U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

61–825 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–682 

OREGON FORESTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 2895, TO RESTORE FOREST LANDSCAPES, 

PROTECT OLD GROWTH FORESTS, AND MANAGE NATIONAL FORESTS 

IN THE EASTSIDE FORESTS OF THE STATE OF OREGON, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

BEND, OR, JUNE 4, 2010 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Carrier, Michael, Natural Resources Policy Director, Office of the Governor, 

Salem, OR ............................................................................................................. 4 

Franklin, Jerry F., Professor, Ecosystem Science, School of Forest Resources, 

University of Washington .................................................................................... 20 

Hoeflich, Russell, Vice President and Oregon Director, The Nature Conservancy ..................................................................................................................... 31 

Insko, Tom, Region Manager, Boise Cascade, LLC .............................................. 24 

Lillebo, Tim, Eastern Oregon Field Representative, Oregon Wild ...................... 34 

Maluski, Ivan, Conservation Program Coordinator, Oregon Chapter Sierra 

Club ....................................................................................................................... 58 

Smith, Stanley, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs .................... 14 

Unger, Alan, Deschutes County Commissioner .................................................... 1 

Walls, James K., Executive Director, Lake County Resources Initiative ........... 28 

Webb, Hon. Mark, Grant County Judge ................................................................ 9 

Williams, King, Member, Gazelle Land & Timber, LLC ...................................... 43 

Woodward, Craig, Owner, Woodward Companies, Prineville, OR ....................... 54 

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

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 73 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 75 

(1) 

OREGON FORESTS 

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Bend, OR. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m. in the 

Barnes Room of the Deschutes Public Services Center Building, 

1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN UNGER, DESCHUTES COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER 

Mr. UNGER. Hello, my name is Alan Unger, your Deschutes 

County Commissioner. I’d like to welcome Senator Ron Wyden to 

Central Oregon. I want to thank Ron for bringing the U.S. Senate 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests to the heart of the area 

affected by this legislation. Eighty percent of Deschutes County is 

in public ownership. We need a Federal solution that all in Oregon 

will benefit from. 

Senator, your bipartisan approach that brings all to the table to 

find a solution is an example to all in Washington. It’s a formula 

for success and we all benefit by your leadership. 

Welcome to Central Oregon. 

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

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Alan, thank you very much for that really gracious introduction, and to all of you for giving up some time on a 

gorgeous Friday afternoon to come on out, and really appreciate it. 

I think you’re going to feel that this is, particularly listening to all 

of the folks who are going to testify today, this is the way you 

ought to try to move forward on major issues, where folks are 

working together and trying to reach out and find common ground. 

So with that, we will bring the subcommittee to order this afternoon. The Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests is 

meeting in beautiful Bend, Oregon. 

This week, folks, has been all about jobs. I started it off at a biorefinery in Boardman. They’re talking about 250 good paying jobs 

there, it is going to be a cellulosic ethanol facility. Eventually we 

think it’s going to grow into a major biomass plant, because it 

bumps right up against the Umatilla National Forest. So this is an 

opportunity to create greener, better jobs for the future, and that’s 

how we started the week. 
2 

After that, we went next to Shepherds Flat, which is of course 

in Eastern Oregon, where there’s going to be a new windmill 

project, possibly the largest windmill project in the world in Eastern Oregon, not in the United States, but in the world, another 

huge shot in the arm for the Oregon economy. The Oregon Congressional delegation there had a big challenge trying to deal with 

the Defense Department. It was a challenge, largely because they’d 

never had to deal with these kinds of issues in the past, and we 

made the case that this country could have both national security 

and energy security, and we were able to get that approved. 

Yesterday, as you may have seen, the Oregon Congressional delegation was in Newport, on the Oregon coast, where we announced 

that the government has entered into a final determination that 

Newport is the best place for a major research facility, 175 new 

jobs in Newport. Nobody thought Oregon could pull that off, either. 

They scoffed at us when they thought that little David in the Oregon coast area could take on the Goliath up north. I said people 

who thought we could win on the Oregon coast, they were probably 

just folks who were a few fish short of their limit. Yet, once again, 

Oregon prevailed. 

So, that’s how we started this week, and today we’re going to 

turn to the question of trying to do the same kind of cooperative 

effort, this time in the forestry sector, building a partnership between the private sector, State officials, local officials, and of 

course, the Federal Government. 

So the task today is to look at how to create new good-paying 

jobs in the woods, and particularly with a focus on eastern and central Oregon. My view is, we’ve got a lot to work with, because of 

the supportive coalition that has come together for this legislation, 

a coalition that this State has not seen in more than two decades 

of debating where to go in the forestry area. We now have support, 

through this coalition, from timber groups, such as the American 

Forest Resources Council, the Logging Company, Boise-Cascade, 

and our own John Shelk of Ochoco, here in Central Oregon. Environmental groups, Defenders of Wildlife, the National Center for 

Conservation Science and Policy, and Pacific Rivers Council, all 

join this effort as well, from the environmental community. 

So today we’re going to get testimony on the legislation, S. 2895, 

that these groups have all come together that is—behind to get saw 

logs to the mills, restore and create jobs, get the forest healthy 

again, and protect our treasured old growth. 

I’m very pleased that Senator Merkley has already signed on as 

a co-sponsor of this legislation, and it’s my intent to work very 

closely with the entire Oregon Congressional delegation to get this 

legislation passed in this Congress. 

Many of you know that folks worked on this bill for many, many 

months, and to get the coalition that we announced last December, 

to have timber executives standing shoulder to shoulder with leaders of the Oregon environmental community, everyone had to say 

it was time to break the gridlock. With each passing month, this 

group recognized that the failure to address the needs of Oregon’s 

increasingly unhealthy forest meant that they grow more and more 

at risk, at risk of preventable fire, insect infestation, and disease. 
3 

My own take about this debate that has gone on for decades, is 

that each side in the timber wars has now armed itself politically, 

so that they are sufficiently musculared to survive, but never quite 

in a position to succeed. So as a result, we’ve got millions of acres 

of choked at-risk Federal forests in desperate need of management. 

Millions of acres of old growth are now in danger of dying from disease, insects, or fire, while the infrastructure of forestry, our mills 

and our loggers, and the jobs that go with them, have been walking 

on an economic tightrope with an uncertain future. 

My own view is, unless there are fundamental changes, economic 

and environmental dangers that result from the lack of attention 

to these issues is going to grow in the years ahead. The fact is, in 

Eastern Oregon, there are now only a handful of mills remaining. 

Unless there is greater certainty of timber supply and an immediate increase in merchantable timber, more mills are going to 

close. If that happens, eastside forests and the communities that 

depend on them, pay a huge price. Oregon’s eastside forests need 

every mill left, because without the mills to restore the old process 

to saw logs and other merchantable material from forest restoration projects, you can’t have restoration of the eastside forests. 

That’s what we’re trying to fix in this hearing today. 

Looking out at folks, and I see them in the first few rows, some 

of the witnesses, I can remember them going at it year after year 

after year, fighting each other, you know, nonstop, and can now see 

that they’re coming together to protect our forests, communities, 

jobs, and mills. It’s my view that looking at these folks just in the 

first few rows, there’s real reason to be hopeful about turning 

things around in the woods. 

The work of this coalition, by the way, is not just going to be 

good for the Federal lands, but will also be good for the land owners on the private lands that are impacted by fire, insect, and disease. The point of this legislation is to help make the Federal forests good neighbors to all the private land owners. The bill would 

provide an immediate supply of logs in the short-term to jumpstart 

restoration efforts and keep the mills alive. Obviously, job one has 

to be saving the remaining mills and loggers, the infrastructure of 

forestry, and at the same time, looking over the long term to provide the certainty required to restore each of the 6 eastside national forests. 

Nobody thinks that this road is just going to be immediately 

cleared out of political challenges. For this reason, we have come 

together as a coalition to make sure that we’re going to address 

some of the key points of consensus. In this coalition, it’s very clear 

that you have to have adequate Federal funding to properly manage and restore the forests to their health. So this coalition is going 

to join me and other Members of the Congressional delegation to 

secure the funding that is needed to manage our forests. 

I’m also pleased that the administration included, at my request, 

$50 million in the budget to support the kind of collaborative 

projects we envision through the Priority Job Stabilization and Watershed Initiative. 

We’re going to go to our first panel of witnesses now, but a couple of administrative chores. A lot of folks have been trying to figure out whether this is another one of our town hall meetings. It 
4 

is not a town hall meeting, only because it’s important that we get 

an official hearing of the subcommittee on the record in Central Oregon. Many of you know I’ve had more than 550 town hall meetings over my time, representing and the U.S. Senate. We will have 

plenty of them in the days ahead. This is an opportunity for a formal subcommittee hearing. We’re going to take testimony from witnesses, and we also want folks who would like to submit written 

testimony for the hearing record, can do so by sending it to the 

subcommittee in Washington or to one of our offices here in Oregon. We also have 3 of the best staffers in the solar system here. 

We have Michelle, we have Frank, and we have Scott, they’re all 

very good. Feel free to call them nights and weekends, take all 

their free time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. They’re outstanding public servants and really 

appreciate all 3 of them coming out. 

So, let’s go right to our witnesses. Michael Carrier is here from 

the Governor’s Office, the Honorable Mark Webb of Grant County 

is here, from Canyon City, and the Honorable Stanley Smith, representing the Confederated Tribes. If all 3 of you will come forward, we can get started. We really appreciate everybody coming. 

I’m going to make your prepared remarks a part of the hearing 

record in their entirety. Why don’t you just take maybe 5 minutes 

or so and summarize your principle concerns. 

Let’s begin with you, Mr. Carrier. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CARRIER, NATURAL RESOURCES 

POLICY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, SALEM, OR 

Mr. CARRIER. Senator, thank you so much for introducing S. 2895 

and for holding this hearing today. Thank you especially for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S. 2895. 

Governor Ted Kulongoski has offered his strong support for your 

legislation, and my testimony today is offered in his behalf. 

With half of Oregon in Federal ownership and half of that ownership in forest land, the subject of this bill is highest importance to 

the Governor, and it has been so important to him for the past 8 

years, that several years ago he asked our State Board of Forestry 

to start advising him on how the State could assist in increasing 

the capacity to improve management of our Federal lands. 

The State Board of Forestry created a body called the Federal 

Forest Advisory Committee made up of a diverse number of agencies, Federal, State, staff, and other stakeholders. They published 

a report over a year ago with a suite of recommendations and findings. I want to summarize those because I wanted to get them into 

the record because they build the case that you just built in your 

introductory remarks about why this legislation is so important to 

Oregon and why it’s in Oregon’s interest to support this. 

But the committee identified 2 major categories of problems that 

our Federal forest lands face in Oregon today, problems of place 

and overarching problems. The first category, the problems of 

place, generally describe the issues and problems associated with 

the resource itself and the landscape on which it’s located. The second, the overarching problems, talk about the policy and legacy 

management issues and problems. 
5 

With regard to the problems of place, of course forest health was 

the No. 1 problem. Forest health and resiliency has declined, they 

have declined in Oregon’s Federal forests. Aerial surveys conducted 

by the Forest Service Center, our own Department of Forestry 

showed dramatic upward trend in insect damage in the last 10 

years alone, and included in my testimony, I think available to you 

are some slides, eight slides in color, that amplify the remarks that 

I’m going to offer. 

The 2008 survey showed almost a million acres of forest land 

damaged by bark beetle, defoliators, and sap feeding insects. In 

Eastern Oregon alone, more than half a million acres have been 

damaged by mountain pine bark beetle. There are an estimate 11 

million of overstock forest land in Oregon, outside of wilderness 

and roadless areas that have missed fire cycles and now are in 

moderate to severe danger of losing key ecological functions due to 

uncharacteristic wildfires. 

The second category, second area under the problems of place is 

reduced timber harvest, you mentioned this, especially off of Federal lands. This has led to a decline in the forest industry, in the 

infrastructure, as you stated. The intended consequence is social 

losses to our rural communities, including receipts from timber use 

to support roads and schools. 

The Forest Service manages almost three-fourths of the 

timberland in eastern Oregon. This is a near monopoly. We can’t 

do with out this resource and without its contribution to our economy here. Without those Federal timber harvests, private 

forestland owners, as you mentioned, will lose access to competitive 

timber markets and may convert their land to other uses. 

Oregon, as you said, is losing the infrastructure on the east side, 

and we need that infrastructure to continue properly managing 

these eastern forests. Between 1990 and 2008, we lost 38 mills in 

eastern Oregon alone. In 2009, we were down to eight saw mills 

and two plywood mills in eastern Oregon. Since 1990, unemployment rates in the timber-dependant communities of eastern Oregon 

have dramatically exceeded the State average. In August 2009, unemployment in eastern Oregon was greater than 10 percent in 

most counties and exceeded 15 percent in 6 counties, and approached 20 percent in 2 counties. 

Then the last subcategory of the problems of place is the desired 

amount of older forest, which your bill very succinctly addresses. 

The amount forest on Federal lands, older forest on Federal lands, 

needs to be established and protected as a component of sustainable forest management. We’ve had a 16 percent decline in the 

amount of large ponderosa pine, greater than 21 inches, since 2001. 

Think of that. In the last 9 years, a 16 percent decline, largely a 

function of mortality caused by insects, fire, and crowding in overstocked stands. 

Now with regard to the second major category, the overarching 

problems, there are 4 things the committee identified, law, policies, 

and court decisions that govern Federal forest lands have created 

a set of discordant goals. We need to correct those and align them. 

Second, forest management in the past had changing public values, 

lack of clear widely accepted goals today, repeated court challenges, 

and the inability to implement decisions have eroded trust and con-
6 

fidence in our ability to get the job done. Third, Federal, State, 

local, and travel governments lack an effective process to collaborate and coordinate policy, which again, your bill addresses. Finally, funding is not adequate. 

I’ve included with my testimony, and put into the record, a recent report from the Oregon Forest Resource Institute, called Federal Forest Land in Oregon. 

I’ll wrap up here, Scott. 

I hope you have an opportunity, along with the subcommittee, to 

look at that report, because it very succinctly describes the findings 

that our advisory committee arrived at. 

I just want to say that in so many ways, your bill, S. 2895, addresses all of the issues and problems that I’ve identified in my testimony. 

In conclusion, I would say it does correctly approach this problem 

State by State. I know there’s been some concern about that, particularly within the Forest Service. In recognition that the magnitude of this problem of our Federal forest lands and the crisis 

that it represents is beyond our capacity to fund and manage a single initiative nationwide. Your bill strives to address these problems, beginning in Oregon where I think we can be a model for the 

rest of the Nation on how to get it right. 

Senator, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carrier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CARRIER, NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, SALEM, OR 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S. 2895, the Oregon 

Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009. Governor 

Ted Kulongoski has offered his strong support for this bill and my testimony is offered in his behalf. With half of Oregon in federal ownership and half of that ownership in forestland, the subject of this bill is of highest importance to the Governor. 

In October of 2004 Governor Kulongoski directed the Oregon State Board of Forestry to ‘‘create a unified vision of how federal lands should contribute’’ to the sustainability of Oregon’s forests. The Board created the Federal Forestlands Advisory 

Committee (FFAC) to accomplish this task. The FFAC included board members from 

natural resources agencies, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management staff, 

members of the conservation community, leaders in the forest industry, local government officials as well as representatives of labor, tribes and other interests. The 

FFAC held numerous meetings to engage the public, government officials, and the 

scientific community; collect information; review pertinent documents; discuss concerns and ideas; and formulate solutions. Their final report offers a number of consensus-based recommendations to improve the sustainability of Oregon’s federal 

forestlands. 

The FFAC quickly identified many of the same problems that S. 2895 seeks to 

address. These problems were divided into two broad categories; Problems of Place 

and Overarching Problems. The first category generally describes issues and problems with the forest resource itself whereas the second category addresses policy 

and legacy management issues and problems. 

The most pressing Problems of Place include: 

1. Forest health and resiliency have declined in Oregon’s federal forests. Specific problems vary, depending on the type and location of forests. The manifestations of degraded forest health are most extreme in the dry forest types 

(eastern and southwestern Oregon) where overstocked forest stands have resulted in unprecedented landscape-scale problems like uncharacteristic wildfire 

and insect epidemics that may result in the loss of key ecological components. 

Aerial surveys conducted by the USFS and Oregon Department of Forestry 

(ODF) show a dramatic upward trend in insect damage over the last 10 years. 
7 

* Slides 1–8 have been retained in subcommittee files. 

(Slides 1 and 2).* The 2008 surveys show almost a million acres of forestland 

damaged by bark beetles, defoliators, and sap-feeding insects. In eastern Oregon 

more than half a million acres were damaged by the mountain pine beetle 

alone. 

There are an estimated 11 million acres of over-stocked national forest lands 

in Oregon—outside of wilderness and roadless areas—that have missed fire cycles and are in moderate to severe danger of losing key ecological functions due 

to uncharacteristic wildfires. (Slide 3). The Nature Conservancy estimates that 

federal managers need to increase treatment rates nearly fivefold in Oregon 

over the next 20-25 years to address this issue. 

2. Reduced timber harvest from federal forestlands has led to a decline in forest industry infrastructure, with unintended economic and social losses to rural 

communities, including receipts from timber used to support roads and schools. 

(Slide 4) 

The Forest Service manages almost three-fourths of the timberland in eastern 

Oregon. This is a near monopoly. Without federal timber harvests, private 

forestland owners will lose access to competitive timber markets and may convert their land to other uses (Slide 5). Timber harvest from Forest Service lands 

in eastern Oregon are about 10 percent of what they were historically. For example, annual timber harvest in the Blue Mountains has averaged less than 50 

million board feet for the last 10 years, while between 1962 and 1991 it exceeded 537 million board feet. 

Oregon is losing the infrastructure needed to manage the forests in eastern 

Oregon. Between 1990 and 2008, 38 mills closed in eastern Oregon. In 2009, 

we were down to eight saw mills and two plywood mills buying logs in eastern 

Oregon. Without this infrastructure the cost of treatments for practices like fuel 

reduction will be much more expensive to accomplish. (Slide 6). 

Since 1990 unemployment rates in the timber dependent communities of eastern Oregon have dramatically exceeded the state average. In August of 2009, 

unemployment in eastern Oregon was greater than 10 percent in most counties, 

exceeded 15 percent in six counties, and approached 20 percent in two counties. 

(Slides 7 and 8). 

3. The desired amount of older forests on federal forestlands needs to be established and protected as a component of sustainable forest management. A 

well-balanced program of forest management activities is necessary to maintain 

the mix of successional stages and vegetation conditions that provides for the 

full diversity of habitats and species. 

Loss of older forest habitat—Oregon has had a 16 percent decline in the 

amount of large Ponderosa pine (greater than 21 inch diameter) since 2001. 

This loss is largely a function of mortality caused by, insects, fire and crowding 

in overstocked stands. The current strategy of reserves and harvest diameter 

limits is not achieving the older forest goals. Other options that include active 

management should be considered. 

The Overarching Problems that affect our ability to adequately address the above 

problems include: 

1. Laws, policies, and court decisions that govern federal forestlands have led 

to a collection of discordant goals and mandates that often work at cross purposes and inhibit agencies from reacting decisively to issues such as declining 

forest health. This confusion complicates rather than solves the need to integrate social, economic, and environmental values. 

2. Past forest management, changing public values, lack of clear, widely-accepted goals, repeated court challenges, and the inability to implement decisions 

have led to a lack of trust between stakeholders and federal forestland management and regulatory agencies. 

3. Federal, state, local and tribal governments lack an effective process to coordinate policy decisions and achieve landscape-scale objectives. 

4. Funding is not adequate or appropriately allocated to achieve land management objectives on federal forestlands. Adequate and more stable funding 

sources are necessary to achieve long-term management goals and sustainability. 

A recent special report, Federal Forestland in Oregon, published by the Oregon 

Forest Resources Institute, mirrors the analysis and findings of the FFAC and reinforces its recommendations. Copies of that report are available today for members 
8 

of the Subcommittee and I have submitted an electronic copy to committee staff 

along with my written testimony. 

I have spent quite a bit of time describing the FFAC findings because S. 2895 so 

closely aligns with those findings. Following are a few examples of that alignment: 

Many of the purposes in S. 2895 and the FFAC report are the same and include: 

creating an immediate, predictable, and increased timber flow; making our forests 

more resilient to climate change; protecting and restoring old growth forests; expediting actions that achieve ecological and economic benefits; promoting collaboration; 

streamlining administrative processes; and, restoring the health of forest and aquatic ecosystems. 

Both the FFAC report and S. 2895 concentrate on improving forest health as the 

central theme of action. The FFAC believes that taking action on forest health is 

of immediate concern and that long-term success solving the forest health problems 

will require solving related problems (i.e., timber harvest below sustainable levels, 

decreased infrastructure, continued conflict over the desired amount of older forests, 

lack of trust, and inadequate policy coordination). 

The management approach in S. 2895 mirrors the recommendations in the FFAC 

Report; i.e., assessing conditions across the landscape and then designing large scale 

projects to achieve objectives derived from the assessment. Forest health problems 

cover millions of acres and do not recognize political or ownership boundaries. In 

this context, the current federal forest planning model, which often approaches management on a 5000 to 10,000 acre scale, does not work well. The problem of scale 

is just one of its deficiencies. Time and process are also factors. The three national 

forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon have been working for seven years to update a plan that is intended to last 10 to 15 years, and we are no closer to completion that when we started. 

The FFAC recommendations rely heavily on public involvement through local collaborative processes to increase trust and build support for management decisions. 

S. 2895 provides an expanded role for involvement of local collaborative groups in 

assessing management needs as well as in designing management projects. 

A key FFAC recommendation is to increase funding for management activities. 

The FFAC concluded that: 

Current funding is insufficient to provide basic stewardship of the land 

and its resources, much less to offer a high level of environmental, economic, social, and cultural benefits. Declining budgets limit the agencies’ 

ability to maintain staff with the expertise required to conduct the services 

needed to accomplish forest management objectives. 

S. 2895 would significantly increase funding for management activities by authorizing $50 million and allowing for retention of harvest receipts to be applied to additional management. The FFAC Report expresses a real sense of urgency: 

What happens on these lands is of vital importance to Oregonians and 

the Nation. It is also clear that time is not on our side. Unless decisive 

steps are taken soon, we risk accelerated loss of important habitat for animal and plant species, further degradation of air and water quality, loss of 

aquatic species, including native fish, and continued decline in community 

well-being, among other things. 

S. 2895 expresses this urgent need to act now, not later. 

In conclusion, S. 2895 correctly approaches the problem, state-by-state, in recognition that the magnitude of the national federal forest health crisis is beyond our capacity to fund and manage in a single initiative. And while we must strive to address these problems everywhere they exist, S. 2895 offers a unique opportunity to 

show the nation a way forward. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Carrier, and we’ll have some 

questions for you in a moment. 

That last point that you made is a particularly important one, 

and these 3 staff folks have been wrestling with this, and I have 

as well at some length. It’s clear when you look at forestry policy, 

it would be wonderful to be able to just step back and write one 

bill that would recreate the system so that it worked in every nook 

and cranny of the land. Regrettably there isn’t enough time to do 

that. In other words, we’re looking at the prospect, if you don’t take 

action quickly, of losing all our remaining mills on the east side. 
9 

So what we hope to do on this subcommittee is work with Democrats and Republicans to see if we can create what I think appropriately would be called some pilot projects, projects that would be 

significant in terms of really getting at these questions for an individual State, such as getting saw logs to the mills, a serious 

thinning effort, protecting our environmental treasures, and at the 

same time allowing everybody in the country to learn from a relatively small number of pilot projects. We’re going to examine that 

question at some length, but I can tell you, the point you’ve raised 

is a point that Michelle, Frank, and Scott have spent a lot of time 

on and we’ve had an extensive conversation with the Obama administration on this as well. 

I want to go right to Judge Webb, but I just—before you start, 

Judge Webb, I just want to say how proud we were of the resonance of Grant County earlier this year for the rejection of hatred 

in your community. I know the Aryan Nations, the neo-Nazi 

group—let’s have a round of applause for Judge Webb. 

[Applause.] 

Senator WYDEN. His community rose as one to rally against hatred, and Judge, you can see that you certainly have our affection 

and esteem for doing it. 

So, we’ll make your prepared remarks part of the record, and you 

proceed as you would like. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WEBB, GRANT COUNTY JUDGE 

Judge WEBB. I do want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 2895, especially as I and some of the other residents 

in my county have some concerns, so I do appreciate that. 

There’s no doubt, as Mr. Carrier said, that something needs to 

be done, both in terms of forest health and community health. I actually think that putting ecological resilience front and center, like 

this bill attempts to do, is exactly the right course to take. I actually think that if you did that, you might be in a position to rewrite 

more the legislation, like you talked about, with something that 

would quite centrally apply across the board, but that would be a 

fuller discussion. 

