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

74-531 PDF 2013

FAILED FEDERAL FOREST 

POLICIES: ENDANGERING JOBS, 

FORESTS AND SPECIES 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Monday, May 21, 2012, in Longview, Washington 

Serial No. 112-112 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

David Rivera, FL 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

John Garamendi, CA 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Monday, May 21, 2012 ................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 1 

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

Herrera Beutler, Hon. Jamie, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Washington ..................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Connaughton, Kent, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, Oregon ......... 32 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Fox, Tom, President, Family Forest Foundation, Ethel, Washington .......... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Friedman, Mitch, Executive Director, Conservation Northwest, 

Bellingham, Washington .............................................................................. 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

Kreps, Kelly, Kreps Ranch LLC, White Salmon, Washington ...................... 46 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48 

Mealey, Stephen P., Vice President of Conservation, Boone & Crockett 

Club, Leaburg, Oregon ................................................................................. 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Nelson, Tom, Washington Timberlands Manager, Sierra Pacific 

Industries, Mount Vernon, Washington ...................................................... 50 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51 

Niemi, Ernie, Senior Economist, ECONorthwest, Eugene, Oregon ............. 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Pearce, Hon. Paul, Commissioner, Skamania County, Washington, on 

behalf of the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition .................. 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Salwasser, Dr. Hal, Cheryl Ramberg and Allyn C. Ford Dean, College 

of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon ........................... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement submitted for the record ........ 65 

Additional materials supplied: 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 69 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ‘‘FAILED 

FEDERAL FOREST POLICIES: ENDANGERING 

JOBS, FORESTS AND SPECIES.’’ 

Monday, May 21, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Longview, Washington 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., at the 

Cowlitz County Expo and Conference Center, 1900 7th Avenue, 

Longview, Washington, Hon. Doc Hastings presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastings and Herrera Beutler. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 

and Public Lands will come to order. I’m Congressman Doc 

Hastings. I’m the Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources. I come from the other side of the State. What you are experiencing here with rain we call inventory on our side of the State 

so thank you for doing that. I’m very pleased to be in the Third 

Congressional District, and I’m very pleased to have here with me 

Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler. Without objection, she will 

sit with me at the table. 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

meets today to hear testimony on a hearing entitled ‘‘Failed Federal Forest Policy: Endangering Jobs, Forests and Species.’’ 

Can you hear me by the way? Is that better? Is that better? OK. 

I apologize for that. I won’t start over. I could start over, but I 

won’t start over. But we are here today to hear testimony on a 

hearing entitled ‘‘Failed Federal Forest Policies: Endangering Jobs, 

Forests and Species,’’ but, first, before we start, I want to defer to 

my distinguished colleague, the Congresswoman from the Third 

Congressional District for the purposes of flag and introductions. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for being here. We’re privileged to have, and I’m going to read their 

names, Steven Wallace, Alex Wallace, Dane Kitchens for Boy Scout 

Troop 319, and Eric Kolditz and Carl Kolditz from Boy Scout Troop 

883 to post the colors and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, so 

please stand. 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRMAN. Before hearing from our panel, I and Congresswoman Herrera Beutler will have an opening statement. I want to 

thank Congresswoman Herrera Beutler for hosting this and for 

joining me here today. This hearing comes more than 20 years following approval of a Northwest Forest Plan and after the Northern 

2 

Spotted Owl was listed as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

To put it simply, the Northwest Forest Plan has failed. It has 

failed on health of national forests, it has failed on the economic 

well-being in rural counties and schools, it has cost tens of thousands of Northwest timber-related jobs and the closure of hundreds 

of mills and affected wood product industries, and it has failed, 

probably more importantly, to recover the Spotted Owl. 

Nationwide, Federal agencies are not managing the land that they are required to manage. Amidst our nation’s $15.5 trillion 

debt, the Interior Department and Forest Service’s own estimates 

reveal $22 billion in maintenance backlogs for lands managed by 

the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. 

Parks Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Worse, since 

the Northwest Forest Land, an average of 355,000 acres per year 

of Northwest national forests has been destroyed by wildfires; yet 

agencies continue to request and spend more money to contain 

wildfires and acquire even more land. 

In the State of Washington, the Forest Service is already responsible for managing over 9 million acres of forest land contained 

within seven national forests. Timber harvest of those forests has 

declined by 84 percent over the last decade, 84 percent, resulting 

in a loss of jobs and economic certainty and a breach of the Federal 

Government’s commitment to rural forest communities. 

Each year Washington’s national forests grow three times faster 

than they die. The Forest Service harvests just 2 percent of new 

growth, which yields about $13 million in revenue. In contrast, the 

State of Washington, which manages the trust about one-fourth the 

size of the Forest Service lands, produces seven times more revenue than the Forest Service for their local communities and, of 

course, those funds go to our universities and school construction 

fund. 

Despite the Administration’s promises to streamline regulations 

on Federal lands, it instead finalized the National Forest Planning 

Group that de-emphasizes active management and statutory multiple use requirements. 

Let me just interrupt here for a moment to say when I became 

Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, which has broad 

jurisdiction over all Federal lands, I viewed my responsibility to 

uphold what I think was the first reason for having public lands 

to be multiple use unless Congress designated otherwise, and unfortunately, we have gotten away from that notion, and multiple 

use, by the way, is not confined just to recreation. It also means 

commercial activity. 

The EPA has also failed to define its longstanding rule exempting forest management activities from the Clean Water Act permitting requirements and is pressing ahead with imposing yet another 

damaging and burdensome regulation on forest management. 

Most concerning, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued sweeping 

critical habitat proposals for the Spotted Owl that amount to a 

huge land grab in Washington, Oregon and California, some 13 

million acres, including nearly 2 million acres of private property. 

The proposals of these largely outdated data from the ’90s, they 

don’t include an economic impact analysis and they do little, if 

3 

anything, to address the concern of the Spotted Owl’s decline, 

mainly another predatory owl called the Barred Owl. 

Earlier this year Secretary Salazar toured an ‘‘ecological pilot 

timber sale project’’ as part of the Bureau of Land Management’s 

‘‘Western Oregon Strategy.’’ The project, ‘‘Pilot Joe,’’ produced only 

enough timber to run a single mill for a week. I expected to inquire 

about the status of the BLM sales but BLM, unfortunately, declined to participate in this hearing. 

One constant undercurrent is the Endangered Species Act. Extreme groups file lawsuit after lawsuit to block human or job creating economy activity tied to the forest, yet the results are more 

catastrophic wildfires, more diseased and dying trees, and destruction of the owl and the species’ habitat. 

Private landowners seeking safe harbor either can’t afford or 

don’t trust the Federal Government’s discretion, which appears 

driven by the constant threat of more lawsuits, so action must be 

taken to protect rural communities and private property from these 

burdensome regulations. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and receive 

constructive input on how to go forward to improve our forests’ 

health and to recover the Spotted Owl. 

With that, I’ll recognize the gentlelady from Washington, as we 

say in the other Washington, Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

I thank Congresswoman Herrera Beutler for joining me here today. This hearing 

comes more than twenty years following approval of the Northwest Forest Plan and 

after the Northern Spotted Owl’s listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

To put it simply, the Northwest Forest Plan has failed. It has failed the health 

of national forests. It has failed the economic well-being of rural counties and 

schools, has cost tens of thousands of Northwest timber-related jobs and the closure 

of hundreds of mills and affected wood-products industries. And, it has failed to recover the Spotted Owl. 

Nationwide, federal agencies are not managing the land they are required to manage. Amidst our nation’s current $15.7 trillion debt, the Interior Department’s and 

Forest Service’s own estimates reveal $22 billion in maintenance backlogs for lands 

managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Park Service 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Worse, since the Northwest Forest Plan, an average of 355,000 acres per year of 

Northwest national forests has been destroyed by wildfire. Yet, agencies continue 

to request and spend more money to contain wildfires and acquire even more land. 

In Washington, the Forest Service is already responsible for managing over 9 million acres of forest land contained within seven national forests. Timber harvests 

of those forests declined 84 percent over the past decade, resulting in a loss of jobs 

and economic certainty, and a breach of the federal government’s commitments to 

rural forest communities. 

Each year, Washington’s national forests grow three times faster than they die. 

The Forest Service harvests just 2 percent of new growth, yielding about $13 million 

in revenue. In contrast, the State of Washington, which manages in trust about onefourth the amount of the Forest Service’s lands, produces seven times more revenue 

than the Forest Service for local governments, universities and state school construction. 

Despite the Administration’s promises to streamline regulations on federal lands, 

it instead finalized a National Forest Planning Rule that de-emphasizes active management and statutory multi-use requirements. The EPA has also failed to defend 

its longstanding rule exempting forest management activities from Clean Water Act 

permitting requirements and is pressing ahead with imposing yet another damaging 

and burdensome regulation on forest management. 

4 

Most concerning, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued sweeping critical habitat 

proposals for the Spotted Owl that amount to a huge land grab in Washington, Oregon and California—13 million acres—including nearly 2 million acres of private 

property. The proposals are based largely on outdated data from the 1990’s, don’t 

include an economic impact analysis, and do little, if anything, to immediately address the main cause of the owl’s decline—another predatory owl—the Barred Owl 

Earlier this year, Secretary Salazar toured an ‘‘ecological pilot timber sale project’’ 

as part of the Bureau of Land Management’s ‘‘Western Oregon Strategy.’’ The 

project—‘‘Pilot Joe’’ produced only enough timber to run a single mill for a week. 

I expected to inquire about the status of BLM’s sales,’’ but BLM unfortunately declined to participate in today’s hearing. 

One constant undercurrent is the Endangered Species Act. Extreme groups file 

lawsuit after lawsuit to block human or job-creating economic activity tied to the 

forests, yet the results are more catastrophic wildfires, more diseased and dying 

trees, and destruction of owl and species habitat. Private landowners seeking ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ either can’t afford or don’t trust the federal government’s discretion, which 

appears driven by the constant threat of more lawsuits. 

Action must be taken now to protect rural communities and private property from 

these burdensome regulations. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today 

and to receive constructive input on how, going forward, we can improve forest 

health, create jobs and recover the Spotted Owl. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMIE HERRERA BEUTLER, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for your leadership on this issue. This is incredibly important 

to my region and I appreciate you taking time and effort to bring 

this congressional hearing to Cowlitz County. 

I want to welcome everyone. This is our home, so welcome to the 

folks who aren’t from here to Southwest Washington. And I want 

to start really quickly by recognizing the elected officials and dignitaries who have joined us today. If I say your name, please stand 

so that I know I’ve got you. I don’t mean got you, but got you. 

The first one is Washington State Representative Ed Orcutt; 

Skamania County Commissioner Paul Pearce, who is one of our 

witnesses; Lewis County Commissioner Lee Grose; Cowlitz County 

Commissioner George Raiter; Cowlitz County Commissioner Mike 

Karnofski; Cowlitz County Commissioner Jim Misner, Wahkiakum 

County Commissioner Dan Cochran; and a government official 

from the Cowlitz Tribe, Chairman William Iyall. Thank you all for 

joining us. 

Now, today we’re going to consider the policies and practices that 

affect our forests, our wildlife, our economy and the entire communities that surround this region. Those things make up our identity, and folks across the spectrum are recognizing that those 

things that we value are in jeopardy. That’s why we’re here today. 

Almost 20 years ago, the Northwest Forest Plan was written into 

law. I was entering high school. The stated goals of the plan were 

very laudable: Balance a healthy forest economy with the protection of wildlife. Makes sense. But before a new plan is adopted that 

doubles down on the current practices, we need an honest sciencebased assessment of how the plan has worked over the past two 

decades. 

What we’ll hear today will be based on science, expert analysis 

and the testimony of community members who have been left to 

deal with the consequences of these policies. I believe what we’ll 

5 

hear is that the reality has been very far different, far removed 

from what even the plan’s architects had intended. 

Former U.S. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas was the 

primary author of the Northwest Forest Plan. Ten years after he 

stated that the plan is not working and has failed to fulfill its 

promises to the people as well as the to environment he stated, 

quote, ‘‘I’ve got real terrible concern whether we’re taking care of 

the land.’’ 

Here’s what we’ve seen: Federal forests like the Gifford Pinchot 

have been locked away from the economic activity and species like 

the Spotted Owl have plummeted in number. Setting aside 80 percent of our forests in some places has still failed to protect the 

Spotted Owl. Plans to undertake environmentally sound forest harvest projects and even very small projects have been arrested by 

lawsuits and a thicket of Federal laws and hoops to jump through 

and a failure of the U.S. Forest Service to defend those projects. 

Those I hear from, regardless of political party, want a better 

plan for management of our forests and sustaining our community. 

They’re not asking for anything unreasonable, just a plan that’s 

based on science that manages for all the wildlife species, including 

the one that’s most important to me, which is the endangered 

American wage earner. 

Unfortunately, mismanagement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has led to the decline of species like elk, deer and multiple 

species of bird that are dependent on the diversity of habitat. In 

the Northwest for generations, use of our forest for economic activity has been part of who we are. We have necessarily adopted and 

changed to become more sustainable and responsible. That’s great. 

I’ve worked with Members of Congress from both parties to protect common sense in our forest economy. For instance, my colleague who wasn’t able to join us today Kurt Schrader from Oregon 

and I are working to keep 35 years of forest and water protection 

in place instead of allowing the onerous Forest Roads Rule from 

locking up even more of our forest economy. I’ve worked with business, labor, Republicans, Democrats on this issue because make no 

mistake about it, jobs are at stake, communities will be affected. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the 

need for better science and more balance in our forest management 

practices. For two decades the mismanagement of our beautiful forests have put them at grave risk of destruction from disease, insect 

devastation and catastrophic wildfires. 

Just last December the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service admitted 

during a congressional briefing that managing for one species only 

has harmed other wildlife, it hasn’t protected the Spotted Owl and 

it most certainly hasn’t protected the jobs that our community so 

desperately needs, so I believe we can do better. Our wildlife and 

economy can both be protected. Treating those two goals as mutually exclusive simply hasn’t worked. Our forests and our communities are sounding the alarm and it’s time for us to listen, so with 

that I look forward to the testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Herrera Beutler follows:] 

6 

Statement of The Honorable Jamie Herrera Beutler, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington 

I want to welcome everyone to my home, Southwest Washington. 

I’d like to start by recognizing those elected officials who took the time to join us 

today. 

Today we consider the policies and practices that affect our forests, wildlife, economy, and entire communities in this region. Those things make up our identity. And 

folks across the spectrum are recognizing that those things that we value are in 

jeopardy. 

Almost twenty years ago, the Northwest Forest Plan was written into law. The 

stated goals of the plan were laudable: balance a healthy forest economy with the 

protection of wildlife. 

But before a new plan is adopted that doubles-down on the current practices, we 

need an honest, science-based assessment of how they have worked over the last 2 

decades. 

What we’ll hear today will be based on science, expert analysis, and the testimony 

of community members who have been left to deal with consequences of these policies. I believe what we’ll hear is that reality has been far different from what even 

the plan’s architects intended. 

Former U.S. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas was a primary author of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Ten years after, he stated that the plan is not working and 

has failed to fulfill its promise to the people, as well as the environment. He stated: 

‘‘I’ve got real terrible concern whether we are taking care of the land.’’ 

Here’s what we’ve seen: federal forests like the Gifford Pinchot have been locked 

away from economic activity, and species like the Spotted Owl have plummeted in 

number. Setting aside 80% of our forests in some places have still failed to protect 

the Spotted Owl. 

Plans to undertake environmentally sound forest harvest projects, even very small 

projects, have been successfully arrested by lawsuits and a thicket of federal laws 

and hoops to jump through, and a failure of the U.S. Forest Service to defend these 

projects. 

Those who I hear from, regardless of political party, want a new plan for managing our forests and sustaining our communities. They’re not asking for anything 

unreasonable; just a plan based on science that manages for all of the wildlife species. Unfortunately, mismanagement by the US Fish and Wildlife Service has led 

to the decline in species like deer, elk, and multiple species of birds that are dependent on diversity of forest habitat. 

In the northwest for generations, use of our forests for economic activity has been 

part of who we are. That has necessarily adapted and changed to become more sustainable and responsible. But I have worked with Members of Congress from both 

parties to protect common sense in our forest economy. For instance, my friend Kurt 

Schrader from Oregon and I are working hard to keep 35 years of forest and water 

protection in place, instead of allowing the onerous ‘‘Forest Roads Rule’’ from further 

locking up our forest economy. I’ve worked with business, labor, Republicans and 

Democrats on this issue because, make no mistake about it, jobs will be lost. Communities will be harmed. 

I look forward to from hearing from our witnesses about the need for better 

science and more balance in our forest management practices. For two decades, mismanagement of our beautiful forests have put them at grave risk of destruction from 

disease, insect devastation, and catastrophic wildfire. 

Just last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service admitted during a congressional briefing that managing for one species has harmed other wildlife. It hasn’t 

protected the Spotted Owl, and it most certainly hasn’t protected the jobs that our 

community so badly needs. 

I believe we can do better. Our wildlife and our economy can be protected. Treating those two goals as mutually exclusive simply hasn’t worked. 

Our forests and our communities are sounding the alarm. It is time for us to listen and respond. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I do want to remind the audience that—first 

of all, let me thank all of you for being here, but this is an official 

congressional hearing and for any of you that would like to submit 

testimony, we would absolutely welcome that testimony, and if you 

have any questions on precisely how that process comes about, you 

can contact any of the people up here that are part of the commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
7 

nity. So we look forward to your testimony. The idea of this Committee is to get testimony from various people. 

We do have a distinguished panel here, and let me introduce 

them. First you have, who’s already been introduced, The Honorable Paul Pearce who’s the Skamania County Commissioner. Mr. 

Tom Fox is the President of the Family Forest Foundation, and 

starting from your left to the right—I guess it would be from my 

right to the left, which probably I prefer to do it that way, third 

we have Dr. Hal Salwasser, Dean of College of Forestry for Oregon 

State University; Mr. Steve Mealey, Vice President of Conservation 

Boone and Crockett Club; Mr. Kent Connaughton, Pacific Northwest Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service; Mr. Mitch Friedman, 

the Executive Director of Northwest Ecosystem Alliance; Mr. Ernie 

Niemi, Senior Economist of EcoNorthwest; Mr. Kelly Kreps from 

Kreps Ranch, LLC; and Mr. Tom Nelson, the Washington 

Timberlands Manager of the Sierra Pacific Industries. 

Let me explain for those of you that have not testified in front 

of the Congressional Committee, first of all, your full statement 

will appear in the record, and in every case, I think, of the statements that I have reviewed, your statements are longer than five 

minutes, which is fine, but your full statement will appear in the 

record, but you have in front of you a device that we call a timing 

light. It’s on a five-minute clock, and I hope that you keep your remarks to five minutes, and the way that works is, when the green 

light is on, that means you’re doing extremely well. When the yellow light comes on, it means you have one minute left, and I’d like 

you to wrap up your remarks. And then when the red light comes 

on, you really don’t want to know what happens at that point. But 

if you can confine yourself to that timing light, I’d very much appreciate it. Obviously, if you’re in a thought toward the end, that 

discretion will be there, and I certainly do recognize that. 

So with that, let me start the testimony, and I’ll recognize Committee and County Commissioner Paul Pearce. Paul, you’re recognized for five minute. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL PEARCE, CHAIRMAN, 

SKAMANIA COUNTY COMMISSIONER, STEVENSON, 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman 

Hastings and Congresswoman Herrera Beutler. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear on behalf of the National Forest Impacted 

County Control. 

Skamania County is over 90 percent impacted by Federal Land 

management. Since the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl we’ve 

witnessed the wholesale destruction of an industry and economy. 

From 1970 to 1990 Gifford Pinchot Forest produced on average 350 

million board feet of timber yearly. The forest growth rate is 1.1 

million board feet and the mortality rate is 218 million board feet. 

In 1990 there were 1,200 jobs in the Gifford Pinchot, 350 with 

the Forest Service employees. We had four mills operating in the 

county. Today there are few timber jobs and one mill. They import 

mostly non-Federal logs from outside the county. From the Canadian border to mid California you hear the same stories from national forest impacted counties. 

8 

1992 saw Congress pass Owl Guaranteed payments for the counties and schools hit with the loss of their economy to allow agencies 

to plan for resuming some level of sustainable harvest. This did not 

happen. SRS/County payments was passed from 2000 through to 

the last payment in 2012. The payments kept the county governments and the schools operating but also turned many of us into 

the largest employers in our community. 

Skamania’s general fund budget this year was reduced from $14.5 million to $10 million. We face another $4 million cut next 

year. Our budget is 80 percent people. We have very little land 

available for property tax. Our school districts are facing a similar 

fate. Enrollment has dropped by 28 percent over 20 years. We average 60 percent free and reduced lunch, which is a key indicator of 

poverty, and on top of that, three counties in Oregon currently face 

insolvency. 

With Fish and Wildlife Services’ suggestion of doubling critical 

habitat from 6 million to 14 million acres, the counties have simply 

had enough, especially when the Service indicates that the greatest 

peril to the Spotted Owl is from the Barred Owl. My county in 

Washington, Douglas County in Oregon, Siskiyou County in California are the lead counties of this fight on behalf of all affected 

communities in our state. 

First, the counties have requested of the Secretary a 90-day extension of the public comment deadline. We’ve had no official reply. 

The Service tells us they will not have their economic or environmental report done until late May, leaving barely 30 days to comment only because they moved their deadline 30 days. Their economic impact report will begin with this new Critical Habitat and 

will not look at historical impacts. 

The Service complained an extension is impossible because 

they’re under court-ordered deadline of November 15th. This is a 

gross misstatement of fact, as a quote from the Federal Register 

shows. On October 12, 2010, the Court remanded the 2008 Critical 

Habitat rule and adopted the Service’s proposed schedule to issue 

a new rule for public comment by November 15, 2011, and a final 

rule by November 15, 2012. 

The Service created the schedule, missed the deadline for public 

comment by seven months, moved the deadline 30 days and can 

certainly move the comment deadline an additional 90 days. 

Second, the counties have no faith in this economic study and 

have commissioned our own at the cost of the county. In the ’92 

Final Plan, the Service estimated that only 27,000 jobs would be 

lost. Oregon alone has lost in excess of 40,000. The estimated impact to the Federal Treasury is $50 million per year. The number 

is closer to $700 million per year. 

Third, this morning the counties filed for legal recognition as cooperating agencies on the final habitat plan. We’re closer to the social and economic issues surrounding this proposal than any other 

Federal agency which would, without our expertise, be acting in a 

vacuum again. I want to note that this Critical Habitat Plan would 

make the provisions of Chairman Hastings’ bill impossible to implement across the landscape, and as said by Chairman Hastings’, 

DNR has 23 percent of the acreage and harvests 465 percent of the 

volume. 

9 

Finally, as I speak to public lands impacted, County Commissioners, I find that no matter their political persuasion, for the 

most part they have the same message: No more wilderness or 

other set-asides of these public lands until we’ve settled the active 

management and significant economic questions before us. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony, Commissioner Pearce. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Paul Pearce, Commissioner, Skamania County, 

Washington, on behalf of the National Forest Counties and Schools 

Coalition 

Good morning Chairman Hastings and Congresswoman Herrera Beutler. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you as National Forest Counties and 

Schools Coalition Vice President, NACo’s Public Lands Steering Committee Vice 

Chair, and most importantly as the Chair of the Skamania County Board of Commissioners, a county 90% impacted by Federal Land management. 

Since the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl we have witnessed the wholesale 

destruction of an industry and economy. From 1970 to 1990 Gifford Pinchot Forest 

alone produced on averaged 350 million board feet of timber yearly. The forests mortality rate is 218 million board feet and the growth rate is 1.1 billion board feet. 

Harvest even at that level barely surpassed the mortality rate. 

Beginning in 1992 with Critical Habitat, followed by the 1994 Northwest Forest 

Plan we saw the continued loss of timber jobs and infrastructure at an incredible 

rate. In 1990 there were 1200 jobs on the Gifford Pinchot Forest, 350 of them were 

forest service employees. There were four full time mills operating in my county 

alone. 

Today there are few timber jobs and only one full time mill. And they truck logs 

in, mostly from non-federal lands. You’ll hear the same stories from Counties containing National Forests from the Canadian border to mid California. 

Congress passed Owl Guarantee payments for those counties and schools hit with 

the loss of their entire economy so as to allow agencies to get their act together resuming some level of sustainable harvest. This did not happen and SRS/County Payments was passed from 2000 through this last payment in 2012. These payments 

kept the county Governments and the Schools operating but also turned us into the 

largest employers. 

Our general fund budget for 2012 was cut from 14.5 million to 10 million. We face 

another 4 million cut in 2013. Like most public land counties we only have a small 

sliver of land available for property tax. Our school districts are facing a similar 

fate. Enrollment has dropped by 28% over 20 years. We average 60 percent free and 

reduced lunch, a key indicator of poverty. Our unemployment rate is still near 12% 

with an underemployment rate much higher. 

Three counties in Oregon face insolvency. These statistics are true for the highly 

public land dependant counties in all three states and across the country. 

