roadless areas. Roadless areas, also called Big Outside Areas, are defined as 

roadless areas of 100,000 or more acres in the West, and 50,000 or more acres 

in the East. These roadless areas may include state, Federal and private land. 

Roadless maps may include protected areas such as National Parks, and unprotected areas such as Federal multiple-use lands, state lands and private lands. 

The only qualify factors of this roadless area map is size in term of acreage and 

the fact that there are no roads. The Wildlands Project’s central Tucson office 

has at least 385 maps of large roadless areas available and has been working 

the last year on the development of more detailed state maps to assist regional 

groups in their work.

The fourth step is to analyze the geographical arrangement of the map of currently protected areas, with its overlay of roadless areas, for logical complexes 

of wild places and probable linking corridors. The protected areas such as wildernesses and National Parks within the Big Outside (roadless) areas are identified as key core areas. Protected areas found outside identified roadless areas 

are examined to see if they can ‘‘serve as beads in Biological Corridors linking 

Core Wilderness together.’’ Identified roadless areas that are not already protected with National Park, wilderness or other similar designations, are considered unprotected and given the highest priority for conservation. Unprotected 

roadless areas which are Federal and state lands are targeted for future wilderness bills, heritage sites or other protective legislation. Private lands within 

these areas are given the highest priority for public agency or trust group acquisition.

In addition to legislation, this map also establishes the priorities for appeals 

and litigation. As stated within Wildlands documents, ‘‘It is usually more important . . . to stop an old-growth timber sale within a Big Outside area or in a 

corridor between two core areas than to stop an old-growth sale in a fragmented 

area far from potential cores or corridors. It is usually more important to establish a Wilderness Area that is part of a large complex, than one isolated in a 

matrix of intensive human use.’’

Siskiyou County, specifically the Klamath River Basin, has long been a target for 

implementation of rewilding strategies under ‘‘biodiversity,’’ ‘‘ecosystem management’’ and ‘‘sustainable development.’’ Drs. Michael Soule and Reed Noss recognized 

three independent features that characterize contemporary rewilding: large, strictly 

protected core reserves (the wild), connectivity, and keystone species (aka the 3C’s: 

Cores, Corridors, and Carnivores). Ref: Soule, M., and R. Noss. 1998. Rewilding and 

biodiversity: Complementary goals for continental conservation. WILDEARTH 8(3):18–

28. 

Noss indicated that in selecting keystone or focus species, he would (1) identify 

and protect populations of rare and endangered species; (2) maintain healthy populations of species that play critical roles in their ecosystems (keystone species) or 

that have pragmatic value as ‘‘umbrellas’’ (species that require large wild areas to 

survive, and thus if protected will bring many species along with them) or ‘‘flagships’’ (charismatic species that serve as popular symbols for conservation); (3) protect high-quality examples of all natural communities; and (4) identify and manage 

greater ecosystems or landscapes for both biodiversity conservation and sustainable 

human use. 

Core reserves are wilderness areas that supposedly allow biodiversity to flourish. 

These typically followed the pattern of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) 

program with the set-aside of ‘‘protected’’ or ‘‘core’’ areas; ‘‘managed use areas’’ or 

‘‘buffer zones’’; and ‘‘zones of cooperation’’ or ‘‘transition Areas.’’ These strategies 

were adopted under FEMAT for the Northwest Forest Plan for the northern spotted 

owl, as well as the Sierra Nevada Framework. 

In his article ‘‘The Wildlands Project,’’ WildEarth, Special Issue, written in 1992, 

Noss stated that ‘‘It is estimated that large carnivores and ungulates require reserves on the scale of 2.5 to 25 million acres . . . For a minimum viable population 

of 1,000 (large mammals), the figures would be 242 million acres for grizzly bears, 

200 million acres for wolverines, and 100 million acres for wolves. Core reserves 

84

should be managed as roadless areas (wilderness). All roads should be permanently 

closed.’’

In 1985, an effort was made by Reed Noss, author of the Wildlands Project, to 

have four million hectares of the Klamath/Siskiyou area designated a UN Biosphere 

Reserve. The NGO coordinating the work was the Klamath Forest Alliance. The 

project sought not only to develop a successful bioregional plan for Klamath/

Siskiyou, but also to develop methods for planning and implementation that were 

transferable to other regions. The Klamath Corridors Project selected large 

unfragmented habitat areas to be protected, connected by wide corridors to be set 

aside for migration and genetic biodiversity. The area covered approximately four 

million hectares, about 1⁄3 in Oregon and the balance in California. The project was 

funded by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, The 

Wildlands Project, the USDA Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

In 1992 the World Conservation Union declared a 12 million acre area of the 

Klamath-Siskiyou to be an Area of Global Botanical Significance. This was one of 

seven such areas in North America and was classified by the World Wildlife Fund 

(WWF) as a Global 200 site [http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/

global200.html]. 

In 1995, work began on an ambitious Klamath-Siskiyou Biodiversity Conservation 

Plan, sponsored by the Siskiyou Regional Education Project of Cave Junction, in 

partnership with the World Wildlife Fund. In 1997 The First Conference on 

Siskiyou Ecology was held and a petition was sent from the conference to President 

Clinton, calling upon him to preserve ‘‘for posterity the principal values of biodiversity, ecological stability, and aesthetic enrichment which the Klamath-Siskiyou 

Province represents.’’

In 1999, Noss and Strittholt completed A Science-based Conservation Assessment 

for the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion. In 2001, Noss and the World Wildlife Federation set forth recommendations for preservation of the Klamath-Siskiyou Forests. A 

proposed ‘‘roadless map’’ with designated wilderness was developed for the region. 

Recommendations included: the elimination of grazing; the listing of the fisher and 

wolverine; reintroduction of wolves and grizzlies; halting of all logging; establishing 

a system of parks and reserves; protecting roadless areas; and purchasing of private 

lands for endangered species. This was accompanied in 2002 by a case study of the 

Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion on the ‘‘Importance of Roadless Areas in Biodiversity 

Conservation in Forested Ecosystems.’’

In 2000, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was established in southern 

Oregon. Siskiyou County successfully fought the portion proposed in its county. In 

2003, the Klamath Basin Coalition of environmental groups produced ‘‘A Conservation Vision for the Klamath Basin’’ with a map of proposed ‘‘protected areas.’’ In 

2004, the Klamath Basin was named among the Top 10 ‘‘Most Endangered Areas’’ 

in California. In 2005, the World Wildlife Fund named the Klamath among California’s Most Threatened Wild Places. 

In 2004, the Nature Conservancy conducted an Assessment of the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion. The California Wilderness Coalition modeled a network of habitat 

linkages in the Klamath-Siskiyou Region. The 2004 Siskiyou Private Lands Conservation Assessment identified 19 areas of private lands to be targeted for their 

high conservation values. 

In 2006, the Siskiyou National Monument was proposed to establish corridors for 

biodiversity conservation. 

In 2007, the CA Wild Heritage Act proposed several areas of Wilderness expansion in Siskiyou County. The California Wildlife Action Plan prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game by the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center. The 

document listed 76 bird, 26 mammalian, two reptilian and 42 fish taxa on the ‘‘Special Status Vertebrates List’’ and an additional 71 invertebrates on the Special Animals List. The report targeted water management; instream gravel mining; forest 

management; fire; agriculture; urban development, livestock grazing and invasive 

species as ‘‘stressors’’ to wildlife habitats. 

In 2009, California Wild 2009 created another map targeting Wilderness Expansion, additional Wild Rivers designation, roadless area designation and reserve designs in the county. In 2009, another group proposed 3,500,000 acres in California 

and Oregon to be called the Ancient Forest National Park. The National Park Service has established the Klamath Vital Signs Network of regional parks to be to be 

inventoried and monitored. Documents appear to indicate that the Obama Administration is again considering expanding the Oregon monument into Siskiyou. Also, 

a second 200,000 acre national monument appears to have also been put forth for 

consideration known as the ‘‘Siskiyou Crest’’ by KS WILD. 

By 2011, the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Federal Government had acquired 100,000 acres of private farms and ranches from the Upper Klamath Basin 

85

and converted them to wetlands. The Secure Act allocates WaterSMART funding for 

studies and a ‘‘trade-off’’ analysis leading to a cooperative watershed management 

program. This would focus on sustainable development; climate change; water supply and demand; endangered species; flow; and flood control. 

As mentioned in the prior section, since 1999, 8,625.71 acres have been converted 

to Federal land. Another 11,236 acres of ranch land in the Shasta Valley is currently proposed for conversion to a new wildlife refuge. In addition, The proposed 

Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement seeks to convert some 44,479 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin to wetlands, (some of which may be in Siskiyou 

County.) It also proposes to secure 21,800 acres of farmland by acquisition or conservation easements in the Scott and Shasta Valleys of the county. 

For several years, a campaign has been waged for the removal of four (three hydroelectric) dams on the Klamath River. Three of those dams are located in Siskiyou 

County. The Board of Supervisors is firmly against dam removal and the associated 

Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that accompanies it. Negative impacts will 

be severely felt by the people who live in Siskiyou County. 

I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to comment.

MARCIA H. ARMSTRONG

Supervisor District 5,

Siskiyou County, 

Yreka, CA. 

APPENDIX A

Timber Harvest Levels on the Major National Forests in Siskiyou County 

(Portions of the Shasta Trinity and Six Rivers lie outside of Siskiyou Co.)

Volume of Timber Sold by Forest 

1978–2009 *

National Forests in Siskiyou County 

Year Klamath Shasta Trinity Six Rivers 

1978 238.78 273.93 72.95

1979 286.69 243.15 165.43

1980 255.3 212.29 146.99

1981 280.2 243.15 149.53

1982 243.73 219.59 120.14

1983 230.71 227.48 206.27

1984 128.66 198.76 128.07

1985 189.64 215.02 154.07

1986 173.64 160.39 129.53

1987 182.08 208.3 145.48

1988 311.66 243.11 137.77

1989 168.69 175.55 107.15

1990 99.82 179.95 55.16

1991 86.15 30.81 66.38

1992 27.93 52.94 11.08

1993 32.48 31.24 54.03

1994 23.82 19.9 3.49

1995 25.7 29.9 4.3

1996 39.6 52.7 10

1997 52.2 57.6 18.9

1998 29.5 87.1 14.7

1999 30.6 58.8 11.7

2000 2.9 4.2 2.8

2001 23.9 24.6 2.3

2002 24.3 39.1 1.8

2003 12.2 46.7 4.6

2004 14.4 44.4 4.5

2005 27.8 63.2 7

2006 20.7 40.4 12.7

2007 29.2 71.6 7.1

86

Volume of Timber Sold by Forest—Continued

1978–2009 *

National Forests in Siskiyou County 

Year Klamath Shasta Trinity Six Rivers 

2008 19.8 21.9 8.2

2009 50.1 12.1 11.5

* Data supplied by CFA (California Forestry Assoc.) 

Volume of Timber Sold by Forest 1978–2009

In 2009, the Klamath NF sold 50.06 MMBF. It had a net growth of 125.7 

MMBF and an annual mortality of 90.1 MMBF

In 2009, the Shasta Trinity NF sold 12.07 MMBF. It had a net growth of 

459.7 MMBF and an annual mortality of 99.4 MMBF

(Data Source: Western Core Table Reports [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/

publications/westcore/] and 2009 Accomplishment Report. Data from growing stock on available, productive forestland. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY JERRY PETIK, DIRECTOR, GRAND RIVER GRAZING

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

Mar. 27 2012

The Grand River Grazing Association thanks the Committee for the opportunity 

to submit comment to the Record regarding the hearing held on March 27 titled 

‘‘U.S. Forest Service Land Management: Challenges and Opportunities’’

The Grand River Grazing Association was organized in 1940 for the purpose of 

managing the newly acquired land, 136,000 acres, by the Federal Government in 

Corson and Perkins Counties in Northwestern South Dakota. The Association now 

consists of 90 members nearly all family farm operations, running about 14,600 cattle plus sheep on these National Grasslands. 

The National grasslands evolved from lands purchased under the Bankhead-Jones 

Farm Tenant Act. According to the Act, ‘‘The intent of the government was to revegetate these lands and to stabilize the local economies.’’

The objectives of the Association is and always has been to produce meat for the 

country and world consumers, provide for the well-being for the families on these 

diverse lands and local communities, allow for the diversity of the rangeland and 

strive to improve the range, doing it all in a sustainable manner. 

In this testimony the Grand River Grazing Association would like to address the 

general management processes of the Forest Service including how they deal with 

people and organizations that are directly impacted by their decisions. 

Unfortunately, the Forest Service has a history of retaliation, intimidation, abuse 

of power and harassment toward the grazing associations that represent the farmers and ranchers using the National Forests. That ill treatment is documented in 

a report issued by the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association:


11232001.eps
87

Documentation of retaliation, intimidation, abuse of power, and harassment By the 

Forest Service toward the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association

Date: March 2011

Report by: Van C. Elsbernd (e-mail: [Redacted]), manager, Great Plains Consulting 

LLC, [Redacted], Fort Collins, CO

Overall, the Forest Service personnel have not followed Forest Service policy and 

have not implemented the protocols for dealing with impacted people and their representative organizations, like Grand River Grazing Association in an effective way. 

This leaves ranchers unprepared for new regulations and changes to their grazing 

practices and unable to plan for their operations OR the best use of all grazing 

lands in the region. 

Forest Service personnel have made a habit of not following the plans and Forest 

Service policy but expect the ranchers to follow it to a Tee. Actions such as Removal 

of allotments without cause and developing projects without any intention to garner 

input or support from the Grazing Association and local government are just two 

examples of clear violations of the Grazing Agreement. 

One reason this happens so frequently is due to the appeals process within the 

Forest Service. ‘‘The appeal process in house’’ is a term used within the Forest 

Service to allow personnel’s actions to be evaluated, revised, approved or rejected 

by that person’s supervisor. However, the more controversial plans often circumvent 

this in house approach and projects are only developed in conjunction with one’s immediate supervisor. This limits the ability for more creative thinking and new ideas 

to be injected into these plans and also limits the ability for the impacted ranchers 

to give input. 

The FS has set up a new grazing assn. without following FS policy or South Dakota state laws as to the incorporation of associations. 

We only need to look to the Founders of our Constitution for the best example 

as to conduct the business and to work and communicate with the ranchers using 

the national Grasslands. The Constitution provides for three branches of Government each meant to keep the others in line. This emphasizes the need for respect 

and all parties to understand the ‘rules of engagement’. This allows for independence yet assures others can participate and provide for an amicable atmosphere for 

debate and decision making. It also provides an avenue for finding positive solutions 

with peers, and not a confrontational struggle for dominance or a struggle from 

weakness just to be heard or to participate! 

In other cases the Forest Service attempts to amend Grazing Agreements even 

when it is not agreeable to both parties. We believe it is essential that any 

amendments must be agreeable to both parties involved. Forest Service policy 

requires cooperation with impacted groups and a mechanism for cooperating has 

been in place since the founding of our Grazing Association in 1940. However, the 

Forest Service is unwilling, in many cases, to use that process and come to an 

agreement through negotiation. The Forest Service personnel must recognize this 

policy of cooperation and make good-will efforts to negotiate any changes or amendment to Grazing Agreements through the process established and historically utilized. 

Communications about the actual management of the grasslands has been sparse 

and input from ranchers who have taken care of this land for generations has not 

been sought. Two examples of unclear communication and decisions without input 

are regarding the Prairie dogs and Crested Wheat Grass. 

For Prairie Dogs, the official plan shows where the Forest Service wants the colonies and what minimum size is needed but gives no information as to what the maximum size would be and how to deal with the dogs after the size and number of 

colonies has been reached. The development of the general plan and how the plan 

would be managed was never discussed with the Assn. other than told where the 

colonies were going to be. Also, there is no plan to control the dogs that leave and 

go to private lands where they are not wanted. However, there is a ‘‘good neighbor 

policy’’ that states that the dogs are to be controlled when they go to private land. 

But, when asked, there has not been any information as to how large the colonies 

would be permitted to grow or how to control the dogs after needed numbers were 

achieved. 

Crested wheatgrass was developed and introduced during the 1930s to stop the 

wind erosion because of the drought. I would say it this way ‘‘crested wheatgrass 

is what held the world together.’’ However, the Forest Service is now planning to 

drastically reduce it from the National Grasslands. 

Burning of heavy old growth/crested wheat grass can be an indication of failed 

management practices. If there were better relations between the Forest Service 

88

personal and the ranchers, it could be possible to increase and decrease the cattle 

numbers to reflect the prairie growing conditions. 