Nevertheless, I do have serious concerns about the legislation in 

its current form. In particular, and this comes out of a context for 

the last 3 years being in county government, before that being a 

contractor in the woods. I’ve evaluated, thought about this legislation, in terms of litigation. I actually think that, in addition to 

funding shortfalls, that litigation is the critical challenge facing 

Federal forest land management. My concern, and the concern to 

many of my constituents, is that this bill not only doesn’t address 

that, it probably will strengthen the ability of individuals to litigate 

and shut down projects, that’s our concern. 

So, I’ll just read now some prepared statements. Past management practices, generally sanctioned by Congress and informed by 

the best available science of the time have compromised the health 

of federally managed lands in various ways, and the timber industry has been partner to this. But again, science, Congress, industry, 

we’ve got a past history there that we need to correct. However, 

litigation, particularly by environmentalists, over the last couple 

decades, coupled with its resulting lack of active management, has 
10 

brought many of these lands to the brink of ecological disaster. 

Frankly, given where they started, we’re in a far worse condition 

now than we were when we were logging. Unfortunately, S. 2895 

not only fails to address this critical challenge, but will arguably 

strengthen it. 

I say this because while S. 2895 is strongly supported by some 

environmental organizations, but only some, this support reflects, 

at least in large part, a compromise position that is arguably purchased at the cost of additional, far-reaching protections. The bill 

introduces a new level of protection, new types of protection over 

existing protections that the Forest Service has to deal with. As a 

result, if passed, the bill will require the Forest Service to undergo 

even more regulatory and bureaucratic challenges as they attempt 

to implement the types of projects described in the bill. The new 

protections, with the bill’s associated language, will provide new 

and ripe opportunities for litigation and strengthen the hand of environmentalists who are already so adept at litigating, who do not 

support this bill, and many do not, and who remain in principle opposed to responsible management on Federal lands, and many of 

these groups do remain opposed in principle to active management 

on Federal land, particularly when it has a commercial component. 

This is a bad mix, and it’s one that the bill will empower. 

So just in brief, rather than going through all the other stuff I 

talked about in my written comments, I’d say this, S. 2895 increases the scope and nature of the protections the Forest Service 

must deal with, but it does not provide the Forest Service with any 

new authorities. They can already do everything contained in the 

bill without the legislation, they can do everything in it, and they 

can do it easier because there are not the additional protections. 

As a result, it will make their work even more difficult and costly, but it will make that of environmentalists bent on stopping active management through litigation even more easy. This is a recipe for management failure, and it is why the bill should not be 

passed as it’s currently written. 

I just want to stress again, we think you’re going in the right direction, but we also think the bill need considerable revamping or 

it’s going to open the Forest Service up to even more litigation, 

more process, more procedures, and even if you get the promised 

additional funding, it’s not going to be well spent. 

So, just to finish, I would like to go back to the comment you 

made, and I think it is true, people in my community, some of the 

mills are very supportive of this bill, some of the environmentalists 

I respect are very supportive of this bill. You said that they’ve said 

it’s time to break the gridlock, and I would agree, they would 

agree. My challenge would be this, if they really do believe that, 

we don’t need a new piece of legislation. The Forest Service has the 

existing authorities it needs to do what’s needed on the ground to 

bring forests back to ecological health, ecological resiliency. 

All we need is funding. That’s what we should be working on, a 

different funding structure, different funding sources to fund the 

work that the forests should, in principle, already be able to do, but 

cannot do because of all the process, procedure, and litigation. 

I’ll just leave it at that. That’s my main concern, generally speaking, about the bill. 
11 

[The prepared statement of Judge Webb follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WEBB, GRANT COUNTY JUDGE

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 2895. 

I also want to thank Senator Wyden and his staff for their ongoing efforts to address issues relevant to forest and community health. Despite my concerns about 

the merits of S. 2895, I very much appreciate your efforts in this regard. 

COMMENTS ON S. 2895

Most people I know support the purposes for which the bill was crafted (p. 2-3). 

A number of Grant County residents support the bill, regardless of its content, 

largely for the funding it promises and the hope it creates that a more active, responsible era of federal land management is possible. However, many residents, me 

included, have serious concerns about the merits of this bill in its current form. 

Generally speaking, my concern is this: S. 2895 increases the scope and nature 

of the protections the Forest Service must deal with, but does not provide them with 

any new authorities. As a result it will make their work even more difficult, but 

that of environmentalists bent on stopping active management through litigation, 

even more easy. This is a recipe for management failure—and it is why the bill 

should not be passed as it’s currently written. 

LITIGATION

Past management practices—generally sanctioned by Congress and informed by 

the best available science of the time—have compromised the health of federally 

managed lands in various ways. However, litigation over the last couple decades 

coupled with its resulting lack of active management has brought many of these 

lands to the brink of ecological disaster. As such litigation is the critical challenge 

compromising effective management of federal lands today. Unfortunately, S. 2895 

not only fails to address this critical challenge, but will arguably strengthen it. 

I say this because while the bill is strongly supported some environmental organizations, this support reflects a compromise position that is arguably purchased at 

the cost of additional, far reaching protections. As a result, if passed, the bill will 

require the Forest Service to undergo even more regulatory and bureaucratic challenges as they attempt to implement the types of projects described in the bill. The 

new protections, with the bill’s associated language, will provide new and ripe opportunities for litigation and strengthen the hand of environmentalists who are already so adept at litigating, who do not support the bill, and who remain in principle opposed to responsible management on federal lands. This is a bad mix, and 

one the bill will empower. 

LITIGATION—SOME ‘‘LANGUAGE’’ PROBLEMS

(1) The bill makes frequent, critical use of the notion of ‘‘best available science’’. 

Yet that phrase must always be understood against a background set of beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives about what counts as good science and what counts as 

relevant in any given situation. And that can vary enormously between scientific 

disciplines, and even between practitioners within the same discipline. The phrase 

will also mean one thing in a more theoretical, research oriented context and quite 

another in the applied context of actual forest work and responsible land management. 

In short, the phrase ‘‘best available science’’ lacks a single, univocal meaning that 

applies across the various disciplines and contexts of application this bill covers. 

Given the central role the phrase plays in the implementation of the bill, without 

further clarification it will constitute an important weakness that will be exploited 

by groups opposed to active management on federal lands. 

(2) The bill requires, within 5 years of its passage, the Secretary to dispense with 

the ‘‘cutting limitations’’ described in section 4(b)’’ of the bill (p. 45ff), and to ‘‘prepare ecological restoration projects that are designed to use an age [class] limitation 

[rather than a diameter limitation] that prohibits the harvest of any tree the age 

of which is greater than 150 years’’ (p. 45ff). 

This is confusing, for two reasons. One is that 4(b) essentially prohibits the ‘‘removal’’, or harvest, of any tree larger or smaller than 21 inches dbh unless certain 

ecological conditions are met (p.16ff). Ecological considerations in 4(b), not diameter 

limits, really determine what size trees can be removed. The bill essentially starts 

with an age class limitation despite its reference to diameters. The other reason is 

that the cutting limitations contained in 4(b), which the Secretary is supposed to 
12 

dispense with, include precisely the kind of ecological considerations the bill is intended to promote. 

I’m confident this is not the bill’s intent, but the bill’s language appears to require 

it. The apparent lack of consistency in this regard will create serious problems for 

the design and implementation of projects. 

(3) The bill lays out specific goals for the areas covered and the projects undertaken. At one point the bill states ‘‘the Secretary shall consider methodologies that 

could potentially help achieve . . . wood harvests to sustain adequate levels of industry infrastructure’’ (p. 14ff), while at another it states the projects ‘‘shall provide a 

minimum quantity of timber based on the need to maintain a sustainable industrial 

capacity to perform the ecological restoration activities under this Act’’ (p. 40ff). 

The potential problem here is that the meaning—hence practical implication—of 

phrases like ‘adequate levels’, ‘minimum quantity’, or ‘sustainable capacity’ depends 

critically on the nature and scope of the activities undertaken. For example, the 

amount of industrial capacity needed to mechanically treat a 30,000 acre project 

that treats 60% or more of the acres in the project—a reasonable expectation if restoring and maintaining ecological resiliency is the goal—will be significantly higher 

than if we treat those acres in a non-mechanical fashion, say by burning, or treat 

only 25% of these acres in whatever manner, as is common nowadays. Alternatively, 

what if we need to sustain a higher industrial capacity, just to have any industrial 

capacity whatsoever in the area to do restoration work, than what the advisory 

panel considers necessary to perform the scope and nature of work they deem appropriate? This is a practical problem that is sure to occur with far reaching implications on several fronts. Yet the bill provides no clear guidance or means by which 

to address it. 

There are other examples, but: As a piece of legislation that intends to change 

the direction and focus of eastside forest land management, create jobs, and help 

stabilize communities, the bill requires considerably more tightening up of its language and the consistency between its parts and sections if it is to see smooth and 

effective implementation. 

LITIGATION—SOME REGULATORY CONCERNS

(1) With some exceptions, the Forest Service currently prohibits harvesting trees 

21 inches dbh or larger. Some environmental groups regularly threaten to sue, or 

litigate projects, in the attempt to move tree harvest size down to 14 inches dbh 

and less—i.e., to the economically less valuable trees. Often successful, such a move 

compromises the ecological value of the project because it prevents the Forest Service from implementing treatments that reduce to appropriate levels fuel loads or 

basal area. It also compromises their ability to underwrite the cost of work by reducing the amount merchantable material they can harvest from the projects. 

It is worth noting in this context that, unlike protected animals, large trees can’t 

migrate and therefore populate areas that lack them. However, the ecological value 

of large trees can, in an important sense, be ‘‘transferred’’ to other areas that need 

treatment via the harvesting (where appropriate) and economic return provided by 

larger trees, which can then be used to underwrite treatments in other areas to restore or maintain ecological resilience. 

That said, S. 2895 will prohibit the harvest of trees 21 inches dbh or larger, as 

well as trees that are smaller than this, unless certain conditions are met. That is, 

the bill will essentially prohibit the harvesting of any trees whatsoever their size 

unless certain conditions are met. This prohibition probably represents an attempt 

to protect not only old growth trees, but also trees with old growth characteristics— 

something environmentalists support. Whatever the motivation, this prohibition and 

its associated conditions will provide environmentalists with additional legal leverage to use as they litigate to stop the commercial harvest of any trees. 

The bill’s prohibition on harvest will therefore complicate the Forest Service’s job, 

increase the likelihood of successful litigation by environmentalists, and further 

compromise attempts to implement cost effective, ecologically appropriate treatments based in part on the quality and amount of merchantable material available 

per acre treated. 

(3) The bill enlarges the scope of PACFISH/INFISH. As such it ignores the growing body of evidence that indicates riparian habitat and returning numbers of listed 

fish on national forests are, generally speaking, trending upward. It ignores the fact 

that many of these areas themselves require active management if they are to be 

healthy again. And it ignores the fact that these areas are among the most productive timber lands available, such that treatment in these areas would be ecologically 

beneficial and economically advantageous. In short, there appears to be no compel-
13 

ling ecological reason to expand their scope, but several good reasons—both economic and ecological—to forego that move. 

Given this, arguably the only reason to expand the scope of PACFISH and 

INFISH is to secure support for the bill by environmentalists. This move, however, 

is a bad move and will further complicate the Forest Service’s job as well as the 

cost of its projects, and further empower environmentalists who regularly litigate 

to stop commercial activity—e.g. grazing—on federal lands. 

(4) The bill requires the Secretary to ‘‘carry out implementation of each ecological 

project in a manner consistent with the advice of the advisory panel’’ (p. 13). This 

assumes the panel’s advice will always embody the ‘‘best available science’’—otherwise the bill wouldn’t require the Secretary to act in a manner consistent with the 

panel’s advice. The bill does not require the Secretary to do likewise with either Forest Service personnel or collaborative groups. This assumes that Forest Service personnel and collaborative groups lack the scientific know-how and practical expertise 

to implement sound restoration projects—otherwise the Secretary would be required 

to act in a manner consistent with their advice. Both assumptions are mistaken. 

In addition, the bill explicitly ascribes a number of responsibilities to the Advisory 

Panel. I would argue that it tacitly expects the panel will function to provide a ‘‘unified’’ scientific ‘‘voice’’ to cut through the problems ‘‘dueling’’ science presents nowadays for project implementation and courtroom litigation. If so, this is an unlikely 

outcome for two reasons. One is that the bill does not imbue the advisory panel with 

the necessary scientific or legal weight required to put such matters to rest quickly, 

if at all, in the relevant contexts. The other is that at the project level, the scientific 

advice in question will amount to the application of science. As such, the ‘‘right’’ application of science in these contexts will vary according to the various goals, perspectives, and values of the scientific practitioners in question. 

The advisory panel is unlikely to function effectively as intended over the longterm. It will add to the bureaucratic and procedural challenges the Forest Service 

needs less of. There is therefore no good reason to craft a piece of legislation around 

such a concept or group. 

There are other examples, but to conclude: As a piece of legislation that promises 

to significantly enlarge the scope of work on eastside federal lands, and enhance and 

expedite the implementation of projects, the bill requires considerably more work if 

it is to be successfully implemented and we are to see healthier forests, more jobs, 

and more stable communities. To this end I would urge Senator Wyden’s office to 

revisit the notion of ecological resiliency and more fully exploit its promise as the 

center piece of this bill and management efforts generally for eastside federal lands. 

Senator WYDEN. Judge, thank you, and I’ll have some questions 

in a moment. I obviously am very, very sympathetic to the kind of 

economic hurt that folks are going through in Grant County. As 

you know, I’ve been over there for something like 14 town hall 

meetings over the years, and it just leaps out at you when you 

spend a couple of hours just listening to folks. 

One of the reasons that we do feel that it’s important to build 

a coalition like this, I mean, this is the premiere forestry groups, 

the American Forest Resources Council, Boise-Cascade, Ochoco, 

and leading environmental groups, is we haven’t been able to get 

started. I mean, year after year after year we’ve been tied up in 

knots. I think you’re absolutely right, with respect to this funding 

issue, which is why I pushed so hard and we were successful to get 

the $50 million included in the President’s budget. But I do think 

we’ve got to get started and we’ve got to get started on some of 

they key issues, which you correctly addressed, this question of appeals and litigation. 

You look at section 9, you look at section 11 of the bill, they go 

right to that issue. Now, maybe we should work with folks and refine them. I can tell you that I’ve got some Democrats who think 

that we’re doing too much to restrict appeals and litigation, and I 

respect your view that perhaps not enough has been done. But, I 

want you to know, to me, getting started is what this is about, so 

I’ll have some questions in a moment. 
14 

Mr. Smith. 

Judge WEBB. Can I correct one thing? I’m not saying that I think 

you need to do with the existing appeal process and the like, what 

I was saying is that there seems to be a pretty strong correlation, 

the more protections you’ve got, the more litigation you’re likely to 

face. This bill introduces more protections, so it’s likely to open the 

door to more litigation. So, I’ll leave it at that. 

Senator WYDEN. I sure wouldn’t see the country’s premier timber 

industry groups going to press conferences for bills that are going 

to produce more litigation. That’s what we had in December, we 

had the leading timber groups saying they felt it was important to 

get started. So, we’ll have a debate some more on it, but I just so 

value the input coming from Grant County, and we’re going to 

want to work very, very closely with you in the days ahead. 

Mr. Smith, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY SMITH, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED 

TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGS 

Mr. SMITH. Good afternoon, Senator Wyden. I’m Stanley Buck 

Smith, I’m the Chairman of the Confederate Tribes of Warm 

Springs Reservation Oregon, and I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here today to offer comments, on behalf of the tribe, on the 

Eastside Forest Bill. 

Warm Springs Reservation includes large forested areas with significant tracks of commercial tribal timber. We manage these lands 

carefully to serve important varied economic and cultural values. 

The tribe has—the tribe also has a treaty reserved rights to hunt, 

fish, gather, and graze livestock on Federal lands outside of our 

reservation, including lands on the Deschutes, Ochoco, Malheur, 

and Umatilla National Forest. As you can see, the Warm Spring 

tribes have both expertise and the unique rights and interests to 

bring to the discussion of the managing Oregon’s eastside forests. 

There is no disagreement that national forest lands here in central and eastern Oregon are seriously degraded and in crisis. Over 

the past decade and more, a variety of efforts have been made to 

try to address these problems. Clear success has been elusive and 

the health of our national forests continue to decline. Hopefully S. 

2895 will reverse this situation. 

These ecosystems needs need to be returned to normal—to more 

natural conditions. It is important to recognize that the—for centuries, prior to you America settlement, tribes actively managed 

these forest lands. These management activities were highly sustainable. They supported habitat and watershed functions that provided food, fiber, shelter, and commerce for tribal communities. 

These include fish, game, traditional plants, among other things. 

The management of today’s forest, the tribe has constantly 

stressed the need for certain fundamentals, these include sound 

science-based decisionmaking, collaborative and landscape scale 

planning, long-term stewardship contracting, creation of market 

through biomass utilization to assist forest health restoration, and 

monitoring to verify management outcomes, and drive adaptive 

management. 

We are pleased these elements are in the Eastside Forest Bill. 

S. 2895 is clearly the most involved, direct, detailed approach pre-
15 

scribed yet to improve forest health. Ultimately, while stockholder 

involvement is a hallmark of this legislation, it is incomplete. The 

bill omits specific inclusions of the tribes, the oldest stewards or 

Oregon’s lands and resources. We have lived on and managed these 

lands and resources for tens of thousand of years. We have history, 

we have knowledge, we have unique rights interest on these lands. 

The tribe must be included in the bill’s technical advisory panel to 

the other groups. The tribe values its positive working relationship 

with Federal resource managers and other neighbors. 

We believe that this bill, with minor modifications, can help to 

reinforce these successes. We look forward to working with Senator 

Wyden and joining and advancing S. 2895 to as much as a needed 

focus and attention can be brought to improve Oregon’s Eastside 

National Forest. 

Thanks for allowing the Confederate Tribes of Warm Springs the 

opportunity to make our comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STANLEY SMITH, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF

WARM SPRINGS

Mr. Chairman, I am Stanley Smith, Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. I am here today to offer the Tribe’s testimony 

on the Eastside Forests bill. 

The Tribe has significant interests in forest management on federal lands. The 

Warm Springs Reservation consists of approximately 640,000 acres. 440,000 acres 

are forested and 300,000 are in commercial timber production. The Tribe also reserved important off-Reservation treaty rights to hunt, fish, gather and graze livestock on federal lands. 

While our Reservation is primarily bounded by the Mount Hood National Forest, 

which is not subject to S. 2895, the Deschutes National Forest is immediately adjacent to our southern boundary and our Treaty-ceded territory also includes lands 

in the Ochoco, Malheur, and Umatilla National Forests, and our Treaty reserved 

rights extend to those lands. 

The on-Reservation and off-Reservation forested lands are essential for providing 

watershed functions for clean water and habitat for fish and wildlife species. They 

are also an element of the Tribe’s culture, vital for improving and sustaining the 

quality of life of Tribal members and they are a key support to the Tribe’s self-governance and sovereignty. These values are recognized in federal policy—the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act—which the Tribe fully supports. 

Eastside forests are part of a fire-adapted ecology; however, several factors have 

combined to create conditions that make wildfires extremely hazardous. These ecosystems desperately need to be returned to a more natural condition—the bill’s focus 

appears to be on conditions before Euro-American settlement. 

It is important to recognize, however, that for centuries prior to Euro-American 

settlement, tribal communities actively undertook forest land management activities. These management activities were highly sustainable—they supported habitat 

and watershed functions that provided food, fiber, shelter and commerce for tribal 

communities. This included fish, game, and traditional plants among others. 

The Tribe has commented many times in numerous forums stressing the need for: 

• sound science based decision-making, 

• collaborative and landscape scale planning, 

• long term stewardship contracting, 

• creation of a market through biomass utilization to assist forest health restoration, and 

• monitoring to verify management outcomes and facilitate adaptive management. 

The Tribe is pleased to see these elements included in the Eastside Forest bill. 

They are compatible with the Tribe’s current efforts to advance its proposed biomass 

facility, to increase its direct management oversight on tribal resource lands, including forestry operations, and to engage with all our neighbors in efforts to better 

manage and preserve the lands and resources within our Treaty ceded territory. 
16 

There is no disagreement that our National Forest lands throughout the west and 

particularly right here in central and eastern Oregon are seriously degraded and in 

crisis. Over the past decade and more, a variety of efforts have been made to try 

to address these problems. But unfortunately, clear success has been elusive. Gridlock remains, and the health of our National Forests continues to decline. In response, now comes S. 2895, the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth 

Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009, the most involved, direct, and detailed approach 

yet to improving forest health. Like its predecessors, no one can predict how it it 

will turn out. It may work, and we hope it will, or it may not. But the exactitude 

of this bill is testament to the desperate circumstances Oregon’s citizens and the 

U.S. Forest Service face in the care of these lands. So, too, is the fact that the conservation and forest products communities have come together to collaborate on this 

measure. 

Unfortunately, the collaboration that is a hallmark of this legislation is incomplete. The bill omits specific inclusion of the tribes, the oldest stewards of Oregon’s 

lands and resources. We have lived on and managed these lands and resources for 

tens of thousands of years. We have history, we have knowledge, and we have 

unique rights and interests on these lands that we fought and negotiated for when 

the Europeans arrived. Now, with this legislation that seeks to return Oregon’s 

eastside National Forests to something close to the state in which we left them to 

you, it is hard to understand why we have been omitted, particularly from the Advisory Panel and specific inclusion in the collaborative groups. 

Notable omissions in the bill include 

• the failure to recognize the need for tribal expertise on the Technical Advisory 

Panel related to traditional plants and management regimes; 

• the failure to require tribal participation in groups seeking to become recognized collaborative groups by the Secretary, especially when other local government participation is required; and 

• the failure to otherwise clearly address traditional plants and management 

practices in the landscape scale planning process and restoration activities 

under the bill. 

In an effort to return forest conditions to a more natural state, the Tribe believes 

that it is necessary to understand pre-European settlement conditions and management practices and have a goal of improving the condition of these treaty resources—healthy fisheries, big game, cultural plants, among others—incorporated 

into restoration plans. 

Many resources that once existed, for example huckleberry or root fields, have 

been altered or crowded out by different species. Tribes must be involved and consulted technically in order to understand the location of these resources and the 

methods traditionally employed for management so that we can work together to 

have success in restoring them. 

The Tribe values its collaborative working relationship with federal resource managers and we believe that this bill, with minor modifications, can help to reinforce 

these successes. We look forward to working with Senator Wyden in joining and advancing S. 2895, so that the much needed focus and attention can be brought to improving Oregon’s eastside National Forests. 

Thank for allowing the CTWS the opportunity to comment. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for coming. 

I think it’s fair to say you all have been a critical partner in the 

management of Federal lands. You’ve done an excellent job of managing your own lands, and with your successful biomass facility, I 

think your input is especially important right now, as we seek to 

expand biomass as a major jobs producer for our State. This is 

about greening up our power supply, putting our folks to work, and 

you all are a text book case of a biomass program that I think we 

can build on in the days ahead. 

What do you think is possible in terms of increased and improved 

management of Federal lands for your biomass program? Do you 

believe you could grow it 20 percent, 30 percent, what do you think 

is the potential here with improved management of Federal lands 

for your biomass program? 
17 

Mr. SMITH. I think we need to, actual—I think we—we can only 

probably produce 30 or 40 percent—— 

Senator WYDEN. More. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Then we’d be running out, yes. 

Senator WYDEN. You could produce 30 or 40 percent more? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. We need the other forest, you know, we got to 

make it work and deal with that, you know, really to make it feasible to operate our biomass. 

Senator WYDEN. Good. I could tell you, anybody who can increase 

their 30 or 40 percent of what they’re doing, and they’re talking 

about a promising industry of the future, that is—that is good news 

for folks in Oregon where the unemployment, of course, has been 

consistently higher than almost anywhere in the country. So, that 

is good news, Mr. Chairman. 

Tell me also, so we can nail this down, we tried to make sure 

that the tribe would be well represented in the advisory process. 

Are there some additional changes that you all are seeking in that 

area? 

Mr. SMITH. You know Senator, I’ve been the chairman for 1 

month, so—— 

Senator WYDEN. Oh, you’re a grizzled veteran. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, so that should say something, but you know, I 

know we’ve been working on this for a long time, and I fully don’t 

have an answer to that. I don’t know if my—John, do we have any 

comments on that? 