So as the Service now suggests doubling Critical Habitat from 6 million to 14 million acres in Washington, Oregon and California the counties have simply had 

enough. Especially when the Services indicates that the greatest peril to the Spotted 

Owl is from the Barred Owl. 

Skamania County in Washington, Douglas County in Oregon and Siskiyou County 

in California are the leads for their sister counties. We have requested a 90 day extension of the public comment deadline. We have had no official reply to as yet. 

The Service tells us they will not have their economic or environmental reports 

done until late May which leaves barely 30 days to reply. We are informed that 

their economic impact report will begin on the day this new Critical Habitat is final 

and will not look at historic impacts. 

Members of the Service unofficially complain that an extension is impossible because they are under a court ordered deadline of November 15th. This is a gross 

misstatement of fact 

I quote from the federal register at page 1408: 

‘‘On October 12, 2010, the Court remanded the 2008 critical habitat designation. . .and adopted the Service’s proposed schedule to issue a new proposed revised 

critical habitat rule for public comment by November 15, 2011, and a final rule by 

November 15, 2012. . ..’’ 

10 

The Service created the schedule then missed the deadline for public comment by 

seven months. They can certainly move the other deadlines by 90 days. 

The Counties have no faith in the economic study and have commissioned our 

own. In the 1992 Final Plan at page 1815 the Service makes a number of estimates 

as to the impacts of the listing and critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. 

They estimate that only 27,000 jobs would be lost stating that this was only 3% of 

timber related jobs nationwide; as if the owl were listed nationwide. We know that 

Oregon alone lost in excess of 40,000. They further estimate the impact to the federal treasury at $50 million per year. We know based on actual payments prior to 

the listing that this number is closer to $700 million per year. 

Also the three counties I mentioned above have this morning filed for Cooperating 

Agency status on the final plan on behalf of all affected counties. 

This Critical Habitat makes the provisions of Chairman Hastings’ ‘‘Federal Forests County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2012’’ House Bill 4109 impossible to 

implement across the landscape of these Owl impacted Forests. 

Timber harvest by the Forest Service and BLM is abysmal. Department of Natural Resources in Washington State manages the counties timber lands. DNR has 

a Habitat Conservation Plan including the Spotted Owl. DNR manages 2.2 million 

acres. The Forest Service 9.3 million. From 2008 through 2010 DNR sustainably 

harvested 1.8 billion board feet of timber. The Forest Service harvested 387 million 

board feet. DNR. . .at 23% of the acreage. . .harvested 465% of the volume as compared to the forest service. 

Finally as I speak to public lands impacted County Commissioners I find that no 

matter their political persuasion; for the most part they have the same message. No 

more wilderness, wilderness like, roadless, roadless like, natural preserves or other 

set asides, of these public lands until we have settled the active management, and 

significant economic questions before us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we’ll call on Mr. Tom Fox, the President of 

the Family Forest Foundation. 

Mr. Fox, you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF TOM FOX, PRESIDENT, 

FAMILY FOREST FOUNDATION, ETHEL, WASHINGTON 

Mr. FOX. Thank you. 

In Washington state there are 215,000 family forest landowners. 

Although the parcel size is the average of 40 acres, family forests 

account for over 20 percent of the 16 million acres of forest land 

in the State of Washington. Family forests are working for us, 

managed and nurtured with the care and attention that only personal commitment and stewardship and a unique love of the land. 

Family forests generate nearly one-third of the state timber harvest, contributing to the economic, social and environmental health 

of the rural communities, but certain implications of the ESA and 

the failed Federal policy are forcing small landowners out of business. 

Congress amended the ESA in 1986 to mitigate the impacts of 

the Act by creating Section 10. Under the Habitat Conservation 

Planning process you’re supposed to be able to negotiate a plan 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fishery Services 

to provide for the economic viability of the landowner and the habitat species need. This has worked OK for industrial landowners in 

the State of Washington to the extent that there are four companies that have HCP. 

The State of Washington State Lands has an HCP and the DNR 

Forest and Fish HCP. Most of these HCPs are working well, but 

from the prospect of most family forest landowners, the HCP, the 

Forest and Fish HCP is not working very well and is not meeting 

major portions of the agreement such as developing low effect preVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
11 

scriptions, providing adequate funding for the forestry occurring 

easement, which is mitigation for the taking that was promised to 

small landowners in the agreement. 

In 1997 the Federal Government came to four small forest landowners and asked them to do HCPs. In 2004 I was the only family 

forest landowner out of the original four that was successful after 

six years of working with the Services and paying an eight-year 

HCP on my 45 acres of family forest. I have a Safe Harbor Agreement, a conservation agreement with assurances and a low fixed 

HCP. 

In 1997, shortly after the original four began their individual 

HCPs, the Services realized its small forest landowners were having a hard time participating and that the significant work load for 

the services, so this U.S. Fish and Wildlife came to Lewis County 

government and a small group of family forest Landowners in 

Lewis County to develop and to participate in a pilot program that 

would develop a science-based, county-wide programmatic HCP for 

small landowners. It was a voluntary process. People that didn’t 

want to participate didn’t have to. In 2007, ten years later, after investing over $4 million in public 

and private funds and during countless meetings, participating in 

independent scientific review, the Family Forest Foundation in 

those counties submitted the Family Forest Habitat Conservation 

Plan. The response from the Services was to sit on the application 

for an additional three-and-a-half years before issuing a Notice of 

Receipt, not a Notice of Intent but a Notice of Receipt. I requested 

public comment on the proposal in early 2011. 

Halfway through 2012, nearly 15 years later, the process of the 

process, the Service has yet to render a written decision. Requests 

from Lewis County and the Family Forest Foundation on the written comments have been ignored. This is clearly a conflict of the 

intent of Section 10 of ESA. 

The recent U.S. proposal to shotgun Barred Owls to save endangered Spotted Owl cousins defies common sense, logic and cross 

into a murky moral morass of human playing God. This full notion 

that we should and can try to shoot and control these species with 

a shotgun is ludicrous. 

Mr. Chairman, this probably has been made even worse by U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife’s recent Spotted Owl designation of critical area 

habitat on 150 acres of private forest land. Also, with the forest 

land not having any harvest of the larger trees, we’ve lost our milling infrastructure and small landowners are now forced to grow 

their trees on a shorter rotation. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure how to address this problem, but 

we’re hoping that Congress can help us fix it. At a minimum I 

would like to recommend creating an accountability and appointing 

an omnibus coupled with an independent scientific review team, 

change agency culture and staff in addition to providing adequate 

fundings and combining two ESA responsibilities for two agencies 

into one. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Fox. I appreciate your 

testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:] 

12 

Statement of Tom Fox, President, Family Forest Foundation 

Sadly, too many politicians and agency administrators are unaware that not all 

forest land is owned by an industrial company, a public agency, or a Native American tribe. Far from that is the truth. In Washington State there are over 215,000 

family forest landowners that own nearly 20% of the state’s 16.1 million acres of 

commercial forest land. Nationwide, the number is 59%. These family-owned forests 

are nurtured and managed with the care and attention that comes only with personal ownership and love of the land. These family forests contribute immensely to 

the economic, social and environmental health of local communities. 

One might logically believe that fostering the vitality and vibrancy of family forests would be an imperative goal of our nation’s federal forest management policies. 

If in fact that is true, our federal forest policies of the last three decades have failed 

miserably, resulting in the endangering of jobs, forests and species. 

In this testimony I will describe 1.The failed Family Forest Habitat Conservation 

Plan (FFHCP), 2. The effects of the failed federal agencies policies, and 3.The effects 

of the failed Northwest Forest plan and it economic and social ramifications to the 

rural counties in which these forests are located. 

The first is an example of our federal agencies stubborn refusal to embrace and 

fully employ the processes embedded in the HCP provisions of the Endangered Species Act to support and incentivize ownership and sustainable management of family forests. 

Designating additional acres of critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl 

(NSO) as the U.S Fish and Wildlife suggest in their current public registry notice 

is the wrong path to follow. That type of action will only create disincentives for 

landowners to grow and maintain NSO or for that matter any type of species habitat. Forest land owners are getting weary of the federal services inability to work 

cooperatively with them, and see this current habitat designation as another misguided policy that will backfire causing additional species habitat loss across the 

landscape. 

Until recently, a more rational approach to species conservation was utilized by 

the Services and landowners. Under the Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) 

process landowners and Services staff negotiated numerous conservation plans that 

allowed sustainable forest management while creating and maintaining species 

habitat. 

In 1997, the Services invited a small dedicated group of family forest landowners 

in SW Washington State to participate in developing an HCP on their individual 

forest ownership. Four family forest landowners stepped up to work with the services at the services request. I was the only family forest landowner out of the original four in that was successful and endured the over 6 years of working with the 

services in 2004 in obtaining a HCP for my then 144 acres of forest land in SW 

Washington. In fact I believe I am the only family forest landowner in the nation 

that has been successful in receiving a multi-species 80 year HCP in 2004 after 

working with the Services for over 6 years. My forest land is named the Tagshinny 

Tree Farm, which is a Gallic term that meaning ‘‘Home of the Fox’’. Our agreement 

includes a combination of a Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) that covers the NSO, 

Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) with USFW, and a 

Low Effects HCP (LEHCP) with NOAA. 

The reasons I was determined to get my HCP was because I wanted to provide 

my family with a long term forest management plan into the future that provided 

certainty to my family. But also I and my family truly want to provide certainty 

for the species that currently did or could inhabit my land in the future. I didn’t 

want to be managing my forest land in the fear of having ESA species on my ownership but rather I wanted to be able to welcome any and all species that lived or 

came on my ownership. I had seen the ESA listing in the 1990’s when the NSO was 

listed and how it had affected the psyche of forest landowners by driving them to 

‘‘Manage by Fear’’. Fear that a species would inhabit their property and that their 

property and investment would become worthless. Also fear that if they created and 

providing habit for ESA listed species on their property they would be punished for 

doing the right thing. 

My children as many other forest land owner’s children have been discouraged by 

what they see as a very negative image of being a forest landowner that continues 

to be betrayed by many out of touch environmental organizations. The continued 

lies and miss-truths that those groups have and continue to spread have poisoned 

future generations minds. The continual misrepresentation of forest landowners has 

twisted the truth to a point where many heirs don’t want anything to do with forest 

ownership as they have been brainwashed that growing and then harvesting trees 

in a sustainable manner is a bad thing. 

13 

In 1997 after the four original forest landowners in Lewis County Washington 

stepped up to work with the Services it quickly became apparent to the Services 

that they didn’t have the staff or ability to take on the HCP planning process on 

a one on one bases with family forest landowners. So the Services suggested that 

the Family Forest Foundation (FFF), Lewis County government work with the services and the family forest landowner in that county to develop a County wide programmatic HCP. The concept was that Lewis County would be the permittee of the 

HCP and willing landowners would be included into the plan with the use of a certificate of inclusion. Landowner participation into the HCP would be on a volunteer 

basis and those landowners that were not interested in participating would simply 

continue to follow the current set of rules and regulation that they were already following. The Forest and Fish agreement which is the state wide HCP that was implemented in 2000 included a clause that allowed landowners that entered into 

HCP’s to replace portions of the state wide HCP with their negotiated prescriptions. 

After investing over $4 million of public and private funds, enduring countless meetings and participating in independent scientific review processes the Family Forest 

Foundation in cooperation with Lewis County submitted the Family Forest Habitat 

Conservation Plan (FFHCP) to the Services in 2007. After sitting on the application 

for nearly three and a half years the Services issued a Notice of Receipt (NOR) and 

requested public comment on the proposal in early 2011. Lewis County and the FFF 

have not received any communications from the services about the results of the 

NOR. Lewis county and the FFF have repeatedly requested copies of the NOR comments that were submitted, but the Services refuse to allow us copies of the written 

comments. How and why have the services been allowed to stonewall us and not 

provide us with that information? We even filed a FOIA request in an attempt to 

find out the breath of the comments submitted on the NOR but the services have 

only provided us with minimal amounts of information. The Services are clearly not 

following the intent of Section 10 of the ESA or the written policies of the Services 

as stated in the HCP Handbook. When and who is going to make the Services accountable? The FFHCP, if implemented, could provide an enormous incentive to 

Lewis County landowners to help encourage them to keep growing trees while providing quality species habitat across the landscape rather than develop their land 

to other nonforest uses. Family forest landowners are struggling to stay on the landscape and need an alternative to the ‘‘one size fits all’’ Forest and Fish agreement, 

like the customized FFHCP if they are to continue to keep their land in forests. 

I believe the Services are negligent in their duty by not working with Lewis County and willing landowners to develop the FFHCP. Rather they undermine and demoralize the very land owners they are charged to work with. Additionally the Services are negligent in their duty to the species by not understanding that continuing 

to not provide incentives and alternatives that the ESA is designed to provide only 

drives landowners to not manage their property for increased species habitat. I do 

believe that sustainable working forests are compatible with species protection but 

a landowner that is growing a crop for 50–70 years needs to have some level of certainty in order to feel comfortable about continuing to invest in forest ownership for 

decades. 

Here we are almost half way through 2012 and the Services to date have yet to 

render a decision on the FFHCP. Off the record we have been told that there will 

be no more forestry HCP’s for coverage of aquatic species on private lands in Washington State because of the state wide Forest and Fish HCP agreement. We were 

also told by the Services that family forest landowners don’t need a HCP because 

we don’t have any ESA species issues. Now we have the Services wanting to designate additional NSO habitat on private land. Clearly, the HCP process in this region is broken. It’s not that the ESA has changed, but rather it’s because the Services staff and leadership has changed and they have decided they don’t want to do 

HCP’s with family forest landowners in Washington State. They don’t want to abide 

by the ESA as it was intended to be implemented. They have decided in some dark 

room somewhere that they are not going to work with landowners that are interested in doing HCP’s. Rather the current staff and leadership have taken upon 

themselves to basically rewrite the ESA and deny what is rightly due willing landowner. We need new leadership in these agencies that will work with and not 

against forest landowners with voluntary incentive based solutions. Putting a gun 

to our heads demanding more of our forests is not going to work. When are you the 

Congress going to hold these out of control bureaucrats accountable for their actions? 

Aquatic species conservation in Region 1 (Washington, Oregon and Idaho) is an 

enigma to say the least. Salmon lead the list of species under protection and spend 

the majority of their life cycle in the ocean. As an example when they swim inland 

up the Columbia River regulations vary greatly depending on the direction of travel. 

14 

If the fish swims into Washington State the regulatory rule book for aquatic species 

conservation is four inches thick. Site potential tree height buffers as wide as 200’ 

protect even water that doesn’t have fish but could in the future be potential fish 

habitat. If the species swims south into Oregon the rules are considerably less, and 

if the fish can make their way past all the dams to their home in Idaho the regulations are even less. 

Where is the credit for Washington forest landowners for stepping up and agreeing to the Forest and Fish agreement HCP? The riparian buffers that are being left 

along all the streams in Washington State in perpetuity should be considered as 

available habitat for the NSO. Washington’s agreement is called the ‘‘Forest and 

Fish Agreement’’ and as such does and will forever provide habitat for many upland species and should be part of the equation when calculating future available 

habitat for the NSO. 

In the last 12 years since the NW Forest Plan (NWFP) implementation the Forest 

Service has done a dismal job of meeting their allowable cut goals of the plan only 

producing 2% of what was agreed to in the NWFP. Continued pressure and threat 

of lawsuits from out of touch enviro groups have paralyzed the Forest Service. Comparing the Washington State DNR state lands average return of almost $400 per 

thousand board feet to the Forest Service’s average return to the US Treasury of 

less than $10 per thousand board feet, one has to conclude that Forest Service management has been a disaster. As a result of the Forest Service’s inability to harvest 

the timber that they should be harvesting the large log milling infrastructure of the 

state has been decimated by the lack of available timber volume. Consequently private forest landowners in Washington State don’t have any place to sell their large 

logs. Previously, growing your timber older, larger, and longer was better. Better in 

the since that a landowner would get more for their logs at the mill and they could 

grow bigger and better habitat for the species. But because of the lack of milling 

options today landowners actually are penalized and get paid less for their larger 

logs. This phenomenon is driving landowners to grow their tree on a shorter rotation or be punished by reduced income for growing a longer rotation. In the past 

many family forest landowners enjoyed and were more than willing to grow their 

trees to 70 or 80 years of age creating older succession type timber. Today with the 

lack of large log milling infrastructure the incentive to grow timber on a longer rotation has disappeared. 

From the perspective of private forestland owners, federally driven constraints on 

management of forests both private and government controlled has been a dismal 

failure. Evidence the serious increase in mill closures since 1990 reported by 

Ehinger and Associates. Mill closures have mostly been caused by drastically reduced National Forest timber sales due to the listing of the NSO. With this precipitous drop in milling infrastructure thousands of jobs have been lost and the NSO 

has not been recovering in numbers or increased its range. 

Private forest landowners have been forced to stop growing what could have been 

ideal NSO forest habitat. Large log sawmills are closing and the forest industry has 

had to retool to cut smaller, more uniform saw logs to remain competitive in the 

global marketplace. The loss of a sustainable supply of large saw logs from USFS 

lands forced the milling industry to adapt to milling only smaller logs; logs which 

come from smaller trees, younger forests. These younger forests, smaller trees, 

and reduced NSO habitat are then a direct result of the failure of the NSO 

Recovery Plan!! Evidence all of the habitat destruction caused by stand replacement wildfire that has occurred on USFS lands since 1990. Evidence the Arizona 

and Colorado wildfires burning out of control today, May 2012! Forests are dynamic 

and ever changing; so by them setting aside or ‘‘preserving them in perpetuity’’ does 

not guarantee the ‘banking’ of that habitat. 

By restricting USNF timber sales of large logs, in a misdirected attempt to save 

the owl, the government agencies have actually reduced the available acreage of potential NSO habitat except on Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Lands. 

Over time the cumulative effects of increasing regulatory constraints on forest 

management reduce yield and the incentive for private forest landowners to continue providing the goods and services society has come to expect from them (clean 

air, water, wood products, tax receipts, etc.) Private forestlands in the United States 

exist in our capitalist, democratic country because of the rights bestowed us in our 

US Constitution. The incentive to profit from the production of forest products is 

what drives investment in forestland. This is the American way! 

If the profit motive is taken away by the piling on of more and more regulations, 

ultimately these ever increasing constraints will eventually render forest management uneconomic and these forestlands will be converted to other uses that provide 

greater economic opportunity. These alternative uses normally degrade wildlife 

habitat quality from that provided by managed forests. 

15 

There are ways to overcome these blunders. 

• Promote HCP’s; individual or programmatic (provide fast track templates) 

• Include economic analysis of costs in terms of harvest yields and other costs 

• Mitigate these losses and compensate for government takings of private property 

• Minimize constraints on private lands 

• Promote incentives to provide habitat 

Below is information that shows the impact on Washington’s working forest and 

was derived from the State Wide Data Base. In summary the information below 

shows that there are currently a total of 1,615 landowners that own 10 acres or 

more that would be affected by the additional 150,000 acres of habitat that USFW 

is currently proposing. The economic effects, in an already dismal employment picture, of increasing the critical habitat designation will be the further crippling of 

already struggling rural counties. 

For every 1,000 acres of working forest 12 jobs are supported paying $523,000 in 

wages and $19,000 in taxes and fees, annually. 

After the proposed exclusions of HCPs and other federal agreements, nearly 

150,000 acres of privately owned land remains within the federal critical habitat 

designation in Washington State. 

• 150,000 acres of working forests supports 1,800 jobs. 

• 150,000 acres of working forests impacts 1,615 landowners. 

• 150,000 acres of working forests produces $2.1 million in annual sales 


74531.001.eps 74531.002.eps
16 

The premise underlying the Services decision to shoot sea lions to save salmon 

was shaky at best. The more recent decision to shotgun barred owls to save its endangered spotted owl cousin defies common sense, logic and crosses into a murky 

moral morass where humans attempt to play god and choose which cousin shall survive. So what about the fact that spotted owls and barred owls are now cross breeding. How will the services shooters know if it’s a spotted, barred or spard owl. This 

whole notion that we can control these species with a shot gun is ridiculous. 

Natural resource agency consolidation needs to be a top priority of the Congress. 

Negotiating a HCP with two different agencies with two different policies is mind 

boggling. All they do is point fingers at each other and won’t cooperate with you 

or each other. I believe the Congress should cut their budgets, consolidate agencies 

and develop an all lands approach to species conservation! 

If we can’t accomplish some major changes to the current system then we can look 

forward to a future where the nights are spent shot gunning innocent barred owls 

and we can watch the further fragmentation of family forest habitat by day. 

Scientific efforts in political processes have taken a beating. We clearly lack processes where by the preponderance of scientific information can move forward while 

acknowledging dissenting opinions in a transparent manner. Instead scientific approaches fail in stakeholder processes built on consensus models where political posturing is confused for scientific debate and progress is measured in years and strict 

adherence to protocol. The effect of this confusion is never more evident that in the 

Interdisciplinary Team review process currently utilized in the implementation our 

State’s Forest Practices HCP. This costly and ungainly process entails representatives from USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, affected Tribes and is spearheaded by the Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices forester. Any deviation from the current Forest Practice 

rule requires a visit from and ID team to determine whether or not the proposed 

deviation provides ‘‘equivalent function’’ to the current rule. These determinations 

often mire down in agency infighting over whose fish is the best fish etc., and rarely 

improve the proposed forest practice while spending thousands of scare resource dollars per visit. 

The time for regulation by committee has passed. We simply cannot afford this 

sort of agency redundancy in order for our regulatory system to function correctly. 

Forest practice foresters are highly qualified individuals well equipped to make 

functional determinations in the field. If additional resources are needed to make 

such determinations then field foresters can reach out to qualified resource professionals on a case by case basis. 

Federal critical habitat designation is the wrong conservation mechanism for private forestlands. Washington’s private forests are the economic engine of the forest 

industry. You need to remove federal critical habitat designation on private working 

forest lands; otherwise, we will destroy the very landowners that should be encouraged to stay on the landscape. If the landowner and working forests become extinct 

none of the species will survive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we’ll call on Dr. Hal Salwasser, Dean of the 

College of Forestry at Oregon State University, and let me explain 

why you are speaking this way. You will notice a little bit of an 


74531.003.eps
17 

accident and there’s some question on what the accident was. Some 

of your friends said it was other activity. You said you fell, so we’ll 

take your word for it. At any rate, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HAL SALWASSER, PH.D., CHERYL RAMBERG 

AND ALLYN C. FORD DEAN, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY, 

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS, OREGON 

Dr. SALWASSER. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Representative Herrera Beutler. I’m Hal Salwasser. I’m testifying here today 

as a private citizen. I have almost 20 years of experience, starting 

as a wildlife ecologist in California and culminating as a senior executive in the Washington office, the Northern Rockies and California. For the past three decades I’ve been engaged with an agency trying to change in response to changing societal values and 

science. 

If I were to give what I have to say today a title it would be Restoring Federal Forests for Prosperity in the American West. In my 

brief time I’m going to touch on four things that are expanded upon 

in my written testimony. The first is the Grand Societal Resource 

Challenge—Meeting the needs of 30 percent more people by midcentury with no more land or water than we have now and probably less access to fossil hydrocarbon. The Economist call this the 

9 Billion People Challenge. It translates here in the Pacific Northwest to 30 percent more people in the Nation to 30 percent and 

global with 30 percent. 

The second is the problem in the west. Western Federal forest 

lands no longer make significant contributions to the grand challenge for natural resources at any geographic scale. They no longer 

serve their statutory purposes. They’re becoming a substantial liability to the states, their rural communities and American taxpayers and they are now a growing threat to adjoining landowners 

due to vulnerability, to fire, insects and disease. 

Third thing is the inadequacy of current legislative approaches. 

While well intended, recent legislative proposals do not address the 

larger problems of statutory dissonance, governance dysfunction 

and long-term sustainability of new directions. The trees keep 

growing and dying, victims of client change, invasive species, 

uncharacteristic fire, insects and insufficient funds or social license 

to change course. 

My last theme is Options Forward. Sooner or later society has to 

confront the consequences of Federal forest land management dysfunction, declining land, rising health costs, poverty stricken rural 

America, hanging on through Federal payments because the Nation 

refuses to empower the responsible agencies to sustainably use 

public lands and their natural resources to generate wealth and 

jobs while improving environmental benefits. Meanwhile, the nation’s dependence on foreign natural resources increases, so it’s 

past time to try some novel grand experiments. 

And here are some that are being talked about right now: The 

first is technical and managerial, and the examples are the pilots 

being done on Oregon and California lands in southern Oregon, the 

Johnson Franklin ecological restoration project. The problem with 

18 

these is that they don’t address the fundamental ill, the lack of 

clarity on a mission. 

There are also some discussions about changes in governance. 

Dan Kemmis, for example, suggests local collaboratives, but it’s 

going to take Cabinet or Congressional level authority to make 

those work. Several people have suggested a Presidential commission with broad authority to suggest maybe changes in policy. In 

my view that would merely kick the can down the road. What is 

necessary is congressional clarification of the statutory purposes 

and clear roadblocks to effectiveness. The core issue is not failed 

Federal forest policies, nor is it failing Federal agency. It’s failure 

of Federal forest laws to address the environmental economic and 

community aspirations of western states. 