Burning can be a good tool but it can do long term damage as well. The soil and 

material moisture needs to be right. If too dry, the crowns of the preferable grass 

species will burn and they will not grow to take advantage of the burned out crested 

wheatgrass. The results will be an even more vigorous stand of crested wheat grass. 

Burned areas need to be grazed reasonable heavy the years following the burn to 

keep pressure on the crested wheatgrass or it will just come back and all your efforts will be lost. Burning should be the tool of last resort after heavier grazing and 

better rotation practices. Unfortunately, the Forest Service did not take these factors into account when burning the grasslands in our region. 

I must confess that ranchers could also have done a better job in dealing with 

crested wheatgrass and getting better usage of it. Grass species diversity is always 

good for rangeland’s health. 

The Forest Service has not been willing to allow the ranchers and college experts 

(NDSU) to participate in developing the objectives that would enhance the health 

of plant life in our region and have not even involved them in developing the criteria 

for determining how that objective should be approached or even if it should attempted. 

Some personnel have lost sight of the diversity goals for National Grasslands and 

are now monitoring for single and specific objectives. One of those objectives is improving the habitat for the grouse. They think the grouse need high native grasses. 

The FS says the National Grassland in pastures 1–5 are 97% capable of tall grass. 

A rangeland specialist, Dr. Kevin Sedivec from NDSU puts that number at 3%. 

However, it is clear that our region is a short grass prairie and grouse have thrived 

on that short grass prairie for generations. 

Finally, in 2012, there is going to be research to determine how much of the range 

is capable to produce tall grass. One would think that this research should have 

been done before any decision to strive for tall grass for the grouse. 

The Forest Service has not only used these strong arm tactics with individual 

ranchers and the Grazing Association. They have attempted to over-ride state law 

in closing roads on section lines, and require the county to build roads on private 

lands to be incorporated into forest service road systems. 

Building a ‘‘road to no-where’’ and locating a camping site in a flood-plain are 

other examples of non-cooperation and plowing ahead with a single person’s idea. 

Very recently, two Forest Service personal have been replaced. Lines of communication have improved. Time will tell how successful that will be. Both sides see 

a window of opportunity and are working in a positive direction. This came about 

because of intervention by South Dakota and North Dakota Congressional delegations and the states’ Secretaries of Agriculture not because of any internal Forest 

Service policy. 

In closing, I would like to ask you to re-evaluate the oversight process and make 

policy very clear, that impacted individuals and groups are to be included in a 

meaningful manner at all steps in project development and implementation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment and taking our recommendations into account. If you have any questions or would like additional information, 

please contact me at [Redacted] or [Redacted]. 

Sincerely,

JERRY PETIK,

Director,

Grand River Grazing Cooperative Association, 

Lemmon, SD.

ATTACHMENT

Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association 

Documentation of retaliation, intimidation, abuse of power, and harassment 

by the Forest Service toward the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association 

March 2011

1. Allotments 1–5 Project 

During the working group meetings with Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA), District Ranger Joby Timm and writer/editor Dan Swingen both 

promised the P. 1–5 ranchers the following:

• Reductions would be temporary.

89

• Reductions would be reinstated ASAP after the decision.

• The FS will keep reductions to a minimum, hardly any impact to the ranchers.

At a Board of Directors meeting in April of 2010, Joby Timm told the GRCGA 

Board of Directors the following:

Joby said the new Reviewing Officer on the Mediation Process of Pastures One 

thru Five is Rick Brazell. He is with the Clear Water National Forest in Idaho. 

We can expect his written comments within 30 days. Joby said Grand River’s 

appeal has one more level, to the Regional Office. In the meantime there is 

a stay on projects, no new fences, no new NEPA done. Question—no 

cuts/reductions? Joby said yes, unless resource concerns arise, drought, 

etc. (Doc #1).

In 2009, long before the Decision Notice for Pastures 1–5 was signed, the Grand 

River Ranger District implemented most of the reductions for the Pasture 1–5 

Project through the AOIs that year and continued them into 2010. District Ranger 

Joby Timm tried to explain this away in his letter and attached table (Doc #2) to 

GRCGA on April 28, 2010. District Ranger Joby Timm states the following:

‘‘The table shows planned stocking rates for 2009, actual stocking rates for 2009 

and planned stocking rate for 2010’’

What District Ranger Joby Timm doesn’t tell which is the basis for the reductions, 

is that the reductions where taken off the 2008 stocking rates. This is explained in 

an analysis by Van C. Elsbernd, Great Plains Consulting LLC (Doc #3) which shows 

what the true reductions were for each allotment compared to the 2008 stocking 

rates outlined in the Decision Notice and EA for Pasture 1–5 Project. The 2010 

AOI’s for the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association were prepared by the 

Forest Service on April 12, 2010. In each of the AOI’s the following statement is 

added (Allotment 4A is used as the example):

‘‘4A is taking partial nonuse for resource protection, reducing the stocking 

rate to 2.9ac/HM’’

Van Elsbernd asked Tim Smith, President of the GRCGA, if all the allotments 

had actually requested this type of partial nonuse. He said that upon checking with 

each Director, that they knew of only one Allotment that had made that request, 

Allotment 2A. 

What the Forest Service has done by making the above statement is imply that 

the permittees are requesting the partial nonuse for resource protection. This is 

not the case at all. The above statement should read as follows:

‘‘The Forest Service is requiring Allotment 4A to take partial nonuse for resource protection, reducing the stocking rate to 2.9ac/HM’’

The Forest Service is implementing the reductions outlined in the DN and Final 

EA for Pastures 1–5, which was at that time stayed. Since the Grand River Ranger 

District has the final approval of the AOIs, and the fact they actually prepare them, 

they could put anything they wanted in the AOI with no consequences. It was not 

the members who requested to take the reductions being implemented by the FS 

through each AOI. 

The Grand River Ranger District would then meet with each Pasture Director and 

say to them that if you don’t sign the AOI, then you won’t be allowed to graze this 

year. Having no recourse, each Director signed. 

During the 2011 AOIs Pasture meetings, the Grand River Ranger District did not 

tell the GRCGA members that the stay had been lifted from the Decision Notice and 

that they the FS was supposed to implement the 10% per year reductions as outlined in the DN. The reason for this is they had already implemented those reductions in 2009 and 2010 AOIs and did not want to give those up. This was confirmed 

in the Pasture 3A meeting when Tim Smith asked Joby Timm and Paul Drayton 

if they had told the members in the other Pasture meetings that the FS was to implement the reductions schedule as outlined in the DN. Both Joby and Paul said 

they had not. 

2. Retaliation Against GRCGA AOI Stocking Rates 

Before the 2010 grazing season started Grand River District Ranger Joby Timm 

announced a 35% reduction in livestock grazing for the 2010 season on Pasture 3A, 

which is grazed by several permittees, including the President of the GRCGA. Mr. 

Timm explained: ‘‘We are not implementing the plan this year, because of the appeal. I can stock it [Pastures 1–5] at any rate because I am the district ranger. It 

is my call.’’ 

90

Mr. Timm also said that the Forest Service would not approve any range projects 

this year on the allotments covered by the Decision Notice also because of the appeal. Finally, he then stated ifGRCGA were to drop the appeal, he would return to 

the phased-in reductions in the Decision Notice and allow range improvement 

projects identified in the same decision to go forward. 

By tying an offer to return to the 10% reductions identified in the Decision Notice 

to dropping of the appeal, Mr. Timm clearly connected the recently announced reductions to the Association’s exercise of its right to file an appeal. Even though 

GRCGA did not appeal the range improvements in the decision, Timm halted that 

work unless GRCGA would drop its appeal. This action violates the constitutional 

rights of the Association members and is per se arbitrary and unlawful action. 

A federal agency cannot interfere with the exercise of constitutional rights, and 

that exercising the right to appeal a decision is protected under the First Amendment. La Compania Ocho v. U.S. Forest Service, 874 F. Supp. 1242, 1247–49 (D. 

N.M. 1995). An agency ‘‘may not take retaliatory action against an individual designed either to punish him for having exercised his constitutional right to seek judicial relief or to intimidate or chill his exercise of that right in the future.’’ Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Commission, 780 F.2d 1422, 1428 (8th Cir. 

1986). Constitutional claims against federal agency officials enjoy the same protection as actions against state officials under the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999). 

Mr. Timm is also incorrect when he stated that he has unlimited authority to impose reductions. The Grazing Agreement requires the Forest Service to mediate with 

the Association about any reductions. ‘‘Any changes in management policy including 

but not limited to changes in permitted numbers and/or adjustments to the grazing 

season will be mutually resolved. Every effort will be made by both parties to settle 

disputes in good faith in an honest and open manner. Impasses will be negotiated 

through the C.R.M. (Coordinated Resource Management) process, or the M.O.U. 

(Memorandum of Understanding—Allotment Management Planning of South Dakota).’’ Grazing Agreement at ¶ C4. 

Forest Service grazing policy also precludes reductions of more than 20% in any 

single year. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200 Range Management, Chapter 30, 

WO Amendment, 2231.61—Modification of Grazing Permits; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13, Chapter 10, R–1 Interim Directive No: 2209.1302007–1, 16.1—

Modification of Grazing Permit; compare FSH 2209.13, 08/3/92 (for reference). 

GRCGA understands that the Forest Service attributes the reductions to resource 

conditions, due to drought and ‘‘impacts of continuous livestock grazing.’’ The Forest 

Service rules provide ‘‘Where the modification is the result of concerns about the 

condition of rangeland resources, 36 C.F.R. 222.4(a)(8) requires the authorized officer to provide the permittee with one year’s advance notice prior to implementation 

of the modification.’’

The inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Timm does not have unlimited power to 

impose a 35% reduction two months before the start of the grazing season. The 

Grazing Agreement and Forest Service rules and policy impose procedures and limit 

the scope of reductions. Timm has ignored everything to bring more pressure on 

GRCGA to drop the appeal and this violates the law. 

On June 22, 2010 GRCGA filed a request for modification of stay Grand River 

District Ranger’s post-appeal livestock grazing reductions following its September 

30, 2009 Notice of Decision (Decision Notice), Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), and Environmental Assessment (EA). The Decision Notice notified 

GRCGA’s members of changes in the terms and conditions for livestock grazing on 

Allotments 1–5 for the Grand River National Grassland located in Perkins County, 

South Dakota and managed as part of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (Doc #47). 

A modified stay is warranted under § 251.91(b), which allows for the issuance of 

a stay if harmful effects occur during the pendency of the appeal. Since GRCGA’s 

appeal of the Decision Notice was filed and in direct retaliation therefore, the District Ranger Joby Timm has unlawfully imposed without process required by the 

2002 Grazing Agreement, law, Forest Service rules and policy, significant reductions 

in livestock grazing for the 2010 season on the majority of the allotments that are 

the subject of this appeal. The decision was verbally implemented in a meeting held 

on March 25, 2010, and more recently through the affected grazing permittees’ 2010 

AOIs, under the false premise of non-use for resource protection. 

The unwarranted retaliatory reductions are over and above, and directly contradict, the District Ranger’s September 30, 2009 Decision Notice which imposes a 

maximum 10% or less reduction on Allotments 1–5. That decision was issued 

through a public NEPA decision-making process in which the GRCGA was afforded 

the opportunity to administratively appeal. On November 16, 2010, GRCGA exercised its right of appeal under 36 C.F.R. Part 251, and as demonstrated below, the 

91

harmful and adverse livestock reductions are in direct retaliation for GRCGA’s appeal of the Decision Notice. 

On February 15, 2010, Tim Smith gave a deposition on the meeting his Allotment 

3A had with the Grand River Ranger District confirming the retaliation by District 

Ranger Joby Timm in the above comments. Tim states in his deposition:

‘‘During the discussion, the District Ranger then said if GRCGA were to drop 

the appeal of his decision then he would return to the phased in reductions and 

allow range improvement projects to go forward.Range improvements are designed to improve resource conditions, and without them, the range will suffer 

environmental harm. The retaliatory range improvement freeze will also preclude projects that could potentially mitigate the reductions, leaving my livestock operation without any means to offset their economic losses. The District 

Ranger’s retaliatory stocking rate reduction is causing irreparable economic 

harm to my livestock operation. These livestock grazing reductions will greatly 

decrease revenue while increasing my operating expenses through the need to 

lease or purchase alternative pasture. In the current climate of lower livestock 

prices and tightening or unavailable credit, my ranch operations is even more 

vulnerable to the significant changes being unilaterally implemented by the 

District Ranger (Doc #4).’’

On April 28, 2010 District Ranger Joby Timm responded to the above stay request. He stated; ‘‘We derived the information you have requested from the 2009 

and 2010 annual operating instructions (AOIs) that permittees and the Association 

received in March 2009 and April 2010.’’ What Ranger Timm fails to mentions is 

that the FS created the AOIs, and they have the final say on what goes into the 

AOs. When presented with the AOI, Pasture Directors are told to sign or they won’t 

be allowed to graze that year (Doc #48). 

3. Mediation on Pasture 1–5 Decision 

At the start of 2010, GRCGA spent four days in mediation with the Grand River 

Ranger District at Bismarck, ND. There were two mediation sessions. At the first 

mediation session, District Ranger Joby Timm stated he would not change anything 

in the Pasture 1–5 Decision Notice. And he didn’t. During mediation the FS rejected 

all offers made by GRCGA to compromise and end mediation. 

District Ranger Joby Timm did not go into mediation to ‘‘mediate in good faith’’ 

as required in the process. 

4. Earmarked Weed Money 

Under a Participating Agreement, GRCGA entered into Noxious Weed Eradication 

with the Dakota Prairie Grasslands in 2004. The last Participating Agreement that 

was signed by both parties was in 2007, and it was good for the 2007 and 2008 calendar years (Doc #5). In the Participating Agreement, GRCGA was supposed to do 

the work on the ground and the FS was supposed to administer the agreement. 

A summary of how the Agreements came about is provided in a statement by 

Kevin Ormiston, Range Foreman for GRCGA (Doc #6). In 2009, at the GRCGA told 

the FS it would not be able to participate in the earmarked FS program for spraying 

noxious weeds. Kevin told GRCGA, the Forest Service is planning to hire an 

additional seasonal for this purpose and it is the hope that will prove sufficient. (Doc #7). The same happened in 2010. 

Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA) had Weed Agreements for 

the Senator Dorgan Earmark weed money for years 2004 to 2008. GRCGA did not 

have weed agreements in 2009 and 2010. The Forest Service took the earmarked 

money and used it to supplement their appropriated dollars to purchase equipment 

(6 wheeled HOV’s), pay for their weed crews and purchase other materials. 

The Forest Service should have held the earmarked money in an account, carried 

it over for use by GRCGA over the next two years. The Forest Service misappropriated the funds, spent them to either supplement or augment their appropriated 

funds and used their appropriated funds elsewhere. This could be a misuse of earmarked funds and an investigation should be done on how the FS spent the money. 

As far as we know this is the only documentation by GRCGA letting the FS know 

they will not be using the earmarked money in 2009. The following sentence shows 

the FS was already counting on hiring an additional seasonal with the earmarked 

money:

• The Forest Service is planning to hire an additional seasonal for this 

purpose and it is the hope that will prove sufficient.

92

The process that should have been used between the two people that are involved 

in how this money is spent, that being Grassland Supervisor David Pieper and 

GRCGA President Nate Skjoldal is as follows:

• GRCGA President Nate Skjoldal notifies the Forest Service that GRCGA will 

not be able to use the earmarked money in 2009. This should have been done 

by letter, However, letting District Ranger Joby Timm know at the Board Meeting that GRCGA will not be able to use the earmarked money in 2009 should 

be sufficient.

• Grassland Supervisor David Pieper should notify GRCGA President Nate 

Skjoldal that the earmarked money will be held and carried over to the next 

year for GRCGA use in weed control. Another option Supervisor Piper would 

have is to notify GRCGA that he had return the earmarked money to be reallocated to the other Grazing Associations for 2009.

• Grassland Supervisor David Pieper did not send a letter to GRCGA, and we do 

not know if Ranger Joby Timm ever notified Supervisor Pieper that GRCGA 

was not going to use the earmarked money in 2009.

• GRCGA does know Ranger Timm spent the earmarked money for his own use. 

Without an accounting from the FS, GRCGA doesn’t know how he spent the 

money, they can only guess.

In 2010, there wasn’t any discussion at a Board Meeting on the use of the earmarked weed money. However, according to Kevin Ormiston, Chancey O’Dell, Range 

Specialist with the GR Ranger District asked Kevin if they were going to use the 

earmarked weed money in 2010. The reason he asked him was Ranger Timm wanted to know if GRCGA was going to use it or was it available for him to spend. Kevin 

replied to Chancey that he would not be able to make use of the earmarked money 

in 2010. 