Senator WYDEN. Extra points for candor, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Senator WYDEN. Given the fact you’ve been there for a month, 

we’ll follow up with you for the record, but I want you to note that 

I want to be very sensitive to the point of making sure that we get 

the advisory functions of this bill right, so that the tribe is a full 

partner, a full and activist partner in this effort. 

As I said, I think your biomass contribution alone makes it clear 

that you are setting out some of the most promising ground for the 

rural Oregon economy, and we’re going to work closely with you. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, our natural resources department handles most 

of that. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good, we’ll involve them as well. 

Let’s go then to you, for a minute, Mr. Carrier, tell me a little 

bit about the work of the Federal Forest Advisory Committee, in 

other words, the State is obviously front and center on lands owned 

by the State, but tell me about the work with the Federal Forest 

Advisory Committee and how the State and the Federal Government interact. 

Mr. CARRIER. Senator, thank you for that question, because that 

was the part of the Federal Forest Advisory Committee. 

Senator WYDEN. I think we’re—— 

Mr. CARRIER. I’m sorry, that was me turning it off, which I will 

learn not to do next time. There it is, it’s on now. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. 

Mr. CARRIER. Senator, sorry. 

Thank you for asking the question because that was part of the 

work of the committee that I didn’t get, was what were their recommendations and why was the Governor and the committee moti-
18 

vated to have the State take on this role of partnering with the 

Federal agencies to bring additional capacity to the Federal land 

management effort. It’s because, as we all agree, the Federal footprint of these forest lands in Oregon is huge. The legacy of its contribution to our economy and to rural jobs is incredible. The loss 

of that capacity and those jobs and those benefits of those lands 

that we’re experiencing is very pronounced, especially here on the 

east side. 

So, the advisory committee had 3 major categories of recommendations. The first was for the State legislature to make appropriations, additional appropriations to our State Department of 

Forestry, so we could have foresters available to assist in Federal 

land management activities. As you know, we, like most States, are 

in a severe budget situation right now. We weren’t able to receive 

those appropriations, but fortuitously, a year ago when the Federal 

Stimulus legislation was passed, quite a bit of the Forest Service 

money came to this region for forest health work that the Forest 

Service didn’t have the capacity to manage on its own, and about 

40 FTE of State forestry staff that we would have otherwise laid 

off, we were able to move over under contract to the Forest Service 

to provide the very kind of assistance that the Federal Forest Advisory Committee had recommended the State has the opportunity to 

offer. 

The second area was for the Congress to adopt policy legislation 

and appropriations to bring additional capacity to these Federal 

land efforts. Much of what was in that recommendation of that 

committee is embodied in your bill, Senator. 

Then the third area was, because of the importance of collaborations and how they demonstrated the opportunity to bring peace 

and resolution to potential conflict over management is so important. There was a third category of recommendations in which Oregon would sponsor and partnership with the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University, a form to incubate, 

grow, support, and mature collaborations on Federal forest land 

management around Oregon. I’m happy to say, that that part continues to function. I convene every month a meeting, many of the 

people in this room are stakeholders that have joined in that collaboration and we have identified and are supporting and fostering 

the growth of collaborations as modeled in your legislation. 

Senator WYDEN. What about landscape scale projects, that is a 

major focus of this legislation and I know this is an issue you all 

have been examining at the State level, as well. Can you elaborate 

there? 

Mr. CARRIER. Yes, thank you, Senator. That was a major finding 

of the FFAC, was that the current Forest Service planning model 

does not work well in addressing landscape scale restoration and 

forest health needs. As you well know, forests don’t recognize ownership or political boundaries, and the problems of forest health, insect and disease and catastrophic wild fires do not recognize those 

boundaries. We need to be treating these forests on a landscape 

scale. 

The current Forest Service planning model tends to treat management on 5 to 10 thousand acre blocks, and not of a landscape 

scale. So the committee recognized, as you have in your legislation, 
19 

that we’ve got to start approaching management on a large landscape scale, so that was a major finding and recommendation. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Judge Webb, question for you. One of the big areas of focus for 

this coalition was to find a way to jumpstart some very tangible 

progress. In other words, we’ve gone on for years and years and 

years with this gridlock and simply been unable to move forward. 

I share your view, as we’ve talked about, that funding is absolutely 

key to all this, that was the point of pushing in the Obama administration. I share your view with respect to litigation and appeals, 

that’s why we have provisions there. But give me your thoughts on 

how you would jumpstart a major thinning and restoration effort, 

getting saw logs to the mills, without something like we have in 

this legislation? 

In other words, you’ve made the argument, and it’s one that I’ve 

thought a lot about, that gosh, if they just give us the money everything’s going to come out fine. But it seems to me there’s still a big 

challenge with the gridlock. So, what the coalition behind this bill 

did, is they found a very specific, almost step by step process, for 

jumpstarting a serious restoration, saw logs to the mills, thinning 

kind of effort. What would be your approach for jumpstarting such 

an effort? 

Judge WEBB. That’s an excellent question. My proposal would be 

that we start at the bottom and work up, and that is begin with 

the local collaborative. There is a collaborative in Grant County 

that works on the mount here, actually 2 of them. The one I’m a 

part of is the Blue Mountain Forest Partners. The other I believe 

is called the Southern Blues. We are both asked and invited the 

possibility of using them out here in total or just a part of it, as 

a pilot project, to implement some of the kind of prescriptions and 

approaches to forest restoration that you talk about here. So, that 

is very real. It could be likely, short the funding. 

That is to say, we can currently pursue everything again that’s 

in here, through that collaboration, which you’re going to have 

work through a collaboration anyway, without yet mandating sort 

of legislatively across the board that certain things have to be done 

before we know whether they’re going to work well or not. We 

would welcome the opportunity to do a pilot project on them out 

here in Grant County. You’ve got some of the major players, some 

of the major environmental organizations, industry folks, the elected officials. It would be a great opportunity to sort of test, not just 

in principle, but in practice, what you’ve proposed here and to see 

how it actually works on the ground, and if it can be implemented. 

That would be a start. 

Senator WYDEN. We’ll definitely follow up with you. My concern 

would be to just do it in one county, and obviously, as part of our 

legislation, your county, you know, Grant County, eastern Oregon 

is going to be a special focus of this bill. We could probably lose 

a lot of mills in the process if we just had only one, you know, 

county. We’re looking at 6 national forests and essentially eastern 

and central Oregon. But you all have been very constructive to 

work with, not just on this legislation, but on timber payments 

and—so we’ll be consulting you often. 
20 

Judge WEBB. I don’t think you need to just start in Grant County, I think what I wanted to stress is, whatever county you start 

in, it should be at the bottom, work up through the collaborative, 

if there is the available funding, we can attempt to implement 

what’s here and see how it works before it becomes the law of the 

land with the associated concerns that we have. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. 

Gentlemen, thank you all. We’ll excuse you at this time and we’ll 

be working closely with you. 

Our second panel includes folks with a great deal of expertise in 

the forestry arena. They were essential to getting the agreement, 

go forward with this legislation. Jerry Franklin, Professor of Ecosystem Analysis at the College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington, Tom Insko, Region Manager, Boise Cascade, 

Jim Wall, Executive Director for Lake County Resources, Russ 

Hoeflich, Vice President and State Director for Nature Conservancy, and Tim Lillebo, Eastern Oregon Wildlands Advocate for Oregon Wild. 

All right, gentlemen, thank you all. We very much appreciate everybody coming out, and let’s begin, if we could, with you, Professor 

Franklin. 

Welcome, thank you for your yeoman efforts over these many 

years, to prosecute the case of sustainable forestry and really welcome you this afternoon to central Oregon. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY F. FRANKLIN, PROFESSOR, ECOSYSTEM SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Thank you, Senator Wyden, it’s a pleasure to be 

here today. 

I’m here, of course, providing testimony for myself and for Dr. K. 

Norman Johnson of Oregon State University. We’re really focusing 

our testimony on restoration on the dry forests that dominate the 

forests of eastern Oregon and Washington, and particularly the 

state of scientific understanding of forest restoration, and our recommendations given that understanding. 

In my remarks here, I’m just going to emphasize 2 or 3 significant points. When we talk about the dry forests, we are talking 

about the forest that belonged primary to the ponderosa pine and 

dry mixed conifer plant associations, which historically were characterized by relatively frequent but low to moderate severity disturbance, including wildfire and localized insect outbreaks. 

Restoration of these ecosystems and landscapes must be the primary focus of our stewardship in these national forests, not merely 

focused efforts that address only wildfire and fuels. Threats from 

wildfire, insects, and climate change can only be dealt with appropriately in the context of returning dry forest and landscapes to a 

more natural, functional, and resilient state. If we focus or allow 

ourselves to be focused only on wildfire and fuels, we get led down 

blind alleys and interminable arguments about how little or how 

much management is needed to modify fire behavior, when the 

issues and the solution are much more fundamental than that. 

The dense mixed conifer stands often dominated by grand fir and 

Douglas fir are under constant attacks from spruce bud worm and 
21 

other defoliators, large contiguous blocks of such forests are not 

sustainable and never have been in these landscapes. 

The scientific evidence is overwhelming that there have been 

massive changes in the average structure, density, composition of 

the dry forest, and the balance among fire regimes and fire behaviors, and the fundamental patterns of forests covering these landscapes, and in the resilience of these forests. To argue otherwise is 

nonsense, it defies both what has been documented and what we 

can see with our own eyes. Worse, it tends to mislead one to believe 

that everything happening out there is natural, part of a natural 

cycle and that nature will correct it. 

Western civilization has massively altered these forests and landscapes, reducing their resilience and putting them at great risk in 

a warming and drying area. Nature will provide a corrective to 

these changes if we do not, but we will not like the consequences, 

for it will be at high cost in wildlife habitat, water quality, and 

other services, and catastrophic losses of the irreplaceable old 

pines. 

We created the highly dysfunctional ecosystem conditions that 

currently exist, and in our opinion, we are obligated to work with 

nature in bringing them back to a more functional and sustainable 

state. 

Restoration programs must begin with efforts to restore and 

maintain historic populations of the old trees. Old growth trees, 

primarily, but not exclusively of pine, are the keystone ecological 

structures in these dry forests. In stands of appropriate density, 

these old trees dominate, provide critical habitat, offer the greatest 

resistance to fire and drought and climate change, and are the 

source of the large persistent snags and logs. Again, critical habitat 

for the majority of the vertebrates. 

Stewardship needs to focus on retaining and nurturing the existing population of old trees, and again, they are as at great of risk 

from excessive stand density from competition as they are from 

fire. Focus needs to really be on the old trees rather than on simply 

larger trees, because it is the old trees that have the greatest ecological and social significance. The current diameter limit permits 

the removable of irreplaceable old trees, and deters us from removing large, young, competitive firs that threaten the survival of the 

old trees. 

Again, you know, our view here is that in a perfect world, we 

might wait to take action until we knew a certainty all effects that 

a widespread restoration program would have on all creatures. We 

don’t have that luxury, given the state of our forests and the values. The peril to the dry forests from inaction is too great and that 

certainly includes the mixed conifer forests. We need to undertake 

major restoration efforts now. 

Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Very well said, Professor, and I’ll have questions 

just in a moment. 

Mr. Insko. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin follows:] 
22 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY F. FRANKLIN, PROFESSOR, ECOSYSTEM SCIENCE, 

SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

I am Dr. Jerry F. Franklin and I am here today to give testimony for myself and 

Dr. K. Norman Johnson. I am Professor of Ecosystem Science in the School of Forest 

Resources at University of Washington. Dr. Johnson is University Distinguished 

Professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. These comments 

represent our views and not those of our respective institutions. 

Our testimony focuses on restoration of the Dry Forests that dominate the national forests of eastern Oregon, especially the state of scientific understanding of 

forest restoration and our recommendations given that understanding. We previously gave testimony on the scientific principles imbedded in the Oregon Eastside 

Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009 (S 2895)—the topic 

of today’s hearing. Today we thought it would be most useful to address the broad 

scientific foundations for action in the forests of eastern Oregon, given that S 2895 

calls for action and controversies have recently surfaced about whether active management is needed to restore these forests. 

Division of federal forests into Moist and Dry Forests based upon plant association is a critical initial step in forest restoration planning and development of forest 

policy related to old-growth. The Dry Forests belong primarily to the ponderosa pine 

and dry mixed-conifer plant associations, which historically were characterized by 

relatively frequent low-and mixed-severity disturbances, including wildfire and localized insect outbreaks. Moist Forests are found at higher elevations and are characterized by infrequent disturbances that include stand-replacement components. 

On Dry Forest sites, the composition and structure of most existing forests—including those that can be characterized as old growth—have been significantly altered 

by western civilization. These changes have been brought about by numerous activities including fire suppression, grazing by domestic livestock, logging, and plantation establishment. These activities have resulted in dramatic increases in stand 

density and shifts in composition toward less fire-and drought-tolerant tree species. 

Active management often is required in these Dry Forests to reduce the potential 

for uncharacteristic and ecologically damaging wildfire and insect outbreaks, even 

though many of these forests still have populations of old-growth trees. 

Restoration of the dry forest ecosystems and landscapes must be the primary 

focus of our stewardship in the national forests in eastern Oregon and Washington—not narrowly focused efforts that address only wildfire and fuels! Threats 

from wildfire, insects, and climate change only can be dealt with appropriately in 

the context of returning dry forests and landscapes to a more natural, functional 

and resilient state. There are multiple undesirable consequences of the hugely excessive areas of overly dense and drought-and fire-prone stands that we have created during the last 150 years. Insects are at least as much of a risk to these forests 

and the services that they provide as severe wildfire. The monocular focus on wildfire and fuels leads us down blind alleys and interminable arguments about how little or how much management is needed to modify fire behavior, when issues and 

solutions are much more fundamental. The dense mature stands of grand fir and 

Douglas-fir are under constant attacks from spruce budworm and other defoliators; 

large contiguous blocks of such forests are not sustainable and never have been. In 

overly dense old-growth stands, competition from young firs put old pines at increasing risk to bark beetle attack. There is strong evidence that they are declining in 

vigor and dying at accelerating rates (see, e.g., van Mantgem et al. 2009, Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science 

323:521-524). 

The scientific evidence is overwhelming that there have been massive changes in 

the average structure (density) and composition of the dry forests, in the balance 

among fire regimes and fire behaviors, in the fundamental patterns of forest cover 

in these landscapes, and in the resilience of these forests. To argue otherwise is nonsense, defying both what has been documented and what we can see with our own 

eyes. Worse, it misleads one to believe that everything that is happening out there 

is ‘‘natural’’—part of a natural cycle—and that nature will correct it. Western civilization has massively changed these forests and landscapes, reducing their resilience 

and putting them at great risk in a warming and drying era. Nature will provide 

a corrective to these changes—if we do not—but we will not like the consequences 

for it will be at high cost in owl and other wildlife habitat, water quality and other 

services, and catastrophic losses of the irreplaceable old pines! We created the currently highly dysfunctional ecosystem conditions and, in our opinion, we are obligated to work with nature in bringing them back to a more functional and sustainable state. 
23 

Restoration programs must begin with efforts to restore and maintain historic 

populations of the old pine trees. Old-growth trees—primarily ponderosa pine but 

sometimes of other species, such as western larch, Douglas-fir, and sugar pine—are 

the keystone ecological structures in the dry forests. In stands of appropriate density these old trees dominate, provide critical habitat, offer the greatest resistance 

to fire and drought (and climate change), and are the source of the large persistent 

snags and logs (again, critical habitat for the majority of the vertebrates). Stewardship needs to focus on retaining and nurturing the existing population of old trees— 

and, again, they are at as great a risk from excessive stand density (competition) 

as they are from fire. Further, stands need to be managed so as to provide younger 

age classes of pine and larch that can, ultimately, bring old tree population levels 

back to historic levels and maintain them there. Finally, the focus needs to be on 

the old trees rather than simply large trees (e.g., >21 inches diameter in breast 

height) because it is the old trees that have the greatest ecological and social significance; the current diameter limit permits the removal of irreplaceable old trees and 

deters us from removing large young competitive firs that threaten the survival of 

the old trees. 

In ecological restoration, old trees need to be dedicated to sustaining ecological 

values on the site as living trees and, subsequently, large snags and down logs. Salvaging old trees when they are killed does NOT help restore forests—these dead 

trees provide vital ecosystem functions as large snags and down logs. Not only does 

salvage of such trees result in further ecological degradation but this practice erodes 

public trust in restoration management. Also, greater efforts are needed in prescribed burning programs to reduce unintended damage to and mortality of old 

trees. We believe that prescribed burning programs in the western United States 

have been far too casual in accepting significant and avoidable mortality of old 

pines. Recently one of us (Franklin) watched personnel doing prescribed burns in 

longleaf pine forests in the southeast and was struck by the individual attention 

given nest trees for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Increased attention to protecting 

old tree populations must be incorporated into the prescribed burning programs in 

western North America. 

We are very concerned that misdirection seems to be very much in vogue among 

opponents to restoration programs in Dry Forests. For example, some have raised 

the need for ‘‘early successional ecosystems’’ as an important issue in the Dry Forest 

landscapes. We happen to know something about this concept as we helped initiate 

interest in such ecosystems and have published peer-reviewed articles on it. The 

concept of early successional ecosystems has almost no relevance to the dry forest 

landscapes as it rarely ever existed as a distinct condition there. Such landscapes 

were dominantly fine-scale structural mosaics in which non-forest dominated patches were integral parts. The concept of early successional ecosystems applies primarily to forest ecosystems characterized by stand-replacement disturbances, such 

as those found at higher elevations in eastern Oregon and in the moist forests on 

the Pacific slope. 

Another example of misdirection relates to the response of Northern Spotted Owls 

to stand-replacement fire. We do not believe that there is any competent owl biologist who believes that Northern Spotted Owls are favored by having their forest 

habitat subjected to stand replacement wildfire or stand-killing spruce budworm 

outbreaks. There is no evidence that such events benefit the owls or even firm evidence that owls persist in such habitat over the long term, once the fidelity of existing pairs is exhausted. 

We know enough and it is long since past time to initiate an aggressive restoration program in the federal forests of eastern Oregon and Washington, building on 

such innovative approaches as the recent Glaze Meadows project near Black Butte 

Ranch on the Deschutes National Forest. Since this program would require several 

decades for completion, there are extraordinary opportunities to use an adaptive 

management approach. For example, a research project to quantify the responses 

of Northern Spotted Owls and other biota to the landscape-level restoration efforts 

can be designed and carried out and the resulting scientific findings used to modify 

restoration approaches where necessary. Indeed, such an adaptive approach—with 

committed funding for research and monitoring—is imperative if the restoration 

program is to be fully credible. 

In a perfect world, we might wait to take action until we knew with certainty all 

effects that a wide-spread restoration program would have on all creatures, great 

and small. We do not have that luxury given the state of our forests and the values 

at stake. The peril to the Dry Forests from inaction is too great. We need to undertake major restoration efforts in the Dry Forests of eastern Oregon now. 
24 

STATEMENT OF TOM INSKO, REGION MANAGER, BOISE 

CASCADE, LLC 

Mr. INSKO. Senator, thank you. 

I’m Tom Insko, Region Manager of Boise Cascade’s Inland Region. Boise Cascade manufactures engineered wood products, plywood, lumber and particleboard and distributes a broad line of 

building products. More specifically, Boise Cascade’s Inland Region 

includes eight manufacturing facilities located east of the Cascade 

Mountains. A plywood plant and two pine lumber mills are located 

in Kettle Falls, Washington. One of those two lumber mills is currently idle. In eastern Oregon Boise Cascade operates a pine lumber mill in Pilot Rock, a particleboard plant in Island City and a 

plywood plant and stud mill in Elgin. A pine lumber mill in La 

Grande is currently idle, shut down last year. 

I’m here today to testify in favor of S. 2895, the Oregon Eastside 

Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009. 

S. 2895 is an opportunity to make a shift: to preserve and create 

living wage jobs in rural eastern Oregon while beginning to restore 

the unhealthy landscapes that exist in our national forests. 

It is no secret that Oregon is struggling with economic decline 

and double-digit unemployment rates. The rural communities of 

eastern Oregon have been hard hit by the economic downturn. During the past few years, there have been multiple mills closed contributing to these high unemployment rates. 

Boise Cascade is the largest employer, both public and non-public, in Union County with approximately 470 employees. With nearly 100 employees in Pilot Rock, we’re the fourth largest private employer in Umatilla County. These are good jobs, living wage jobs 

with excellent healthcare and retirement benefits. Unfortunately, 

during the past few years the number of employees working in our 

eastern Oregon mills has declined by more than 200. Some of the 

job cuts are the result of poor wood product markets, but the sad 

reality is that even with a market upturn these jobs are unlikely 

to be restored. The primary threat to living wage mill jobs is a lack 

of log supply in the region. 

Boise Cascade’s existing eastern Oregon mill infrastructure 

needs approximately 200 million board feet of logs annually, to operate its mills and sustain nearly 800 jobs. Today we procure less 

than 7 percent of our log volume from Federal forests. This 7 percent is from 10 national forests stretching from the Mount Hood to 

the Payette in Idaho, a 250-mile haul radius. This year approximately 85 percent of the logs Boise Cascade procures will come 

from private sources. Procuring this amount of logs from private 

sources is not sustainable. Meanwhile, just the 3 national forests 

that I’d consider local to our Boise Cascade’s mills are growing in 

excess of 750 million board feet every year. These forests, the 

Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla and Malheur, which I will henceforth 

refer to as the Blue Mountain National Forests, represent 68 percent of the commercial forestland in the area. 

What is occurring on the Blue Mountain National Forests is consistent throughout our eastside Oregon Federal forests. With the 

Blue Mountain National Forests growing at a rate in excess of 750 

million board feet per year, the 10-year average removal rate has 

been less than 10 percent of this, 73 million board feet. In 2009, 
25 

of the 86 million board feet removed, only 46 million of that was 

actually saw logs. 

Three national forests representing nearly 5.5 million acres and 

growing more than 750 million board feet each year, are harvesting 

less saw log volume than what is required to operate a single-shift 

mill. 

As the amount of wood growing on the national forests greatly 

exceeds the amount harvested and removed, our Federal forests 

have become seriously overcrowded. This leads to insect and disease infestations and increased risk of fire. As of July 2008, there 

were nearly five and a half million acres of fire condition class II 

and III on Eastern Oregon’s Federal forests. Active management 

utilizing mechanical treatment methods is the only acceptable way 

to restore forest health. The positive by-product of this activity is 

saw logs, and saw logs provide economic stability. Each job created 

or retained in the milling industry has a job multiplier of 2.81. 

Some have suggested the decline in the wood products industry 

in eastern Oregon is a natural dynamic which time has come. The 

facts don’t support this contention. Boise Cascade and the industry 

have changed to match the changing social values of the public. As 

an example, I’d offer Boise Cascade’s plywood plant and stud mill 

in Elgin now focus on the efficient use of smaller diameter logs. In 

2009 the average diameter of a block peeled on our lathe at the 

plywood plant was 10.4 inches. Existing eastside industry infrastructure is well configured and needed to assist in the landscape 

restoration objectives of S. 2895. 

Passage and implementation of S. 2895 will not be without challenges, and some with extreme perspectives will attempt to erode 

its success, but S. 2895 represents the collaborative work of many 

from the industry and environmental community, recognizing that 

we share many of the same values. These values are restoring forest health and landscape resiliency while maintaining the remaining infrastructure that is so vital to the rural communities of eastern Oregon. With this mutual purpose, the challenge was to identify the path by which one specific ideal does not eliminate the possibility of achieving the more significant shared purpose. I believe 

S. 2895 is representative of this. 

I’d close with saying, passage of S. 2895 is only the first step. 

The legislative mandate to eventually quadruple the current levels 

the number of acres treated each year will require quick action by 

the Forest Service. It will be imperative that the committee hold 

the Forest Service accountable for their performance. Additionally, 

Senator Wyden, we need you to ensure Congress appropriates the 

$50 million authorized in this bill to provide the Forest Service 

with the necessary resources to facilitate the implementation of the 

interim projects, and as well, as the development of the landscape 

ecological restoration plans. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and welcome the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Insko follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM INSKO, REGION MANAGER, BOISE CASCADE, LLC 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: 

I am Tom Insko, Region Manager of Boise Cascade’s Inland Region. Boise Cascade 

manufactures engineered wood products, plywood, lumber and particleboard and 
26 

distributes a broad line of building materials. More specifically, Boise Cascade’s Inland Region includes eight (8) manufacturing facilities located east of the Cascade 

Mountains. A plywood plant and two pine lumber mills are located in Kettle Falls, 

Washington. One of those two lumber mills is currently idle. In eastern Oregon 

Boise Cascade operates a pine lumber mill in Pilot Rock, a particleboard plant in 

Island City and a plywood plant and studmill in Elgin. A pine lumber mill in La 

Grande is currently idle. 