The last is to transfer the alliance to somebody else to manage 

without the current Federal policy hurdles. Oregon congressional 

delegation has proposed transferring some of the BLM lands to a 

trust. Others have suggested to transfer them back to the original 

stewards, the tribes, who have the capacity in many places and can 

provide the kind of protection and integrated management that 

meets their needs as well as other people. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to 

further discussions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Salwasser. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Salwasser follows:] 

Statement of Hal Salwasser, Cheryl Ramberg and Allyn C. Ford Dean, 

College of Forestry, Oregon State University 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am Hal Salwasser, Cheryl Ramberg and Allyn C. Ford Dean of the College of 

Forestry at Oregon State University. I testify today as a private citizen, with over 

20 years of experience with the US Forest Service, starting as a wildlife ecologist 

in California and culminating as a Senior Executive. I was the Director of New Perspectives and Ecosystem Management in the Washington Office, Regional Forester 

in the Northern Region and Director of the Pacific Southwest Research Station in 

California. In my latter two roles I provided executive guidance to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project and the Framework for Revising National Forest Plans in the Sierra Nevada. During the first decade of the 21st century, I served on the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry and 

was chair from 2003–2005. I have been Dean at OSU since 2000. 

For the past three decades I have been engaged with an agency trying to change 

in response to changing societal values and science, first as one of its leaders and 

later as a concerned colleague and citizen. If I were to give what I have to say today 

a title it would be this: 

Restoring Federal Forests for Prosperity in the American West 

In my brief time here I will talk about four themes that, in my experience are 

relevant to your task: 

The Grand Societal Resource Challenge—Meeting the needs of 30% more 

people by mid-century with no more land or water than we have now and perhaps 

less access to fossil hydrocarbon: the 9 Billion People Challenge (30% more in PNW, 

30% more in US, 30% more in world). 

The Problem in the West—Western federal forestlands no longer make significant contributions to the grand challenge for natural resources; they no longer serve 

their statutory purposes; they are becoming a substantial liability to the states, 

their rural communities and American taxpayers; and they are a growing threat to 

adjoining landowners due to vulnerability to fire, insects and disease. 

The Inadequacy of Current Legislative Approaches—While well intended, 

recent legislative proposals do not address larger problems of statutory dissonance, 

governance dysfunction, and long-term sustainability of new directions. The trees 

just keep growing and dying, victims of climate change, invasive species, 

19 

uncharacteristic wildfires, insect outbreaks and insufficient funds or social license 

to change course. 

Options Forward—Sooner or later society must confront the consequences of 

federal forestland management dysfunction, e.g., declining land health, rising costs, 

a poverty stricken rural America hanging on through federal payments because the 

nation refuses to empower the responsible agencies to sustainably use public lands 

and their natural resources to generate wealth and jobs while improving environmental benefits. Meanwhile the nation’s dependence on foreign natural resources increases. It is past time to try some novel grand ‘‘experiments.’’ The following are 

among those suggested: • Technical/managerial, e.g., Franklin/Johnson, ecological restoration emphasis; 

but this will not address underlying problem of lack of clarity on agency mission • Governance, e.g., Kemmis, local collaborative; but it will take Secretary or 

Congressional authorization • Presidential Commission with broad authority to suggest major change in policy (like the recent Entitlements/Deficits Commission); to me this just kicks 

the can down the road; • Congressional clarification of the statutory purposes and to clear roadblocks 

to effectiveness; the core issue here is not failed federal forest policies, not is 

it failing federal forest agencies. It is the failure of a suite of federal laws to 

address the environmental, economic and community aspirations of those 

whose lives are so deeply affected by what happens on federal forests. Only 

Congressional action can fix this. 

• Transfer the lands to someone else to manage without current federal policy 

hurdles, e.g., land trust or tribes with capacity—the original stewards, or at 

minimum charter as appropriate to provide anchor forests for protection of 

tribal forest values; this is a slippery slope that once started could end up 

with divestiture of federal lands outside Congressionally designated Wilderness Areas, National Monuments, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Context: The 9 Billion Challenge 

We live in a world that has twice as many humans as when I was a kid; I am 

66. We humans consume more space and resources and produce more pollutants 

than many ecosystems can sustain over the long term. To support this many people 

has required re-plumbing river systems, massive conversion of forests, woodlands 

and grasslands to agriculture, development of hard infrastructure, depletion of marine resources, and exhaustive mining of minerals and hydrocarbons. In the US, we 

thrive off the material production of others, often in exploitive ways. And, we tolerate a widening gap between the truly wealthy and the truly poor, a social justice 

problem that belies our rhetoric about equality. We are clearly not on a sustainable 

trajectory, let alone poised to handle 9–10 billion humans. But that is only the dark 

side. How about the upside? 

Most humans now live longer. Most are healthier. Many are better educated. We 

have not exhausted all renewable natural resources due to sustainable, science-informed professional management. These statements are not true for all people or 

resources, but things are better in many ways than just 50 years ago. In other 

words, things are not as bad as they might have been. So, where do forest management and forest and other natural resource professionals fit in this complex picture? 

Those now in their 20s and early 30s will be asked to meet the needs of 30% more 

people before their careers are over; as The Economist put it last year, addressing 

the 9 billion people question. They will be expected to do this with no more forested 

land than now exists, perhaps even with less. Using much of that land to grow a 

renewable material and provide substantial ecosystem service benefits in economically feasible and socially acceptable ways will be critical to future human wellbeing. Meeting the challenge will require highly skilled and motivated professionals. 

Producing these individuals and the discoveries that will help them be successful 

is our business at America’s Land Grant Universities. 

But merely meeting the material needs of a growing human population, while necessary, will not be sufficient. Social and environmental justice must be part of the 

future to prevent societies from tearing themselves asunder, just as we see today 

where those needs are lacking. Future industrialized societies must also transition 

from a hydrocarbon-dependent economy to a carbohydrate-augmented economy, and 

not just in what we eat, wear and how we travel. Wood and cellulose will be major 

factors in that transition. So will optimizing every acre of forest for its best service 

to society, not every acre for wood but more than we currently employ in the U.S. 

Optimally all forests, local to global, should have science-informed, owner-values 

based professional management. That will not come from those who believe forests 

20 

should be managed only for wood or those who believe they should be left to nature. 

The former is socially and environmentally unacceptable in our nation and in many 

others and the latter option disappeared with population growth and affluence enabled by the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago, though some still live in denial 

of the reality of what it takes to support so many people on planet earth. 

So, why focus on western U.S. federal forests? They are not industrial forests, 

where wood production takes precedence in desired outcomes. A major reason is 

they dominate the Western forest scene and they no longer play productive roles for 

meeting the grand societal challenges of the 21st century at any geographic scale 

from local to global. Further, what happens on federal forests affects others in more 

ways than many people think. I suspect few urbanites realize the conditions of 

‘‘their’’ federal forests threaten other nearby landowners and communities and that 

lack of management is the reason. 

The Western Federal Forest Case 

Western states have lived with federal management of almost half to nearly all 

their forestland estate for over 100 years. Those forests have shaped much of what 

Westerners and others think about forestry and their states, not all, of course, but 

much. Federal forests have always been the West’s preeminent watersheds; this will 

continue far into the future. They also are and will continue to be some of the 

West’s richest habitats for native plants and animals, prominent among them Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, aspen, oaks, trout, salmon, elk, deer, bears and an occasional 

owl or wolf. 

Over time, federal forests have lost a few native species, such as grizzlies and 

gray wolves which are now returning to a small part of their original range and 

they have become significant recreation and tourism assets. For a brief interlude, 

from around 1950–1990, Western federal forests delivered nearly a quarter of the 

nation’s softwood lumber and panel production, and they supported hundreds of 

local rural communities and hundreds of thousands of jobs related to forest resources, significant sources for rural community vitality and prosperity and, because 

wood products are in traded sector economies, urban ones as well. 

Many, but not all, of the economic, environmental and community benefits from 

federal forests remain; timber supply and its associated jobs and wealth creation are 

greatly reduced. But now, due to lack of sustainable wealth creation from renewable 

resources, rising costs of fire management, threats to private, state and tribal forests from wildfires and insect and pest outbreaks and loss of wood processing infrastructure, federal forests are becoming a substantial liability to rural communities, 

western states, American taxpayers, and, in many places, non-federal timberlands. 

These are all unintended consequences of how environmental laws suited to the 

1970s are interpreted and implemented, most notably the Endangered Species Act 

and the Clean Water Act. 

The current costs of holding federal forests as a government managed public trust 

far exceed the revenues generated, and expenses related to fire management exceed 

all other investment needs. This was not always the case. Who pays the bills? Every 

American taxpayer does. Who bears the impacts? Mostly local people and communities in areas near the forests and throughout the west. This is hardly an equitable 

condition and certainly out of alignment with the social contract between urban and 

rural America that began eroding in the 1980s. Counties across the west are left 

begging for a federal transfer of wealth in lieu of revenues from sustainable economic activities on federal forests and they do not get federal timber-related jobs 

and indirect businesses with their check. Continuing the check it is not a path to 

prosperity; it is merely a bridge from the past to, well, where? Meanwhile, the trees 

keep growing and, in fire-prone forests dying, victims of climate change, invasive 

species, uncharacteristic wildfires, insect outbreaks and insufficient funds or social 

license to change course. I am not the first or only person to point this out. 

Western federal forests are simply not sustainable on their current trajectory; 

they are not ecologically, economically or socially sustainable. Absent course correction, the situation will only worsen, leaving political leaders at national, state and 

local levels literally hamstrung for viable options, to wit, the suggestion by some 

that we can thin our way to economic vitality or sustainability. To me we, as a society, are ignoring the fundamental issue: What is/are the purpose(s) of lands held 

and managed in the public trust by agencies of the federal government? Marion 

Clawson wrote a still relevant book on this in 1975: Forests for Whom and for What. 

That is still the question. 

Very few people want to see species go extinct or water quality to decline. So, any 

path forward must guard against those outcomes and the latter will prove more feasible than the former. Declining political support for the federal check in lieu of 

wealth creation from federal forests shows that very few people support such a 

21 

wealth transfer. So, any path forward must deal with this issue as well. Thus, the 

critical policy question must be: Are there ways to sustain/restore resilient federal 

land ecosystems that deliver desired environmental, economic and social benefits to 

society with less impact to economies and communities than current approaches? If 

so, would laws need to be changed? Yes and yes. 

Let’s drop back to what Congress has said are the original purposes for federal 

forests. Three laws define the purpose(s) for national forests (Organic Act of 1891, 

Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and National Forest Management Act 

1976 amendment to the Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974), two for Public 

Lands (BLM) (Oregon and California Lands Act of 1936 and Forest and Rangeland 

Policy and Management Act of 1976). Other laws have overlaid purposes not meshed 

with these organic statutes: Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA), 

Clean Water Act (CWA), and Clean Air Act (CAA). Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA) and Administrative Procedures Act (APA) give activist groups essentially a 

free ride to use those other laws to subvert the statutory purposes of federal forests, 

with taxpayers paying their bills. 

Pioneering conservation leaders of the late 1800s and early 1900s championed federal land tenure to promote protection and conservation of wild places, wild life and 

waterways and the shared, sustainable, ethical and productive uses of natural resources. There was tension in the balance among these purposes from the very beginning of federal land tenure and aggravated distortions appeared post World War 

II as the nation increasingly relied on federal forests for its home construction boom. 

The distortion now is the false notion that not managing forests for some wealth 

creation is a form of protection. In our nation’s current financial situation it is actually a path to degradation of a once prime asset. 

Our current framework of resource and environmental policies, suited to and 

based on 1960s issues, and science are simply not working for 21st century challenges. Nor are they reflective of current scientific understandings of ecosystem dynamics and resilience. Perhaps it is time for a big Forest Policy Rummage Sale. 

Before a rummage sale, you sort through the ‘‘stuff’’ in your attic to rediscover the 

treasures you want to keep and identify the junk you want to jettison. Along the 

evolutionary course of conservation on federal forests several ‘‘grand experiments’’ 

have been, and some still are, carried out (though they were not thought of as experiments in the true sense). This is 2012, so I’ll give you 12 that come to my mind. 

This is some of the stuff in the attic. 

1. Governance by scientifically trained managers in consultation with local, 

state and legislative leaders (1905-on), 

2. Curtailment of the worst forms of domestic livestock grazing and timber 

poaching (1905-on), 

3. Eradication of top predators (done by 1920s), 

4. Suppression of all wild-land fire (10 AM policy, post Big Burn, 1910-on), 

5. Development of recreation infrastructure (1920s-on), 

6. Use of unemployed people to carry out conservation projects (CCC, 1930s), 

7. Engineering waterways for flood, irrigation and hydropower control (generally 1930s-1960s), 

8. Dedication to domestic timber supplies (1950s-1990), 

9. Congressional creation of no-development Wilderness Areas (1964-on) and 

agency dedication of de-facto wilderness, i.e., Roadless Rule (2001-?), 

10. Protection and conservation of at risk species (ESA 1973-on), 

11. Widespread judicial enforcement of single resource legislation, e.g., ESA, 

CWA, and CAA, at the expense of multiple-use sustainability mandates, 

e.g., MUSY, NFMA, O&C Act, and FLPMA, (mostly post 1970s) and lately 

12. The era and euphoria of collaboration (1990s-on). 

During the course of these ‘‘experiments’’ our human population grew threefold 

and migrated from rural to urban settings, the climate changed, economies and 

technologies changed, and policies and social norms enabled a highly consumptive 

culture fed by non-domestic resource production. Yet, we remain saddled with laws 

written during an earlier time, based on antique science, and designed to solve yesterdays’ challenges. Some of yesterdays’ challenges are still with us and some or all 

of them may grow in magnitude. But the times are vastly different and new science 

has shown that the vitality and resilience of ecological, social and economic systems 

are ill-served by single-species, single-industry, single-engine dominance, i.e., what 

we seem to have high-centered on with federal forest management lately as singlespecies protection is trumping all other purposes. With current and pending climate 

change it may not be possible to ‘‘save’’ species, one-by-one. If so, perhaps society 

should rethink ESA to focus on conserving the ecosystems, the originally stated purpose, and try to ensure their diversity, productivity and resilience. 

22 

Are we, as a nation or as citizens of western states, satisfied with this situation? 

If yes, stay the course and bear the consequences. If not, what must we do to change 

course? What outcomes would we likely favor if options forward were put to a vote, 

with those most directly affected by the outcome given the largest number of votes, 

i.e., those living in closest proximity to federal lands? Assuming clarity of purposes 

is possible, how might we act to further those purposes? These questions call for 

more than timid legislative proposals to address limited technical or managerial 

challenges. 

The conundrum for western federal lands is not, after all is said and done, merely 

forestry, environmental or resource management challenges. It calls for what USFS 

Chief emeritus, Jack Ward Thomas and the National Commission for Science on 

Sustainable Forestry called for: Congressional action to clarify purposes and processes for more efficient and effective stewardship of some of the world’s most remarkable natural land and resource assets. It may also call for experimentation beyond how forestry or other resource management is practiced, perhaps also experiments with more effective and equitable models of governance, as called for by exSpeaker of the Montana House of Representatives Dan Kemmis. Or, as is currently 

being considered for some federal lands in Oregon, it may just be time to stop the 

incremental experiments and start transitioning federal lands and policies for those 

lands to states, trusts, or back into the hands of their original stewards. A majority 

of federal and perhaps even state political leaders appear unwilling or unable to go 

there at this time but sooner or later society must confront the consequences of federal forestland management dysfunction: let me repeat, declining land health, rising 

costs and a poverty stricken rural America hanging on through at-risk federal 

checks because the nation refuses to use its federal forest lands and resources to 

generate wealth and jobs. Rep. Hastings and Reps. DeFazio, Schrader and Walden 

have some proposals on the table. They deserve thoughtful consideration. 

Among the options forward so far are the following. Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry 

Franklin, are championing pilot projects in fire-prone forests on Public Lands in SW 

Oregon. It could be one option in changing course. It involves restoration of stressresilient forests and structural class diversification through a combination of 

thinning and modest regeneration harvests that would produce commercially viable 

timber sales. Jobs and wealth would be created by both, though not in the magnitude of management activities of the mid to late 20th century. It is worth trying. 

But it may not be the only technical or managerial option. Their pilots do not address the fundamental underlying issues: lack of clarity on purpose, alignment of 

process to purpose, and governance effectiveness (though the pilots do rely on local 

collaboration). Other, well-thought proposals should also be tried, if someone will be 

bold enough to create and present them. I suggest that these so-called ‘‘pilots’’ not 

be ad hoc, anecdotal efforts; they should be well designed ‘‘grand experiments’’ to 

test ecological, social, managerial, and governance hypotheses. 

The current course is not a rosy path for the future of Western federal forest. It 

is certainly not focused on roles for federal lands on the 9 billion people question 

(in Oregon it is a 4 million challenge and in the nation it is a 500 million challenge). 

And it comes at a time when Forest Service leaders are proposing yet another new 

collaborative approach to forest planning. You may not agree with my assessment. 

Perhaps the Forest Service and BLM will find a collaboration pony in the pile of 

convoluted laws and legal precedent. But for me it is a sober reality check and perhaps a wake-up call. It is not too late to change course. It is never too late. But 

the longer we wait the greater the challenges will become and the higher the costs 

will be for future generations. Simply stated, we cannot thin our way to sustainability for federal forests, we cannot save single species by doing nothing in dynamic 

ecosystems, and no amount of collaboration will ever satisfy those who see only one 

purpose for federal lands, their purpose. So far, resistors won’t let restoration happen fast enough, large enough or heavy enough to make much of a dent in disturbance vulnerability or effective governance. And if they did, one must ask, ok, then 

what? Where’s the money going to come from to sustain mixed-use management 

when the federal treasury is drained every year by defense, health care and social 

security payments? Is saving single species even possible and would it be better for 

the future than managing for resilient, dynamic ecosystems? 

Closing Thoughts 

When I was a kid my grandpa told me money doesn’t grow on trees, you have 

to work to earn it. He was a mechanic. He was brilliant but he didn’t know much 

about forestry. Experience has shown me he was half right; he got the work part 

right. Many, though not all, Western federal forests not only still have the potential 

to grow money, they have the potential to grow jobs, productive wildlife, clean 

water, happy fish and the greenest, most renewable raw material on earth. It is 

23 

time for federal forests to re-start doing their share for the future well-being of our 

communities, states, and nation, and, yes, even for the health of our federal forests. 

From many conversations, I am convinced the people in our federal forest agencies 

would love to chart a more sustainable course for their future as forest stewards, 

as citizens of our communities and as contributors to addressing the 9 billion people 

challenge. 

So, let’s cycle back to where we started. Sustainable management of renewable 

natural resources has always been one of the keys to human well-being. It was and 

is key to all that is good about our current lifestyle. But staying the course in a 

finite world with a growing human population will not make the grade. We must 

seek continual improvement and change course when evidence makes the need for 

change clear. Our Endangered Species Act is not saving many species and, at least 

here in the Pacific Northwest, its social and financial costs are substantial. Something must change and the Congress is the only agent capable of meaningful 

change. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we’ll call Mr. Stephen Mealey, Vice President of Conserve Boone and Crockett Club. 

Mr. Mealey, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MEALEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF CONSERVATION, BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB, SPRINGFIELD, 

OREGON 

Mr. MEALEY. Thank you very much, Congressman. I’m pleased to 

be here. The Boone and Crockett is the oldest hunting conservation 

organization in American, founded by Teddy Roosevelt in 1887. I 

too have a history of forest service management as well as state 

and private management. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you pull that microphone closer to you? I 

know it’s awkward sometimes. We get the full benefit that way. 

Mr. MEALEY. Thank you. 

In the 22 years since the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl 

there are many examples of failed Federal policies—I’ll share some 

today—but they’re not the main problem. I’ll share testimonies 

which I see as the failure in Federal laws that drive them. I want 

to give three examples of the Northwest Forest Plan. First of all, 

the effects on deer black-tailed deer and hunters and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Habitats since 1989 have declined by 90 percent, hunters by 34 

percent, and I want to read a summary of the effects of that. It’s 

a powerful irony that Federal protection primarily for one species 

and its associates is undermining North American wildlife conservation that has restored wildlife to Oregon and America and is 

likely the most successful wildlife management model on earth. It 

is a particularly tragic irony since the Northwest forest in 18 years 

has failed to halt the decline in Northern Spotted Owl, indicating 

it’s certainly an insufficient response to the ecological challenges of 

NSO recovery. While the costs to the Northwest Forest Plan of Oregon is modeled by conservation and its hundreds are significant 

and clear, the benefits for Northern Spotted Owl recovery, its intended purpose, remain uncertain at best. 

I want to give a couple of examples that are very specific and I 

want to say in preface that I stay in touch with the ranger district 

people, and I want to say that all the folks I’ve been in touch with 

are as good as they’ve ever been. This has to the Middle Fork 

Ranger District, the Willamette National Forest, and I’m going to 

talk quickly about two projects, the Jim’s Creek Project and the 

24 

PineGrass Project, both of which were planned for forest restoration in the dry oak Savanna ponderosa pine project of 25,000 acres. 

Jim’s Creek was planned as a test, if it was successful, to apply 

to a broad area. The PineGrass Project was a restoration of the 

plantation. The simple fact is that Jim’s Creek Project, while it had 

a very successful test, was precluded by a judge’s reinstatement of 

survey and management standards and guidelines per red back 

bulls, and obviously there were too many bulls on the site for the 

project to go forward. 

And the PineGrass Project was precluded and planned for 

thinning. It was precluded by an extension of the revised Critical 

Habitat Rule which made it infeasible. So despite the revised recovery plan and the proposed revision of the Critical Habitat to facilitate forest restoration—in fact, in these two cases it actually precluded tested, ongoing projects designed exactly to achieve the objectives the two plans purported for advance. 

Let me say a quick word about Rachel Carson’s and Silent 

Spring. You all know that Silent Springs was published in 1962 

and it was designed to stop things, and our whole body of Federal 

law that followed that then were patterned after the mentality of 

stopping things without ignoring the dimension of time to deal with 

the omission, that is, omitted acts, and so our whole body of Federal law that followed that reflected that same precluding mentality. 

And I just want to get to my recommendations very quick. The 

first one is that the Northwest Forest Plan has been in effect for 

18 years with no significant external evaluation. I’m suggesting 

that it’s time for Congress to ask for an evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan, which would probably assemble a group of experienced managers as well as team members that wrote the plan in 

the first place to see if it’s achieved its intended objectives. 

Another recommendation that I have is that for Federal law— 

you probably—I know you know, Congressman, that the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act contains in Section 106(C)(3) a provision for 

looking at the comparative risk of action and inaction. There’s no 

reason that that same provision couldn’t be included in the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air and Clean Water Act and it 

would extend a broader precautionary approach, which could be integrated simply by amending Section 7, consultation requirements 

to that agency balance the impact to the ecosystem likely affected 

by the project and the short- and long-term effects of undertaking 

agency action against the short and long-term effects of not undertaking that action. 

In addition, I want to quote Jack Thomas, who thinks that it’s 

over time now to assemble a group of folks to look at the whole 

body of Federal law and determine their function and dysfunction, 

make recommendations about how they should. 

And one final—I’ve got just a couple of seconds. I want to make 

a reference to Charles Darwin, who noted that individuals less 

suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely 

to reproduce. Individuals more suited to the environment are more 

likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process 

of natural selection, and this applied to the Barred Owl. I would 

25 

observe that I think Darwin would find it ironic and surprising 

that an informed society would fund and enforce a requirement to 

thwart such a fundamental evolutionary process by killing Barred 

Owls in the name of ecosystem preservation. At least I think he 

would likely find it another example of static versus dynamic management. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, you borrowed a few seconds from Dr. 

Hal Salwasser. I’m keeping track over here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mealey follows:] 

Statement of Stephen P. Mealey, Vice President of Conservation, 

Boone and Crockett Club, Leaburg, Oregon 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am Steve Mealey, Honorary Life Member of the Boone and Crockett Club, and 

Vice President for Conservation. I am currently retired in Oregon. My professional 

career spanned 30 years and included wildlife (grizzly bear) research as well as 

management and administration for federal [U.S. Forest Service (USFS)], state 

(Idaho Department of Fish and Game), and private (Boise Cascade Corporation) natural resources based organizations. I am proud to represent the Boone and Crockett 

Club here today which was founded by Theodore Roosevelt in 1887. It is America’s 

oldest hunter/conservationist organization with national focus. The Club’s mission 

is to promote the conservation and management of wildlife, especially big game and 

its habitat, to preserve and encourage hunting and to maintain the highest ethical 

standards of fair chase and sportsmanship in North America. The Boone and Crockett Club has a great legacy of protecting wildlife, especially big game, as well as 

federal land habitat. It’s fair to say the Club is the ‘‘godparent’’ of America’s national forests, national parks and wildlife refuges having worked long, hard, and 

successfully for more than a century for their establishment, maintenance and improvement. 