Kevin later asked Chancey what Ranger Timm used the earmarked money for. 

Chancey did not know since he was being excluded by Ranger Timm from any decisions on the District (Doc #8). 

A congressional Investigation or at least an oversight hearing needs to be implemented to find out what the FS did with earmarked money. 

Kevin Ormiston also talked with Chancey O’Dell on September 15, 2010 and he 

said that since GRCGA didn’t use the Ear Marked weed money, Ranger Joby Timm 

spent the money in 2009 on FS weed spray equipment. In 2010 Ranger Timm came 

to Chancey and asked him if GRCGA wasn’t going to use that weed money again 

in 2010. Chancey said no they weren’t. So Joby took the money and spent it again 

(Doc #9). 

Kevin talked with Paul Drayton on September 16, 2010. Kevin was collecting as 

much information on the weed program as he can so he can have a complete summary of the entire program for the review. Paul Drayton said he shouldn’t even 

worry about the review; they won’t even talk about the weed program. This review 

isn’t about that at all. Paul said ‘‘you would be surprised what it is really about’’. 

Kevin Ormiston said in Sept. 2010 he knew the FS wanted to go to direct permits 

and that would directly affect his job, like he wouldn’t have one. Drayton did not 

deny the direct permit allegation. He just said that there would be enough of the 

permittees left who would hire him to do work for them. (Doc #10). 

Kevin was talking with Chancey O’Dell again on September 17, 2010, and had 

asked him for the Quad maps of the riparian areas for Pastures 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A, 

and 5A. Chancey asked him what for. Kevin informed Chancey that Van Elsbernd 

was coming to do PFC monitoring and that the FS was welcome to come along. At 

that point Chancey said he remembered the FS talking about that and that Ranger 

Joby Timm had said the following (Doc #11):

• ‘‘If I catch him (Van Elsbernd) out their doing that monitoring, I’ll have him 

arrested for trespassing’’. 

5. Notice of Civil Rights Complaint January 25, 2010

It is well known that the FS has wanted to eliminate all the Grazing Associations 

and go to direct FS grazing permits on all the National Grasslands. R–1 past Director of Range Management, Bruce Fox; R–1 Range Staff Jim Wickel, and Grassland 

Supervisor David Pieper have all said the GPG Grazing Associations have out lived 

their usefulness and should be eliminated. All three have been heard to say this at 

FS meetings. 

However, Grassland Supervisor David Pieper is the main proponent of this effort. 

He dislikes the Grazing Associations so much he will go extreme measures to eliminate them. He has a severe dislike of Keith Winter, MCGA, because he views Keith 

as the main person who beat him in court over many issues. He has spent the last 

93

10 years getting the Grassland Plan completed and has worked very hard to line 

up the people he wants in place (staff and Rangers) to do whatever it takes to go 

to direct permits. His direction to the Rangers and Staff—look for ways to make it 

happen. 

The FS has made civil rights discrimination allegations against GRCGA. District 

Ranger Joby Timm and Range Specialist Paul Drayton have created the civil rights 

issue, and have done everything they can through threats and intimidation to make 

this an issue. For the FS to say they want to go direct permits on the National 

Grasslands, means the Grazing Agreement will either be canceled or the FS will 

take enough members to direct permits, approximately 40% of GRCGA membership, 

to create an Association that is financially unsound. 

On January 25, 2010, Grassland Supervisor Dave Pieper sent a letter to GRCGA 

President, Tim Smith (certified mail) giving GRCGA their first notice that allegations had been made against them by a GRCGA member, although it does not specify which member or what the specific allegations are. Grassland Supervisor Dave 

Pieper states:

. . . Specifically, under II.D. 11. of the current grazing agreement, the association will ‘‘Comply with nondiscrimination conditions of Executive Order No. 

11246 and Civil Rights Act of 1964, and on subsequent amendments. Recently, 

DR Timm informed me of a member’s allegations of unequal treatment and 

discrimination by the GRCGA. Based upon my discussion with Timm and as required by USDA policy, I have asked him to begin an administrative review of 

the complaint and to engage the R–1 Civil Right office and the Office of the 

General Counsel.’’

However, what Grassland Supervisor Dave Pieper doesn’t tell GRCGA is that this 

‘‘complaint’’ started back in November, 2008 (Refer to Doc #12 for a complete breakdown of FS actions in the civil rights investigation). This is when District Ranger 

Joby Timm is working with Matt Lopez and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to get Matt 

Lopez a permit with GRCGA. He campaigned for him over Rock Creek Local District to get the permit. He did this because he is good friends with Matt’s brother. 

Joby tried to influence the GRCGA board to give a permit to Matt Lopez (see meeting notes, Jan 15, 2009—original Platte Map found) (Doc #13). 

Dec 11, 2009 is the date that Rock Creel Local District and the Grand River 

Ranger District start the discrimination complaint, the direct permit talks, and putting all responsibility for what has happened on GRCGA. FS does not accept any 

responsibility or feel they were a part of the letters or discussion with RCLD. Grand 

River Ranger District had from the Sept. 22, 2009 meeting to Dec. 11, 2009 to talk 

RCLD into what is about to take place in the following notes and messages. 

In a FS Issue Paper prepared on January 13, 2010 by District Ranger Joby Timm, 

he states; ‘‘No contact was made by the GRCGA to the FS concerning Rock Creek.’’ 

District Ranger Joby Timm is not telling the truth at this point. It was hard for 

GRCGA to contact the FS concerning Rock Creel Local District’s actions when it is 

the FS who is meeting with them without the GRCGA. The following is a sequence 

of events that demonstrate that GRCGA did contact the FS and the members:

• April 29, 2009—meeting with RCLD, Lonnie Hall and the FS.

• Aug. 17, 2009—GRCGA calls Paul Drayton that Rock Cree’s livestock were in 

the wrong pasture. Forest Service contacted the pasture director to inform him 

of the situation.

• Aug. 19, 2009—Violation letter from GRCGA to RCLD about not following AOI. 

A letter went out to RCLD from GRCGA as a follow up to a call made to RCLD 

for the purpose of informing them that the cattle on Shambo Allotment are not 

in the correct pasture, which the FS determines a violation of their AOI. Jane 

also encouraged RCLD to call the FS so they could aid in explaining their AOI.

• August 20, 2009—Paul Drayton’s notes to Joby Timm on how the FS found 

Rock Creek Local District livestock in the wrong pasture and how RCLD was 

not following the FS AOI. Paul Drayton called Len Hofer to let him know of 

the situation. Len in turn called Jane who then called RCLD.

Courtney Brownotter then called Paul Drayton to apologize and said he would 

have them moved into the correct pasture by 8/21. He said they really didn’t 

know much about the allotment since this is the first year running in there.

Courtney said Jane had faxed them another copy of their AOI. He also told me 

(Paul Drayton) they turned out 41 less head than permitted including bulls.

• Sept. 4, 2009—Paul Drayton’s conversation with Len Hofer calling to notify FS 

that the bulls were still out past the date when they were to be removed from 

94

the Shambo Allotment. Also discussed was the problem of Rock Creek turning 

out open cows which is against state policy due to tric. concerns.

• Sept. 4, 2009—Paul Drayton calls Lonnie Hall about having his bulls out past 

the removal date.

• Sept 4, 2009—Paul Drayton calls Rock Creek and left a message to ‘‘leave their 

cows in the west pasture on Shambo until 9/16 when they are to rotate with 

Lonnie Hall back to the east pasture. At that time, the bulls are to be removed.’’ 

Again, At this point, Paul waves any violation on the part of Lonnie or Rock 

Creek.

• Sept 4, 2009—Paul Drayton’s notes documents a conversation with Cathy 

Evans, secretary at GRCGA, and at Paul’s request she said she would be sending a letter to Rock Creek about violating their AOI (I called Cathy on Dec. 23, 

2010, and she confirmed that Paul told her to send the letter). Paul says he told 

Cathy that both Rock Creek and Lonnie Hall should receive a letter because 

neither one of them were following their AOI by not being in the right pasture 

and not removing their bulls on time.

• Sept 4, 2009—GRCGA sends out second letter of violation to RCLD based on 

Len Hofer’s report of RCLD not following bull policy and not following AOI.

• Sept. 15, 2009—Paul Drayton received a copy of a letter from the GRCGA to 

Rock Creek Local District requesting their attendance at the special meeting to 

be help on Sept. 22, 2009 to discuss issues concerning their allotment.

• Sept. 22, 2009—Paul Drayton records he has notes from the special meeting 

held with the GRCGA and RCLD discussing issues concerning their allotment.

• Dec. 11, 2009—Paul Drayton received a phone call from Courtney Brownotter 

expressing concern about receiving 2 letters and possibly losing their permit if 

they receive 1 more letter. Paul reports that RCLD feels like they may be discriminated against.

It is after Dec. 11, 2009 that the FS is the one who does not contact GRCGA 

about the situation with RCLD. It is the FS who goes on to encourage the actions proposed by RCLD and actually openly criticizes GRCGA for their management practices.

On Jan 13, 2009, a meeting was held at the Grand River Ranger District Office. 

Present were Rock Creek Local District, GRCGA and FS. This meeting was held because of questions Matt Lopez asked on Nov. 8, 2008 (see above). Dan Anderson 

showed everyone a map of the base property of the Shambo ranch from 1942. There 

was 2,636 ac. of base property. There were letters from the FS in 1985, 1986 and 

1995, that showed the base acres had changed. Dan informed everyone that this was 

‘‘incorrect’’. Dan said the FS had confused ‘‘base’’ acres with ‘‘commensurate’’ acres. 

So the FS misled everyone. Eric Bogue said the base acres had not changed since 

1942. Joby Timm said Gary Petik had written the letters above. 

These meetings start the Grand River Ranger District down the road of taking 

two letters of violation and a supposed ‘‘racially motivated remark’’ by a Pasture Director and turning it into a USDA investigation in the form of a compliance review 

of the grazing program which is administered by GRCGA and which could result 

in enforcement proceedings as provided in DR 4330–002. 

On August 16, 2010, Regional Forester gives GRCGA its second notification that 

the Northern Region of the USDA Forest Service will conduct a compliance review 

of the grazing program administered by the Grand River Grazing Association 

(GRGA). The letter refers to allegations of violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act and then states that the Forest Service has received ‘‘written and verbal allegations from program participants of discrimination, harassment, and mistreatment 

by members and directors.’’

The claims include the following:

• disparate treatment by use of threats and intimidation

• reports of racially motivated or discriminatory remarks by board members

• concerns that all permit holders are not able to participate in officer election 

meetings

• use of economic sanctions to force compliance with arbitrary rules

• selective application of economic sanctions

• failure to comply with primary purpose of GRCGA bylaws, conservation of natural resources

• disparate treatment of permittees through arbitrary application of Rules of 

Management

95

An analysis of August 16, 2010 letter from the RF is attached (Doc #14). A statement taken from the analysis by Chet Anderson is as follows:

• In a conversation Chet Anderson had with Joby Timm and Paul Drayton, Chet 

asked Drayton if the members they interviewed came in on their own or if the 

FS called them in. With Joby Timm standing there, Drayton said they called 

the members in to question them.

The written and verbal allegations came from the members the Grand River 

Ranger District called into question. 

The GRCGA has tried to identify where the ‘‘reports of racially motivated or discriminatory remarks by board members’’ would have come from. From an analysis 

of the documents received on October 18, 2010 at the start of the USDA investigation through a compliance review, GRCGA thinks it comes from a conversation Pasture Director Len Hofer had with Grand River Ranger District employee Paul 

Drayton. Attached is a statement made by Len Hofer on what he actually said to 

Paul Drayton concerning the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe permit (Doc #15). A summary of what Len said is as follows:

‘‘I did say that considering all the rules the Forest Service has and the Grazing 

Association has that Rock Creek might not keep their permit very long. I made 

the comment only in the light that Rock Creek had only used part of their permit the last few years, leasing out the entire allotment before that and they do 

have issues with distance, etc. and meeting the requirements might not be 

worth the hassle. There was no malice in my comment, skin color was never 

an issue; I have friends that are Native American. I say this because I’m suspecting that a personal comment I made to Paul has been misconstrued.’’

Len Hofer did not make a ‘‘racially motivated remark’’. It was Paul Drayton who 

made it a ‘‘racially motivated remark’’ by reporting it incorrectly. In a letter from 

Mr. James Cerney on April 7, 2010 to District Ranger Joby Timm stating (Doc #16):

Of greater concern were comments that may have been made at an Association 

meeting in the fall of 2009. It has come to my attention that one of the Board 

members may have made, what appears to be, a racially motivated statement. The alleged statement was that if the Association makes things 

tough for Rock Creek, they (Rock Creek) will withdraw from the Association.

In early October, GRCGA President Tim Smith sent a letter to GRCGA membership explaining what the compliance review entailed. Tim did not at any time tell 

the membership they shouldn’t or could not meet with the FS. What he does say 

is, ‘‘The Association and any member are entitled to have counsel or a personal representative’’, ‘‘We have asked the FS to contact counsel rather than communicating 

with the Board, Officers or employees directly’’, ‘‘You are entitled to have counsel 

or the personal representative present during the interview’’, ‘‘If you want counsel 

present’’, and ‘‘you may call the GRCGA office for guidance, if you so desire’’. These 

are all first amendment rights which the GRCGA is exercising (Doc #17).

On October 6, 2010, Grassland Supervisor David Pieper sent a letter to the 

GRCGA membership, contrary to the request made by GRCGA. In the ‘‘unofficial’’ 

copy of the Program Compliance Review Report, the FS states that ‘‘It appeared 

that the GRCGA attempted to limit membership participation in the compliance review.’’ This is not true and a statement made to make GRCGA look controlling (Doc 

#18).

Summary of Notice of Civil Rights complaint:

At no time has the Forest Service provided the Association with factual information regarding the allegations that GRCGA has violated the Civil Rights Act. Nor 

has the Forest Service adequately explained the alleged violations of the Grazing 

Agreement other than to report allegations from a long-time member, who unsuccessfully sued the Association making the same or very similar allegations. 

When the Civil Rights Compliance Director for Region 1 of the Forest Service met 

with the GRCGA Board in February 2010, the Association’s lawyer Eric Bogue 

asked for a copy of the complaint. Nothing was ever provided. Forest Service Civil 

Rights investigation policy requires the Forest Service to produce the case file and 

it has not done so despite requests for the file. 

GRCGA does not currently receive financial assistance from the federal government. In the past, it received ear-marked weed control funds but has not for the 

last two years. The Forest Service relies on the fact that GRCGA is its agent in administering the grazing agreement. GRCGA does not receive federal financial assistance or payment for the duties it assumes under the grazing agreement. 

96

The Forest Service appears to be combining the investigation conducted under the 

Civil Rights program, with a ‘grazing program compliance review,’ even though they 

are independent factually and legally. In both cases, GRCGA faces vague statements 

alleging ‘‘written and verbal allegations from program participants of discrimination, harassment, and mistreatment by members and directors.’’ The letter also alleges the Board members have made discriminatory remarks, arbitrarily enforced 

the Rules of Management, threatened economic sanctions to enforce the Rules of 

Management, and failed to conserve natural resources. 

At this point, GRCGA is left in the dark as to whether this is a civil rights case 

or a grazing agreement compliance matter. Forest Service employees from the 

Grand River office have said that the Forest Service will soon cancel the grazing 

agreement for these violations and that the outcome of the investigation is a ‘done 

deal.’

GRCGA can say that its Board has endeavored to always treat its members with 

respect and has not intentionally or knowingly discriminated on the basis of race, 

religion, gender or ethnicity. 

GRCGA has always worked to comply with the grazing agreement and Rules of 

Management and to ensure that all members comply. 

6. Direct Permits 

It is well known that the FS has wanted to eliminate all the Grazing Associations 

and go to direct FS grazing permits on all the National Grasslands. R–1 past Director of Range Management, Bruce Fox; R–1 Range Staff Jim Wickel, and Grassland 

Supervisor David Pieper have all said the GPG Grazing Associations have out lived 

their usefulness and should be eliminated. All three have been heard to say this at 

FS meetings. 

Listed below are statements and incidents where the FS has talked to members, 

directors and GRCGA employees about direct permits and actually issued a direct 

permit:

1. On Sept. 24, 2010 Chet Anderson made the following statement: In the fall 

of 2009 Director Ed Wiesinger and I, members of the resource committee, attended a tour of pastures 1through 5. Representing the Forest Service and conducting the tour were Joby Timm and Paul Drayton. The tour itself was fine 

and informative, but as we neared the end of the tour, Joby and Paul changed 

the topic of the conversation to direct permits. They promoted the idea that direct permits would have a much lower cost to individual producers than being 

members of an association. They made a comment that members of the Grand 

River Grazing Association paid the highest costs of any association members 

they were aware of. They were also wondering if we knew of any association 

members that would be interested in changing to direct permits. I was alarmed 

that they would present this idea to two board members and that it was presented in this setting. I felt that if they were this bold with board members, 

are they doing the same thing every time they get alone with a member (Doc 

#19)?

