MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS AND 

NATIONAL FORESTS OF THE 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS At,D PUBLIC LA.J.\'DS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

REHABILITATION, REFORESTATION, AND REINVESTMENT ON PUBLIC 

LANDS AND NATIONAL FORESTS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

68---303 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

MARCH 30, 1993 

Serial No. 103-14 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1993 

For :-.a le hy tht.: U.S. Gove rnment Pri nting Offit:c 

Superintendent of Doc uments, Congressional Sales Offi ce . Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16- 040963-2 
COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J . MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, 

American Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CAL VIN M. DOOLEY, Califo~nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

RO13ERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J . BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PuBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranking Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon GRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

JAMES BRADLEY, Professional Staff Member 

GWYN FLETCHER, Staff Assistant . D. LEE FORSGREN, Republican Counsel on Lands and Forestry 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held March 30, 1993 ................................................................................ . Member statements: 

Bruce Vento ...................................................................................................... . Robert F. Smith ........................................................................................ ....... . Peter A. DeFazio .............................................................................................. . Larry LaRocco .................................................................................................. . 

Witness statements: 

Hon. Ron Wyden, a U.S. Representative from the State of Oregon ............ . Panel consisting of: 

F. Dale Robertson, Chief, Forest Service, Department of the Interior ....... . Michael Penfold, Assistant Director for Lands and Renewable Resources, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior, ac- companied by Ed Shepard, BLM Forester ................................................. . Joyce N. Fleischman, Deputy Inspector General, Department of the Interior ................................................................................................................. . Panel consisting of: 

R. Neil Sampson, Executive Vice President, American Forests, Washington, DC .......................................................................................................... . Gregory H. Aplet, Forest Ecologist, The Wilderness Society, Washington, 

DC ................................................................................................................. . Martin Jack Desmond, Director, Northwest Reforestation Contractors Association, Eugene, OR .................................................................................. . Frank Gladics, Vice President, Western Forest Industries Association, 

Portland, OR ................................................................................................. . 

APPENDIX 

MARCH 30, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Hon. Pete Stark, a U.S. Representative from the State of California: 

Page 

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

12 

16 

22 

44 

52 

56 

74 

Dear Colleague dated March 22, 1993 .......... ... ................. ...... ....... ............. 79 

Hon. Gerry E. Studds, a U.S. Representative from the State of Massachusetts: Dear Colleague dated March 22, 1993 ....... .... ..... .... ....... .. .... .... .... ..... 80 

Western Forest Industries Association, Portland, OR: Letter to Chairman 

Vento dated April 1, 1993, enclosing excerpts from Forest Statistics 

of the United States, 1987, from Frank Gladics, Vice President ............... 81 

(III) 

REHABILITATION, REFORESTATION AND REINVESTMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL FORESTS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

TUESDAY.MARCH30,1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

1364, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. 

Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will come to order. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VENTO 

The subcommittee is meeting today to conduct an oversight hearing on rehabilitation, reforestation and reinvestment in public 

lands and national forests of the Pacific Northwest. The debate has 

raged for several years on how much more timber should be cut in 

the Pacific Northwest. That is not necessarily the focus today. Instead, we will focus on Federal lands that have already been cut 

and the means and opportunities that are available to restore those 

lands to the healthy and biologically diverse forests they once were. 

We are at the beginning of a new era for the national forests and 

public lands of the Pacific Northwest. The management of these 

lands in the future will be dramatically different from the management of the past. The courts, the Congress, the administration, and 

the American people have been sending a strong message to the 

Forest Service and to the Bureau of Land Management to change 

the emphasis from cuttin~ and selling timber and to make the 

maintenance and restoration of biological diversity and complex 

ecosystems the management of the future. So significant is the 

need for this change that this week the President, the Vice President and two Cabinet Secretaries are in the Northwest to explore 

ways to make this change happen-to initiate that process. 

During the old era of Federal forest management in the Northwest the timber program was king. The bulk of the funding and 

personnel for the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

was focused on producing timber for commercial logging through 

the 1980s. The Forest Service sold, in the 1980s, between 4 and 5 

billion board feet a year, I might say at the requirement of Congress, and in those days over 1 billion board feet all too often in 

(1) 
2 

the O&C lands of Oregon. Those days are gone forever. Last _year the Forest Service sold about 700 million board feet and the BLM 

only about 50 million board feet. This is a significant shift in forest 

management of the Forest Service today. It is such a significant 

shift that the Forest Service is planning on eliminating almost 900 

positions from its Region VI work force. 

The transition from one era to another is not likely to be easy, 

but as the land management agencies and the people of the Northwest work to a<ljust to this change, we must remind ourselves that 

the new era of forest management in the Northwest is full of opportunities and potential. For jobs that may be lost, both by the Federal agencies or in the private sector to declining timber harvests, 

there is potential for new employment opportunities in fisheries, 

wildlife habitat and watershed improvement, recreation and reforestation. As timber pro~ams shrink, other programs could well 

grow. There is an incredible amount of work that needs to be done 

to maintain and restore forest ecosystems----enough work to employ 

thousands of people. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management may focus, or refocus, and make wildlife, fish, recreation, wilderness and ecosystems, a primary emphasis. 

Some refer to this potential as the three R's-reforestation, rehabilitation and reinvestment. The purpose of this hearing is to explore how to apply the three R's to the Federal forestlands of the 

Pacific Northwest. If we can successfully reforest, rehabilitate and 

reinvest in our national forests and public lands, this new era will 

result in the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

being stronger than ever, and will produce a regional economy based on quality land management that is sustainable over time. 

The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Smith. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Last week Mr. 

DeFazio and I joined Secretary Babbitt in southwestern Oregon looking at some of the forests we will be discussing today. We were 

given a briefing, for instance, on the Applegate Partnership, which 

is a project to manage some 500,000 acres on the Applegate River 

watershed, in a manner that is ecologically and economically 

sound. 

While it is not a perfect solution, the partnership at the very 

least recognizes that timber products will continue to play an important role in the Pacific Northwest and for this Nation as well 

as protecting the ecology of the land, which brings me to the point 

that the timber crisis in the Northwest is no longer a regional problem. I think most of us understand this in this committee. Half of 

the standing softwood timber in the United States is managed by 

the Federal Government and right now, as you pointed out, Mr. 

Chairman, we can hardly and barely cut a stick of it. 

As a result, the Nation's economy and the recovery is in jeopardy 

because of soaring lumber prices caused by our forests being shut 

down for many reasons, including court injunctions. What we are 

doing is assessing about a $4,000 increase in cost to a house. I call 

it the spotted owl tax. We are inhibiting the American dream of 

people who want to build their own home, and even with low interest rates the spiraling cost of a home makes it totally out of reach 
3 

for most people. Housing demand is up, lumber prices are high, 

and the demand is going down. 

And while I know that preservationists aren't really concerned 

about putting 40,000 people out of work in the Northwest, I am not 

sure they want to be associated with stifling the expansion of this 

economy. So it is in the national interest for our land management 

agencies to assure the long-term sustainability of our Federal 

landmass. By and large, they are doing a commendable job, and we 

will hear more about that today. 

There are those who will try to discredit the professional on the 

ground. We saw an example last year when the majority issued a 

fatally flawed reforestation report that was a complete work of fiction. I thought the land management agencies' critique of this report poked so many holes in it that it isn't really worth discussing. 

AB we take a close look at our public lands today, I hope we keep 

one thing in mind. We are going to need the Federal lands in the 

Pacific Northwest to provide wood for this Nation. We cannot rely 

on private lands or Canada or Russia or anywhere else. So, if the 

President and this Congress are prepared to take half of the standing softwood in the United States out of production, the American 

people better be prepared to pay the price. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. DeFazio. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a little disappointed. We have been having real door-busting turnouts here 

lately, and now when we get down to some, I believe, very important issues I am disappointed to see it doesn't seem to be quite as 

startling to the press or even some members of advocacy groups. 

Since I first came to the Congress, my first hearing was with this 

committee examining the proposed budget of the then, as I remember, Mr. Burford's BLM and under the direction of the Reagan administration. At that time I raised questions about the backlog in 

precommercial thinning and other treatment activities that would 

yield future productivity and pointed to some disturbing numbers 

and trends. We see that to date some of those concerns have not 

been fully addressed. 

Further, I went down to Appropriations and asked back then 

something that not many other Members were willing to do. I said, 

cut the road budget here that is being recommended. Take some of 

the money from the road budgets, particularly on Forest Service 

lands, and reinvest it in other values that will lessen the conflicts 

and lead to productivity. 

Now, we had a lot of people who are willing to go down and testify to lessen the road budget in order to reduce timber harvesting, 

but there wasn't a lot of support for reallocating the funds. And I 

hope the turnout today, other than my colleague from Oregon and 

others, is not an indication that that situation is going to continue 

in the future. Because one of the key parts of resolving the ongoing 

crisis in the Northwest forests is going to be to increase investment 

in those lands which are deemed suitable for timber harvest, also 

in lands that are not suitable for timber harvest in terms of reforestation activities. We took testimony in this committee 2 weeks 
4 

ago from the Pacific Rivers Council and others and heard about a 

watershed restoration strategy. 

There are other non-timber-commodity activities that could go on 

on these public lands that would provide some additional employment for rural communities who have few alternatives. We have 

seen some progress. There was a little bit of money in the President's stimulus package, about $15 million, to begin to engage in 

some of these activities. And the 4-year vision document of the administration, which we hope will soon be backed up by solid budget 

requests, included 1.5 billion over 4 years for BLM and Forest 

Service natural resource protection and environmental infrastructure initiative. 

So I am very hopeful that the decade of disinvestment is over, 

and we are going to begin now to stop the acrimony of the past and 

begin to look toward the future and hear productive suggestions on 

how to go forward. I look forward to the testimony of my colleague 

from Oregon, who has a number of ideas in that area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for his work initially and constantly in terms of this issue. I well remember the first set of questions that he raised and we wrote in our recommendations to the 

Appropriations and Budget Committee concerning these adequate 

funding levels for rehabilitation. 

I am pleased to welcome and recognize the gentleman from 

Idaho, Mr. LaRocco, who has attempted to draft major proposals 

dealing with forest health, and we are pleased to have him as a 

member of the committee and present this morning. 

Mr. LaRocco. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY LaROCCO 

Mr. LAROCCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. I will just take a couple of minutes. I appreciate your reference to H.R. 229, the bill that I have drafted, on forest health. We made a run at it last year, and I am happy to see 

on the witness list today some people whose counsel I sought, Mr. 

Aplet and Mr. Sampson. They were very helpful to me as we moved 

that bill along and actually got it through the full Ag Committee. 

There is a lot of work that needs to be done on that bill yet and 

that is why I am here today. 

I want to say that I fully recognize where Region VI is. It is not 

in Idaho, but there are implications for the State of Idaho. I was 

talking to a ranger the other day in the Payette National Forest. 

We were talking about a timber sale. It was called the Republican 

Flats timber sale. It caught my attention right away. 

And I said, ''Who would bid on that sale?" 

And she said, "Well, there is some interest from Oregon and 

Washington in that sale." It is on the Salmon River breaks of the 

main Salmon. So there is tremendous pressure put on the forests 

of my district, and also many logging crews are moving over to 

Idaho because of the lack of work. So we have to look for resolution 

to this issue. That is why I introduced the bill, and I just hope that 

we can keep that process moving along. 

In addition to that, today I am announcing the introduction of a 

bill, a wilderness bill for the State of Idaho that encompasses the 
5 

five national forests of my district. I have jobs creation, watershed 

restoration and timber stand improvement projects in that bill, and 

as I went through every forest I was amazed at the list that came 

forward. 

The list was very broad. Work needs to be done in the roaded 

fronts of every forest, just so that the timber sale programs can 

move ahead. 

And so your hearing today is very, very critical as we investigate 

and look into this problem. I intend on spending a lot of time on 

this particular issue. I look forward to hearing what our very capable witnesses have to say about this, and I appreciate your particular interest in this issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for his work, and we look forward to reviewing his latest proposal, the wilderness solution for 

his district. 

We are pleased to welcome our colleague Ron Wyden, who has 

appeared before the committee from time to time on resource issues, the dean of the Oregon delegation for the House side. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman very much, and let me say 

right at the outset you have got a long hearing today. I think it 

would be cruel and unusual punishment, Mr. Chairman, to give 

you a filibuster. And, if I might put my prepared remarks in the 

record and maybe just highlight some of my principal concerns? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Without objection. 

Mr. WYDEN. First, Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for all 

the time you have spent on these important issues over the years. 

You have spent an awful lot of time trekking around the forests of 

the Northwest as Peter, Bob and I did this last weekend. And years 

ago you were saying there had to be a change in the way natural 

resource policy was set, and I personally think we should have 

heeded a lot of the wisdom that you called for then and we very 

much appreciate it. 

With respect to the issues we are talking about, I think we know 

that our colleague Peter DeFazio has been tireless in pursuing 

these issues over the years. And Congressman Bob Smith and I 

have had a chance to team up often on many of these issues. Certainly there is nothing partisan about the job we have got in front 

of us with respect to reforestation. I am also pleased our friend 

Larry LaRocco is here, and even though, as he mentions, probably 

there isn't a whole lot of BLM land in Idaho, we are going to call 

on him and involve him in these efforts as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I would say that a good reforestation program, a 

program that is well integrated with other priorities such as the repair of great damage that has been done to our forests, streams 

and rivers, can do an enormous amount of good for creating both 

jobs and a sound forest environment that we can leave to our children and our grandchildren. 

Yesterday, Mike Kopetski, Wally Herger and I introduced H.R. 

1502, legislation to expand, improve and reform reforestation and 

stand enhancement activity on public lands in Oregon, Washing-
6 

ton, and northern California, the areas most likely to feel the economic brunt of the northern spotted owl habitat designations. We 

focused on second growth forests, lands likely to remain in the timber base, because we have seen years of lost opportunities on these 

lands. 

Before I explain the legislation let me just make three points as 

to why this legislation is needed. First, the Interior Department Inspector General informed the Natural Resources Committee 2 

months ago that shortfalls and backlogs in reforestation activity in 

western Oregon have already cost the taxpayer an astounding $2 

million in potential timber harvests. Second, by its own admission, 

BLM for 2 years in a row has budgeted no money for pre-commercial thinning. We all know this is goin~ to lead to even greater decreases in potential harvest levels. Third, it seems to me that we 

are missing the biological window, the moment of opportunity to 

complete this work for maximum future harvests. It is a question 

of either doing it now, or in my view, simply not being able to do 

it at all. 

I think we also have to recognize that taxpayers everywhere are 

asking for greater Federal spending accountability. When taxpayers read in the papers that the BLM doesn't have the money 

to accomplish needed reforestation projects, taxpayers are more 

than a little upset when the Inspector General says, and I quote: "The Bureau's 3-tiered field organizational structure is highly inefficient and embedded with redundancy." It goes on to say, "Staffing 

resources costing as much as $49 million could be converted from 

administrative support and program oversight to program operations." 

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, $49 million could plant an awful 

lot of trees, and I would add that the Inspector General's comments 

concerning BLM's overpopulated management structure came in 

testimony that was delivered just 2 months ago before the Natural 

Resources Committee. 

I think part of my argument, Mr. Chairman, and then I want to 

explain the bill, is that a few dollars wisely invested will mean a 

return many times over in eventual timber sales receipts, jobs and 

healthier forests. In a bit, you are going to hear from a friend of 

all Northwest residents, Jack Desmond of the Northwest Reforestation Contractors Association, who has estimated that doing the re- forestation work that we need in order to preserve forest jobs and 

make forests more productive could mean an additional 7,000 jobs 

almost immediately. 

I would also add that Dr. Russ Gordy, a timber economist with 

the Congressional Research Service, who has testified before my 

subcommittee and has worked with us in our investigations over 4 

years, has indicated that this kind of investment could mean hundreds of millions, even billions, of board feet in additional timber 

harvest. 

Now, with respect to the legislation that I and our colleagues introduced yesterday, it really has four features. First, it would direct 

the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to prepare an extensive yield report on second-growth lands in the Northwest. This is 

important because the last such survey was done in the early seventies. 
7 

Second, the legislation amends the Knudsen-Vandenberg Act to 

include BLM timberlands. For the first time, reforestation of BLM 

lands would be funded through a certain and sure sales receipt 

funded trust. 

Third, we would amend the Act to limit K-V funds to reforestation and stand enhancement activities, which, in my view, is what 

the law was originally intended to be. 

Finally, additional monies would be made available in Oregon, 

Washington and Northern California, for enhancement of secondgrowth forestry on private woodlands under the Forest Assistance 

Act. The legislation has been endorsed by a variety of groups, environmental groups such as The Wilderness Society, industry groups 

such as the Oregon Forest Industries Council, and the Northwest 

Reforestation Contractors as well. 

So, Mr. Chairman, let me break my speechifying off right at this 

point. You have been kind, as always, to give me the opportunity 

to come. As I say, we have appreciated all you have done for us, 

such as your being willing to hold hearings and examine the question of coming up with a new, more balanced approach for the future, and I appreciate the chance to work with you and our friends 

from the Northwest. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Obviously, do for you or do to you, I guess, depends upon who is looking 

at what the chairman or others might be contemplating. 

But, without objection, your entire statement will be made a part 

of the record, as will the entire opening statements of members and 

the witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

[Prepared statement of Representative Wyden follows:] 

OPENING STATEMENT REPRESENTATIVE RoN WYDEN 

Mr. Chairman, I know that you and members of this subcommittee are working 

very hard to help solve the horrendously difficult question of how to best manage the Pacific Northwest's old growth forests. But outside of that very tough question, 

I can think of no more pressing public timberland issue than the need to reform 

reforestation efforts in the great public forests of the West. 

Last week, I toured Oregon forests and wood product manufacturing plants with 

Secretary Babbitt. He said more than once that we can have a sound forest environment and jobs, too. I believe him. 

I also believe that a good reforestation program, well-integrated with other prior- ities such as the repair of great damage done to forest streams and rivers, is one way to get both jobs and a sound forest environment we can leave to our children. I congratulate you for having this hearing, today. Your committee is in an ideal 

position to begin that reform effort. And I look forward to workin, closely with my Oregon colleagues, Peter DeFazio and Bob Smith, to address these 1BSues. Thank you for the opportunity to add my two cents worth. 

Yesterday, Mike Kopetski, Wally Herger and I introduced legislation to expand, 

improve and reform reforestation and stand enhancement activity on public lands 

in Oregon, Washington and Northern California-the areas most likely to feel ,the 

economic brunt of Northern Spotted Owl habitat desi¥Jlations. We are focused on second growth forests, lands likely to remain in the timber base. We see years of 

lost opportunities on these lands. This bill is needed because over the last decade 

there has been a failure to adequately fund and manage reforestation and stand en- hancement in the Northwest. 

Because of that neglect, my constituents in the Oregon wood products industry 

may lose jobs which otherwise would have been preserved. Before I explain our legislation, I'd first like to say a few words about why I think 

it's desperately needed. 

First, as the Interior Department inspector general informed the Natural Re- sources Committee two months ago, shortfalls and backlogs in reforestation activity 
8 

in western Oregon already have cost the taxpayer some $2 billion in potential timber harvest. 

Second, by its own admission BLM for two years in a row has budgeted no money 

for pre-commercial thinning. As we all know, this will lead to even greater decreases 

in potential harvest levels. 

Third, we are missing, the biological window-the moment of opportunity-to com- plete this work for maximum future harvests. It's a question of either doing it now, or not being able to do it at all. 

Mr. Chairman, people from my part of the country have a special connection to 

these forests. Aside from the fact that many of them depend on the good management of these public timberlands for their jobs, my constituents also want to feel 

confident that the woods will be managed well for their children and grandchildren. 

Beyond that, taxpayers everywhere are asking for greater federal spending ac- countability. 

When they read that the BLM doesn't have the money to accomplish needed reforestation projects, they are more than a little upset when the inspector general says 

that ". . . the bureau's three-tiered field organizational structure [is] highly inefficient and embedded with redundancy," and further that " ... staffing resources costing as much as $49 million could be converted from administrative support and 

program oversight to program operations." 

Mr. Chairman, $49 million could plant a lot of trees. The I G's remarks concerning 

BI.M's over-populated management structure came in testimony before the Natural 

Resources Committee two months ago. 

Finally, our state is looking at the loss of many timber jobs as we try to regain an environmental balance in the forest. We need this reforestation work because it means jobs ... jobs now, not just in the future. My friend, Jack Desmond of the 

Northwest Reforestation Contractors Association, has estimated that doing all of the 

reforestation work we need to do in order to preserve forest health and make forests more productive could mean an additional 7,000 jobs, almost immediately. 

In a nutshell, a few dollars wisely invested, today, will mean a return many times over in eventual timber sale receipts, jobs and healthier forests. Last summer, Dr. 

Ross Gorte, a timber economist with the Congressional Research Service, testified 

before my small business subcommittee that this kind of investment could mean hundreds of millions, even billions of board feet in additional timber harvest. 

That brings us to the legislation, which I will briefly detail. 

The Timber Management Improvement Act of 1993, has these key elements: 

It would direct the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to prepare an extensive yield report on second-growth lands in the Northwest. This would be the first 

such survey since the early 1970s. 

It amends the Knutson-Vandenberg Act to include BLM timberlands. For the first 

time, reforestation of BLM lands would be funded through a certain and sure, salesreceipt-funded trust. 

The Act also would be amended to limit K-V funds to reforestation and stand en- hancement activities . . . what we believe to be the law's original intent. 

Finally, additional monies would be made available in Oregon, Washington and 

Northern California for enhancement of second-growth forestry on private woodlands under the Forest Assistance Act. 

This approach has been endorsed by a broad spectrum of forest users, including 

the Northwest Reforestation Contractors, the Oregon Forest Industries Council, and 

the Wilderness Society. I also have a detailed report from the Congressional Research Service which supports many of the assumptions and directions taken in this 

legislation. I'd be happy to share that with the committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank you for holding this very timely hearing. 

Mr. VENTO. We will examine the suggestions you have made 

carefully as we tum to legislation or improvements, especially with 

the K-V fund. I understand, not from your oral remarks but from 

discussion with staff, that you intend to provide a BLM fund similar to the K-V fund to provide certainty and predictability. It 

sounds like you are trying to refine or define better the utilization 

of the K-V fund in these areas. 

The irony of this is that it is driven by timber receipts, and as 

timber receipts drop, the funding driven by timber receipts will, by 

necessity, be atrophied. That is the dilemma that we face. If any 

region in the country could have or should have been able to do a 
9 

good job based on the timber sale receipts, it certainly should have 

been Region VI. We are here today to look at what the history has 

been, and obviously, where there have been shortcomings it presents new challenges. 

But today we are looking a little retrospectively at it. In looking 

at what the new definition or the new policy path ought to be in 

this area. I don't think there is as much disagreement as there is 

about boundaries and reserves and timber harvest levels. But I 

think much of it is going to be impacted by the timber receipts 

question and how we utilize that. 

Mr. WYDEN. I think, if I could just make a quick comment, not 

only do I share your view, but I think Congressman DeFazio put 

it very well. The challenge is getting people's attention here. I 

mean there is a tremendous amount of work to be done here. The 

legislation that I have introduced is one way to go. I am sure there 

are other ways to go. What I found appealing about this kind of 

approach, and the chairman is absolutely right with respect to receipts going down, is that this kind of an approach in terms of 

BLM reforestation would really put the program on a pay-as-yougo kind of basis. We would have the certainty of knowing that if 

you sell a tree you would then set aside a certain amount to replant the tree. 

And I think that, as we look to future policies that promote forest 

health and create jobs, that makes sense. I just hope we can get 

everybody's attention with something like this that is so very important when, as our colleague Congressman DeFazio has said, so 

often the more controversial, more incendiary issues dominate the 

attention. 

Mr. VENTO. Are there further questions or comments for our colleague from Oregon? Mr. Smith? Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the work that our colleague has done on this and 

would hope very much that we can, as he said, begin to :put more 

emphasis on these issues. I have a question, and it is gomg to be 

a little bit problematic, and so I am not trying to put you on the 

spot. If you want to defer, you can. 

But part of my problem, part of the agency's problem, and part 

of the problem with the legislation you have proposed, is that given 

the current court injunctions, given this new SAT report that was 

passed down by a group of biologists and others in response to the 

Judge, which instead of looking at just vertebrate species looked at 

some 600 species that are potentially old-growth dependent under 

NFMA, but they also delved a bit into restrictions on BLM land in 

that report. I am not sure that we know where on second-growth 

lands we can make these investments, so I am not certain how we 

would go forward with an inventory and a report. A few environmental advocates labor. Some scientists have questioned the idea 

that within these reserves, set up a la Jack Ward Thomas, that on 

all of the second-growth lands nothing could go forward. That only 

natural processes would go forward. In fact, we could manage these 

lands back to a desirable state mimicking old growth or whatever 

age/class distribution or species distribution we wanted better than 

we could waiting for catastrophic or other events over a long period 

of time. 
10 

But the question would be, does your idea presuppose that we 

could look at some management activities on the tens of thousands 

of acres of second-growth lands that are set off limits in these reports? That is the problem here. Until we cross that threshold, 

right now there is nothing-they couldn't look at anything. You get 

50 miles in from Murrelets, Jack Ward Thomas reserves plus the 

additional stuff proposed in the SAT report, and assume all that 

is going to be off limits. About 30 percent of Jack Ward Thomas 

is set aside as old-growth, the other 70 percent is second-growth, 

and on the BLM lands the proportion is much higher because we 

have virtually no old growth on BLM lands. 

So, what assumptions would we make to enter into this so that, 

you know, we could cover any-because if they did the report now 

they would be restricting themselves to about 5 or 10 percent of the 

land base that is outside of the injunctions and the SAT report. 

Mr. WYDEN. Well, it would seem to me that we ought to tie this 

to the overall solution that we hope will begin to develop on Friday. 

With the timber summit, as you know, we are going to try to move 

from there to a comprehensive resolution of natural resources policy, deal with the injunctions, and I would like to see what we are 

talking about here with the amendments on the K-V fund tied into 

it. 