I come here today to express grave concern for: 

1) The effect of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) on black-tailed deer and 

hunting and on ecosystem restoration project implementation in western Oregon; 

2) The effect on ecosystem restoration project implementation of the March 

2012 proposal to expand critical habitat (CH) for the Northern Spotted Owl 

(NSO); and, 

3) The problems associated with major federal land/regulatory laws underlying 

the NWFP and NSO protection rules and proposals. 

I’ll offer some recommendations for repair. 

Prelude 

In 1993, a comprehensive NWFP was initiated to end the impasse over management of federal forest lands in the Pacific Northwest within the range of the NSO. 

With the signing of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD) in 1994, 

a framework and system of standards and guidelines were established to guide management of 24 million acres of federal forests in Oregon, Washington and northern 

California and protect the NSO listed in 1990 as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plan is a much less flexible version of its precursor, ‘‘Option 9’’, developed by the Forest Ecosystem Management and Assessment 

Team (FEMAT) led by then USFS Chief Research Wildlife Biologist, and later USFS 

Chief Jack Ward Thomas. Twenty-two years since listing, a Revised Recovery Plan 

for the NSO was issued June 28, 2011 which recognized ‘‘many populations of spotted owls continue to decline. . .even with extensive maintenance and restoration of 

spotted owl habitat in recent years. . .it is becoming more evident that securing 

habitat alone will not recover the spotted owl. . .competition from the barred owl 

poses a significant and complex threat. . .’’. Overall NSO numbers have been declining nearly 3%/year leading to an estimated 40% decline over the last 25 years. 

In February, 2012 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced a proposal identifying nearly 14,000,000 acres in Oregon, Washington and northern California as CH for the NSO. The proposal is a 62% increase over that designated in 

the 2008 plan. 

26 

NWFP and Deer, Elk, Hunting, and Ecosystem Restoration in Western 

Oregon 

General 

Since 1989, the year before NSO listing to present, timber harvest on federal 

forestland in western Oregon has dropped from about 3.5 billion board feet/year to 

under .5 billion board feet/year, an 86% decline owing to the effects of environmental litigation and an emphasis on mature and old forest retention. Final harvest 

acres declined from nearly 100,000/year to less than 10,000/year. Creation of early 

seral (deer and elk) habitat has declined approximately 90% annually. In response, 

black-tailed deer harvest and associated hunters have declined dramatically. Numbers of deer hunters have dropped 34% from around 170,000 to about 112,000 while 

harvest has dropped 67% to around 20,000. Hunter success has declined 44% to 

about 18%. A similar trend for Roosevelt elk and related hunting is likely. Elk numbers from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) annual counts on the 

Willamette National Forest in the McKenzie Unit have declined to 16 in 2012 from 

114 in 2005, an 86% drop. 

This loss of early succession habitat with the sharp drop in deer and elk populations indicated in part by declining harvest, and accompanying steep declines in 

hunter numbers all owing to the virtual end of timber harvest following the listing 

of the NSO has been a major contributor to the more general problem of declining 

hunter participation in Oregon. Here, the participation rate of resident hunters has 

declined nearly 30% from about 340,000 in 1986 to around 240,000 in 2011. Resident hunters as a percent of eligible residents declined about 53% to 8% in the same 

period. Even though Oregon’s population has expanded by around a million during 

the period, the number of licensed resident hunters has declined in absolute numbers. There are similar declining trends in neighboring California and Washington. 

Nationally hunting participation also declined during the 25 year period but only 

by about 5%—much less than in Oregon. Declining game populations and habitat 

combined with increased license fees to offset lost revenues from fewer hunters is 

generally seen as a main reason for this disturbing trend which is a clear threat 

to Oregon’s and America’s primary hunting heritage and legacy: the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. 

The Model powered by hunters who have restored much of our nation’s wildlife 

and habitat and enabled everyone who wants to—to hunt holds: 

1) Wildlife can be owned by no individual, but is held by the states in trust 

for all people; 

2) Trustee states have no power to delegate trust responsibilities, and; 

3) States have an affirmative duty to fulfill their trust role: take care of wildlife 

for the people. 

Coupled with the advocacy of sport hunters concerned with the dramatic declines 

in wildlife in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the Public Trust Doctrine, 

which mandates that states hold and manage wildlife for its citizens, is the lynchpin 

of the Model and is the legal bedrock for states to manage and regulate wildlife. 

Hunters and hunting have been the reason for the success of the Model. Hunters 

have been the main proponents of wildlife and have paid the bills for wildlife conservation through purchases of licenses and hunting equipment which have been the 

principal support for most state wildlife agencies including ODFW. Through the loss 

of deer and elk populations and habitat and the resulting loss of hunters causing 

declining license fees to ODFW and its reduced ability to carry out its Public Trust 

role, the NWFP is weakening the institution of wildlife management in Oregon. 

This is a powerful irony: that federal protection primarily for one species and its 

associates is undermining the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation that 

has restored wildlife to Oregon and America and is likely the most successful wildlife management model on earth. It is a particularly tragic irony since the NWFP 

has in 18 years failed to halt the decline in NSO indicating it is certainly an insufficient response to the ecological challenges of NSO recovery. While the costs of the 

NWFP to Oregon’s Model of Wildlife Conservation and its hunters are significant 

and clear, the benefits for NSO recovery—its intended purpose, remain uncertain 

at best. 

Jim’s Creek Restoration Project 

While the NWFP standards and guidelines preclude most traditional (pre-1990) 

timber harvest practices, silvicultural opportunities including production forestry, 

ecological restoration and adaptive management are provided for in ‘‘matrix’’ and 

other areas in the 1994 NWFP ROD. 

Standards and guidelines include those for ‘‘Survey and Manage’’ (S&M) intended 

to reduce or eliminate potential effects of agency actions on over 300 species includVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
27 

ing mosses, liverworts, fungi, lichens, vascular plants, slugs, snails, salamanders, 

great grey owl, and red tree voles. With some qualifications pre-disturbance surveys 

for target species are required before proposed activities can proceed. If evidence of 

a species is found (i.e. tree vole nest tree) proposed projects are modified to meet 

species management requirements (protection of 10 acres/Vole Habitat Area). 

The Jim’s Creek Project (JCP) on the Middle Fork Ranger District, Willamette 

National Forest is a forest restoration project that has been planned and nearly 

completed. The JCP Decision Notice was signed in August 2006 and the project implemented through a Stewardship Contract in June 2008. The following were cited 

as primary benefits of the project and it’s supporting Alternative: 

1. Comprehensive and much needed ecological restoration of a small part of the 

unique Oregon white oak/ponderosa pine savanna ecosystem and gains in 

biodiversity; 

2. Reduced wildfire risk; 

3. Restored big game forage within a high emphasis Big Game Management 

Area; 

4. Monetary receipts for subsequent ecological restoration; 

5. Economic values to local economies from harvest of about 10 million board 

feet of forest products; 

6. Refugia for species associated with the oak/pine savanna. 

The JCP was seen as a small scale ‘‘test’’ to work out the restoration concepts and 

methods for subsequent application to other nearby oak/pine savanna landscapes 

critically in need of broad scale restoration. The project resulted in a non-significant 

forest plan amendment. While it modified and/or removed habitat or diminished its 

quality for use by NSO, the USFWS Biological Opinion found implementation (and 

effects on red tree voles as a NSO food) would not jeopardize the continued existence 

of NSO and that it could proceed. The project was widely supported; there were no 

appeals or lawsuits. 

In 2007 the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) eliminated for the 

second time the S&M Mitigation Measure. Had this not occurred the JCP could not 

have been implemented in 2008 because of the abundance of red tree voles in the 

project area and beyond. Restoration of approximately 455 acres of a potential 

25,000 acre landscape restoration project has been completed. 

On July 5, 2011 U.S. District Court Judge Coughenour issued a court order directing implementation of the settlement agreement restoring the S&M requirement. 

The order was implemented by the USFS July 21, 2011. Resumption of the S&M 

Mitigation Measure precludes expansion of the JCP restoration strategy across the 

broader 25,000 acre Middle Fork Mixed Conifer Forest Type (which was an open forest type and has been degraded by fire suppression and tree in-growth) because of 

the abundance of red tree voles in the area (a 10 acre Habitat Area is protected 

where one or more voles are known or assumed to occur). Specifically, S&M measures for the red tree vole prevents implementation of actions needed over a 25,000 

acre landscape to save historic Oregon white oak/ponderosa pine savannas threatened by encroaching Douglas fir and ultimately uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Inability to expand on the JCP success precludes reducing the risk of habitat loss 

or degradation from stand replacing wildfire over a broad fire-prone landscape, one 

of the four most important threats to the NSO stated in the Revised Recovery Plan 

(vii). Not expanding the JCP also contributes to the progressive loss of early forest 

succession habitat and consequent declining elk and deer numbers on the Willamette National Forest and other national forests in Region 6 of the USFS and on 

BLM lands and resulting lost hunting opportunity. Its loss also raises concerns 

about the likely adverse ecological effects of shrinking early succession habitat on 

other early succession dependent/associated species including neo-tropical migratory 

birds, reptiles and amphibians. One predictable effect is reduced economic activity 

associated with less hunting and wildlife associated recreation. A related issue is 

that ODFW will likely be unable to maintain current herd objectives for elk and 

deer on federal forestland habitats in the Southern Willamette Watershed District 

because of rapidly declining early forest succession habitat resulting from reduced 

timber harvest. 

The reality of the Jim’s Creek case defies common sense: Reinstatement of S&M 

for the vole, a relatively abundant ‘‘species of concern’’ has precluded expansion of 

the JCP restoration strategy while the JCP Biological Opinion for the NSO, a beneficiary of voles as prey, concluded NSO would not be jeopardized and the project 

could proceed. 

The Middle Fork Ranger District covers roughly 725,000 acres with about 60% unavailable for management because of protection reserves (i.e. wilderness areas, Late 

Succession Reserves, roadless areas, riparian conservation reserves, etc.). Only 

about 200,000 acres are available for active management projects such as the JCP. 

28 

The JCP example shows clearly how the NWFP through application of its S&M 

standards and guidelines or through related litigation outcomes, acts as a barrier 

to active management of landscapes in need of restoration even where proposed 

projects occur in the < 30% of the District remaining for management. 

One hopeful apparent change in guidance for implementing the NWFP is the recognition in the Revised Recovery Plan in the section Habitat Conservation and Active Forest Restoration (II–10) that ‘‘Active management for ecological values trades 

short-term negative effects for long-term gains. . .Collaborative management must 

be willing to accept short-term impacts and short-term risks to achieve long-term 

benefits and long-term risk reduction; overly zealous application of the precautionary principle often is a deliberate, conscious management decision to forgo 

long-term increases in forest health and resilience to avoid short-term responsibility 

or controversy.’’ A recent paper by Roloff, Mealey and Bailey [Comparative hazard 

assessment for protected species in a fire-prone landscape in: Forest Ecology and 

Management 277 (2012) 1–10] provides a peer reviewed process for assessing and 

comparing the short and long-term risks and benefits of management options. Application of such an analysis to the JCP expansion would be useful in determining 

whether to suspend the S&M Mitigation Measure and tree vole management requirements as a short-term risk, in deference to the long-term benefits of ecological 

restoration. 

The Jim’s Creek case leads to my first recommendation: 

The NWFP has been in effect 18 years with no significant external evaluation of 

its effectiveness in achieving its goals and objectives. I believe it is long past time 

for a congressionally sanctioned independent review of the NWFP. One option would 

be to engage a highly respected science institution such as the National Academies 

in a review. A better option would be to request a review by a select, locally experienced group including past and present federal land managers and members of various teams-especially the lead scientists-that would include the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC), the ‘‘Gang of Four’’ (Jack Ward Thomas, K. Norman Johnson, Jerry F. Franklin, and John Gordon) and the Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team (FEMAT). 

Critical Habitat (CH) Expansion and Ecological Restoration 

March 11, 2012 the USFWS announced in a press release, a ‘‘science based’’ CH 

proposal for the NSO that revises a 2008 CH designation in response to a U.S. District Court order. According to the release, the proposal for 13, 962,449 acres of CH 

recommends substantially increasing active management of forests, consistent with 

ecological forestry principles. 

PineGrass Plantation Management Project 

February 28, 2012 the Middle Fork District of the Willamette National Forest 

issued a scoping letter proposing restoration treatments to maintain the historic 

vegetative diversity within 88 plantations totaling about 2,000 acres. The plantations with high fire risk are within the same 25,000 acre Middle Fork Mixed Conifer 

Type as the JCP, and were all regenerated after clearcutting 10–50 years ago. The 

purpose of the project is similar to the JCP and is designed to restore the forest 

type to its historic low density open forest condition. Twenty percent of the proposed 

treatment area was CH under the 2008 designation and would be managed to accelerate late forest conditions. 

Soon after the scoping letter was sent, the USFWS published its proposed rule 

revising CH which now would cover about 80% of the plantations proposed for restoration. Consultation with the USFWS on the proposal under the 2008 CH designation has already occurred with a determination that the proposal ‘‘Would Not Likely 

Adversely Affect’’ the NSO. The new rule changed the status of most of the area 

proposed for treatment and requires project modifications to develop late forest succession (fire-prone) conditions for NSO instead of restoring low fire risk open forest 

conditions characteristic of the type. Project modification to meet requirements for 

NSO would not meet the original intent of the purpose and need for the project. District personnel are considering reinitiating consultation on the project under the 

proposed designation but consultation is considered ‘‘complex’’ and would likely 

delay the project an ‘‘indeterminate’’ amount of time. For all intents and purposes 

the forest ecosystem restoration project appears to be on ‘‘long-term’’ hold pending 

resolution of the CH proposed rule. 

While the CH proposal for the NSO purports to support and encourage active forest management to restore forest health, increase resilience, and foster diversity in 

fire-prone landscapes, the immediate effect in the case of the PineGrass Plantation 

Project appears to be the opposite. 

29 

The Problem of Major Federal Land/Regulatory Laws 

Summary 

Management action and inaction or things we do and don’t do (acts of commission and omission), both have the potential to cause serious environmental harm as well as good. On federal fire-prone forests of the West, the 

focus of regulatory environmental law has been mostly prevention of harm 

from action. The potential for harm from inaction has largely been ignored. 

This has contributed to the decline of the very resources the laws are intended to protect. The scope of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act 

and Clean Air Act should be updated and expanded to include consideration 

of the short and long-term effects of management inaction, and comparing 

and balancing them with short and long-term effects of action. These comparative assessments would allow managers to consider the full ecological 

contexts over space and time in environmental decision-making and offer improved prospects for restoring and sustaining resources. 

There are clear shortcomings in the federal forest policies discussed above; importantly however they appear to reflect those of the driving federal land and regulatory laws. Those difficulties are well known and discussed, most recently by Jack 

Ward Thomas in his article in the fall 2011 Boone and Crockett Club publication 

Fair Chase titled The Future of the National Forests; Who Will Answer an Uncertain 

Trumpet? In it Thomas writes ‘‘Each of those [federal land/regulatory laws: i.e., National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), etc.] must have seemed a 

good idea in the context of time and circumstances. Yet in totality and considering 

interactions that evolved (especially as variously interpreted by the courts) they 

formed the threads of a now intractable Gordian knot (an intricate problem insoluble 

in its own terms) rendering national forest planning and management ever more 

costly and ineffective.’’ 

Donald Floyd and others elaborated the problem of overlapping and interacting 

federal land use laws in a 1999 Society of American Foresters booklet Forest of Discord; and the American Wildlife Conservation Partners a federation of hunting/conservation organizations recommended to President Bush in 2001 in their Wildlife for 

the 21st Century, Volume I, Recommendation to President George W. Bush that he initiate an assessment of federal land laws to identify legal and regulatory problems contributing to 

federal land management ‘‘gridlock’’. 

Context: Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring 

There is important context for the ‘‘federal land/regulatory law’’ problem. The 

American Ecology Hall of Fame states: ‘‘In 1992, a panel of distinguished Americans 

declared Rachel Carson’s 1962 Silent Spring the most influential book of the past 

50 years. Many argue that Silent Spring was instrumental in launching the American environmental movement. Passage of NEPA in 1969 and establishment of the 

CEQ and EPA in 1970 can be attributed to the environmental awareness that Carson raised. Soon after NEPA, the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the CWA of 1972, 

and the ESA of 1973 were all passed, all traceable to the spirit of environmental 

awareness and concern raised by Rachel Carson. 

Common to Silent Spring and the federal regulatory laws that followed, was concern for documenting and reducing environmental harm man was causing through 

development actions. Environmental regulation focused on proposals for major actions (acts of commission), their environmental impacts, their adverse effects, and 

standards or alternatives to prevent or mitigate adverse effects. Most regulatory attention, especially related to fire-prone forests of the West, has been on preventing 

short-term adverse effects of fuels treatment proposals with little attention to the 

short or long-term consequences of inaction (acts of omission). The applicable theory in regulatory law, regulations and their implementation appears to be 

that significant environmental risks result from committed acts rather 

than from their omission. Analyses supporting the theory continue to be 

lacking. 

Jack Ward Thomas, while addressing a conference in October, 2002 in Bend, Oregon entitled ‘‘Fire in Oregon’s Forests’’ commented on the problem of ‘‘dynamic vs. 

static management’’ in fire influenced landscapes covered by the NWFP. Thomas 

noted that the combined effect of the environmental laws of the 1970s, especially 

the ESA, was the predominant use of preservationist strategies defined as static or 

‘‘hands off’’ management to protect listed species (and water quality). He observed 

that reliance on static management minimizing immediate risks of activities has 

been routinely reinforced by federal court decisions that favor preservation. Thomas 

concluded that serious problems with static, near-term risk averse management are 

30 

emerging because ecosystems are dynamic and change is constant in preserves. In 

fire-prone forests, unabated fuel accumulation leads to uncharacteristic wildfires 

that can ultimately harm listed species and water quality. Thomas saw these longterm effects of management inaction as either ignored or downplayed. 

In the 50 years between Silent Spring and ‘‘static vs. dynamic management’’ how 

could laws intended to protect the environment, actually put environmental assets 

at risk in fire prone forests of the West? A look at the precautionary nature of the 

ESA, and by inference the CWA and CAA, is instructive. 

The ESA takes a strong but narrowly defined precautionary approach in the face 

of uncertainty about risk to species. It focuses on and seeks to prevent ‘‘take’’ by 

prohibiting mainly near-term potential and/or uncertain harm or risks. In consultations, proponents must demonstrate proposals would not be harmful regardless of 

timeframe, apparently dismissing ecological change over time. The ESA and its application do not commonly distinguish the time dimension of risk: i.e., that some 

short-term risks to species can result in longer term benefits to those same species, 

or that short-term risk avoidance can lead to long-term increased risk. Rather than 

documenting mainly actual or probable risks or comparing and balancing the short 

and long-term risks and benefits of proposals and then regulating, the law takes a 

more narrow precautionary approach. In summary, the ESA compels regulating 

where any risks are believed to be likely. 

This restrictive precautionary philosophy is apparent in the definitions in the 

1998 Consultation Handbook that governs Section 7 consultations. The phrase ‘‘Is 

Likely to Adversely Affect’’ is defined as the appropriate finding if any adverse effect 

to species may occur. Any immediate non-beneficial, measurable effect with any possibility of harm, regardless of magnitude and regardless of potential offsetting 

longer term benefits is ‘‘Likely to Adversely Affect’’ the species. Such a finding triggers a formal and usually expensive and time consuming process to determine jeopardy or how to avoid it by making modifications to the project. To avoid the process, proponents must propose projects with no immediate risk. In fireprone forests, this often excludes projects with long-term benefits to listed 

species. Inability to reduce fuels in fire prone forests occupied by NSO only to see 

the trees in those forests killed by intense fire and the resulting vegetation return 

to brushland, unsuitable for owls, is a case in point. 

NWFP and NSO Recovery 

In 2002, regulating agencies issued a policy that ESA Section 7 consultations 

should balance the ‘‘long term benefits of fuel treatment projects’’. . .‘‘against any 

short or long-term adverse effects.’’ It is a hopeful sign that the 2011 Revised NSO 

Recovery Plan now reflects this direction. There is no clear evidence however that 

management agencies have responded by routinely completing comparative ecological risk/hazard assessments, comparing the short and long-term effects of proposals 

with the short and long-term effects of their absence, as part of the consultation 

process. 

In the absence of such analysis, regulating agencies often appear to ‘‘default’’ to 

the highly precautionary conclusion that any short-term adverse effects are harmful 

and should be avoided. In summary, in fire prone forests of the West, especially lands under the NWFP, precaution in the ESA is most often narrowly 

applied to acts of commission: management is discouraged unless there is 

certainty that no immediate harm will result, ignoring without inquiry the 

potential harm from omitted acts. 

When the USFWS completed its status review of the NSO in November 2004, 

uncharacteristic wildfire was found to be the greatest cause of habitat loss during 

the nine year review period. Uncharacteristic wildfire remains a major cause of NSO 

habitat loss today. Jack Ward Thomas, when reviewing implementation of the 

NWFP in northern California in 2003, found that the restrictive application of the 

precautionary principle in the NWFP had increased the risk of fire and the risk to 

NSO by discouraging management to mitigate fire risks to NSO and their habitat. 

The USFS identified ESA requirements for consultation as a main reason for Thomas’s findings. Differences with regulators over the importance of short-term adverse 

impacts versus the longer term benefits of treatments were a big factor. The USFS 

acknowledged designing projects to align with the risk averse philosophy 

to reach a ‘‘Not Likely to Adversely Affect’’ conclusion and avoid formal 

consultation. This often eliminated projects that had long-term benefits for 

owls and fish resulting from reduced fire risk in Late Succession Reserves 

and in riparian areas, but also had some near-term adverse effects. 

Highly restrictive precaution embedded in standards and guidelines as those for 

S&M has been a barrier to restoration management to reduce fire risk and an obstacle to achieving conservation goals. This calls into question the evolved practice in 

31 

the West of attempting to maintain essentially ‘‘static’’ unmanaged conservation reserves in dynamic fire prone forests. Recent assessments of uncharacteristic wildfire 

risks indicate that the absence of active management to mitigate fire risks in such 

areas may be the greater risk to vulnerable species. Ironically, continuation of highly restrictive precautionary principle driven, short-term risk averse protection measures will likely lead to the continued deterioration of the very resources the environmental laws were intended to protect. 

ESA case law resulting from NWFP litigation (i.e. Case No. 03–35279, Gifford 

Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS) has generally reinforced the precautionary features 

of the ESA and the requirement that regulators implementing the act be averse to 

short-term risk in decision-making (an exception is a May 2011 decision by the 9th 

Circuit upholding the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan and stating ‘‘it is the prerogative 

of the Forest Service to determine that long-term effects. . .remain desirable despite 

short-term harm’’.). This essentially ‘‘locks in’’ an incomplete legal theory: one that 

fails to clearly and specifically recognize that acts of commission and acts of omission together are the necessary and sufficient source of environmental risk and benefit. Changing and completing the theory will likely require refining the ESA and 

other overly precautionary environmental laws. 

Options for Broadening Ecological Context in Law 

I acknowledge and compliment the USFWS for recognizing in the Revised NSO 

Recovery Plan that management must accept short-term negative effects for longterm gains. I also recognize that the recovery plan is a ‘‘guidance’’ document and 

does not regulate. Agency consideration of comparative short and long-term risks 

and benefits of proposals will be certain only if required in law. Such a requirement 

would also likely limit litigation which could follow agencies allowing short-term 

negative effects without a legal mandate. 

This leads to my second recommendation: 

A broader precautionary approach should be integrated in ESA by amending it 

to require in Section 7 consultations: 

1) That agencies balance the ‘‘impacts to the ecosystem likely affected by the 

project, of the short and long-term effects of undertaking the agency action, 

against the short and long-term effects of not undertaking the agency action,’’ as in Sec. 106 (c) (3) of the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act; and, 

2) That agencies consider such assessments in related decision-making. 

Such language could also be incorporated into appropriate sections of the CWA 

and CAA. With this mandate there would be no need to ‘‘default’’ to an overly restrictive application of the precautionary principle. Not only would the standard for 

precaution be broadened, but the ecological context of the ESA and other laws would 

be updated and expanded as well. 

America’s laws regulating the environment were written mostly to resolve the 

critical environmental problems of Rachel Carson’s time, projected forward: mainly 

to prevent or mitigate adverse consequences of acts of commission. They were necessary then and remain necessary, but they are insufficient for today’s problems of 

omission, especially in fire-prone forests of the West, and must be amended to address them. 

Cleaving the Gordian Knot 

Jack Ward Thomas, in the fall 2011 Fair Chase article offers a solution to the 

Gordian knot problem of conflicting, overlapping and incompatible federal land/regulatory laws with which I fully agree and support. 

This leads to my third recommendation: 

As suggested by Thomas, Congress or the Administration should select a group 

of knowledgeable individuals experienced in the management of natural resources, 

public land law, and administration of land management agencies, and charge them 

with developing potential solutions with associated benefits and costs. The task 

should be completed in a year or less. Recommendations should include focus on revisions of present laws, repeal of those not current or redundant, and new laws that 

clearly define the mission and expectations of the USFS. Land use planning should 

be evaluated and new sources of revenues explored. 