I am here today to testify in favor of SB 2895, ‘‘the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009’’ introduced by Senator 

Wyden. SB 2895 is an opportunity to make a shift: to preserve and create living 

wage jobs in rural eastern Oregon while beginning to restore the unhealthy landscapes that exist in our national forests. 

It is no secret that Oregon is struggling with economic decline and double-digit 

unemployment rates. The rural communities of eastern Oregon have been hard hit 

by the economic downturn with April unemployment rates for Wallowa, Union and 

Umatilla counties at 11.6, 10.4 and 9.9 percent, respectively. During the past two 

years there have been multiple mills closed contributing to these high unemployment rates. Just last week the equipment from the DR Johnson mill in Wallowa 

was auctioned. This mill and the jobs it provided to the local community are gone, 

forever. 

Boise Cascade is the largest employer in Union County with approximately 470 

employees. With nearly 100 employees in Pilot Rock, Boise Cascade is the fourth 

largest private employer in Umatilla County. These are good jobs, living wage jobs 

with excellent healthcare and retirement benefits. Unfortunately, during the past 

few years the number of employees working in these mills has declined by more 

than 200. Some of the job cuts are the result of poor wood product markets but the 

sad reality is that even with a market upturn these jobs are unlikely to be restored. 

The primary threat to living wage mill jobs is a lack of log supply in the region. 

Boise Cascade’s existing eastern Oregon mill infrastructure needs approximately 

200 million board feet (mmbf) of logs, annually, to operate its mills and sustain 

nearly 800 jobs (this would include restarting the La Grande Sawmill). Today we 

procure less than 7 percent of our log volume from federal forests. And this 7 percent is from 10 national forests stretching from the Mount Hood to the Payette in 

Idaho, a 250-mile haul radius from our mills. This year approximately 85 percent 

of the logs Boise Cascade procures will be from private sources. Procuring this 

amount of logs from private sources is not sustainable. Meanwhile, just the three 

national forests considered ‘‘local’’ to Boise Cascade’s mills are growing in excess of 

750 mmbf each year. These forests, the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla and Malheur 

(which I will henceforth refer to as the Blue Mountain National Forests) represent 

68 percent of the commercial forestland in the area. 

What is occurring on the Blue Mountain National Forests is consistent throughout 

our eastside Oregon federal forests. While the Blue Mountain National Forests are 

growing at a rate in excess of 750 mmbf per year the 10-year average removal rate 

has been less than 10 percent of this, 73 mmbf. Of the 86 mmbf of removal volume 

in 2009 only 46 mmbf was sawlogs (sawlogs is defined as any log with a small-end 

diameter greater than 5.5 inches and a minimum of 8 feet in length). Three national 

forests representing nearly 5.5 million acres and growing more than 750 mmbf each 

year are harvesting less sawlog volume than what is required to operate a single 

two-shift milling operation. 

As the amount of wood growing on the national forests greatly exceeds the 

amount harvested and removed, our federal forests have become seriously overcrowded. This leads to insect and disease infestations and increased risk of fire. As 

of July 2008 there were nearly five and a half million acres of fire condition class 

II and III on Eastern Oregon’s federal forests. Active management utilizing mechanical treatment methods is the only acceptable way to restore forest health. The positive by-product of this activity is sawlogs. Sawlogs provide economic stability. Each 

job created or retained in the milling industry has a job multiplier of 2.81 (Source: 

IMPLAN and E.D. Hovee & Company). 

Some have suggested the decline in the wood products industry in eastern Oregon 

is a natural dynamic which time has come. The facts don’t support this contention. 

Boise Cascade and the industry have changed to match the changing social values 

of the public. As an example, Boise Cascade’s plywood plant and studmill in Elgin 

now focus on the efficient use of smaller diameter logs. In 2009 the average diameter of a block peeled on our lathe at the plywood plant was 10.4 inches. Additionally, 

Boise Cascade processes pulpwood, essentially the top of the tree or dead logs, and 

produces chips for nearby paper manufacturers. Existing eastside industry infrastructure is well configured to assist in the landscape restoration objectives of SB 

2895. 
27 

Upon passage, implementation of SB 2895 will not be without challenges. Some 

with extreme perspectives will attempt to erode its success. Some will argue that 

protections are too great and a diameter limit of 21’’ is arbitrary. Others will argue 

there should not be any focus on sawlog production or concern for sustaining existing logging and milling infrastructure. SB 2895, however, represents the collaborative work of many from the industry and the environmental community recognizing that we share many of the same values. These values are restoring forest 

health and landscape resiliency while maintaining the remaining infrastructure that 

is so vital to the rural communities of eastern Oregon. With this mutual purpose 

the challenge was to identify the path by which one specific ideal does not eliminate 

the possibility of achieving the more significant shared purpose. I believe SB 2895 

is representative of this. 

Passage of SB 2895 is only the first step. The legislative mandate to eventually 

quadruple from current levels the number of acres treated each year will require 

quick action by the Forest Service. It will be imperative that the Subcommittee for 

Public Lands and Forests hold the Forest Service accountable for their performance. 

Additionally, Senator Wyden must ensure Congress appropriates the $50 million authorized in this bill to provide the Forest Service with the necessary resources to 

facilitate the implementation of the interim projects as well as the development of 

the landscape ecological restoration plans. 

Boise Cascade appreciates this opportunity to be involved in creating and supporting legislation that offers potential solutions to the federal forest health crisis 

and management roadblocks that exist in eastern Oregon. Senator Wyden, we appreciate the work of you and your staff to introduce this bill. The hardworking Boise 

Cascade employees applaud your commitment to turn the status quo on its head in 

an effort to retain the jobs they so critically need. If they could, I’m sure our forests 

would thank you as well. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Insko, before we move on, I want to see if 

I can kind of put this whole effort in, sort of, the appropriate context. There you are, you’re the regional manager of Boise Cascade 

in eastern Oregon, did you think, even like in your wildest dreams, 

that you could reach an agreement on a major piece of forestry legislation with Andy Kerr and Tim Lillebo? I mean, it strikes me, if 

people were putting odds on something like that, nobody, nobody 

would have said that was possible. What was your take? I mean, 

when you started this, my sense is you all thought, we’re going to 

try this. I mean, it makes sense given the fact that nothing else 

is working, but did you think that there was really a shot of pulling 

together this kind of coalition at the beginning? 

Mr. INSKO. No, I was skeptical. I thought the initial conversations would likely lead to a waste of time. But, fortunately, it 

hasn’t, we’ve been able to stay focused on the ultimate objectives. 

As we talked about some of those ideals that candidly we continued 

to disagree upon, but recognize that we can not continue to focus 

on that and result in not achieving any of the goals that we all actually agree upon, and that’s the forest health issue and the fact 

that jobs in rural Oregon are critically important. 

Senator WYDEN. I could tell you that talking to a lot of the partners in this, you’re being pretty diplomatic when you say you were 

skeptical at the outset, because I think—I think a lot of people 

thought it was flat out crazy to think that anything like this could 

come together. I—I’ll have some more questions for you in a moment, I wanted particularly to express my appreciation for your 

goodwill and for Boise Cascade, a major force in the timber industry, saying that they were going to try to put the time in to pull 

this together, and it clearly has paid off, and we’re very appreciative. 
28 

Mr. Walls, great to see you, always like seeing you at town hall 

meetings and having your input, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES K. WALLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LAKE COUNTY RESOURCES INITIATIVE 

Mr. WALLS. I won’t talk an hour on biomass. 

Senator WYDEN. There you are. Take the time to do it right. 

Mr. WALLS. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much. It is an 

honor to be here, sir, and I really appreciate it. 

As you know, I’m the Executive Director of Lake County Resources, which was created to carry on the work of a collaborative 

that’s now in its 12th year, not just to carry it on, but to serve as 

a local place where they could convene and stuff. It’s very—been 

very successful and implemented many of the provisions that are 

in S. 2895. We’ve been successfully moving ahead. 

When I was first invited to testify, I had a real fear, really, I had 

to search hard and deep, because I remember the past regional legislations that have occurred and localized, like the Northwest Forest Plan, the Quincy Library Group, and list can go on, and they 

all wound up a deep litigation. I go, ‘‘Whoa, we’ve been under the 

radar, maybe we better stay there.’’ But, I have a much greater 

fear that made me step forward, and that is after we were created, 

our stewardship group said, ‘‘You’ll develop a monitoring program,’’ 

and we did that in our first year. It’s been in existence for 7 years 

now. One of the findings of that program, we’ve got thousands and 

thousands of plots, is that 85 percent of our big large ponderosa 

pines, that Dr. Franklin talked about, are dying out prematurely, 

100 to 200 years prematurely. 

As I look at the—the Collins Company has a 10-year stewardship 

contract that guarantees 3,000 acres. As the stewardship group and 

collaborative looked at what they needed treated, they felt we need 

to be at eight to ten thousand acres if we’re going to get ahead of 

that curve and save those old pines. So, that’s my fear and why I 

step up, it is for the pines. I believe we can do that through this 

bill. 

I am proud to say too, we were No. 1 on the Collaborative Force 

Landscape Restoration Act, which I hope remains so, and get to 

that eight to ten thousand acres where we can get these treatments 

down into a 20, 25-year span to get this done, so we don’t lose 

those. 

The other thing that is very—that our monitoring has showed, 

as you’re well aware, we’ve got a 300,000 acre beetle kill there. It— 

and while beetles attack ponderosa pine when they get old and 

they die, that’s natural, that’s a—but not the size of this thing, it’s 

humongous. What we found out, if we leave—if it was to burn 

today, and sometimes I think I should go put a match to it, it 

would survive, the forest would survive, because temperatures on 

the soil as the tree stands would only be about 100 degrees Centigrade. If we let them fall and jackstraw into that soil, our monitoring shows that they will reach 200–400 degrees, and then the 

soil actually melts and plasticize, and water won’t penetrate it any 

more. Then you’re looking at decades to reach that forest back. 

There’s many areas, as Dr. Franklin found when he did the plan 

for the Klamath Tribe, of encroachment, I believe if I remember 
29 

right, he can correct me, about 100,000 acres out there of encroachment, and we need to be diligent, saving those areas that the lodge 

pole pine encroached on so that they don’t go through that, and we 

can get those natural areas back to natural conditions. 

I couldn’t leave without mentioning the jobs part of your bill, because as you’re aware, in our plan was to get all the small material 

out, we needed a new small diameter mill and a biomass plant. The 

Collins Company stepped up and put a $6.8 million mill in. That 

save 85 jobs, because the other alternative was not good. The biomass plant will put in a $70 million investment. That will be 18 

well paying, above average for Lake County, jobs in that biomass 

plant, and we’re months away from a final decision, and it will put 

50–75 in the woods. 

We did a calculation of what would that mean to the county, because it’s a stewardship contract, no timber receipts. When all the 

abatements and incentives are gone, that biomass will be paying 

the county over $400,000 a year in local taxes. It will be paying the 

town of Lakeview $800,000 and some. It will pay the hospital 

equivalent amounts. It adds up to $1.8 million that could go to our 

hospitals, our library, or our schools. So the economic impact is as 

important as the ecological. That’s why I’m here to support this 

bill. I looked at it as a threat and it would have been easy to stay 

under the radar, but I felt it was important to step forward. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walls follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES K. WALLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAKE COUNTY

RESOURCES INITIATIVE

I am Jim Walls, Executive Director of Lake County Resources Initiative (LCRI), 

a non-profit formed in 2002 to work on natural resources projects that are ecologically and economically based. It is an honor to be here and testify before this 

distinguished subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests and specifically about the 

Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act. 

Lake County is 75% federal lands, with the Fremont-Winema National Forests 

and Bureau of Land Management being the biggest landowners. Lake County is in 

the south central dry interior of the state of Oregon. The Fremont portion of the 

National Forest lies roughly between the towns of Lakeview, Klamath Falls and 

Bend, Oregon just north of the California/Oregon border. The major tree species include ponderosa pine, juniper, lodgepole pine, and at higher elevations white fir. 

Most of these trees are adapted to summer drought and extreme temperature fluctuations due to the arid nature of the region. The 10-20 inches average precipitation 

occurs from the autumn through the spring and as a result the summers are dry 

and hot. At the height of logging Lake County supported 5 mills; today only the Fremont Sawmill owned by The Collins Companies is remaining. As a result of the curtailment of logging, Lake County was the only county in Oregon that experienced 

a net job loss during the 1990’s. 

Historically, forest management of the Fremont focused on aggressive fire suppression and logging of large old-growth ponderosa pine trees. Consequently, forest 

composition and natural fire disturbance regimes have been dramatically altered, 

increasing the risk that abnormally intense fires, insects, and disease will devastate 

the remaining old-growth and other forest ecosystems. The impact of fire suppression and old-growth logging is greatest for the low-elevation ponderosa pine and 

mid-elevation mixed conifers. Many areas have missed 7 to 10 fire-return intervals, 

and mature forests of large, widely spaced trees have declined more that 50 percent 

from historical levels. Middle-aged forests, less than 100 years old, are substantially 

more common than they were historically. 

I am pleased to testify in support of S. 2895 because many of the objectives of 

the bill are currently being carried out in the 500,000 acre Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit in the Fremont-Winema National Forest. We have a 12 year old 

collaborative known as the Lakeview Stewardship Group comprised of national, regional and local environmental groups, industry, local units of government and local 
30 

citizens. The Lakeview Stewardship Group in partnership with the FremontWinema National Forest just submitted a proposal under the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Act (CFLRA)—a 500,000 acre proposal covering the 

Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit. One of the requirements for the act was 

a landscape restoration strategy and our collaborative did such a strategy in 2005. 

We specified priority treatment areas to reduce fuel loads and ecological restoration 

work which needed to be accomplished. The collaborative up-dated the plan in 2010 

for submittal in the CFLRA proposal and I am proud to say the proposal was 

ranked as Region 6’s top priority when they submitted it to the Forest Service National office last month. The Lakeview strategy estimates that 8,000 to 10,000 acres 

need to be treated if we are going get ahead of the forest health issues and do so 

in a time frame that will make a difference. 

An early priority of the collaborative was for Lake County Resources Initiative 

(LCRI) to develop a monitoring program around the restoration being carried out 

in Unit. In the 7 years that the monitoring has taken place we have discovered considerable evidence pertaining to eastside forests which shows why accelerating 

treatments is critical. The monitoring plots show that 85% of our old growth forests 

are dying 100 to 200 years prematurely as a result of fire suppression and the resulting overstocking that has occurred. Currently the Collins Companies has a 10- 

year Stewardship Contract with the Forest Service guaranteeing 3,000 acres/ year 

for 10 years, but at this rate it will be too late to save these old growth trees. For 

this reason the collaborative believes treatments need to be increased to 8,000 to 

10,000 acres/year, if we are going to make a difference. The good news is that many 

of the old growth trees are showing a positive response to treatments. However, 

other stands that we are watching may show that treatments have been too late. 

One of the most significant findings of the monitoring program is the effects of 

uncharacteristic severe fires on our eastside soils. This combined with over 300,000 

acres of Mountain Pine Beetle kill on the Fremont-Winema National Forest is a disaster waiting to happen. Our plots show that if a crowning fire occurs and there 

are few downed trees on the forest floor, soil temperature will reach somewhere 

around 100 C and recovery will occur in relatively short order. However, if the forest 

floor has considerable down woody debris or if trees killed by the Mountain Pine 

Beetle start to fall and jackstraw, temperatures can reach 200-400 C, causing major 

soil damage. Soils at these temperatures actually start to plasticize, making them 

impenetrable to water and delaying tree regeneration for decades. 

I cannot speak about Westside forests, where there is ample moisture to support 

dense stands. Here, however, on the eastside we must accelerate treatments in 

order to restore natural fire regimes and prepare these forests for climate change. 

I believe the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs 

Act can be a pilot and if it is as successful as we anticipate, then it might be extended to the remaining States that have similar dry forests. 

My testimony thus far stresses the environmental needs for our eastside forests, 

but there is also the jobs aspect that this bill could promote. If we accelerate 

thinnings necessary to get ahead of forest health issues and prepare these eastside 

forests for climate change, we must have the infrastructure in place to use all this 

small diameter material. As a result of the collaborative and the 10-year Stewardship Contract, the Collins Companies has invested $6.8 million in a new small diameter sawmill, and Iberdrola Renewables is in the final efforts of due diligence on 

a $70 million dollar, 25 MW biomass plant. These investments have resulted in retaining 85 sawmill jobs, and will create 18 jobs at the biomass plant and 50-75 jobs 

in the woods. An Oregon Business 2010 report estimates these investments will 

have an annual payroll of over $18 million and will pay over $1 million in income 

tax to the State of Oregon. South Central Oregon Economic Development District 

estimates that local taxing districts such as the Town of Lakeview, Lake County, 

Library, Hospital, cemetery, school district, etc. will receive an estimated $1.8 million yearly in taxes. 

In conclusion, not only does forest restoration make environmental sense, it can 

be an enormous economic opportunity for struggling rural communities. There is a 

lot of talk about creating a green economy, but it is places like Lake County that 

are making it a reality. Thank you for your time and the privilege of testifying. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, and it’s one of the reasons why we so wanted you here, because going over to Lakeview 

and seeing what you’ve done. I mean, it is a really heroic effort, 

and I’m very appreciative of your involvement here. I just want to 

ask one question before we move on, because it takes your breath 
31 

away, this point that you make with respect to the consequences 

of neglect. I think you used the word, it plasticizes. 

Mr. WALLS. Yes, there’s been several terms. 

Senator WYDEN. Take that, and perhaps Professor Franklin, layout what plasticizing and area is all about, because, I mean, I 

think that really drives home the consequences of neglect. So, Mr. 

Walls and Professor Franklin, take this and amplify it a little bit. 

Mr. WALLS. Not being the scientists, I’ll take it from my—what 

my monitoring crew and the scientist and the head of that is. Basically it’s a melting of the soil and there’s several terms they’ve 

used to me on that. It gets that hot, and we’ve done a lot of tests 

on it, and it makes a hard crust over the top of it. 

Senator WYDEN. It’s almost like a plastic product? 

Mr. WALLS. Yes, water won’t penetrate it. 

Senator WYDEN. Water will not penetrate? 

Mr. WALLS. Will not penetrate it, yes. It only happens when the 

trees start to fall and they start jackstrawing, and so you’ve got all 

this mass on the forest floor. We’ve Mount Muzama ash soil, so we 

may be—every area, I don’t know if this does the same thing, but 

it does it on that Mount Muzama ash-type soil. We’ve done numerous studies on that, and basically it just seals it over. We’ve got 

10 years of plots now where there’s not a single tree growing where 

that’s happened. There’s over brushes coming in, I’m not saying 

nothing comes in, but there’s not trees. 

Where, if you go in the standing, if it was standing right now, 

in a few years you’ve have trees coming up and it would be great, 

if it doesn’t do it that way. 

Senator WYDEN. Dr. Franklin, do you want to add anything to 

that? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. No, it’s very characteristic when you get very 

high temperatures, that you get basically fusion of the soil particles, and so, it loses its structure fundamentally. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Mr. Hoeflich, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL HOEFLICH, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

OREGON DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Mr. HOEFLICH. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, I want to thank 

you for this opportunity to give testimony to the subcommittee in 

support of this bill. 

My name is Russ Hoeflich, I serve as the Oregon Director of The 

Nature Conservancy, as well as the Vice President for the Nature 

Conservancy. We’re a leading conservation organization working 

around the world to protect the ecologically important lands and 

waters that we need for nature and for people. We’ve been working 

in Oregon for nearly 50 years. Nationally, we’ve been for over the 

protection of about 119 million acres and we have about 1 million 

members supporting our efforts. We have a long history of working 

on public and private lands in on-the-ground collaborative and forest habitat restoration projects in many of the States in the west. 

We applaud you, Senator Wyden, for your leadership in bringing 

together diverse groups of Oregonians to craft pioneering legislation that will put people to work restoring Eastern Oregon’s forests. When Eastern Oregon was ground zero for the timber wars, 
32 

your bill has done something unique. It has united leaders and it 

is providing a platform for collaboration, landscape scale solutions 

to a landscape scale problem, truly a unique effort. Thank you. 

We also commend your leadership for bringing the conservation 

community together and bringing them together to address, with 

the business industry, not only the biological issues, but the human 

community issues as well. With great thanks, we also praise the 

U.S. Forest Service, who has been working diligently and as best 

as they possibly can to innovate, to bring communities together in 

collaborative projects throughout Oregon. They continue to make 

significant investments in forest health with your financial support 

and your leadership. 

With the guidance, and I just want to move from my script here 

and just mention the unique effort that you have made to bring 2 

of the most preeminent scientists in the Nation associated with forest health treatment, into the fold to craft your bill. It is a great, 

great honor to have Jerry Franklin and Dr. Norm Johnson working 

on this bill and help supporting the industry and conservation community. This is unprecedented, it’s nature, from a national perspective, and I just thank you for bringing them into the fold. 

We need to restore forests at the scope of the problem and put 

more people to work in the woods, and this bill will do exactly that. 

The urgency—you’ve heard about this from others, it could not be 

greater than it is today. Every day we face very, very significant 

problems. There’s again, depending on what statistics you use, 

there’s between 9.5, other say as high as 13 million acres of the forest and woodlands that are highly departed, if you include juniper, 

particularly in this region, from the historic conditions, putting 

them at risk of unnaturally severe fire, insect damage, disease, 

which in turn threatens our streams, lakes, rivers, and the safety 

of many, many of the communities in your State. 

Today, our forests lack, as Jerry has said and others have said, 

the resiliency of healthy ecosystems, putting the greatest risk of 

catastrophic change, particularly in the face of climate change. At 

the same time, our local communities and the mill structure is faltering too. Now is the time to put the eastside communities back 

to work and focus on the restoration and the health of our forests. 

The need to act is clearly now, and the pace of on-the-ground restoration must accelerate, that’s the critical element of your bill. To 

get to the scale of the problem, this legislation establishes restoration and recovery roadmaps. This enables forest managers and 

communities to work together to prioritize and initiate on-theground restoration work that will improve the health of the 

Eastside National Forest, watersheds, and clearly the local economy. 

The foundation of this legislation is trust, collaboration, and yes, 

the science. Ultimately, the legislation will allow us to establish 

sound on-the-ground science, as Mr. Wall has indicated, is so critical to these projects. Ensuring that old growth and repairing areas 

are protected and restored is fundamental to your bill. Saving public resources from the costly catastrophic fires and avoiding the risk 

of having people injured in the process of fighting fires is absolutely critical. 
33 

On a family security level, this bill will provide near-term timber 

jobs, it will provide the supply that people absolutely need, and 

that will translate into hitting the problem at the scale that we’re 

talking about. The bill helps to maintain our timber infrastructure, 

that is in critical need at the moment. It will provide the raw material that is necessary to get to the problem. Again, building trust, 

having the science, is absolutely critical. 

Without this timber infrastructure however, meaningful forest 

restoration is simply not possible. Many of the other States in the 

Nation have come to recognize that forest health is critical, but 

they have waited too long and they have lost their mill infrastructure, the labor force, and the heavy equipment necessary, and the 

skill sets necessary to do the work. We still have a few moments 

left, and thank you for making the effort to bring this forward at 

this present time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoeflich follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL HOEFLICH, VICE PRESIDENT AND OREGON

DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

I want to thank you, Chairman Wyden, for this opportunity today to offer testimony before the Subcommittee on the ‘Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old 

Growth Protection, and Jobs Act’ (S. 2895). 

My name is Russ Hoeflich, and I serve as the Oregon State Director and Vice 

President of The Nature Conservancy, a leading conservation organization working 

around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and 

people. We have been working in Oregon for nearly 50 years. Nationally, we have 

over a million members and have protected more than 119 million acres of land. We 

have a long history of working with public and private partners in on-the-ground, 

collaborative forest habitat restoration projects to achieve lasting, measurable results 

We applaud you, Senator Wyden, for your leadership in bringing together a diverse group of Oregonians to craft pioneering legislation that will put people to work 

restoring Eastern Oregon’s forests. Where Eastern Oregon was ground zero for timber wars, the Senator’s Bill has united leaders and provided a platform for collaborative, landscape-scale solutions to a landscape-scale problem. 

We also commend the leaders of the conservation and industry groups for their 

willingness to set aside differences and to chart a better future for Oregon’s natural 

and human communities. With great thanks, we also praise the dedicated team at 

the U.S. Forest Service, who have been our partners on innovative projects throughout Oregon, and have made significant investments in forest health. 

The ‘Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act’ 

is a historic science-based collaboration for positive solutions in our forests. We need 

to restore forests at the scope of the problem and put more people to work in the 

woods. This Bill will do just that. 