2. Kevin Ormiston, GRCGA Range Foreman, had a conversation in September 

2010 with Paul Drayton on direct permits. When Kevin said he knew the FS 

wanted to go to direct permits and that would directly affect his job, like he 

wouldn’t have one. Drayton did not deny the direct permit allegation. He just 

said that there would be enough of the permittees left who would hire him to 

do work for them. (Doc #10).

3. During the 2010 GRCGA Annual Membership meeting in December 2010, 

District Ranger Joby Timm talked to the members about direct permits with 

the Forest Service.

4. On January 10, 2011 District Ranger Joby Timm sent a letter to GRCGA concerning the expiration of the existing grazing agreement between the FS and 

GRCGA. In the second paragraph of the letter, Ranger Timm states the following (Doc #20):

‘‘I would like to begin by holding meetings with the membership of the 

Grazing Association and other interested parties. During the meeting(s) we 

will openly discuss options that may provide additional opportunities and 

flexibility to improve livestock operation while meeting DPG LRMP goals 

and objectives. As I outlined to the membership during the annual meeting, 

I would expect us to discuss a variety of issues that include individual grazing permit options..’’

The individual grazing permit options discussed by Ranger Timm at the annual 

meeting were ‘‘direct permits’’.

97

District Ranger Joby Timm can’t say he supports the Grazing Agreement (GA) 

and campaign for wit the members to go to direct permits. He is working 

against the GRCGA and the GA and encouraging as many GRCGA members 

to go to direct permits. At some point of diminishing returns, GRCGA is unable 

to function as an Association because of not enough members.

5. Grassland Supervisor David Pieper sent a letter on February 11, 2011 to 

GRCGA notifying them that the FS would be administering the Tribe’s grazing 

privileges as follows (Doc #21):

‘‘Given my trust responsibilities to the Tribe and my determination that, at 

least for the near term, the Forest Service should administer the Tribe’s 

grazing privileges based on their specific request, I have decided to remove 

the Shambo Allotment and associated Animal Unit Months (AUMs) from 

administration under the Grazing Agreement and work directly with the 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in authorizing grazing on the allotment.’’

‘‘When the Forest Service finalizes the Annual Operating Instructions 

(AOIs) and prepares the bill for the next grazing season in April 2011, 

those documents will reflect the withdrawal effective May12, 2011. At this 

time, we will also provide amended Brazing Agreement exhibits reflecting 

this change in lands and AUM’s covered by the Agreement.’’

The Shambo Allotment has 1530 Animal Months (AMs) associated with it. What 

Grassland Supervisor David Pieper will issue to SRST is a ‘‘direct permit’’, even 

though he never says those words in his decision. 

7. Threat Imposed by District Ranger Joby Timm and Range Specialist 

Paul Drayton on GRCGA staff 

On Oct. 18, 2010 the US Forest Service (FS) conducted a civil rights review of 

the grazing program administered by the GRCGA. During that review it came to 

GRCGAs attention that there Secretary, Cathy Evans, and past secretary Jane Peterson felt threatened and intimidated by District Ranger Joby Timm and Range 

Specialist Paul Drayton when they come to the GRCGA office and Cathy is alone 

at the office. 

On Oct 26, 2010 and Nov. 1, 2010 counsel for GRCGA wrote letters, to District 

Ranger Joby Timm and Grassland Supervisor David Pieper, who supervises Ranger 

Joby Timm and asked the following (Doc #22):

‘‘The GRCGA Board requests that the District Ranger and his staff call to make 

an appointment prior to any future visit to the Association’s office and with any 

Association employee so that members of the Association’s Board of Directors 

can be present as well. This should go a long way towards avoiding the opportunity for ‘miscommunication’ between the Association and the Forest Service.’’

On November 3, 2010 Grassland Supervisor David Pieper wrote a response to 

GRCGAs letters of Oct. 26, 2010 and Nov. 1, 2010 (Doc #23). Supervisor Pieper 

states he wants to first establish guidelines for both parties. He wants his staff to 

set appointments with GRCGA and FS to develop guidelines for business operations. 

GRCGA declines the offer and states there is no need to establish any guidelines; 

they have already been established in the first two letters. 

On January 10, 2011, Ranger Timm called Cathy Evans at the GRCGA office and 

asked if someone from his office could come to the GRCGA office and deliver some 

letters. Cathy Evans assumed that their FS Secretary would come with the letters. 

Cathy Evans agreed it would be OK. Ranger Timm and Paul Drayton both came 

to deliver the letters. They stayed about 2 minutes. They did not honor GRCGA request as outlined in the attached letter. Because of their actions, GRCGA contacted 

the Lemmon Police Department and asked if Cathy Evans would be able to call the 

Lemmon Police Department and be able to request a civil assist if either Range Joby 

Timm or Paul Drayton, or both show up at the office, for whatever reason (Doc #24). 

The procedure GRCGA Board of Directors will instruct Cathy Evans to use is: if 

either one or both of the above FS employees comes to the office when she is alone 

is:

1. If either one or both, Range Joby Timm or Paul Drayton come to the GRCGA 

Office will she is alone, she will instantly call for a civil assist from the Lemmon 

Police Dept.

2. Next, she will ask them to leave.

3. When the officer from the Lemmon Police Dept. makes it to the GRCGA office, and either Ranger Timm or Paul Drayton, or both are still there then 

GRCGA would ask that they be removed from the office. 

98

8. Threat Made by District Ranger Joby Timm to GRCGA 

At the Board meeting on November 9, 2010, District Ranger Joby Timm threatened GRCGA by making the following statement to Mr. Tim Smith: ‘‘You tell the 

Board that, and you are going to have a fight on your hands!’’ This is prohibited 

retaliation (Doc #25). 

The threat was made in reference to the letters that were sent to Grassland Supervisor David Pieper and District Ranger Joby Timm about the acts of intimidation 

by Ranger Timm and Paul Drayton creating a hostile work environment and altering the working conditions of the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association 

(GRCGA) employees. 

District Ranger Joby Timm was telling GRCGA President Tim Smith that if he 

told the Board about the letters and they acted on them, that Mr. Smith was going 

to have a fight on his hands with Joby Timm. 

Joby Timm was very angry and upset when he made the statement. This is a very 

threatening and intimidating statement to have been made by a line officer in the 

FS. However, it does demonstrate Joby’s dislike for Tim Smith and the GRCGA, and 

his continued harassment of both. 

Pasture Directors Gary Frisvold and Raymond Akers were both present when 

Joby Timm made the threat. Tim Smith had turned to Gary when Joby walked 

away after making the threat, and said to Gary, ‘‘Did you hear that. Gary said, ‘I 

sure did.’ ’’

Disciplinary action needs to against District Ranger Joby Timm for his abuse of 

power in the position he is in, making threats against the President of GRCGA and 

the entire GRCGA. The continued abuse and threats by Joby Timm are making for 

a hostile work environment for the entire Board of Directors and the GRCGA. 

9. Shadehill Recreation Project 

GRCGA appealed the Shadehill Recreation Project on august 19, 2010 (Doc #26). 

On September 24, 2010 Chet Anderson attended a meeting at the Grand River 

Ranger District office to discuss his appeal of the Shadehill Lake Recreation project. 

Chet made the following statement concerning statements made by Acting District 

Ranger Tanya Weisbeck:

‘‘On Sept. 24, 2010 Chet Anderson made the following statement: In the late 

summer of 2010, at the request of Pasture 8 member John Bartell, I attended 

a meeting at the Forest Service office to discuss his appeal of the Shadehill 

Lake Recreation project. In attendance were Vivian Lyon, John Bartell, Tanya 

Weisbeck and Barbara from the FS office in Bismarck, and I. One of John’s concerns was that with a horse riding trail in the pasture, cows and their grazing 

patterns would be disturbed. Tanya proceeded to explain that in the Ft. Pierre 

National Grasslands, where she used to be employed, it is common for people 

to hunt on horseback. ‘There’ve been instances where producer’s livestock have 

been shot by hunters’ said Tanya. John expressed that having cattle shot would 

be much worse, but having cattle disturbed is also detrimental. Tanya responded that considering the ‘cheap grazing fee’ we pay, we should be expected 

to tolerate the disturbance, injury, or death of some livestock. I feel this comment was extremely prejudiced and implied two things: (1) That grazing associations are similar to government assistance programs, and (2) That if government assistance is received, the recipients should be expected to tolerate poor 

treatment. I will reply to both of these implications. First, our association 

doesn’t receive one cent of government assistance. Second, for anyone, especially 

someone in a supervisory governmental position, to suggest that we should tolerate livestock mistreatment in any form, is very concerning. In my opinion, her 

comment implied that it should be okay to kick the dog of someone who receives 

food stamps, or that someone on Medicaid should tolerate the mistreatment of 

their pet because they are receiving federal assistance. I am gravely concerned 

that Tanya, with her supervisory position, has this underlying opinion of our 

association and the livestock we manage.

I would be willing to comment more on this topic, but am having trouble putting all of my thoughts onto paper. I have never felt discriminated against until 

now.’’

During the appeal the Grand River Ranger district agreed to try and resolve the 

appeal through informal resolution. On December 8, 2010 an informal resolution 

meeting was held to discuss the GRCGA’s appeal. The GRCGA and the FS narrowed 

the appeal down to the following issues (Doc #27):

Issue potentially resolved.

99

1. GRCGA proposed reducing size of exclosure at the Shadehill Campground. 

Forest Service agreed to reduce size of exclosure from 450 acres to approximately 110 acres. FS would be responsible for the construction of the fence and 

GRCGA would maintain it. If fence does not keep cattle out of campground, additional fence would be constructed increasing the size of the exclosure to approximately 185 acres. See attached maps.

2. GRCGA proposed that there would not be a reduction in permitted animal 

months due to the building of the approximately 110 acre campground 

exclosure. Forest Service agreed to this proposal.

3. GRCGA proposed that the FS monitor the use of the facilities constructed in 

phase 1 (as described in the Decision Notice) of the campground before building 

phase 2. No ‘‘trigger point’’ for amount of use was proposed. FS agreed to monitor the use before building phase 2.

Attempts to agree on the proposed three issues above failed and District Ranger 

Joby Timm moved ahead on January 19, 2011 with his responsive statement to 

Grassland Supervisor David Pieper (Doc #28). The main issue the FS would not 

agree to is the maintenance of the fence they would build to fence off their campground. The FS wanted to assign maintenance of the fence to GRCGA. 

In District Ranger Joby Timm’s responsive statement, he used two and a half 

pages to describe the ‘‘informal resolution process’’ stating that even though he tried 

very hard to make it work with Chet Anderson from GRCGA who would not return 

his calls. When Chet was asked why he didn’t return his calls, Chet said he never 

got a call or a message to call Ranger Timm back. 

In the Responsive Statement, Page 18, Ranger Timm makes the following statements:

‘‘The decision was to fence the 450 acres out of Pasture 8 and to review annually to determine if cattle can graze the area. Because grazing may still be authorized annually, it is difficult to quantify the economic impacts due to the fact 

that there are several possibilities to achieve this reduction in authorized use.

The appellant also state that the reduction in livestock will have a negative effect on the economy of our area of $138,600. In 2009, the Hettinger Research 

Extension Center conducted a study of the potential effect of reducing livestock 

numbers on 22 allotments in the Pasture 1–5 area of the Grand River National 

Grasslands on the regional economy. Under the parameters of this study, the 

reductions in livestock proposed may negatively impact individual permittees 

involved, but are not forecast to adversely affect the regional economy.’’

In the Responsive Statement, Page 10, Ranger Timm makes the following statements:

‘‘Livestock grazing may still be allowed. Any changes in livestock grazing would 

be reviewed annually, there are no permanent adjustments proposed. Actual reduction in livestock grazing would be no greater than 6%. If grazing does not 

occur in the exclosure in a given year, the reduction does not have to be in livestock numbers, the grazing season can be shortened (approximately 11 days 

less).

This project will involve installation of a new fence and watering locations 

which will in fact affect the operating costs of the GRGA. The 450 acre 

exclosure which was in the selected alternative will add approximately 6,000 

feet (1.14 mi) of fence. Whereas, the 240 acre exclosure which was also analyzed 

would add approximately 7,300 feet (1.38 mi). So utilizing the 450 acre 

exclosure will have an overall lower maintenance cost than the smaller 

exclosure.’’

‘‘The FS says the reductions in livestock proposed may negatively impact individual permittees involved, but are not forecast to adversely affect the regional economy.’’ So it is OK to impose reductions because a study says it will not adversely 

affect the regional economy. Somehow the logic is flawed. The FS should consider 

the individual members first in any reduction, especially if one is not warranted. 

What the Ranger Timm is saying from in the above paragraphs is, because grazing may still be authorized annually, there are no permanent adjustments proposed. 

It should be noted that grazing that does occur in exclosures across the DPG is ‘‘incidental’’ to the regularly scheduled grazing. Incidental is described as; 1. Secondary 

or minor, 2. Miscellaneous or minor items. Incidental use should not be counted on 

the normal operation of the Pasture grazing system. Therefore, it is a true reduction 

is use and should be considered a cancellation of part of the permit. To say there 

are no permanent adjustments proposed is misleading when the FS knows it is not 

100

going to be grazed. The purpose of the campground is for public safety and to prevent resource damage, which if livestock were allowed to graze, the FS would say 

they damaged the campground. 

The reasoning behind where the fence should be installed is based on 1,300 feet 

of fence (.25 mi.) difference because the maintenance costs will be lower. And this 

justifies an actual reduction in livestock grazing would be no greater than 6%. 

Again, this is flawed logic. The reductions may not cause the FS to rethink their 

logic, but to Pasture 8 members, it is significant. 

On February 7, 2011 the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA), 

on behalf of its members, submits this reply to the Responsive Statement in the Appeal of the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for 

the Grand River Recreation Projects Environmental Assessment, Grand River Ranger District, and Dakota Prairie Grasslands. It asked Grassland Supervisor David 

Pieper to reconsider the size of the fenced area from 450 ac. To 185 ac. as was proposed and agreed to in informal resolution (Doc #29). Decision from Grassland Supervisor Pieper is pending. 

10. Civil Rights Complaint, Program Compliance Review Report and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Direct Permit 

On January 25, 2010, Grassland Supervisor David Pieper sent a letter to GRCGA 

President, Tim Smith giving GRCGA their first notice that allegations have been 

made by a GRCGA member. Supervisor Pieper states in his letter;

‘‘Specifically, under II.D. 11. of the current grazing agreement, the association 

will ‘Comply with nondiscrimination conditions of Executive Order No. 11246 

and Civil Rights Act of 1964, and on subsequent amendments. Recently, DR 

Timm informed me of a member’s allegations of unequal treatment and discrimination by the GRCGA. Based upon my discussion with Timm and as required by USDA policy, I have asked him to begin an administrative review of 

the complaint and to engage the R–1 Civil Right office and the Office of the 

General Counsel.’ Supervisor Pieper has just given GRCGA its 1st notice that 

allegations of unequal treatment and discrimination by the GRCGA have been 

made.’’

In Mr. Pieper’s next sentence he calls the allegation a ‘‘complaint’’. Supervisor 

Pieper is careful not to disclose any information about who made the allegations or 

how long this has been going on. 

The Program Compliance Review Report is the culmination of an effort that started in January of 2009 by the Grand River Ranger District to get the Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe (SRST) to a direct permit. Grand River Ranger District planned and implemented a strategy between September 22, 2009 and December 11, 2009 to get 

Rock Creek Local District, a tribal entity with SRST, to request a direct permit with 

the Forest Service and make the claim they are being discriminated against by 

Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA.) Grand River Ranger District then spent the next twelve (12) months working with SRST and their lawyers, 

with no involvement by GRCGA, to get Charles W. Murphy, Chairman, and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to a point of sending a letter dated December 20, 2010 to 

Grassland Supervisor David Pieper. The letter states; ‘‘Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is hereby requesting that it be issued a grazing permit from the U.S. Forest Service for the national grasslands in relation to 

the grazing privileges of Shambo Ranch. The Rock Creek District of the Standing 

Rock Sioux Reservation looks forward to working directly with the U.S. Forest Service beginning with the 2011 grazing season.’’