A Final Note 

The Revised NSO Recovery Plan in response to ESA Listing Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence identifies competition 

from barred owls (a natural factor) as one of the three most important threats to 

NSO recovery. A major step in the recovery strategy is to evaluate management options to reduce the impact of barred owls on NSO since barred owls are seen as the 

‘‘most significant short-term threat to spotted owl recovery.’’ The barred owl is included as an ‘‘invasive’’ animal species and is further described as more likely to 

32 

be a ‘‘generalist’’ than a ‘‘specialist’’ like the NSO and able to adapt more successfully to a new climate than natives. Ten Recovery Actions are devoted to protecting 

NSO from barred owls (III–62 to III–69). 

The cornerstone of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is the concept of natural 

selection: 

Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less 

likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more 

likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable 

traits to future generations which produces the process of natural selection 

I think Darwin would find it ironic and surprising that an informed society would 

fund and enforce a requirement to thwart such a fundamental evolutionary process 

by killing barred owls in the name of ecosystem preservation. At least I think he 

would likely find it another example of ‘‘static’’ vs. ‘‘dynamic’’ management. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we’ll hear from Mr. Ken Connaughton, Pacific Northwest Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service. 

Mr. Connaughton, recognize you for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KENT CONNAUGHTON, PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

REGIONAL FORESTER, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, PORTLAND, 

OREGON 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, and it’s a 

pleasure to meet with you and Congresswoman Herrera Beutler. 

I’m Kent Connaughton, Regional Forester for the U.S. Forest Service. I’m a forester and I’ve been with the U.S. Forest Service for 

33 years. My responsibilities are the 16 national forest units here 

in Oregon and Washington and the Columbia River Gorge National 

Scenic area. 

I’ll begin by observing that the purpose of the United States 

Forest Service is to sustain the health, productivity and diversity 

of the nation’s forests for current and future generations. Now, 

those words would mean nothing more than a platitude if there 

weren’t some philosophy and execution behind them. 

In 2009, the Secretary of Agriculture in Portland, Oregon, observed that the Forest Service has to be concerned about more than 

the national forest system, must look beyond the boundaries of the 

national forest system, and take care of all the nation’s forests. 

That makes sense to me. How do we go about doing that? One of 

the things I want to observe is our dependence upon the forest 

products industry, the operating industry and the communities in 

which we operate is in fact a very necessary condition for success 

in conserving the nation’s forests. 

One of the means that we have to go about conservation is a current emphasis on forest restoration. We have in our targeting an 

increase in forest restoration across the national forest system for 

increase of some 20 percent in the next couple of years. Here’s 

what the reality is: In the United States we have between 65 and 

82 million acres of national forest that are desperately in need of 

some kind of restoration treatment. 

Whether or not it’s the protection from fire, insects, disease or 

forest health purposes is that we’re united in dedicating ourselves 

toward these treatments. One of the means to do this that is the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act. In this year’s appropriations we have some $40 million nationally dedicated toward 

execution of projects under the act. 

33 

The provisions of that act require that when the program is administered is that we jointly configure with elements of the public 

through collaboration and local government is where those treatments would be placed and to what ends they would be dedicated. 

In my mind this makes very, very good sense. We have five of these 

projects in the Northwest, two are in Washington, three are in Oregon. Around the United States, with $40 million, we currently have 

20 projects and we estimate that they provide more than 1,500 

jobs. Here in the Northwest is a proportionate fraction of somewhere around 130 jobs directly and probably 600 jobs plus when 

one takes into account the indirect effects. 

That is the Collaborative Forestry Restoration Act. It is not the 

only element of Forest Service programs that are relevant to the 

Northwest, but I bring it to your attention because it represents a 

seed change in terms of the philosophy of conservation appropriate 

to this nation and it makes some very good sense to me. 

Second is, I want to point out that we are using an authority 

that Congress has granted us and been with us for some time, and 

that is the use of Stewardship Projects. A Stewardship Project does 

what? It permits us essentially to use exchanged goods for services. 

If they’re of value in a particular project it can be used to pay for 

elements of the project over and above what normal appropriations 

would do. In other words, it’s a leveraging of congressional appropriation. 

In the Northwest, since we’ve had this stewardship authority, 

we’ve had more than 200 projects. Over the last couple of years, depending upon which year we’re talking about, between 20 and 30 

percent of the timber volumes in providing the national forest in 

Region 6 has come from Stewardship Projects. For us this means 

a great deal because the magnitude of work that needs to be done 

for restoration purposes is great, so I do want you to know about 

the significance of that stewardship for authority. 

Third that I also want you to know is that following procedures 

of National Environmental Policy Act, that by statute, is your 

Forest Service and other Federal agencies must follow is that we 

have been very interested in innovative means that would streamline reduced costs, such that we can get more work done faster. 

I’ll point out some work done over more than 200 thousand acres 

in South Dakota that we are looking at closely here in the Northwest as a model for taking a look at forest health needs and restoration purposes when insects and disease threaten our forests. If 

we can in fact do our work more cheaply and faster, we need to 

do so. 

Second is that we also are interested in expansion of the categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act essentially is the Council on Environmental Quality gives us the authority to proceed for certain kinds of forest practices without going 

through a more elaborative process of evaluating environmentally 

fit. It makes sense to do this under certain conditions and the expansion of that authority is something that I welcome. 

And my last point is, over the last five or six years, the wood 

products industry has gone through a very, very severe reality 

check with respect to the United States’ economy. There’s been a 

34 

dramatic downturn in housing. We’re all familiar with that. And 

we’ve also got a number of other factors that— 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Connaughton, please wrap up—your time is 

over, so please wrap up your thought. 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes. I’m sorry, I overlooked the—thank you 

very much. 

So the Northern Spotted Owl is going to affect us. We’ve been 

working with the Fish and Wildlife Service and we’re looking forward to working with them further as that comes to affect the 

Northwest. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connaughton follows:] 

Statement of Kent Connaughton, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Forest Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture 

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

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

Policies related to jobs, forest management and wildlife. I am Kent Connaughton, 

Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service. 

Today, people understand forests provide a broad range of values and benefits, including recreation, clean air, drinking and irrigation water, and wildlife habitat. We 

have national forests in 42 states and Puerto Rico which 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 industries. 

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

to help accomplish forest restoration work and support local economies. A vibrant 

industry can provide the people and the know-how necessary to undertake mechanical treatments and other restoration activities. The 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 three years, through our Accelerated Restoration Strategy, 

which was announced by USDA Secretary Vilsack in February of this year. This 

strategy increases the pace and scale of restoration and improves both the ecological 

health of our forests and the economic health of forest-dependent communities. 

Whether the threat comes from wildfire, bark beetles or a changing climate, it is 

vital that we step up our efforts to safeguard our country’s natural resources. 

For example, through implementation of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (including the use of stewardship contracts), the proponents of 

projects anticipate creating or maintaining 1,550 jobs nationally. Public lands and 

local communities both benefit from robust forest industries. The Forest Service relies on local forest contractors and mills to provide the work force to undertake a 

variety of restoration activities. One study has shown that for every $1 million spent 

on activities like stream restoration or road decommissioning, 12 to 28 jobs are generated. 

The Accelerated Restoration strategy will allow the Forest Service to increase the 

number of watersheds restored, while supporting jobs and increasing annual forest 

product sales 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 with diverse 

stakeholders when developing restoration projects on national forest lands. Such collaboration not only results in better projects, but it also reduces the risks of costly 

litigation. 

The Secretary described his vision for America’s Forests in a speech given in Seattle in August 2009. He underscored the overriding importance of forest restoration 

by calling for a ‘‘complete commitment to restoration’’. Additionally, the Secretary 

highlighted the need for pursuing an ‘‘all lands approach to forest restoration’’ and 

called for close coordination with other landowners to encourage collaborative solutions through landscape-scale operations. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Act provides a means to meet this vision. The Forest Service is 

using $40 million from 2012 appropriations for 20 CFLR projects. 

35 

There are five landscape restoration projects selected in the Pacific Northwest of 

which one CFLR project and one High Priority Restoration project are located in the 

State of Washington. The Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative and the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 are estimated to provide a minimum of 131 direct jobs and 634 total jobs in FY 2012. 

One important tool the Forest Service uses to improve the health of America’s forests and create jobs is stewardship contracting. It is a very successful and important 

program nationally, and particularly, in the Pacific Northwest Region. Through 

stewardship contracting we have been able to treat low value or dying vegetation 

caused by insect or disease epidemics, or other low-value hazardous fuels. This tool 

allows the Forest Service to offset the value of the services received with the value 

of forest products removed. 

Since the authority was originally enacted in 1999, the Pacific Northwest Region 

has awarded more than 200 stewardship contracts and task orders, treating approximately 106,000 acres. The benefits of the program include implementation of 

more restoration projects, which reduce fuel loading and address insect infestation. 

Restoration projects yield significant sawlog and biomass material that supports 

woods operations jobs and industry infrastructure. An excellent example in Washington is the Colville Mill Creek Stewardship A to Z project, wherein the community 

and the Forest Service are striving to get more restoration work done through an 

innovative, broad, forest landscape-level approach. 

The Forest Service is constantly improving upon our National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The Agency has initiated a project to learn and share lessons of successful implementation of streamlined NEPA analyses. The goal of this 

effort is to ensure 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) and iterative environmental impact statements 

(EISs), expanding categories of actions which may be excluded from documentation 

in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, and applying an adaptive management framework to NEPA documentation. Our landscapescale NEPA analysis will also increase efficiencies by analyzing broad swaths of 

land, avoiding piecemeal NEPA analysis. The recently released landscape-scale 

Black Hills Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project proposes to treat 242,000 acres 

of high risk forest. This is approximately 5 times the normal analysis area. 

It is important to remember the Forest Service supplies about 2 percent of total 

domestic timber production annually. For the Pacific Northwest, national forests 

supply about 6 percent of annual timber production. Market conditions during the 

past several years have been a severe departure from the era before 2005. Since 

2005, the new home construction market dropped 75 percent, resulting in the closure of 1200 mills nationwide and the loss of a million jobs in the forest products 

sector. Today, the demand for lumber, plywood, and other building materials are at 

low levels not seen since the 1960s. The mills that remain open are often working 

only part-time because builders aren’t buying with new housing starts so low. During the current down market, the Forest Service has been concentrating on maintaining infrastructure through relief measures in existing timber sale contracts, 

such as market-related contract term additions, and rate redeterminations. 

Concerning federal forest management related in the Pacific Northwest, in April 

1994, the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD) amended the existing 

land and resource management plans for national forests and BLM Districts within 

the range of the northern spotted owl (NSO). The ‘‘Northwest Forest Plan,’’ as these 

amendments were called was developed and implemented in part to protect and enhance conditions favorable to late-successional and old-growth related species, such 

as the NSO, and to respond to controversy, litigation, and court injunctions over 

management of federal forest lands in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. The ROD included 24 million acres of federal lands including all or parts of 

17 National Forests. The ROD changed the course of federal land management in 

the Pacific Northwest to significantly increase protection for species that depend on 

late-successional and old growth forests, while providing for a reduced yet stable 

supply of timber. Over the past 18 years many, but not all, of the stated objectives 

of the Northwest Forest Plan have been met. For example, the aquatic conservation 

strategy has eliminated many of the practices which led to degraded watersheds and 

threatened fish populations. The plan has withstood legal challenges and although 

the planned timber supply is not as high as envisioned, it has stabilized. 

The NSO was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1990. 

Overall, demographic studies indicate NSO populations have been declining approximately 2.9 percent annually, leading to an estimated 40% decline in population 

numbers over the last 25 years. Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) 

has been a key leader in long-term research and monitoring of the NSO. This reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
36 

search aims to improve our understanding of the effects of land management under 

the Northwest Forest Plan on NSO populations, as well as the effects from invading 

barred owls, climate and other environmental factors. At its implementation, the 

Plan anticipated spotted owl populations would continue to decline for a few decades, until habitat is restored in the network of large reserves established under 

the Plan. 

To date, monitoring shows a continued range-wide decline. However, some areas 

show stable populations, while others, like the northern portion of the range, have 

shown larger declines than anticipated. Monitoring and research have revealed wildfire appears to be the biggest factor in habitat loss for spotted owls on federally 

managed lands since the Plan’s inception. Factors other than habitat loss are adversely affecting spotted owls. Competition from barred owls is a major threat. Forest Service research on competition between these species has revealed spotted owls 

avoid areas occupied by barred owls and have much lower reproductive rates than 

barred owls. This research will inform future management for spotted owls. Other 

Forest Service research focuses on modeling owl populations and habitats in relation 

to fire, climate change, and prey populations. 

Although the specific reasons for the NSO decline are not yet fully understood, 

habitat loss and increasing competition from barred owls appear to be key factors. 

In 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) completed a revision of the 2008 

Recovery Plan for the NSO and initiated the process to re-designate critical habitat 

based on the new recovery plan. The recovery plan emphasizes active restoration 

of habitat to meet recovery goals and ecosystem conservation, both in dry forests 

and moist forests. The recovery plan recognizes that in dry (fire adapted) forest ecosystems; there may be short-term adverse effects to individual owls with long-term 

benefits to their habitat. The Plan also addresses experimental removal of barred 

owls from certain parts of the NSO range to see if this removal affects NSO population trends. 

In March 2012, the FWS proposal for critical habitat was released for public review and comment. The Forest Service supports the FWS proposal and believes the 

proposed revision of critical habitat reflects the intent of the 2011 recovery plan. We 

worked with the FWS to develop specific rule language, which continues protection 

for important old growth forests while recommending active forest management designed to restore and protect ecological processes; improve habitat conditions; and 

increase the resilience of the forests to fire and insect infestations. 

The Forest Service will continue to work with the FWS to assure the final designation provides for recovery of the owl and allows for appropriate timber management, which restores forest health, increases resilience, and meets the economic 

needs of our communities. 

In summary, the Forest Service continues to work toward accomplishing restoration objectives, maintaining a robust forest industry, and in turn creating 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 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, which allows local communities, environmentalists, 

the forest industry, and other stakeholders to work collaboratively toward healthier 

forests and watersheds, safer communities and more vibrant local economies. 

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. Next we’ll call Mr. Mitch Friedman, Executive 

Director of Northwest Ecosystem Alliance. 

Mr. Friedman, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MITCH FRIEDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST ECOSYSTEM ALLIANCE, BELLINGHAM, 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the mid 1980s 

prior to founding Conservation Northwest, which I now direct, I orVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
37 

ganized many protests against logging of ancient forest, including 

the first protest to protect Spotted Owls. My past is full of appeals 

and lawsuits on these issues and listing petitions under the Endangered Species Act. 

About a decade ago we at Conservation Northwest changed our 

approach. We observed that few people, even in the timber industry, any longer favored logging old growth. We took the opportunity 

to explore common ground to benefit ecological and human communities. Conservation Northwest engaged fully in one of the first 

novel collaborations in the West here on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. 

A group of dedicated and diverse stakeholders transitioned the 

Forest Service away from clear cutting big, old trees by promoting 

projects to beneficially thin second growths. Appeals and lawsuits 

dwindled. Timber flowed. Ecosystems and recreation benefitted. A 

win-win-win. 

Today we’re most heavily invested in the Colville National Forest, where we’re a core partner in the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. This collaboration is behind the success of about 30 

projects over eight years without environmental controversy. That’s 

going to be expanded by one of the grants Mr. Connaughton just 

described from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. 

The collaborations we’re involved in are real. They include people 

with whom we once battled but have reached accords in how we 

view forests and management. Collaboration builds trust and a culture of problem solving. When confronted with a new challenge, the 

process involves civil and genuine effort to identify common interests, evaluate science sometimes with the aid of experts and eventually reach agreement and action. 

I have witnessed collaboration groups reach agreement to address objectives like wildfire fuels management, Spotted Owl habitat, threats to forest and watershed health and even wilderness 

protection. I invite you to take a field trip to see projects created 

by the Pinchot Partners or Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition and observe how collaboration is working. 

My experience is not the exception but is now typical across the 

region. Federal forests in the West are producing as much timber 

as they are budgeted for and doing so with much less controversy 

or litigation expense than in the past. I have submitted into the 

record a graphic that compares budgeted targets and volume offered for the Forest Service and BLM units across Washington, Oregon and California over a 15-year period, and it shows that these 

days the Forest Service is producing as much timber as Congress 

provided funding for. If Congress provided more funds, the agencies 

could produce more controversy-free timber, notwithstanding protections for owls, salmon and other important values. 

Conservation Northwest will soon release a commissioned study 

that provides detailed estimates of uncontroversial timber available 

on Northwest Federal lands. Federal timber values can be substantially increased without reducing environmental safeguards, cutting special areas, building new roads or otherwise harming our 

natural heritage. 

38 

If Congress wants more timber cut from Federal land, you need 

only invest more funds and allow ecological protections and collaborative groups to guide those funds into the most beneficial projects. 

Efficiency can be improved in environmental analysis and contracting procedures. 

The agencies have become somewhat risk adverse and are generally following the same NEPA approach for popular restoration 

projects as they would there clear cut old growth. Many stakeholders want reform and innovation and are working for it through 

pilot projects under authorities like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, Stewardship Contracting, Proof of Concept and others. I am confident that efficiency can be increased 

without reducing collaboration or robust protections for water, 

wildlife or public resources. 

With regard to timber production and jobs, the big constraint is 

the market. The economy is sluggish. Housing starts are a third of 

their boom level. British Columbia continues to dump subsidized 

soft wood. The strong markets are overseas. 

Private lands are now being logged heavily to meet demand in 

China, Japan and other Pacific markets. Almost 20 percent of logs 

cut in Washington and Oregon are exported whole, a volume that 

is 2.5 times that cut from Federal lands here. Those exported logs 

touch the hands of few American workers. 

I get the concerns of mill owners and workers, but the reason 

that loaded trucks bypass them on the way to export yards do not 

include protection for owls or other natural resources. 

On the Endangered Species Act, a recent study found that 90 

percent of 110 species listed that were reviewed, while not recovered, are actually on pace with expectations in their respective recovery plans. If you’re cake is mushy, you can’t blame the recipe 

unless you’ve allowed the full baking time. The Spotted Owl is a 

case in point. 

Continued population declines were anticipated by the recovery 

plan until such time as enough habitat is recovered to reverse the 

trend. We have a ways to go on that objective and some complex 

challenges. It isn’t easy work, but I know from my family experiences the Spotted Owls, wolves and other rare species, wildlife 

makes a big difference in our lives, but it’s worth the effort. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:] 

Statement of Mitch Friedman, Executive Director, Conservation Northwest 

I am Mitch Friedman, a biologist and Executive Director of Conservation Northwest. I have been involved in federal forest issues since 1985. I believe that the path 

forward on federal timber policy is clear and full of opportunity if we apply the leadership and resources to follow it. 

In the mid 1980’s, prior to founding Conservation Northwest, I was a organized 

many protests against logging of ancient forest, including the first protest to protect 

spotted owls. My past is also full of appeals and lawsuits on these issues. 

About a decade ago, we at Conservation Northwest changed our approach. We observed that few people, even in the timber industry, any longer favored logging old 

growth. We took the opportunity to explore common ground to benefit ecological and 

human communities. 

Conservation Northwest engaged fully in one of the first novel collaborations in 

the West, here on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. A group of dedicated and diverse stakeholders transitioned the Forest Service away from clearcutting big, old 

39 

trees by promoting beneficial thinning projects in stands of second growth. Appeals 

and lawsuits ended, timber flowed, ecosystems and recreation benefited: A win-winwin. 

Conservation Northwest is based in Bellingham and employs field associates in 

rural forest communities throughout the region. We have at least scrutinized most 

major national forest projects across the state for two decades. Today we are most 

heavily invested around the Colville National Forest, where we are a core partner 

in the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition. This collaboration is behind the 

success of about 30 projects over eight years without environmental controversy. 

This work is now expanding thanks to a million dollar/year grant from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. 

The collaborations we are involved in are real. They include people with whom 

we once battled but have reached accords in how we view forests and management. 

Collaboration builds trust and a culture of problem solving. When confronted with 

a new challenge, the process involves civil and genuine effort to identify common 

interests, evaluate science sometimes with the aid of experts, and eventually reach 

agreement and action. I have witnessed collaborative groups reach agreement to address objectives like wildfire fuels management, spotted owl 

habitat, threats to forest and watershed health, and even wilderness protection. I invite you to take a field trip to see projects created by the Pinchot Partners or Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition, and observe how collaboration is 

working. 

My experience is not the exception, but is now typical across the region. Federal 

forests in the West are producing as much timber as they are budgeted for, and 

doing so with much less controversy or litigation expense then in past. This graphic 

compares budgeted targets and volume offered for the Forest Service and BLM in 

WA, OR and CA over a fifteen year period. 

If Congress provided more funds, the agencies could produce more controversyfree timber, notwithstanding protections for owls, salmon and other important values. Conservation Northwest and other groups will soon release a commissioned 

study that provides detailed estimates of uncontroversial timber available on Northwest federal lands. Federal timber volumes can be increased substantially 

without reducing environmental safeguards, cutting special areas, building 

new roads, or otherwise harming our natural heritage. 

If Congress wants more timber cut from federal land, you need only invest more 

funds and allow ecological protections and collaborative groups to guide those funds 

into most beneficial projects. 

On the other hand, efficiency can be improved in federal environmental analysis 

and contracting procedures to provide better return on investment for the Treasury 

and communities. The agencies have become somewhat risk averse, and are generally following the same NEPA approach for popular restoration projects as they 

would to clearcut old growth. Many stakeholders want reform and innovation, and 

are working for it through pilot projects under authorities like the Collaborative 

Forest Landscape Restoration Act, Proof of Concept, and others. I am confident 

that efficiency can be increased without reducing collaboration or robust 

protections for water, wildlife and other public resources. 


74531.004.eps
40 

With regard to constraints on timber production and jobs in the region, 

the 800 pound gorilla is the market. The economy remains sluggish and housing 

starts are a third of their boom level. British Columbia continues to dump subsidized softwood. Domestic timber prices are therefore so weak that some federal 

timber sales have no bidders. 

The strong markets are overseas. Private lands are now being logged very aggressively to meet demand in China, Japan, and other Pacific markets. Almost 20% of 

the logs cut in Washington and Oregon are exported whole, a volume that is 2.5 

times that cut from federal lands here. Those exported logs are from private lands 

and touch the hands of few American workers. 

I get the concerns of mill owners and workers. But the reasons that loaded trucks bypass them on the way to export yards do not include protections for spotted owls or other natural resources. I think it is wise for the 

committee explore ways to boost economic activity and timber jobs. The best opportunities for doing so are addressing raw log exports and investing more in programs 

like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act that help communities by 

improving our forests and watersheds. 

Policy should be based on a review of what is working. Presently we have less 

conflict and controversy on our federal lands than we’ve had in decades. 

That is the result of land management policies that protect our assets and 

collaborations that identify common ground and build long term community equity. 

By staying the course on these successful principles while also exploring ways to 

improve returns on federal investment, we can provide a strong foundation for 

growth in timber jobs as the economy recovers, and improve the health of our forests and rural communities while protecting the landscapes, streams and wildlife 

that make our region great. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we’ll call on Mr. Ernie Niemi, Senior Economist of EcoNorthwest. 

Mr. Niemi, you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ERNIE NIEMI, SENIOR ECONOMIST, 

ECONORTHWEST, EUGENE, OREGON 

Mr. NIEMI. Thank you very much. 

My name is Ernie Niemi. I’ve spent more than 30 years analyzing the relationship between national forests and the economy 

of this region. As the Subcommittee moves forward, I recommend 

that it consider three important characteristics of this relationship: 

Number one, to recognize that these national forests produce many, 

many different types of goods and services, timber certainly, recreational opportunities, clean water and the like. Each one of these 

goods and services contribute to the standard of living of the residents of this region and to the profitability of businesses in this region. 

The second is that the national forests in this region also contribute to jobs and generate jobs in different ways. Economists generally rank these ways into two groups. One is that the national 

forests directly contribute to the commercial activities that you 

talked about earlier, so the national forests generate jobs so they 

generate recreational opportunities that support the tourism industry. 

The second mechanism is known as amenity-driven growth. That 

is to say the national forests provide recreational opportunities, 

scenic vistas, clean water and a high quality of life. Those amenities attract productive workers, they attract entrepreneurs and 

they attract investors to this region. 

For much of this region the amenity-driven growth mechanism 

predominates. That isn’t to say that the commercial-driven mechaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
41 

nism is irrelevant. Not at all. It is just that that’s the reality in 

this region today. We also have 20 or 30 years of evidence that indicates that the amenity-driven mechanism has increased in importance, not just in this region but throughout the United States and 

is likely to do so. 

We also have experience in the commercial sector. A very natural 

characteristic of the commercial sector that investments in technology and other factors over time diminish the ability of those sectors to generate new jobs for any given unit of the national forest. 

So we see that the number of jobs per million board feet of log has 

diminished over time. 

We see that large mills across this region and in Canada have 

replaced the many numerous small mills that used to be in rural 

communities. Part of what that means is that any program designed to increase logging and generate timber-related jobs in small 

communities has a very steep uphill road to climb. 