The urgency couldn’t be greater. Every day we face severe problems in our 

Eastside forests. About 9.5 million acres of our forests and woodlands are highly departed from their historical condition, making them at risk of unnaturally severe 

fire, insect damage and disease, which in turn threatens our streams, lakes, rivers 

and the safety of communities. Our forests lack the resiliency of a healthy ecosystem—putting them at greater risk of catastrophic change in the face of climate 

change. And our local communities and mills are struggling, too. 

The need to act is now, and the pace of on-the-ground restoration must be accelerated. To accomplish this, this legislation establishes a restoration and recovery roadmap. This enables forest managers and communities to work together to prioritize 

and initiate on-the-ground restoration work that will improve the health of our 

Eastside national forests, watersheds and economy. The foundation of this legislation is trust, collaboration, and science which will allow us to advance restoration 

work to larger landscape-level scales. Ultimately the legislation will allow us to: 

• Establish sound science as the underlying principle of all decision-making. 

• Ensure that old growth and riparian areas are protected and restored. 
34 

Save public resources from costly fire suppression efforts by proactively restoring 

the health of forests. 

• Provide near-term timber supply for our struggling Eastside mills, translating 

into jobs in hard-hit communities. 

• Maintain our timber infrastructure by giving industry the confidence, surety, 

and security that the raw materials they need will be available over time; without our timber infrastructure, meaningful forest restoration is not possible. 

The Nature Conservancy has seen first-hand how collaboration can make a difference on the ground, and we have an extensive history of working on collaborative 

and scientific approaches to forest restoration in Oregon. The Eastside Forest Restoration Bill will help us and our partners apply lessons learned from these efforts 

(including four restoration collaboratives facilitated by the Northwest Fire Learning 

Network) and expand them to a larger scale. 

Finally, this bill represents our best hope and our best opportunity moving forward for Oregon’s Eastside forests. Still, we recognize that we must work together 

to secure the supporting funding to realize the vision that you, Senator, the industry 

groups, and conservation groups have created in this Act. 

Thank you again for your impressive work and this opportunity. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Hoeflich, thank you very much. I don’t want 

to make this a full-fledged bouquet tossing contest, but suffice it to 

say, the Nature Conservancy is always there trying to find ways 

to bring people together and look for innovative approaches on natural resources issues. So, we very much value working with you 

and I’ll ask some questions in a moment. 

We now have Mr. Lillebo, well known in these parts as a great 

advocate for the environment, and go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF TIM LILLEBO, EASTERN OREGON FIELD 

REPRESENTATIVE, OREGON WILD 

Mr. LILLEBO. Thank you. I think I’m well known for some other 

things too, but we don’t want to talk about those today. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LILLEBO. I did want to say, you were asking about, what 

were the odds of this happening, conservation—some conservationists, some of the timber industry, getting together to come up, you 

know, with a compromise. I guess I’d kind of say, I think you would 

have a better bet with BP stock than having this actually happen. 

So, anyway, good morning or good afternoon, Ron, we know each 

other. Oregon Wild supports the Eastside Forest Bill, S. 2895. 

So anyway, a little background. I was born and raised in Grant 

County and other parts of eastern Oregon, and I still call the dryer 

side of the Cascades my home. Kind of growing up in timber country, I did what kind of came naturally and spent summers in the 

woods, eventually being a timber faller, thinner, and tree planter. 

But as a I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, after kind of an explosion of industrial logging, the forests I’d known as a kid were just 

so drastically changed that it really, really worried me. At that 

time my grandfather, Blondie, born in Maine in 1900, grew up as 

a timber faller, he worked his way across the United States cutting 

old growth from Maine to Minnesota and on to Oregon. 

Anyway, I still remember the day when my grandfather said to 

me, he said, ‘‘Timmy,’’ and yes, Blondie used to call me Timmy, and 

unfortunately some of my friends still call me Timmy. Anyway, he 

said—— 

Senator WYDEN. This is getting to be Friday afternoon. 

Mr. LILLEBO. It is, it is. 
35 

Anyway, he said, ‘‘Timmy, as we cut across the country, we 

thought the old growth would never end. It’s mostly gone now and 

you should cherish what little is left of those big trees.’’ At that 

time I decided Blondie was right, and I’ve dedicated the last 35 

years of my life trying to protect our dwindling old growth forests 

and protect wilderness for Oregon Wild. 

I think that now is the time to protect the last of eastern Oregon’s old growth with the approach laid out in your bill, and I 

really appreciate it. 

For years, my work involved filing appeals, challenging illegal 

logging sales in court and going head to head with timber industry 

representatives. I learned a pretty good headlock in those years, 

and you had to because it was pretty tough times, pretty serious. 

Anyway, today it means something different. Today, protecting 

eastside forests also mean working to restore those forests after 

decades of overharvest and after stopping natural fires. It means 

sitting at the same table with former adversaries and working together to find a solution. Believe me, I never thought that I’d be 

sitting here with the likes of Boise Cascade’s Tom Insko right over 

there, but really, I think it’s good to be here with him, and it’s good 

to be supporting this bill. 

Now, I think we found that the best available science tells us 

that past management has left some of our dryer eastside forests 

out of whack. By the way, out of whack is a technical science term. 

We can ask Dr. Franklin about that, he’ll tell us. Anyway, and we 

think the careful restoration management, using prescribed fire, 

using mowing, and yes, chainsaws is a crucial strategy to get back 

to more natural conditions. 

I have become a believer in this restoration paradigm, using 

science, and I have worked with the U.S. Forest Service, Warm 

Springs Tribes, and other community stakeholders to design an old 

growth restoration thinning project on the Deschutes National Forest near Black Butte Ranch. The Glaze Forest Restoration Project 

aims to reduce the risk of forest fires to private lands and homes, 

and it aims to protect old-growth and protect wildlife habitat, by 

removing small unnaturally dense trees. 

Anyway, this winter crews went out and began implementing the 

thinning prescriptions on that project. I am glad to see it. It’s a 

learning process, and I think we can all learn from it, but I would 

like to see more of these restoration concepts applied in more 

places. 

Hey, I like wilderness as much as the next guy. Maybe a little 

more than the next guy, Tom. Anyway, but I think we know now 

more than ever there is common ground between some of the conservationists, some of the timber industry, about 2 ideas, Oregon’s 

old growth forests are too few and too important to log, and 2, active restoration in certain dryer areas can improve forest resiliency 

and provide jobs and wood products for rural economies for decades 

to come. 

I think this bill reflects the shift in science-based restoration that 

is needed on a lot of our national forests, not everywhere, there’s 

places that don’t need anything like this, but there are plenty of 

places that do. It would implement the common ground reach between the different interests, it would provide meaningful protec-
36 

tions for old growth forests and important streams, salmon and 

steelhead streams, it would ensure that necessary restoration work 

and the associated wood products would be produced for benefits of 

the local communities. A panel of respected scientists would recommend actions and priorities, and I think that’s a real key element to this, actually having a panel that would say, ‘‘Hey, we’ll 

make recommendations on what should happen out there.’’ Anyway, I think it’s a good—implementation would be a big step forward. 

Just to wrap up here. The reality in the forest has changed and 

Oregon Wild has changed. Yes, we still work to stop old growth 

timber sales, no doubt about it, and we protect the last of our wilderness. Hey, how about that Mount Hood Wilderness Bill? Thanks 

a lot Ron Wyden, appreciate that. 

We also see there is a value in science-based restoration of our 

forests. We feel it’s important to work with scientists, communities, 

timber interest, Federal agencies, politicians, everybody to move 

forward with the approach in your bill, so that these Oregon treasures are here for future generations. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lillebo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM LILLEBO, EASTERN OREGON FIELD REPRESENTATIVE, 

OREGON WILD

Thank you for the invitation to testify today in support of the Oregon Eastside 

Forest Restoration, Old-Growth Protection, and Jobs Act. We thank you Senator 

Wyden for introducing your Eastside Forest Bill. 

I was born and raised in Grant County and other parts of eastern Oregon, and 

I still call the drier side of the Cascades my home. I love exploring the forests of 

eastern Oregon and hunting in the backcountry. 

Growing up in timber country, I did what came naturally and spent summers in 

the woods as a timber faller and thinner. But starting in the early 1970s, it was 

easy to see that something was changing in the forest. By the late 1980s—after an 

explosion in industrial logging—the forests I had known as a child had been drastically altered. 

In 1987 alone, over 1.5 billion board feet of timber was cut down in eastern Oregon’s federal forests. At the same time, the move towards automated mills and 

massive timber exportation meant that much of the local economic benefit from logging wasn’t even staying here in Oregon—but we were all paying for the decline of 

our forests. 

My grandfather, ‘‘Blondie’’, born in Maine in 1900, grew up as a timber faller. He 

worked his way across the U.S. cutting old growth from Maine to Minnesota and 

on to Oregon. 

I still remember the day when my grandfather said, ‘‘Tim, as we cut, we thought 

the old growth would never end. Well, it’s mostly gone, and you should cherish what 

little is left of the big trees.’’ I decided ‘‘Blondie’’ was right, and I’ve dedicated the 

last 35 years of my life to protecting our dwindling old-growth forest ecosystems 

working for Oregon Wild. It’s time now to protect the last of eastern Oregon’s oldgrowth with the approach laid out in Senator Wyden’s bill. 

For years, my work involved driving all over eastern Oregon filing appeals, challenging illegal logging sales in court, and going head to head with timber industry 

representatives in public debates and in the media. Today, it means something different. Today, protecting eastside forests also means working to restore it after decades of over-harvest and exclusion of natural fire from the landscape. It means sitting at the same table with former adversaries and working together to find a solution to unhealthy forests and streams. Believe me; I never thought I would be sitting here with some timber industry folks supporting the same piece of legislation. 

Miracles still happen. 

Throughout my time as an advocate for Oregon’s wildlands I have let science be 

my guide. I fought to protect Wilderness and roadless areas because ecologists said 

these were the last, best places for native wildlife to survive and thrive. I worked 
37 

to protect forests along streams when biologists warned of the dire impacts riparian 

logging would inflict on threatened salmon and trout. 

Now, the best available science tells us that past management has left some of 

our drier eastside forests out of whack and that careful restoration using prescribed 

fire, mowing, and, yes, chainsaws is a crucial strategy to get them back to more natural conditions. 

I’ve taken this new information to heart and become a fervent believer in this restoration paradigm. Over the past few years, I’ve worked with the U.S. Forest Service, the Warm Springs Tribes, and other community stakeholders to design an oldgrowth restoration thinning project on the Deschutes National Forest near Black 

Butte Ranch. The Glaze Forest Restoration Project aims to reduce the risk of forest 

fires to adjacent private lands by removing small, unnaturally dense trees; protect 

old-growth trees and wildlife; and restore a more natural landscape where low-intensity fires can once again play a natural role in maintaining the health of the 

land. The project considers the needs of a variety of wildlife and plants, and applies 

science-based restoration principles that build diversity and long-term forest health 

into the picture. This winter, crews began implementing the prescriptions that were 

so carefully worked out, and I am proud to see it. In fact, I’d like to see projects 

like it done in many more places. 

Many environmental organizations—Defenders of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, Pacific Rivers Council, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, 

the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Oregon Wild, to name a few—support 

the science-based restoration that would be implemented under this legislation. 

Now, more than ever, there is common ground between conservationists and the 

timber industry around two ideas: 1) Oregon’s old-growth forests are too few and 

too important to log; and 2) active restoration in certain drier areas can improve 

forest resiliency and provide jobs and wood products for rural economies for decades 

to come. 

This bill reflects the shift in science-based restoration that is needed on the National Forests of eastern Oregon. It would implement the common ground reached 

between conservationists and the timber industry, effectively ending decades of division and controversy. It would provide meaningful protections for old-growth forests 

and important streams and it would ensure that necessary restoration work and the 

associated saw-logs would be produced in a timely manner for the benefit of eastern 

Oregon’s communities. A panel of respected scientists would recommend restoration 

actions and priorities. While not exactly what Oregon Wild would have written, the 

bill has sideboards and protections enough that we feel confident its implementation 

will be a big step forward. 

The reality in the forest has changed. Oregon Wild has changed. Yes, we still 

work to stop old-growth timber sales and protect the last of our wilderness, like the 

Mt. Hood Wilderness Bill, thank you Senator Wyden, but we also see the value in 

science-based restoration of our forests. We feel it’s important to work with scientists, communities, timber interests, and federal agencies to move forward with 

the approach to protecting and restoring eastern Oregon’s forests and watersheds 

found in your bill Senator Wyden, Senate Bill 2895, so that these treasures are here 

for future generations. 

A poll shows Oregon voters—including a strong majority of those living in the 

vast Eastern Oregon congressional district that would be most affected—support a 

compromise forest management plan that allows thinning while protecting oldgrowth trees and limiting new logging roads. 

The poll by Public Opinion Strategies showed that 77 percent of respondents support the Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration Act drawn up by Sen. Ron Wyden, conservation groups and timber industry representatives. Half the respondents interviewed are residents of the 2nd Congressional District, which covers much of Oregon 

east of the Cascades. About 75 percent of them approve of the plan, according to 

the poll. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Lillebo, thank you very much, and there’s 

never been a discussion about natural resources that you have participated in that’s been dull. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. I thank you, I thank you again on a Friday 

afternoon for making sure you drive home with what this discussion really is about, and that’s finding, you know, common ground. 

I know, just as has been the case, Strinsko talks about that not always does everyone who’s part of your natural constituency agree, 
38 

because I know you’ve had to push the boundaries, in terms of 

some of these issues with folks in the environmental community, 

on some projects that are actually fairly close to here. 

Mr. LILLEBO. Oh yes, that’s true. 

Senator WYDEN. We’re going to have some questions about that. 

Mr. LILLEBO. I think I’ve got some bounties on my head from 

both sides of the issue right now, but, you know, I can live with 

that, because I think we’re going in the right direction. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. 

Let’s start, if we could, with you, Dr. Franklin, because I think 

you’ve laid out the case, again today, and you have in your important articles on these issues, certainly, in the last 4 or 5 years, 

about the consequences of failing to undertake the treatments. 

In your view, what scale and pace is need to really treat the 

lands now, to play catch up ball? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. I think, you know, Norm and my view on this 

would be, first of all, this has to be approached at the landscape 

scale. If we had our druthers, we would approach it at effectively 

the scale of the dry forest and dry forest landscapes throughout the 

Federal lands in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon, we’d do 

the whole thing and would do it a planning sense very quickly with 

an alpha team, a really first-rate team of managers and researchers working together that know the land, know the issues. So, it 

needs to be done on a large spatial scale. It needs to be planned 

and implemented that way. 

Second, in terms of time, I think given what is happening, we 

generally would like to see a program that would accomplish effectively the restoration treatments that are needed on that entire 

landscape in a 20-year period. This is what we proposed when we 

did the plan for the Klamath. It would be a reasonable plan, however, you know, obviously the agency at this point would probably 

not be capable of doing it that quickly, at their current level of 

staffing. 

So, you would have to effectively increase the work force in the 

Forest Service, in particular, in order to be able to do a program 

on that kind of a time scale. 

Senator WYDEN. Any of you others like to comment on this question of scale and pace? 

Mr. Hoeflich. 

Mr. HOEFLICH. If you assess the present activities that are occurring in Oregon, and we’ve heard from others, and the estimates are 

somewhere between 20 to 30,000 acres being treated per year. The 

best of scientists who have worked with Norman and some of our 

staff from our fire learning network, have identified the need to be 

treating roughly about 500,000 per year. How you ramp up to that 

is going to be the question. Having community collaboratives under 

way designing and executing I think is going to be strategic, but 

we’re going to have to get the resources and build the budget so 

the Forest Service—but get away from the point where we’re 

spending such a high percentage of the Forest Service budget fighting fire, we’ve got to get them proactively restoring versus the 

fighting. 

Nineteen percent of the Forest Service budget was spent fighting 

fire 10 years ago, we’re now up to 50 percent of their budget being 
39 

spent fighting fires. We need to reinvest proactively in avoiding 

those catastrophic fires and putting the communities to work doing 

that. 

Senator WYDEN. Not only is that the case, but these 3 staffers 

constantly, every year, as the fires come in and the cost keep rolling in, watch the service have to move money from one account to 

another. It’s almost a shell game. I’ve tried to point out, and I 

think Mr. Gladdard knows that, you know, during the years when 

Senator Craig chaired the subcommittee and I was the ranking 

member, we would both point out that this was a bipartisan ripoff, 

in effect, where you would short the prevention accounts and have 

to constantly shovel more money out the door, in terms of fighting 

fires. So, clearly if we can get into these areas early and do the 

kind of thinning we’re talking about, we’re going to reduce the 

prospects of every year having to move money from the fire accounts to prevention accounts and back and forth trying to figure 

out how to move the pee around in order to keep on top of literally 

conflagration. So, it’s a good point. 

Anything else from the panel on scale and pace? 

Mr. Walls. 

Mr. WALLS. Scale and pace in my testimony, Senator, I said 20 

years too. I remember the conversation when the Collins Companies got the contract for 3,000 acres a year for 10 years, and Wade 

Mosby called me, he says, ‘‘Jim, we can’t survive. We will not overharvest our land to feed our mill. Our priority is to the land.’’ I 

bring this because we’ve got to reauthorize stewardship contracting 

in the future. I said, ‘‘Wade, trust me, retained receipts and stuff 

are going to get us there.’’ It did, and right off the bat we were hitting our mark of being up that 8–10,000 acres, and then the current market hit. 

But, you know, with that coming back and bills like this, that’s 

what we’ve got to aim for. We’ve got to notch that up a bunch. 

Senator WYDEN. Good point. 

Let’s move to a specific issue, and I’m going to send this your 

way, Dr. Franklin. 

Do you have another copy for Dr. Franklin? 

This is about the Glaze project that you touched on in your written testimony, Dr. Franklin. It’s my understanding you’ve been to 

it. There was a recent article, this is what I’m showing you here, 

in the Bend Bulletin, that basically outlines the opposition to the 

project by the Sierra Club, which had recently endorsed the project. 

I guess the eastern Oregon field organizers suggested that there 

was no science to support cutting any trees larger than 14 inches 

in diameter. Why don’t you, because you’ve had a chance to actually see the project, give us your professional assessment of this 

perspective, and in your judgment, they integrity of the restoration 

science used to develop the Glaze project. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. OK, well let me begin by simply that, you know, 

this is the kind of argument that you get into if you think it’s only 

about fire and fuels, and it’s not. It is about the forest density, and 

it’s very clear, in fact, that there are often trees 14, 16, 18, 20, 24 

inches that, in fact, represent serious threats to the old pine trees. 

OK, so this—obviously the individual who was criticizing this has 

not seen the literature with regards to the consequence of excessive 
40 

stand density, and the effect that it has on the growth and ultimately the survival of the old trees. So, they don’t understand what 

the stands were like historically. 

In this particular case, this tree was, I think, was next to an 

opening, it was next to a meadow. One of the very important things 

that we need to do in restoring these landscapes is, in fact, to restore the non-forested, the historically non-forested portions of 

those and get that hardwood component that’s so important to the 

wildlife back. 

Now, to come to the Glaze project specifically, I’ve been there 

twice, once with my class and once on my own. I thought that the 

silvicultural prescriptions were extraordinary, extraordinarily good, 

creative, appropriate, and protective of the core ecological values in 

those areas. So, you know, this may be damning with faint praise, 

but I don’t see that I could improve in any way on that silvicultural 

prescription, and no one would accuse me of being a timber beast, 

I believe. 

Senator WYDEN. Don’t remember too many rallies accusing you 

of being a timber beast. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. No, I don’t think so. 

So, a superb silvicultural effort. 

Senator WYDEN. Dr. Franklin, thank you, and I appreciate your 

walking us through it, because I read that article and clearly this 

has Mr. Lillebo featured in it too, and I’m sure he’s got some—got 

some cuts on his back from getting in the middle of all this with 

some of his friends, and I appreciate your walking us through the 

science on it. 

Let me turn, if I could, not to you, Mr. Insko, on an issue that, 

to me, doesn’t get as much attention as it should, and I think it’s 

one where folks in the forest product sector deserve a lot of credit. 

That is, you all have put considerable investments in new technology. I think it would be good to elaborate on what the investments are that get you to this point, where if we can get this legislation passed and you can get additional fiber to the mills, you can 

use the technology you now have more fully. Then talk to me a little bit about what might be further technological innovations that 

we could see in the future. Because as I look at the great challenges of our time, and Mr. Lillebo was kidding when he was talking about the chances and BP and what have you, but the great 

challenges of our time involve consistently, how are we going to be 

innovative. 

I often think that I want to be chair of the innovation committee, 

because whether it’s energy or forestry or healthcare, this is the 

real value added for the future, and it’s true in forestry and it’s 

true in energy and oil and healthcare and everything else. So, talk 

to us a little bit, in terms of the technological innovations you’ve 

made at the Boise system the last couple years, and what we could 

possibly see in the next few years if Boise is able to hang in this 

area as a result of getting additional fiber? 

Mr. INSKO. Big subject, so I’ll try to keep somewhat focused. Just 

in terms of the changes we’ve gone through as a company in the 

last 10 to 15 years have been primarily driven by resource, obviously, given that’s the driving force behind our business. So, we’ve 

retooled our facilities, and I’ll use the Elgin plant as the example, 
41 

where today, we bring everything from pulp wood, which is considered non-merch wood down to like a two-inch top, so the tops of 

trees and dead material, into that plant. We try to merchandise 

any saw log component out of that, in addition to the natural saw 

log volume that get. 

From that, we produce chips for the paper mills, and then we are 

producing veneers and stud lumber at that location. As I said, a 

10.4 inch diameter is not a large old growth log. In fact, our maximum diameter we can handle at that location is 33 inches. We’re 

not after large old growth trees out in our national forests. We 

don’t see those as something that’s even really attainable, quite 

candidly, because it hasn’t been. 

Where we have opportunity, I think, going forward, is in the biomass front potentially. If there’s going to be successful biomass development in our opinion, it’s going to be in conjunction with existing industry, not by itself. The economics of biomass suggest you 

need to be doing that in combination with other activity out in the 

forest, so that the overarching economics makes sense. But if you 

only focus on one component, the economics won’t pencil out, it will 

always have to be a subsidized industry, which we don’t believe we 

want to see in the future. 

So, what we would look at in Elgin, is the possibility of co-gen 

construction there where we would be producing energy and adding 

that—— 

Senator WYDEN. Not the facility you have. 

Mr. INSKO. Exactly, the existing facility. 

Senator WYDEN. You would add a significant co-generation—— 

Mr. INSKO. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN [continuing]. Program. 

Mr. INSKO. That’s the possibilities out there if there is active 

management and a supply of fiber that you can count on. But these 

aren’t small projects, as many of you know. To put in a 25-megawatt co-generation plant, you’re talking about $75 million. That’s 

a lot of money and you have to have some sort of assurance that 

you’re going to have fiber to support that kind of investment. So 

if we saw an opportunity out there, that’s definitely something that 

fits well with our existing infrastructure, but would add to the jobs 

and our long-term viability. 

Senator WYDEN. Let’s go right to you, Mr. Walls, because Mr. 

Insko mentioned biomass, and we have, of course, a separate biomass section in the bill, because it is so important. Lots of people 

in government and politics talk about biomass. You’re one of the 

few people who’s actually a practitioner in the biomass field. Any 

suggestions for the biomass section of the bill? 

Mr. WALLS. I’m not only a practitioner, some accuse me of making a career out of it, which I have probably. I think, you know, 

technology-wise—and I totally agree, by the way, biomass has to be 

with primary producers, a saw, a mill or something, it’s not a 

standalone industry, it doesn’t pencil out. 

The other things, and I know we’re working on it with E Petrol 

on this plant, is increasing pressures and doing stuff like that, that 

it takes less volume to go in and more output, you’re increasing efficiencies is what you’re doing. That technology is being worked on, 

and I think that’s some of the future that’s going to be. 
42 

Senator WYDEN. Final question for Mr. Hoeflich and Mr. Lillebo, 

any additional thoughts on collaboration. That’s what this bill ultimately is all about. In other words, we are trying to break the gridlock. I think Mr. Webb, who’s with us, still makes a valid point, 

that if you had sufficient funding, No. 1, and an actual way to 

jumpstart the process of breaking, you know, the gridlock, you 

wouldn’t need legislation. We just haven’t had either one, and the 

2 actually, in my view, go hand in hand. But that goes to the lessons of collaboration over the years. 

Do any of you have any final thoughts you’d like to add on—on 

how we actually put in place these collaborative efforts in the real 

world? 

Mr. HOEFLICH. Thank you. This is a critical question. I think the 

key has been to bring the communities together to have the conversations. The question is, what do they need in order to make informed decisions. Having scientists available, having expertise from 

the Federal agencies, my carrier and the Governor have done extraordinary work to bring State-based resources to the table to help 

inform the collaboratives. Non-profits are trying to augment wherever they possibly can, but bring the science to the table is absolutely critical. 