I think you have a legitimate concern here. If you did it right 

now you wouldn't even be able to look at many lands. But clearly 

that is going to change, or we hope it will change, as we get a comprehensive resolution through legislation and really make that beginning effort on Friday. 

The fact of the matter is that there are a variety of uncertainties 

about this legislation. For example, the question that I thought one 

of our colleagues might ask-and maybe everybody is sparing me 

this as well-is, how much it will cost. You have asked the question of essentially, where do you do it. We would also have the 

question of how much it will cost. I mean the cost is going to be 

determined by how much work needs to be done, the planning and 

thinning and conversion and fertilization. And your question goes 

a step further with respect to exactly where it ought to be done, 

given the situation with the injunctions. My own sense is that we 

ought to tie this bill into the comprehensive solution that we begin 

to see develop Friday and in the days afterward. 

Mr. VENTO. Further questions? Mr. LaRocco, did you have a 

question of our colleague? 

Mr. LARocco. How much will this cost? [Laughter.] 

No. 

Mr. WYDEN. What I could tell my colleague is--

Mr. VENTO. As much as you want to spend. Yes. 

Mr. WYDEN [continuing]. CRS gave us some potential estimates 

and they are really extraordinary. But I appreciate my colleague 

sparing me that cost question. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I think we are talking about investment, and 

I know my colleague supports investment. This is not cost. This is 

investment. 

Mr. LARocco. This appears to be good infrastructure and investment in the future. 
11 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Environmental infrastructure. Forest infrastructure. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Smith has a question or a comment. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make one 

statement, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. 

I just want to say that what we have here, and what I stumbled 

on in trying to look at the forest health issue, is that when you 

stick your neck out a little bit on these issues you find that the 

timber industry and the environmental community and many other 

interests are very willing to talk about this and come to the table 

and try and resolve this. Obviously our colleague has been able to 

bridge that gap already with his legislation in the State of Oregon 

and in the Northwest. I am still working on that to perfect it in 

terms of my bill getting the support of the environmental community plus the timber industry. But this I think is a message for the 

Congress to continue working in this area, because we have these 

pent-up demands on the forests, and I think we are going to hear 

from the Chief on that because he has written to me about where 

they can start these projects immediately. The benefits to the forests and to our Nation are documented. 

So I think it is incumbent upon us in these committees and the 

Members of Congress to continue to work to see if we can pass legislation and work in this area. I commend the gentleman for bringing us his proposal. 

I would yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to 

make a point to my friend. He mentioned the Congressional Research Service. Frankly, I don't have much respect nor depend 

much on their thoughts. Everybody around here knows the majority party runs the Congressional Research Service, and it is kind 

of like playing Jeopardy. When the majority party wants an answer 

they send it down to the Congressional Research Service and then 

CRS fills in the question. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WYDEN. I would only say to my friend, besides expressing 

the fact that I always respect what he has to say, the gentleman 

who did the work on this particular CRS study used to work for 

the National Forest Products Association, and I do not know of any 

criticisms that have been made with respect to his reforestation efforts. There have been other issues that have been more debatable, 

but I think the fact that our friend Wally Herger is on this legislation, and my colleague has been on many of my bills over the 

years, attests to the fact that we want to go about this in a bipartisan way. 

And I think that the work that CRS has done on this particular 

issue with respect to reforestation is not open to some of the debate 

that has been held on other issues. 

I thank my friend. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If the gentleman would yield further, have got to 

say that I didn't know that rule prevailed. I once got an answer 

that I didn't want from the American Law Division. So either they 

just didn't know that I was a Democrat, or perhaps I should ask 

for an investigation of how they came to that conclusion, if that is 

the way it is supposed to work. 
12 

Mr. VENTO. Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not 

their own facts. So we won't deal with the assassination of the messenger at this hearing any further, I hope. 

I think that there has been a stream of new realities and data 

that have come out and much of it has placed and expanded the 

problems faster than we can the solutions in this issue. 

The thought occurs to me that suggesting limitations in terms of 

harvest is not enough. The other manifestations of what goes on 

with forest health, as my colleague from Idaho has discovered in 

trying to write policy along these lines, also are issues which need 

to be explored. What is their impact on the other laws, including 

the Endangered Species Act and other factors. Now, that is really 

what we have to explore. Beyond understanding what will result 

in a good secondary growth for timber harvest, what is the impact 

of thinning and other activities, as Congressman DeFazio has also 

implied, with regard to other species and watersheds and how does 

that impact. What is the resource management plan for these 

areas, what are we pursuing, how are we doing it, do we have the 

dollars, and so forth. 

I think there are many questions that could be and should be addressed, either today or as an outcome of the hearings that we 

have initiated. We appreciate our colleague from Oregon trying to 

bravely present some answers to us this morning, and look forward 

to working with him. 

Thank you very much, Ron. 

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome the first panel of witnesses, the professionals that very often we rely upon for ideas. I 

noted as I was reading my opening statement we were addressing them. I am very pleased to welcome Chief Dale Robertson of the 

Forest Service; Mike Penfold, the Assistant Director of the BLM, 

Department of Interior; and finally, Ms. Joyce Fleischman, the 

Deputy Inspector General of the Department of the Interior. 

Your statements have been, by previous request, made a part of 

the record in their entirety, so you can proceed to read the relevant 

portions or to summarize as would best suit the needs of the committee and your expression. 

Chief Robertson, please proceed. 

PANEL CONSISTING OFF. DALE ROBERTSON, CHIEF, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; MICHAEL 

PENFOLD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR LANDS AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ED 

SHEPARD, BLM FORESTER; AND JOYCE N. FLEISCHMAN, 

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STATEMENT OF F. DALE ROBERTSON 

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

summarize my statement. 

First, thanks for holding this hearing to talk about the investment needs for the national forests and public lands in the Pacific 

Northwest. In the case of the Forest Service, we manage over 24 
13 

million acres in the States of Oregon and Washington, and that 

represents about 19 percent of the total land base in those two 

states. And as you have pointed out this morning, the management 

of the national forests in the Pacific Northwest is undergoing significant change. It is changing because of us moving to ecosystems 

management and making adjustments to reflect new scientific information about biological diversity and the health of the forests, 

and ecosystems management, changing public expectations about 

how these national forests should be managed, and finally, but not 

least, dealing with some threatened and endangered species such 

as the spotted owl, the salmon and marbled murrelet. 

All of these factors are significantly changing the management of 

the national forests in the Pacific Northwest. So, as we look to the 

future and begin to deal with these changes, it is evident that there 

is a large amount of work that needs to be done to restore the forest ecosystem in the Pacific Northwest so that the national forests 

represent healthy and productive and biologically diverse 

ecosystems. And, in addition, there is a large backlog of work related to the rehabilitation of our recreation facilities and trails, and 

other jobs that we do on the national forest. 

Let me just throw out a few examples of the kinds of work 

projects that could be undertaken and could be accelerated: restoring and protecting wetlands, restoring riparian areas, improving 

watershed conditions, restoring fisheries and wildlife habitat, closing roads that we no longer need, cleanup of abandoned mine sites, 

treating timber stands to increase growth and vigor, improve forest 

health so that the forest is better able to withstand insect and disease outbreaks and wildfire, and finally, we need to rehabilitate 

our recreation facilities and trails and improve wilderness management. 

I think just as one example of the kind of need we have to restore the forest ecosystem is the Blue Mountains of northeastern 

Oregon and southeastern Washington, Congressman Smith's district. There we have about 50 percent of the forests where many 

of the trees are dying, and the scientists are describing this area 

as basically out of ecological balance, and that is lar~ely due to the 

exclusion of fire over time. Over the last 75 years 1t has changed 

the composition of species in the forest, the forest is overcrowded 

and it has just not been able to deal with the tremendous stress 

that it has faced over the last 6 years due to drought conditions. 

So the past 6 years' drought has stressed the forest to the point 

that insects, disease and wildfires kills thousands of acres of trees 

each year, and there is much work to be done here to reverse this 

trend, and part of our strategy is to restore the health of the Blue 

Mountain ecosystem, which includes reforestation, timber stand 

improvement, restoring the fish and wildlife habitat, revegetating 

riparian areas, thinning the forests and doing more prescribed 

burning. So that is just one example on four national forests where 

there is a lot of work that we need to do to restore the ecosystem 

in the Pacific Northwest. 

So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, there is much work to be done 

on the national forests in the Pacific Northwest. First, to put these 

national forests in a healthy, productive and biologically diverse 

condition. Two, to rehabilitate our recreation facilities and trails 

68-303 o - 93 - 2 
14 

and improve wilderness management, as well as expand recreational opportunities on the national forests through some selective high priority investments and construction projects. And finally, to intensively manage the forest for all of its values and all 

of its uses, including timber, in an ecosystem management framework. 

So when you put all these needs together we have a big job 

ahead of us to develop an investment program for the national forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Chief Robertson follows:] 

STATEMENT OFF. DALE RoBERTSON, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. Chairman and membera of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss our efforts towards the rehabilitation, reforestation, and reinvestment in 

the National Forests of the Pacific Northwest. 

The Pacific Northwest Region includes over 24 million acres of National Forest 

System lands on 19 National Forests in the States of Washington and Oregon. Thia 

is 19 percent of the total lands of the two States. These 19 National Forests are guided by the Land and Resource Management Plana that were developed in accord- ance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. The Forest Service 

is committed to using an ecosystem approach to implement these plans and assure the long-term sustainability of the resources. In recent years, the Forest Service has attempted to meet greatly increased public 

demands for the full range of goods and services while at the same time addressing 

the growing public concern over a broad array of environmental issues. We are now working to adjust to new scientific information about biological diversity and ecosystem management, meeting new evolving public expectations, and dealing with 

threatened and endangered species, such 88 spotted owl, salmon, and marbled 

murrelet. These factors significantly change the management of the National Forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

The Pacific Northwest Region is implementing ecosystem management to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resources under its management. The Region has an inventory of backlog restoration and rehabilitation work needed for the improvement of National Forest System lands. The need to reduce this backlog wu recognized in the President's initiative "A Vision of Change for America" to "protect natural resources and reinvest in America's infrastructure." This inventory includes 

projects addressing ecosystem restoration, forest health improvement, recreation 

and wilderness use, range management, trail maintenance and construction, and 

recreation construction. These are explained in more detail below. 

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 

In the Pacific Northwest, restoration will focus on achieving healthy, productive, 

and biologically diverse ecosystems. Examples of projects that could be undertaken 

include protecting wetlands, restoring riparian zones, improving watershed conditions, restoring fisheries and wildlife habitat, closing roads to reduce soil movement 

and sedimentation, cleanup of abandoned mine sites, and treating timber stands to 

restore vigor, improve health, and reduce the risk of damaging insect and disease 

outbreaks and wildfire. 

The Forest Service is working jointly with the Federal, State, tribal entities, and 

the publics of the Columbia River Basin (CRB) area in developing a guide to man- age watersheds for the benefit of anadromous fish in the Columbia River Basin. 

Consistent with our commitment at the Pacific Northwest Salmon Summit, we are protecting and managing these watersheds and establishing monitoring programs to ensure that our management leads to improvement in watershed conditions. The 

Forest Service is improving its range management and administration to improve 

watershed conditions, with an emphasis on protecting and improving riparian and 

aquatic habitat conditions within the Columbia River Basin. 
15 

FOREST HEALTH 

The Umatilla, Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman, and Ochoco National Forests within 

the Blue Mountains in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington have developed a strategy of large scale, integrated treatments to restore the health of the 

ecosystems. Forest scientists estimate that 3.1 million acres, or 51 percent, of the 

four National Forests are "out of ecological balance." The past six years' drought has 

stressed the forests to the point that inaects, disease, and wildfire kill thousands 

of acres of trees each year. Streamside areas, soils, forage, and fish habitat also 

need improvement throughout the Blue Mountains. Preventative work is neceBBary now to reverse this trend. Part of this strategy to restore the health of the Blue 

Mountains will include reforestation, restoring fish and wildlife habitat, 

revegetating riparian areas, thinning, and prescribed burning. 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

The recreation activities in the Pacific Northwest continue to increase at a rapid 

pace. In 1992, visitors spent over 38 million recreation visitor days in the region's 

national forests compared to 3 million in 1930. This comes at a time when recre- ation facilities are deteriorating due to backlog of recreation maintenance and rehabilitation and a greater demand for more law enforcement at recreation sites. The Forest Service has plans to restore and rehabilitate existing recreation facilities to correct resource damage, improve sites receiving heavy use, and showcase na- tionally designated recreation areas. 

WILDERNESS 

The Forest Service manages wilderness areas for the public's use and enjoyment 

while maintaining their natural condition. The Region has opportunities to increase 

rehabilitation of heavily used or damaged areas, monitor ecological change, and improve wilderness management. 

TRAIL MAINTENANCE 

Because of the rising demand for recreation, the Pacific Northwest Region faces a high level of public use on trails. In addition, with the increase of dead and dying 

timber associated with the forest health issue, more maintenance is needed to open 

up and maintain trails in the forests most affected. 

The Forest Service could focus on labor-intensive projects to provide maintenance 

and to arrest further deterioration of our trail system. These projects will include 

clearing the pathways of encroaching vegetation, correcting safety hazards, and 

maintenance on trail tread, drainage structures, bridges, and signs. Major restoration will be a priority on many of our trails, including National Scenic Trails. 

RANGE MANAGEMENT 

Eleven million acres, or 45 percent of the Region, primarily on the east side of 

the Cascades, are located within grazing allotments. Increasingly, the concern over the anadromous fisheries in the Columbia River Basin requires the Region to review 

existing range allotments. The Region will amend or develop the necessary allotment management plans to 

meet forest plan objectives and NEPA requirements. The Forest Service is also 

working with the State Governments in Oregon and Washington on their concern over the level of noxious weeds and our response to infestations. 

TRAIL CONSTRUCTION 

Emphasis will be placed on the reconstruction and relocation of substandard existing trails resulting from age, heavy use, location, or lack of maintenance. The Forest 

Service will also respond to the changing needs of recreationists and increase access for persons with disabilities. New connector trails to link National Forests trails and 

other non-National Forest System trail systems to enhance customer service and 

satisfaction are in greater demand and will be addressed. 

Attention will also be given to trails and trailheads located in high unemployment 

areas, in Congressionally-designated areas such as National Recreation Areas and 

National Scenic Areas, and on National Scenic Trails. 
16 

FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 

The Region's Fire, Administrative, and Other (FA&O) facilities continue to deteriorate. There is a backlog of projects that will require aeveral years of maintenance 

to bring to standard. In addition, the recent enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act has placed high emphasis on accessibility to all buildings. 

The Forest Service wbuld provide basic maintenance and correct some of the 

major accessibility deficiencies in existing Forest Service buildings, primarily offices, 

and other locations where the public is served. 

RECREATION CONSTRUCTION 

The Pacific Northwest Region has identified a large number of major recreation 

reconstruction projects, including the need to meet the accessibility guidelines of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. The Forest Service is placing emphasis on major rehabilitation of sites that have 

deteriorated over time due to heavy use and deferred maintenance. Water and sewer systems which do not meet environmental standards will be replaced and ac- cess within developed recreation sites will be improved and upgraded. Facilities will 

be reconstructed to bring them up to the Land and Water Conservation Fund standards for user fee collections. Existing facilities will be rehabilitated to protect the 

health and safety of forest visitors and past capital investment will be preserved. The Forest Service is also helping to support the rural economic development in 

those communities most affected by the changes in the management of National 

Forests. In the last three years, we have taken a very proactive approach in reaching out to the communities in the Pacific Northwest. We are committed to assisting these communities to diversify their economy. We have seen many successes during 

the short time frame and will continue to assist these communities in their revitalization efforts. The Forest Service has identified a larger amount of work needed to enhance and 

protect the Nation's natural resources and infrastructure. We can ma~e major con- tributions to help distressed communities in the Pacific Northwest. The people of 

the Pacific Northwest would benefit from the jobs which could be provided on the 

National Forests. There would be a reduction in the accumulating backlogs, and res- toration and rehabilitation work would be accomplished. The infrastructure that 

supports our National Forest System programs would be improved. It has been 

through such programs in the past that we have been able to maintain support facilities as well as contribute toward improving the qualit}' of our Nation's resources. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I'll be glad to respond to any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. VENTO. We will withhold our questions until we hear from 

the other witnesses. Thank you, Chief, for summarizing your statement. 

We invite Mike Penfold to make his statement at this time. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PENFOW 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are pleased to be here, 

and I can say that we have the same kind of opportunities on the 

public lands as Chief Robertson discussed. I will be happy to summarize our remarks and concentrate on the forest development program for Just a few minutes. 

We beheve as do the 18 western Oregon counties that share the 

receipts from these lands with the Federal Government that these 

forests are healthy and productive. A lot of work needs to be done 

in some areas. The key factors contributing to this have been good 

stewardship and public investment. The O&C Act provides for 75 

percent of the receipts to go to the counties. However, in 1952 the 

counties returned 25 percent of the receipts, amounting to over $1 

billion, to the Federal Government to be reinvested in development 

and management of these lands. We consider the reforestation and forest development programs 

to be of the highest priority, and are proud of the success that we 
17 

have had in this area. We think it has been outstanding. Our success is demonstrated by the fact that there is at least as much 

standing forest volume today as there was when forest inventories 

were completed in the 1940s. 

However, recent stories and testimony by the Inspector General 

for the Department of the Interior have charged BLM with mismanagement of these lands and claimed a large backlog in tree 

planting and other forest development practices. These stories and 

testimony are based on a 1989 report by the IG that has not been 

updated. We do not believe that the lands are mismanaged, and 

are emphatic that the BLM does not have a tree-planting backlog 

in Western Oregon. 

I might refer the committee to the book that you have in front 

of called Western Oregon Forest Development Program. Do you all 

have a copy of this? 

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-This document may be found in the hearing 

file.] 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, we do have copies. 

Mr. PENFOLD. All right, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. It was distributed with our testimony. 

Mr. PENFOLD. If I could bring your attention to page 1 where 

there is a graph that indicates the tree planting success story that 

we have had. On the lefthand side is a yellow, orange and red 

graph that indicates the magnitude of the tree planting job we 

faced from 1989 up until the present time. The green bar chart indicates the tree planting work that has been done from 1990 to 

1992, and then the blue line indicates that there is a carryover of 

7,500 acres, which is a rather normal carryover. So we are very 

much current on the tree planting. This huge carryover was in 

large part due to forest fires that happened in 1987 and 1989 as 

well as some speeded up timber harvest. 

The forest development program concerns centered around the 

build-up of this treatment of 108,000 acres of plantation maintenance, 43,000 acres of precommercial thinning, and 178,000 acres 

of fertilization, as well as 3,200 acres of stand conversion. BLM 

concurred, in general, with the findings from the IG, although we 

did take some exceptions to the report. BLM recognized that several factors increased our program needs beyond the budget and 

work force capability. I explained the wildfires and those issues. 

Another point was that in 1984 BLM was enjoined from using 

herbicides to manage competing vegetation, and this required us to 

use more expensive treatments and that did reduce the acreages to 

some degree. 

Congress recognized the severity of these problems in the Fiscal 

Year 1990 Appropriations Act. They provided that 50 percent of the 

Federal share of O&C receipts above the estimate of the receipts 

in the Presidential budget would be returned to BLM to invest in 

forest management and forest development work. This funding and 

the dedication of our people have enabled BLM to make significant 

progress since publication of the I G's report. 

I refer you now to page 3 of that document. This graph, pie chart, 

indicates the accomplishments over the 3-year period from Fiscal 

Year 1990 to 1992. If you add those figures up, you will notice that 

there is a total of 430,000 acres of work that has been done in 
18 

maintenance, thinnings, tree planting, pre-commercial thinning, 

site preparation, and fertilization. Those practices have taken place 

on almost 20 percent of the land that we manage out there. A very 

significant amount of work. 

I refer you now to the chart on page 9. That chart is the forest 

development expenditures by major categories of work. On that pie 

chart, the important points for you to focus on are the green areas. 

This shows that 76 percent of our dollar expenditures have gone 

into on-the-ground work, and how that money was spent is indicated on this chart. If you have questions on any of this information, I would be happy to come back to it. The fact is that $113 million has been invested in forest development in that three fiscal 

year period. 

Mr. VENTO. This is in millions, is that right? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. That is 113 million total, so those are in 

millions. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I am sorry. Those are in thousands. So, if we take 

a look at intensive forest practices, that is a $14 million figure. 

Okay? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. PENFOLD. If I could focus your attention on page 10, that is 

the forest development by major object class. Here I would like to 

point out that 45 percent of these dollars were done by contract 

work, and that is the main point on that chart. 

The IG recently announced a follow-up audit of this program. We 

welcome this updated examination by IG and we are going to work 

very cooperatively with them on that. 

The success of our projects is significant. We have been able to 

treat sufficient acres to support the timber offered for sale over the 

past decade. However, we are limited in our annual budget capabilities and must prioritize treatment to those that give us the 

greatest return. Our first priority is to assure that harvested and 

burned areas are prepared for planting, are planted, and the maintenance work necessary for seedling survival is conducted. 

We never anticipate that we can complete all this work in any 

one fiscal year, and we normally defer acres needing treatment into 

future fiscal years. As I mentioned before, much of the carryover 

is anticipated and we don't consider it a backlog. 

Intensive practices such as pre-commercial thinning and fertilization increase the growth and timber value of young stands. These 

practices are very cost effective. The excess funding we received 

made it possible to make substantial progress in this area. 

I would like you to take a quick look on pages 6 and 7. There 

are a couple of other charts that I will refer to there. If you look 

at page 6 first, this indicates the pre-commercial thinning that was 

done between fiscal years 1990 and 1992, as well as the need to 

do pre-commercial thinning. On this chart, you will notice on the 

righthand side a fairly large blue area of carryover work that we 

believe needs to be done. The President's economic package would 

accomplish about 70 or 80 percent of the work indicated in that 

blue column on this pre-commercial thinning chart. 
19 

The next page is fertilization. We would be able to get some of 

that large carryover work done with the economic stimulus package, but that remains to be a fairly large workload that we face. 

Let me emphasize that these intensive practices were prescribed for treatment based on assumptions made in our 1980 timber management plans where rotation of 80 to 100 years was assumed. The 

uncertainty of restrictions on our land base due to northern spotted owl protection and the other species that we are trying to recover, 

the outcome of the forest conference and the result of our forest 

management plans and the completion of that, obviously are going 

to have a lot of effect on where it makes sense to make investments 

on these lands. 

I would like to reiterate that the investment in our forestlands 

is necessary if BLM is to meet its statutory commitment to managing ecosystems for the sustained yield and all the other species 

that are important in those ecosystems out there. The practices 

used by BLM are the most scientifically advanced practices available and are highly cost effective when implemented timely. Quite 

frankly, we are pretty proud of what we have done out there, Mr. 

Chairman. 

And this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Penfold. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Penfold follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PENFOLD, AssISTANT DIRECTOR FOR LANns AND RENEW, 

ABLE REsOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND 

PuBLIC LANDS OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, ON REHABILITATION, 

REFORESTATION AND REINVESTMENT ON PuBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL FORESTS OF 

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the Bureau of Land 

Management's (BLM) forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Coming as it 

does just a few days before the Forest Conference, this hearing presents an excellent 

opportunity to set forth the BLM's programs and to correct some misconceptions. The BLM manages approximately 2.2 million acres of forestland in western Oregon. This land, referred to as the Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands, or O&C lands, is valuable for many resources, including timber, wildlife and fisheries 

habitat, water, and recreational uses. The O&C lands are managed under authorities in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the O&C Act of 1937, and 

the Coos Bay Wagon Road Act. 

We believe, as do the 18 western Oregon counties that share receipts from these 

lands with the Federal Government, that, in general, these forests are healthy and 

productive. Key factors contributing to this have been good stewardship and public 

investment. The O&C Act provides for 75 percent of receipts to go to the counties. However, since 1952, the counties have returned 25 percent of the receipts, amounting to over $1 billion, to the Federal Government to be reinvested in development 

and management of these lands. 

From 1937 until the early 1980's, the O&C lands were managed using the 25 _percent government share and the 25 percent returned funds from the counties. This 

method of funding worked well, but was subject to the normal market cycle of the 

forest products industry and resulted in unacceptable fluctuations and uncertainty in funding. The Congress determined that the long-term nature of forest investments could not tolerate such fluctuations and in 1982 started directing appropriations for the manat::ement of these lands. Since then, the returned portion of the 

O&C Fund is deposited in the United States Treasury. 

We consider the reforestation and forest development programs to be of highest 

priority and are proud of the outstanding success we have had in this area. Our 

silviculturists and technicians are highly trained and have some of the most advanced adaptive reforestation research at their disposal. Their skill and dedication are evidenced by the fact that, despite the harvest of 48 billion board feet of timber 
20 

since 1938, there is at least as much standing forest volume today as there was when the first inventories were completed in the 1940s. 

Recent news stories and testimony by the Inspector General (IG) for the Department of the Interior have charged the BLM with mismanagement of these lands, 

and claimed a large backlog in tree planting and other forest development practices. These stories and testimony are based on a 1989 report by the 1G that has not been 

updated. We do not believe the lands are mismanaged and are emphatic that the 

BLM does not have a tree planting backlog in western Oregon. Our tree planting 

is current and we have conducted more than enough forest growth enhancement 

treatments to support the timber sale offerings under the 19801 timber management plans. 