The third factor that I hope you pay attention to is that because 

of the complexity of this relationship there are necessarily tradeoffs. Any action to generate jobs or new incomes for one group or 

for one set of communities or for one industry almost certainly will 

diminish the jobs and the incomes for another group. 

For example, we’ve learned in this region at a hard cost that activities in the uplands, in the head waters, that result in sediment 

coming down in the streams increases the cost of communities. 

Businesses and households pay to remove that sediment downstream, and in effect that reduces the amount of money that businesses can invest to generate new jobs downstream. We also know 

that the impacts of sediment and other impacts on water quality 

eliminate jobs in the fishing industry all the way down to the coast. 

I’m very pleased to have heard the two people who preceded me 

talk about the importance of restoration and the challenge of restoration. One of the leaders in restoration in the State of Oregon 

commented very recently to me that a useful way to think about 

this is that the national forests in many respects are like Humpty 

Dumpty: Once it’s broke, it’s really very hard to put back together 

again. 

What that means is that these trade-offs persist not just across 

one group to another group but also over time. Short-run decisions 

for short-run gain can have very long lasting effects not just on the 

ability of the national forests to generate goods and services, their 

ability to generate jobs, but can in fact impose a cost, in effect a 

tax on future generations. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Niemi. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Niemi follows:] 

Statement of Ernie Niemi, Senior Economist, 

ECONorthwest, Eugene, Oregon 

I. Introduction and Summary 

My name is Ernie Niemi. I am testifying on my own behalf before the Subcommittee. 

For more three decades I have analyzed the relationship between federal forests 

and the economy of the Pacific Northwest, as a Senior Economist with 

ECONorthwest, the oldest and largest independent economic consulting firm in the 

Pacific Northwest. I live and work in Eugene, Oregon, but have conducted economic 

42 

research on natural resource management issues throughout the United States and 

in other countries. 

I encourage the Subcommittee, when considering the effects of federal forest policy, to consider the diverse nature of the relationship between federal forests and 

the economy of Oregon and Washington. In particular: 

1. This region’s federal forests produce many valuable goods and services that 

make important contributions to the economic well-being of workers and 

families, to the productivity of businesses, and to the economic outlook of 

communities, both rural and urban. These goods and services include wood 

fiber for the wood-products industry, clean water for communities, mitigation 

of potential flood damage for downstream property owners, habitat for fish 

and wildlife, recreational opportunities, the sequestration of carbon from the 

atmosphere, and many more. 

2. This region’s federal forests also generate jobs and incomes in many different 

ways. Not just through the production of products, such as logs for the timber and bio-energy industries, but also through the production of services, 

such as delivering clean water that lowers the cost of living and doing business in the region, recreational opportunities that support jobs in the tourism industry, and scenic amenities that attract productive workers, entrepreneurs, and investors. 

3. Any policies regarding the management of the region’s federal forests will 

have both positive and negative effects on the economy. With a change in 

policy, some residents of Oregon and Washington will see their economic welfare and job opportunities increase, others will experience a decrease. 

All these dimensions of the relationship between this region’s federal forests and 

its economy must be fully accounted for before one can reasonably conclude that the 

existing forest-management policies have failed, or succeeded. Similarly, all of these 

dimensions must be considered before concluding that new policies would, on balance, enhance or diminish the federal forests’ contribution to the Pacific Northwest’s 

economy. 

II. Federal Forests Provide Many Economically Important Goods and 

Services 

From an economic perspective, the Pacific Northwest’s federal forests are important not in and of themselves but because they provide goods and services that increase the quality of life for the region’s residents and visitors. The list of these 

goods and services is long and growing, as ecological scientists learn more about the 

inner workings of the federal forests and people learn more about how they derive 

benefits from them. Figure 1 provides an illustrative list. Consistent with widely accepted professional standards, this list includes a broad suite of goods and services, 

including those whose value comes from direct use of forest resources, such as logging, indirect use, such as purification of stream water, or non-use, such as occurs 

when people are willing to pay to protect forest characteristics for future generations (USEPA 2000, National Research Council 2004, USEPA 2009). The list may 

expand or contract depending on the results of future research and changes in 

human preferences. 

A product from a forest is considered an economically important good or service 

only if humans derive a benefits from it and have a demand for it. Throughout this 

discussion, I recognize that humans are part of the forest ecosystem: they affect the 

amount of natural capital in federal forests, the workings of forest processes, and, 

hence, its ability to provide a set of goods and services. 

Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate some of the goods and services provided by this region’s federal forests. Figure 2 shows the extent to which all forests are currently 

protecting areas important to the supply of drinking water. The most intense areas 

in Oregon and Washington are located on federal forests. Forest cover can explain 

50 percent of differences in water-treatment costs for ommunities in forested versus 

nonforested watersheds, and, for every 10 percent increase in forest cover, treatment 

and chemical costs decrease by 20 percent, with these benefits maximized at 60 percent forest cover (The Trust for Public Land et al. 2002). The map in Figure 3 similarly shows that the greatest sequestration of carbon, represented by the amount 

of biomass also occurs on federal forests. 

43 

The federal forests of this region cannot be managed to increase the output of all 

goods and services at the same time. Increasing the output of one set will decrease 

the output of another. A change in management policies for the region’s federal forests would improve the economic well-being of current and future generations only 

if it would increase the net economic value of all the different types of goods and 

services produced by the forests on a sustained basis. When weighing the potential 

change in the net economic value, it is important to consider all the different ways 


74531.005.eps 74531.006.eps
44 

in which society imputes a value to forest goods and services: through direct use, 

indirect use, and non-use. 

III. Federal Forests Generate Jobs and Income in Different Ways 

Many residents of this region can remember when federal forests generated jobs 

primarily through the timber industry. Logging and milling operations provided jobs 

for workers and supported communities, large and small, dispersed throughout the 

region. The implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan was accompanied by widespread fear that not just jobs and incomes in the timber industry but the overall 

the overall regional economy would collapse. The collapse never occurred. Figure 4 

shows that, although the amount of timber harvested from federal lands in Oregon 

and Washington fell by about 90 percent in the 1990s, overall employment in the 

timber industry declined by only about 30 percent, while total employment and per 

capita income increased by about one-third. These trends have continued. They 

strongly suggest that future logging on federal forests will generate fewer jobs and 

lower incomes, and have less of an impact on the overall economy than in the past. 

This conclusion applies especially to small, rural communities. Figure 5 shows that 

the timber industry has shifted away from a large number of relatively small sawmills dispersed across the region to a smaller number of mills capable of processing 

large volumes of timber. 


74531.007.eps
45 

In today’s economy, federal forests generate jobs and income primarily by providing recreational opportunities and other amenities that attract workers, families, 

entrepreneurs, and investors. The overall economic power of amenities, of all types, 

is indicated by the findings of research on differences in job growth among the 50 

states to distinguish between the two growth processes (Partridge and Rickman 

2003). The researchers concluded that industry-driven and amenity-drive growth 

have roughly the same impact on job growth. This finding indicates, at a minimum, 

that federal forests may have a greater influence on jobs and income through their 

amenities and their influence on household-location decisions rather than through 

the production of logs. This expectation is reinforced by research showing that communities close to undeveloped public lands have experienced faster population 

growth than those lacking these amenities. (Power et al. 2001 and Kim et al. 2005). 

Federal forest generate some jobs and income through direct consumption of recreational amenities. In Oregon, in 2006, the last year for which these data are available, outdoor recreation accounted for 73,000 jobs, $310 million in state tax revenue, 

and sales that represented 3.4 percent of the state GDP (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006a). During the same year, the outdoor recreation industry created 115,000 

jobs in Washington, $650 million in state tax revenue, and sales that accounted for 

3.5 percent of the state GDP (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006b). Much of this 

recreation occurred on or was dependent on federal forest lands. 

Restoration of ecosystems damaged by past management of federal forests also 

can generate significant jobs and income. For example, a recent report shows that, 

for every $1 million invested in restoration projects, 15.7–23.8 jobs are created in 

Oregon directly and indirectly, with average payroll costs per worker ranging between $31,000 and $55,000 annually (Nielsen-Pinkus and Moseley 2010). The total 

economic output of the same $1 million investment ranges between $2.2 million and 

$2.5 million. The reason for the high multiplier effects of investments in forest and 

watershed restoration projects is that 95–99.5 percent of the initial investment goes 

towards hiring Oregon-based businesses for contracted work. The indirect impacts 

on the state’s economic output from these types of projects range between about 

$735,000 and $985,000 for every $1 million spent on restoration. 

IV. Any Change in Federal Forest Policy Will have Both Positive and Negative Impacts on the Economy 

The demands for goods and services produced by this region’s federal forests far 

exceed the supply. As a consequence, competition—for resources, land-uses, goods, 

and services—is an essential characteristic of the relationship between federal forests and the Pacific Northwest’s economy (Niemi and Whitelaw 1999). 

Some of this competition occurs over short time periods. Changes in the amount 

of logging on federal lands, for example, might alter the price of logs in the regional 

log market, and induce off-setting effects on logging on other lands. A marked increase in federal log production, for example, might depress log prices so that private landowners receive less for the logs they sell to the market. Or, if activities 

on federal lands that are the headwaters for municipal water supplies result in 

higher levels of sediment in the water, the businesses and households will incur additional costs to remove it. This added cost can reduce the funds businesses have 

available for new investment and force households to reduce their local spending, 

resulting in further reduction in business investment. 


74531.008.eps
46 

Many of the overall effects on the regional economy of changes in the competition 

for federal forests play out over longer time periods. Past experience suggests that 

using federal lands as a source of logs for the timber industry will continue to exhibit a declining ability to generate increases in jobs and incomes, while using these 

lands as a source of amenities attractive to workers, entrepreneurs, and investors 

will continue to exhibit a rising ability to generate economic growth. Actions today 

that increase the supply of logs but reduce the attractiveness of amenities thus can 

have an overall negative effect on economic growth for decades, an effect that may 

intensify over time. 

V. References 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. State Annual Personal Income & Employment. 

Retrieved May 19, 2012 from http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm 

Kim, K.-K., D.W. Marcouiller, and S.C. Deller. 2005. ‘‘Natural Amenities and Rural 

Development: Understanding Spatial and Distributional Attributes.’’ Growth 

and Change 36 (2): 273–297. 

Nielsen-Pincus, M. and C. Moseley. 2010. Economic and Employment Impacts of 

Forest and Watershed Restoration in Oregon. Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon. Spring. Retrieved May 17, 2012, from http:// 

ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/downloads/WP24.pdf 

Niemi, E., and E. Whitelaw. 1999. Assessing Economic Tradeoffs in Forest Management. U.S. forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW–GTR–403. July. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2011. 25–Year Harvest History Data (1986–2010). 

Retrieved May 19, 2012 from http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/ 

FRP/Charts.shtml 

Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006a. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy Report: Oregon. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from http://www.outdoorindustry.org/pdf/ 

OregonRecEconomy.pdf 

Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006b. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy Report: Washington. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from http://www.outdoorindustry.org/ 

pdf/WashingtonRecEconomy.pdf 

Power, T.M. and R.N. Barrett. 2001. Post-Cowboy Economics: Pay and Prosperity in 

the New American West. Island Press. 

Stein, S.M., R.E. McRoberts, L.G. Mahal, M.A. Carr, R.J. Alig, S.J. Comas, D.M. 

Theobald, and A. Cundiff. 2009. Private Forests, Public Benefits: Increased 

Housing Density and Other Pressures on Private Forest Contributions. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW–GTR–795. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. p. 41 Retrieved 8 November 2010 from http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/openspace/fote/benefits_files/pnw-gtr795_pt3.pdf. 

Todd, A.H. and E. Weidner. 2010. ‘‘From Forest to Faucet: Drinking Water as and 

Ecosystem Service.’’ Presentation to ACES: A Community of Ecosystem Services, 

Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. December 6. Retrieved 2 June 2011 

from http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aces/Presentations/Tuesday/Plenary%20D–G/ 

pm/Yes/0430%20A%20Todd.pdf. 

The Trust for Public Land and American Water Works Association. 2002. Protecting 

the Source. Retrieved May 19, 2012, from http://cbey.research.yale.edu/uploads/ 

Conservation%20Finance%20Camp%202011/agenda/Tuesday/protecting_the_source_04–1.pdf 

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. various years. Production, 

Prices, Employment and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Washington State Timber Harvest. Retrieved May 19, 2012 from http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/EconomicReports/Pages/obe_washington_timber_harvest_reports.aspx 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we’ll call on Mr. Kelly Kreps of Kreps 

Ranch, LLC. 

Mr. Kreps, you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY KREPS, KREPS RANCH, LLC, 

WHITE SALMON, WASHINGTON 

Mr. KREPS. Thank you, Congressman Hastings. 

The CHAIRMAN. Pull the microphone closer to you, please. Speak 

right into it. 

47 

Mr. KREPS. Thank you, Congressman Hastings and Representative Herrera Beutler for this opportunity to share how the Northern Spotted Owl designation has affected my family. The Kreps 

family homesteaded in Western Klickitat County in the State of 

Washington in—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Bring it closer and tilt it up if you can. There you 

go. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KREPS. They started as a cattle ranch with 160 acres. Today 

my two brothers and I run 6,400 acre cattle and timber ranch. Besides the three of us, we have two full-time employees and also use 

some seasonal help. 

We started actively logging in 1989. In 1990 we were hearing 

about the Northern Spotted Owl, but this did not concern us because he liked old-growth forests on the west side of the Cascades 

according to the biologists. Our timber was second growth with 

some pre-merchantable stands. Besides, Federal recommendations 

limited harvests on private property to 70 acres adjacent to the owl 

nest during the mating season. 

The problem with the Endangered Species Act is that special interest groups in liberal states like Washington have a lot of power, 

so the State of Washington now tries to maintain 2,500 acres of 

habitat for each owl nest site. With these circumstances, by 1992 

we had 400 acres restricted for owl habitat. I wrote a letter to the 

Washington Forest Practice Board at that time suggesting that the 

property be leased by the state or Federal government, whomever 

was responsible for implementing the owl recovery on private property. 

Currently we have approximately 550 acres of timberland restricted for Spotted Owl habitat. We are small forest landowners 

with 3,200 total acres of timber. Only about 1,600 acres of this 

would be prime timbered ground which has good slope, good soils. 

The proposed new Critical Habitat Listing would restrict an additional 660 acres of our timberland. If this does not affect—if this 

does take affect, we would then have 1,210 acres of timberland reserved for owl habitat that we would then be maintaining for a 

public resource. 800 acres are part of our prime timberland. 

With the potential loss of this additional timber base, we as a 

business would most likely have to lay off both of our employees, 

but not only will two of our full-time employees be affected, this 

also has a trickle-down effect. We do our on logging, except we hire 

mechanical felling and we get independent log haulers to ship our 

trees to the mills. 

When we harvest less timber, we buy fewer seedlings to plant. 

With fewer acres to harvest, we need less equipment or need to upgrade it less often. We were strongly urged by a logger and friend 

in 1992 to clear cut or at least cut below habitat standards all of 

our timberland that was not affected by owls at that time. We 

chose not to because that is management from fear and not best 

management practices, which we have tried to do on our ranch for 

over 125 years. 

However, with the current proposal, I feel anyone that does not 

manage their land so that the Endangered Species Act or any other 

bureaucratic policy that may inhibit them is probably a fool. This 

type of condemnation without compensation should be illegal. If a 

48 

public resource is to be protected by private property owners, then 

the public should have to lease their resources. 

This not only affects jobs but it affects livelihoods that have been 

passed down through generations. We are part of the few which 

still use and grow natural resources as a way of life. My brothers 

and I hope that our children, the sixth generation of Kreps, will be 

able to follow in our footsteps. 

With the continuing squeeze on private property owners to protect public resources as deemed by a specialist, it can be crippling. 

If every person in the United States had to donate $10 for every 

$100 they spent to protect public resources on private property, I 

think there would be a lot less regulations and habitat protected 

on private lands. Perhaps the public would prefer protecting those 

resources on the lands they currently have. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kreps. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kreps follows:] 

Statement of Kelly Kreps, Kreps Ranch LLC, White Salmon, Washington 

The Kreps family homesteaded in Western Klickitat County in the State of Washington in 1883. They started as a cattle ranch with 160 acres. Today, my two brothers and I run the 6400 + acre cattle and timber ranch. Besides the three of us, we 

have two full time employees and also use some seasonal help. 

We started actively logging in 1989. In 1990 we were hearing about the Northern 

Spotted Owl, but this did not concern us much because he liked old growth forests 

on the other side of the Cascade Range (west side) according to the biologists. Our 

timber was second growth with some pre-merchantable stands. Besides, federal 

guidelines limited harvests on private property of the 70 acres adjacent to the owl 

nest during the mating season. 

The problem with the endangered species act is that special interest groups in a 

liberal State like Washington have a lot of power and so the State of Washington 

now tries to maintain 2500 acres of habitat for each owl nest site. With these circumstances, by 1992 we had about 400 acres restricted for owl habitat. I wrote a 

letter to the Washington Forest Practice Board at that time suggesting that the 

property be leased by the State or Federal government, whomever was responsible 

for implementing the owl recovery on private property (attachment A). I did receive 

a phone call (unofficial) sometime later, and the person told me that if the State 

paid what I suggested to every private property owner who was maintaining owl 

habitat, the dollar value would break the State. 

Currently we have approximately 550 acres of timberland restricted for spotted 

owl habitat. This has grown since 1992 mostly because the State of Washington has 

a statewide HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) and that enables them to harvest timber that is habitat in one owl circle because they have property somewhere else in 

the State that now can be considered habitat and that leaves the burden of habitat 

back to the private property owners. 

We are small forest land owners with 3200 total acres of timber. Only about 1600 

acres of this would be prime timbered ground (good soil, mild slope, etc.). The proposed new Federal Critical Habitat listing would restrict an additional 660 acres of 

our timberland. If this does take effect we would then have 1210 acres of timberland 

reserved for owl habitat that we would then be maintaining for a public resource. 

Eight hundred acres are part of our prime timberland. 

With the potential loss of this additional timber base, we as a business will most 

likely have to lay off both of our employees. Our timber is our primary source of 

income and has subsidized our cattle operation 8 of the last 10 years. Not only will 

two of our full time employees be affected, but this has a trickledown effect. We do 

our own logging except we hire mechanical felling and we get independent log haulers to ship our trees to the mills. When we harvest less timber, we buy fewer seedlings to replant. With fewer acres to harvest, we don’t need to upgrade equipment 

as often. 

We were strongly urged by a logger and friend in 1992 to clear cut or at least 

cut below habitat standards all of our timberland that was not affected by the owls 

at that time. We chose not, because that is management from fear and not best 

management practices which we have tried to do on our ranch for over 125 years. 

49 

However, with the current proposal I feel that anyone that does not manage their 

land so that the ESA or any other bureaucratic policy that many inhibit them is 

probably a fool. This type of condemnation without compensation should be illegal. 

If a public resource is to be protected by private property owners, then the public 

should have to lease these resources. This not only affects jobs, but it affects lively 

hoods that have been passed down through generations. We are part of the few, 

which still use and grow our natural resources as a way of life. My brothers and 

I hope that our children, the 6th generation of Kreps’, will be able to follow in our 

footsteps. With the continuing squeeze on private property owners to protect public 

resources as deemed by a specialist, it can be crippling. If every person in the 

United States had to donate $10 for every $100 they spent to protect public resources on private property, I think there would be a lot less regulations and habitat protection on private lands. Perhaps the public would prefer protecting those resources on the lands they currently have. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. And last we’ll go to Mr. Tom Nelson, who is the 

Washington Timberland Manager for Sierra Pacific Industries. 

Mr. Nelson, you’re recognized for five minutes. 


74531.009.eps
50 

STATEMENT OF TOM NELSON, WASHINGTON TIMBERLAND 

MANAGER, SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, MT. VERNON, 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you very much. 

For the record, my name is Tom Nelson. I live about four miles 

north of here in a tiny community of Bayview, Washington, Skagit 

County. I’m here today to speak on behalf of Sierra Pacific Industries. We’re here to urge the congressman and whoever else can 

help us to ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to abandon this 

plan for implementation of the current proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Our three main reasons for this are that, number one, the proposed critical habitat does not meet the definition of essential for 

the bird’s survival. Number two, the economic effects of this action 

have not have been adequately analyzed and they would undoubtedly add to the ongoing deleterious effects currently being endured 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. And three, the proposed actions 

would inevitably be futile anyway since the Northern Spotted Owl’s 

fate will largely be determined by the evolution of future populations and territories of the Barred Owl and how much habitat 

might being lost to forest fires, not by how much forest habitat is 

going to be set aside. 

I’d like to expand on each of these briefly, though not to the extent I have in my submitted written testimony. Fist of all, critical 

habitat, at the time of the listing suitable habitat was deemed necessary for the recovery of this species and it consisted of large 

blocks of high-quality habitat, primarily old coniferous forest land. 

As such, the recovery plan since 1990 has focused on setting 

aside large blocks of essential habitat and eliminating timber management altogether in these areas. After more than 20 years of 

locking up type of land and nearly a total devastation of our industry within a lot of these communities, it appears this was not really 

the right answer. 

Spotted Owl numbers have continued to decline in spite of these 

sweeping changes. We now have fewer owls than we did in 1990 

in spite of all of this and we’ve dedicated more than 21 million 

acres of Federal forest land to the Northern Spotted Owl and yet 

the Fish and Wildlife Service most recently studied that the population has declined by an average of 2.8 percent per year since 

1995. This simply hasn’t worked. 

Number two, the economic effect, I won’t dwell on them because 

a lot of the previous speakers have covered it, but I would like to 

add that many of us pleaded back in 1990 that perhaps the Northern Spotted Owl is not really so dependent on old growth forest for 

its survival as some would have us believe. Perhaps we should be 

more certain of our predictions before we impact an entire generation of people within our region, but yet, the proposal before us 

now is to essentially double down on this same risky theory and 

set aside even more productive timber as owl habitat. That seems 

like a really bad idea to us. 

The last reason is the Spotted Owl competition and displacement. We now know that competition from Barred Owls is a significant threat to the continued existence of Northern Spotted Owl. 

This is something we didn’t know back in 1990. We also know that 

51 

both Barred Owls and Spotted Owls select very similar habitat for 

breeding, feeding and shelter. Given this, does it really make sense 

to set aside even more essential habitat for Spotted Owls before we 

figure out how to deal with the threatening cousin, the Barred Owl, 

and I’m not talking about a 12-gauge shotgun. 

I’d like to summarize briefly. The current theory that we must 

designate massive chunks of Federal timberland in order to save 

the Spotted Owl seems to be, at best, highly questionable. It has 

not worked for the past 20 years. Why should it work now? Moreover, even if you expect it to change course and begin to increase 

these populations immediately, we’ve never closely looked at the 

severe economic conditions that the previous listings caused. 

Shouldn’t we review this carefully before we compound these effects? 

And finally, aren’t we simply trying to interject our own personal 

values in this case by trying to override evolution and natural selection? Given what we have learned since the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl in 1990, any objective review of these events 

would have to conclude that the Northern Spotted Owl is going extinct. Regardless of how much forest land we set aside for preservation, Barred Owls appear to be replacing them at a fairly rapid 

rate. 

The sensible approach would be to reject the proposal for more 

set asides of essential habitat until and unless the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service can actually demonstrate how this habitat will reverse the Spotted Owl’s decline and that an adequate Barred Owl 

control program has been implemented. Unless we look at all the 

variables in this complicated equation, the answer will always be 

incorrect. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:] 

Statement of Tom Nelson, Washington Timberlands Manager, 

Sierra Pacific Industries 

Background 

SPI is a 3rd generation, family-owned and operated business with (3) manufacturing facilities, (2) biomass cogeneration facilities and over 217,000 acres of working forestland in Washington state. We employ nearly 600 crewmembers at these 

facilities and we are, historically, one of the top three purchasers of State Trust timber sales. We also own more than 438,000 acres of timberland in northern California that lie within the range of the northern spotted owl and operate an additional 10 sawmills and millwork plants within this region that employ more than 

2900 employees. We are here today to urge you to direct the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) to abandon their plans for implementation of the current proposed 

‘‘Critical Habitat’’ designation for the northern spotted owls. Our primary reasons 

for this request are that: 

1. the proposed critical habitat does not meet the definition of ‘‘essential’’ for 

this bird’s survival, 

2. the economic effects of this action have not been adequately analyzed and 

would undoubtedly add to the ongoing deleterious effects currently being endured throughout the Pacific Northwest, and 

3. the proposed actions would inevitably be futile anyway, since the northern 

spotted owl’s fate will largely be determined by the evolution of future populations and territories of the barred owl, and how much habitat will be lost 

to forest fires, not how much forest habitat is set aside by this proposed action for the northern spotted owl. 