The FS conducted an investigation in the form of a compliance review which could 

result in enforcement proceeding as provided in DR 4330–002 (Oct. 18, 2010 Regional Forester, Leslie Weldon letter to Constance E. Brooks, P. 3, paragraph 1, sentence 4). GRCGA is not a ‘‘Forest Service Federally Assisted Program’’. GRCGA administers a grazing program on the Grand River National Grasslands (Aug 16, 2010 

Regional Forester, Leslie Weldon letter to Tim Smith, President, GRCGA, P. 1, 

paragraph 1, sentence 1). 

A letter from Regional Forester Leslie Weldon to Constance E. Brooks, counsel for 

GRCGA, along with 19 documents, were hand delivered on October 18, 2010, by 

Lindsay Carter at the GRCGA office. This letter was in response to the September 

17, 2010, FOIA request. On page 2, paragraph 1 of the letter, the regional forester 

states,

‘‘The objective of the compliance review, as stated in our letter, is to ascertain 

whether the allegations have merit and to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the prohibition against discrimination. Specifically, a compliance review 

is an investigation that assess and evaluates the civil rights and equal opporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
101

tunity policies, procedures, and practices of an organization or its instrumentality, funded in whole or part by USDA, to determine compliance with applicable civil rights statutes, regulation, standards, and policies.’’

A summary of the timeline and documents and what lead to a Civil Rights complaint by the Forest Service for Standing Rock Sioux Tribe/Rock Creek Local District—member of GRCGA is attached (Doc #30). 

On page 3, paragraph 1 of the October 18, 2010 letter the Regional Forester 

states, ‘‘The USDA is undertaking an investigation in the form of a compliance 

review which could result in an enforcement proceeding as provided in DR 4330–

002.’’

On the afternoon of October 18, 2010, review team leader Lindsay Carter conducted a pre-review meeting at the GRCGA office with the review team, Eric Bogue, 

counsel for GRCGA, Van Elsbernd, consultant and Cathy Evans, secretary treasurer 

for GRCGA. Lindsay Carter opened the meeting by saying the Review Team was 

there to conduct a compliance review of the grazing program. When questioned by 

Eric Bogue about the investigation, Lindsay Carter said that it was not an investigation, even though the October 18, 2010 letter expressly says it is. Lindsay Carter 

continued the meeting by making the following opening comments;

‘‘I am here to clear up any misconceptions/misunderstandings about some of the 

things I’ve said. There must be some pretty serious misunderstandings about 

what we are here to do.’’

‘‘What we are here to do is a compliance review. It is a programmatic review. 

Pat Jackman is here to serve as technical advisor.’’

‘‘The Grazing program is a USDA program. The Grand River Grazing Association is our agent; it’s the Forest Service agent, therefore is a recipient and as 

a recipient the Grazing Association has obligations to meet and the FS has obligations to tell them what they are.’’

‘‘What this is, is a review of how the program is being delivered.’’

‘‘We are here to conduct some interviews, hopefully with Grazing Association directors, pasture directors, and grazing association members. So you all can tell 

us your concerns with the program, so we can listen to those. If there is something the Forest Service needs to do to improve our service to you at all we 

want to know what that is.’’

‘‘What we are here to do is help make the program better and whether that is 

on the Forest Service side or the Grazing Association side, we don’t know what 

that is going to be yet. So that is really why are here.’’

‘‘One of the things I want to know is what the Grazing Association impressions, 

what their perceptions of how the grazing program is supposed to work so that 

if there is any misconceptions there we can start working to achieve a more 

common understanding of what the expectations are. And we need to know 

what you alls expectations of the Forest Service are. And you all need to know 

what the Forest Service expectations of the Grazing Association are.’’

‘‘This has nothing to do with canceling the Grazing Agreement as has been 

mentioned in letters we’ve received and also on the radio broadcast of your 

meeting last Saturday.’’

‘‘Once we are through the requirements dictate that we generate a report within 

30 days. You all will be furnished a copy of the report. In there will be issues 

identified, there will be findings identified, and there will be recommendations 

about what we need to do whether it’s a recommendation for the Grazing Association or recommendation for the Grand River District of the Forest Service. 

And I can tell you there is going to be some recommendations for the Forest 

Service.’’

‘‘So that report will be done and then we will work with you on it to develop 

a corrective action plan. So that our goal is to help you all recognize whatever 

deficiencies there are, if there are any.’’

At this point, GRCGA was very confused by the direct reversal by Lindsay Carter 

saying this was not an investigation, when the Regional Forester stated in the letter 

of October 18, 2011 that was handed to GRCGA that afternoon stating ‘‘The USDA 

is undertaking an investigation in the form of a compliance review which could 

result in an enforcement proceeding as provided in DR 4330–002.’’

GRCGA was very guarded in its approach to the civil rights investigation, especially since the FS intentionally kept GRCGA in the dark for almost a year as to 

what they were working on with their members and changing the investigation to 

a review on Oct. 18, 2010. The FS is openly critical of this guarded attitude in the 

102

Program Compliance Report of February 2, 2011, especially in how the GRCGA conducted itself during the FS interviews (Program Compliance Report February 2, 

2011, IX. Observations of Treatment of Program Participants, P. 15, point #4.) 

On January 10, 2010, District Ranger Joby Timm sent GRCGA a letter stating 

on December 20, 2010 the FS received a request from the SRST for an individual 

grazing permit (direct permit) in regards to the Shambo Allotment. The FS stated 

it would like to consult with GRCGA about removing the NFS lands in the Shambo 

Allotment from the Grazing Agreement. The FS then states; ‘‘Please add this topic 

to your agenda for discussion at your board meeting on January 11, 2011.’’ The consultation the FS was after was removing the Shambo Allotment from the Grazing 

Agreement. The FS had already determined they were going to issue SRST a direct 

permit (Doc #31). Consultation with GRCGA was merely a formality. 

The FS stated in their January 10, 2011 letter that:

‘‘As indicated in the current Grazing Agreement on page 9, section F #4—Lower 

priority withdrawals of service lands may be made after consultation with the 

Association and upon 90 days written notice, but not to be effective prior to the 

end of the current grazing season.’’

In the current Grazing Agreement, Section F—It is Further Understood That, #4 

actually reads as follows:

• #4—In the event the Service lands and facilities, or any part thereof, are needed 

for military, or other similar priority purposes, this Agreement may be terminated, or the necessary lands and facilities may be withdrawn from this Agreement any time upon 30 days written notice to the Association by the Service. 

Lower priority withdrawals may be made after consultation with the 

Association and upon 90 days written notice, but not to be effective 

prior to the end of the current grazing season.

Section F, #4 is referring to the Service lands (National Grasslands) being needed 

for military, or other similar priority purposes. Using this clause in the Grazing 

Agreement to go to a direct permit does not meet this criteria and the FS is wrong 

in their interpretation of the Grazing Agreement. If #4 stands as being applicable 

to remove land and AMs from the Grazing Agreement, then the entire National 

Grasslands can be classed as a ‘‘lower priority withdrawal’’ and the grazing agreement canceled and direct permits given to anyone. 

GRCGA has a grazing permit with the FS through the Grazing Agreement. If the 

FS is going to suspend or cancel all or part of the permit, in this case it would be 

cancel, then that is an adverse action that has to be taken against GRCGA. There 

has to be just cause to do so. 

On January 11, 2011 the Board took the following stand with the FS:

• The District Ranger (DR) delivered the first letter 4 p.m. the day before the 

Board meeting, without sufficient notice to get it on the next day’s agenda. The 

Board properly deferred discussion when it had no information. Mr. Timm did 

not bring SRST’s request with him when he attended the meeting.

• The Board requested a copy of the SRST request. The DR said he would provide 

it; it was not provided till Feb. 9, 2011, two days before Grassland Supervisor 

Pieper made his decision. So the Board did not have the relevant information 

they could not discuss it with the DR.

• The Board has insufficient information in order to begin consultation. Announcing the request without providing any of the background information or the FS 

file, is not consultation.

• GRCGAs interpretation of the Grazing Agreement requires a 90-day consultation period. A final decision by 2/11/11 is not consistent with the Grazing Agreement.

At the Board meeting Tim Smith asked District Ranger Joby Timm for a copy of 

the SRST request. Joby responded that he had left it on his desk and he would get 

it to right away. 

The GRCGA wanted to contact Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST), because they 

were still a member of the Association, to explain from their point of view what had 

transpired over the last two years to get SRST to the point of requesting a direct 

permit. On January 28, 2011 GRCGA sent a letter to Charles W. Murphy, Chairman, SRST, asking the Tribe to come to Lemmon and meet with the Board on February 14, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. (Doc #32). 

On January 31, 2011 GRCGA sent a letter to Joby Timm requesting the following 

(Doc #33):

103

‘‘Before Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA) can consult 

with or respond to your January 10, 2011 letter stating the Forest Service received a Dec. 20, 20011 request from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) for 

an individual term grazing permit (direct permit) in regards to the Shambo Allotment, GRCGA will need to receive a copy of the request made by SRST. At 

the Jan. 11, 2011 Board meeting when Tim Smith asked for a copy of the letter 

of SRST’s request, you stated that you had it but it was at your office. Please 

provide a copy and all additional documentation pertaining to the request.’’

On January 31, 2011 a letter was sent from Grassland Supervisor David Pieper 

to GRCGA stating (Doc #34):

‘‘If GRCGA wishes to discuss this matter I propose a meeting with Ranger 

Timm at 10 a.m. on February 4, 2011 at the GRRD office.’’ ‘‘The agency intends 

to conclude consultation and make a decision concerning the SRST’s request by 

February 11, 2011.’’

Tim Smith called District Ranger Joby Timm on February 4, 2011 to advise him 

that a letter was forth coming to Grassland Supervisor David Pieper. Ranger Timm 

asked Tim Smith if they had sent a letter to SRST, and he said he they had. On 

February 9, 2011 GRCGA responded to Grassland Supervisor David Pieper with a 

letter that explained GRCGA concern for withdrawing the Shambo Ranch under 

Section F, #4 as follows (Doc #35):

‘‘Your letter of Jan. 31, 2011 states, ‘to Grand River Cooperative Grazing Agreement (GRCGA) on Page 9, section F#4, provides lower priority withdrawals may 

be made after consultation with the Association and upon 90 days written notice, but not to be effective prior to the end of the current grazing season.’ It 

also states the Jan. 10, 2011, letter to GRCGA initiated the process outlined in 

the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Agreement. Even assuming that the 

above provision in the GRCGA Grazing Agreement applies to this situation and 

even assuming that the Jan. 10, 2011 letter triggered a 90-day consultation period, it would not expire until April 11, 2011.’’

‘‘Therefore it is GRCGA’s contention that the FS has clearly misinterpreted this 

clause. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act defines a withdrawal as:

[W]ithholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or 

entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values 

in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; 

or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than ‘property’ governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as 

amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another 

department, bureau or agency.

43 U.S.C. 1702(j). This clause clearly applies to situations when the administration of the federal land is transferred to another agency, not the removal of land 

from a grazing agreement.’’

‘‘GRCGA believes that a direct permit and a term grazing permit are similar, 

neither one being a lower priority withdrawal. It is also GRCGA’s assumption 

that since the only term permit that has been issued on the Grand River National Grasslands is to the GRCGA, any actions pertaining to that permit would 

be done according to FS rules and policies regarding changes in the grazing permit, i.e., FSM, 2200, ‘Cancellation, in whole or in part, applies if a permanent 

change in the permit is necessary’ and just cause has to be produced for any 

cancellation. The FS Handbook governing the administration of the grazing 

agreement further provides: ‘22.1—Changes in Lands or Improvements. The 

grazing agreement shall require that the Forest Service notify the organization 

of all proposed changes in lands and/or improvements included in the agreements and the reasons for the changes. The parties to grazing agreements must 

agree to the changes before they are effective.’ FSH 2209.13, ch. 20, ¶ 22.1.’’

On February 11, 2011 Grassland Supervisor David Pieper sent GRCGA a letter 

stating (Doc #36):

‘‘First you state that Mr. Timm failed to provide you a copy of the Tribe’s letter 

and, you declined to initiate consultation for the reason. However, on January 

18, 2011, Mr. Timm spoke to your counsel Mr. Eric Bogue by telephone and informed him that he would be sending by fax a copy of the Tribe’s letter. Mr. 

Timm did so on January 18 in accordance with the telephone call.’’

104

‘‘Given my trust responsibilities to the Tribe and my determination that, at 

least for the near future, the Forest Service should administer the Tribe’s grazing privileges based on their specific request, I have decided to remove the 

Shambo Allotment and associated Animal Unit Months (AUMs) from the administration under the Grazing Agreement and work with the Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe in authorizing grazing on the allotment.’’

The GRCGA could not have stopped the FS from withdrawing the Shambo Allotment from the Grazing Agreement, even if they would have consulted with the FS 

in January, 2011. Some keys points about the withdrawal are as follows:

1. There was nothing that GRCGA could have done to prevent this. The FS was 

on a mission to get SRST to a direct permit, as stated in their first letter of 

January 10, 2011:

‘‘The FS takes its tribal trust responsibilities very seriously and would like 

to consult with you about removing the NFS lands in the Shambo Allotment from the Grazing Agreement.’’

2. Even if GRCGA would have met with the FS prior to Feb. 11, 2011, just by 

the way the letter is written the FS would have made the same decision.

3. If the FS can withdraw this lands and AM’s from the Association, they can 

do as many as they want, for whatever the reason maybe; i.e., wildlife area, 

recreation area, direct permits, etc.

4. GRCGA only has to lose 35–40% of their membership to direct permits, before the Association becomes unprofitable to operate.

1. Even if GRCGA would have agreed to everything so far, no appeals, etc.,

GRCGA would end up in the same place. The FS wants GRCGA replaced with 

direct permits.

On February 9, 2011, Eric Bogue talked with Mr. Timm about the fax. Mr. Timm 

asserted that he sent the letter to me previously and said it was a ‘‘lie’’ to state 

otherwise in the letter, basically calling Eric a liar. Mr. Timm also told Eric that 

they (FS) are recording all of the meeting now and that he didn’t ‘‘promise’’ anyone 

regarding the SRST letter at the meeting. He said he ‘‘confirmed’’ that discussion 

when he re-listened to his recording of the meeting, basically calling Tim Smith a 

liar. 

Eric Bogue was asked to check his fax log, which he did and sent the following 

e-mail on what he found on Feb. 16, 2011:

‘‘I did just print that received log. It does go back far enough. I did get a fax 

on the 18th, however, it does not indicate from whom. Interestingly enough 

though, the fax that I can confirm getting from them (FS) on the 9th does show 

their fax number ([Redacted]). Without doing a full file search I don’t think 

I can tell you which other matter the fax was in reference to.’’

So I think we can safely say Bogue Law Offices fax machine records do not show 

the receipt of any telefax from the District Ranger’s office fax machine, [Redacted] 

on 1/18/11 as claimed by the District Ranger Joby Timm. 

On February 9, 2011 District Ranger Joby Timm did fax a copy of the December 

9, 2010 SRST request for a direct permit (Doc #37). 

11. GRCGA Development of AOIs 

On December 28, 2010, GRCGA sent a letter to District Ranger Joby Timm concerning the development of Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs). In the letter 

GRCGA stated the following (Doc #38):

‘‘The Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA) recently determined from a review of the Grazing Agreement that the authority to prepare 

annual operating instructions (AOIs) is delegated to GRCGA. Even though the 

FS assumed this aspect of the administration of the grazing program, GRCGA 

will accept its responsibility of preparing AOIs for the 2011 grazing season. The 

format for the 2011 AOIs would be similar to the 2010 AOIs that the FS completed and sent out.’’

On January 10, 2010 District Ranger Joby Timm delivered a letter to GRCGA office stating the following about the GRCGAs letter of Dec. 28, 2010 (Doc #39):

‘‘Keep in mind that if all AOIs are not completed and delivered to the Forest 

Service (FS) office by March 15, the FS will have to develop the AOIs. This 

deadline will ensure the AOIs are completed in a timely manner to allow the 

105

calculation of the grazing bill. As you know, livestock cannot be turned onto the 

National Grasslands until the bill is paid.’’

GRCGA sent a letter to Ranger Timm on January 31, 2011, and reviewed the 

2010 AOIs that were prepared by the FS, and noticed the following (Doc #40):

• The AOI date and the District Ranger signature were assumed to be the same, 

as no date accompanied the Ranger’s signature.

• Only two AOIs were dated before March 15, 2010 (March 4 and March 7)

• The rest of the AOI’s were signed after March 15.

Once again, Ranger Timm is trying to intimidate the GRCGA by stating a policy 

that doesn’t exist. Even his office doesn’t have the AOIs prepared by March 15. 