I think the next big collaborative beyond that, just moving up in 

scale, is for all of us to, again, unite behind this bill and help to 

get the financial resources necessary to execute at the scale of the 

problem. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Mr. Lillebo. 

Mr. LILLEBO. Yes, collaboration I think has been very important 

aspect of getting out the different issues on forest management. I’m 

part of several collaboratives, one is over in the Malheur, co-chair 

with Mike Dillman, who’s with Ochoco Lumber there. We have 

worked long and hard, you know, hours and hours, and sometimes 

it’s a real pain—well, pardon my French—sometimes it’s very difficult to go through these projects as a collaborative, but what I 

think we’ve found is, we’ve come to agreements, and maybe we’ve 

only gotten 80 percent, 90 percent, but that’s pretty darn good compared to what we used to have. 

What I think is the—potentially this bill, if we had the science 

panel, kind of showing here’s some parameters for the science, and 

if people could all agree to that, I think that could help out in helping the collaboratives come out with a better product. They’re a 

learning process, but I think there absolutely essential, but like I 

say, the bill could help out, you know, empowering those 

collaboratives and getting more things done on the forest. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. 

Gentlemen, we’ll excuse you all. Thank you very much for all of 

your cooperation. 

Our next panel, King Williams, a member of the Gazelle Land 

& Timber LLC, Canyon City, Ivan Maluski, Conservation Program 

Coordinator, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Craig Woodward, owner of Woodward Companies in Prineville. 

Gentlemen, thank you all. Let’s begin with Mr. Williams, and 

good to have you again, and I know we worked together on some 
43 

land exchanges in the past, and we’ll make your prepared remarks 

part of the record and you just proceed as you’d like. 

STATEMENT OF KING WILLIAMS, MEMBER, GAZELLE LAND & 

TIMBER, LLC 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for asking me to come today. My name is King Williams and over my lifetime of living and working in eastern Oregon, I’ve witnessed the 

forest change from healthy and vibrant to dead and dying. We’ve 

heard that today, we’ve heard a lot of discussion about that today, 

but when our national forests in just northeast Oregon can grow 

765 million board feet year, we cut less than 100 million and we 

let 400 million die to mortality, that’s a crime. 

Our forests lack management, they’re plagued by that, but I believe that the risks associated with this act far outweigh any perceived benefits, and will in fact exacerbate the forest management 

problems and timber supply issues which currently exist in eastern 

Oregon. The stated goals and purpose of this act appear to be bent, 

as Jack Thomas said, on increasingly dysfunctional, expensive, inconsistent, and confuse management. He goes on to agree with 

what I’ve said here, that the act will further confuse management 

through a series of mandates, prohibitions, and which will have no 

basis—little basis in science. The act will increase the inconsistency 

of management by requiring that the Umatilla, the Wallowa-Whitman, and the Deschutes National Forest manage their lands under 

2 separate sets of rules, one set within the State of Oregon on the 

east side and one set in Washington, Idaho, and on the west side 

of Oregon. That will be more expensive. 

The myriad of new, undefined, and scientifically—unscientifically 

supported management directions will add to the confusion and 

dysfunction within the U.S. Forest Service. There are new and creative definitions in the act, such as old growth, which the Society 

of American Foresters has pointed out, is inconsistent with any definition accepted by the scientific and professional communities. The 

act further confuses this issue by switching between old growth, to 

older trees, to older mature trees. What is an older tree? What is 

older mature tree? What is ecologically appropriate spatial complexity? What is anticipated future condition? What is acceptable 

levels of carbon cycling? What is the historic level of within forest 

stand spatial heterogeneity? All require answers. 

Within the act, economic and social considerations are placed secondary to anything else, in direct conflict with the Organic Act, the 

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, the National Forest Management Act, and NEPA. At one point, the act states that the secretary shall consider wood harvest to sustain adequate levels of industry infrastructure as a consideration in developing a methodology of management. But what is adequate when we’re talking of 

industry infrastructure? Who decides that? We all know that the 

obvious answer to that is the courts. There’s more litigation. 

The prohibitions to cutting trees over 20—greater than 21 inches 

will actually—may actually prevent a healthy and resilient forest. 

That’s been discussed. It’s not a cookie cutter, and this act only 

codifies the cookie-cutter approach there and with pack fish and in 

fish with the codification of these regulations. But they also expand 
44 

these mandated prescriptions to watersheds that are not covered 

under pack fish and in fish. Natural resource management is dynamic, it’s temporal and requires modifications and adaptations 

from site to site. 

Actions by Congress are absolute, timeless, and aside from a new 

action by Congress, ironclad. Washington, DC, is not the place to 

determine resource management. To finance this new set of processes, mandates, and management direction, Congress has included 

$50 million, of which only 3 percent can be used for administration, 

requiring that the balance of the administrative cost for this to be 

taken from an already anemic timber management budget on these 

national forests. In these times of skyrocketing national debt, Congress should recognize that our vast renewable natural resources 

are one area available to produce the income necessary to dig our 

Nation out of the fiscal mess we find ourselves. We need less restrictions, not more expensive process. 

The passage of this act in its present form will result in dramatically increased process, increased litigation, continual ecological decline, increasing economic decline, and a degradation of our social 

fabric of our communities. 

As for resolving the timber supply and economic sustainability 

problems and improving ecological health and resiliency, the act 

will fail. In reality, controversial interim regulations based on questionable science will be made permanent by Congress, while our 

local communities and dependent industries are left with more unfunded regulations and restriction and empty promises of further 

funding. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KING WILLIAMS, MEMBER, GAZELLE LAND & TIMBER, LLC 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to testify on SB 2895, The Oregon Eastside Restoration Old Growth Protection 

and Jobs Act of 2009. My name is King Williams and I am here today as a member 

of Gazelle Land & Timber LLC, an Oregon limited liability company. Gazelle Land 

& Timber LLC owns and manages timberlands in Oregon and northern California. 

I am also the President of the Grant County Resource Enhancement Action Team 

commonly known as G.R.E.A.T., Corp. This is the economic development organization in Grant County, Oregon. Although G.R.E.A.T., Corp has not taken a formal 

position on SB 2895, as a member of the board of directors for the past 13 years 

my perspective is consistent with the vision and mission of G.R.E.A.T., Corp’s Board 

of Directors. 

I am a 4th generation resident of Grant County, Oregon. I grew up raising cattle 

on our family ranch for the first 36 years of my life. I have owned and operated 

a small sawmill in John Day until the decline in the federal timber supply forced 

my partner and I to close the mill like many operations in Northeast Oregon. For 

the past 10 years I have been managing our company’s timber lands in Oregon and 

Northern California. Our company also owned and operated a cattle ranch relying 

upon federal grazing in Northeast Oregon. Along with over 45 years of owning and 

operating natural resource based businesses in Northeast Oregon, I studied resource 

economics under Dr. Fred Obermiller and received a masters in resource economics 

from Oregon State University. I have participated in numerous studies and analysis 

of the effect of natural resource management on the economy of resource dependent 

communities. One of these was the Oregon Range and Related Resources Evaluation 

Project conducted by the USFS from 1976 -1986 on the Malheur National Forest. 

As part of the Management Team for this project I worked closely with the USFS, 

BLM and other agencies in the design and implementation of this 10 year project. 

As a result of this project numerous articles were published concerning natural resource management on the forests of Northeast Oregon. 

I have not only studied the social, economic and ecological implications of natural 

resource management in the forests of Northeast Oregon in the academic setting 
45 

through Oregon State University and as part of the Oregon Range and Related Resources Evaluation Project team, but I have invested my own time, labor and capital 

in the operation and ownership of ranches, sawmills and timberlands within this 

region. As a result of this background I am fully aware of the raw material plight 

of the industry in Northeast Oregon in general and our three Grant County sawmills in particular. 

I have worked for and continue to support any effort to provide ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable and economically viable management of the national 

forests of Eastern Oregon. Any management which is truly ecologically sustainable, 

socially acceptable and economically viable will ‘‘provide a continuous supply of National Forest System timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United 

States’’ while ‘‘facilitating the stabilization of communities and opportunities for employment’’ to the industries and communities of Oregon as mandated in Federal 

Statutes enumerated below and further expressed in Forest Service Manual 2402. 

The Statutes referred to above include but are not limited to: 

1. The Organic Act of 1897 which states ‘‘No public forest reservation shall 

be established, except to improve and protect (emphasis added) the forest within 

the reservation or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water 

flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities 

of the citizens of the United States’’... ’’The Secretary of Interior shall (emphasis added) make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and 

depredations upon the public forests and forest reservations . . . For the purpose of preserving living and growing timber and promoting the younger growth 

on forest reservations, . . . The Secretary of the Interior . . . may cause to 

be designated . . . so much of the dead, matured, or large growth (emphasis 

added) of trees found upon such forest reservations as may be compatible with 

the utilization of the forests thereon, and may sell the same’’......

2. The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 which states: ‘‘It 

is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall 

(emphasis added) be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, (emphasis added) watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes’’. ‘‘The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed (emphasis added) to develop and administer 

the renewable surface resources of the National Forests for multiple use and 

sustained yield of the several products and services obtained therefrom,’’..... .’’due consideration will be given to the relative values of the 

various resources’’ . . .’’ sustained yield of the several products and services’’ 

means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual 

or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources. The law specifically directs that the national forests be administered in part for the ‘‘high 

yield’’ of timber products. When the law was enacted in 1960, ‘‘timber’’ meant 

sawlogs for the lumber production. Biomass and other related products were not 

a primary consideration. The Proposed Action has no discussion of the ‘‘relative 

value of the various resources’’ as required. 

3. The Forest and Renewable Resources Planning Act as amended by National Forest Management Act of 1976 states in Sec.5 ‘‘. . .the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop and maintain on a continuing basis a comprehensive and 

appropriately detailed inventory’’. Sec. 6 (f)(l) goes on to state ‘‘. . .forest plans 

shall form one integrated plan for each unit (defined as a National Forest) of 

the National Forest System,’’. Sec. 6 (m) (l) further states ‘‘. . .the standards 

shall (emphasis added) not preclude the Secretary from salvage or sanitation 

harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow 

or other catastrophe or which are in imminent danger from insect or disease 

attack,’’. 

4. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 states ‘‘. . .it is the policy 

of the Federal Government. . .to use all practicable means and measures...... .to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature 

can exist in productivity harmony, and fulfill the social, economic (emphasis 

added) and other requirements of present, and future generations of Americans.’’ Nothing in Sec. 102 or 103 shall in any way affect the specific statutory 

obligations of any Federal Agency...... .NEPA along with NFMA Sec. 6 (b) 

mandates that the Forest Service in their Proposed Action consider the economic consequences of their actions and must seek a balance between ‘‘population and resource use which will permit a high standard of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities’’. 

I believe that the risks associated with SB 2895 ‘‘Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009’’, hereinafter referred to as 
46 

‘‘Act’’ far outweigh any perceived benefits and will, in-fact, exacerbate the forest 

management problems and raw material supply issues currently existing. 

GOALS

The framers of this Act came together to achieve a noble set of goals including: 

1. Conserving and restoring eastside forests of the State; 

2. Providing an immediate, predictable and increased timber flow to support 

locally based restoration economies; 

3. Making the eastside forests of the State more resistant and resilient and 

to mitigate the effects of, climate change; to a healthy and resilient condition; 

4. Protection and restoration and increase of old growth forest stands and 

trees in the eastside forests of the State; 

5. To expedite actions to conserve and restore forests of the State that achieve 

ecological objectives and provide social benefits; 

6. to promote collaboration in communities of the eastside forests of the State 

to support natural resource and restoration-based economies; 

7. to streamline administrative processes for ecological restoration projects in 

the eastside forests of the State that result in improved forest and watershed 

health; 

8. to conserve and restore the ecological health and natural processes of 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems and watersheds in the State; 

9. To prioritize and strategically target restoration projects to improve forest 

and watershed health in old growth forests; 

10. To provide periodic independent review of agency programs in carrying 

out this Act; 

11. To recognize that the threats to forest health, watershed health and rural 

economies have reached emergency status; and 

12. To ensure that Federal land managers in the State are good neighbors 

to private landowners. 

These goals were bent out of decades of ‘‘increasingly dysfunctional, expensive, inconsistent, and confused. . .’’ management of the National Forests of Eastern Oregon. This is as described by former Chief of the United States Forest Service, Jack 

Ward Thomas, in a guest editorial printed in the Oregonian Newspaper, January 

22, 2010, titled ‘‘What’s wrong with the eastside forest compromise’’, attached hereto 

and its entirety included as part of this testimony. 

The Act fails to achieve some of the primary goals of the Act as listed above. 

Providing an immediate, predictable and increased timber flow to support locally 

based restoration economies 

The Act fails in this aspect on several levels: 

1. The primary reason for the lack of supply of timber for the industries and 

local resource dependent communities of Eastern Oregon is the lack of timber 

offered by the National Forests; 

a. The National Forests have over the past decade, been forced through 

litigation to increase the level and expense of planning associated with each 

project; 

i. Increased expense associated with reduced budgets have resulted in a 

decrease in the number of projects planned and implemented, which would 

result in timber for the industries; 

b. The Projects planned on the National Forests have increased in complexity and each project has produced less and less raw material therefore 

have become less and less economically efficient; 

c. The Act does not include any direct, long term; sustainable funding to 

ensure that sufficient number of projects can be planned and implemented 

to provide a predictable and sustainable supply of raw material. 

d. Senator Wyden promises to make every effort to achieve funding but 

he has been in the majority and chairman of this committee for several 

years and funding is still inadequate, why should things change now? 

2. Litigation has been a major stumbling block to the USFS in planning and 

implementing an adequate number of projects on the National Forests of Eastern Oregon which would result in a predictable and sustainable supply of raw 

material to the industry and communities of Eastern Oregon. 

a. This Act will only increase the incidence of litigation as described 

below. 
47 

3. The Eastside Screen which include a 21 inch limit on trees cut along with 

the requirements included in PACFISH and INFISH, both of which were initiated without a NEPA process and without scientific basis, have been another 

stumbling block to good forest management and the ability of the USFS to provide an immediate, predictable and sustainable supply of timber to the industry 

and communities of Eastern Oregon; 

a. The USFS has over the last decade developed an effective framework 

within which to comply with these management directions (which have internal flexibility) in their planning and implementation of National Forest 

management projects. 

b. This Act, by congressionally codifying and even expanding the 21 inch 

management direction, PACFISH and INFISH regulations, will result in a 

further decline in raw material supply. 

c. This Act not only completely prohibits the harvest of any tree over 21 

inches DBH, which has no basis in science, but also allows for the prohibition of the harvest of trees under 21 inches based upon unknown set of 

standards or guidelines or whim of an Advisory Panel. 

d. The restrictions stated in this Act will directly result in less raw material supply to the industry and communities of Eastern Oregon. 

4. The additional layers of process required by this Act will increase the expense of each project and will expand the time required for each project. 

5. Finally, this goal is an overt attempt by Congress to tell the communities 

of Eastern Oregon the type of an economy which the lands managed by the 

USFS will support, ‘‘restoration economies’’; 

a. Initially there is no definition of a ‘‘restoration economy’’ 

b. The Organic Act of 1897 states that the national forests are ‘‘to furnish 

a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of 

the United States’’ it does not limit to ‘‘restoration economies’’ 

c. To limit ‘‘timber flow to support locally based ‘‘restoration economies’’’’ 

is problematic at a minimum. What does this really mean? 

Making the eastside forests of the State more resistant and resilient and to mitigate 

the effects of, climate change 

The Act fails goal as well for the following reasons: 

1. The codification of the 21 inch rule which prohibits the harvest or removal 

of any tree over 21 inches does not add to the restoration of the health of the 

national forests of Eastern Oregon. 

a. The codification of this rule simply appeases the radical environmental 

factions and is not supported by science. 

b. 21 inch trees are not necessarily Old Growth, 

c. All trees die and under current conditions where the forests are in a 

highly overstocked condition, these trees may even die sooner due to the 

stress. 

d. Forest management is dynamic and many ecotypes within the forests 

are far healthier with a mixed age stand of trees. With a congressionally 

mandated prohibition of the harvest and removal of any tree over 21 inches, 

these areas will be difficult to bring back to a healthy state. 

e. The expansion of the 21 inch rule to allow for the prohibition of trees 

under 21 inches even makes forest management more difficult. 

f. Congressional codification and expansion of this rule removes some of 

the tools available to the professionals who are charged with and hired to 

manage the forests in an ecologically sustainable manner. 

2. The codification and expansion of the PACFISH and INFISH regulations 

add nothing to the goal of restoring the forests of Eastern Oregon to a healthy 

and resilient condition. 

a. The rules as currently in existence provide the necessary protection intended while allowing the USFS the ability to modify prescriptions on a site 

by site basis. 

b. The codification of these rules takes away the ability of the professional forest managers to manage the forests ecosystems to the needs of 

each specific site. Rather they will be held to a cookie cutter approach. 

c. This Act not only codified the PACFISH and INFISH regulations but 

expands them in Section (5) (a)(4)(b)(v) ‘‘for watersheds NOT IDENTIFIED 

(emphasis added) as key and priority watersheds, as identified under 
48 

PACFISH and INFISH’’ to mandate certain management prescriptions for 

these areas as well. 

3. The Act provides no new tools to the USFS in the pursuit of a more healthy 

and resilient forest. In-fact the additional layers of process and the stricter regulatory nature of the 21 inch rule, the less than 21 inch rule, the ‘‘watershed 

management’’ regulations in Section (5), and the inclusion of a new definition 

of ‘‘Old Growth’’ in Section (2) (14) which includes a single ‘‘tree’’ actually take 

away tools the USFS was able to utilize in the pursuit of a healthy and resilient 

forest. 

a. Implicit in any action which reduces the tools available, restricts the 

options available and increases the layers of process is a reduction in effectiveness. 

4. There has been extensive research, data and reporting by the Oregon State 

Climatologist (‘‘Climate Change-Global and in Oregon’’ by State Climatologist 

George H. Taylor). Included in the findings was the fact that data in Eastern 

Oregon demonstrates a consistent temperature regime with cooling and warming cycles throughout history and continuing today. 

a. Without arguing the global warming issue, one of the goals of forest 

management is to be aware of the implications forest management decisions have upon the release and/or sequestration of carbon. 

b. This Act through the insistence upon retention of old mature and dying 

trees will implicitly increase the carbon release into the atmosphere and reduce the level of sequestration of carbon as follows; 

i) The notion that you can store more carbon in larger diameter trees’’ 

is flawed and inconsistent with science. In-fact the best way to sequester 

carbon through the utilization of ‘‘large diameter trees’’ is to harvest them 

and utilize the wood in construction so as to make a ‘‘carbon bank’’ in each 

board. Science demonstrates that as the Consumers of carbon, ie trees, 

grow they ‘‘consume’’ carbon which can be sequestered in the ‘‘carbon bank’’ 

through harvest at the appropriate time (before decomposition begins). If 

the tree is allowed to die and begin decomposing, even while standing, it 

begins the process of producing carbon again and releasing it into the atmosphere. Additional return of carbon to the atmosphere occurs through 

the nonbiological process of combustion, both through the purposive use of 

wood in a fireplace and the accidental fire in a forest or building. (Concepts 

of Ecology, by Edward J. Kormondy). 

c. Therefore, this Act will actually be counter productive in the desire to 

sequester more carbon in the National Forests. 

To expedite actions to conserve and restore forests of the State that achieve ecological 

objectives and provide social benefits 

This goal is accompanied by the goal which states: 

To expedite actions to conserve and restore forests of the State... 

These goals are similar to the goal which states: 

To streamline administrative processes for ecological restoration projects 

in the eastside forests of the State that result in improved forest and watershed health 

The Act completely fails to expedite any actions, or to streamline any administrative process. 

The management of these National Forests has been frustrated by a continual series of litigation on the part of extreme environmental groups to confound, disrupt 

and ultimately stop all management of the National Forests of this region. As a result of this stream of appeals and litigation, the ecological health of the forests has 

drastically declined resulting in millions of acres of overstocked, decadent, insect 

and disease ridden dead and dying, fire prone forests. 

Along with the declining ecological state of these National Forests, the flow of raw 

materials produced by these forest ecosystems has ground to a near halt, which in 

turn has resulted in the mass exodus of industrial infrastructure in the surrounding 

communities. With this dramatic decline in industrial base, the communities of 

Eastern Oregon are in a free fall far more severe than the nations economy is experiencing. The 10 percent unemployment experienced on a nationwide basis at this 

time would be looked at in many areas of Eastern Oregon as good news when these 

communities have been experiencing nearly 20% unemployment on a regular basis 
49 

during this decimation of our local economies, our surrounding environment and our 

way of life. 

There is however, a disconnect between the problems enumerated above, the desire of the framers of this Act to meet the goals also described in the Act, and the 

reality of what will actually happen if the Act, ‘‘The Oregon Eastside Restoration 

Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009’’ , becomes the law of the land through 

passage of SB 2895 concurrence by the House of Representatives of an identical bill 

to become a congressional act which will then be signed by the President of the 

United States. 

Natural resource management is dynamic, temporal, and requires modifications 

and adaptation from site to site. Actions by the Congress of the United States, 

signed as a PUBLIC LAW by the President of the United States are absolute, timeless and aside from passage of another Congressional action to be signed into law 

by the President of the United States, is iron clad. Washington DC and Congress 

are not the place to determine resource management. 

It is highly unlikely that the Act will be successful in the attempts to address the 

prolonged process of getting forest management projects implemented in a timely 

fashion. The Act addresses the wrong problem. It is not management science that 

is the problem. The problem in getting projects initiated on the ground is protracted 

processes required to achieve a judicially viable project. While appeals delay Forest 

Service programs, they do not entirely stop the programs. It is the continued threat 

of litigation by the ‘‘Environmental Litigation Industry’’ that stops the process and 

this Act does not resolve that problem. 

The new processes spelled out will do little to get more projects on the ground. 

1) The Advisory Panel as proposed in the Act is destined for disaster; 

a. Legislated advisory panels (like the Committee of Scientists in RPA) 

have been shown to be ineffective and a waste of taxpayer money; 

b. The Advisory Panel specified in the Act will add a cumbersome layer 

of process to a variety of decisions; 

c. How can one, seven (7) person panel be expected to provide the mandated input to the issues on each of the six (6) National Forests and the 

associated Collaborative Groups; 

d. The combination of mandates including the Advisory Panel, the Collaborative Groups and coordination with the ‘‘Secretary’’ will absolutely 

guarantee paralysis; and e. The addition of the Advisory Panel and the Collaborative Groups will add two (2) additional layers which are being legalized, codified and mandated by Congress which will direct US Forest Service management programs, essentially bypassing the Secretary of Agriculture. 

2) The myriad of reports mandated within this Act will by definition increase 

process and will add layers of administrative work to an already overly complicated process; 

3) The Advisory Panel and Collaborative Groups leave out the mandated coordination required by current law to include county government, grazing 

permitees, neighboring landowners and other valid interest holders; and 

4) The new processes, procedures and restrictions spelled out in the act are 

by definition ‘‘more process’’. 

The Act fails to limit process, and actually dramatically adds to the process required to get a project on the ground. A related issue of process will occur on the 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests where the USFS will be required 

to manage the lands in Oregon (under this Act) under the set of rules set forth in 

this Act, while managing their lands located in the States of Washington and Idaho, 

which are part of the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman forests under a different set 

of rules. 

To promote collaboration in communities of the eastside forests of the State to support natural resource and restoration-based economies 

The Act again fails this goal for the following reasons: 

1. Collaborative groups are already authorized and working within the 

Eastside National Forests to congressionally mandate and muddle the process 

of establishment, management of and purpose is counter-productive 

2. This Act states that ‘‘the Secretary shall ensure that the collaborative 

group be comprised of diverse backgrounds and represent various interests that 

include at a minimum—environmental organizations, timber and forest products industry representatives and county government’’. To explicitly identify cer-
50 

tain members while excluding other groups and an individual is problematic, 

divisive and will be the subject of litigation rather than collaboration. 

3. The Act further defines how the group will operate which, as with the mandate of the composition of the group will result in the group being less collaborative and more divisive and liturgical. 