The 1G found that the BLM, during the Fiacal Years (FY) 1987 to 1989, did not 

perform the planned level of intensive forest practices and did not place proper em- phasis on seeking access into timbered areas. The forest development program con- cerns centered around the build-up of a treatment backlog of 108,000 acres of plantation maintenance, 43,000 acres of precommercial thinning, 127,000 acres of fertilization, and 3,200 acres of stand conversion. The BLM concurred, in general, with 

the findings, although we did take some exceptions to parts of the report. Even before the 1989 IG audit of our western Oregon forestry program we recognized that we had problems and concerns. These problems and concerns resulted from several factors that increased our program needs beyond our budget and work force capability to respond. In 1987 and 1988 severe wildfires swept through southwest Oregon. These fires 

created an immediate need to reforest thousands of acres which had not been pro- grammed. Salvage logging to recover fire-killed timber over the next few years also 

added unanticipated work to our planned reforestation efforts. The fires also increased our workload in plantation maintenane&-that is, practices to manage the 

competing vegetation to maintain survival and growth of the seedlings-for the past 

6 years and for the next few years to come. Also at that time, contracts that had been extended as part of the Contract Modification Act were near termination and the lands had to be logged. This, coupled with high lumber prices supporting logging of newer timber sales, added acres in 

need of treatment beyond our expectations. Additionally, in 1984 the BLM was enjoined from using herbicides to manage competing vegetation. This required us to use more expensive treatments, thereby 

reducing the acrea~e that could be treated within existing budgets and causing us to defer lower prionty treatments. 

The 1G stated that it would take a one time appropriation of $48.2 million and 

2 to 8 years to eliminate the backlog. The BLM never received the $48 million ap- propriation, but did receive some aid. Congress recognized the severity of the backlog problem in the FY 1990 Appropriations Act by providing that 50 percent of the 

Federal share of O&C receipts above the estimate of receipts in the President's 

Budget would be returned to BLM to invest in forest management and forest development work. This funding and the dedication of our people have enabled the BLM 

to make significant progress since the publication of the IG's report. For example, over 430,000 acres-an area equivalent to 20 percent of our land base-received on- the-ground treatment over the three year period, including 99,000 acres of reforestation, 49,000 acres of site preparation, 157,000 acres of plantation maintenance, 

42,000 acres of precommercial thinning, and 85,000 acres of precommercial 

thinning, and 85,000 acres of fertilization. Today there is no reforestation backlog 

and the extent of the backlog in other treatments has been significantly reduced. 

We also believe that the approximately $113 million invested in the Oregon program over the past three years has been used in a prudent and effective manner. Approximately 76 percent of these funds was used to carry out treatment of 430,000 acres. About 3 percent was used to conduct inventories and maintain the complex 

records associated with this program. Approximately 16 percent was used for program management and support activities such as training and procurement. About 

5 percent was used for research and development, planning, and environmental as- sessment. I will discuss research in more detail later in this statement. 

I point out that 45 percent of our expenditures, or nearly $51 million, was paid 

to private contractors to accomplish a major portion of the on-the-ground project. Our forest development program is, and will continue to be, an important source of 

jobs for the private sector. The 1G recently announced a flow-up audit of this program. We welcome this updated examination by the IG. 

The succeBB of our projects is significant. We have been able to treat sufficient acres to support the timber offered for sale over the past decade. However, I do not 

want to infer that we are able to treat every acre prescribed for treatment by our silviculturists. We are limited to our annual budget capabilities and must prioritize 
21 

treatments to those that give us the greatest return. Our first priority is to assure that harvested or burned areas are prepared for planting, are planted, and that 

maintenance work necessary for seedling survival is conducted. We never anticipated that we can oomplete all of this work in any one fiscal year. We normally defer acres needing treatment into future fiscal yean. Much of the carry-over is an- ticipated and not considered backlog. Intensive practices such as precommercial thinning and fertilization increase the 

growth and timber value of young stands. These practices are very cost effective. 

The excess funding we received made it possible for us to accomplish these prac- tices. However, under funding for FY 1992 and FY 1993 we were able to do only a small amount of fertilization and thinning. This resulted in a larger carry-over into FY 1994 than we would like. However, we emphasize that these intensive prac- tices were prescribed for treatment baaed on 8811umptions made in the 1980s timber 

management plans where a rotation age of 80 to 100 yean was aasumed. The uncer- tainty of restrictions on land use based on northern spotted owl protection and the 

outcome of new Resource Management Plans made it unwise to invest in treatments 

for forestlands that may not be harvested or will be managed on longer term rotations where timber is not the overriding objective. We are beginning to get a clearer 

picture of what areas mar be available for future timber management and will start 

to treat these areas, oons1stent with applicable laws. Based on a recent assessment of treatments planned for accomplishment in FY 

1993, the expected carry-over of acres, and pipeline needs, we anticipate that the 

FY 1994 program need will be 45,569 acres of maintenance, 63,832 acres of 

precommercial thinning, and 162,370 acres of fertilization. 

The President's Economic Stimulus Package includes over $15 million for western 

Oregon management. Approximately $9.4 million of this is slated for much needed 

road maintenance work, with the remaining $6.6 million for reforestation practices. 

We anticipate that if this package is passed and implemented, 70 to 80 percent of our pre-commercial thinning treatment needs will be met. 

We have experienced lower bids for treatment contracts than we estimated. This 

is resulting in contract savings that we are using for more oontracts to reduce our unmet needs and to provide for local jobs. We expect that this will result in an additional $1 million worth of work being oontracted. 

Forest development work is more than ·investing in the visible protp"am that re- sults in acres treated. It is an extremely oomplex program that reqwres hundreds 

of foresters, technicians, and administrative staff. We have had to establish and 

maintain seed orchards to produce the seed for reforestation. We have gigantic 

freezers to store seed collected from hundreds of seed zones and elevation bands for 

several different species of trees. We have large coolers to store seedlings from the 

time they are lifted in the nursery to the time they are planted in units. We also 

have a large cooperative tree improvement program to provide fast growing, disease 

resistant planting stock in the future. All of these items are expensive, but necessary to maintain a program as large as ours. 

Another important use of the funds appropriated for forest development is re- search. The BLM has invested several million dollars over the past 16 or more years in research programs that have provided a model for adaptive research and technology transfer to practitioners. Two highly effective programs have been the Intensified Forest Researc},. (IFR) program and the Coastal Oregon Productivity Enhancement (COPE) program. The now completed IFR program resulted in state of the art 

reforestation practices in southwest Oregon. This returned to the timber base over 100,000 acres of BLM lands that had previously been withdrawn because they presented reforestation problems. The COPE program is continuing to study forest 

management programs in ooastal areas. Both of these programs were cooperative efforts among the BLM, Forest Service, State of Oregon, Oregon State University, industry, and local governments. We have also recently established a cooperative re- search center at Oregon State University that will be addressing forest management 

problems. 

Finally, I would like to address methods that we believe would improve the funding processes for our treatments. Forest management is a long-term investment. 

Stand treatments are not prescribed day to day, but over an entire rotation. There 

needs to be a better mechanism to help maintain funding levels equal to treatment 

needs. Several mechanisms have been suggested over the past few Congresses. The FY 1993 Interior Appropriations Act included a provision establishing a Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund. This fund returns the Federal share of 

timber receipts from salvaged timber to the BLM for forest health treatments. This 

will assist the BLM in more rapidly responding to forest health problems before 

they escalate into epidemics. · 
22 

I reiterate that investment in our forestlands is nece&88J'Y if the BLM is to fulfill 

its statutory role of managing for sustained yield for community and industrial stability. The practices used by BLM are the most scientifically advanced practices 

available, and are highly cost effective when implemented timely. We are proud of our programs and the excellent and innovative techniques we use in the management of our O&C lands. I have displayed much of this in graph• and other visual 

charts that I will 1ubmit for the record. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer questions. 

Mr. VENTO. We will now hear from the Deputy Inspector General 

before turning to questions for this panel. We are pleased to welcome Joyce Fleischman, whose report has been discussed already 

by Mr. Penfold, and perhaps she can give us more information. 

Ms. Fleischman. 

STATEMENT OF JOYCE N. FLEISCHMAN 

Ms. FLEISCHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the 

subcommittee, I am pleased today to appear beforelou to discuss 

the results of our audit work in the Bureau of Lan Management 

forestry operations in western Oregon. Our most recent audit on the Bureau's forestry operations was 

issued in September of 1990 and generally covered the period between 1987 and 1989. At the time of our audit, the Bureau's timber 

sales program in western Oregon was generating annual revenues 

of over $200 million. Although this program was highly profitable, 

returning revenues of over four times the cost of the program's operations-I think we estimated at the time approximately a $4.30 

return on every dollar invested-we found that the Bureau had not 

requested sufficient funding to conduct its forest timber growth. 

Specifically, the Bureau had not requested the resources needed 

to reduce the backlog of forest management activities that existed 

in 1989. Those backlogs at that time consisted of 108,000 acres for 

plantation maintenance, 43,000 acres for pre-commercial thinning, 

127,000 acres for fertilization, and some 3,200 acres for timber 

stand conversion. Based on historical cost information that we obtained from the BLM we estimated that the Bureau would need a 

one-time funding of approximately $48 million to eliminate those 

backlogs. Our report did not address reforestation as that term is used by the BLM to mean tree-planting backlogs. As a result of the lack of 

aggressive forestry management, substantial timber ~owth was 

lost during the 4-year period of 1986 to 1989. At that time we projected that revenues received from the eventual sale of this timber 

would be reduced by about $90 million. We also projected that the 

losses would amount to approximately $21 million annually until 

those backlogs were eliminated. At today's prices, the value of lost 

timber growth for that 4-year period would be approximately $104 

million, with an additional annual loss of $24 million. 

Also, we learned at the time of that audit that the Bureau was 

unable to harvest and sell an additional 800 million board feet of 

mature timber with a value of over $300 million. At today's prices 

we estimate that value of mature timber would be approximately 

$340 million. 

The BLM also could not effectively manage other timberlands 

that were capable of producing an additional $4.8 billion worth of 

future timber sales revenues over the 60- to 80-year life cycles of 
23 

those forests. The Bureau could not sell or manage this timber effectively because it had not committed sufficient resources to acquire easements through private lands that were essential to access approximately 132,000 acres of Bureau land on which the timber was located. 

Without this access, substantial losses of timber revenues will 

occur on an annual basis. I would like to emphasize that the report 

that we issued in 1990 considered the spotted owl controversy and 

focused solely only on those lands that were outside the areas of 

controversy. Our report discussed those management actions by the 

Bureau of Land Management that, if implemented, should maximize timber harvest activity on Federal lands that were not at that 

time restricted by the spotted owl issues. 

Since our audit was completed, some boundaries may have 

changed and some lands that may not have been included in the 

spotted owl controversy at the time, and those lands that we looked 

at at the time of the audit may now be included under various injunctions and other prohibitions of activity on those lands. 

The Bureau's response to our audit was positive, and the Bureau 

agreed to request full funding to reduce the backlogs and to acquire 

the necessary easements for access to Federal lands. However, 

based on information provided by the Bureau at the 1992 Senate 

appropriations hearings for its 1993 budget, at that time the Bureau told the Appropriations Committee that it still needed approximately $39 million to eliminate its reforestation and forest development backlogs. 

As a result of a recent congressional inquiry of my office, we requested the Bureau's Oregon State office to provide us with updated information on the backlogs addressed in our 1990 audit report. The information supplied to us by that State office in February of this year indicates that the plantation maintenance backlog identified in the 1990 audit has been significantly reduced, from 

108,000 acres to 46,000 acres. The BLM Oregon State office also indicated that the backlog of pre-commercial thinning has remained 

at 43,000 acres, that the fertilization backlog has been partially reduced from 127,000 acres to 101,000 acres, and that the timber 

stand conversion backlog has about doubled to 6,600 acres, and 

that there is no current backlog in tree planting or reforestation. 

However, we did not verify the accuracy of the information provided to us by the BLM State office in February of this year. We 

also were not able to ascertain or obtain information from them as 

to whether the Bureau has secured the necessary easements on private lands so as to access and increase timber operations on their 

public lands. 

Because of the significance of the audit findings, and because of 

the current interest by the United States Congress in these issues, 

we have scheduled a follow-up review of the issues raised in our 

1990 report, and we actually began the work about the middle of 

March-this month. Based on that follow-up audit, we will determine whether the Bureau has implemented the recommendations 

that we made to it in September of 1990, and whether the underlying program deficiencies have been corrected. 
24 

In addition, the audit will determine whether reforestation and 

forest development funds have been used solely for their intended 

purposes. 

That concludes my prepared statements. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Thank you very much, Ms. Fleischman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold, just let me see if I can get the amounts 

here right. I don't know if you have them, but you state you manage 2.2 million acres of forestland. How much of that is secondary 

forest management that would fit into this restoration type of discussion we are having today of that 2.2 million acres? 

It is important that we understand the base, because if we look 

at some of these numbers in terms of backlog you would wonder 

what we are talking about. Some of it is virgin; it has never been 

cut. Other is, perhaps, wilderness. I don't know exactly what the 

make-up is of those BLM lands in this area. 

Mr. Shepard? 

Mr. SHEPARD. Mr. Chairman, the figures that were included in 

this report were based on our 1980 plans. The new plans, the new 

RMPs that we are developing now--

Mr. VENTO. Well, let's just go with the base numbers that we 

have here. 

Mr. SHEPARD. The 2.2 million acres, with our new plans, roughly 

1.6 billion will be available in the timber base in some way. Fortyone percent of the 2.2 million acres will be available for inten~ive 

practices if the plans go through as they are now proposed. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. What you are looking at is a certain universe 

of forest in BLM that is subjected or being manipulated with regards to these activities that we are talking about today, which 

were, incidentally, the subject of the IG's report as well. 

So out of that 2.2 you say there is 1.6 that is available eventually 

somehow under the plan for harvest. But some of that has never 

been harvested. Some of it is not being subject to this fertilization, 

thinning, replanting. 

Mr. SHEPARD. I don't have a total figure for that. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. But, you know, when you look at that you say 

we have got 100,000 acres that need fertilization, as an example, 

and if you only had a million that were really secondary forests 

that are subject, that would represent 10 percent over a period, 

since the 1940s, that they have had a program going on it would 

represent a substantial backlog. 

The difference here, Mr. Penfold, is your program is not driven 

by forest receipts; is that correct? Not strictly? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Driven from the standpointMr. VENTO. Dependent upon a fund that is set aside from allocations of receipts, you know, when you make sales. 

Mr. PENFOLD. That is true, and the Congress appropriates. 

Mr. VENTO. The Congress appropriates directly. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If the chairman would yield for just a second? 

Mr. VENTO. I yield. I yield. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Except for the portion which is contributed by the 

counties, which through the appropriations process which is onequarter of the receipts. So that amount does vary according to the 

receipts. 
25 

Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. DeFazio makes a very important point there. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, O&C is sort of a special category. So that 

is a factor. 

And what about this issue? I didn't notice it in your prepared remarks, although it may be there. I was just looking at it for the 

first time this morning, Mr: Penfold. What about the issue of easements? 

We understand the checkerboard pattern of land ownership. In 

fact, I would like to get a little better focus on that. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes. The IG, I believe, would have liked to have 

seen a more aggressive total program for easement acquisition in 

the O&C lands. Our program focuses on those easements we need 

in the near, coming years, so we disagreed that we had any significant and major problem as far as not being able to acquire the 

easements that we need. And, of course, there are reciprocal agreements in the areas where you have large private holdings. 

But easement problems primarily are when you are getting up 

into the checkerboard, so there is a large need for better easements 

out there. But we think that we are keeping up fairly well with our 

priority needs. 

Mr. VENTO. Recently we had a report back from the GAO that 

indicated that a lot of public lands in the West, in fact, nearly 50 

million acres, are inaccessible and essentially locked up because of 

easement problems. This is, obviously, a different case here. I think 

we are talking about easements for the purpose of some of the restoration, some of the reforestation work apparently and/or preparation for sale. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes. Most of our acquisition of easements is focused around forestry practices, and across the West there is a 

huge need for a more aggressive allocation of funds to acquire public easements and to do exchanges to provide legal rights-of-ways. 

That is a big problem area across the Western States. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Fleischman, did you want to comment on any of 

this in terms of my questions? 

Ms. FLEISCHMAN. At the time we did this audit regarding the 

question of easements, the Bureau told us that they needed ap- proximately 885 easements to obtain access to 800 million board 

foot of harvestable timber; that is, mature timber ready to cut, and 

the value of that timber at that time was $302 million. They had 

a total of $300,000 and 6 full-time positions dedicated to obtaining 

those 885 needed easements. Needless to say, we estimated that if 

they continued at that rate it would take 25 years to obtain the 

necessary easements to get to that timber. 

We hope that they have improved that dedication of personnel 

and resources, because 25 years strikes me as a long time to go to 

try to get easements to harvestable mature timber. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Obviously, a lot of programs in western Oregon 

will need to be looked at in light of new approaches that are being considered in our western Oregon plans and what comes out of the 

forest conference. It would be nice to have, of course, an easement 

acquisition program that is substantial and very long, future looking. I think we will have a substantial easement acquisition need 

when our plans are completed. 
26 

My point was that in terms of the priority access for timber sale 

purposes we felt we were keeping up pretty well. It was a little bit 

as opposed to a long-term program that would acquire all of our 

easement needs for a 25-year period, for example. 

Mr. VENTO. Chief Robertson, can you comment? You don't have 

the same challenge with regards to easement, but I guess you still 

have some problems in the area. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, we have a serious problem. It is not like 

BLM because of the checkered ownership, although we have some 

checkered ownership. But we have an active rights-of-way easement program. I think we acquire about 500 rights-of-ways or easements a year. 

Mr. VENTO. In Region VI? 

Mr. RoBERTSON. No, that is national. 

Mr. VENTO. National, yes. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. And we have ~ot large chunks of that 50 million 

acres or whatever it is that we still need access to. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, that is a nationwide figure for all public lands that GAO provided for us. 

Very often, Chief Robertson, the work for reforestation plantation 

is financed by timber purchases, isn't that correct, or are there 

other dollars that come through other means? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. It is a combination of what we call K-V funds 

from timber receipts, plus appropriated dollars. 

Mr. VENTO. And so what has the ratio been in recent years? You 

can always fill in the numbers here specifically if you feel more 

comfortable, but I would like to get sort of a thumbnail sketch of 

it now. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, for example, in Fiscal Year 1993 for reforestation we had $57 million of K-V money in Re~on VI, and we 

only had about a little over nine million appropnated dollars, so 

that is about 6-to-1 K-V. But most of our need for reforestation is 

created by timber sales and the need to replant and reforest those 

areas. 

Mr. VENTO. Do we reprocess all the funding through the timber 

sales and eventually harvest? I guess at the time of harvest is 

when we receive the dollars. But do we finance almost all of the 

dollars? The individual contractors that are doin~ the harvest, do 

they have certain responsibilities? They have credits for road-building and other types of activities that go on. Do they have other responsibilities that go on in terms of replanting or restoration at the 

same time? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, we have a timber sale contract with very 

detailed provisions about erosion control and fires and all of that. 

But in the case of reforestation and timber stand improvement, as 

they pay for the timber we take a certain percent of that, which 

is determined before the sale is made, and put it into what we call 

the K-V fund, which then is used for timber stand improvement, reforestation, as well as watershed and fish and wildlife habitat 

work. So, in that case we take the money out of the receipts. 

Now occasionally but not very often we will contract back or 

work out an arrangement where they will do some of this work. 

Mr. VENTO. Much of this is dependent upon a reframing of all 

the plans and putting in all the new information that we need. I 
27 

commented earlier that the receipts are declining in the area. You 

are reducing your work force in the Pacific Northwest, is that correct, Chief? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. And the planned reduction this year is about 900 

full-time equivalents? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, that is over the last couple of years. We 

have proposed about a 900 to 1,000 reduction in our primarily timber-related work force and that will be completed by the end of this 

fiscal year. 

Mr. VENTO. And are you exploring ways to add agency jobs in 

other resource management areas, such as wildlife or recreation? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, our budget is expanding in recreation and 

fish and wildlife, so we are doing a lot of retraining and as people 

related to timber sales, if they can fit into one of the expanding 

programs, we are doing that and then doing some retraining for 

the new job. But we are trying to place our people to the extent 

we can--

Mr. VENTO. So there is a shift in terms of personnel focus here. 

You are increasing the numbers in other areas as the timber specialists are retrained, and through attrition, mostly, you are trying 

to do it. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. It is a combination of a transfer between programs and attrition. But you can't always take somebody from a 

timber program. For example, if you need a fisheries biologist, you 

can't very well take a forester from a timber sale program. So there 

is some limit on how transferable some people are from one job to 

the other. But to the extent we can make them qualified for the 

new job through training, or retraining, we are doing that. 

Mr. VENTO. Are you actually asking for changes in the ap:propria- tions and requests of the Congress through the administrat10n concerning these programs, these wildlife rehabilitation programs? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. Our budget request that has come up the 

last couple of years or so have asked for increases in fish and wildlife and recreation. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold, the same for your budget on this? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, let me yield to my colleagues who have been 

patiently waiting here. 

Mr. Smith. 

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

Mr. Penfold, does the BLM have a tree-planting backlog? Mr. PENFOLD. No, sir. We do not have a tree-planting backlog in 

western Oregon. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I must be confused here. It sounds like there 

is criticism that you are behind in reforestation. You are not behind in reforestation? 

Mr. PENFOLD. No, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Is that what you are telling me? Why am I confused? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Well, I think the problem is at the time the IG 

took a look at those programs back in 1989 we had just gotten done 

with a huge amount of forest fires out in that region. Timber companies were cutting out their sales at a very rapid rate. So it appeared to the IG that there was a very large volume of many, many 
28 

hundreds of acres that needed to be replanted. They saw that as 

a backlog. We saw it as a big workload. We have gotten on top of 

that workload. So that I think is the problem, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. So you have corrected that tree-planting backlog? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Absolutely. We have gotten right on top of it. 

Mr. SMITH. And do you think the IG has recognized that in their 

report? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I think that the IG understands pretty well where 

we are right now in terms of their current comments that we just 

heard, and again we are ha\>PY to have them take another close 

look at it with the audit that 1s coming up. 

Mr. SMITH. I might just note in passing, while access to BLM 

lands across private lands may have delayed some timber sales, 

with the run-up in the cost of lumber and timber that is the wisest 

thing that has happened to this country probably, as far as looking 

at the benefits to the Treasury. 

By the way, on this question of timber-planting backlog, I 

thought there was a real attack by ABC News on Dean Bibles a 

week or so ago, and I thought he was condemned unfairly because 

I think this issue was part of the condemnation of Mr. Bibles. ~ 

I understand it, that initial IG report came out in 1989, or the one 

before this current one. Mr. Bibles didn't come on board until 1990. 

I understand that IG report had already been detailed and written. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Smith, that is absolutely right, and as an 

aside on that, I think that criticism of Dean Bibles was totally unfair and inappropriate. Dean has provided excellent leadership. ~ 

these figures that I have just presented to this committee have 

pointed out, he has provided excellent leadership to get that work 

done. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand the IG also was critical of the BLM losing money because of slow access acquisition. This item up here of 

$2 billion, is that possible? 

Mr. SHEPARD. Mr. Smith, as I understand the $2 billion, that figure was based on a worst case scenario. That if we did not do the 

plantation maintenance, I believe it was 108,000 acres that the IG 

reported, and we lost all of the plantations and had to go in and 

site prep, perhaps, and replant, and the potential growth that we 

would lose over the rotation, the 80 years, would be about $2 billion worth of growth. Of course, our top priority is tree planting and reforestation, so 

that would not occur. That was just a probability. Mr. SMITH. All right. Chief Robertson, does the Forest Service 

have a tree planting backlog? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Tell me again, review for me again the process or the 

procedure. I understand by law you have to replant and reseed 

within a period of time. How many trees do you replant versus one 

you cut? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, it is probably 30-40 trees that we plant 

per one tree cut because as you remove a big tree you replace it 

with a lot of small trees. Mr. SMITH. I understand also that in some cases because of 

weather restraints and other problems those reforestation pro-
29 

grams are failures. Do you revisit that area when you have a failure? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. You know, planting trees is kind of like 

farming. There are just some bad years sometimes. You have some 

failures, just like you have crop failures. We have been running 

somewhere around 90 percent success, and there is about a 10 percent failure rate on the average per year, and we do an annual survivor survey and then go into that 10 percent or whatever it is and 

replant. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Penfold, what are the practices of the BLM? 

Mr. PENFOLD. They are the same, and Mr. Shepard tells me our 

success rate is about the same as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

I was just in Oregon, as you know, Chief Robertson. You mentioned the east side problem. There are forests, you well know, on 

the east side, trying to harvest salvage, which has been an accelerated effort. It is my understanding that every salvage sale has been 

appealed-every salvage sale. How can we get through this jam-up 

if we are trying to protect forest health, take out the salvage in a 

proper time, never harvest near a stream bank, never go into a 

roadless area, and yet we can't seem to move the salvage that everybody agrees must be harvested? Is it stagnation of the law? Is 

it something that you can do administratively? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, some of both. The basis for the appeals is 

rooted in law, but there are two ways in which we can deal with 

those appeals: One, in emergency conditions we can exempt timber 

sales from appeals, and we have done that, I believe, in many of 

those cases; and, two, speed up the appeal process once we get an 

appeal. 

We do have draft regulations now to implement the new appeal 

process that passed last year as part of our appropriation bill being 

reviewed now within the administration. So I am hopeful that we 

will get those new appeal regs out shortly for review and comment 

and then finalized some time soon, and that will accelerate the 

time it takes to deal with these appeals. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Penfold, this is a hypothetical admittedly. I think 

that Judge Frye in Oregon really did not comprehend her decision 

with the implication of the elimination of salvage on BLM lands. Is there any effort by your Department to review and appear again 

before Judge Frye on this very issue of salvage with the thought 

that her ruling actually covered salvage when she may not have 

even considered it? 

Mr. PENFOLD. The larger picture is that all of our programs in 

western Oregon are being reviewed right now after the draft of our 

plans are out. As part of the Forest Conference, that is going to 

generate additional activities. 

What we would anticipate having is a very well coordinated program with the U.S. Forest Service to present to our various publics 

and the Congress. 

Mr. SMITH. So you are not going to go piecemeal, you are telling 

us, just on the issue of salvage. I understand this. As I recall, 60 

to 100 million board feet of dead timber in the southern part of the 

State of Oregon-that dying and dead timber-is infesting green 

standing beside it. It ought to be taken out quickly if we care any68- 303 0 - 93 - 3 
30 

thing about forest health or the rest of the timber. If you want a 

good example, you well know, you just go to the east side where 

half the timber is dead, as Chief Robertson has already indicated, 

and more dying all the time. 