As noted in the Federal Register for this proposed action, the original rationale 

for listing the northern spotted owl (NSO) as threatened under the Endangered SpeVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
52 

cies Act (ESA) was a widespread loss of its old growth forest habitat and a declining 

population (55 FR 26114, June 26,1990). This resulted in an 85% reduction in historic timber sale levels from Federal lands, the closure of hundreds of mills, the loss 

of thousands of family wage jobs and the virtual elimination of generated timber 

receipts to pay for county governments. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined within the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as that which 

is ‘‘essential to the conservation and recovery’’ of the owl. At the time of listing, suitable habitat that was deemed necessary for recovery of this species consisted of 

large blocks of suitable, high-quality habitat—primarily old-growth coniferous forest 

land. As such, the recovery plans for the NSO since 1990 have primarily focused 

on setting aside large, contiguous areas as essential habitat for the NSO (and eliminating timber management altogether in these areas). After more than 20 years of 

locking up public timber land as owl habitat—and nearly total devastation of the 

timber industry within one of the world’s richest timber-growing regions—it now appears that this was not the right answer. Spotted owl numbers have continued to 

decline, in spite of these sweeping changes to the culture and infrastructure of the 

Pacific Northwest. We have fewer owls now than we did in 1990 despite effectively 

dedicating much of the 21 million acres of Federal land to the NSO. 

It is also impossible to determine what habitat is ‘‘essential’’ to the conservation 

and recovery of the owl when the USFWS lacks reliable information on how many 

northern spotted owls are alive today and where they are located. In fact, very little 

monitoring has taken place since the early 1990’s. The limited population trend estimates and owl site data that is being relied upon results in significant errors. The 

USFWS’ most recent studies claim that the population has declined by 2.8% per 

year since 1985. This critical habitat designation is based upon data for 3,439 owl 

pair sites. Taking into account the 2.8% annual population decline this would mean 

that there were over 6,300 owl pairs in 1990, which is over three times the 2,000 

reported in the 1990 listing document. If there actually were 2,000 owl pairs in 1990 

and if the population has declined by 2.8% annually, then there would be only 1,071 

remaining. How can the public have any confidence in this 13 million acre critical 

habitat designation with this type of uncertainty? 

Economic Effects 

The economic effects brought on by this listing have been catastrophic to the rural 

communities within this region. The annual amount of Federal timber being harvested has dropped by 85% since the listing, demands for public assistance are up 

sharply, and entire communities have fallen into a state of deep economic recession 

as public timber (the lifeblood of many of these communities) was withdrawn for essential owl habitat—rather than sustainable timber management. 

As many of us pleaded in 1990, perhaps the NSO is not really so dependent on 

old growth forests for its survival as some would have us believe. Perhaps we should 

be more certain of our predictions before we impact an entire generation of people 

within this region. And now the proposal before us is to ‘‘double down’’ on the same 

risky theory and set aside even more productive timber land as owl habitat? 

Effects of Barred Owl Competition and Displacement, Forest Fires 

Over the past 50–60 years, the barred owl (Strix varia) has expanded its range 

from the eastern US and Canada into western North America. The range of the 

barred owl now intermingles and overlaps that of the NSO in the western US, 

where they compete for habitat (and appear to be winning). 

As the Service states in their recent announcement for this proposal, ‘‘We now know that the suite of threats facing the northern spotted owl differs from those at 

the time it was listed; in addition to the effects of historical and ongoing habitat loss, 

the northern spotted owl faces a new, significant, and complex threat in the form of 

competition from the congeneric (referring to a member of the same genus) barred owl 

(USFWS 2011, pp. I–7 to I–8). Emphasis added. 

We now know that competition from barred owls (not a listed species) is a significant threat to the continued existence of northern spotted owls—something that was 

not considered or acknowledged at the time of listing in 1990. We also know that 

both barred owls and spotted owls select very similar habitat for breeding, feeding, 

and shelter. Given this, does it really make sense to set aside even more ‘‘essential 

habitat’’ for spotted owls before we figure out how to deal with their threatening 

cousins, the barred owl? Wouldn’t this simply amount to more land precluded from 

sustainable forest management so that the barred owl can expand while the NSO 

continues to decline in numbers? 

In addition, even if the barred owl threat were somehow solved, the additional 

threat of essential habitat loss due to forest fires is ignored (or, at best, grossly unVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
53 

derestimated) in this analysis. This is especially true in the Klamath province, central Cascade range, and eastside owl habitats. And, it is compounded in areas of 

these provinces where there is an ownership pattern dominated by ‘‘checkerboard’’ 

sections, a remnant of the original railroad land grants. Checkerboard blocks of owl 

habitat in private ownership will eventually fall victim to fires as non-management 

of adjacent Federal land continues—rampant fires will not adhere to property 

boundaries. The lack of forest management brought on by single species-focused 

management for the NSO has actually compounded the risk of catastrophic 

wildfires. 

Summary 

In short, the current theory that we must designate massive chunks of federal 

timber land in order to save the northern spotted owl seem to be highly questionable—it has not worked over the past 20 years, why should it work now? Moreover, 

even if you expect it to change course and begin to increase NSO populations immediately, we have never closely looked at the severe economic effects that the previous listing action caused—shouldn’t we review this carefully before we compound 

these effects with even more land withdrawals in the name of the spotted owl? 

And, finally, aren’t we simply trying to interject our own personal values in this 

case by trying to ‘‘override’’ evolution and natural selection? Given what we have 

learned since the listing of the NSO in 1990, any objective review of these events 

would have to conclude that the northern spotted owl is going extinct—regardless 

of how much forest land we set aside for preservation. Barred owls appear to be replacing them at a fairly rapid rate. 

The sensible approach would be to reject this proposal for more set asides as ‘‘essential habitat’’ for the northern spotted owl until, and unless, the USFWS can actually demonstrate how this habitat will reverse spotted owl declines and that an adequate barred owl control program has been implemented. Unless we look at all the 

variables in this complicated equation, the answer will always be incorrect. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. That concludes our testimony, and I know I have 

a few questions and I’m sure that Mrs. Herrera Beutler has some 

questions. I do want to mention when I mention this is an official 

committee hearing that your input is welcome, and there are forms 

at the table at the back that I understand are pretty self-explanatory. If any member of the audience has comments, you’re certainly 

welcome to pick up one of those forms and fill it out. 

Let me start with just a couple of questions, and, frankly, after 

hearing the testimony, I’m not sure there’s so much to start with, 

but Commissioner Pearce, let me ask you first, you mentioned in 

your testimony that about the time that the Spotted Owl was listed 

there were almost four times as many private jobs on the Gifford 

Pinchot than Forest Service jobs. 

What would that ratio look like today in your estimation? 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, the last time that I spoke with our Economic 

Development Commission, their estimate of jobs on the forest, private jobs on the forest, were less than 15 total, and to be honest 

with you, I don’t know how may Forest Service folks work on the 

Gifford Pinchot. What I do know is that there’s not a single office 

or ranger station in my county, and I don’t believe any of them are 

actually on the forest any longer. I know that there are two people 

that report to work on the forest at the Land River Station from 

the Forest Service. 

The CHAIRMAN. But the ratio certainly isn’t four to one? 

Mr. PEARCE. No, sir. It’s much, much, much higher Forest Service to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So it’s reversed, Forest Service higher than private? 

Mr. PEARCE. Absolutely. 

54 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s the point. 

Dr. Salwasser, the national forest in the Region 6 I understand 

are currently growing at an annual rate in excess of 9 billion board 

feet but they sold only about 550 million board feet, so what is 

going to happen with that ratio if it continues to the health of the 

forest and what sort of risks are associated with that imbalance 

that I just described? 

Dr. SALWASSER. Congressman Hastings, that question might be 

a better question for Dr. Connaughton, who would know what’s 

going to happen. I can give you the general story. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, give me the general and we’ll ask Mr. 

Connaughton. 

Dr. SALWASSER. The general story is, on the wetter west side 

forest they will simply accumulate the biomass on the land. Fire 

is very rare. Insects don’t appear to be a major problem, with the 

exception of some invasive species. On the drier side, though, that 

amount of annual growth with no natural removal from fire, for example, or harvest makes those forest more vulnerable to drought 

stress, insects and fire. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Connaughton, would you respond to the 

question I had there with that imbalance of what the projected 

growth is as it relates to harvest? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Hal Salwasser’s answer was a good answer. 

Desiccation of these forest will occur and then they can become vulnerable to recess. That’s one of the reasons we prioritize our treatments where we do, particularly is to reduce the influence of fire 

that that might have an unfavorable effect on communities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Connaughton, you mentioned treatments 

and you mentioned restoration. Harvest, is that part of the treatment and restoration? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Oh, yes. It’s an essential element. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much flexibility do you have to, say, increase harvest if the demand is there under current law? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Outside the range of the Northern Spotted 

Owl is we have—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Outside the range of the Northern Spotted Owl— 

Northern Spotted Owl makes up how much of the range percentage-wise. 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Wild guess on my part is 60 percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. 60 percent is off limits essentially then? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Not entirely off limits because the new recovery plan calls for greater flexibility for managing those forest 

that are vulnerable to fire. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that flexibility, I assume—the reason I’m 

here rubbing you is because I want to—the thought comes. And 

that flexibility, I assume, is subject to lawsuit. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s subject to lawsuit under the Endangered 

Species Act; is that correct? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. And several other acts. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. That brings me then to another observation 

that, Mr. Friedman, I congratulate you for saying that in your past 

for self—I don’t know if I should say self, but for full disclosure, 

55 

but you suggested, at least I got you suggested that collaboration 

is the new mantra rather than litigation. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yeah, I think that shows up in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that in mind, Hal, is it correct that you 

have filed five lawsuits, you and your organization in the last five 

years regarding that? 

Dr. SALWASSER. Sure, but that’s a substantial decrease from the 

past. 

The CHAIRMAN. It’s still five, however, right? OK. Well, I mean, 

in other words, a city could conclude, well, OK that’s in the past, 

but my goodness, if we start harvesting, that five could increase. 

Could it increase? 

Dr. SALWASSER. Yeah, but those lawsuits aren’t necessarily related to timber harvest. For instance—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I’m talking about timber harvest. 

Dr. SALWASSER. Then it’s not an accurate statement. Those five 

lawsuits are more general than just those related to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. They’re related to the Endangered Species Act, 

though, aren’t they? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, my time has expired, and I’ll recognize the 

gentlelady from Washington, as we say in the other Washington. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to 

speak fast. I might have to cut some of you all off because I have 

many questions—I have more questions to ask than we probably 

have time. 

But, you know, I am going to start with following along the 

Chairman’s line for Mr. Connaughton. One of the things he was 

saying I think is very important and I want wanted to bring up the 

Wild Cats Sale. A recent lawsuit involving Wild Cats Sale on the 

Gifford Pinchot was ruled in favor of the U.S. Forest Service on all 

points, but the agency failed to defend the sale when an appeal was 

filed and instead negotiated with the plaintiff. This resulted in a 

substantial reduction of harvest. I believe we got down to about 3 

million board feet. It was substantial. 

Why didn’t the agency defend this? If you’re talking about areas 

where we could potentially harvest, that could be part of restoring 

the forest. 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. First, it’s my knowledge that the Wild Cat 

Sale is limited, so I don’t have a specific answer. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. It’s the only sale that I think we were 

talking about in the Gifford Pinchot in our region for several years. 

I mean, it’s like the only one. 

Dr. SALWASSER. The appeal is instructive because during the appeal period there is an expectation that the Forest Service and 

other Federal agencies will enter into a negotiation with the appellant. If we find common ground that there is a grounds for concern 

over one of the Federal laws being either broken or in some way 

or another discharged, we make a change. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. But it was ruled—you were ruled in 

favor of on all points, so that yes, there’s always going to be someone who throws rocks, but as far the courts were concerned, the 

56 

Forest Service was right with the first sale we were going to have, 

in my knowledge, in a long time, and you all backed away. 

Is that going to be your approach when it comes to managing the 

non-set-aside land where it’s appropriate, where it’s not within 

owls circles, where it’s not environmentally sensitive? You’re not 

even going to push forward on those areas? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Our intent is to very much obey the law, and 

that is in the eye of multiple participants. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. But in the issue of a court case, the eye 

of the law should be, I would assume, the judicial review. 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Certainly. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So moving forward, my office has been 

informed—and this is also to Mr. Connaughton—my office has been 

informed that biologists within your own agency are raising the 

alarm because of the rapid decline of species dependent upon young 

forest growth. You know, one of the panels is talking about a 2.8 

percent per year decline in Spotted Owls, but another panelist, Mr. 

Mealey, spoke to the decline of other species, I think about elk and 

deer who need some of that foraging habitat. You know they’re 

starving and unable to produce and take care of their offspring. 

Do you believe that the management of our forest for a single 

species has been beneficial for the health of our forests and the 

multiple species of wildlife within them? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I think that’s a very questionable approach, 

because I think that we’ve learned that the conservation of species 

occurs at best landscape scales and therefore doing one species at 

a time ends up as being a logical outcome in terms of public policy, 

nobly motivated, but the execution becomes exceptionally—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So with that, having basically admitted 

that no, managing for one species hasn’t necessarily proven beneficial for all species or the overall health of the forest, why then 

would you double down on an expanded critical habitat taking basically more private forest land if you’re admitting that that species 

has not done well for the health of the owl, forest or the species? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Well, first, it’s Fish and Wildlife Service’s obligation to designate critical habitat. The coordination we have on 

that is what can the Federal estate bring to that obligation that 

they have? If in their determination that that’s an appropriate 

thing to do even though the population has declined by 40 percent, 

and that also protects some other owner. If you have restrictions 

Federally, then you don’t need to impose them elsewhere. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So then you don’t support what U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife is doing then? The Forest Service does not support that expansion? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Oh, no. We’re with the Fish and Wildlife. We 

understand the law they need to apply, too. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So you, the Forest Service, support the 

expansion of the critical habitat even though you just admitted 

that it doesn’t necessarily protect the Spotted Owl? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. The critical habitat obligation is theirs and 

definitely we have been part of those negotiations. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So I understand that to be yes. 

I’m going to switch over to Dr. Salwasser. I’m so sorry if I’m saying that wrong. Unfortunately some people who see this hearing, 

57 

and may even be here today, they’ll see it as an attack on the Spotted Owl. That is not the case. There is a thought that preserving 

as much old growth habitat as possible is the only way to help the 

owl. Although, it sounds like we’re hearing different even from our 

regional forester. It appears to me that over the last 20 years of 

this type of management hasn’t necessarily helped the owl, considering that the numbers do continue to drop. 

If you were to propose a plan to save the Spotted Owl, would this 

be it? And if not, how you would change it? 

Dr. SALWASSER. Congresswoman, you have posed a very difficult 

question for me as a wildlife biologist. I support the Endangered 

Species Act whose purpose was to preserve ecosystems and the species that depend on them. I do not support plans to save a single 

species. I am more concerned about the resiliency, diversity and 

productivity of ecosystems at a landscape scale to provide the environmental, economic and social benefits that we need from our 

forest lands. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Very good. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Second round. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. We’ll have to do the second round. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me ask—Mr. Fox, let me ask you a 

question here. As you know, President Obama has directed the Department of Interior to come up with an economic analysis of the 

spotted oil critical habitat that’s due very shortly. 

This is not a clear question, but as this is being developed, what 

do you think needs to be in there to accurately reflect the impact 

on private timber owners and others? In other words, we may have 

a report. We don’t know what’s going to be in it, but if there’s 

something missing or added, give me your—what do you think 

needs to be in that plan? 

Mr. FOX. Well, I think that what I spoke about, which was Section 10 of the USA, and I think we need to get a true implementation of that and make it available for private forest landowners to 

get a habitat conservation plan, thereby creating an incentive for 

them to continue to be in forestry and to create the species habitats 

that we need. Otherwise, folks are not going to invest in private 

forest land. They’re being scared. They’re managing by fear and 

they are not going to continue to do this. We’re not going to get 

what we need at the end of the day. In other words—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me try to put it in kind of layman’s terms. 

If there is not something in this plan that provides some certainty 

that can be counted on, then the report would be inadequate? 

Mr. FOX. That’s correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s correct, OK. 

Mr. Nelson, you’re in the commercial business and you heard my 

observation that I thought that public lands should be multiple 

purposes. The Forest Service has recently claimed that there is insufficient demand for timber sales, thus leading to reduced harvest 

and so forth. 

Would Sierra Pacific be interested in purchasing more Federal 

timber in your marketing area if it were offered. 

Mr. NELSON. That’s an easy one. Yes. 

58 

The CHAIRMAN. I thought it would be an easy one, but I thought 

it would be good to have it on the record because we hear so much 

about different economies and so forth. 

Mr. NELSON. If I could expand upon the ‘‘yes.’’ Our company expanded into Washington six or seven years ago and we expanded 

out of California. We own 1.7 million acres down there. We expanded largely because of the public timber supply stability in the 

State of Washington, but it wasn’t from the U.S. Forest Service. It’s 

from the DNR. 

The CHAIRMAN. Were you part of the Quincy Library Agreement? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, I was one of the original three. 

The CHAIRMAN. You painfully understood how that broke down. 

Now, what you just made an observation on is important, so I want 

to ask you, Region 6 of the Forest Service has in excess of 50 million acres of forest land and yet they sold—what came off those 

lands were around 575 in million board feet. In contrast, Washington State DNR has little over 2 million acres. That’s 52 million 

compared to 2 million acres yet they sold 550 million board feet. 

How could there be such a discrepancy on that? 

Mr. NELSON. A couple of reasons: First of all, the DNR—I wanted 

to add to that. The DNR also has in place a HC2, a Habitat Conservation Plan. They have a plan that covers all of us that own private land for aquatic species, largely fish. They have their own 

plan that covers Spotted Owls and other species as well as fish, so 

they not only have the stability of the Timber Sale Program, but 

they have the stability of these Federal assurances. 

I think the real reason that the state is doing that and not so 

much the feds, my own opinion, is that the state has it in trust. 

There are some very tight restrictions. They must manage their 

lands for the beneficiary of the trust but to be with inside all of 

the environmental regulations. 

The Forest Service on the other hand has about umpteen conflicting and overlapping rules, regulations, policies, et cetera, that 

are all geared toward not doing stuff. That’s basically what they do, 

and so there’s a different approach to it entirely between the state 

and the Federal implements. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would that be part of the reason why the yield on state lands is over $300 per thousand board feet and yet on 

Forest Service lands it’s less than $50 per thousand board feet? 

Would you say that would be a reason for that? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, I would, and in addition to that, the overhead 

is codified by the state legislature of Washington, so they can only 

have 30 percent overhead to do something. The Forest Service is 

kind of a blank check. 

The CHAIRMAN. So let me ask you this—I just asked Dr. Fox 

what should be in that plan. 

Is it fair to say that you as a commercial operator have more certainty dealing with state lands than you do with Federal lands? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is affirmative. OK. My time has run out. I’ll 

recognize the gentlelady from Washington. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. We’re kind of coming up to 

what I think a big part of the reason we’re here. We also want to 

talk about the impacts it has on jobs and the economy. We’re talkVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
59 

ing about small forest landowners. We’re talking about timber and 

forest management companies. That has an impact on our counties 

and our communities locally, which is one of the reasons I wanted 

to raise a question to you, Commissioner, with regard to tax receipts, and specifically will you please go into detail about the 

amount of Federal dollars the county or counties who are timber 

dependent receive through Secure Rural Schools and PILT, and 

with both of those set to expire, how would you like to see those 

programs addressed in lieu of this conversation? 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, the Secure Rural Schools was based on actual 

timber harvest between 1986 and 1996, the three highest years’ average, and that began in 2000, following the Owl Guaranteed Payment. That, of course, ramped down in the last four years. That 

was part of the agreement in Congress. And so my county, as just 

an example, is 5 and a half million a year. Now, during logging, back in 1990, we made $7 million in actually receipts. ’91 we made 7 million. So we actually went down significantly with these payments. Last year the payment was 1.8 million. Our DNR receipts are county by county. We happened to be 

in the HCP, one of the counties hardest hit by the Spotted Owl. I 

know that comes as a surprise. But the state has actually begun 

a program to buy that land which is encumbered and to pay the 

county for the timber value, so our legislature, our Governor and 

the commissioner have recognized that those trust monies are very 

important to us and they developed a program to buy those lands. 

The schools are absolutely dependent on it. It’s how they construct 

schools in this state. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I think it’s important for folks to realize 

and believe this is the case, we’re not talking about—I think in certain agencies in certain areas even in Washington, D.C., and central planning offices, I don’t think there’s an understanding of 

there was a good faith trade made here between the county and the 

Forest Service. The counties are not asking for welfare payment. 

This is not something for nothing. This was a trade. When 90-plus 

percent of the county is completely off limits, it makes it difficult 

for counties to have economic viability to pay for school districts 

and fire, so on and so forth, and I believe this is the situation that 

Skamania is in. 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, yes, ma’am. The fact is in 1908 with the Federal Forest Act, the reality is there was an agreement between— 

and it specifically was between counties and the Federal government, and that agreement was that to begin with we would get ten 

cents of every dollar it received. Of course that went to 25 cents. 

The fact is in 2010 the Forest Service on 193 million acres nationwide only made $180 million in total receipts. Had we shared 

in that, it would have been a quarter of 180 million. So yes, the 

counties are very much left out in the cold and our schools are as 

well because we’ve lost that contract. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Can you speak to under the new plan almost all Skamania County will be covered, I believe, almost all. I 

mean, it is almost there now, but under the new plan, believe it 

or not they’re even expanding it and what will that—what will the 

economic impact be? Do you think that will be on Skamania, your 

ability to produce? 

60 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, we’re very concerned because obviously Secure 

Rural Schools and county payments has not been reauthorized. 

Even if it is, it’s going to be significantly less. As I said earlier, we 

cut 4 million from a 14 million dollar budget last year. We’re looking at another 4 million dollar cut. The fact is at this time if this 

plan goes into effect, it affects 45 or 50 percent of our matrix land 

that is left, which is supposed to be the land that we actually get 

to go past, and it does in fact, as you look at the map, pretty much 

cover the entire Gifford Pinchot National Forest except for those 

areas that are already no touch, wilderness and so. 

I believe and—you and I met with our mill owner. I believe our 

mill is finding it very hard to stay profitable, having to ship logs— 

while they’re right in the middle of a national forest, having to ship 

logs from so far away, so it’s going to have a profound impact. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are a lot of questions here that I want to 

ask. 

Let me ask first, Commissioner Pearce, in the testimony that we 

have heard from several of our witnesses, they testified that the 

national forests provide a number of jobs and other valuable goods 

such as recreation, biomass energy and ecosystem services. Your 

county is probably the poster child as to where that sort of activity 

is supposed to come because of that. 

Give me your assessment of those observations. 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, certainly preservation of the forest is important. The problem is that our forest is very close to the Portland 

metropolitan area, so for the most part we don’t get overnight stays 

outside of the forest. Folks will come to stay. 

Just to give you an idea of how hard it is in our forest, there has 

been a moratorium on our forest for guide services for 11 years. 

Literally you can’t get a permit to take people out on bikes, you 

can’t get a permit to go caving, you can’t get a permit to take people on hikes, let alone hunting, fishing, so on. 

We’re working very hard to get that lifted because our large private employer, which is the Skamania Lodge, would very much like 

to offer those sorts of services, so I would have to disagree, sir, that 

we are not seeing an economic vitality out of serving the forest. 

The CHAIRMAN. So that’s what one could largely call a theory 

that hasn’t been put into place, is not yielding, but the theory is 

supposed to be? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Theory as opposed to axiom for math majors. 

Mr. Mealey, you quoted Jack Ward Thomas that Federal agencies have developed the hands-off management approach. Now, my 

question to you, taking that at its worth, is the flaw in the implementation, the hands-off approach, or is it a flaw in the law itself? 

Mr. MEALEY. In my opinion it’s a flaw in the law. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is? 

Mr. MEALEY. I talk a lot about the overly precautionary nature 

of the Endangered Species Act, and what I mean by that is that 

the act itself provides for the elimination of harm to a species, and 

so that means that any harm in the short term should be avoided, 

regardless of the long-term benefits. 

61 

So I hope this wouldn’t be too long, but let me give an example 

of actually how this applies, and this is a real example: When I 

was on the Boise Forest, for example, if there’s a watershed that’s 

at risk from uncharacteristic wildfire and it requires access or road 

access that crosses a stream to do the necessary actions to reduce 

the risk and that road would produce sediment in crossing a 

stream, you would have to consult—if the agency, the Forest Service, found that that may affect the species, you would consult with 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and if they conclude it likely to adversely 

affect, it would have an effect and in the short term that would require formal consultation, which is time consuming, and so what 

happens is that knowing that and knowing the back log of those 

activities, the agency would propose actions that would have no effect, so they wouldn’t have to formally consult, but the law itself 

requires the agency conclude likely to adversely affect to avoid any 

short-term harm, and so that’s why I recommended that Section 7, 

Consultations, require a balancing of risks, balancing the shortterm effects of an action against the long-term benefits so that 

there could be some weighing and some rational conclusions about 

actions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Should there be when you’re doing that, recognizing that certainly people have a right to disagree and have a 

right to go to court, but, I mean, it seems to me in the instance 

you described in Idaho as ripe for litigation. Am I correct? 

Mr. MEALEY. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it’s ripe for litigation. Is there a way to do it 

where you can speed up the litigation yet people can still be heard 

if they have concerns? But you have to address issues in a timely 

manner. Is there a way to do that in your mind. 