4. The Act also establishes a complaint procedure which implicitly encourages 

divisiveness and litigation even in the makeup, operation and decisions of the 

collaborative group, which is contrary to the goal. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Within the framework of the Act, economic and social considerations are always 

placed secondary to anything else, in stark contrast to the objectives of forest management spelled out in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2402) which includes six 

(6) goals and the first is ‘‘To provide a continuous supply of National Forest System 

timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.’’. This secondary status of economic and social considerations is evidenced most notably in 

Section (4) ‘‘Forest Management’’ (a) ‘‘Management Goals’’(1) of the Act wherein the 

Act enumerates four (4) specific goals as follows: 

A. ‘‘to conserve and restore the health, natural structure, processes and functions of the forests and watersheds located in the covered area;’’ 

B. ‘‘to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic disturbances from fire, insects and 

disease;’’ 

C. ‘‘to allow for characteristic natural disturbances;’’ and 

D. ‘‘To increase resistance and resiliency of the covered land to 

uncharacteristic events.’’ 

Although noble in an of themselves, the explicit and direct exclusion of any reference to any social or economic consideration puts this Act in direct conflict with 

The Organic Act of 1897, The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960, 

The Forest and Renewable Resources Planning Act as amended by National Forest 

Management Act of 1976, and The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

As part of the direction from Congress in this Act as to how to ‘‘implement’’ ‘‘Forest Management’’ Section (4)(a)(2)(B) includes fifteen items which the projects ‘‘could 

potentially help achieve’’. This section states that ‘‘the Secretary (USFS) shall CONSIDER (emphasis added) methodologies that COULD POTENTIALLY (emphasis 

added) help achieve’’ a list of these fifteen items and only one, number nine (9) has 

economic or social considerations. This one, number nine (9) lists ‘‘wood harvests to 

sustain adequate levels of industry infrastructure.’’ Even the listing of this one item 

as a part of fifteen items which could potentially be helped, is confusing, inadequate, 

and opens the door for litigation in and of itself for the following reasons: 

• ‘‘Industry infrastructure’’ is a non-defined element. 

—What does it really mean? 

—And who will make the determination as to what infrastructure is? 

• What is an ‘‘adequate level’’? 

—To whom is the adequacy relevant? 

—Who is to determine if the level of ‘‘wood harvest’’ ‘‘adequate’’? 

• What is an ‘‘adequate level of industry infrastructure’’? 

—The obvious answer to these questions is that it will fall upon the courts to 

make these determinations. MORE LITIGATION 

When The Congress of the United States of America makes a law which is in turn 

signed by the President, it becomes a ‘‘Public Law’’ which MUST be followed and 

when confusion as to intent is encountered, the courts are called upon to interpret. 

The following are just a short list of issues that the courts (which many of us have 

little confidence in) will be called upon to decipher: 

• ‘‘anticipated future conditions’’ 

• ‘‘sufficiently uniform’’ 

• ‘‘acceptable range’’ of; 

• Species composition 

• Ecosystem function 

• Carbon cycling 

• Hydrologic function 

• ‘‘potential natural vegetation’’ 
51 

• ‘‘best available science’’ 

• ‘‘within forest stand spatial heterogeneity’’ 

• ‘‘older trees’’ 

• ‘‘older mature trees’’ 

• ‘‘ecologically appropriate spatial complexity’’ 

• ‘‘appropriate understory plant community composition and condition’’ 

• ‘‘professional society’’ 

• ‘‘maximum extent practicable’’ 

• ‘‘local economic value potential’’ 

• ‘‘restoration economies’’ 

• ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ 

• ‘‘minimum quantity of timber based upon the need to maintain a sustainable 

industrial capacity to perform the ecological restoration activities under this 

Act.’’ 

• ‘‘sawtimber as a byproduct’’ 

• ‘‘encourage the establishment and maintenance of new and existing collaborative groups’’ 

• ‘‘multiple interested individuals, who in the aggregate, are comprised of diverse 

backgrounds and represent various interests’’ 

• ‘‘operates in a transparent and non-exclusive manner’’ 

• ‘‘operates by consensus or in according to voting procedures to ensure a high 

degree of agreement among participants and across various interests’’ 

• ‘‘high degree of agreement’’ 

• ‘‘level of participation sufficient to ensure that members of the collaborative 

group are adequately informed before each vote’’ 

• ‘‘sufficient level of participation’’ 

• ‘‘adequately informed’’ 

We each have a vision that comes to mind when these words and statements are 

written or spoken. Each of these words or statements may be clear to one person 

but are confusing and nebulous to others. These words and statements are by all 

means not a complete of the words statements or issues which will increase the incidence of litigation associated with National Forest management in Eastern Oregon. 

The Act’s attempts to help ‘‘local’’ economies by specifying that the required Stewardship contract ‘‘give preference to local businesses’’ to help local business and 

workers is a misleading proposition. The Act defines ‘‘local’’ to be a 100 mile radius 

around any National Forest, Section (13)(d)(3). The Malheur National Forest can 

reach from the Cascades to the Idaho border and North to the Washington border 

this will kill small resource dependant communities within Grant County, Harney 

County, Wallowa County, Wheeler County and other small remote communities 

within the Eastern Oregon national forests. It is statements such as these that 

sound good but really hurt when implemented. 

The Act, while attempting to limit appeals and litigation, actually will provide additional fuel to the litigation process through: 

1) Ambiguous definitions some listed above but also including: 

a. ‘‘Old Growth’’ which includes a single tree, Section (3)(14), then prohibits harvest or removal, Section (4)(b)(1), then discusses limiting harvest 

of trees over 150 years old in Section (9)(d); 

b. ‘‘Forest Health’’ which includes ‘‘to maintain or develop species composition, ecosystem function and structure, hydrologic function, carbon cycling, and sediment regimes that are within an acceptable range that considers—(i) historic variability; and (ii) anticipated future conditions, Section 

(3)(6); 

c. ‘‘restoration economies’’, Section (2)(2); and 

d. ‘‘Plant Association’’, Section (3)(17), which includes as part of the definition ‘‘vegetation community that—(i) would potentially, in the absence of 

disturbance occupy a site. . .’’; and 

2) Nebulous, unclear and even litigious wording and management direction, 

such as: 

a. ‘‘restore ecologically sustainable forest stands to incorporate characteristic forest stand structures and older tree populations’’, Section 

(4)(a)(2)(B)(viii) ; 

b. ‘‘natural structure’’ which is undefined and not agreed upon by scientists; 

c. ‘‘best available science’’ which is absolutely subjective and a recipe for 

litigation; 
52 

d. ‘‘restore historical levels of within forest stand spatial heterogeneity’’ 

Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(iv); 

e. ‘‘the restoration and maintenance of historic population levels of older 

tree’’, Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(vii); 

f. ‘‘ecologically appropriate spatial complexity’’, Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(xi); 

and 

g. ‘‘In developing ecological restoration projects under this Act, the Secretary shall—(A). . ., and achieve, a net reduction in the permanent road 

system;’’, Section (6)(c)(1), which will ultimately result in zero miles of permanent roads on the forest if carried out as written. 

ROADS

The Act begins a discussion of ‘‘Roads’’ in Section (6) with a complete prohibition 

on the construction of a permanent road on the National Forests of Eastern Oregon. 

This is an irrational act on the part of our Congress. 

The Act goes on to allow for the placement of a permanent road as long as it 

meets several criteria and is not built on any area that contains a tree protected 

under Section (4)(b) which is any tree over 21 inches DBH or under 21 inches DBH. 

In most cases there is not a need for a road where there is not a tree. I was encouraged that ‘‘economic criteria’’ were mentioned as considerations along with ecological 

when constructing a temporary road. 

One major concern I have with the Act’s ‘‘Net Road Reduction’’ in Section (6)(c) 

(1) states that ‘‘the Secretary shall. . .achieve a net reduction in the permanent 

road system;’’ in the ‘‘development of ecological restoration projects under this Act.’’ 

If every project is required to have a NET REDUCTION in the permanent road system, then simple mathematics means that ultimately there will be NO permanent 

road system. 

EASTSIDE FOREST SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL AVISORY PANEL

The establishment of the ‘‘Eastside Forest Scientific and Technical Advisory 

Panel’’ hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Advisory Panel’’ in Section (7) of the Act is 

a nightmare in itself. 

• The Act only gives 90 days to establish this panel (politically impossible) 

—It took 11⁄2years for congress to re-appoint members to the RAC’s that were 

already in existence 

—Before the Secretary can appoint this Advisory Panel, the Secretary must 

Consult with Congress 

—Before these experts can be considered to consult with congress for the Secretary to appoint to the Advisory Panel, they must be recommended by ‘‘an 

institution of higher education or a professional society’’. 

—Someone must determine which institution of higher education is the appropriate ones to recommend and which professional society is the appropriate 

one or ones to may a recommendation; 

—Someone must ensure that ‘‘through the collaboration of the individuals appointed’’ (this sounds like a ‘‘do loop’’ or a ‘‘vicious cycle’’ where one must collaborate with ones self to determine if one meets the criteria)will represent 

a ‘‘broad array of fields’’. This broad array of fields consists of 14 specifically 

listed fields. 

—This process is impossible to complete in 90 days which starts the timelines 

off on a delay that flows downhill. 

• The Act then gives 180 days for the Advisory Panel, once appointed, to tell the 

USFS and the people how they are going to achieve the goals in Section (4)(a)(1) 

which are the four (4) goals none of which contain any economic or social consideration. 

—The Act is asking the Advisory Panel, in 180 days, to develop a plan containing the ‘‘recommendations as to how this Advisory Panel’’ is going to manage, the ‘‘forest, stream, grassland, wetland, alpine and other land and water 

located in the covered area’’, (all six National Forests in Eastern Oregon) considering the ‘‘best available science’’. 

—This report must include ‘‘management guidance’’ regarding a list of seven (7) 

areas which are fairly specific. 

—All this completed and a report to the USFS and the people covering the six 

(6) National Forests within 180 days, 

—This timeline is unrealistic at best. 
53 

• An additional report is due to the ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ in five 

(5) years that is extremely explicit in its content. 

—Similar to a forest plan 

—More process 

SUMMARY

The Act will guarantee some fundamental change in the direction of forest management on the National Forests of Eastern Oregon. Among these guaranteed 

changes are: 

1) Congressional codification of the flawed Eastside Screens; 

2) Congressional Codification and Expansion of PACFISH and INFISH; 

3) Congress developing a definition of Old Growth which is functionally unattainable and inconsistent with definitions accepted within the scientific and professional communities; 

4) Fundamentally flawed mandated reduction in the National Forest Road 

system which mathematically will result in NO permanent roads; 

5) A mandated collaborative process which will result in major stagnation of 

the entire process; and 

6) Congressional mandate of some ‘‘historic population level of older trees’’ 

(which are undefined). 

7) Promises, Promises, Promises, and more Promises of some future funding 

level for USFS, Forest Management adequate to finance this menagerie of codified restrictions and regulations, if future congresses agree. 

The Act authorizes a one time sum of $50,000,000 to be appropriated that will 

be available until it is used up. Only 3% of this money can be used for administrative purposes, requiring the balance of the administrative costs including the costs 

of the Advisory Panel, Collaborative groups and extra assessments and reports to 

be taken from the already anemic Timber Management budget in these six (6) national forests. 

It is highly unlikely that: 1) There will be additional appropriations for the increased overhead associated with this Act; or 2) The other National Forests within 

either Region 6 or the other Regions of the nation will voluntarily relinquish funds 

from their allocated budgets to make up the increased overhead associated with this 

Act. Therefore, each of the forests will be required to make up the difference in overhead from other projects. 

It is also unlikely that the revenues from the sale of forest products generated 

as a result of the restoration projects can sustain the program, of Ecological Restoration Projects on the Large Landscape basis. The restrictions placed on harvest 

of ‘‘Older Trees’’ and the reliance on harvest of ‘‘Biomass’’ is highly unlikely to provide a sustainable flow of income large enough to fund the intent of this Act. Biomass and small diameter trees have the lowest product value and the highest cost 

to produce. Biomass barely pays its way to the mill in the best markets and therefore, there will be little revenue to sustain a very expensive program. As a result, 

the USFS will be stuck trying to comply with a very expensive and legally mandated program with little money to comply. 

The tax payers of the United States will again be burdened with an extensive and 

expensive program mandated by congress. When in fact the products of these six 

(6) national forests should and are easily capable of producing enough income, from 

the sale of even a minor part of the sustained yield from the forests, to not only 

pay for the harvest program but the associated restoration work necessary to improve the declining health of the forests. In these times of skyrocketing national deficit and astronomical national debt, congress should recognize that our vast renewable natural resources are one area available to produce the income necessary to 

dig our nation out of the fiscal mess we find ourselves in at this time. We need less 

restrictions not more expensive process at this time. 

I find that enormity of the problems associated with this Act are so overwhelming 

that I can not support it. Any purported benefits pale to the increased process, increased costs and the areas of potential litigation created by this Act. 

Passage of the Act in its present form will result in: 

• Dramatically increased process necessary to plan and implement projects on 

National Forest lands in Eastern Oregon; 

• Litigation over the current process and the additional layers of process will increase; 

• Ecological Restoration on the National Forests of Eastern Oregon will continue 

to decline; 
54 

• The physical and economic infrastructure of the industrial base and the resource dependent communities will continue to decline; and 

• The social fabric of our communities and region will be dramatically impacted 

in a negative manner. 

As for resolving the timber supply and economic sustainability problems on the 

Eastside National Forests while improving the ecological health and resiliency of the 

National Forests, the Act fails. 

In reality, the environmentalists will get everything they could hope for, while 

local communities and dependent industries are left with more restrictions and an 

empty promise of future funding. 

Senator WYDEN. I’m going to put you down as having a couple 

questions about the bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. We’ll have some questions, seriously, in a moment. 

Mr. Woodward, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG WOODWARD, OWNER, WOODWARD 

COMPANIES, PRINEVILLE, OR 

Mr. WOODWARD. Thank you, Senator Wyden, and members of the 

committee. I’m Craig Woodward, sixth generation central Oregonian. I’ve spent the majority of my life in the forests of eastern Oregon that I dearly love. 

I’ve, will all due respect, Senator Wyden, have more than—have 

identified more than 40 problems, comments, and questions regarding your 65-page well-intended S. 2895. Five minutes won’t scratch 

the surface of the issues regarding the bill, so I’ll just summarize. 

I’ve discussed this bill with members of industry, the scientific 

community, the Society of American Foresters, the local, city, county government, and the communities at large, and have found none 

willing to support this bill as written. They’ve all asked me to do 

the best job I can to express their feelings. 

It’s a sellout as far as I’m concerned, agreeing to forever give up 

the ability to remove trees regardless of size or age, sacrificing true 

forest management merely to be allowed to cut only an additional 

low value or negative value volume that needs to be treated anyway. Even though the Forest Service employees can’t come out on 

either side of political positions, I’ve discussed the bill off the 

record with current and former administrators, not one of them 

were in support of this bill. 

Giving up on the higher value trees will accelerate the end of the 

secondary mill work industry in eastern Oregon that have the employment capability in excess of 6,000 workers plus support jobs. 

These plants were located here due to the availability of local high 

quality ponderosa pine that will never again be available if this bill 

passes. I’ve found no one in the secondary mill work industry that 

was contacted regarding the consequences of this bill. Why not? 

Evidently this bill is called the Eastside Bill because the west side 

had the wisdom not to become part of it. 

From a practical standpoint, the bill can’t be labeled forest management or forest health, allowing only the smaller less valuable 

component to be treated. Disease such as mistletoe needs to be 

treated by dealing with stands as a whole. The snag inventory in 

the national forest in eastern Oregon is way more than ample. 

With a large segment of the larger trees affected by disease, insect 
55 

infestation, blow down, root sprung, mistletoe, fire, and natural 

mortality, good science mandates salvaging a portion of that volume. The value derived from—including a portion of the high risk 

larger trees in the management scheme would do more for the eastern Oregon economy and the USDA funding than the revenue from 

all the low value trees that will ever be harvested, while accomplishing—while accomplishing science-based management. 

The bill requires that at least 75 acres for every mile of fish-bearing stream will be off limits to all harvest activity. Nearly 40 acres 

of every mile of non-fish bearing streams will be off limits to all 

harvest as well. 

This bill contains a provision blocking timber sale appeal. If appeals can be blocked, then why not propose a bill to allow the forest 

managers to manage all of the—a portion of the forest that isn’t 

already set aside from logging, regardless of size, with no appeal, 

and forego the red tape created by this bill? 

The way I interpret the bill, is not—it is not immune to litigation, as far as the management process. I question that the advisory council, with such diverse opinions, can ever reach a consensus, as required by the bill. 

The administrators of the Eastern Oregon National Forest have 

stated that they don’t have the funding or the manpower to plan, 

advertise, and administer the needed sales programs currently, 

which represents no more than 10 percent of the annual growth. 

What makes you think that funding for this program will be appropriated if the bill is passed and not funded, no tree over 21 inches 

will ever be harvested in the future, and no increase small diameter volume will be harvested, who wins? 

If the bill passes, there is little need for industry and local government officials to be on groups or committees as required by the 

bill because they’ve already lost the fight. 

Your bill, Senator Wyden, has some positive features, however, 

agreeing to give up the possibility to manage and salvage the entire stand designated—in designated areas forever is definitely a 

tradeoff not worth making for good eastern Oregon national—for 

the good of eastern Oregon National Forests, the economy, and the 

region as a whole. 

Thanks for allowing me to comment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodward follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG WOODWARD, OWNER, WOODWARD COMPANIES, 

PRINEVILLE, OR 

For those of you not familiar with the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old 

Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009, I’ve included an outline of what it entails. 

To read the act, go to http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/ 

eastsidelforestlrestorationlbill.pdf. After reading the act, you will understand 

why those affected in Western Oregon were unwilling to have the forests in that 

area of the state included in Senator Wyden’s bill. 

After reading the act, I’m now convinced it’s even worse than originally feared. 

Where is the money for study—Forest Service says they don’t have man power, 

time, or budget to complete NEPA, EA, and EIS studies. The act can’t be labeled 

‘‘forest health’’ unless the health of the trees over 21 inches is addressed as well. 

In many areas the most at-risk forest component is the larger trees. Region wide, 

more than 50 percent of the larger trees have issues including, but not limited to, 

insect infestation, mistletoe, rot, lightning strikes, root sprung, blow down and natural mortality. 
56 

This bill can’t be labeled a forest health bill by throwing in the towel to the radical environmental factions regarding harvest of larger trees. Instead, it should be 

labeled ‘‘Continued Mismanagement’’. 

The most important bill that could be passed regarding timber issues in the area 

covered by the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and 

Jobs Act would be very simple to write and understand. It would include no dealmaking. 

COMMON SENSE FOREST BILL

• Allow no administrative appeals on timber sales by special interest groups or 

individuals 

• Allow the forest managers to do their jobs of managing the forests—not just the 

small trees 

The trees in our forests are a renewable resource. You can’t properly manage a 

renewable resource by uninformed vote, legislation, or litigation. The only successful 

way to assure sustained yield forestry is to allow the forest managers to manage 

through sound silvicultural science. 

Major problems that the architects of this bill seem to have overlooked are: 

1. If financing isn’t available to implement the plan, everyone loses except the 

radical environmentalists. 

2. Even though Andy Kerr agrees that the special interest group he’s involved 

with won’t file appeals on increased harvest, what would prevent other groups 

from surfacing and filing appeals? If the power exists to prevent appeals, why 

aren’t those powers being implemented for sound forest management practices 

currently? 

3. If management required by the bill is implemented, the overstocked stands 

will be thinned. Thinning stimulates growth. When re-entry is required in the 

future many trees that were released and allowed to grow will be larger than 

the allowable removal size. What will we do then? We’ll be backing ourselves 

into a corner in which we won’t be able to get out. 

By arbitrarily placing a 21-inch diameter limit on harvest, not only has the ability 

of the forest managers to manage been compromised, but also—equally as important—the possibility for the Forest Service to cover operating costs or even profit 

from timber sale revenue has been lost. 

On the private side, managing the forest as a whole instead of just immature, 

low-value trees creates more jobs, causes more commerce, and allows the remaining 

sawmills to be more competitive on the world scene. The secondary manufacture 

millwork plants in Central and Eastern Oregon were located here over the past 50 

years, due to the supply of high-quality Ponderosa pine lumber with very little 

transportation cost. These plants have the capacity to employ more than 2,000 

workers. Since the harvest appeal restriction of larger trees by special interest environmental groups, most of the lumber supply comes from outside the area or even 

from outside the country. This reduces the competitive advantage afforded the local 

millwork plants and is partially the cause of their work force reductions. 

Over the past month, I’ve visited with more than 50 Forest Service timber staff 

personnel, loggers, and industry representatives; not one of them has been in favor 

of the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act. 

During my discussions with Forest Service staff, I learned that even though they 

might have very strong opinions concerning pending legislation, they are not allowed to come out in favor of or against it. How can legislators be properly informed 

if those hired to protect the nation’s assets can’t have an opinion on legislation regarding the management of those assets? 

Given the Forest Service’s budget to administer the timber and the monetary 

losses caused by this bill, there is more than $1 million dollars of red ink in this 

program in the Ochoco National Forest this year alone. If we were allowed to return 

to pre-appeal sustained-yield harvest, the Ochoco National Forest, which is only 1 

of many national forests in Eastern Oregon, would generate additional revenue of 

at least $10 million to $20 million to the government through timber sale receipts, 

not to mention hundreds of additional jobs. 

If the Ochoco National Forest could merely add the larger diameter volume that 

becomes diseased, insect-damaged, lightning-struck, root-sprung, and wind-thrown 

annually, to the timber sales program before they begin to deteriorate, a great injustice would begin to heal while creating $5 million to $10 million in stumpage revenue for the U.S. Government and creating or saving hundreds of jobs. When you 

expand the numbers to cover all of the forests affected by this bill, the impact is 
57 

monumental. Keep in mind that 25% of US Forest receipts stay in the local communities to finance schools and county road budgets. 

An unintended consequence of this legislation is that it would have a devastating 

impact on the future of our nation’s renewable natural resources—along with its 

negative impact on industry and our ability to manage our nation’s national forests 

in Eastern Oregon. Currently the Forest Service timber sale program includes less 

than 10% of the annual growth on USFS managed lands. 

I don’t doubt Senator Wyden’s intent to make the best of a bad situation. I merely 

feel he doesn’t have an understanding of the bigger picture in this important issue. 

At best, all this bill accomplishes is to allow a couple of sawmills enough low-value 

timber to stay in operation for a little longer, while disregarding the future of our 

national forests. 

ATTACHMENT

My company manages timberland with more than 50 miles of common boundary 

with National Forest lands. Any management, or mismanagement, practice on National Forestland adjacent to our property directly impacts our property. I would 

like to invite you and anyone you wish to join you to tour our property, and the 

Forest Service property in the area to see the devastation resulting from not managing the trees over 21’’. 

The misinformation being spread around by officials about ‘‘an existing 21’’ rule’’ 

has done much to misinform those with a voice. For this bill to have the desired, 

successful result, the 21’’ issue must be addressed, and the forest managers must 

be allowed to manage without the burden of additional red tape. 

I’ve been inundated with phone calls with individuals from industry, county governments, professional associations, the public at large, including Forest Service employees, off the record. The message has been ‘‘keep up the fight’’. 

I’d like to use this opportunity to point out some of the questions, comments I’ve 

found with the bill. 

Page 1 in the title—you more effectively restore landscapes, and protect old 

growth forests, by having the ability to remove a portion of 21’’+ trees as needed 

to accomplish forest health objectives. 

Page 2 line 3 & 4—managing the forest as a whole would do much more to accomplish this objective. 

Page 2 line 6 & 7—removing some of the diseased and damaged trees regardless 

of size would do much more to accomplish this. 

Page 2 lines 8, 9 & 10—cutting over ripe trees would create positive carbon sequestration results. 

Page 2 lines 11, 12 & 13—half of the old growth in the portion of the state covered 

by this bill is already protected by roadless, management areas, landscape architecture and wilderness, etc. How has that been working for us? I say ‘‘protect the 

healthy larger trees while maintaining the needed snag inventory. Allow the rest 

of the volume to be managed as part of the sustainable inventory as needed.’’ 

Page 2 lines 14-17—economic benefit would be vastly improved by including larger trees. 

Page 2 lines 18-20—done properly, removing some larger trees would have positive impact on resource based and restoration based economics. 

Page 3 lines 1-4—this bill does just the opposite of streamlining the administrative process. 

Page 3 lines 5-7—can’t be accomplished by treating only small trees. 

Page 3 line 11—please describe uncharacteristic conditions. 

Page 3 line 14 & 15—who reviews? 

Page 3 line 19 & 20—it is impossible to make the Forest Service good neighbors 

under existing rules. For example: we own in excess of 50 miles of common boundary. Good neighbors traditionally split boundary fence repairs. The law requires us 

to maintain all boundary fences, if Forest Service animals get onto our property it 

is our problem. If our cattle get onto Forest Service, it’s trespass. If a neighbor 

needs to haul logs across my property, I allow it free of charge. If I must haul across 

Forest Service, there is a healthy road use fee. 