So there is a good deal of salvage available, and there is a lot 

of disease-is that correct?-and we have got to take care of it. 

Mr. SHEPARD. We have a real problem down there in our Medford District. Your number is correct. I think we have somewhere 

in excess of 100 million feet that has been killed or damaged by 

insects. 

We did go back to the judge on a fire salvage situation, and she 

did release us, and we last week sold I think it was 8.75 million 

feet of salvage material. But as our plans are completed, and hopefully the conference is successful, we will be able to go back to the 

judge with something this summer. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a more global concern, and then I will get to more specifics. And the chief is familiar with the question; I have put this 

question to him before in budget hearings-I have listened to this 

without any background or knowled~e. 

I think that we are doing everything rou thought it was prudent 

to do or your agency was capable of domg in order to improve the 

productivity of these lands, given the problem, and we are not exactly certain on what portion of these lands we are going to be 

managing for commodity values versus other values. 

In any case, it sounds like you are saying we have got all that 

we need, and I guess I would question that, and I just want to restate the question in the hope that, given a new administration, we 

don't have the same kind of bullet-heads down at 0MB who are 

making you come up here and lie to us about your needs, which 

went on over the last decade. 

So, do you have all the money you need in these accounts to do 

all the activities that you think are prudent to increase the productivity of these lands? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Con~essman DeFazio, we--

Mr. DEFAZIO. And this is a question absent the restraints or constraints from 0MB or other people putting pressure on your budgets. If you could propose a budget, would you propose what you are 

going to get? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. On reforestation, we are okay, we have got sufficient funding. We do have a backlog of timber stand improvement 

work we could do, and there are about 429,000 acres of timber 

stand improvement work that we could do. We normally do about 

140,000 acres a year. So that is over 3 years of work that we could 

do on timber stand improvement, primarily pre-commercial 

thinning. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. And do you have a total cost on that? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. If we did all of that, it would be about $68 million. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sixty-eight million dollars. Okay. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Now the other thing is, again, pre-commercial 

thinning is a big part of that, and there is more coming on line 
31 

every year, but the sustainable level of timber stand improvement 

and pre-commercial thinning is somewhere in that 130,000/150,000 

acres a year. So we need that 120 to 130 plus do something about 

the 429,000 acres. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. And how about new activities? I notice there 

is a page in the BLM report where they depict pruning. Are you 

doing a significant amount of pruning in these reproduction 

stands? Is that included? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. In fiscal year 1992 we pruned 4,400 acres in all 

of Region VI, and I suspect the bulk of that was on Ponderosa pine, 

but there would be some Doug fir as well, and there was some fertilization. We did about 33,000 acres of fertilization last year. But, 

again, that is something else we could do more of. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would think that 4,400 acres doesn't sound like 

a lot of pruning. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is pruning a cost effective exercise, projected to be 

cost-effective over time? I notice private industry is doing it, and 

they are not usually involved in charitable enterprises. 

Mr. RoBERTSON. It depends. It is marginal in places. You don't 

increase growth, but you increase the quality of the lumber. So you 

are looking for high-quality logs for plywood and lumber, then 

pruning-and you have to grow them for a long period of time to 

get your money back. In certain cases it is cost effective; in most 

cases, it is not. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I realize for an optimal sort of clear log you would 

grow it over a long period of time, but taking something that is at 

this point, say, 35 years of age in an area where you are going to 

go in and do substantial harvesting, whether it is at that point a 

heavy commercial thinning or selective harvest or light-touch forestry, whatever you want to call it, given the future characteristics 

of the stand, I would think that in 15 to 20 years you would accumulate some amount of clear on the outer part of that tree, not the 

whole tree, obviously, and not as much as something that has stood 

longer, but there would be a significant increase in value. 

Let me just recount a story. When we took Secretary Babbitt to 

the Rosburg Forest Products Riddle, Mr. Ford, who owns the mill, 

made the point of saying that they had recently hired and added 

back a substantial number of employees on the clear veneer line 

because it was cheaper for them-they made money by adding back 

employees so they could get more discriminate sorts, so they could 

look for very small pieces of clear veneer. 

So I would assume that the economics of this have changed. That 

is, yes, you could say, "Well, we are looking at a very long-term investment activity." On the other hand, I think that maybe in 15 to 

20 years, given the extraordinary value of this veneer and given 

the fact that there isn't going to be much, if any, old-growth clear 

veneer available, that it would be a prudent sort of investment, and 

in fact, one whose economics have changed dramatically in the last 

year and will continue to change. 

Mr. RoBERTSON. I agree with you, the economics are changing 

fast. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 
32 

Now the same question to BLM. You have already essentially, I 

think, in your presentation shown that there are some areas where 

you have got some carry-overs, particularly fertilization, pre-commercial thinning. But beyond that, we have had the concerns about 

the access and others. How much more money would it take to satisfy these other than, you know, annual recurring backlogs? How 

much would it take to get us basically up-to-date and only dealing 

then with future occurrences? 

Mr. SHEPARD. The estimate we have right now is around $48 million and approximately 3 years to do it in. I would caveat that. 

That is with the uncertainty of not knowing what land is going to 

be available. It would just not pay to pre-commerciallr tend an 

area that is going to be managed on a 300-year rotation or not 

managed for timber at all. 

AB far as the easements go, I don't have a number on that. However, I would state that we have never been unable to offer our 

ASQ as a result of easements. We get the easements as we go, and 

that is why they are spread out over a large number of years. We 

would like to see more emphasis on easing that position, but it 

hasn't really stopped us from selling timber. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Since you depicted the pruning activities, how 

many acres of pruning did BLM engage in, do you know? 

Mr. SHEPARD. We are just starting to get into pruning. We have 

done very little of that right now. It is somethin~ we are looking 

at as the economics change, as you mentioned. Right now, that is 

not a part of our timber management plans, but may be in the future. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

Just back to the chief for a second: I assume on your pre-commercial thinning backlog the same question prevails; that is, in 

terms of what percentage, some percentage, of those 400-someodd--

Mr. ROBERTSON. Four hundred and twenty-nine thousand acres. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right-would possibly not be in a future timber 

base? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No. Well, I should be careful about what is in 

our timber base and what isn't. It is what we anticipate that would 

be in our timber base. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Given the proposed recovery plan, or given your 

proposed plans, or what is the caveat? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, I would say there is an element of uncertainty about this, and I don't know to what degree. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield, I would have the same 

question to the Chief that Mr. Penfold wasn't able to answer, and 

that is, what you are basically talking about is secondary growth 

areas, and I was just wondering what your universe is. You have 

24 million acres, but you subtract from that wilderness, you subtract a lot of other areas, and then you subtract virgin areas, because you obviously aren't pre-thinning in those areas, I don't 

think. 

I think it would be useful for us, especially retrospectively looking at what is the base number of acres we are talking about here 

in secondary growth as opposed to the whole 24 million acres, and 

excluding the virgin areas, if you would give us some idea of that, 
33 

Chief. So then we would know that 429,000 is an example; if you have 10 million acres, then we would know that it is about 5 percent. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And there is also the west side/east side. I mean 

you can answer the question pretty readily up front. If you use Wilderness Society numbers, of the acres in question in the Gang of 

Four report, which are west side USFS, you would have 3.8 million 

acres in old-growth and 10.2 million acres in other. Now that is 

rounded. But then if you include east side, I assume that some substantial amount of these acres are east side, and I don't know what 

the acreage numbers are. 

But if the Chief could clarify those numbers, it would be useful 

for future discussion. 

Mr. VENTO. It would be helpful to me to get that eventually, I 

think, as well as from Mr. Penfold-if you understand the question 

I have raised. I understand you didn't have it at your fingertips. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. We would be happy to provide those figures. 

They are there; I just don't have them with me. 

[The information follows:] 
34 

Informo:tion responding to the questions raised by Congressman Ven to. 

ITU KV 

HCA 

5148 

The total number of acres available for TSI as reported by the Chief, 

as reported from the National needs are 429,214 

These acres are all in second growth, whi ch are al l suitable acres. 

There are no old growth acres in the TSI need category. 

The breakdown of available acres in and out of HCA's is as follows . 

OTHER Tot5!l 

53241 58389 

APPROP 

HCA QTHER Tot£!! 

29829 70080 9909 

34977 123321 158298 FY93 Grand Total 

FY94 

KV 

HCA OTHER TQ!;al 

8860 50306 59166 

APPROP 

HCA OTHER TQtal 

25158 84767 109925 

34018 135073 169091 FY94 Grand Total 

FY95 

KV 

HCA OTHER Total 

563 7 53148 58785 

APPROP 

HCA OTHER Total 

12653 30387 43040 

18290 83535 101825 FY95 Grand Total 

GRAND TOTAL (93-95) 

HCA 

87285 

OTHER 

1341929 

TOTAL 

429214 

158298 FY93 

169091 FY94 

101825 FY95 

429214 ACRES 

TSI treatments may NOT occur in an EARLIER Fiscal year t han listed because 

of resource manageme nt requirements and project scheduling. eg. FY94 

events may NOT occur in FY93 . This may not be as critical with the FY94 & 

FY95 acres . 

FY93 has ALREADY been funded for 108688 acres, leaving a total of 49610 

acres available for funding in the Appropriated category. 
35 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. DeFazio, I cut off your questioning. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No, no; that is fine. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One thing I would like to do is put in a plug for my legislation 

on forest health. We have the Forest Service and the BLM here. 

One of the components of my bill says that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior can declare a forest health emergency and go 

right into areas where we know that there is a problem, and one 

of the things that is impressive about your testimony here, Chief, 

is that in all of your concerns about forest health you don't just say 

this is one prescription, it is salvage sale, we have gone beyond 

that, and I think that is important. 

I have a couple of specific questions I want to ask. One of the 

discussions we had here with my colleague from Oregon was on the 

appeals process for salvage sales. You did not discuss how it is 

working with the Executive Order of the President, where we 

raised, I believe, the regional forester's ability to have a salvage 

sale from 100,000 to 1,000,000 board feet. Is that not true? And 

how is that working? Are you putting more salvage sale up under 

that Executive Order, and is that still in effect? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. We have delegated to the regional forester 

to make that decision, and he or she has the authority to either exempt the timber sale or not under a salvage operation, and most 

of the regional foresters are using that. 

Mr. LARocco. They are using that authority? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, sir, especially where time is of essence. I 

mean if there is time then they are not exempting, but if time is 

of essence they are using it. 

Mr. LARocco. One of the things that I need clarification on is 

ecosystem management. We all talk about ecosystem management. 

We talk about biodiversity, and you actually say in your testimony 

here that the Pacific Northwest Region is implementing ecosystem 

management to ensure it. Is this a policy now from the Forest 

Service that has come down to the field? Is it implemented? Is it 

in black and white? Is it in writing? Or is it an experimentation? 

Anecdotally, I had somebody in my office yesterday who said, "I 

hope you are putting in the requirement that the Forest Service 

implement ecosystem management in the forest," and I said, "I 

would if I knew what it was," because I still think that we are in 

the developmental stage here, but now I see it is on the ground. 

Help me out on how this goes from what you are saying here to 

the forest plans, say, in the Nez Perce, Clearwater, Boise, Payette, 

or wherever. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Okay. First, yes, it is policy. We will follow an 

ecological approach to the multiple-use management of a national 

forest, and it is an important, I say, ecosystems approach to the 

multiple-use management. Ecosystems is a means to our end, 

which is multiple use management. 

What that means is, we are going to manage the forest-"sustainability" is a key word here-sustainability of all uses and values of the forest, and we will manage these forests for healthy, productive, biologically diverse ecosystems over time. 
36 

Now that may seem abstract, but what it means is, we are going 

to get out of the plantation forestry business. We are going to be 

managing the forest, that part we are managing, and try to maintain very much of the diversity that exists in a natural forest-you 

know, some big trees, a diverse canopy, and the kind of diversity 

that you would find in a natural forest. 

When you move beyond what that means in this watershed or 

this location-and, I might add, we have a lot of demonstration 

projects, and we are beginning to try to fold in ecosystem thinking 

in everything we do out there, but we do have some very good demonstration projects. There is no answer, it is not a blueprint, and 

it is not black and white. 

What we try to do at this level is state the policy, state the philosophy, and how we are going to manage with a sensitivity to ecosystem values, but when it gets down to the end, putting it on the 

ground, we have to depend on our interdisciplinary folks-you 

know, the fisheries biologists, the wildlife biologists, the soil scientists, the foresters, the landscape architects-working together, 

saying this is what ecosystems management means when it gets 

down to this watershed level. 

That is the other part about ecosystem management. You just 

don't go in and look at the road or the timber sale, you look at how 

that road or timber sale, or whatever the activity is, fits into the 

bigger mosaic and pattern, because in the end we are trying to 

maintain a diverse, healthy, productive ecosystem over an area. 

You can't have everything on every acre, and so the bigger picture 

is very important. 

That is changing the way we have historically viewed the forest 

to a great degree, and it does mean something, because it means 

our people on the ground making decisions, they are making some 

different kinds of decisions so that this forest will look different 

than it has in the past. You will not see these big, square clearcuts or plantation forestry. 

Mr. LARocco. Some of that is reflected in your testimony, and 

I think it is good news. Quite frankly, in the drafting of the wilderness bill that I am going to introduce tomorrow we try not to be 

as prescriptive as prior wilderness bills in Idaho that failed, by the 

way, because they were overly prescriptive, and I think you should 

be given the chance to develop these new techniques and implement them on the ground. 

In your testimony here when you talk about protecting wetlands, 

restoring riparian zones, improving watershed conditions, restoring 

fisheries, all of this stuff is done with the idea of forest health in 

mind without simply saying we have got a dead stand of timber out 

there and let's go out, and it is a salvage sale opportunity. 

I want to ask you a question on policy. I am not going to try and 

set you up here; I will lay my cards on the table. Today there is 

a headline in the Idaho Daily Statesman that says that the Boise 

Forest supervisor wants to have a salvage sale in an area that is 

proposed for wilderness under the forest plan in the Needles area, 

and quite frankly, I am a little chagrined about this because I have 

announced to anybody that cared-and I assume supervisors carethat I am going to introduce a bill by the end of March. This is 
37 

under the proposed wilderness areas in the plan, and he is proposing a salvage sale in that area. 

There is plenty of salvage on the Boise National Forest, and I 

don't get it. I don't understand what the policy is and why we are 

making a big deal about this rifht now. I don't understand the timin~ of it, quite frankly, Chief; don't understand the _policy; and I 

thmk I should be given the opportunity to say where I think those 

wilderness boundaries go because we have had enough delay, uncertainty, instability in my region as it is. 

So I don't know what your policy is. That doesn't sound like ecosystem management, that sounds like it is playing to certain interests that say, "Hey, let's get it out of there. I know what forest 

health is, and that is taking that stand out." So what is the policy? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Our policy, Congressman, is to be very sensitive 

to where the Congress is in terms of proposed wilderness areas. 

Mr. LAROCCO. Yet this is under your plan. This is under the Forest Service plan. I haven't released mine. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Now, first of all, I don't know the back.ground. 

Mr. LARocco. I know, and I had that disclaimer. I just want to 

know what the policy is. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. But this would be a case where we are proposing a salvage sale in an area that the forest plan proposes wilderness? 

Mr. LAROCCO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, that just shouldn't happen unless we go 

through a long drawn out process. 

Mr. LARocco. Here is the headline, Chief, rit;ht here: "Boise Forest Urges Logging Of Trees Before They Die, and, "Officials say 

the trees in the Needless roadless are are too dense." 

Mr. ROBERTSON. We do harvest in roadless areas, especially if 

the forest plan permits that. But if the forest plan proposes wilderness fqr that roadless area, that is a different story. We should not 

be doing that. 

Mr. VENTO. In fact, if the gentleman would yield to me--

Mr. LARocco. I would be happy to. 

Mr. VENTO. The practice had been, when there was legislation 

pending and it was actively being considered-of course, Idaho, I 

guess, would probably get a little frustrated here with the plan 

having been on hold for a while-but when legislation is proposed, 

there is generally a willingness to follow out the provisions of that 

until such time as there is a decision on it, especially in areas like 

Montana where you really test the patience of the Forest Service 

to follow that. We are very appreciative of that. We would hope 

that the BLM would follow a similar practice so that it at least 

gives us an opportunity to continue working on these particular 

matters. I think you can see the problem right here that we face. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. If I could just follow up, Congressman LaRocco, 

it sounds like we have got a problem, and you and I or Forest Supervisor Steve Mealy needs to talk about that. 

Mr. LARocco. Well, I am going to introduce my proposal in 

about an hour, and we won't have a problem after that, I'll tell you; 

it will be very clear what we are going to do. 

We are going to move this process along, I hope, with the cooperation of my chairman. Idahoans have worked together. I have 
38 

had many town meetings out there. We are building upon all of the 

efforts that have led us to this point. You know, people are demanding that government act, and I think you are doing a good 

job. I like your testimony here, and I think you are moving along, 

and I think you are meeting the expectations of the American people. We have got a lot of work to do, as you know. I have got communities in crisis because of this backlog, and I'm trying to deal 

with that, and I'm willing to take the heat on it. I just woke up 

to this this morning, and I thought, "My goodness, what unbelievable ti min~." 

But I think my time has expired. I want to invite both the BLM 

and the Forest Service to work with me further on the development 

of H.R. 229. We are not there yet, but things are changing rapidly, 

and I certainly invite you to do that, Chief, and Mr. Penfold and 

the BLM. 

Mr. VENTO. I just want to ask a few more questions myself. I was 

brief in my questions, but if others have a question, just let me 

know as we are in the process here. 

Chief, your statement on movement from a plantation-like treatment is music to my ears and I think really serves as a signal to 

a changed attitude with regard to implementation of something 

called new forestry, which I know came out last year, and it is very 

encouraging to recognize that. 

Of course, given this particular posture-and hopefully Congress 

will be supportive of it-I think we have a potential to avoid a lot 

of the problems and put the Forest Service and the BLM back in 

charge of managing the forests. Obviously, all of us want to try to 

define and refine what ecosystem management is, which is difficult 

to do, but I certainly support that particular thrust myself, and I 

think the majority does in the House and Senate. 

Today, as I said, I need the base numbers. We need that in terms 

of focusing. You pointed out, Chief, that you have 429,000 acres 

that could use pre-commercial thinning, and other types of work 

would even be expanded over that in terms of watershed restoration and so forth, would they not? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, they would. 

Mr. VENTO. I have got some numbers here in terms opportunities, but could you give us numbers in terms of acreage with regard 

to some of those activities as well at some point, if not today? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, we would be happy to do that. 

[The information follows:] 
39 

Pacific Northwest Region Resource Needs 

Timber stand improvement • precommercial thinning 

Wildlife and fish habitat ma intenance 

Wildlife and fish habitat improvements 

Watershed restoration 

Trail maintenance 

Rec r eation and trail con stru c tion 

429,000 acres 

132,000 acres 

21, 900 structures 

3, 1 0 0 acres 

8,100 miles 

10 , 300 miles 
40 

Mr. VENTO. We need to have a base that we are operating from, 

if areas still remain uncut, virgin areas, old-growth areas, or otherwise. You don't anticipate sending crews in to work in natural 

areas that have been untouched do you? Chief, do you have work 

going on in those areas? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, we don't have a lot of work going on in 

those areas now. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I know, but what is the design? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I think Congressman DeFazio talked about this 

earlier. We have got to decide what the land base is that we can 

use for management, and once we determine that land base, which 

is very much up in the air right now, then we will decide how to 

manage that. 

So right now we have an injunction that we are staying out of 

all spotted owl habitat, and most of the natural areas that you described are spotted owl habitat. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Are there constraints built into the budget process that prevent 

forest supervisors and BLM district managers from asking for 

funds that they need for forest rehabilitation projects, Chief? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, yes and no. I would say yes, there are constraints, with a safety valve. But normally how we handle our 

budget process is, we ask our forest supervisors, regional foresters, 

to give us alternative budgets. One is a no change budget from last 

year; another one, plus 10 percent; and a minus 10 percent; so that 

we have got a range. So we do try to keep them confined to a realistic budget. But then the safety valve-if they have got something 

out there they just need to do, they can't fit it into the regular budget, they can send those projects into us. 

Mr. VENTO. Isn't this the case where there are dramatic changes in terms of use where we are going to need to liberalize that process? It assumes that the base numbers are accurate in terms of 

what goes on for watershed or precommercial thinning. 

You said these aren't plantations with monocultures of Doug firs 

and so forth, at least that if the ecosystem type of management approach. It isn't so much what we plant, I might say, that wasn't 

the criticism of the IG which I think came up here. It wasn't the 

issue of tree planting or reforestation. That is hardly reforestation 

in the ultimate sense. The criticism was that you didn't maintain 

what you have. It wasn't a matter of a die-back or bad year or 

something, it was a matter of not going forward and maintaining 

what you have. I think both of you need to address that. 

But let me first get to Mr. Penfold with regard to budget questions, and I will come back to that. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Our process is very, very similar to what the chief 

just described, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I also agree with your point. AB we see these new 

forest plans, we are going to have to take a fundamentally new, 

basic look at the mix of funds that we want to have to drive those 

activities. 

Mr. VENTO. It sounds like you got a little liberalization when the 

IG report came out, but because you are responding to O&C lands 

and there is a concentrated effort and legislative initiative in that 
41 

area, I think you are a little bit of a beneficiary generally there as 

opposed to maybe what the other BLM lands might be able to receive. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I think that is a fair statement. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me go back, Mr. Penfold, to this question of 

maintenance. Reforestation involves not just the planting of young 

trees, but maintaining them in place. I note that both of you have 

commented about fire and about drought and about other things 

but that the die-back rate is about 10 percent. 

While some of these factors can be important, they are all to be 

expected, I guess, in the normal weather patterns of the Pacific 

Northwest. We have got another drought, far north now, and the 

one in California looks a little better, but you have still got problems in Region VI and in the districts we are talking about here. 

What about the overall maintenance program? Wouldn't you 

agree that that is really more important than the planting aspects 

of this, Mr. Penfold? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Maintenance is extremely important. Going back 

with our field people to look at those plantations to see if they have 

survived, see if they are not being covered up by other vegetation 

and need to be released-maintenance is extremely important. 

Mr. VENTO. And that is the criticism. The IG's report really 

didn't talk about the tree plantation effort at all. In fact, she made 

a disclaimer today; Ms. Fleischman did. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Let me emphasize, the priority for our funds is 

getting the trees planted and making sure that the important elements for keeping those trees alive are taken care of. So that is 

where our priorities have been. We have not put as much emphasis 

on some of the fertilization and the pre-commercial thinning. 

Mr. VENTO. Chief Robertson? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, the same with us. Reforestation is the 

number one priority, and then, to the extent that we have funds 

left over in our budget, we do these sorts of things like pre-commercial thinning to increase growth. 

I might add, Mr. Chairman, back on a previous question, what 

we give our forest supervisors in the budget process is a lump sum, 

and they have the flexibility now to shift the lump sum dollars to 

reflect their priorities, and I know our present budget system permits supervisors now to shift money from timber sales or whatever 

over to other programs, and they come in with their priorities to 

me. 

Mr. VENTO. So they have money for preparation of sales, and if 

you get injunctions they can take the money out and put it into reforestation activities, commercial thinning, and other activities insofar as it will go. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. But they always get to the bottom line before they get through with the work they want to do. I mean that 

is just the nature of the system. 

Mr. VENTO. Their money comes out of the K-V funds, but it has 

to be appropriated out again; is that correct? Is there any direct 

money that comes back to you? BLM gets the 25 percent receipts; 

it comes back in, and they get it from the counties. You don't have 

that same sort of set-up, do you, Mr. Robertson? 
42 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, the K-V is that way. We do include it in 

our budget to give a full description in our budget, but it comes 

back direct and does not need to be appropriated. 

Mr. VENTO. What -is the health of that K-V fund now with the 

curtailment of harvest in this area? Region VI is a major contributor to the funds, so it is losing some of its size. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is correct. It is going down significantly in 

Region VI, and it will continue to go down. 

Mr. VENTO. It isn't due to the budgetary borrowing for fire funds 

at this particular time. In recent years, whatever else we did, I 

think we finally got the fire budget straightened out. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. You had it straightened out, but we still have 

to deal with last year. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, that is a typical problem. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. So we still have about a $294 million debt to 

pay off. 

Mr. VENTO. How about BLM? How is our fire fund there? We are 

not borrowing from land and water any more. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Well, we don't have a K-V fund. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I know that. So you borrow from land and water 

and from other accounts. We tried to straighten that out. What is 

the status of the fire fund over there? Do you know, or not? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I don't. I guess I can't answer the question. Fundamentally, though, we are not using the fire fund to plant trees. 

We do some emergency rehabilitation work, such as emergency 

water drainage and erosion control, but tree planting is done 

through other funds. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I could ask a few more questions, but we have 

got other witnesses. Thie is an interesting dialogue, Mr. Penfold. 

Chief Robertson has talked about the ecological management approach that is being articulated in the Forest Service and recog- nizes this. How would you respond to that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I appreciate a chance to respond to that question, 

Mr. Chairman. We have been in good coordination with the Forest 

Service on ecosystem management. We are taking a slightly different tack on how to get it implemented into our agencies, but the 

concepts are the same. We are making good progress. 

Last year, after a lot of consultation with our various publics, we 

published a document called "Our Growing Legacy." It was a more 

narrowly focused document on forests, but it recognized that we 

needed to take ecological approaches to determining what kinds of 

products should be coming off of those forests that the BLM manages. That is going to be expanded over this next year with our 

new director in a policy statement such as the chief has already 

signed for the U.S. Forest Service. So we think we are moving 

quite aggressively in this. 

Obviously, there is a lot that we all have to learn about how to 

go about doing this. We see it very much as a mix of taking care 

of the ecological resources on the public lands, being concerned 

with working with the different partners who manage lands in the 

landscape such as the Forest Service and the private sector we 

need to coordinate with, thinking a lot about the social economic 
43 

effect of those total decisions. We think that is all part of ecosystem 

management. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I think your challenge, especially with the land 

ownership pattern in the O&C lands, represents an extraordinary 

challenge to try to work with the State and/or other private owners 

of those lands. 