Mr. MEALEY. I don’t know what they would be. Of course, we all 

know that there’s an appeals process and if you appeal you get 

standing to sue, and then if you sue, that case is on the docket, and 

I don’t know how that can be changed except to remove the litigation points. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, listen, I know that was not a fair question, 

because that’s a question that we have to wrestle with on our side, 

and my time has run out. I’ll recognize Mrs. Herrera Beutler and 

then I’ll make a closing remark, but I’ll address that particular 

issue because I think that is the important part as we go forward. 

I’ll recognize Mrs. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And this is for Mr. Connaughton: In Washington state, do you 

believe that the current 2 percent of the forest harvests in our 9 

million acres that you manage, do you think that 2 percent harvest 

is adequate and is it sustainable over the long term? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. We’re getting as much from the appropriations that we have currently as we can make happen. Is there more 

work to be done? Indeed there is, and I’d like to do it. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So you believe that the 2 percent is not 

adequate over the long term? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. We’re at 6 percent in Oregon and Washington in the national forests. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I was speaking to just Washington. I 

apologize. I don’t know the Oregon numbers. 

62 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. So I’d have to verify with the court. The 

take-home message that you asked me about, is there more work 

to be done, the answer to that in my mind is yes. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Absolutely. Let me also speak to, with 

regards to the areas of forest that have been designated as critical 

habitat for the last 20 years, do you believe that those areas are 

healthier today than they were before the designation? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. It depends on what one means by healthier. 

If they’re contributing to the recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl, 

the answer to that is probably going to be yes, and several of the 

speakers have raised the issue but that has consequences for other 

environmental services and benefits, and the question in that 

would be yes in terms of aquatic conditions and our river basins. 

In terms of timber harvest, that would be part of local economy, so 

the answer to that would probably in general be no, so there is a 

gradient based on service itself. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And kind of skipping over to a different 

question that since I have you here I wanted to bring up. Recently 

the EPA, presumably in response to last year’s Ninth Circuit Court 

ruling, that runoff from logging roads are considered point source 

indicated that it will begin to draft regulations, and I wanted to 

know if the Forest Service raised concerns about the impacts of 

this ruling to the Administration and the Justice Department, in 

large part because some of the numbers I’ve seen, the amount of 

permits that you all have to get will take upwards of ten years for 

the 400,000 permits. 

How do you know all—dealing with the Administration, do you 

personally believe that runoff is a point source? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. First is, have we weighed in with the Administration? The answer to that is yes, and there’s been an awful 

lot of discussion about what is implied. The idea of point source is 

also a matter of contention, and here’s where I am when it comes 

to that issue, is, for forest practices we want to be very aware of 

any adverse effects that we have on our watersheds and our river 

basins, and I’m very content with the way in which we’re going 

about managing the National Forest System, and I’ve seen some 

very good things off the National Forest System, too, in terms of 

conservation. 

Does that then justify the need for a permit? The answer to that 

is very much in front of you folks in congress, and for an EPA, my 

intent is, I wind up in the same place whether I have to ask for 

or request a permit or not. It is the protections of those watersheds. Whether I’ve got a permit or not is a procedural event. I 

hope that makes sense. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. I just want to ask 

one more question and then I’ll make a closing remark here, but 

in fairness, this is a question to all of you, and it’s really the basis 

for which we have this hearing here today, and I’m going to ask 

if you will just give a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer. 

As we describe what you have all described, the Northwest 

Forest Plan was developed based on essentially five principles, and 

I’ll just paraphrase what those principles are: Social and economic 

balance to protect forests’ health, wildlife and water; sound science; 

63 

predictable and sustainable timber harvest; and ending gridlock. 

That was essential the five principles. Now, based on this, let me ask what we used to call the $64 

question: Does anybody there, yes or no, believe that the Northwest 

Forest Plan has achieved any success? 

Start with you, Commissioner Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Absolutely not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fox? 

Mr. FOX. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Salwasser? 

Dr. SALWASSER. Yes and no. You changed the question at the tail 

end. 

The CHAIRMAN. I did? OK. 

Dr. SALWASSER. Yeah. The Northwest Forest Plan has achieved 

some successes, but it has not achieved its five set of the principles. 

The CHAIRMAN. Got you. 

Mr. Mealey? 

Mr. MEALEY. In response to the five principles, the answer is 

clearly no. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Connaughton? 

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Same as Mr. Salwasser’s comment. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Very good. 

Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I’m with Salwasser and Connaughton. 

The CHAIRMAN. You moved. 

Mr. Niemi? 

Mr. NIEMI. I’m with Mr. Salwasser as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kreps? 

Mr. KREPS. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Not even close. 

The CHAIRMAN. Split decision. 

Again, I want to thank Mrs. Herrera Beutler for allowing this 

Committee to come into her district. I think this is a very, very important Committee meeting to try to get information, and I certainly I want to thank the panel for coming here. As Chairman of 

the Natural Resources Committee, I have determined after a great 

deal of working on this to look at the Endangered Species Act, because if there’s one constant thread that we have heard throughout 

all this testimony is that this is being driven by the Endangered 

Species Act and the implementation of that act. 

Now, just for the record, I don’t think there’s anybody in America 

that wants to see species become extinct. We should do everything 

in our power to see that they are recovered, and that ought to be 

a goal, and I think that’s one of the reasons why when the Endangered Species Act passed, it passed with strong bipartisan support 

in both houses, but like every act that Congress puts in place, 

there’s a time limit we should go back and review to see if it’s 

working. 

The Endangered Species Act was passed in 1983. The last time 

it was reauthorized was in 1988. That’s 24 years ago. And if the 

goal is to recover species, let me just give you some figures, round 

figures on what the act has done and why probably there’s a lot 

of controversy about it. There are roughly, round figures, 2,00 listVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:16 May 06, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74531.TXT KATHY
64 

ing of species. The amount that’s been recovered again is roughly 

20, 20 out of 2,000. 

If one were to equate that to baseball in batting averages, I can 

tell you 20 out of 2,000 would not qualify you for Class D baseball. 

It probably wouldn’t classify you for little league baseball, to be 

very honest. Yet we are working under this law, and it’s for that 

reason that my Committee has decided to look into the Endangered 

Species Act with the goal of recovering species and not get tied up 

into litigation. 

So much—we can’t get the exact figure from the Federal government—is tied up. Their dollars are not recovering species but rather defending lawsuits, and that to me seems to be a focal point that 

we’re going to look on, and we’ve already had hearings on that and 

we’ll have more hearings, but this Committee hearing here allows 

us to get testimony from obviously the panel, and welcome you 

again if you have testimony of something that sparked your interest, please fill out the form, and we’ll proceed forward, but I want 

to do it, again, in the sense that the idea ought be recover species 

and yet still have the way of life that we Americans enjoy so much. 

And I’ll go back to what I said in my opening statements: When 

I became Chairman of this Committee, I strongly felt then and that 

feeling hasn’t diminished a bit that our public lands ought to be, 

unless otherwise designated, for multipurpose use, and that includes obviously commercial and recreational activity. 

So, again, I want to thank the panel very, very much for appearing today. Your testimony is very, very valuable. And, again, I invite the audience if you have something that you want to add to 

this, please do so. The record will be held open for ten days. 

The CHAIRMAN. And once again, I want to thank my colleague 

from Southwest Washington for being here and being such a great 

host. Do you want to say something? I know better. I know I’m 

going to yield to the hostess. You are recognized. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you so 

much for bringing your team here and for listening. We have tremendous resources in our area. I’m not just talking about the forests. I’m not just talking about the species. I’m talking about our 

region as a whole, our community, and yes, healthy forests are part 

of our DNA. It’s part of our blood. We all chose to live here. The 

quality of life that we have, I believe, is unparalleled, and we want 

to protect it. We want to recover what has been lost, but we need 

to do so in a way that both respects wildlife and, I said it before 

a little tongue-in-cheek, but I believe the endangered American 

wage earner. 

We have very rural areas. We act as though we are resource 

poor, but we are resource rich, and I believe with the goal of managing in a sustainable, healthy way wildlife and forests, we’re all 

going to benefit, and I agree that a collaborative approach is important. As I look across this room today, the folks who have come to 

this hearing and the folks who have come to testify, I’m looking at 

a lot of collaborators. 

I don’t know if you’ve ever been on private and on forest land, 

but it’s some of the best managed habitat you will see, period, bar 

none. Comparing that with Federal lands makes you go, ‘‘OK, 

what’s the difference here?’’ And I think it’s because we love our 

65 

land and we love our resources, and so we want to make sure that 

what we got out of today is taken back to Washington, D.C., as this 

reconsideration of the forest policy is considered, that we recognize 

where we can make changes to better improve our forest health, 

our habitat and the economy for our region. 

So with that, thank you so much for coming. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, thank all of you for coming. I certainly 

appreciate your attendance being here. 

If there’s no further business coming before the Subcommittee, 

the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by the U.S. Department of the Interior 

Introduction 

The Department of the Interior (Department) takes this opportunity to submit a 

Statement for the Record on Federal forest policies and their effects on local economies and natural resources. Because the oversight hearing is being held in the state 

of Washington, our statement addresses the Department’s policies for public forests 

and natural resources in the Pacific Northwest, as well as the economic contributions in the states of Washington and Oregon from the Department’s forest management activities. 

Background 

The public lands and natural resources managed by the Department of the Interior play an important role in American lives, economies, and communities, and include some of our Nation’s greatest assets. The forests of the Pacific Northwest have 

provided, for more than a century, the timber which Americans have used to build 

countless homes, schools, and factories. The rivers traversing these forests create 

hydropower that has supplied electricity to generations of Americans. Within the 

public lands today are also preserved the last areas of old-growth forest that link 

the current generation of Americans back through millennia. 

The mission of the Department is to protect and manage the responsible use of 

many of America’s most significant natural resources. Within the Department, both 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) 

play a role in the public forests in the Pacific Northwest. The FWS carries out its 

mission of working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The 

BLM, meanwhile, is responsible for managing 245 million surface acres of public 

lands in 11 western states. Of these lands, the BLM manages 2.2 million acres of 

commercial forest in western Oregon and California (O&C), which is allocated for 

a variety of multiple uses, including conservation of northern spotted owl and riparian habitat as well as for traditional forest products such as lumber, plywood, and 

paper. 

In December 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar hosted a Forest Summit 

in Washington, D.C. Dozens of stakeholders voiced familiar concerns and desires: 

conserve old-growth, recover threatened species; sustain local communities; provide 

jobs, and reduce wildfire risk. The Secretary renewed the Department’s commitment 

to a strong working partnership with open lines of communication in order to tackle 

the long-standing challenges of achieving these complex goals. 

This Administration’s policies reject the false choice between the environment and 

our communities. Rather, the Department has embraced a multiple-use concept that 

supports traditional jobs in the forestry industries by providing for sustainable timber harvest while restoring ecosystems for environmental benefits and recreation. 

We are committed to continuing our work with stakeholders and interested members of the public to find ways to balance the economic potential of the Pacific 

Northwest forests with protecting watersheds and providing habitat for endangered 

species. 

Forest Management 

Under the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 1937 (43 U.S.C. 

§ 1181a), the BLM administers its 2.2 million-acre O&C forests ‘‘in conformity with 

the principle of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of 

66 

timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the 

economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational 

facilities’’. 

For the better part of the past 17 years, the BLM’s management of the O&C lands 

has been framed by the Northwest Forest Plan and the BLM’s 1995 Western Oregon 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs). In managing timber activities on public 

forestlands, the BLM’s objectives are to: • Provide timber-based economic opportunities for rural communities; • Ensure the long-term health and productivity of these lands; and • In coordination with the FWS and other agencies and partners, create multiple environmental benefits—including recovery and conservation of species 

and habitat—that result from healthy forests and watersheds. 

Economic Activity/Timber Sales 

The BLM’s timber management activities have direct effects in terms of employment and income in the Pacific Northwest, as well as induced effects in the local 

economy, such as the activities of other businesses required to support timber operations. In Oregon, which has seen a marked decline in traditional forestry jobs, 

BLM’s forest management activities supported over 2,700 jobs in 2010 and produced 

almost $600 million in economic activity (The Department of the Interior’s Economic 

Contributions; June 21, 2011). 

Although timber purchases as well as harvest levels are driven by market forces, 

the BLM continues to offer a predictable, sustainable supply of timber sales in western Oregon of approximately 200 million board feet (MMBF) per year. In recent 

years the BLM’s timber volumes offered for sale have ranged from highs of 236 

MMBF in 2008 and 233 MMBF in 2010, to 198 MMBF in 2007. 

The BLM offered 198 million board feet of timber for sale in FY2011, including 

28 MMBF from the Roseburg District and 22 MMBF from the Medford District, and 

in addition, re-offered 12 million board feet from previous contracts that had been 

mutually cancelled. In FY 2012, the BLM plans to offer the program target volume 

of 193 MMBF of timber for sale; the Roseburg target is 28 MMBF and the Medford 

target is 19 MMBF. The BLM also plans to reoffer additional volume from eight 

more contracts that were mutually cancelled. For FY 2013, the BLM budget proposal also includes an increase of $1.5 million in the O&C Forest Management program to increase the volume of timber offered for sale. 

Forest Health & Productivity 

The Department’s highest priority activities are directed toward reducing risks to 

communities by ensuring the long-term health of these forests and their watersheds. 

In recent decades, prolonged droughts and the spread of insect infestation have devastated millions of acres of trees in the Northwest. Through Federal forestry management, we are working to improve the health of these forest ecosystems, which, 

in turn, makes the forested lands more resilient against the risk of wildfires and 

invasive species, and preserves key wildlife habitat that will aid in conserving and 

recovering threatened and endangered species. 

The BLM, in collaboration with the FWS, is working to refine its implementation 

of active management, which employs science-based ‘‘ecological forestry’ practices 

that are carefully tailored to restore localized forest areas to healthy conditions. In 

the dry forests of southwestern Oregon, for example, a prescription for active management may require intervention to reduce the buildup of fuels. In the wetter forests on the west side of the Cascades, a prescription may include patchy regeneration harvests in addition to thinning to better mimic natural forest processes. In addition to restoring forest health, these techniques allow for sustainable timber harvests for local mills and the communities who rely on the timber industry for jobs 

and economic strength. 

Pilot Projects 

As a result of the December 2010 Forest Summit, Secretary Salazar set in motion 

a plan to apply the principles of active forest management, as suggested by Professors Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, on BLM lands within the Coos Bay, 

Roseburg, and Medford Districts in Oregon. Professors Johnson and Franklin—in 

collaboration with the BLM, FWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the 

Coquille Indian Tribe—are demonstrating the ecological and economic merits of ecological forestry principles in Oregon’s moist and dry forests. The Medford pilot 

project, the first of the three sales and the one furthest along in implementation, 

received no protests or administrative appeals and sold for more than four times the 

appraised value. Commercial harvest is underway in that Pilot. The Coos Bay and 

Roseburg Pilots are at various stages of the sale and environmental assessment 

process. 

67 

Based on the promise of these pilot projects described by Professors Johnson and 

Franklin in a report on Ecological Forestry pilot projects, in February Secretary 

Salazar announced that the BLM will plan five additional timber sales using ecological forestry principles in 2012 and 2013. Drs. Johnson and Franklin estimate 

that the BLM’s use of ecological forestry practices would sustainably yield an annual harvest of approximately 217 to 286 MMBF for the next 15 years from the public forests in Oregon. 

Moving Forward/Planning 

As part of the commitment to restoring healthy habitat and providing sustainable 

timber harvest and revenues—in March of 2012, BLM announced that it will undertake Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions which will provide goals, objectives, and direction for the management of approximately 2,500,000 acres of BLMadministered lands in western Oregon. The revisions to the existing RMPs will determine how the BLM will actively manage BLM-administered forests in western 

Oregon for multiple objectives including contributing to the recovery of threatened 

and endangered species, to provide clean water, to restore fire adapted ecosystems, 

to produce a sustained yield of timber products, and provide for recreation opportunities. Finding a balanced, sustainable approach is critical in western Oregon. The 

Department encourages citizens to participate in discussions about management of 

public forests in western Oregon and to be part of the solution. The first step in 

the BLM’s process to revise RMPs is a formal public scoping period to seek public 

input regarding the range of issues to be addressed in the planning process, including the management alternatives that should be examined. The public scoping period ends on July 5, 2012. 

We expect that with participation from members of the public and stakeholders 

in this scoping process as well as throughout the planning process, the agency will 

be better able to determine which forest management practices and activities will 

help achieve our goals. 

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Efforts 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is working to recover the northern spotted owl in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, 

and many other state, tribal, and private sector partners. Recovery efforts currently 

encompass recovery planning, critical habitat designation, and barred owl management. The recently released 2011 Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl includes 34 recovery actions and makes three overarching recommendations: 1) protect the best of the spotted owl’s remaining habitat; 2) conserve forest ecosystems 

through active management; and 3) reduce competition from the encroaching barred 

owl. Specifically: 

• To protect the best of the spotted owl’s remaining habitat, FWS recommends 

conserving spotted owl sites and high quality habitat across the landscape. 

This means the habitat protections provided under land use plans on Federal 

lands will continue to be a focus of recovery, but protection of other areas is 

likely needed to achieve full success. FWS is currently seeking public comment on the proposed critical habitat designation and an economic analysis 

will be made available for public review and comment. 

• To conserve forest ecosystems through active management, FWS recommends 

actions that make forest ecosystems healthier and more resilient to the effects 

of climate change and catastrophic wildfire, disease, and insect outbreaks. 

This involves an ‘‘ecological forestry’’ approach in certain areas, which may 

include carefully applied prescriptions such as fuels treatment to reduce the 

threat of severe fires, thinning to help older trees grow faster, and restoration 

to enhance habitat and return the natural dynamics of a healthy forest landscape. FWS also recommends continually evaluating and refining active forest 

management techniques. This effort includes the BLM’s pilot projects, supported by Secretary Salazar. 

• To reduce competition from the encroaching barred owl, FWS recommends 

managing barred owl populations to give the spotted owl a chance to rebound 

sufficiently that the two species may eventually be able to co-exist. To test 

the feasibility and effectiveness of barred owl management, the FWS is proposing experimental removal of barred owls in certain portions of the spotted 

owl’s range to see how this may affect spotted owls. If the experiment proceeds and the effects on spotted owls are positive, the FWS may consider the 

efficacy and feasibility of barred owl removal on a broader scale. 

68 

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and Critical Habitat Proposal Minimizes 

Impact to Private Landowners and States 

The 2011 Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl acknowledges that certain 

areas on non-Federal lands play a critical role in recovery and recommends working 

collaboratively with key conservation partners such as state agencies, private landowners, and tribes. FWS is pursuing ongoing dialogue and collaborative decisionmaking with state agency partners and citizens to determine the best way forward. 

FWS will also continue to consult and collaborate with tribal governments that have 

long worked to monitor and conserve spotted owls on their lands, thus making valuable contributions to recovery. The goal is to work with partners and citizens to 

evaluate the potential contribution of state and private lands to recovery in areas 

where Federal lands are limited. If any areas are to be included, FWS will work 

together to develop economic and other sensible incentives for voluntary habitat conservation partnerships such as Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation 

Plans. 

For the current critical habitat proposal, FWS is considering the exclusion of several categories of land from the final designation, including state and private lands 

which are already managed for conservation. When a critical habitat designation includes non-Federal lands with no Federal connection, there is no direct effect on 

landowners (though there may be indirect effects). The designation helps to inform 

state and local government agencies and private landowners about the value of the 

habitat. As a result, a critical habitat designation may help facilitate voluntary conservation partnerships such as Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation 

Plans. 

A Safe Harbor is a voluntary agreement between FWS and a private landowner 

that encourages private landowners to carry out habitat conservation measures on 

their land to benefit species listed under the Endangered Species Act. In exchange, 

FWS provides assurances that future land use restrictions will not be imposed. 

Under Safe Harbors, some impacts to individual species may occur in return for the 

landowner’s commitment to conservation measures that contribute to the species’ 

population overall. This provides landowners with more certainty for their land use 

planning. There are currently five Safe Harbor agreements for the northern spotted 

owl—two in Washington, one providing statewide coverage in Oregon, and two in 

northern California. 

Similarly, Habitat Conservation Plans are used for non-Federal landowners (usually government agencies, private organizations, or businesses) whose otherwise 

lawful activities are expected to impact listed species. The FWS works with these 

landowners to develop provisions for monitoring, minimizing, and mitigating for potential incidental take. There are currently 12 Habitat Conservation Plans for the 

spotted owl—six in Washington covering more than 2 million acres, two in Oregon 

covering 200,000 acres, and four in California covering more than 200,000 acres. 

Addressing Forestry Needs 

The BLM has a target of 197 million board feet of proposed sales in western Oregon in FY 2013. The Secretary announced that as part of this target, BLM will 

plan for at least five additional timber sales (totaling approximately 15 million 

board feet) using ecological forestry principles. By using ecological forestry principles, addressing the growing impact of the invasive barred owl and expanding the 

scientific foundation for wise management of our forests, the Department of the Interior seeks to give communities, foresters, and land managers the additional tools 

they need to forge healthier and more resilient forests. The Department is also 

working closely with the Forest Service, which recently announced steps to improve 

forest restoration through active management and to increase forest products sold 

by the National Forests from 2.4 billion board feet in 2011 to 3 billion board feet 

no later than 2014. 

The current critical habitat proposal for northern spotted owl encourages increasing active management of forests, consistent with ecological forestry principles and 

practices within critical habitat when it promotes forest restoration and ecosystem 

health. This is a major change from previous critical habitat designations. Many Pacific Northwest forests are out of balance due to an interaction of natural and 

human influences. In the drier and diseased forests, FWS supports intervention to 

protect older trees, reduce unnatural fire risk, and better manage insect outbreaks. 

In the moist forests west of the Cascade Mountains, FWS supports thinning and 

patchy regeneration harvests that better mimic natural forest processes. Application 

of such science-based forest treatments could provide significant economic and employment opportunities in many areas and should be compatible with the goals of 

northern spotted owl recovery. It may also reduce the potential for litigation of some 

timber harvest proposals that apply these methods. 

69 

The Endangered Species Act requires the FWS to identify all areas essential to 

the conservation of a species and that may require special management, and then 

to take other factors, such as economic impacts, into consideration to refine proposals before critical habitat designations are finalized. The critical habitat proposal 

that identifies areas that may be considered for the final designation also emphasizes the significant benefits of excluding private lands, and that consideration, 

along with the economic assessment, will help inform which areas will be excluded 

from the final critical habitat designation. The FWS is contracting with economics 

experts to develop a thorough economic analysis of the critical habitat proposal, 

which will evaluate timber harvest-related and other potential economic impacts. 

The economic analysis will be made available for public review and comment, prior 

to the finalization of the northern spotted owl critical habitat designation. 

Conclusion 

By working in partnership with local communities, forest industry, and conservation groups, this Administration is moving toward a long-term strategy for forest 

management that is environmentally sound and economically sustainable. The Department’s science-based planning activities, informed by economic analysis and 

public feedback, will provide greater certainty for timber mills and communities 

while conserving our land, water and wildlife. 

The documents listed below have been retained in the Committee’s official files. 

• Anderson, Emily, Grayland, Washington, Comment form submitted for the 

record 

• Bonagofsky, Jerry, Comment form submitted for the record 

• Cowlitz County, Board of Commissioners, Letter submitted for the record 

• Dubrashich, Mike, Lebanon, Oregon, Letter submitted for the record 

• Edwards, Karla Kay, Willamina, Oregon, Comment form submitted for the 

record 

• Forsberg, R. Lynn, Ridgefield, Washington, Letter submitted for the record 

• Graham, Darren, Comment form submitted for the record 

• Gross, Commissioner Lee, on behalf of the National Forest Counties and 

Schools Coalition, Letter submitted for the record 

• Hallanger, Bill, Email submitted for the record 

• Jensen, Carol, Longview, Washington, Comment form submitted for the 

record 

• Krug, Larry, Stevenson, Washington, Comment form submitted for the record 

• Linde, Thomas, Carson, Washington, Letter submitted for the record 

• McKeirnan, Leigh, Letter and email submitted for the record 

• Mitchen, Darcy, Comment form submitted for the record 

• Newton, Dr. Michael, Professor Emeritus of Forest Ecology and Management, 

Oregon State University, Letter submitted for the record 

• Oregon State Delegation, U.S. House and Senate, Letter to Secretary Salazar 

• Pickell, William, Hoquiam, Washington, Letter submitted for the record 

• Revesz, Peter & Jane, Battleground, Waashington, Letter submitted for the 

record 

• Richter, Jeff, Letter and comment form submitted for the record 

• Smith, Larry F., Mossyrock, Washington, Comment form submitted for the 

record 

• Spencer, Paul, Letter submitted for the record 

• Stubblefield, Ted, Former Forest Supervisor, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 

Letter submitted for the record 

• Teitzel, David, Carson, Washington, Comment form submitted for the record 

• Whipple, Darrel, Rainier, Oregon, Comment form submitted for the record 

• Woods, Richard I., Kelso, Washington, Letter submitted for the record 

Æ