The GRCGA makes a request of the FS to help facilitate the AOI process with 

GRCGA as follows:

‘‘To facilitate the process, GRCGA requests that the FS use the same first billing for 2011 that was made for the first billing in 2010. Any differences between 

2010 and 2011 first billing can be adjusted in the second billing. This will help 

meet our concern of a timely calculation and payment of the grazing bill so livestock can be turned onto the National Grasslands.’’

The Grand River Ranger District did not respond back to GRCGA on this request. 

12. District Ranger Joby Timm Gives GRCGA SOPs for Board Meetings and 

Directors 

At the Board meeting on January 11, 2011 District Ranger Joby Timm gave the 

GRCGA a set of draft outline of ‘‘Standard Operating Procedures’’ for the GRCGA 

monthly meetings (Doc #41). It appears Ranger Timm is trying to put the GRCGA 

in a staff role to his position as Ranger and have them report out each month on 

what they did. GRCGA informed Ranger Timm they already had a set of standard 

operating procedures for their meetings and would continue to use those. 

13. District Ranger Joby Timm Gives GRCGA a Grand River National 

Grasslands, USFS, Answers to Your Questions ‘‘Fact Sheet’’

At the Board meeting on January 11, 2011 District Ranger Joby Timm gave the 

GRCGA a Grand River National Grasslands, USFS, Answers to your questions 

‘‘Fact Sheet’’ (Doc #42). Ranger Timm said these were questions he was getting 

asked most often and wanted GRCGA to have a copy to disperse. He said look it 

over and get back to me if GRCGA see’s anything they would like to comment on. 

On page 2 of Fact Sheet, #9 references ‘‘Program Compliance Reviews’’. This topic 

must be receiving a lot of attention. GRCGA is still working on a response to the 

Fact sheet, but doubts if their comments will convince the FS to change it. 

During the pre-briefings of the Program Compliance Review Report by the FS 

with South Dakota and North Dakota officials, the Fact Sheet was handed out as 

part of the briefing packet provided by the FS. The name on the Fact had been 

changed to ‘‘Grand River National Grasslands, 2010 Compliance Review: Answers 

to your questions ‘Fact Sheet’ ’’. It is the same fact sheet, only with one word noticeably put in bold print. That word lies in the following sentence:

4. Currently the GRCGA, working as an agent for the U.S. Forest Service, helps 

administer the grazing program on the Grand River Ranger District. The Forest 

Service allows the GRCGA to administer the grazing program through a grazing agreement. The Grazing Agreement and Rules of Management outline the 

processes and responsibilities of both the Forest Service and the GRCGA. The 

current grazing agreement expires on December 31, 2011.

The Fact Sheet must serve many needs depending on what emphasis the FS 

wants to put on it. And the FS wanted to make sure the officials knew that the 

‘‘Forest Service’’ allows the GRCGA to administer the grazing program through a 

grazing agreement. 

14. District Ranger Giving GRCGA 5 Letters on January 10, 2011 and Expecting Some of the Letters To Be Answered at the Board Meeting on 

January 11, 2011

On January 10, 2011, District Ranger Joby Timm and Range Specialist Paul 

Drayton came to the GRCGA office at about 4:00 p.m. and hand delivered 5 letters 

from the FS. Some of the letters required immediate answers, i.e., next day Board 

meeting. Others were answers to previous GRCGA letters. This delivery of letters 

was done to send a message of intimidation and harassment to the GRCGA 

and Cathy Evans, GRCGA Secretary. The number of letters delivered and 

106

with both Ranger Timm and Mr. Drayton delivering the letters, which they 

were notified not to do, clearly sends a message that Grand River Ranger 

District can do whatever they want and GRCGA can’t do thing about it.

15. District Ranger Joby Timm Gives GRCGA a FS Agenda for Board Meetings 

Prior to the February 14, 2011 Board meeting, Paul Drayton sent an e-mail on 

February 8, 2011 to GRCGA with an agenda for the Board meeting titled (Doc #43):

‘‘United State Forest Service, Grand River Ranger District Monthly Grazing Administration Meeting with Association, February 14, 2011.’’

In Mr. Drayton’s e-mail he states:

‘‘Hi Cathy. Here is an agenda we would like you to forward on to the 

directors before the meeting next week. This will give them a chance 

to look it over and prepare for any items they need or want to discuss.

I also scanned in your January meeting notes with some edits/corrections/suggestions that Joby and I came up with. Thanks and see you next week.’’

The FS agenda provide in the e-mail had many topics that the FS proposed to 

spend approximately three (3) hours of time and requiring seven (7) decisions by the 

FS. Many of the topics needed more information or could have been handled with 

a letter or an email. GRCGA prepared a response to FS on their agenda (Doc #44). 

Upon review of the current Grazing Agreement GRCGA could not find the above 

mentioned meeting or any reference to a monthly grazing administration meeting. 

In the future GRCGA will provide the FS an agenda for its Board of Directors 

monthly meeting the day before the meeting. This may help the FS’s understanding 

of what GRCGA is doing in the administration of the grazing program on the Grand 

River National Grasslands as outlined in the Grazing Agreement. This may help the 

FS’s understanding of what GRCGA is doing in the administration of the grazing 

program on the Grand River National Grasslands as outlined in the Grazing Agreement. 

It appears Ranger Timm is trying to put the GRCGA in a staff role to his position 

as Ranger and have GRCGA structure their meetings each month with an agenda 

provided by the FS. 

16. District Ranger Joby Timm Gives GRCGA Corrected Board Minutes 

Prior to the February 14, 2011 Board meeting, Paul Drayton sent an email on 

February 8, 2011 to GRCGA with an agenda for the Board meeting titled:

‘‘United State Forest Service, Grand River Ranger District Monthly Grazing Administration Meeting with Association, February 14, 2011.’’

In Mr. Drayton’s e-mail he states:

‘‘Hi Cathy, Here is an agenda we would like you to forward on to the directors 

before the meeting next week. This will give them a chance to look it over and 

prepare for any items they need or want to discuss. I also scanned in your 

January meeting notes with some edits/corrections/suggestions that 

Joby and I came up with (Doc #45). Thanks and see you next week.’’

During the Civil Rights Investigation the week of October 18, 2010, one of the 

issues brought forward by the Civil Rights Investigation review team (review team) 

was an accusation by the Forest Service (FS) that Grand River Cooperative Grazing 

Association (GRCGA) had changed their monthly Board of Director minutes. Upon 

a review of the minutes, the review team found the minutes had been changed, but 

not by the GRCGA, but by the FS. 

It appears the FS is again making an attempt to once again change the minutes 

of the GRCGA monthly Board of Director minutes. A review of the FS changes to 

the minutes shows they are mostly points of clarification, misspellings, or wording 

preferences. Aside from clerical errors, the Association minutes cannot be changed 

just to suit a participant. The minutes are recorded sessions and principles of corporate governance preclude efforts to rewrite the previous meeting. If the minutes 

contain an issue of significance that was not transcribed to the satisfaction of the 

FS, then the FS should bring that issue to the next Board meeting where it can 

be discussed again and recorded. 

GRCGA responded to the FS’s attempt to correct the minutes with a letter dated 

February 11, 2011 (Doc # 46). GRCGA advised the FS a copy of the GRCGA monthly Board of Director minutes are provided to the FS as so they can have a record 

of each meeting. GRCGA will continue to provide copies of the minutes. 

107

17. Statements of Forest Service Harassment and Intimidation 

1. Intimidation and threat by District Ranger Joby Timm 

On March 2 and 3, 2010, Ranger Timm suggested the GRCGA participate in funding the biologically capable study for which the Ranger District had received about 

$250,000.00. Tim Smith, President, GRCGA instead stated that the Association 

members would develop a monitoring program using the NDSU baseline range assessment and that the FS would be invited to participate. 

Ranger Timm told Tim Smith that unless the monitoring plan was approved by 

him (Ranger Tim), Ranger Timm would end livestock grazing for the 2010 season, 

should the Association proceed without his approval (Doc #49). 

2. Intimidation by Dan Swingen 

On September 9, 2010 Kevin Ormiston, GRCGA employee made the following 

statement. This documentation was from a Prairie Dog Tour in Pastures 7 & 8 on 

July 27, 2010.

• On July 27, 2010 I was at a Prairie Dog meeting in Pastures 7&8 with 2 of 

my directors and various Forest Service personnel, including Dan Swingen and 

Fish & Wildlife biologist Scott Larson out of Pierre. After viewing the town in 

7 Dan asked the group starting with me what do you think & I responded ‘‘I 

was hoping to retire here but if you introduce the ferret here you’re going to 

destroy this land like down at Wall.’’ ‘‘There is 2800 Acres of Dogs & it looks 

like the moon. What’s more important for families that work for Grand River 

Grazing Assn or animals? The cuts that the permittees take is less money in 

the bank to pay us and finance the improvements.’’ With a nice smile he did 

not answer me he moved on to the next person & asked him ‘‘what do you 

think?’’ I knew then my job is in trouble.

Later after the tour we were going to town and I was in the back and Swingen 

and Larson were talking in the seat ahead of me talking about how they should 

burn and transplant dogs to expand the towns quicker. Dan said the ‘‘Dems’’ 

were probably going to lose the house and Senate and the Presidency in the 

next election. The republicans would slow down the process of putting the Black 

Footed Ferret on the Grand River Ranger District. It’s a sad world we live in 

when we have to fear our Govt.

Kevin Ormiston 

Foreman Grand River Grazing Assn.

Signed: Kevin Ormiston 9–23–2010

3. Harassment by Joby Timm 

• On Sept. 24, 2010 Chet Anderson made the following statement: As a member 

of the prairie dog committee, pasture 8 director, and resource committee member, I have had several opportunities to meet with Forest Service personnel. 

During one of our meetings the topic turned to a project that I felt would be 

worthwhile, but would be impossible to complete due to a lack of funds. Joby 

made a comment that if we (GRCGA) weren’t paying lawyers to appeal 

the Forest Service Decision on pastures 1–5, we would have more funds 

available for projects.

Chet Anderson, Pasture Director 

4. Abuse of position and intimidation by Joby Timm of the GRCGA Board 

In late 2008 and early 2009, Joby Timm tried to get Matt Lopez a permit with 

GRCGA. He campaigned for him over Rock Creek Local District to get the permit. 

Joby tried to influence the GRCGA board to give a permit to Matt Lopez (see meeting notes, Jan 15, 2009—original Platte Map found). 

5. Intimidation by Joby Timm on two Pasture Directors 

In 2009, Joby Timm talked with Pasture Directors Dan Anderson and Len Hofer 

on why they should go with direct permits, outlining the cost of doing so. He tried 

to influence the directors to leave the Association and go with direct permits.

Report by: Van C. Elsbernd (e-mail: [Redacted]), Manager, Great Plains Consulting LLC, [Redacted], Fort Collins, CO. 

Date: March 8, 2011

108

SUBMITTED E-MAIL BY RHONDA MUSE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE ELIMINATION

OF CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE

March 30, 2012

To: House Agriculture Committee 

Subject: U.S. Forest Health comments

To: the House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, 

and Forestry

We are sorry we missed your subcommittee meeting on the topic of U.S. Forest 

Health and Job Creation in Rural America. We are working hard on a similar proposal to improve forest health and would like to submit to you a recent position 

paper that you may use as supplemental comments. If you are interested in meeting 

or talking with participants of our Institute, please contact Bruce Courtright at [Redacted] or by phone at [Redacted]. 

Thank you for taking the time to look over our documents for potential use in 

your efforts. Please notice the cover letter indicated there are 12 enclosures, most 

of these are supplemental documents to our position paper and I have not included 

them here. If you would like to obtain the entire packet of information please let 

me know. 

Sincerely,

RHONDA MUSE, National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire. 

www.stopwilfire.org

ATTACHMENT 1

Something of Value: The National Forest System 

Congressional Action is Needed for the Revitalization of the National Forest System. 

March 12, 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

America’s 193 million acre National Forest System is in serious decline. The 

United States Forest Service (USFS) was created to be the Congressional designated 

manager of the forests and to be the leader of professional forestry in the United 

States. As much through designed neglect as benign neglect, the national forests are 

being allowed to change from productive forests to fire-prone, insect-infested, and 

disease-wracked lands of declining value to the public, and the USFS that manages 

them for their citizen-owners is declining in its ability to carry out its mission of 

‘‘caring for the land and serving people.’’ Congress must act immediately to save the 

National Forest System and its invaluable commodity and amenity resources, and 

to restore and revitalize the beleaguered USFS charged with their management. 

During the past decade, the natural resources on over 12 million acres (an area 

larger than the State of Maryland) of National Forest System lands have been damaged or destroyed by catastrophic wildfires, insects, and disease. This devastation 

is a consequence primarily of improper and inadequate management in a time of 

rapidly changing environmental conditions caused by climate change. Science-based 

resource management by Forest Service professionals has been preempted by those 

with ideological agendas and the political power to impose them. Congress’s statutory direction for management of the national forests on a sustained yield-multiple 

use basis has been subverted by special interest groups. This situation will only get 

worse without immediate congressional intervention. 

Congress must act now to charter a comprehensive review of the legislated mission and physical status of the forests and their resources, and then reverse and 

remedy the situations in those forests and their administration that threaten the 

nation’s economical and ecological well-being. If it does not, and current trends continues, the nation’s needs for vital economic goods and ecosystem services provided 

by the National Forest System will not be met (such as water), and Forest Service 

capabilities to manage the national forests will decline with the decline of its corps 

of professional resource managers and other specialists. 

We believe the necessary review would best be led by a new public land law review commission, or Congress’s investigative arm, the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO), with input by members of the Forest Service along with representatives of state and local governments directly concerned with national forest issues, 

citizen dependent on the forests, resource management experts, and user group 

members. This review should focus on: (1) the biological and physical condition of 

109

the National Forest System; (2) the management needs and challenges which must 

be met to restore those lands and resources through active management, as well as 

restore public confidence in the process; and (3) The indicators of needed service and 

products being delivered to American citizens. As a result of this review, Congress 

should: (1) revise the often-conflicting statutes governing National Forest System 

management and stewardship; and (2) revise, restore and reaffirm the mission of 

the Forest Service to manage those lands to produce ‘‘the greatest good for the 

greatest number in the long run’’ that was its original charge, as well as provide 

for accomplishment of that mission. 

Steps toward these ends are listed in the white paper. 

ATTACHMENT 2

Something of Value: The National Forest System 

A Position Paper 

The National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire 

March 2012

Something of Value: The National Forest System 

Congressional Action is Needed for the Revitalization of the National Forest System. 

March 12, 2012

The Congress of the United States of America began the evolution of today’s National Forest System over a hundred years ago, and Congress’ attention is needed 

now to return these treasured lands to healthy and bountiful lands for the welfare 

of all American citizens. 

Currently, as much through designed neglect as benign neglect, the national forests have been allowed to change from productive forests to fire-prone, insect-infested and disease-wracked lands of declining value to the public. This condition is 

caused, in part, by lack of clear management direction for these lands, lack of 

human and financial resources to protect and manage these lands, and lack of public understanding of the importance of effectively managed forests. 

The first step to national forest recovery is for Congress to charter a comprehensive review of the legislated mission of the forests, the role Congress sees for the 

forests in meeting the nation’s increasing need for natural resources, and the actions needed to protect the forests from natural and anthropogenic damage and destruction. This review would be best led by a new public land law review commission, or Congress’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) with input by representatives of state and local governments directly concerned with national forest 

issues, citizen dependent on the forests, resource management experts, and user 

group members. This would be a formidable task; however, these lands and their 

proper management are of vital importance to the nation. 

Origin and Value of the National Forest System 

Congress authorized presidents of the United States to reserve certain forest 

lands from the public domain by what is now called the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, 

and provided for management of these forest reserves by the Organic Act of 1897 

‘‘. . . to improve and protect the forests . . . securing favorable conditions of water 

flows, and furnish a continuous supply of timber . . . .’’ The Forest Service’s Organic Act specified the purposes for which forest reserves (national forests) could be 

created: (1) to insure ‘‘a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of 

United States citizens’’; and (2) to secure favorable conditions of water flows. (In a 

later court decision, the court ruled that the Secretary of Agriculture may also consider the economic well-being of the citizens of a state wherein timber is located in 

administering national forest lands ‘‘for the use and necessities of citizens of the 

United States.’’) Congress shifted jurisdiction of the forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture by the Transfer Act of 1905—

which also established the U.S. Forest Service—and designated the forest reserves 

as national forests by the Designation Act of 1907. The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase certain lands for addition to the National Forest System. As authorized by still other Acts, additional lands were acquired by exchange, donation, transfer, and condemnation. As the National Forest 

System evolved to its current size of almost 193 million acres, the Forest Service 

managed these lands to provide an increasingly wider range of multiple uses and 

benefits in terms of commodity and amenity resources for the American people. Congress reaffirmed that administration ‘‘. . . for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes . . .’’ when it passed the Multiple Use-SusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
110

tained Yield Act of 1960. Since its founding, the Forest Service has been designated 

by Congress to administer these critical natural resources for the citizen-owners of 

the national forests. 