One of our goals has always been to try to study that process to 

see if we could come up with some degree of consolidation, but that 

is a really difficult challenge. I am reminded of the fact that even 

in the Gallatin where we had these outstanding natural lands last 

week, it has taken since 1925 to come up with a consolidation of 

about 80,000 acres out there in Montana. So these ideas sound 

good and practical when we are sitting here in the rarified air of 

the committee room, but out in the field, on the ground, they are 

tough to accomplish. 

I want to thank Joyce Fleischman for her work, and we hope we 

can welcome you back, Joyce, when you conclude the latest review 

of the Department of the Interior's activities in the O&C lands in 

Oregon. We will get a more current report on where the policy path 

has led with regard to these programs. Ultimately, we won't be 

looking back, or retrospectively, at what is going on but prospectively of what can be done in these areas, which of course is being 

kicked off this week again, with the optimism and hope that there 

will be ultimately a solution to this issue. 

The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, do you have any further questions? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you all very much. 

We are pleased to welcome a panel of distinguished witnesses. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. VENTO. Let me just call up the panel. We may be interrupted 

by votes, but I think we can probably get one or two of the testimonies done before we have to go. 

I am pleased to welcome Neil Sampson, the executive vice president of the American Forests; Dr. Gregory Aplet, the senior ecologist of the Wilderness Society; Mr. Jack Desmond, the director of 

the Northwest Reforestation Contractors Association of Eugene; 

and, finally, Frank Gladics, vice president of the Western Forest 

Industries Association. 

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

Mr. VENTO. We will have to leave in about ten minutes to make 

our vote, but I thought we could perhaps at least hear from one or 

maybe more of you at this time. 

Mr. Sampson, why don't you proceed with your testimony and 

summarize or read the relevant portions of it. 
44 

PANEL CONSISTING OF R. NEIL SAMPSON, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FORESTS, WASHINGTON, DC; GREGORY H. APLET, FOREST ECOLOGIST, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, DC; MARTIN JACK DESMOND, DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST REFORESTATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, EUGENE, OR; AND FRANK GLADICS, VICE PRESIDENT, 

WESTERN FOREST INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, 

OR 

STATEMENT OF R. NEIL SAMPSON 

Mr. SAMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to summarize and perhaps add a couple of points that aren't even 

in the formal testimony. 

I tried to outline some of the challenges that we are facing, and 

it seems to me that you have covered them quite well this morning. 

AB we know now, change is inevitable in those forests. You have 

either got to manage for what you want or get what you get, and 

sometimes what you get isn't what you want, so we have got some 

really significant challenges out there. 

I think there is an important point that you have brought up several times this morning, and this is that forestry is not agriculture. 

We are glad to hear the chief say that they are recognizing that, 

getting away from some of the plantation approaches on some of 

those lands that are pretty difficult. What you get when you try to 

reforest a place is liable to be affected more by what happens right 

around those years when you are trying to do it. We have got several million acres out there where reforestation failures have occurred simply because of the climate conditions, the weather conditions of that year, or some aggressive competition or some other 

things, and you have to recognize that those are going to continue. 

Our testimony today indicates that the work I have been doing 

with the global change issue suggests that our problems will get 

worse, not better. The variability that we are seeing in climate and 

the trend toward drier, more difficult climate situations, while it 

can't be predicted with any accuracy, is at least of a high enough 

risk that it seems to me that we ought to look at our immediate 

past this last couple of decades where, in the mountain region, we 

have had about 15 years of hotter, drier than average conditions. 

We maybe ought to look at that as the new norm and not as something that is outside of the norm, and that means really considerably more of a challenge. 

We poked a little bit into the notion of ecosystem restoration. 

One of the problems is that you had to put what can succeed there 

now. Some of the soils and sites are so degraded and so changed 

either by timber harvest or by some of the subsequent things that 

happen that you simply can't go back to what was and you have 

to go to what will work. 

I listed a few examples of our Heritage Forest Program, and I 

want to mention a couple or three things in connection with that. 

We are raising funds in the private sector and putting projects together in cooperation with public agencies, and we are doing them 

for ecosystem restoration, not reforestation, and I think that is a 

big difference that you need to sort of poke on a little bit when you 

go for the additional data from the agencies. 
45 

We are not looking at what you do after a timber harvest, we are 

looking at what you do with lands that have failed in the past: 

What do you do with those orphan spots out there, the really tough 

spots? They may have degraded significantly in the process. And 

the answer is that you have to do some things that are pretty creative and sometimes pretty expensive, and sometimes you fail, and 

you have got to be prepared to go back and do it again because it 

is going to take some investment and some persistence. 

In Mr. LaRocco's district in northern Idaho, we have had two 

marvelous erojects to try to reforest Farragut State Park, and that 

is a rock pile, if you have ever walked out there, and it is a rock 

pile that was tramped on by several hundred thousand scout feet 

over about 50 years, and it got to be in pretty tough shape. We lost 

a pretty significant amount of that planting last summer. It was 

hot, and it was dry, and we are just going to have to go in and do 

it again. That is about the size of that. There are a lot of places 

out there like that. 

I think as you look at the reforestation and restoration and rehabilitation and reinvestment challenge, you have got to realize that 

you get past the easy ones pretty fast and you get into the stuff 

that is going to take some additional attention and work and time. 

But the opportunities are out there. 

One of the things that I wish you would ask the Chief and the 

BLM is to tell you the difference between a reforestation backlog 

and a tree-planting opportunity because they are different. A reforestation backlog is always aimed at the timber base, and it is always aimed at the land that has been harvested timber. It says 

very little about some of those areas that have fallen out of the 

timber base in the past, been defined out of it simply because they 

failed at reforestation. 

There are about 218 million acres of forest that we classify as 

noncommercial timber land. Some of it is rock ridges that won't 

grow anything, but a lot of it is land that absolutely can be 

reforested. It is not now in the timber base, and therefore no data 

is collected on it by the Forest Service, and you need to understand 

that when they give you data they are ignoring that entire land 

base that is outside the timber base. 

So poke at that a little bit when you are asking questions. If you 

ask a different question, lou will get a different answer. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Could ask for a quick clarification here, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Are you familiar with the reforestation backlog 

that disappeared back now? · 

Mr. SAMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Those are the kinds of lands you are talking about, 

correct? 

Mr. SAMPSON. That is the kind of land. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

Mr. SAMPSON. My organization, well before I was there, held a 

conference in which the industry, the State foresters, the State 

agencies, and the Federal agencies all committed to reduce a huge 

backlog. Industry did it with tree planting, the State agencies did 

it with nurseries and tree planting, and the Federal agencies did 
46 

it by redefining those lands out of the timber base. Therefore, the 

backlog disappeared. Mr. VENTO. Well, as you noted, I was trying to get more definition on that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And what has happened to those lands since, to 

the best of your knowledge? 

Mr. SAMPSON. To the best of my knowledge, they are still just 

sort of sitting there, and what is distressing to us is that the data 

collection on them stopped happening, so that today, if you ask 

what of that land base is physically incapable, biologically incapable, of being reforested versus the stuff that is just plain nasty and 

tough or it has just grown up to a brush field and nobody wants 

to address it, the answer is, the data isn't there. 

You can go to any ranger district you want to and ask if they have got some, and the answer is yes; ask where it is at, and they 

will show you; ask them if they would like to do something about 

it, and the answer is yes. That 1s why our Heritage Forest Program 

works as well as it does. I really ought to single out BLM, who has 

probably been more aggressive than Forest Service in looking for 

these kinds of opportunities. 

At any rate, there is a difference between a reforestation backlog 

and a reinvestment opportunity, and you really need to poke at it 

to get at it because you won't get it out of the national data, in my 

judgment. I am going to stop with that. You know, the jobs abound out 

there, let's face it, and they are not just tree planting because, 

quite frankly, that isn't where all the new jobs are going to be created in the longer term. The thinning, the pruning, the fuel reduction, the prescribed burning that are needed to get those forests 

back in condition, that is more fire tolerant so that we have less 

disaster-wildfires. 

You poked at the pruning idea a little bit. Well, there is more 

than quality timber mvolved in pruning. Where those forests are 

abounding with those ladder limbs, dead ladder limbs, that give 

you high opportunity for crown fires, pruning can be a huge help in reducing that risk and in fire hardening those stands so that a 

ground fire is more likely and more tolerable. 

So those areas exist. It is particularly important that they work 

around the areas where they are already roaded, where the houses 

are, and where the risks are high. 

The money that we are investing in this ought to both be accounted for m terms of its investment as a future resource opportunity, but it ought to be accounted for as a fire risk reduction too. 

We just open the money pump and pour it all over those wildfires 

that start out there, and, quite frankly, a lot of that stuff can be 

prevented if we do the investment in forest improvement that is 

out there right now. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would stop and, obviously, would be 

ha_£py to answer questions. [Prepared statement of Mr. Sampson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF R. NEIL SAMPSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

Mr. CHAIRMAN, Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Neil Sampson, Executive Vice President of American Forests. Our Association has been concerned with the management and future of America's forest since 
47 

1875. The topic of this hearing is reforestation, and the evidence suggests that we have been leSB successful on our public forests than we expect. We at American Forests have not conducted a field survey of reforestation to 6ring before you today. Instead, what we would like to do is outline the situation that is facing the forests, 

not just of the United States, but of the world, because we believe this situation 

is moat relevant to the topic before you. The thrust of our message is that there are excellent reasons why reforestation 

has not always been as successful as foresten would hope. Part of it has to do with 

the way in which forests are harvested, and the environmental events surrounding and following that harvest. In too many places, the site has been so altered by the 

harvest that the subsequent conditions prevented seedling survival. We believe that 

many of those situations can, in the future, be avoided through changes in harvesting and reforestation methods; moat of which are being implemented (or, at least, 

tested) on the federal forests today. This is no panacea, however. We are further convinced that the reality of how forest ecosystems work, and the increased risk being created by global environmental 

and climate changes, could easily make restoration of health forest ecosystems more difficult in the future than what has been experienced in the past. 

And changing harvest methods in the future won't do anything for the forest 

where reforestation baa failed. There are millions of acres in that condition, and 

they need our help. That help, some of which is gong to be fairly expensive, should 

not be limited to those places where it can be justified on timber economics alone. 

We need to re-invest in our public forest for a variety of reasons, both economic and 

environmental, and restoring forest ecosystems is one of the ways needed. 

We believe the American public supports such re-investment. As a matter of fact, we have been very aucceSBful in the past three years in raising private dollars to 

support forest ecosystem restoration projects. Our program is called Heritage Forests, and we believe it ia demonstrating some very positive ways in which damaged 

forests can be brought back to ecosystem health. 

NEW ECOLOGY 

Ecologists are telling us some very important things about forest ecosystems these 

days, some very different from what we were told in the past. We call it "new ecology," although it was being posed by leading ecologists many years ago. Today, the 

messages are coming through in a much more direct manner, and they bear importantly on the challenges of managing and restoring forest. Some of the relevant mes- sages follow. 

There is no such thing as "natural balance," a "balance of nature," or a "natural 

steady-state system." Ecosystems, whether affected by people or not, constantly 

change, and have always done so. Many of those changes are highly important in 

terms of the ability of forests to produce goods and services that people depend on. Sometimes, changes can be highly destructive, in terms of how humans measure forest values. A lot of ecosystem chanJes are caused by natural conditions that proceed at a slow and gradual pace. Chmate change, species evolution and migration, and soil 

formation are examples. Others occur in an instant. Disastrous wildfires, major 

storms, and volcanoes do their thing, and continue to do so. Forests don't always respond to gradual changes in gradual ways. A forest may tolerate a gradual shift in climatic conditions, or a change in nutrient input, with no perceptible impact on trees or other major species for many years. If there is a change, it is lost in the "noise" created by the fact that trees live and die, animal 

populations cycle up and down, and the weather varies from 1ear to year. Significant change may be hidden for many years within the "normal variation in the system. 

But the forest may also paSB through a "threshold" where many or all of the trees 

suddenly die. Again, cause and effect may be hard to identify. Drought, insects, disease-any or al[ may be present. But the real cause? That's sometimes hard to tell. 

And it may be due to long-term, gradual shifts that we're still unable to clearly identify. 

Thus, recent changes in nutrient input, acidity, and atmospheric deposition could 

not be shown to kill trees, and a multi-million-dollar study on acid rain concluded 

that, so far as science could demonstrate, acid rain was causing no serious widespread harm to forests. But the changes are there, altering important ecosystem 

processes, and they will continue to manifest themselves as the system responds to 

the altered state. 

When the trees suddenly die in a forest, whether from natural disaster or a timber harvest, there's no guarantee that the same species or species mix will return, 
48 

or that the same forest ecosystem will emerge. That may be more related to the con- ditions under which the trees died, and the environmental conditions for a decade or two following, than it is to the "site" involved. This is conaistent with the "chaos" 

theory, which holds that many events and trenda in nature are ahaped by the 

events and trenda that happen to be occurring around them at critical times. Tree 

aeedlings trying to grow during a lolljC drought will probably fail; the fact that they 

happened to sprout during a dry ~nod instead of a wet period is a random event, 

but a critical one that may determme the forest's fate for centuries. __ When.a .new fores.tJs .becoming_est.ahliahed._lllllall_changes in environmental con- ditions tend to be magnified. It's like starting acrosa the ocean on a alightly wrong 

bearing; by the time you reach the other shore, you'll be a long way_a from your intended destination. Likewise, a new forest that starta up with a different nutrient 

cycle or micro-climate regime may be vaatly different than the foreat that preceded 

it. 

A new forest that suff'!rs repeated re-burna during the aeedling establishment 

years, or that hosts an unusually high population of grazing animals, may turn into 

grassland or a brush field, and trees may not return for decades or centuries. If 

the soil conditions and climate change enough, that ecosystem shift could go so far ae desertification and be, so far ae we know, permanent. Some of today's deserts were once thriving forests, but they won't be again without major climate change or human intervention. Most of the species that live within an ecosystem live out of sight, and many of 

the critical processes that drive the system are also invisible. Our observations and, 

for the most part, our scientific inquiry, have focused on the parts and processes we can see. So we know a lot about trees and how they grow, about large wildlife, 

and about how watersheds react. We don't know nearly as much about the little 

brushy species, or soil organisms, or now carbon arid nutrients· cycle through the 

species and the system. But some of those "minor" species, and the processes in 

which they play a vital role, may be a critical key in keeping the whole system 

healthy. 

GLOBAL CHANGE 

The industrial age has resulted in a rapid and continuing buildup of atmospheric ~ases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons. Those gases work m the atmosphere to trap heat in a somewhat similar manner to the glass on a greenhouse, thus the concern over "greenhouse gases" and the "greenhouse effect." 

Industrial processes also emit oxides of nitrogen and sulfur into the atmosphere that 

have changed atmospheric chemistry and altered the nutrient input into natural 

and managed ecosystems. Some of these compounds may also have a climate impact; 

probably a net cooling that may have helped offset the effect of rising greenhouse 

gas levels. 

Science has a hard time with these issues, because what's happening is different 

than anything that happened in the past, and it is happening on a global ecale, so there's no way to carve off a little piece, move it into the laboratory, and test it for 

certainty. We can't replicate events to prove cause and effect, so the debate rests on theories and models which, while absorbing the world's most sophisticated com- puters, are still, in the words of their operators, "very crude approximations" of 

what really foes on in the world. 

In spite o all that uncertainty, the likelihood of significant climate change is too 

high to ignore, primarily because the potential effects on human societies could be so enormously disruptive. When the stakes are high enough, even a small probability of occurance is enough to send us scrambling for our insurance company. 

"Global warming," as it is often discussed, is not the most serious threat. An aver- age rise of 1-3° C by 2050, which most scientists feel is likely, would mask significant regional changes, most of which cannot be predicted with current models. And 

it will proceed, if those predictions are correct, at a speed with which natural proc- esses may not be able to cope. 

Regional effects that reduce precipitation and increase summer temperatures will 

be the most important to agricultural and forest production. Those are felt to be 

most likely in mid-continental regions at mid- to upper latitudes, such as the United 

States, Canada, and RuNia. Some changes, such as a warming exl>ressed primarily ae an increase in winter minimum temperatures, might be of little impact. 

Natural forests may have a hard time adiusting to the rate of climate change, 

which many feel will be 3 to 10 times faster than the fastest recorded species migration rates. Another aspect of changing and unstable climate conditions will almost 

certainly be an increased occurance of major hurricanes and wind storms, which can increase the area of forest destroyed each year by natural events. 
49 

The forest ecosystem where trees are removed or destro;red under rapid climate 

change may, in fact, not return. If the conditions for seedling survival and success are not available in the decades after the trees die, some other kind of system will 

emerge. That system may or may not be what people need or want. Forest managers 

need to be ready to do what it takes to restore desirable ecosystems, over larger 

areasbwith more difficulty, and higher costs. That will mean a significant increase 

in pu lie understanding and support, led by policymakers in Congress and the Administration who understand the difficulty, and are willing to take leadership in ac- quiring the necessary priority and funding to do the job. 

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 

The challenge posed by climate change and environmental stress, seen in the light 

of the "new ecololn'" ideas, may force us to look harder at what the task to which we have set ourselves when we begin to try to restore forest ecosystems. 

In the past, we would have looked at the history of the site, and tried to mimic 

the forest system that was historically successful. Or, we might substitute a system 

that had been proven to succeed. In many places, that still works. Douglas-fir is 

planted on sites that supported a hemlock-fir mixture in the Pacific Northwest, and 

Loblolly pine replaces Longleaf pine in Southern forests. In many cases, those are good sites with excellent growth conditions, and perhaps the best successes enjoyed favorable weather for a few years. 

But the reforestation failures on many forests tell us that this can't always be 

counted upon. And, in some places, the situation has changed so dramatically that we simply can't expect an easy return to a healthy forest. Where topsoil has been 

lost, or the lack of forest cover has changed micro-climates into harsh, dry, over- heated situations, an entirely different set of challenges may be involved, and different approaches demanded. 

In those situations, ecosystem restoration may demand that we become more adept at determining what can succeed on a given site, in light of the current and 

future conditions likely to be critical. It may be, in many instances, that the plans 

needed to "colonize" a degraded site may not be those that are destined for longterm success. Instead, they are essential as a "bridge" to the ecosystem that can suc- ceed. 

Our Heritage Forest partners in Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Hawaii, for example, are all faced with the challenge of restoring tropical forests. Primary tropical forests 

contained hundreds of species; restoring that complexity is a tremendous challenge. 

But there is strong evidence that it is also unnecessary. Instead, what may be needed is to get the vertical structure of trees established, so that degraded grasslands can once again become a home for the tree-climbing, tree-roosting animals and birds common to the region. When those critters return, they spread the seeds of indige- nous species, and a complex secondary forest begins to develop. What eventually re- sults may never be exactly like the primary forest, but it can become an excellent 

tropical forest; highly valued for its many products, goods, and services. And it will 

be the ecosystem that has demonstrated the ability to develop and succeed under 

the existing conditions-a major victory compared to no forest at all. 

So our partners are planting Acacia species in many places, because it can be eas- ily established, and is a successful colonizer that can compete with the coarse grasses and other vegetation. It attracts the birds and tree-climbers, and they spread seed. In many places, the Acacia won't be found after 10-15 years; it will 

have been crowded out by the profusion of native trees established on the site. But 

it will have done its job, providing shade, nitrogen, and an initial structure for the new forest. 

In Indiana, I have seen tree farms where the farmer has planted 6-10 species in a single field. Some were planted on special areas because of soil or site considerations. Others provided early-succession shade and competition that helped longerlived trees succeed. Not all the trees-or species-will live to maturity, and the re- sulting forest will have many aspects of self-selection and response to changing environmental conditions. 

In Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon, riparian area forests are being re-established as a means of restoring water flow and quality in streams. The species are not commercial; in many areas seed or cuttings must be collected from remnant 

trees in order to get the right planting stock. The pioneer plants may or may not 

survive-a streambank i11 a pretty hazardous place for a tree to try to succeed, but 

the re-introduction of woody plants along the stream, combined with close control 

of grazing animals and some mechanical structures to help the stream begin to heal 

itself, are working miracles in some places to return mountain valleys to ecosystem 

health. 
50 

HERITAGE FORESTS 

The examples above represent a few of the experiences encountered in must three 

years through the Heritage Forests program created by American Forests. In this 

program, we raise private donatiqns for forest ecosystem restoration projects-tree planting, in short. 

We have had exceptional cooperation from federal and state agencies. We need to 

single out the Bureau of Land Management, whose employees have been quick to 

jump at the chance for a public-private partnership that could help them restore some of the degraded areas they administer. But we have also had excellent projects with the Forest Service, a variety of state agencies, and some private sponsors. The 

Soil Conservation Service, through its Resource Conservation and Development Program, has been exceptionally good at finding projects, rounding up co-sponsors, coordinating volunteers, and helping projects succeed. In terms of fundraising, we have developed outstanding partnerships with compa- nies such as MasterCard, the Winery of Ernest and Julio Gallo, TI industries (a 

manufacturer of picture framing materials), XTree (a computer software company), Fellowes (a manufacturer of storage containers), Reese Brothers (a leader in youth fundraising programs) and H. Alpert & Co. (personal care products). These companies, along with over 40 others, have involved their distributors and customers in a concerted effort to raise money for tree planting in Heritage Forests. We collect 

their contributions, along with those of school children and individuals from every walk of life, and assemble enough to make specific projects possible. Land managers submit project proposals-often projects that they have a portion of the funds to accomplish, but not the full amount. Many times, local cooperators add to the mix, often bringing volunteer labor to do the actual tree planting work. 

The result to date is almost 1 million trees, in over 30 projects. It's really just a drop in the bucket, we know that. But the pro~am is growing rapidly, beginning 

to make an impact, and1 more importantly, beginning to demonstrate that people who care, when they work together, trul,1 make an important difference. · We are tremendously pleased with this success, because we think it demonstrates 

several lessons of great importance to your concerns with reforestation. Those include: 

1. People c!U"e, and they will help. The American public loves its forests, and if 

you show them how they can contribute, within their means, to a bona fide improvement in those forests, they will do so. 2. Land managing professionals, in every agency, love the forests in their care, 

and agonize over the inability to get funding support to do the tough ecosystem res- toration jobs that don't show promise of clear payback in terms of timber or other 

financial return. We must not let our attention to budget controls 1>revent us from 

being willing to do what our stewardship responsibility demands. The fact that a few private dollars can make such a difference suggests that federal budget prior- ities need a hard look. 

3. Ecosystem restoration is possible, but not always easy. In some places, we've 

had failures. If we keep working on tough sites, we'll have future failures. Our Heritage Forest partners support that approach. We'll keep working on those failures 

until we turn them into successes, ifwe can figure out a way. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY IMPLICATIONS 

All of the above brings new challenges to forest managers. The first challenge may be to some fairly strongly-held views that have developed both among foresters, en- vironmentalists, and the _general public. Trees are not a crop like long-lived corn, and that becomes even more evident 

under climate change conditions. Trees, even in intensively-managed forests, are part of a much more complex ecosystem than agricultural crops, more at risk from 

changes in ecosystem processes and environmental impacts. Crops that live and die 

in a year or two can be altered to meet new conditions; trees that live for 20 to 400 

years provide far fewer opportunities. 

Forests simply cannot be totally removed from a site one day then replanted the 

next, without goini through significant micro-climate and site changes that may, in 

fact, _prevent aeedlings from successfully establishing. As a young field scientist for 

the Soil Conservation Service, I measured summer mid-da,1 soil surface temperatures of over 150° F. on open south-facing granitic slopes m southern Idaho. Our 

attempts .at re-establishing vegetation resulted only in tender young plants being cooked at the soil surface. 

Had those sites been shaded-even shaded for 2-3 hours at the peak sun angle, 

the situation might have been tolerable. As it was, it was impossible. It is my un- derstanding that similar situations were documented by the Forest Intensified Re-
51 

search (FIR) research effort in southern Oreion durini the 1980'a. Their conclusion was that the start of a aucceaaful reforestation followmg timber harvest needed to 

beitin with the harvest itself. 

We are convinced that, aa the federal agencies pay more attention to ecosystem 

management principles in guiding, their forest harvest decisions, it will almost cer- tainly dictate 1ilvicultural methods that lower the risks aaeociated with clearcutting 

many forest sites. It is ironic that clearcutting, designed primarily aa a means of 

improving reforestation of shade-intolerant species, has contributed to so many re- forestation failures when used on the wrong site or under the wrong conditions. The 

fact that clearcutt~ works in some places, and i8 needed in some places, must no longer mean that it 1s used everywhere. We're convinced that the agencies are mov- ing in that direction, and that those efforts will help avoid some of the future problems. But ecosystem management ia no panacea! either. Some of the beat-planned efforts may fail, either because people are still earning, or because unforeseen events 

overwhelm the beat-planned situations. We have to accept the fact that there will 

be failures, and be ready to provide the follow-up investment and care that it takes 

to overcome them. There is another issue associated with current diBC11saiona of forest ecosystem 

management that may also cause major problems. I'm afraid an "icon" is emerging aa people laud "pre-settlement conditions" aa a goal for today's manal!era. That is a concept that ought to be used with great care. For one thing, we don t know what 

those conditions were. When forest ecologists have a hard time describing how a particular forest ecosystem functions after years of observation and research, what 

makes us think we can "interpret" how they worked in the past from a few grainy photos and a random explorer's journal note? 

Even where we think we know what presettlement conditions were, that information baa little bearing on what we confront today. First of all, moat of those forests 

weren't "pre-management." Native Americana manipulated forest and range lands 

considerably. Second of all, we can't return to that. Major wildfires, even low-intensity ones, that swept across millions of acres virtually every summer before settlement, would today run into towns, crop fields, houses, and human lives. People 

won't tolerate pre-settlement smoke levels to prevail; they would violate clean air 

standards and cause an irresistible public outcry about the health impacts of smoke. Neither the country (nor the world) is the way it was in the 18th Century; the forests cannot be, either. 

So ecoa_yatem management must be based on what we need today, in terms of 

goods and services from forest lands. We need to learn how to mimic or utilize natural processes, such aa fire, but within the parameters that modern populations and 

land use patterns can tolerate. That won't be easy, and global change doesn't promise to make it any easier. 

There is an organizational iBBue involved, as well. The basic premise of environmentalists a couple of decades ago was that public forests (particularly the National 

Foresta) were captured by local interests (the industry) and that the only way to 

break that hold was to "nationalize" these iaaues. By brin~ng forest iaauea to Congreaa, appealing to the fact that these forests belonged to all the people," the transition was succeBBfully made. Now forest decisions are made in Washington. One re- sult is a host of alphabet-soup laws such as NFMA, FLPMA, NEPA, ESA and a host 

of others that prescribe a complex, expensive, and often contentious process for making forest management decisions. Because some elements of these laws are often at 

serious croBB-purpoeea, or because people just find them very hard to follow without 

slipups, federal forests are now managed more by lawyers, accountants, and "proc- ess managers," than by resource specialists. 

That's a decidedly mixed blessing, even for those who promoted it so vigorously. 

And it will be deadly for any type of ecosystem management, which is, at its heart, 

adaptive management. Managers need to meet change; try to predict the onset of 

destructive events or thresholds and avoid them; try to manipulate the vegetation 

in the system so that it is more resilient under the pressures of stress. 

When they try something, and it fails, they need to be able to go right back in 

and try to recti!', the mistake, before the situation Jets even more difficult. That means decentralized, science-based management deciaionmaking, flexible and able 

to respond to fast-changing conditions. It means public involvement, but the public 

must be close enough to the forest to deal in the realities of what is happening on the land, at the time. 

All of that is impossible when decisions are dictated from headquarters, and the 

forest conditions today don't line up with the legislative or regulatory prescriptions of last year. Both the "nationalization" of decisions accomplished in recent years and 

the centralized organization of agencies like the Forest Service are inconsistent with 
52 

adaptive management. When the ecosystem can change faster than the bureaucracy of the management 3¥ency, :you have a serious problem. The challenges to unprovmg reforestation, ecosystem restoration and ecosystem 

management, therefore, do not all reside out in the forest, with the agency man- agers charged with the stewardship of our public lands. Some of thoee challenges face the Congress, as it atruggles to balance national interests and political forces 

with emerging ecosystem science and changing environmental conditions. 

One of the major challenges, Mr. Chairman, is for CongreBB to regain a greater measure of trust in the professionals that are on the ground, and give them the freedom to actually carry_ out ecosystem man~ment. If you do that, they will make 

mistakes, and you will need to be both sensitive to the critics and supportive of the 

professionals in their efforts. There will continue to be reforestation failures, made inevitable by unforeseen 

events and the need to addreBB high-risk situations. If the response from Co~ss 

is to support continued attempts until auccea1 ia achieved, you will replace failure 

with success. If the response from Congress is to constantly criticize those whose 

attempts fail, you will continue to see agencies stop trying anything risky or innovative, and people covering up their inevitable failures. 

If you do not give these profeBBionals some trust and latitude, the very future of 

the federal forests are in increasingly serious jeopardy, and the more cnticism you heap on them, and the more tightly you constrain their actions with detailed legisla- tive prescriptions and regulation, the worse it will get. That may not be the reforestation meBBage you hoped to hear from us today, but 

it is where our view of the current situation brings us. We'd be happy to try to an- swer any questions you may have. 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate your response. It was worthwhile. 

We have a series of four of five votes now, the first of which, 

after this Journal vote, will be fifteen minutes, then each will be 

five after that. So I think the practical thing to do is to suggest that we recess and come back at about 1:00 p.m., and I hope all 

of you can be here. We hope to wind up the hearing in about an hour, and hopefully 

we won't be disturbed by more interruptions in terms of votes, but 

there are no guarantees on that. That is what I intend to do, to 

come back at 1:00 p.m., and give you a time specific about trying 

to be here if the schedule permits me on the Floor, so you can get 

your lunch. We will stand in recess at this time. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m.] 

Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will resume its sitting. Let me invite Dr. Aplet, who is now present, to make his statement. 

Please proceed, Dr. Aplet. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY H. APLET 

Mr. APLET. I appreciate the invitation to appear here. 

Due to the notice that we received, I prepared a written statement that I am finding difficult to whittle down into any short--

Mr. VENTO. We have a problem here because the votes I thought 

were going to take place did not, and so we may be interrupted for 

votes. I am going to have to ask you just to take about five minutes. Your entire statement will be made a part of the record, and 

you can either summarize it or just reference it as you go through 

it. 

Mr. APLET. Okay. I will try to just keep this brief and hit the 

hifhlights. think the earlier guests today made a strong, compelling case 

for the need for rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest, but I do 
53 

think that it is prudent at some point to stop and consider what 

it is we are trying to rehabilitate, what it is that we want to restore. 

Chief Robertson, I thought, made some important remarks regardin~ what it is that ecosystem management is to be, and one 

of the important things he said it was to be is a chanie in the way business ie done in order to maintain biological diversity across the 

forests. In my book, maintaining biological diversity is going to require 

restoring the habitat that supports biodiversity, and in terrestrial 

systems habitat means vegetation. Vegetation is a very complex 

construct that actually involves much more than just trees, so 

while planting trees can bring us a long way towards restoring 

vegetation, it cannot be all that we look at. 

The character of vegetation is as much affected by disturbance 

as it is by things that we ordinarily consider as determining vegetation, like climate and soils and the species involved. Factors like 

wind, flood, and fire can determine whether vegetation is forest, 

shrub land, or grassland. 

Human beings tend to have their greatest influence on vegetation through their influence on disturbance, and in the Pacific 

Northwest we are starting to realize that the disaprearance of old 

growth Douglas fir forests is essentially the result o increasing the 

frequency and intensity of catastrophic disturbance in the form of 

clear-cutting on the east side, which we have also discussed at 

length today. 

Fire suppression, another change in disturbance cycles, as resulted in the growth of firs and Douglas firs into the forests where 

fire once excluded them, and their presence now threatens to 

change the entire disturbance dynamic of those forests. 

So it is now clear that in order to avoid catastrophe and rehabilitate natural ecological systems will restore to the landscape the 

disturbance patterns with which the native biota evolved. In some 

places this will require dramatically reducing the amount of wood 

we can expect to produce from the site. It will also likely require 

the use of prescribed fire, reduction in grazing, and limitations on 

visitor use. In some places, it will require allowing what have traditionally been considered catastrophes, such as fires and floods, 

the space they need to run their course. None of this excludes humans from the ecosystem, but it will require a dramatic change in 

the way we view our relationship with it. 

The Pacific Northwest is actually one of the best understood regions in the country in terms of natural disturbances, and an appreciation for the role of disturbances has allowed scientists to explore means of mimicking natural disturbance in forest management. New forestry relies heavily on leaving large quantities of 

wood following harvesting as a direct attempt to mimic the postdisturbance environment. Elsewhere, experimentation with prescribed fire has shown that fire cycles can be restored through 

management. Further improvement in these methods promises to 

allow society to benefit from the products of the forest without destroying its means to produce. Federal investment in these methods would allow us to continue to rehabilitate and reforest long into 

the future. 
54 

I am going to conclude this discussion with a short list of recommendations for rehabilitating Northwest ecosystems from my 

point of view. 

Number one, save the blueprints. The highest priority of Federal 

land management agencies in the Pacific Northwest should be to 

identify and protect the functioning ecosystems that will provide 

the information essential to intelligent management. In forests, 

these are likely to be roadless areas and watersheds containing 

functioning old growth communities. These areas will be essential 

in the future both for the information they provide and as standards against which to compare management elsewhere. 

Research natural area designation, which has been so sparingly 

used in the recent past, should be widely applied to maintain these 

areas. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Aplet follows:] 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY H. APL.ET, FOREST ECOLOGIST, THE WILDERNESS SocIETY, 

BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CoMMITTEE ON NATUP.AL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS, CONCERNING 

REHABIIJTATION, REFORESTATION, AND REINVESTMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST, MARcH 30, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Gregory H. Aplet, forest 

ecologist for The Wilderness Society. I am pleased to be invited to express my views on this important and timely issue. 

It is now widely recognized that our nation's forests and other public lands have 

suffered greatly at our hands, and nowhere are the results of this mismanagement more apparent than in the Pacific Northwest. The recently acknowledged dire condition of the northern spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, and anadromoue fish stocks 

confirms what many have feared for years: that the ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest have been stressed beyond their means to support their full complement of life. The situation is at least as serious on the east side of the Cascades where, according 

to the charter of the Blue Mountains Natural Resource Institute: "Forests and 

rangelands in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington fall far short of their 

productive capacity to provide various products, services, and benefits. These forests are among the most insect- and disease-infested forests of North America. Introduced, non-native grasses are dominating rangelands, juniper is spreading, and nox- ious weeds are threatening both forests and rangelands. Biological diversity is re- duced. The buildup of unprecedented levels of dead and dying vegetation places the 

forests under continual threat of catastrophic fire." 

Testimonials such as this make a compelling case for the alteration of management practices in order to rehabilitate ecosystems. But before diving headlong into 

rehabilitation, it is prudent to consider what it is we are tying to restore. 

For the last century or so in the Pacific Northwest, the objective of management has been the conversion of unproductive natural forests into highly productive, man- aged tree farms. The result has been the impoverishment of native biodiversity. As 

nature has become scarce, society has reacted to its loss and now demands that public lands be managed to protect natural ecosystems. Through the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act, and other legislation, society has formalized its desire to restore to the nation's public lands the conditions that support 

the full range of native biodiversity. This broad charge, restring biological diversity, must now become the objective of 

natural resource management. That this signal is now being received at the highest 

levels of the federal land management structure is reflected in the recent announce- ments of the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to manage 

from the perspective of ecosystems rather than products and outputs. Restoring 

biodiversity though ecosystem management will require restoring to the landscape 

the vegetation patterns and ecological processes that define the habitat of native 

species. In many cases, this require only that the land be left alone to heal itself; 

in others it will require considerably more effort. Thie is especially true where com- modities are to be produced. 

Vegetation can be described as a function of three factors: the physical environment, species availability, and disturbance. Physical factors, such as climate and 

soil parent material, determine what can potentially exist on a site. Species avail-
55 

ability constrains the set of species that can inhabit a particular environment, and 

disturbances, such as fire, windstorms, and floods, interact with the physical factors 

and the species to determine the character of the vegetation. For example, in some parts of the West, on cool, wet, north-facing slopes, fire may burn infrequently, allowing enough time for forests to develop. On warm, dry slopes across the valley, 

frequent burning results in the formation of grassland vegetation. Disturbance pro- duces two very different habitats, despite the fact that regional climate, soil parent 

material, and species availability may be the same in both places. Furthermore, the 

cool, moist vegetation of the forest understory discourages fire in the forest, while 

grasses encourage fire spread, thus reinforcing the disturbance cycle. 

Humans tend to have their greatest influence on vegetation through their influ- ence on disturbance pattern, frequency, and intensity. While some spectacular cases of human alteration of species availability have occurred, such as the disappearance 

of chestnut from the Eastern forest as a result of the introduction of a Eurasian 

blight fungus, our most pervasive influence has been on disturbance, through both 

harvest practices and fire management. In the Pacific Northwest, the disappearance of old-growth Douglas-fir forest is essentially the result of increasing the frequency 

and intensity of catastrophic disturbance in the form of clearcutting. On the east 

side of the Cascades, fire suppression has resulted in the growth of insect-ridden 

firs and Douglas-firs suppression has resulted in the growth of insect-ridden firs and 

Douglas-firs into forests from which fire once excluded them. Their presence now threatens to alter the fire regime from one of frequent, low-intensify fires, easily en- ·dured-by -Fire·i'e&istant-pines- and- larches; ·to one-susceptible to high-intensity, catastrophic fires, which no species will survive. The Blue Mountains Forest Health Report described the situation this way: ". . . when human activities and processes fail 

to mimic the natural events that shape and define the vegetation conditions and 

character of stands, nature may intervene on its own behalf, through pest epidemics 

and catastrophic wildfires, to correct the unnatural state." 

It is now clear that in order to avoid catastrophe and restore to the landscape the 

natural ecological systems upon which biodiversity depends, we must restore to the 

landscape those disturbance regimes with which the native biota evolved. In most 

places, this will require dramatically reducing the amount of wood we can expect 

to produce from a site. It also likely will require increased use of prescribed fire, 

grazing reductions, and limitations on visitor use. In some places, it will require allowing what have traditionally been considered catastrophes, such as fire and floods, 

the space they need to run their course. None of this excludes humans from the eco- system, but it will require a dramatic change in the way we view our relationship 

with it. 

Unfortunately, our understanding of exactly what needs to be done is only in its 

infancy. Appreciation for the important role of disturbance in ecosystems has only 

been fully embraced by the ecological profession in the last decade or so. Natural 

disturbance patterns and processes are under investigation in many forest types, 

but much more work must be done before this knowledge can be turned into rec- ommendations for management. One of the best understood regions of the country, in terms of natural disturbances, is the Pacific Northwest. Many management problems are now understood 

in terms of human alteration of natural disturbance processes. Westside endangered species problems are understood as resulting from large-scale, catastrophic harvesting. The short term solution requires protecting the remaining older forest from fur. 

ther disruption. On the Eastside, forest health problems are known to result from 

disruption of fire cycles and now threaten to catastrophically alter the forest. 

This appreciation for the role of distrubance has prompted scientists to explore means of mimicking the effects of natural disturbance in Northwest ecosystems. ''New Forestry", which relies on leaving large quantities of wood following harvesting, is a direct attempt to mimic the post-disturbance environment. Experimentation 

with prescribed fire has shown that fire cycles can be restored. Further improvement in these methods promises to allow society to benefit from the products of the 

forest without destroyini its means to produce. Federal investment in these methods will allow us to continue to rehabilitate and reforest long into the future. I con- clude this discussion with a short list of recommendations for rehabilitating Northwest ecosystems. 

(1) Save the blueprints. The first priority for federal land management agencies 

in the Pacific Northwest should be to identify and protect those functioning 

ecosystems that will provide the information essential to intelligent management. 

In forests, these are likelr to be roadless areas and watersheds containing functioning old-growth communities. These areas will be essential in the future both for the 

information they provide and as standard• against which to compare management 
56 

elsewhere. Research Natural Area des~ation, so sparingly applied in the recent 

past, should be widely apelied to maintain these areas. (2) Stick to science. Insist that whatever is done be proven in experimental trials. The federal government should identify a claaa of mildly degraded lands that, 

through scientifically credible restoration actions (e.g. preecribea burning), can be 

restored relatively eaeilr to high-quality, low-risk conditions. Recently, salvage logging has received considerable attention as a possible tool in the restoration of 

Eastside ecosystems. However, salvage, while an effective means of removing wood 

from a forest ecosystem, has not been proven to be an effective tool in rehabilitation or reforestation work. 

(3) Invest in information. Aa mentioned, the application of disturbance information to management is in its infancy. There is still much to be learned about the 

way ecosystems function before we can effectively manage them for the full range 

of biodiversity. The failure of regeneration efforts speaks volumes to our poor understanding of forest ecosystems, even when the objective i1 1imply timber production. 

To begin to manage forest ecosystems, even when the objective is simply timber production. To begin to manage forest ecosystems, we must learn much more about the 

behavior of those systems. Information gathering provides a tremendous opportunity for inveeting in the future of Pacific Northwest public land1. Forest Service Research, F,rticularly the 

Forest Inventory and Analyeis program, currently monitors the condition of U.S. forest resources, but its focua is dominantly on timber. Congress should encour~e FIA 

to expand its inventory in scope and intensity to help ad<lreaa our moat pressmg re- source management questions. In the near future, there may be an opportunity for 

Forest Service Research to work with the Secretary of the Interior's proposed Biological Survey to provide a coordinated national inventory of biological diversity. (4) Proceed with caution. Managers must avoid demonstrating the arrogance that 

has gotten ua in the current situation. Admit that we do not currently know everything we need to know to rehabilitate damaged ecosystems. Reasonable approaches 

must be developed with patience, baaed on the best available acience, and should 

be site-specific in application. Physical environments, species availability, and natural disturbance regimes differ tremendously from place to place. A management prescription that restores native vegetation in one place cannot be expected necessarily 

to work elsewhere. We must avoid the temptation to implement blanket prescrip- tions. Congre88 should encourage federal land managen, to engage the scientific 

community and each local community to develop suitable prescriptions for local applications. The currently degraded state of biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest is a national 

tragedy, but it also presents an opportunity to invest in building a healthy future 

for these vital ecosystems. By directing funding to inventory and research and en- couragintt the integration of research and management, CongreBB can aid in the re- habilitation of the public lands of the Pacific Northwest. 

Mr. VENTO. Dr. Aplet, I have looked at your statement. It is an 

excellent statement, and I think it is very helpful. It will be in the 

record. I am going to have to stop you at this point simply because 

I fear that we won't get the other two witnesses in for a few words 

here before the bells ring. Perhaps we will even have time for questioning when we get done. But I did read the statement. It is an 

excellent statement. 

Let me now introduce Mr. Desmond, so he has a chance to say 

a few words. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN JACK DESMOND 

Mr. DESMOND. Chairman Vento, Congressman DeFazio, we are 

pleased to be able to testify here at this hearing today-maybe. 

Mr. VENTO. No, no. You have got five minutes. You see, we have 

10 minutes. I have to leave for a vote at quarter after, so let me 

give you five and then the other witness five, and I guess we will 

have to leave it at that and submit our questions in writing. 

Mr. DESMOND. Okay. I feel like the little guy looking up at these 

big looming Federal agencies. What I would like to do briefly in my 

testimony is perhaps offer up one small element towards resolution 
57 

of this rather bitter old growth, timber supply fight that has been 

going on here in the Pacific Northwest. 

Last week our association completed a 60-page report entitled 

"Investing in America: Intensive Management Opportunities in the 

Pacific Northwest." I want to offer a bit of caution in there, but 

what we did is, we looked at the possibility of increasing intensive 

management on both public and private forest lands in the Pacific 

Northwest, both in Oregon and Washington, and we found that 

perhaps upwards of 7,300 jobs could eitner be created or maintained. These are jobs that we feel are both environmentally and 

economically sound. 

We heard the chief of the Forest Service talk, and, in looking at 

the new forest plans, approximately 55 percent of the acres to be 

harvested call for high levels of intensive management. That includes site preparation, tree planting, stand maintenance, pre-commercial thinning, fertilization, and commercial thinning, and because our members are so dependent on Federal contracts we continually monitor the number of contracts that the Forest Service is 

putting out. 

On page 3, we obtained data from the Forest Service projecting 

out their reforestation needs, and then on page 4 their 

precommercial thinning needs in Region VI for the next couple of 

years. Briefly, there are about 100,000 acres of tree planting that 

they are proposing as well as about 150,000 acres of thinning. 

Everybody knows that there is this line item that runs through 

both graphs, and that is the K-V cash balance, and essentially 

what it does is, it shows from fiscal year 1989 a cash balance of 

$260 million; the Forest Service is estimating that that is going to 

drop down to $95 million in fiscal year 1995. However, later on in 

the report, just about two weeks ago we obtained from the Forest 

Service what their K-V balances are right now and their projected 

expenses, and right now in Region VI they are estimating a $42. 7 

million deficit in their K-V fund. Now one of the things that the Forest Service is real quick to say is that that is just a paper deficit and we have the authority to recompute the timber sales, and so forth and so on. However, our association is quite concerned that they are not going to have the 

funds available to do the work and a lot of this work is going to 

get short-changed. 

I would like to just finish up quickly on the Forest Service and 

just say that there are a couple of thoughts I have for creating 

these intensive management forestry jobs. One is, a lot of people 

recognize that the timber cut on the National Forest lands was too 

high in the past and that the cut needs to be reduced. However, 

there is also what I would call a balance, for a lack of a better 

word, that the timber sale program does need to be restarted just 

in part because of the tremendous loss of income that is occurring. 

We would also like to encourage the Forest Service to enter into 

more publidprivate partnerships with contractors. For example, 

what a number of our members are doing, particularly in Representative Smith's district, and probably even more in the future 

in Representative DeFazio's, is coming in, doing like precommercial 

thinning work which now, because of the high chip prices, they can 

actually tum around and sell that on the market. So that way, the 
58 

cost of the precommercial thinning is paid for by this, and we feel 

there are a lot of opportunities to increase that. 

Finally, there is a need for the Forest Service to operate in a 

more cost-efficient manner, and I have a couple of examples both 

in my report as well as in my testimony about the Forest Service 

wasting money, and I might mention that the BLM also does that 

same thin~. 

Let me Just touch briefly on the BLM. We have certainly heard 

a lot of testimony about that. I would like to just talk a little bit 

about the human element. One of our members was out the other 

day looking at some BLM lands in northwest Oregon, and these are 

lands that the BLM harvested 15 or 20 years ago, and he said that 

because they haven't engaged in proper intensive management 

these lands are essentially turning over to brush. 

I have heard all sorts of figures provided by the BLM of what 

their precommercial thinning needs are, backlog needs are. Apparently the latest one is 43,000 to 66,000 acres. My seat-of-the-pants 

estimate is, it is 150,000 acres. I realize time is real short, and I 

will just point out that we have heard a lot of testimony from the 

BLM, and while they are current with their tree planting needs, 

they are actually falling further and further behind on their 

precommercial thinning and fertilization needs, and there are a 

couple of charts in here that show quite distinctly the number of 

acres accomplished has been declining since fiscal year 1991, and 

there are a number of reasons for that. So I will just finish now. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Desmond follows:] 
59 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITEE 

OF THE INTERIOR COMMITTEE 

By 

Martin Jack Desmond, Director 

Northwest Reforestation Contractors Association 

March 30, 1993 

Chairman Vento, Representative DeFazio, and other distinguished gentlemen 

and ladies, my name is Martin Jack Desmond, director of the Northwest 

Reforestation Contractors Association . Our association is pleased to be able 

to provide testimony on forest investments on our public lands. Our 

association consists of 75 member companies who provide forestry-related 

services for public agencies and private timber landowners. 

As we are all aware, there is a very bitter fight that has been waged over 

timber supply and old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest for over a 

decade. •our testimony will address what we believe is one small element of 

the puzzle to help resolve this acriminous debate. 

Our association completed a 60-page report entitled Investing in America: 

Intensive Management Opportunities in the Pacific Northwest last week that 

analyzed the potential for both forestry job creation and increased timber 

volume through intensive management from both public and private 

forestlands in the states of Oregon and Washington. There are many 

opportunities to create intensive management forestry jobs in the Pacific 

Northwest that are both environmentally and economically sound. I have 

been requested to limit my comments to investments on public forestlands 

so I will not be discussing the private forestland component except for one 

relevant item. 

U S FOREST SERVICE 

Of the 50.1 million acres of forest lands in Oregon and Washington, the 

Forest Service manages 19.3 million acres. In Oregon and Washington, the 

agency manages 48 .2% and 27% of the respective states' forestlands. 
100 

80 

"' e 

'-' < 80 

0 

1: 

.. 

~ a. "' 

20 

0 

• Ell 

11.1 

60 

Under the previous land management plans, the annual sale level in Region 6 

(Oregon and Washington) was approximately 4.5 billion board feet. The new 

land management plans approved in the late 1980's would have set the 

annual sale level at approximately 2.9 billion board feet. However, the court 

injunctions over the northern spotted owl and other appeals have sent the 

Region 6 timber sale program into a major downward spiral - declining by 

more than 90% from FY 90 to FY 92. I might note that the wood lumber 

composite price has jumped 75% from October 1992 to February 1993. 

There are a variety of opinions for the upward spike in lumber prices. 

Management intensity 

The new forest plans commit the Forest Service to very high levels of 

intensive management to generate more timber yield. The plans include 

genetically improved stock, site preparation, control of competing vegetation, 

pre-commercial thinning, fertilization, and commercial thinning. Over 55% 

of the acres project planting, pre-commercial thinning, ferti lization, 

commercial thinning, and final harvest while only 5% project only planting 

and final harvest as shown in the following graph and table. 

Ml Acres (% of total) 

tiE fil.M .:ilali fl tile 1. Plant, final harvest 

(FH) 5 23 30 10 63 2. Plant, fertilize, FH 0 0 40 0 0 3. Plan~ precommerdal 

thin (PT), FH 3 () 11 17 0 4. Plant, commercial 

. thin (CT), FH 2 0 0 9 37 5. Plant, PT, CT, FH 13 0 0 14 0 6. Plan!, PT, fertilize, 

FH 22 2 19 0 0 7. Plan!, PT, fertilize, 

CT,FH 55 . 75 0 47 0 8. Other 0 0 0 3 0 Total 100 100 100 lOO 100 NF SLM Slate A NIP 

High Graph 7-3 Table 7-1 "'"'"'" Source: Sessions et al, l.,. 

However, to achieve such high levels of intensive management requires both 

commitment and funding from the federal government. The funding for 
61 

Forest Service intensive management is provided through two major sources: 

appropriated taxpayer dollars and timber sale revenues. 

Since many of our members are dependent upon Forest Service and BLM 

intensive management contracts, our association has been monitoring the 

types and amounts of contracts offered by both agencies. The number and 

quantity sizes of the contracts have been shrinking during the last several 

years. At our association's annual conference, the Forest Service provided 

our members with an overview of projected Region 6's intensive 

management activities for the next five years. The first chart compares the 

harvest, reforestation and KV cash trends for the region. 