Today, when the United States population has grown from slightly more than 50 

million in 1897 to 313 million, the purpose of the National Forest System and the 

mission of the Forest Service are more important than ever. In the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, the American people and their industries are fighting to survive and thrive in an increasingly challenging global marketplace. The renewable 

natural resources of the National Forest System, one of the nation’s most valuable 

and competitive assets, are in extreme peril. Active and effective scientific management and stewardship of these lands that provide fresh water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural use; habitat for fish and wildlife; a sustained yield of essential wood products to support local and national economies—and, yes, outdoor recreation to sustain a mentally and physically healthy population—is absolutely essential to national survival. 

Adverse Impacts Affecting the National Forest System and the U.S. Forest 

Service 

Myriad impacts are adversely affecting the National Forest System and the Forest 

Service charged with its administration.

(1) Rapidly changing environmental conditions caused by changing climate conditions.

(2) Single-species habitat protection policies which have caused dramatic increases in the frequency, severity, and size of wildfires which annually consume 

millions of acres of precious natural resources and damage or destroy soils 

which may take 1,000 years to rebuild.

(3) Insect infestations exceeding four million acres in the West which, if not 

treated, will fuel future catastrophic wildfires.

(4) Invasive vegetative species are taking over huge numbers of acres of potentially productive forest and grasslands.

(5) Reduction and deterioration of water quality and quantity which causes increasing water shortages for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses and 

fisheries.

(6) Unnatural overstocking of forest vegetation that leads to declining forest 

health and insect infestations that are direct results of overstocked stands. This 

is a direct result of the Forest Service not being permitted to actively manage 

these valuable forested lands by thinning and harvesting because of frivolous 

court challenges that result in:

(a) Severely reduced monetary return to the U.S. Treasury,

(b) Severely increased unemployment,

(c) Unnecessary suppression and restoration costs to taxpayers, and

(d) Dramatic detrimental changes in stand structure and composition.

(7) A major and perverse shift in use of the justice system during the past 30 

years to block active resource management and use and garner economic windfalls for anti-forest management activists that has:

(a) Drastically reduced sustainable harvesting of the timber resource from 

about 11 billion board feet 20 years ago to less than 2 billion today, and

(b) Significantly increased catastrophic wildfires in which overstocked stands 

and dense canopies contribute to such disastrous fires as the 2002 Hayman 

Fire in Colorado, the 2008 fires in Trinity and Siskiyou counties of California, 

and the 2011 New Mexico and Arizona fires; more than 1 million acres of valuable National Forest resources have been destroyed by these wildfires alone. 

Overall damage costs of wildfires range from three to 10 times fire suppression costs, not counting associated property losses and personal injuries and 

deaths.

(8) The excessive costs of red tape and legal minutia that hinder forest planning 

and execution of management projects to the point only a small percentage of 

critical forest health and wildlife habitat projects are accomplished. An example 

is the death of over four million acres of Colorado and Wyoming forests cause 

by insect infestations in large part a result of ineffective forest management.

(9) The shift from professional forest management programs to a passive caretaker mode because the Federal Government fails to meet the legislated promise to the American people and instead permits special interest groups, through 

111

misguided legislation, to curtail sound Forest Service forest management. This 

has taken a heavy toll not only in terms of deteriorating forest health but also 

in reduced county and school revenues, increased unemployment, and depressed 

economies that destroy forest-dependent communities.

(10) The inability to salvage dying and fallen trees after fires or other catastrophic events that leaves large volumes of hazardous fuel for the next fire and 

creates life-threatening conditions for firefighters and residents.

(11) Agency fire strategies that contribute to catastrophic fire occurrences rather than limits them, and closures of roads necessary for forest work, firefighting, law enforcement, public use, and search and rescue operations.

(12) The Forest Service—the strength and effectiveness of which is critical to 

sustaining and improving forest resource health, providing services to an expanding population, and meeting growing demands for natural resources—has 

been and continues to be subjected to impacts that severely curtail its efficiency 

and effectiveness. It has gone from being rated one of the most effective Federal 

Government organizations in 1984 to one of the least now. These adverse impacts include:

(a) Tight control of Forest Service by the U.S. Department of Agriculture may 

limit executive decision space and constrains creativity.

(b) Reduced staffing has caused lack of depth in most of the organization.

(c) Loss of credibility with cooperating organizations, local communities, and 

individuals has resulted from erosion of effective training programs for leaders and managers.

(d) Lack of leadership at various levels of the organization has affected quality decision making.

(e) An administrative and accounting system that does not meet the needs of 

on-the-ground land, natural resource, and business management. The existing 

system tends to over-manage in critical areas, does not provide sufficient decision latitude for local program managers, and does not provide a positive program review system. Major centralization of administrative tasks accomplished in the early 1980s to reduce administrative costs resulted in project 

personnel spending an inordinate percentage of time doing administrative 

work previously done by an efficient and effective support staff. This has 

damaged management effectiveness, reduced morale, and drastically reduced 

customer service throughout the entire organization as evidenced by the latest GAO review of Forest Service business consolidation effectiveness. 

Indicators provided for the review of National Forest System. 

The proposed Congressional review of the Forest Service efforts to implement legislative direction regarding National Forest administration should have the following indicators of effectiveness. They were developed with extensive input from 

state and local officials, diverse resource groups and knowledgeable citizens.

(1) The National Forest System meets the needs of all American people and contributes to the economic well being of local communities. Local governments are 

actively included in all Forest Service resource plans and decisions that affect 

them.

(2) Congress, the Administration, and domestic and international cooperators 

receive quality professional Forest Service advice and technical assistance.

(3) Forest Service research and development programs expand scientific knowledge required by managers of the nation’s and the world’s renewable natural 

resources and at the same time involve local resource managers in identifying 

emerging issues and challenges.

(4) Forest Service land management programs are harmonized and integrated 

with those of other public agencies and private ownerships to ensure greater 

protection of the health of forests and rangelands from wildfire, insects and disease, and human and other threats.

(5) The Forest Service has the financial resources to employ the full range of 

management tools including, but not limited to, planned prescribed fire to establish resilient landscapes able to adapt to changing climate conditions and 

public needs.

(6) The true cost of wildfire is recognized and fuel reduction programs are funded to achieve the national goals necessary to establish and maintain healthy, 

productive forests. Grant funding is available to all critical areas regardless of 

the ability to provide matching funds.

112

(7) The Forest Service planning system is consistent with statutory direction 

and responsive to public users and local community needs as well as to changing climate conditions. Local cooperators are involved in local forest planning 

from start to project completion.

(8) Forest Service resource decisions and plans take into account the need for 

healthy ecosystems balanced with the social and economic needs of counties, 

local citizens and groups.

(9) A reliable ‘‘feedstock’’ supply from the National Forests supports investment 

in various local forest product industries that contribute to forest health, carbon 

storage, and local economies. Efforts are made to support local citizens in development of new projects such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and use 

of woody renewables for energy and heat.

(10) There is adequate long-term funding separate from the timber sales program to support the sale and removal of excess forest fuel materials. There is 

a method of sharing income from cooperative programs with local communities 

for schools, local roads and investment in future resource projects.

(11) There is true government-to-government coordination and cooperation between the Forest Service and state, tribal, local groups and local government 

entities to ensure harmonization of their respective goals and objectives.

(12) National Forest management goals recognize local public health and safety 

as well as consider the social and economic well-being of forest-dependent communities. This is evident by the creation of collaborative areas set up by forests 

to support stewardship projects that are mutually designed to meet Forest Service and local goals. In addition there is a revived and robust timber sale program that is able to use emerging legislation allowing product removal for forest 

health and safety.

(13) A viable timber sale program exists to provide feedstock to local mills. With 

this revitalized sale program struggling mills are able to put more people to 

work to supply the nation’s needs for timber products. The outlook for meeting 

the bulk of the nation’s wood supply needs from our own lands is bright.

(14) Forest recreation plans provide for maximum use of National Forest Service lands to all types of visitor activities. Special efforts are made to include 

local citizens and groups along with state and local unites in recreation development use plans. 

A Desired Future State to Meet the Nation’s Current and Future Needs 

Numerous groups that support restoration of critical natural resources throughout 

the United States advocate cooperative efforts on both public and private lands to 

ensure the needs of future generations are met. These groups are achieving results 

in ensuring sustained abundance of these resources because some of the roadblocks 

referred to herein have been removed by Congress. Such positive steps are essential 

to restoration of the National Forest System and resolution of the nation’s financial 

crisis. 

Recommended Actions to Attain the Desired Future State of the National 

Forest System and the U.S. Forest Service 

A healthy National Forest System and Forest Service may be attained if and 

when the nation’s leaders take the following actions to save precious natural resources in a way that reduces overall losses and associated costs to the American 

taxpayer:

(1) Produce a report that recommends Congressional action

Based on the findings and recommendations of a new public land law review 

commission or GAO report on its proposed study of the National Forest System, 

Congress should enact legislation affirming the mission of the U.S. Forest Service and provide congressional direction to manage and restore the National Forest System and provide national and international leadership in all aspects of 

natural resource management.

(2) Review the Consequences of Legal Challenges

A primary roadblock to natural resource management progress is the obstructionism of the few who use the courts to impede or terminate needed resource 

management work by using (some would say ‘‘perverting’’) the Equal Access to 

Justice Act of 1980 to force taxpayers to reimburse them for legal expenses for 

often-frivolous lawsuits. Some of these plaintiffs and the suits they file state 

they want no commercial use of the public lands, especially timber harvesting. 

Such litigation has become a huge and harmful industry that costs the Federal 

113

Government millions of dollars per year and many more millions—if not billions—in the costs consequent of not managing public forest lands. Some of 

these issues could be effectively dealt with through bipartisan support of H.R. 

1485, the Catastrophic Wildfire Community Protection Act, and H.R. 1996, the 

Government Litigation Savings Act; the latter bill would limit reimbursements 

to law firms for expenditures in lawsuits. If passed, both bills would enhance 

needed resource work and provide needed employment while costing the nation 

little.

(3) Reduce the Costs of Catastrophic Wildfires

(a) Catastrophic wildfires in 2011 consumed 1.73 million acres of National 

Forest System lands at a tremendous cost. Suppression costs are but a fraction of the true costs of these wildfires. True costs include impacts on homes, 

communities, and invaluable natural resources that include watersheds that 

yield high-quality fresh water, timberlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation; impact on lands that provide essential ecosystem processes 

and services; and release of air pollutants that contribute to global warming.

(b) Allocation by Congress of half these lost dollars to work on National Forest System lands that reduced fuel hazards could not only prevent a large 

percent of catastrophic wildfires and their myriad expensive consequences, 

but provide jobs for many citizens who sorely need them. The concept of ‘‘Invest to Save’’ must become an essential element in funding National Forest 

System management. 

114

ATTACHMENT 3


11232003.eps
115


11232004.eps
116


11232005.eps
117


11232006.eps
118


11232007.eps
119


11232008.eps
120


11232009.eps
121


11232010.eps
122


11232011.eps
123


11232012.eps
124


11232013.eps
125

ATTACHMENT 4


11232002.eps
126

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 

Questions Submitted By Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 

Pennsylvania 

Question 1. I’m very concerned that the Forest Service’s attempts to revise the viability section of the new rule will lead to endless legal wrangling, not more responsible forest management. Do you agree that the Nation Forest Management Act requires wildlife diversity as an objective within the overall multiple use framework? 

If so, why don’t you change the viability section to, at the very least, reflect that? 

Answer. Section 219.9 of the final rule fulfills the diversity requirement of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), which directs the Forest Service to ‘‘provide 

for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet multiple-use objectives . . .’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). NFMA explicitly recognizes plant communities as well as animal communities. The final rule provides protections for all native plant and animal 

communities, including protections to fish, invertebrate, and plant species. By including both vertebrates and invertebrates, the final rule is more consistent with 

NFMA. The final rule will focus on the ecological conditions needed to support diversity, instead of taking a species-by-species approach. Maintaining or restoring ecological conditions offers the best assurance against losses of biological diversity, 

maintains habitats for the vast majority of species in an area, and avoids the need 

to list species under the Endangered Species Act. The new approaches under the 

final rule for addressing species viability and diversity, along with the recognition 

of local land and unit capabilities and limits, will increase the flexibility and feasibility of responding to species and ecosystem sustainability and recovery needs. 

The Forest Service has had a long standing policy to provide habitat to support 

the viability of both common species including game species, and rare species in 

order to avoid their listing under the Endangered Species Act. The requirements for 

viability are habitat based, not species’ population based, which makes this manageable within our capability. Under the 1982 planning rule, the concept of viability 

was focused on existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species, as well as 

viable populations, at potentially both the plan and project level, which was very 

difficult to meet. The final rule establishes a viability requirement that is within 

our capacity to implement. The final rule acknowledges both the limits of our ability 

to control or influence species’ viability and the inherent limited capability of the 

land area to sustain a species, while considering the ecological capacity to produce 

the desired ecological conditions. The final rule also removes the 1982 requirement 

that viable populations must be maintained on the planning unit. Rather, under the 

final rule, units would ensure that ecological conditions help support viable populations across the range.

Question 2. Congress, and only Congress, has the authority to designate wilderness areas. Why, then, does the new rule provide the protection and maintenance 

of the ‘‘ecological and social characteristics that provide the basis for their suitability for wilderness designation’’? Isn’t the Forest Service, by doing so, creating de 

facto wilderness areas? 

Answer. It can often take years between the time an area has been recommended 

for wilderness and the time Congress makes a final decision on whether to designate an area or not. The Agency believes that it is important to preserve 

Congress’s options to designate or not. The new rule does not change the current 

management requirements for recommended wilderness. The Department believes 

the requirement in the final rule meets the Agency’s intent to ensure the types and 

levels of use allowed would maintain wilderness character and would not preclude 

future designation as wilderness if Congress so chooses to designate it. The rule requirements are consistent with many State wilderness acts which require that any 

areas recommended for wilderness designation are to be managed for the purpose 

of protecting the area’s suitability for wilderness. The Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 

is one example (Pub. Law No. 98–428. § 201(b)(4); 98 Stat 1660).

Question 3. Are you at all concerned that the new rule includes mandatory requirements for the use of the ‘‘best science?’’ Isn’t science itself is always undergoing 

revision? Isn’t this just setting up plans and subsequent projects for litigation by 

those who are not interested in seeing the agency achieve its goals, particularly the 

goal of multiple use? 

Answer. The Agency believes that using the best available science to inform the 

planning process leads to more durable plans and more credible, legally supportable 

decisions. The Agency is currently required to take relevant scientific information 

127

into account in decision-making and already has a fundamental legal requirement, 

grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act, to consider relevant factors, including relevant scientific information, and explains the basis for its decisions. Citizens 

to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). The rule is not intended 

to impose a higher standard for judicial review than the existing ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ standard of the APA, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(2)(A). The rule also sets specific 

stages in the planning framework when consideration of the best available scientific 

information must be documented. The rule includes such documentation requirements in recognition that lack of documentation has sometimes been a basis for 

courts to overturn agency decisions. The Department believes that defining its accountability for use of best available science in the planning process is preferable 

to leaving it open to interpretation and will lead to fewer litigation losses.

Question 4. These new regulations add more process, prescriptive requirements, 

highly subjective criteria for ‘‘species viability’’ and ‘‘best available science’’, and require the most expensive and time-consuming NEPA process (an EIS) for all forest 

plan revisions. How does this comply with Executive Orders and other policies providing that regulations should be more cost effective and less burdensome? 

Answer. The new planning rule will create a more efficient and effective process 

through an adaptive framework for land management assessment, planning and 

monitoring. This framework should help the Forest Service use resources more effectively; keep plans more current through frequent amendments. The rule’s focus on 

achieving desired conditions and objectives should mean less time in planning and 

more time implementing plans through projects and activities. 

The new planning rule incorporates many of the best practices already widely 

used by the Forest Service across the National Forest System. It supports restoration, and provides a platform for collaboration that has proven effective in allowing 

stakeholders to move beyond conflicts of the past to find agreement for accomplishing work on the ground.

Question 5. How long will the Forest Planning process take under the new rules? 