KV ACRE/CASH TREND 

_.,_ COMPARES KY REl'/HARV VOi/KV CASH 

-

"' C: 

0 

·c, l QI 

er 

QI 

~ :, 

U"a4'.-,"-'"""_.u.....-".A•-L-Jn._ __ ...__.." ...,"--.... .LJLLL.Jl"U ... La__.n1Jl..,'1....lnlll.-lSJ, ~ 

........... • APPROP ACRES • KV ACRES *HARVEST LEVEL IEKV CASH 

Since the chart is reproduced in black and white, the "approp acres" 

accomplishments is the small bar while the "KV acres" is the large bar. The 

chart is very illuminating. First, the number of acres reforested is projected 

to decline as the harvest level declines. (I might note that this chart underprojects the steep decline in the timber sale level so that the number of acres 

to be actually reforested will likely be less than predicted). Second, most 

reforestation activity is paid through the KV fund. Third, the KV cash 

balance projects a steep decline from over $260 million in FY 1989 to a 

projected $105 million in FY '95 . Generally, the Forest Service is projecting 

a need to reforest approximately 100,000 acres annually. 

The next chart shows the projected thinning stand improvement (TS!) acres 

trend with a slightly increasing TS! appropriated acres and a slightly 

decreasing level of TS! KV acres. Generally, the Forest Service is projecting 

a need to thin approximately 150,000 acres annually. 
,-,..._IIIOaOl'A~n 

62 

TSI ACRE TREND COMPARES APPROP TO KV 

... ~------------------, 

1, 

• APPROP ACRES ~ KV ACRES * HARVEST LEVEL 

<D 

C: 

0 

'u, 

Cl> 

' a: 

oi 

0 1 ~ 

::, 

0 

C/J 

Last month, w e req uested data from eac h of the 19 Region 6 national forests 

for the projected reforest ation and foresta tio11 needs for FY 94 and FY 95. 

Th e projected FY 94 reforestation workload is graphically displayed on the 

following two pages for thirteen of th e forests. (Some of th e fore sts 

provided incomplete data so that some of the catego ries whic h display no 

proposed activities may simply be lacking data) 

The forests are grouped together by eastern Oreg on (2 charts), we stern 

Oreg on, and Washington. As discus sed and displ ayed in our Investing in 

America report, there is a massi ve shift of proposed activities from the 

"west-side" of the Cascades to th e "east-side. " Part of th e shift is due to 

the co llapse of the timber sale program on the west-side and an inc re,Jsc in 

the amount of proposed forest heal th type projects on the east-sid e. 

Our association also requested inform ation about the status of the cash 

balances and projected expenses for th e KV fund for Region 6. Th e 

information was provided by the Region 6 office and is displayed fo llowing 

t he two pages of graphs. 

Last sprin g, we requested KV data and projected workloads from each of the 

individual 19 national forests in Re gion 6. At that time, our associati on 

estimated that th e tota l projected expenses exceeded cash and proj ected 

cash collections by approximately $11 million. Based upon our limited 

knowledge of the KV system, it would appear th at the KV fund balance is 

rapidly "hemoraghing" and is now displ aying a projec ted $42. 7 mil lion 

deficit, as of September 1992. 
63 

FY '94 projected needs 

Malheur 

Planting Site prep Animaf Release Thinning Pruning F ertiliza.tion 

?\anting Site prep Animal Release Thinning Pruning Fertilization 
64 

FY '94 projected needs 

6 

2 

0 Planting Site prep Animal Release Thinning Pruning Fertilization 

FY '94 projected needs 

Planting Site prep Animal Release Thinning Pruning Fertilization 

Source Region 6 national forests 
65 

REGION 6: KV SUMMARY 

September 1992 

($000'•1 

Cash & Projected Net 

Forest Collectlons expenses Balance 

Colville 12,147 . 13,148 I 9011 . 

Deschutes 16,501 17,001 (1,500) 

Fremont 22,339 22,424 I 85) 

Gifford Pinchot 14,167 16,240 (2,073) 

Malheur 53,377 52,160 1,217 

Mt Baker Snoq 11,184 9,492 1,692 

Mt I-food 24,169 24,236 ( 671 

Ochoco 19,707 23,522 (3,815) 

Okanogan 9,800 10,962 11, 1621 

Olympic 7,366 6,986 380 

Rogue River 23,460 32,660 (9,200) 

Siskiyou 19,728 21,286 (1,5581 

Sluslaw 28,058 32,743 (4,685) 

Umatilla 16,115 23,058 (6,943) 

Umpqua 15,847 15,645 202 "' Wal Whitman 20,215 25,837 (5,622) C 

0 

Wenatchee 12,500 15,134 (2,6341 ·01 

Willamette 50,266 57,418 (7,152) (I) a: 

Winema 24,283 23,168 1,115 (I) 

0 

443,120 (42,791) :i 

Region 6 total 400,329 0 

(/) 

We recognize that the agency has the authority to adjust timber sale funds to 

retrieve additional dollars to eliminate the deficit. The region has unofficially 

informed our association that they are moving rapidly to narrow and eliminate 

the KV deficit. Individual Forest Service employees have also stated that 

they will not be eliminating any stand maintenance work to reduce the 

projected expenses. However, our association must express a certain degree 

of skepticism that stand maintenance work will not be eliminated to reduce 

the deficit. 

Region 6 previously had a large KV cash balance due to their large timber 

sale program . We suspect that when the timber sale program collapsed, the 

agency continued to maintain its large staff which drained the KV budget. 

Since the timber sale program has essentially stopped, the agency is not 

generating as much income. The KV cash balance will likely worsen . 
66 

Cost efficiency 

Our report discusses "less than efficient use" of taxpayer funds by the Forest 

Service and BLM. For example, the Willamette NF issued its FY 92 annual 

monitoring and evaluation report last week. The report shows that the 

Willamette NF sold only 22 mmbf of its 491 mmbf ASQ in FY 92 - or 

approximately 4% of its sale program. However, the agency spent $8.8 

million on its timber sale preparation program - more than what was 

projected in its forest plan for a timber sale program that would sell 491 

mmbf annually. One can suspect that much of those timber sale costs were 

related specifically to the northern spotted owl. 

One can also reasonably conclude that the Forest Service and BLM timber 

sale programs will be less than in previous years. Both agencies need to 

operate in a more economically efficient manner. 

USFS recommendations 

Our report offered a number of recommendations to generate reforestation 

jobs and increase timber volume on Forest Service lands. First, we would 

like to suggest that there is a critical need for all of the affected parties 

(timber industry, environmental groups, other) to negotiate in good faith and 

to make compromises . Organizations that are unwilling to compromise and 

negotiate in good faith should be excluded from the resolution process. 

Re-start timber sale program: Many people recognize that the previous cut 

was too high. The sale program needs to be lowered. However, the present 

sale level (which is essentially non-existent) will cause wide-spread economic 

harm to many parties. The federal government will lose hundreds of millions 

of dollars of timber sale revenues. The counties, if the federal government 

was to eliminate its "subsidy," would lose tens of millions of dollars. The 

Forest Service will lose hundreds and perhaps thousands of its employees in 

Region 6. Many mills in Oregon and Washington have already shut down. 

Unemployment in rural communities has stayed high. Forestry workers and 

loggers who have been able to get other jobs have typically taken a pay cut. 

In an effort to reduce taxpayer expenses, our association recommends that 

the President and the US Congress need to re-start the Forest Service timber 

sale program 

Replenish KV fund: The Forest Service borrowed $90 million from its KV 

fund nationwide to pay for FY '92 firefighting costs . Congress has 

apparently not fully appropriated all of the funds to replenish the account. 
67 

We would recommend that Congress replenish the funds and work with the 

agency to reduce excessive firefighting costs. 

KV fund transfer to federal government: Despite the $42. 7 million KV deficit 

in Region 6, some of the forests apparently had surpluses and $4 million 

were transferred to the federal treasury. We would suggest that Congress 

amend the KV Act so that the region did not have to return "surplus" funds 

when the region itself had a deficit. 

Timber Management Improvement Act: This legislative bill, sponsored by 

Representative Ron Wyden, would direct the Secretaries of Interior and 

Agriculture to prepare a yield report on second growth timber management 

opportunities for lands in Oregon, Washington, and northern California. An 

updated report on intensive management opportunities for the Pacific 

Northwest is needed. 

Public/private partnerships : The Forest Service should be encouraged to 

develop more public/private partnerships to address the forest health issues. 

Proposals can be developed that would allow the contractor to remove 

diseased and .dying trees, prescribe burn the sites, and replant at little or no 

cost to the federal government through the sale of the dead trees. 

Audit and performance committee: A committee composed of nongovernment and government individuals is needed to specifically review and 

monitor Forest Service and BLM budgets to make sure that the line officers 

are meeting or exceeding target goals, whether for reforestation, timber 

stand improvement, trails, timber, wildlife, or recreation. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

The BLM manages 2.6 ·million acres of forestlands in western Oregon. Of 

these forestlands, 2.2 million acres are classified as commercial forestlands . 

The BLM is currently developing new resource management plans which will 

likely decrease the timber sale program from a level of 1 . 1 billion board feet 

to approximately one half of that historical level. 

Previously, the O&C lands have provided approximately 15 % of the total 

timber harvested in the state of Oregon . The O & C Counties received 50% 

of the timber sale receipts . Historically, the counties have received an 

average aggregate total of $11 3 million annually. 

In FY 1990, the timber sale program totalled 1 .14 billion board feet on 

w estern Oregon BLM lands. In FY 92, the BLM sold only 35 million board 

feet. 
68 

Intensive management activities 

Like the Forest Service, the BLM has committed itself to high levels of 

intensive management activities on its lands. Under the new proposed draft 

resource management plans, the Eugene District BLM proposes that 11 % of 

its preferred alternative's ASQ is attributable to pre-commercial thinning, 

fertilization, and conversion activities. The Coos Bay District BLM attributes 

13.4% of its ASQ to intensive management activities. 

The Office of Inspector General released an audit report on BLM's forestry 

operations in western Oregon in September 1990. The report found that the 

agency "had not performed the planned levels of plantation maintenance, 

precommercial thinning, fertilization, and timber stand conversions. 

Consequently, timber growth with an estimated net value of $90 million in 

future revenues was lost during fiscal years 1986 and 1989. The 

Government and the 1 8 counties will continue to lose about $ 21 million in 

timber growth annually as long as the present backog in plantation 

maintenance exists" (excerpted from the summary report). 

As you will recall, the OIG repeated those charges before this subcommitee 

in February 1993. 

Despite the report, the backlog is increasing. Due to budget shortfalls and 

certain budget priorities by the BLM to preserve its own staff, the BLM did 

not perform any pre-commercial thinning activities in FY '92. For FY '93, the 

BLM is proposing to reduce the pre-commercial thinning program to one tenth 

the previous levels of FY 90 and FY 91 . 

There is considerable confusion over the size of the backlog. BLM and OIG 

inspectors now apparently claim that the backlog in western Oregon is as 

follows : 

• 

• 

• 

• 

46,000 acres in tree planting 

43,000 acres in pre-commercial thinning 

101,000 acres in fertilization 

6,600 acres in stand conversion 

Our association, however, is very skeptical of those figures. In a letter to 

Representative Wyden in February 1993, we estimated that the precommercial thinning backlog was likely in the range of 150,000 to 200,000 

acres - based upon the number of acres planted by the BLM over the last 

decade. 

The acreage accomplishments for the BLM in western Oregon are shown in 

the following table: 
69 

F"iscal Year •· FY~;;:\. FY93 /1/ . Fundiitg/W orkloods FY 91 .··• .. FY92•. • Request FY93AWP 

Funding {000) $37,218 $45,483 $38,773 $38,571 $30,644 

WORKLOAD MEASURE {acres) 

Base: 

Inventory 142,000 191,000 IS2,400 146,000 127,300 

Site Preparation 21,884 23,378 10,723 14,666 14,176 

Tree Planting 38,905 36,088 26,37S 23,447 17,380 

Maintenance/ S6,700 46,748 48,63S 53,642 36,076 

Protection 

Intensive: 

PCT/Release. 19,876 20,457 51 34,091 2,250 

Fertilization 24,271 60,285 5,566 70,913 3,100 

Conversion 130 0 

Pruning so 0 

Total Acres 303,636 377,956 222,304 342;939 200,282 

Source: SLM 

The trends are quite disturbing as the number of acres accomplished for tree 

planting, maintenance, PCT/release, and fertilization are declining from FY 

90. Some of the decline can be attributable to the northern spotted owl 

court injunction (such as site prep and planting), but other categories such as 

thinning and fertilization are also showing steep declines which are not 

directly related to the Endangered Species Act. 

Congress appropriated $30.6 million for BLM forest 

development/reforestation line item for FY '93. That appropriation 

represented an $8 million decrease from the previous year and was 

insufficient to address all of the proposed work plan activities. 

As discussed in our Investing in America report, the BLM has been spending 

excessive amounts of the forest development/reforestation budget on 

·•· 
70 

categories that appear not to be directly related to this line item. The 

following chart provides a breakdown of the allocation of the funds . 

.. ,. lt,m · .. . FY92 Perunt FY!>J Perunt 

A WP Allocation ($000) ($000) 

Worlunonths 4281 3831 

Labor $12,672 32.7 $12,701 41.4 

Office/Support $5,114 13.2 $1,771 5.1 

Seed On:hard $1,1S6 4.S Sl,891 6.2 

COPE $1,300 3.3 $1,300 4.2 

RMP $731 1.9 $614 2.0 

Coolcr/Resean:h $703 1.8 $28S 0.9 

Contracts $16,497 42.6 $12,082 39.5 

Total Dollars $38,773 100:0· $30,644 99.9 

Source: BLM 

The category "Labor" is a misnomer and, in fact, relates to BLM personnel. 

The BLM acknowledges in budget documents that 95% of all intensive 

management work on its lands is performed by contractors. However, the 

percentage of funds allocated to contracting work for FY 93 is less than 

40%. Meanwhile, the percentage of funds allocated to BLM personnel now 

amounts to 47% (Labor and office/support). 

The OIG release a February 1992 report that sharply criticized the BLM for 

spending twice as much - $188 million - on administrative costs in FY 90 

than had been approved by the US Congress. I might note that the BLM 

disputes the findings of the OIG report. 

BLM recommendations 

Re-start BLM timber sale program: As noted under the Forest Service 

section, many people recognize that the historical BLM timber sale program 

was too high. However, the present sale program will likely cause an · 

unacceptable level of financial harm. The President and the US Congress 

need to re-start the program, albeit at a lower level. 

Stable funding sources: Unlike the Forest Service, the BLM does not have a 

similar KV type program. Two legislative proposals have been offered. 

Senator Packwood has proposed a $15 million annual Reforestation Trust 

Fund that would come from a tariff on imported lumber. The Forest Service 
71 

currently receives $30 million annually from this tariff fund. Representative 

Ron Wyden has proposed in the Timber Management Improvement Act that 

the KV legislation be amended to include the BLM. The Board of Directors of 

our association has endorsed both legislative proposals. 

Congress is apparently moving an emergency $14 to $1 5 million 

reforestation funding package for FY 93. This legislation should be passed. 

Economic efficiency: The BLM spends an excessive amount of funds on 

administrative and other non-related items that is charged to the 

reforestation/forest development budget. The agency needs to learn to 

operate in a more economically efficient manner, particularly since the 

agency is falling further behind on its intensive management needs. 

Audit and performance committee: As discussed in the Forest Service 

recommendations, this committee would monitor and review BLM budgets to 

make sure that the agency was efficiently spending its money. 

Funding for non-industrial forestlands 

Although outside of the scope of this particular committee, our association 

requests that the US Congress provide a matching appropriation of $5 million 

to help fund a Reforestation Trust Fund proposal developed by Oregon's 

Secretary of State Phil Keisling to properly re-stock the 600,000 acres of 

under-stocked non-industrial forestlands in western Oregon. The proper 

reforesting and management of non-industrial forestlands in Oregon and 

Washington can lessen the pressure to cut old growth forests on public 

lands. 

SUMMARY 

There are a number of opportunities to create intensive management forestry 

jobs on both public and private forestlands in the Pacific Northwest that are 

environmentally and economically sound. The investment will provide jobs 

in the short-term. More importantly, the investment will generate more 

timber yield from existing cut-over lands in the future. 

Our association wishes to thank Chairman Vento for the opportunity to 

provide testimony. 
Group urges better federal care 

• Reforestation contractors call 

for a resumption of logging on 

federal land to protect jobs 

By KATHLEEN MONJE 

Correapondent The Oregonian 

EUGENE - A regional reforestation contractors' group called Tuesday for a return to logging in public 

forests and better care for all forest 

lands to help create or keep more 

than 7,000 jobs . 

Both Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., 

and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., supported the Northwest Reforestation 

Contractors Association's request 

for more government investment in 

federal forests and tax incentives for 

private forest land owners. 

The association, which is made up 

of 75 reforestation companies in Oregon, Washington_, Idaho, California 

• 

and Montana, released a report 

Tuesday that will go before a House 

Interior subcommittee next week. 

Martin Jack Desmond, the group's 

spokesman, criticized the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management for failing to keep up 

with the replanting, thinning and 

fertilizing needs of the land under 

their con tro I. 

The two federal agencies operate 

inefficiently and spend too much on administrative costs, Desmond said. 

The BLM's failure to take care of 

reforestation requirements and to 

build roads to Oregon timberlands 

could cost the government $2 billion 

in future logging revenue, he said. 

Likewise, a $42.7 million deficit in 

the Forest Service's reforestation 

fund for the region threatens future 

timber volumes, Desmond said. 

The northern spotted owl controversy has contributed to the man- agement. backload · because both 

-- . 

agencies' timber sale programs 

plummeted by almost 90 pe

over the last two fiscal year

said. 

Neil Summers, president of 

ber company Shiloh Forestry I

Eugene, said his reforestation 

roll has dropped from 75 empl

to fewer than 50 in the last 

years because of the court-or

logging bans on the owl's behal

On private lands in Oregon, 

700,000 acres of forest need pre

mercial thinning and ano

600,000 acres are either unplant

underplanted, Desmond said. 

The association would like t

Secretary of State Phil Keis

proposal for a reforestation 

fund enacted. The trust would 

vide, through general oblig

bonds, a $12 million rotating 

fund for landowners. 

Packwood aide Hance Haney 

the 5rmator plans, for simila

~ __j o \\. l Q, h.. 
11 f i l!l !l!l! JI i !I!~ Ii 

i , lllll i!!f iii!;; !!1111 

REPORT Co ncinucd from Page l 

"There i~ :in urgcN ri ced to cre at e enviro nmentally .:in d c(onomi c;,, l)y ~ou nd foreHry 

in lhc f'a..:i!! c ~M\hwcst," no:cd ,\ \ 3r. 

Dcsm•r:l!, the repo rt's aut:Jo r. 

a Port:and r:cws CQnfcrcncc, Dcsmo nC 

S( rcsst d th a: :hos e arc no t ·•:nakc,work" 

an ct add ed fo r e ve ry ,!oilar ir,vcstrcfon:,;ta ti on thtrc ii a S3 return. 

Fcdcr2l ti mber ~ales :uvc dropped b:,-

Jlmost 90, pace r:! in the l:ist two !JscJ) yc~r~ 

as cour:s· h:ivc :icC up loi;ging u:"lci: the 

t~rc;m :ncd nor:hun spom:d owl situati on is 

sutlcd. T h;i: h;is 1c:rnh cd in a dcf1c1t in the 

U.S. Forest Service's Rq;ion 6 rcrore-st:11ion 

iu~J. 

T imbe r-dependent indusirics, communi1 ies 

ant! local !_'.•.we rnrncr.:s w,11 con:in ue t<, fed 

the scir.g of the dowmurn, ac:c:o:c! int; to the 

repo rt. It also s:i.i..-!. !hat c!cpln ing timber supp ly frum f-o rest Serv ic e and Bl..\l bnJ s has 

led rn a 75 p ercent incrc:tse 1n curnpo~:;c 

!~mb er prices i;; si -.: morHhs. 

The rcp on rcu immendcd in pnt that 

Con gre~• rcs(;1n the fede ra l timlJcr \al e pro• 

i,; ram anJ th:il the Fore~t Service rnJ pri• 

varc companles wo rk rogc:hcr rr.ore c!nscly. 

It nid the '"]m,-fo,c-pcopos,! process ai lows 

co n:ncto:-s :o propo~c to t;: e :isen• 

cy and needs to be utilized mo re. 

Among !he o th er ~r.C: n.,:s: 

• In weste rn an cstimJtcd 600,000 

3C~cs of fore s!l an c!s are cl:is• 

si fi e<l as eithe r non -stocked or undc rstoc:kal. 

Swc king ~nd reanagi ng !he 2.6 mi ll io n acres 

of non -i ndustri3l furcst! ands st:1tcwide po:en• 

tial!y coulJ triple 1he averJgc ann uli] ~:i.rvest 

of }60 million b oard feel, JClO~din,: to th e 

report. 

• A!:Jout 698,000 acres of pre-comrr.crci al 

1hi nr: inb, orpor:unities cxis: o n the S.6 mil• 

lio n :JCU~ of ;,ri n!e in..! u st rv fores:s 

SIJtewidc. · 

• On priv:11c- :m d. stare-ow ned b:H'.s in 

\X':i.shmgwn, biological trcat men~ or1m r1 uni• 

ues exis[ on SVfl\e 3.7 m ill ion acres. (:\ ser• 

ara! c report \J q ye-.. r ~rni ened a 20 rerccnt 

:nucJ>e in :i. imu:i! growth if die !J1)dS were 

treate d). 

• Pre-comme rcial thin nini; cuul d create 

about 60 rniliion board fe et or ne , ann u:i l 

growth, and establishin g: and rehabiliru

7:0,000 lc ~t s co uld ger.er:lle about 95 0 

lio n boi ~d fee: o!° n.:t annual growth. 

.\\embers ot· t~ e Nor:hwesr congressio

,.klq;atio n .ire wc ~king: in support of re

esta tion. l!o th Re;J. Ro n \'t,'ydrn, D-Ore., 

Sen. Bob Packwo oC, R-Orc., h ave or p lan 

inuoduec leg isb: 1on :1 ime J ar b oo s

in •:estmenc i:. :1nJ m:.w,;igerr.cm of p riva

ow11cJ forests. 

In adc!i1i on, Oregon Secrerary o f State 

Keishn!{ ha; proposed a RcforeSllltion T

Fund to hd:, private landowncn rep

u1~dc-n:ockcJ non -ir:~oJstr:al lands. The f

would 1.:rcate Jn c-scim:i.:ed 330 of the 7

i:11er,siv<" mJnagement jobs the report 

JeCI~. 

Keisling ~a:d the goal is rn ra ise SI0 

lion from l~e stJ{ e -..nJ fed eral gove rnm

:o c-s:l\>:1sh d: c !unJ. U nc!tr th e propo

bnduwners wot.:!J. pay the go vernment a 

C:(' :ltJi,;e o( [heir rimbcr rect: pti. H e said 

gr,:ii 1~ t,J r~:·,nest 250,0Q0 J•:res over 1

IS ye n s 
74 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

That will help us shorten up our questions to BLM. AB you noticed, I was trying to focus on what these base numbers were rather than just looking at them in the abstract, because unless you tie 

them down you aren't doing it. 

Mr. Gladics, I apologize fot the shortness of time, but I am trying 

to save some time at the expense of your colleagues here so that 

you are able to make a statement for about five minutes. Please 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK GLADICS 

Mr. GLADICS. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that, and the folks 

that I represent, the small lumber mills in the West, are very much 

interested in trying to find ways to harvest our National Forests 

and maintain our health. 

Sitting here today listening to the testimony, there are a few 

things, though, that seem to have either been overlooked, or maybe 

it is my perception, that I would like entered into the record. One 

is that the Pacific Northwest was not all old-growth forests before 

we started to make our mark on the forests, and I would submit 

for you a BLM technical study that shows the amount of burned 

areas in Oregon in 1850 and then carries up that life stage cycle 

through the 1990s, if I could submit that for the record. 

Mr. VENTO. That will be submitted and properly referenced in 

the committee hearing. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-The· document may be found in the hearing 

file.] 

Mr. GLADICS. The other thing I would like to commend to your reading is a publication put out by the United States Forest Service, but it was done by the Forest History Society down in Durham, 

North Carolina, that looks at 100 years of forestry in America, and 

I have a number of copies I can leave with the committee. It shows 

that we have really done some phenomenal things in this country 

in terms of reforestation and in terms of rehabilitating some of the 

large game animals that were so heavily impacted. 

Mr. VENTO. That similarly will be referenced in the committee 

hearing and kept in the files. 

Mr. GLADICS. Finally, I will leave with you something not from 

the Pacific Northwest but something from the inner mountain West 

on the Black Hills National Forest. It is a book that was put together on the Custer expedition, which was 100 years ago in the 

Black Hills, and a number of matched photos that show what we 

had when Custer went through the Black Hills, a very sparse forest, heavily impacted by fire and native fire, compared to what we 

have now. I think that, too, tells a story that the American public 

needs to understand of what happened. 

Mr. VENTO. Similarly, that will be referenced. 

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-The document may be found in the hearing 

file.] 

Mr. GLADICS. Next, I would like to kind of touch on some ironies 

that I heard about in the hearing today and ask this committee 

and Congress to think about those as you formulate directions for 

our Federal lands. 
75 

I think we heard the IG say that they were upset with the BLM, 

that they were losing an opportunity to make money on some lands 

because ther. weren't planting them quickly enough. That is somewhat opposite from the amount of money that you could make if 

you actually harvested. Right now, you are losing billions and billions of dollars because _you have sales held up that have been sold 

that are unharvested. Those, obviously, will lead to reforestation 

needs that would, obviously, lead to new forests. 

Second, I heard a lot of talk about ecosystem system management, but at the same time I hear a lot of talk about setting aside 

areas. I think if you look at our National Forests across the country, there is a very large need for mana~ng these areas to maintain the forest's health, and Mr. LaRocco s bill and Mr. Sampson's 

efforts to gain attention for that we support because we believe you 

have forests that have been mismanaged through the preclusion of 

fire and the preclusion of active management practices. Now we 

have a tremendous cost facing us to deal with those. 

If you look at the Blue Mountain forests in eastern Oregon, we 

have 50 percent of the trees dead. We are not being able to salvage that volume. That is not generating any revenues that could be 

used for planting or harvesting of the trees or rehabilitating those 

sites. The Forest Service is going to come to this Congress at some 

point if people want trees on that land, and they are going to be 

asking for tremendous amounts of money to do that job. We are not 

so convinced that the budgets we have seen pro~osed will allow for 

that. That is an irony that we need to address. Ecosystem management is one way to address it, but you cannot say let's set aside 

everything in these dynamic processes and just preserve them and 

expect them to last, particularly in the inner mountain forests 

which tend to get to a certain age and die, and if you look at the 

age distribution in the inner mountain country, we have many forests that are sitting right on the edge of that time period where 

they start to fall apart. Timber harvesting and our K-V system and the B-D system that 

we have do lay out a format where money does go from the purchaser back to the agency that allows you to do a lot of that work. 

The final irony that I saw, and I guess it hit home when I was 

eating lunch and I saw all the beer distributors in town here with 

buttons that say, "Beer tax will cost 80,000 jobs." We are talking 

about goin~ from an economy that produces not only money out of 

the woods m terms of salaries for loggers but also produces money 

for the sawmillers and the people that work in those jobs and the 

distributors of wood products. I know there is a lot of talk about 

retrainin~, and I was kind of hoping for a beer distributorship, but 

I don't thmk I am going to get that now. 

It is very important when we look at rehabilitating the forests 

and those jobs that we understand that those forests and that economy are very truncated. Yes, you can plant trees and you go thin 

trees and you can make a living at that, but that does not support 

entire communities in a similar fashions that sawmills have, and 

that needs to be taken into account as we move forward in this. 

That is not to say that the forests don't need to be rehabilitated; 

I think both things should occur. We should be able to harvest stuff 

on National Forests because we do have age class distribution im-
76 

balances and forest health imbalances that need to be addressed 

and rehabilitate those forests at the same time. Our members believe that you can do that and stand ready to work with this Congress and the administration to try to find opportunities like the 

Applegate project to make that work. [Prepared statement of Mr. Gladics follows:] 

STATEMENT OF FRANK Gl.ADICS, VICE PRESIDENT OF WESTERN FOREST INDUSTRIES 

AssocIATION, PORTLAND, OR 

Good morning. My name is Frank Gladica I am Vic.e Preaident for the Western 

Forest Industries Association. I am here today speaking on behalf of my association 

and the American Forest & Paper Association. I appreciat.e the opportunity to dis- cuss with you our views on reforestation and forest management on public 1ands in 

the Northwest. With about 1.4 million employees, operations in all 50 states, and annual sales 

of $190 billion, the forest resourc.e industry is a significant contributor to the na- tion's economy. This impreSBive performance is due, in large part, to this nation's and our industry's strong commitment to sound forest management. 

A HISTORY OF COMMITMENT TO SOUND FOREST MANAGEMENT 

The U.S. is second to no other country in its commitment to sound forest management. This fact is accurately portrayed in the rec.ently released book "American Forests: A History of Resiliency and Recovery." I would like to submit a copy for the 

record and commend it to your reading. The fact is, forest management and the condition of U.S. forests have improved 

dramatically sinc.e the turn of the c.entury-and continues to improve. Forest growth 

nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. Each decade this margin between 

growth and harvest increases. By 1986 forest growth exceed harvest by an impressive 37 perc.ent-this volume of forest growth is 350 percent greater than it was in 

1920. 

This impreSBive record is due, in large part, to our commitment to reforestation. In 1991, timberland owners, corporations, and government agencies planted 1.68 billion seedlings-over seven trees for each American-to reforest America's forestland. In addition, m illions of acres of forests are managed to ensure they regenerate naturafu'. The national forests reflect a similar commitment to reforestation. In 1991, the 

Forest Service reforested over 503,000 acres of national foresta following harvesting and wildfires. The Forest Service planted over 50 different species of trees in this 

effort, reflecting the tremendous variety of trees in the 122 national forests. 

Additionally, to provide for a variety of species in replanted forest stands, the Forest Servic.e and BLM leave residual trees and shrubs during timber harvesta. Seeds 

from these remnant trees complement planted seedlings to ensure diversity of future forest stands. Since 1980, the Forest Service has reforested over 5.2 million areas of forestland. Ninety perc.ent of these acres were successfully replanted on the initial attempt. The 

agency has sinc.e succeSBfully reforested the vast majority of the remaining 10 percent of the acres. The forest producta industry strongly supporta reforestation efforta as an essential tool in forest management. Ag~essive reforestation on both public and private foresta will ensure that we maintain the strong ecological integrity and 

economic and aesthetic qualities of our foresta for future generations. 

U.S. SUCCESS IN FOREST MANAGEMENT GOES BEYOND TREES 

The U.S. commitment to sound forest management extends beyond trees and re- forestation. Significant advances have been made in the areas of wildlife, recreation, watershed, and other forest resource enhancement and protection. Again, the facta 

clearly show that this nation has been succeSBful in implementing protection and 

management practices that improve all forest values. For example, since the turn 

of the century, the area consumed by wildlife each year has been reduced by 90 percent. 

Wildlife enhancement is also a success story. Many species, such as wild turkey, elk, and pronghorn, once on the verge of extinction, are now thriving due to sound 

forest management and cooperation between private landowners and public agencies. I might add that these remarkable comebacks of each of these species was ac- complished well in advance of the pa88age of the Endangered Species Act. 
77 

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST-REFORESTATION AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON 

NATIONAL FORESTS ARE BOUND 

Reforestation and timber stand improvement acreage in Region 6 were at near- record levels this past year. In 1992, on Region 6 national forests, almost 130,000 acres were reforested, with timber stand improvement activities extended to more than 76,000 acres. Regenerated forests are rarely comprised of a single species. Planting and the 

planned reseeding and sprouting by residual trees and shrubs result in a reflection 

of the natural diversity of the region. All forest conditions, not just old growth, are important components of the forest ecosystem and part of the biological diversity. The "original" natural condition of the Pacific Northwest forest waa a mosaic of old 

growth and young, mostly even-aged stands that resulted from fire, insects and dis- ease. I would like to submit for the record the publication "The Truth About America's Forests" which visually depicts the forest stand age claaaea of the Pacific Northwest in the year 1850. More than 30 percent of the national forests in Oregon and Washington are old 

growth-some 6.29 million acres. More than half of this old growth (3.3 million 

acres) is in wildemeaa and other land classifications where timber harvesting ia not 

permitted. Further, on National Parks and other public lands, there are at least an additional one million acres of old growth in the two states. 

SATELLITE IMAGERY OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST-NASA NEEDS TO COME DOWN TO 

EARTH 

Over the course of the last several months, numerous newspaper articles have 

featured reprints of satellite imagery comparing approximately 500 square miles of 

the Mt. Hood National Forest near Timothy Lake with a location in the Amazon 

Basin. Drawing any kind of conclusions on reforestation from 570 miles away ia, at 

beat, impossible. In addition, any experienced forester will tell you that questioning 

U.S. forest management practices baaed on comparing these imageries ia ludicrous. 

Satellite imagery uses reflected light to develop contrasts. Young forests and 

ground covered with shrub vegetation reflect more light than older forests. For this reason the younger forests, 3--40 years of age, will resemble bare areas and contrast 

sharply with the older forests surrounding them. I would like to submit for the 

record photos taken from conventional aircraft which show areas identified aa "bare" 

by the NASA satellite imagery, which are in fact, fully forested. These pictures show an area fully stocked with 10-20 year old trees with management prescriptions fully 

preserving the ecological integrity and diversity of the site. The Mt. Hood National Forest planted 3.8 million trees in 1992-about five trees 

for each harvested. Baaed on our experience in the area, about 95 percent of these 

trees will survive. Over the last 40 years, approximately 180,000 acres of this na- tional forest has been harvested and regenerated. Thia amounts to only 16 percent 

of the total forested acreage. 

Perhaps it was simply an unfortunate oversight that the NASA satellite imagery does not include the six wildemeBB areas and the Spotted Owl Conservation Areas 

which together comprise nearly 500,000 acres on the Mt. Hood. The areas shown 

in the press includes part of the Mt. Hood and the Warm Springs Indian Reservation that have been fragmented by harvesting. Aa described above, this fragmenting 

has been a natural process of the forests of the Pacific Northwest. In my view, and 

in the view of most foresters, replacing wildlife and losses to insects and disease 

with harvesting and reforestation makes aenae. Aa I stated above, inferring that this nation's commitment to forest management practices are somehow inferior to those of a developing country is absolutely entirely 

false and unfair. While there will continue to be debate at the margins over forest 

management in the U.S., everyone agrees on the fact that forest management in 

this country ia founded on sound science, continuously improves by implementing new technology, and ia guided by the moat environmentally sensitive laws, policies, 

and regulations in the world. 

THE PROBLEM IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 18 TIMBER SUPPLY 

The national timber supply situation has now reached a state of crisis. There is no evidence that it will abate in the foreseeable future. While some factors are temporary, such as court injunctions, even temporary impediments are becomin!!' permanent because of their persistence and cumulative impacts. Every obstacle 1s put in 

the way of a stable and predictable timber supply. This is not a crisis brought on by biological constraints, rather it is driven by politics and policies. Aa I mentioned 

above, growth far exceeds harvests in this nation. 
78 

This supply shortage hu caused lumber prices to riee dramatically. Since October, the price trend o( structural framing lumber has rieen over 100 percent. Reflecting long term uncertainty, lumber futures have increased at maximum levels on man_y recent trading day1. These unueual circumetances have caused manufacturers 

to ship hardwood lumber to the West cout as a substitute for softwood framing 

lumber. Similarly, prices for fine hardwood aawlog veneer logs are escalating to 

record levels. 

Do not be misled by opponents to timber management and others who want you 

to believe this drutic increaee in lumber prices is the reault of increased demand 

and predictable seasonal fluctuations in lumber prices. This view is incomplete and 

misleading. I would like to enter for the record a copy of our comments on the recent 

CRS report on lumber prices. Demand is stronger than the 1991 recession low, but is average from a historical 

perspective. This year we predict consumers will demand '8 billion board feet, still 

below the peak of 50.6 billion board feet. Even with average demand, prices are still 

shooting through the roof. 

In 1992, housing starts increased only 18 percent from the near record lows of 

1991. This is weak in comparison with the 61 percent increaee in 1983 as the coun- try came out of recession. Housing has traditionally led this country out of economic 

recession. A lack of timber needed to produce lumber and other building materials 

threatens to stall a strong economic recovery. 

SUMMARY 

The U.S. is second to no other country in its commitment to sound forest management. 

Forest management and the condition of U.S. forests have improved dramatically 

since the turn of the century-and continues to improve. Growth now exceeds harvest by more than 30 percent. More than 30 percent of the national forests in Oregon and Washington are old 

growth-some 6.29 million acres. More than half of this old growth (3.3 million 

acres) is in wilderness and other land classifications where timber harvesting is not 

permitted. All forest conditions, not just old growth, are important components of the forest 

ecoeystem and part of the biological diversity. Some have claimed not to have seen the forest for the trees-with satellite imagery you may not see the forest or the trees. 

There is reason to be optimistic regarding timber supply. The President has an- nounced his commitment to breaking the timber supply gridlock in the Pacific 

Northwest through a forest summit this Friday. As always, we stand committed to 

finding practical solutions. As solutions are found, it is our hope that we can get 

back to doing what we do best-supplying our nation with wood and paper products 

in an environmentally sound manner and nurturing our renewable forest resources. That you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for abbreviating your remarks. It is espe- cially difficult because I have so many questions I would like to 

ask, but I have got two minutes to get over to vote. I didn't want 

to hold you up. Then I think other business will intervene. So we 

will all send some written questions along, and you can try to respond to them. Obviously, it has been a very provocative panel, and 

it would have been helpful to ask questions, but there just isn't the 

opportunity today. 

Thank you very much for your patience and your help in making 

this a good hearing. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

MARcH 30, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

~--.. ' ""L' ,- ,,.~':"":: , -_ : ·,;..:-,,: 

.... D-,-•, c,....., ••• 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF IIE~ll!SINTATIVIS 

""._"8~N~~C?.M.0r~ 2r1,93"-

TIMBER LOBBYISTS 

HIT OVER HEAD WITH 2 X4 

UNCONSCIOUS 

& ARE UNAWARE 

OF REAL .REASON FOR 

LUMBER PRICE RISE 

Dear Colleague· 

WAn -· MIO MUNI 

MT•IC'T WC91.UM•IA 

--... 

Tht Congre11ion&l ~Huch Servi~ examined th• claims th1t the 1potttd owl 

11 the eulpr1t for ~ant llsnlficant lnata.,, in lumbet prices. Th,., d1lms 

have befr. mad• by th• National Anodation of Hom• Bulld•rs In rtctnt 

new, articles and mis--leading advtrti&ements. 

CRS conclud'5: 

'Th• oconomic recov•ry is frobably th• major cause of th• lumber ptia rist .. Although the lumber pric• rin U substa1'rial, e::d.ting evidence 11.15gHt.S thttt 

Jt M:: not 1ignlfic,ntly slow housin1 starts or the tconofflic recovery." 

"Tht impac! of tpotttd ow! prottction on Federal timber 11.les Is un~rt1in." 

"ChL"'lges in economic conditioru car. also _affect lumbt-r prices.'' 

And perhaps the most telling and Clt,\•Jou1 conchaion: 

"Since small changes. in mortgage . rates have a 

greater effect on home buyers ·than doubling 

lumber prices, it seems unlikely that changes 

in lumber rrices can have a significant effect 

on housing .'emand." 

I hop• you will ronsidu the.t Important points by th• Congreulonal 

~~:•;c~· S.rvic, when dealing wlelii.th oomt of th~. •rtizr hyst•; on rimber 

Si trtly~ 

te ark 

Member of Congr-•ss 

(79) 
80 

SENT 6Y'Xero x Te l eccp i er 70 20 ; 3- 24- 93 2:55p~ 1202225962 1~ 

w,\JJMIJMI.IO • ll'4EW.ill H'f .IACII JIIUll, 'T'Q,t,f 

l,Alill ~ I'\~~ CioO - •Ovto a. . .t.u..lU. 

w~•...,"'.lt"'-21'4.~"'-''l.u..t ..,..,.,. -. u n 1M11.~ W!Wfilil 01,1"1..U.LL• :)•I .-lo\Jl'TO!l' . .,,W/(kt1'f 

IOU)MOO. '· Clll"'\I TUJ.I MQWUD c;OIU. ll!Clffl< UACIUMA ,,_Al 4 loU...,Oo, tj ...... ¥0 -1 111.1.-r ... ~ ... ,.IO,.,...L¥.UU 

~ .. t t ,C.~ .,,. _Q•lllli .MMfl Ill 1..aJL l)Cl,AIICllU, 

ot01161 , i'o0t .. ,.,.,icu.1•ww •oac ~-..- • .. -"'··'°""""~ = ·~~ L~!: ;;._:,rw J(IIH'I' ~4:o\l ~:-.'="c':~~~1.1, ~":.,~~~~i~~.:::,;:G10'4 ~ ~ o,: J N:;1 1,110 • ~1101 ,1;..,,."c ..-C:"'4&1. Jo. 0.t"l-1. otu....,.... l'l ....,n,., U~t•l ll• ..CU I< l;.U,0 1,,' "-I ....,. .. 1, UIG, .,.., f Q._( 

'r><OM .. k '-J<OUWC, ~Allol ~t:l\,N ~JI.Oleil 

a.itA,,l ["l' M ,.., ,..l l)"IQQ<,j --

~f'll lr, IC• '11 ( . t.i,.,1tOlw/• 

, .. 11w1rinxu ""-'• ._ .... rlfriU f~OIIIO• 

DM!Mli'l\laG. tAl..10•".,, ~lW I..Uilllll'T . ............. 

,._,,0, U IIQO. C,._ll'OAA\lr, 'NOM.t.t ,;. w .ow.1~ Ulff'.ll:n 

11.6. llou•t ot l\tprnentatibn 

Commfttu an 

-mbant -arlne anb .lllbnie• 

~om 1334. l.onport!, Joun eruu • uflllina 

• ubfnlJlon, ac: 2051H230 

March 22, 1993 

l.wrTIMU.. MIC~IIAJI ...,..._t.a.~u.. •,,• .. uws,o,, "1111 .. ..,.,.c,,_ ~ 

...,,,,!.~WfW'fLUMBER PRICES AND ENDANGERED SPEClES 

FACTS AN!) FICTION 

Dear Colleague: 

n..,-,,.. 

_,, ... Wll.l,IMIIW

--. ITll.l,,1,-"', 

IIIJIOIJT'l'l',.,. Pllllt1'01 ttlM',I_~ 

....,._CW!tJ C'QVNU\. 

CY JltTlol.l.M. WILr.JIUO'I 

The recant riaa in 1\11111:)er price• ha1 bean widely reported in th• 

pr es• and accompanied by much • peculation about th• root cau••• ot the incr••••· National campai;na by aeveral intaraat group• have bean organized to attribute the price riaa to th• Endangered 

Speci•• Act. 

In an effort to • ort tact from fiction, the conqr•••ional Ra1earch service (CRI) has pr• parad an analy• i• of the ri•• in 

dom• 1tic lumbar price,. CRS conclude• that th• • conomic recovery i • probably th• major cau,a ot the lumber price ri••• but 

••asonal factor•, th• count•rvailin; duty on Canadian lumber, and 

injunction• on the Federal timber • al• program due to the failur e of the last Ac1mini• tration to comply with the r• quir•mant• of the 

National Fora•t Mana;amant Act, th• National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Sp• ci•• Act hav• alao contributad. 

Mr. Roa• Gorte, th• author of th• CRS analy•i•, will bri• f 

inter•• t • d member• and • taff on hi• analyai•. Mr. Ck>rta i• an Economi•t and Natural Re• ourc• Speciali•t with th• :tnvironmantal 

and Natural R•• ourcaa Policy Oiviaion of CRS. 

Tha bri efing will be held on Friday, March 26, ~193 at 1, 00 p.m. in the Marchant Marina and flah• ri•• co111111ittaaaarlnq room (1334 Lonhorth Kouaa Office Bulldinq). All lnteraat• d Miiiibara and 

ataf are welcome to attend. 

If you have any queation• about th• briefing, pl•••• contact M1. 

Le1li Gray at 226•3547. 

With kind ra;arda. 

Sincp e:i •·· 

/', J ,\ ', •. z, t:,(--1. 

dirry . Studda 

crairman 
81 

A 

WESTERN FOR.EST INDUSTRI ES ASSOCIATION 

I S 00 5 W . T/\Yl. O 1{ S TRF.l:: T • POR T L /\ N0 . O RE GO N 9 7 2 0 5 

April 1, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce Vento 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

TF.LEP H O ~[ 

503-22 4 -:.', 455 

I would like to clarify a point raised in Mr. Neil Sampson's testimony before your 

committee hearings on March 30, 1931. As you may recall, Mr. Sampson advised you 

to ask more penetrating questions the next time Chief Dale Robertson testifies before 

your committee. He then accused the U.S. Forest Service of "re-defining" the agency 

out of a substantial reforestation backlog problem. As evidence, he asserted that the 

Forest Service re-classified 213 million acres of what the Agency formerly identified as a 

reforestation backlog as "other forest land" and thereby escape the scrutiny of Congress. 

While there are indeed 213 million acres of "other forest land," little if any of 

this forest land is in need of reforestation. This acreage is, according to the Forest 

Service, 

"Forest land other than timberland and reserved timberland. It includes available 

and reserved unproductive forest land, which is incapable of producing annually 

20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood under natural conditions because of 

adverse site conditions such as sterile soils, dry climate, poor drainage, high 

elevation, steepness, or rockiness." 

As you can determine from the enclosed excerpts from "Forest statistics of the 

United States, 1987," more than half of the "other forest land" is in Alaska. Much of 

the remainder is located in arid states such as Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. 

Furthermore, most of this area is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 

Management and other agencies in the Department of Interior. 

What is now called "other forest land" was once termed "unproductive forest 

land. " [neither case, this land is not, fo r the most part, denuded. In the arid West, for 

example, much of this forest is pinyon-juniper and similar vegetative types. In Alaska, 

such land supports stagnant stands of slow-growing aspen, cottonwood, black spruce 

and related taiga species. For certain, most does not require reforestation. Aside from 
82 

the fact that the bulk of the "other forest land" is outside the Agency's jurisdiction, I 

know of no instance when the U.S. Forest Service used this category as a means to hide 

a reforestation backlog. 

Mr. Sampson has leveled a serious and improper charge. For this reason, I hope 

you will include this letter in the official hearing record. Chief Robertson had left and 

did not hear Mr. Sampson's testimony. For this reason, I hope also that you will 

provide Dale a transcript of Mr. Sampson's testimony so that he can properly respond to 

this serious charge. 

cc: Robertson, Congressman Smith, Sampson 

enclosure 

Respectfully, .. . 

'xi /1 /.· . _d ~,•.,'" ::t-:::~-~- v ' ✓ I 

Frank ""'c!sdics 

Vice President 
83 

Excerpts 

from 

FOREST STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1987 

by 

Karen L. Waddell, Daniel D. Oswald, and Douglas S. Powell 

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

Portland, Oregon 

Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-168 

September, 1989 
84 

Table 1-1..tnd 1re11 In the United State, by major land cl111, region, and State, 1987 

und clau 

ForHt land 

Total Total Other 

land forest Reserved forest Other 

Region and State area• land Timberland timberland land land 

Thousand ac19a 

Northeast: 

Connecticut 3,090 1,815 1,777 21 17 1,275 

Delaware 1,206 398 388 3 7 809 Maine 19,732 17,713 17,175 2715 262 2,019 

Maryland• 6,292- 2,632 2,461 153 18 3,660 

Massachusetts 4,994 3,097 3,010 0 87 1,897 

New Hampshire 5,701 5,021 4,803 70 148 681 

New Jersey 4,648 1,985 1,914 41 30 2,663 

New York 30,273 18,775 15,799 2,549 427 11,498 

Pennsylvania 28,601· 16,997 16,186 532 278 11,605 

Rhode Island 667- 399 368 8 22 269 

Vermont 5,915 4,479 4,424 25 30 1,435 

West Virginia 15,406 · 11 ,942 11 ,799 116 27 3,464 

Total 126,526 85,251 80,104 3,794 1,352 41 ,275 

North Central: 

lllinoi1 35,531 4,265 4,030 236 0 31,265 

Indiana 22,895 4,439 4,296 143 0 18,456 

Iowa 35,748 1,562 1,459 76 27 34,184 

Michigan 36,362 18,220 17,364 623 234 18,141 

Minnesota 50,640 16,583 13,571 1,178 1,834 34,056 

Missouri 44,123 12,523 11 ,996 224 303 31 ,600 

Ohio 26,211 7,309 7,141 120 49 18,902 

Wisconsin 34,740 15,319 14,727 261 331 19,421 

Total 286,247 80,221 74,583 2,860 2,778 206,026 

Great Plains: 

Kansas 52,228 1,358 1,207 23 128 50,870 

Nebraska 49,005 722 536 23 163 48,283 

North Dakota 44,271 460 337 0 123 43,811 

South Dakota 48,532 1,690 1,447 22 221 46,843 

Total 194,037 4,229 3,527 67 635 189,808 

Southeast: 

Florida 34,533 16,721 15,238 461 1,022 17,812 

Georgia 36,837 23,907 23,383 505 18 12.930 

North Carolina 30,990 18,891 18,359 490 43 12,099 

South Carolina 19,077 12,257 12,179 78 0 6,820 

Virginia 25,248 15,968 15,436 471 61 9,278 

Total 146,682 87,744 84,594 2,005 1,144 58,938 
85 

Table 1-Land areas In the United States by major land class, region, and State, 1987, 

continued 

Land clau 

Forest land 

Total Total Other 

land forest Reserved forest Other 

Region and State ., ... land Timberland timberland land land 

Thousand acrwa 

South C.ntral: 

Alabama 32,466 21,725 21,6511 66 0 10,742 

Arkansaa 33,319 16,987 16,673 91 223 16,332 

Kentucky 25,321 12,258 11 ,908 2Ei1 81 13,065 

Louisiana 28,432 13,883 13,873 10 0 14,600 

Mississippi 30,160 16,693 16,673 9 12 13,467 

Oklahoma 43,939 7,283 4,748 23 2,513 36,656 

Tennessee 26,339 13,258 12,839 395 24 13,081 

Texas 167,665 13,656 12,414 120 1,122 154,029 

Total 387,713 115,741 110,787 981 3,974 271 ,971 

Pacific Northwest: 

Alaska 361,887 129,045 15,763 5,292 107,990 232,842 

Oregon 61 ,546 28,057 22,084 1,777 4,196 33,488 

Washington 42,483 21,856 16,848 2,765 2,244 20,627 

Total 465,918 178,958 54,695 9,834 114,429 286,958 

Pacific Southwest: 

California 99,n3 39,381 16,712 2,940 19,729 60.392 

Hawaii 4,110 1,748 700 113 935 2,362 

Total 103,884 41,129 17,412 3,053 20,665 62,754 

Rocky Mountains: 

Arizona 72,607 19,384 3,789 1,090 14,505 53,223 

Colorado 66,249 21,338 11,739 1,714 7,884 44,911 

Idaho 52,692 21,818 14,533 3,051 4,234 30,873 

Montana 92,765 21,910 14,736 1,398 s.ne 70,855 

Nevada 70,112 8,928 221 1 8,705 61 ,184 

New Mexico n .632 18,526 5,181 1,399 11 ,947 59,106 

Utah 52,502 16,234 3,078 34CI 12,809 36,269 

'Nyoming 62,055 9,966 4,332 2,943 2,691 52,089 

Total 546,614 138,104 57,610 11,941 68,553 408,510 

United States: 2,257,618 731 ,3n 483,311 34,536 213,532 1,526,240 

Not•: o.ta may noc add to totals ~ of rounding. 

Asource: U.S. Dep,artm~I of Commerce,. 1983. 19&0 c:entua of popul&llon. Volume t: Chatacter11Clcs r:A the populal:lon. Pan 1: Uni1ed St&ln 

,ummary. {Wuhington, DC). 

blnclUO. 40,320 acrws of OU._ Land In Wuhlngton 0C. 

0 






ISBN 0-16-040963-2 

90000