Given how little impact forest plans have had on subsequent management, do you 

think it’s fair to the American taxpayer to ask them to take that amount of time 

to participate in the planning process? 

Answer. The Forest Service estimates plan revisions will take, on average, 3 to 

4 years as compared to 5 to 7 years under the 1982 planning rule. The agency believes that the shorter timeframe for revisions will help the public stay engaged 

throughout the entire planning process and will be a more effective use of their time 

than longer, more drawn out revision processes which have occurred under the previous rule. The most common request from the public, state, local governments and 

Tribes during the collaborative rule making process has been that they want to be 

involved early and throughout the planning process. The final planning rule will 

provide greater opportunities for people to engage early and throughout, and to 

interact directly with the decision maker, and to be able to stay engaged than under 

current procedures.

Question 6. Where in statute does the Forest Service derive the authority to manage wildlife for ‘‘viable populations’’? Are wildlife not managed by the states, and 

in some cases the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Answer. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that plans provide for diversity of plant and animal communities (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). The 

Department’s ability to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities is 

dependent on managing for effective habitat for plant and animal species within the 

communities. The Organic Administration Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 

Act, provide authority to manage for wildlife purposes and provide the agency the 

discretion to manage habitat to maintain wildlife viability. The new planning rule 

does not authorize the Agency to manage wildlife. It requires that plans provide for 

the ‘‘ecological conditions’’ (habitat) that species require to persist on NFS lands. 

While the intent of the rule is that ecological conditions on a unit provide for the 

persistence of all species, the specific requirement for maintaining habitat for viable 

populations is limited to species of conservation concern (SCC). The rule also recognizes circumstances where ensuring a viable population of a SCC on a unit is beyond the authority of the agency or not within the authority of the land. In those 

cases, the rule allows the responsible official to document this conclusion and instead, include plan direction to contribute to viability across the species range. 

The agency believes that this rule is an appropriate approach to meeting the 

NFMA requirement for providing for diversity of plant and animal communities. 

This approach allows the agency to focus management direction on species for which 

there is a documented concern about the species’ capability to persist over the longterm in the plan area. By focusing management direction on those vulnerable speVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
128

cies, the agency can work to reduce the risk these species will be listed as endangered or threatened. Once a species is listed under ESA, it is very difficult to recover 

the species and there are very few options for management to meet other objectives 

of the plan such as restoration, timber production or recreation. 

While the new rule focuses on providing the habitat necessary to support the diversity and persistence of native plant and animal species, it also requires that NFS 

units work collaboratively with State fish and wildlife agencies, State and local governments, other Federal agencies, and others, to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant 

habitats and populations on NFS lands and to contribute to shared goals, such as 

those provided in state wildlife action plans or in threatened or endangered species 

recovery plans. Requirements in Sec. 219.4, 219.6, 219.10, and 219.12 of the final 

rule complement and support interagency collaboration on habitat and species conservation.

Question 7. In your written testimony you stated ‘‘The Forest Service also recognizes the need for a strong forest industry to help accomplish restoration work.’’ I 

encourage you to also emphasize that timber production is an end goal of the National Forest System. One of the multiple uses the forests serve is to help supply 

the forest product needs of the United States. 

Answer. The Forest Service recognizes the role of a strong forest products industry 

in accomplishing restoration. The willingness of industry to pay for forest products 

and biomass resulting from restoration treatments increases our ability to achieve 

restoration goals, protect communities and provide healthy forests. The combination 

of treatments and product removal is often the least-cost alternative. In addition to 

restoring the forest, this combination provides employment and helps sustain the social and economic well-being of the communities we serve. The agency sets goals for 

both acres restored and forest products produced. Our commitment to accelerating 

our restoration includes both an increase in acres and forest products.

Question 8. How do you expect timber and biomass production to shift over the 

next several years under the new planning rule? How many board feet of timber? 

How many tons of non-timber biomass? 

Answer. The Forest Service is continuing to increase the pace of forest restoration 

on National Forest System lands. The new planning rule will enable us to work 

more collaboratively with our partners. As a result, we expect the volume of timber 

production to increase over the next few years from 2.6 billion board feet to 3.0 billion board feet. We also expect the green tons of non-timber biomass to increase 

from 2.7 million green tons to an amount commensurate with the increase of timber 

extracted.

Question 9. You noted that the market for forest products is critical for forest restoration efforts. Forest Service policies have arguably contributed to the ‘‘struggling 

markets’’ your reference, as dramatic reductions in timber sales in some parts of the 

country decimated market ‘ecology’ of the local timber industry. I’d appreciate your 

thoughts on ways the Forest Service can partner with industry to facilitate the development of consistent and sustainable markets for forest products across the different regions of the National Forest System. 

Answer. The Forest Service has been increasing the volume of timber sold for the 

last several years even though the nation is struggling with one of the worst 

downturns in housing starts and lumber production. Every possible contract and 

legal authority has been employed to help struggling timber purchasers through this 

downturn. In addition, the use of stewardship contracting has steadily increased enabling longer-term contracts and expanding the job opportunities for communities. 

Stewardship contracting has also enabled the agency to continue restoration treatments and hazardous fuels reduction by offsetting some of the cost with appropriations to compensate for the decline in timber values. As you are aware, the authority to use stewardship contracting expires on September 30, 2013. 

Additionally, the agency is using the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Act (CFLRA). This legislation has helped to provide collaborative ways and means 

for all stakeholders to come together to facilitate landscape scale restoration and development of a consistent and sustainable market for forest products. The agency 

is also implementing the pilot authority for the Integrated Resource Restoration line 

item, which will enable the agency and communities to focus on the right treatments in the right place, including the needed removal of forest products.

Question 10. The most recent timber sale reports from the Forest Service seem 

to suggest that the agency is somewhat behind on its goals for timber sales for the 

year. I’d appreciate your comments on this. 

Answer. The timber sale volume accomplishment for the first half of fiscal year 

2012 is about 9 percent less than the accomplishment in the first half of fiscal year 

2011. Five regions are ahead of or similar to last year.

129

Question 11. You noted at several points in your testimony recommendations to 

restore the ‘‘ecological role of fire’’ in our forests. How will the forest service balance 

the use of fire as a management tool with the risks posed by fire to other multiple 

use objectives, as well as the risks posed to property in and near the forest? 

Answer. The Forest Service manages all wildfires with a singular approach where 

we first establish a protection strategy for those values at risk. Incident objectives, 

strategies, and tactics can change as the fire spreads across the landscape, due to 

changes in environmental conditions (weather, vegetation, topography), human influence, land ownership/jurisdiction, planning unit objectives, perceived threats to 

human safety, predicted threats to property, infrastructure, and natural resources, 

opportunities to achieve resource benefits, and availability of firefighting resources 

to accomplish the work. Responses to wildfire are also coordinated across levels of 

government, regardless of the jurisdiction at the ignition. 

The agency puts firefighter and public safety as the first priority in every fire 

management activity. No natural or cultural resource, home, or item of property is 

worth a human life. All strategies and tactics seek to mitigate the risk to firefighters and the public. We do however; recognize that a policy of full suppression 

of all wildfires does not eliminate risk. Over time, exclusion of wildland fire can result in fuels accumulation and deterioration of forest conditions which can contribute to even greater long-term risk. 

We also recognize that after all strategies, tactics and objectives are established 

and risks have been identified and mitigated, undesirable outcomes sometimes still 

occur when managing wildfires, as it is still not possible to predict every possible 

weather scenario that could play out over weeks or months that a fire may be managed. The agency is committed to completing reviews after wildfire incidents to 

learn from our successes and our failures in the spirit of continuous improvement.

Question 12. Chief Tidwell, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has recently upheld 

a District Court ruling that no Federal permit is required for access and development of the private mineral estate on the Allegheny National Forest. Why and 

under what delegated regulatory authority does the Forest Service continue to require oil, gas, and mineral owners to pay a set $400 fee for a Forest Service road 

use permit just for the privilege to use Forest Service roads in accessing their private mineral estates when the deeds expressly reserve the rights of access over 

these roads at no cost and without preconditions. 

Answer. All commercial use of Forest Service infrastructure (in this case, roads) 

is subject to a use fee. The $400 charge for use of Forest Service System roads is 

for use of the infrastructure, not for access to any private mineral estate.

Question 13. In March 2008, then Allegheny National Forest Supervisor Leanne 

Marten issued a directive to all oil and gas operators stating that District Rangers 

will not allow development of the ‘‘mineral materials’’ on private mineral estates 

and based this edict on authority of 36 CFR 228 Subpart C. As I understand it, 36 

CFR 228 Subpart C applies only to FEDERALLY-OWNED mineral estate—not 

unacquired PRIVATE mineral estates. In light of the recent Third Circuit decision 

holding that the Forest Service has extremely limited regulatory authority over private mineral estates, this strikes me as an unlawful directive that is intended to 

impede and prevent oil, gas, and mineral development. 

Is this a national policy? When will this directive be canceled? 

Answer. The Forest Service position on mineral materials (sand, gravel, stone, 

pumice, clay, etc.) is that such materials are part of the surface estate, not the private mineral estate, unless explicitly and clearly reserved in a mineral severance 

deed. Because these materials are part of the federal surface estate, their development is subject to regulatory provisions at 36 CFR 228 Subpart C—Disposal of Mineral Materials. 

Questions Submitted By Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from Virginia 

Question 1. Last year, I had the pleasure of attending an announcement by Sec. 

Vilsack concerning USDA’s green building policy. Based on his comments at that 

announcement, I think we agree that restoration of both public and private forest 

lands requires resources. Strong markets for forest products can help fund restoration and reinvestment in our forests. The USDA Green building policy changes that 

were announced that night could go a long way towards increasing demand for forest products in building construction markets. What steps have you taken internally 

to implement this policy? Have you increased wood use in Forest Service buildings? 

Answer. The Forest Service updated its policy to require all new buildings over 

10,000 square feet be designed to meet a third-party ‘‘green building’’ certification 

systems, e.g., U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system (minimum Silver certification); Green Globes 

130

(minimum Two Green Globes certification); or other equivalent third-party certification system. Additionally, all other buildings, whether new or major renovation 

projects larger than 2,500 square feet, must be designed to incorporate sustainable 

principles into the systems and components appropriate to the building type and 

project scope. 

In a March, 2011 letter to Forest Service leaders, Chief Tidwell affirmed our commitment to increase our ability to support the use of sustainably grown, domestically produced wood products, including wood from the National Forests as the preferred green building material for all USDA facilities and buildings. Our Forest 

Products Laboratory is facilitating research and development of environmental product declarations (EPD’s) for wood products based on Life Cycle Assessments (LCA). 

LCA identifies the flow of materials and energy through various stages, from the 

point of extracting raw materials from the environment, through manufacture, construction, use and final disposal. The life cycle information in EPDs can be used to 

compare the environmentally preferable benefits of wood products versus non-wood 

products for alternative designs of building components (such as walls, floors, and 

roofs).

Question 2. In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on March 6th, you stated that you plan on decommissioning over 2000 miles 

of roads in FY 2013. How is the Forest Service supposed to affordably manage National Forests when it is removing access making it more difficult for management 

interests to get to areas in desperate need of management? Additionally, why is the 

FS making it more difficult for recreational interests to access FS lands? 

Answer. Appropriate access is very important in the management of National Forest System lands. The agency utilizes a process called Travel Analysis to inform the 

size of our road system and to inform the creation of motor vehicle use maps, which 

guide the use of our road system. This analysis includes National Forest System 

roads, as well as unauthorized roads. If this analysis identifies a road as not needed 

for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization and administration 

of National Forest System lands, the road is identified for decommissioning following appropriate NEPA. This process helps to ensure the agency has the road system necessary for the management and public enjoyment of National Forest System 

lands, while reducing the ecologic impacts of unneeded roads, and also reducing the 

costs associated with the roads system. 

Question Submitted By Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative in Congress from Wisconsin 

Question. Chief Tidwell, invasive species management represents a significant 

challenge to the U.S. Forest Service as well as to other Federal, local and private 

entities that are concerned with land management. Furthermore, due to the current 

fiscal climate, the Forest Service and others have been forced to continue the 

invasive species fight with less funding. A September 2010 Office of Inspector General report made numerous recommendations on how invasive species programs 

may be improved in light of the current budget issues, and the Forest Service largely agreed with those recommendations. Please provide a status update on implementation of those recommendations as well as any other additional thoughts you may 

have regarding how invasive species management can continue to be improved regardless of the ultimate budget. 

Answer. The Forest Service (FS) is committed to responding to the threat of 

invasive species by addressing the significant challenges associated with invasive 

species management identified in the OIG Audit Report (08601–7–AT). To date the 

FS has carried out OIG Recommendations 1–5, and 7–11. OIG Recommendation 6 

is in the review stage and expected to be completed in December 2012. 

OIG Recommendations 1–4 are being carried out by developing and issuing the 

final invasive species directive (Forest Service Manual 2900—Invasive Species Management) to compile the internal policies specifically on ‘‘Early Detection and Rapid 

Response’’ (EDRR) within the Forest Service, and to develop an adequate, cohesive, 

internal control environment for managing the invasive species program. The final 

directive was issued on December 5, 2011. For OIG Recommendation 4, the National 

Forest System revised the national NFS budgeting database known as ‘‘Workplan’’ 

to allow the field to track all the programmatic expenditures and costs associated 

with Invasive Species Management on the National Forest System. Direction has 

been provided to the field to implement the revised ‘‘Workplan’’ work activity coding 

system to track their invasive species management expenditures on National Forests and Grasslands. 

OIG Recommendation 5 is being implemented through the development of an 

‘‘Invasive Species Systems Approach’’ (ISSA) which is being built to address concerns raised under OIG Recommendation 5 and to help improve program effectiveVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Sep 11, 2012 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\112-32\73659.TXT BRIAN
131

ness, increase accountability, and standardize operational procedures to ensure consistency across the agency. The draft ISSA identifies 12 specific actions for an improved comprehensive and integrated approach, which will provide a foundation for 

the FS Invasive Species Management Program. 

OIG Recommendation 7 called for the development of an inventory plan for 

inventorying all invasive species, the risk each species poses, and the efficacy of 

available treatments. Progress has been made on the development of guidance, criteria, protocols, and other direction for quantifying the extent and impacts of 

invasive species infestation across the National Forest System, within Chapter 40 

(Invasive Species Detection, Surveys, and Inventories), of the draft Forest Service 

Handbook 2909.11. A draft of FSH 2909.11 is expected to be ready to being the review process in 2013. Once finalized, the direction provided in Chapter 40 will help 

National areas. Forest System personnel quantify populations of invasive species in 

all aquatic and terrestrial 

OIG Recommendation 9 (establishing national standards for reporting performance results) has already been established for all NFS invasive species program activities, record keeping, and reporting. Direction is provided on-lie and in the annual 

budget and performance program direction. OIG Recommendation 9 was accomplished soon after the OIG Report was released. In the intervening time period, NFS 

national program performance measures have undergone many modifications, including those for Invasive Species Management. Corrective actions are underway to 

meet the national Performance and Accountability System for the FY 2013 field season. OIG Recommendation 10 is completed annually during end-of-year performance 

data validation processes conducted for all NFS invasive species program performance records. OIG Recommendation 11 has been initiated, beginning with informal 

reviews, conducted in FY 2012, and formal reviews planned for FY 2014. The ISSA 

(noted above) give the FS the opportunity to establish and conduct a formal review 

system to verify the accuracy of invasive species accomplishment data by comparing 

reported information to actual work accomplished during projects on the ground. 

OIG Recommendation 6 called for the revision of the 2004 National Strategy and 

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management and for establishing control 

for revising the strategy every 5 years. The draft National Strategy has been released draft for a Forest Service-wide review. The revised National Strategy will be 

completed by December 2012, and a revision schedule will be established on a 5 

year basis, completing the FS obligations under OIG Recommendation 6. 

As invasive species populations continue to invade our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and prevent us from reaching our landscape-scale restoration goals, we will 

continue our work against aquatic and terrestrial invasive species by implementing 

the efforts and program improvements I have described. In light of increasing economic constraints, our approaches and policies call for increasing our cooperation 

and collaboration with partners and other external stakeholders, to share knowledge, share information, and share the resources necessary to address invasive species across the landscape. By utilizing our new policy (FSM 2900) and integrating 

our invasive species management activities under the ISSA to increase our collective 

capacity across the agency, we are hopeful that we will be able to keep up the pace 

against the spread of invasive species. In addition, with the expected issuance of the 

final Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2909.11) in FY 2014, we hope to improve our 

efficiencies and effectiveness against invasive species, even in times of budget volatility.

Æ