Page 13 lines 7-9—how do you reduce risk of mistletoe without cutting infected 

large trees? 

Page 13 lines 21-24—advice of advisory councils is only as good as the advisors 

on the council. Let the managers manage the forests. 

Page 14 & 15—the projects outlined on this page don’t have enough details to 

know what’s expected. 

Page 16 lines 19-23—advisory panels and collaborative groups will vary depending upon their composition. Consensus is doubtful. 
58 

Page 18 line 24—what is the definition of ‘‘the top of the inner gorge’’? 

Page 19 lines 5-10—this excludes in excess of 75 acres per mile of stream. 

Page 19 lines 23-25—this excludes nearly 40 acres for every mile of non-fish bearing stream. 

Page 20 line 11—why have the other restrictions on the rest of this page when 

this covers them all? 

Page 27—all existing roads in an area become essential when wildfire strikes. 

Page 33 line 23—this does little or nothing to maintain the secondary millwork 

industry that employs 10 times as many people as the sawmills. 

Page 36 line 7 & 8—Good luck. 

Page 36 line 11—evaluating these needs does nothing to cure the problem. 

Page 39 lines 6-8—all this does is to deny the opportunity to utilize the remaining 

resource available in the portion of the forest that is not already off limits due to 

previously set aside as wilderness, riparian protection, parks, roadless, and other 

natural and management areas. 

Page 40 line 24—will these ecological restoration areas be available for continued 

re-entry once the initial project is completed? 

Page 43 line 2—if the ability exists to eliminate appeals, we should eliminate 

them, let the forest managers do their job. Replace them if they don’t properly satisfy the task that would lessen the red tape added with this bill. 

Page 45 lines 12-14—why have we given up on protecting roadless areas? 

Page 45 lines 17-22—this goes against protecting forest health as a whole in an 

area. 

Page 46 lines 4-8—how does eliminating a tree from management due to size or 

age equate to forest management? 

Page 46 lines 19-24—if this bill passes, it’s too late to accommodate the largest 

segment of private industry, the secondary millwork manufacturers. 

Page 48 lines 22-24—Indian tribes are not represented. 

Page 49 lines 7-11—I doubt if agreement will ever be reached among such diverse 

groups. 

Page 49 lines 18-24—this will be an administrative nightmare. 

Page 58 lines 1-4—why not use this process currently? 

Page 58 line 22—this eliminates the gain of having no appeal. 

Page 60 lines 7-16—we’re sold out by sacrificing the salvage of large timber for 

the substitution of a guaranteed volume of slash. 

Page 61 line 16—what process is used to assure local business gets the work? 

Page 63 lines 16-18—without size limit it could fund itself. 

Page 63 line 19—I seriously doubt if $1,500,000 will fund this projects administration. 

In conclusion, even with the positive features of this bill, it’s no wonder why at 

least 3 county governments, mills representing several thousand workers, member 

of associations such as the Society of American Foresters, the Grant County Public 

Forest Commission, as well as the public at large join me against the passage of 

this bill. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Woodward, and I’ll have some 

questions in a moment. 

Mr. Maluski, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF IVAN MALUSKI, CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

COORDINATOR, OREGON CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB 

Mr. MALUSKI. Senator Wyden, on behalf of the Sierra Club’s 

more than—or nearly 20,000 members in Oregon and our tens of 

thousands of supporters here, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill today. 

Our staff and volunteers spend a lot of time working on these 

issue in central and eastern Oregon. We do, I want to be clear, that 

we do support some of the key goals of this legislation, and we support provisions such as the protection of—codification of protections 

for large diameter trees, enhanced protections for riparian areas, 

and the ban on permanent new roads. 

But we do believe that some of the provisions of this bill will unfortunately run counter to some of the stated restoration goals of 
59 

this legislation and could possibly lead to more litigation in some 

cases. We submitted more detailed written testimony and in the interest of time I will just sort of highlight some of our key points. 

One of our key points relates to administrative appeals. During 

the first 3 years of the bill’s implementation, it removes the rights 

for the public to administratively appeal logging projects. We are 

of the belief that the administrative appeals process is a fundamental reflection of the strength of the democratic process, facilitating dialog rather than litigation. In that spirit, we provided as 

an attachment to our testimony a list of 19 Forest Service projects 

we worked on in 2006 through 2010 across central and eastern Oregon that actually saw on the ground environmental improvements 

and no litigation due to successful administrative appeal negotiations. 

The types of improvements we saw were protection of sensitive 

soils, water quality, important old growth stands, and roadless 

areas. Without our administrative appeal rights in place, we’re concerned this legislation could unfairly restrict our ability to stop irresponsible logging on our public lands that could hurt wildlife, 

water quality, and forest health, and we would recommend that we 

retain administrative appeals during the interim period. 

Another key area of our concern is the mandated acreage targets 

in the legislation, both during the interim and during the general 

part of the bill. Unfortunately, because this is, at this point, only 

funded for 1 year, part of our concern here is that essentially this 

could become an unfunded mandate, where if Congress does not 

step up, and inevitably I don’t think the projects will pay for themselves, the Forest Service will be obligated to meet these acreage 

targets regardless. 

As it pertains to the post-interim period, we’re looking at—as 

each national forest is going to be required to produce one 25,000- 

acre project per year, I think that regardless of the actual restoration needs on the ground, so that really ties the hands of local forest managers to deal with these types of issues. 

Furthermore, stating that the—at least during the interim, the 

predominant focus of these projects is mechanical in nature and for 

saw log production, and during the post-interim to maintain mill 

infrastructure, gives us a concern that that will sort of bias the outcome of a lot of these restoration projects. 

We would recommend that the actual annual per acreage forest 

targets be removed and we allow the best available science to set 

those targets on the ground. 

Another key area is just the use of science in this bill. We do 

support the bill’s focus on the best available science, but one of the 

things we would highlight is that there is quite a body of work out 

there, the Seminal Eastside Scientific Society Panels report to the 

President and Congress in 1994. Your bill has incorporated some 

of the key protections, but we would like to see it more explicitly 

articulated in the legislation, that we’re going to build upon that 

existing body of science. Essentially that includes protection for old 

growth stands, as well as old growth trees, protection for smaller 

roadless areas, and indeed prohibiting logging in post-fire situations. 
60 

I would take a little bit of issue to a comment from Dr. Franklin, 

we have—there is actually a great deal of controversy over the mechanical treatments in mixed conifer stands, both dry and moist. 

We have provided a list of—a letter from 11 scientists, notably including Dr. James Carr from the University or Washington, Dr. 

Robert Hudo from the University of Montana, which articulate 

some of these concerns and I think give you a lot more background 

on why we need to be cautious about mandating too much mechanical activity in some of these mixed conifer stands. 

Another area, just 2 more, really is—one of them is biomass contracting. This is an issue for the Sierra Club, partly because we 

have concerns that incentivizing Federal lands biomass to the point 

that it creates a new unsustainable demand for raw material from 

national forests could essentially create demands that we can not 

meet. In the context of this legislation, we’re concerned about the 

20-year contracting with private—outside private entities for biomass removal on Federal lands, wheelers have to be scaled back in 

this legislation. 

Last, I want to make a key point, and this is the subject of an 

op-ed that we published in the Bend Bulletin yesterday, which we 

can make available to you if you haven’t seen it. It’s really about 

the need to—for economic diversification as part of this bill. It’s 

very clear that this bill’s economic focus and jobs focus is about getting saw logs to the mill and maintaining mill infrastructure. We 

think that the focus needs to be much more broad than that. 

The University or Oregon’s Ecosystem Workforce Program has 

done a tremendous amount of work documenting the various types 

of restoration jobs that are out there. It’s our experience with the 

Forest Service that if we do not give them clear direction on these 

non-timber oriented restoration exercises such as road removal, 

fish passage improvement, noxious weed removal, they’re just not 

going to get to them, they’re going to focus on the logging. 

According to recent research by the University of Oregon’s Eco- system Workforce Program, for every $1 million of public investment in forest restoration, we can create between 14.7 and 23.8 

total jobs. This obviously—some of this work is going to be involving chainsaws and heavy equipment, but a lot of simply is not, so 

we need to make sure that we’re really diversifying the restoration 

economy. The key point here is that when we’re in a situation like 

we have in the last few years where timber prices are at record 

lows, we need to make sure that we’re not putting all our eggs in 

that basket, and we are diversifying rural economies through this 

process. 

So, that’s really the conclusion of my remarks. Again, there’s 

pieces of this legislation we support. We think that some of these 

key points we’ve articulated would be wonderful to see addressed 

before we move forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maluski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IVAN MALUSKI, CONSERVATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR, 

OREGON CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB

Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club and the more than 1.3 million 

members and supporters of the Sierra Club nationwide, we thank you for the oppor-
61 

tunity to testify today on S. 2895, the Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration, Old 

Growth Protection, & Jobs Act. 

For more than a century, the Sierra Club has worked to protect America’s wilderness, forests, and public lands so that generations of Americans can explore and 

enjoy this nation’s natural bounty. Today, there are 65 Sierra Club Chapters and 

more than 425 Sierra Club Groups across the country. 

With nearly 20,000 members living in Oregon, the Sierra Club has a strong interest in the management of the National Forests of Central and Eastern Oregon. Our 

staff and membership in Oregon have consistently worked to ensure sound sciencebased management of the National Forests covered by this legislation and have focused efforts on protecting old growth forests and roadless areas. We support the 

creation of forest based restoration jobs that also promote the recovery of healthy 

populations of threatened and endangered species, address the excessive network of 

roads created through past management, and to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem 

resiliency in the face of climate change. 

Over the years, we have been involved in a number of your efforts to protect Oregon’s old growth forests. We are supportive of some of the key restoration goals 

of this legislation but believe that some sections as currently written will run 

counter to the bill’s stated restoration emphasis. We provide the following comments 

in the interest of improving this proposal to address our concerns. We previously 

submitted testimony to the Committee on S. 2895 on March 10, and we incorporate 

those comments into our remarks today by reference. 

The following are our basic concerns with S. 2895 as introduced: 

1. Administrative Appeals.—Administrative appeals are a fundamental reflection of the strength of the democratic process, facilitating dialogue rather than 

litigation. The Sierra Club has found that administrative appeals allow a meaningful way to resolve concerns over Forest Service projects without having to 

go to directly court. We have provided as an attachment to our testimony a list 

of 19 Forest Service projects we have worked on in various National Forests 

across Central and Eastern Oregon that saw on the ground environmental improvements and no litigation due to successful administrative appeals between 

2006 and 2010. These improvements include: preventing logging in mid and 

higher elevation mixed conifer old growth stands; protecting old growth trees 

smaller than 21 inches in diameter; protecting in ecologically significant 

roadless areas from mechanical entry; protecting key fish and wildlife habitat, 

including on steep slopes; and the protection of sensitive soils from the longlasting damage of groundbased logging and both permanent and temporary 

roads. 

During its interim period covering some 300,000 acres and three or more 

years, S 2.895 removes the right for the public to administratively appeal logging projects and timber sales, including those conducted after fires and in old 

growth stands. With the removal of the key ‘check and balance’ of administrative appeals, we believe this is likely to lead to more litigation, not less, with 

the Forest Service opting to say ‘see you in court’ rather than ‘let’s compromise’ 

while moving forward with controversial projects. We suggest that administrative appeal rights be retained for all projects during the interim period in Section 9(c)(2). 

2. Mandated annual acreages.—While the bill promotes the use of the best 

available science to guide management decisions, it mandates annual acreage 

targets during both the interim period and for each covered National Forest 

thereafter. Annual acreage targets will force individual forest managers to plan 

and implement projects based on this mandate, rather than on actual restoration needs. This approach will burden taxpayers, as the Forest Service will be 

obligated to plan and implement annual landscape-scale projects regardless of 

whether Congress continues to fund the implementation of the proposal or 

whether restoration projects actually bring in enough revenue to pay for the 

Forest Service’s costs. Particularly during the interim period, these acreage 

mandates will be focused on mechanical entry into forests and the production 

of sawlogs, activities which we believe will have a tendency to undercut the restoration goals of the legislation while creating unreasonable expectations within 

the timber industry for steady and increased flow of logs from National Forests, 

even during times of weak demand such as we are experiencing now. 

For these reasons, during the interim period of the legislation we suggest: the 

removal of specific annual acreage targets; language that requires that restoration projects be predominantly mechanical in nature; and, language that emphasizes sawlog production as a primary byproduct of restoration activities in 

Section 9(c)(5)(a). We also believe that language in Section 9 requiring each Na-
62 

tional Forest covered by the bill to perform at least one 25,000 acre project per 

year designed to provide a minimum quantity of timber to maintain mill infrastructure should be removed from the bill (Section 9(b)(1)). This annual per-forest acreage mandate will strain limited Forest Service resources and will put 

pressure on the agency to design projects that are inconsistent with the restoration goals of the legislation. 

3. Eastside science.—While we support this bill’s requirement to protect large 

diameter trees, we would like the bill to more explicitly require the consideration of existing eastside science that has made large diameter tree protections 

the practice on the ground in eastern Oregon since 1994. The scientific recommendations in the Eastside Scientific Society Panel’s Report to the President 

and Congress in 1994 (Henjum et al) are just as pressing and relevant today 

as when they were developed. While undertaking restoration projects, it is important that the Forest Service be required to protect more than large diameter 

trees, but also old growth stands and smaller, but ecologically significant 

roadless areas from ground disturbing activities and mechanical entry. We believe that as currently written, the Forest Service’s implementation of this bill 

will lead to harmful ground disturbing activities, including ‘temporary’ road and 

skid trails, in sensitive old growth stands and other intact forests. The Forest 

Service has a history of inappropriately applying lessons learned from low elevation dry ponderosa pine forest types, to mid and higher elevation mixed conifer old growth stands, with counterproductive consequences. 

S. 2895 creates a new Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel which is required to finish its report in less than six months. Unlike the 1994 Eastside Scientific panel, the panel created by S. 2895 will include not only scientists, but 

experts in timber economics and road and logging engineering. We believe the 

science panel created by this legislation should be explicitly directed to incorporate and build upon recommendations of the Eastside Scientific Society Panel 

Report of 1994, which include: protecting large trees and old growth stands 

from logging, protecting significant roadless areas 1000 acres or larger, and limiting mechanical entry into intact forests. We are attaching a letter from 11 scientists conducting research in the fields of forest and fire ecology issued in 

March 2010 in response to this legislation. This letter questions the scientific 

foundation of some of the assumptions about existing forest conditions in S. 

2895, outlines some of the current scientific information relevant to these assumptions, and makes a series of recommendations on changes to the legislation to address these concerns. There is great scientific disagreement over what 

mechanical activities, if any, are ecologically appropriate in both dry and moistmixed conifer stands. Additionally, to the extent that the panel created by this 

legislation will include more than just scientists, we would suggest the slot for 

‘timber economics’ be replaced with a more appropriate ‘ecosystem workforce development’ position in order to ensure the broad range of restoration workforce 

jobs are considered in Section 7(b)(2)(a). 

4. 20-year biomass contracting.—In general, we have concerns about 

incentivizing federal lands biomass to the point that it creates new, 

unsustainable demands for raw material from National Forests. In the context 

of this legislation, we are concerned about providing the Forest Service with the 

authority to enter into 20 year contracts with private entities for biomass removal on federal lands and would suggest the removal of language authorizing 

this new authority at Section 12(b)(4). 

5. Economic Diversity and Job Creation.—Economists are increasingly realizing that our forests have value as sources of clean water, salmon habitat, 

recreation and carbon storage. The Sierra Club believes that any new approach 

to creating jobs in national forest restoration must not focus solely on the economics of supporting the logging industry, but also on enhancing non-timber 

values and diversifying the restoration economy as a whole. To this end, policies 

should be enacted to deliberately create a diverse array of businesses in eastern 

Oregon through systematic and long-term investments in ecological restoration 

activities. If the focus is primarily on generating logs for the mill, then the boom 

and bust cycle of timber prices and housing starts will continue to create economic uncertainty as they have for decades. 

This legislation should create clear targets for improving fish passage, restoring degraded riparian areas, reducing the dense road network and removing 

invasive species, in order to stimulate the creation of new businesses within a 

diverse restoration economy. Recent research by the University of Oregon’s Ecosystem Workforce Program suggests that every $1 million in public investment 

in forest and watershed restoration creates between 14.7 and 23.8 total jobs. 
63 

Most of these businesses are small, typically with less than $1 million in annual 

revenue. While some of these jobs involve chainsaws and may generate a useable byproduct, many labor and equipment-intensive forest and watershed restoration activities can be extremely valuable in creating economic diversification 

in rural communities without generating sawlogs or commercial scale biomass. 

Non-timber restoration activities can include: enhancing stream habitat, noxious weed removal, removing barriers to fish passage, manual thinning and 

brush removal, trail enhancement, controlled burning, and even research and 

monitoring. 

The Sierra Club believes that within the wildland urban interface, the primary focus should thinning brush and small diameter trees. Outside of those 

interfaces, a greater focus should be placed on utilizing both prescribed and 

wildland-use fire policies to re-introduce natural processes where ecosystems 

have been significantly altered, while proactively and systematically addressing 

fish passage and road decommissioning needs. We support strategic and robust 

efforts to reduce the permanent road network and suggest legislating more specific goals and benchmarks in this bill to make this a reality. Simply requiring 

a ‘net reduction in the permanent road system’ does not provide enough incentive for the Forest Service to systematically implement road-system related restoration activities on a large enough scale to support significant numbers of 

these types of restoration jobs. 

Further, language allowing the Forest Service to decommission new roads authorized by this legislation ‘as soon as practicable after the completion date of 

the project’ should be replaced in Section 6(B)(2)(b) with language that requires 

the decommissioning of all temporary roads before the completion of any restoration project. Limited Forest Service funding, and the focus on designing new 

landscape-scale projects year after year will inevitably divert resources away 

from important road restoration work, leading to less likelihood that temporary 

road decommissioning will be completed. 

6. Riparian Area Protection—We appreciate that the bill incorporates the 

PacFISH and INFISH riparian buffers. We do have some concerns because as 

implemented now, PacFISH and INFISH currently allow some harmful activities in sensitive riparian areas. Further, the extent of riparian areas on the 

landscape is arguably greater than PacFISH and INFISH provide. The buffers 

for non-fish bearing streams and perennial streams are generally inadequate to 

ensure the health and recovery of these systems. We suggest that this legislation start with PacFISH and INFISH as a floor with the opportunity to administratively expand riparian buffers under the recommendations of the science 

panel, make compliance with those standards mandatory, and incorporate the 

direction that has been provided by the NOAA Fisheries the Fish & Wildlife 

Service through existing biological opinions on anadramous and inland fish. 

CONCLUSION

The passage of S. 2895 would mark a significant shift in management of Oregon’s 

eastside National Forests. The Sierra Club believes it is important to codify interim 

rules in place since 1994 that protect large diameter trees and riparian areas. However, we believe this legislation’s emphasis on mechanical entry into forests and 

maintaining mill infrastructure through sawlog production, combined with mandated annual acreage targets and removal of administrative appeals for what could 

become several years, will undermine the important ecological restoration goals this 

bill contains. 

We believe that amendments to S. 2895 to address the issues we have raised in 

our testimony, including the removal of annual acreage mandates, the retention of 

administrative appeal rights, and the more explicit incorporation of existing eastside 

science will go a long way towards addressing our concerns. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, and I’ll have some questions in a 

moment. 

Mr. Woodward, let me begin with you, and for you and Mr. Williams, you know, you all obviously have significant reservations 

about the bill. What I want to do is just see if I can get a few facts 

on the record, because, you know, certainly reasonable people can 

differ on a variety of issues, but I think facts are still stubborn 

things, and a fact is something that I think we ought to get on the 

record where it exists. 
64 

Now, Mr. Woodward, you say in your written testimony that you 

found no one from industry that supports the bill. 

Mr. WOODWARD. That’s correct, I have—— 

Senator WYDEN. But the regional manager from Boise Cascade 

sat 6 inches from where you sit, on the last panel, and said he supports the bill. 

Mr. WOODWARD. That’s correct, but he spoke before me. I have 

never spoken to the man before in my life. His saw mill is a long 

ways from the 6,000 mill work jobs of the people that I’ve been 

speaking to. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. The American Forest Resources Council, 

that’s the organization that represents the majority of the industry 

here in Oregon, has been on the record as supporting this bill for 

quite some time. They’ve participated in the discussions, they went 

to the press conference on December 19th, they’ve been working 

very closely with us, this has been widely publicized, and I just 

looked at your written testimony where you said nobody from the 

timber industry supports the bill. 

Mr. WOODWARD. No, I said I hadn’t spoken to anybody from the 

timber industry that supports the bill. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. Perhaps you might want to speak to the fellow in the second row, John Schelk. 

Mr. WOODWARD. I tried calling John, he wasn’t available. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Mr. WOODWARD. The record will verify that. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Mr. WOODWARD. But, the AFRC, what they say officially may not 

be what they say off the record, as well. I mean, there is that possibility. 

Senator WYDEN. I guess so. 

I have never really run into something quite like this, as chairman of the subcommittee where this is so much documented, onthe-record support from the timber industry, and then have a witness come and say, ‘‘Nobody from the timber industry supports it,’’ 

but listen, you are entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate it. 

Mr. WOODWARD. May I respond to that? 

Senator WYDEN. Of course. 

Mr. WOODWARD. OK, well, I appreciate you saying that I’m entitled to my opinion, but the people that I spoke to in the timber industry said you’ve never spoke to them. I mean, you’re talking 

about 2—2 saw mills, here, that you have spoken to, but there’s 

6,000 people, potentially, that can be represented by the secondary 

millwork plants, you didn’t come talk to me in my sawmill. I don’t 

know, 2 other sawmill people that I am supposedly representing 

here said that nobody spoke to them about it, and they certainly 

are opposed to it. 

Senator WYDEN. I’ll welcome anybody’s opinion on something like 

this, Mr. Woodward, but you’re the one who came today and said 

there was no support from the forest products sector. There is. 

We’ve spend a great deal of time talking to folks across the political 

spectrum, the forest products sector, everybody else. Folks can say 

I’m guilty of a lot of things, but whether it’s 550 town hall meetings, whether it’s listening to folks at sessions like the staff, you 

know, conducted, we have made an effort to listen to folks. 
65 

We will keep the record open. Let me move on to another point 

and bring you into this discussion, if I could, Mr. Williams. 

Because the organizations that support this legislation have extensive experience in the purchase of timber from Federal lands, I 

think it would be very helpful to have, on the record, how much 

timber you, Mr. Williams, have purchased from Federal lands, say, 

in the last 5, 8 years—and you, Mr. Woodward—so I can kind of 

put your experience with the Federal program in context. 

Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. How much timber I have purchased from Federal 

lands? 

Senator WYDEN. Yes. The last 5, 8 years. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have not purchased any. I have sold timber to 

the sawmills, some of them that are supporting this, and all of that 

timber from our land, from as far away as California, to keep those 

sawmills going. I have hauled timber from our properties in Grant 

County and in from Allow County to keep to these sawmills. I have 

sold it, I have not purchased many—any timber from—one of the 

reasons that the sawmill that we did own had to close was because 

we couldn’t purchase any more timber, because we couldn’t compete with the sawmills that were there. That’s part of the reason. 

I have been involved in the timber industry, in the timber management and public land management all of my life. You’re aware 

of that. I am well aware of what the timber industry situation is 

in Grant County. 

Senator WYDEN. So, you haven’t purchased timber from Federal 

lands in quite some time, but you’ve sold timber to private landowners? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I’ve sold timber to Malhere Lumber Company, 

D.R. Johnson Lumber Company, Collins Pine Lumber Company, 

Colombia Forest Products, and I think there was another one in 

Central Oregon that we sold timber to, and some to Boise-Cascade. 

Senator WYDEN. I appreciate your candor, and the reason I’m 

asking the questions, again, is we’ve got a number of the timber 

organizations and companies that have had extensive experience 

dealing with the Federal lands in support of the legislation, and it’s 

important for me to get on the record for those who have been in 

opposition to the legislation, what their experience has been on the 

Federal side. You have correctly described your experience as, essentially, being with the private sector, and I appreciate your candor. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Senator Wyden, just to clarify a little more, I am 

a part of the Blue Mountain Forest Partners Collaborative Group, 

and I have been working with them and other Forest Service advisory groups, as well. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. 

Mr. WOODWARD. You asked me the same question, would you 

like me to answer? 

Senator WYDEN. Of course. 

Mr. WOODWARD. OK, I’ve been buying Federal timber sales since 

1970. In the last several years, I haven’t purchased much, because 

I’ve stepped aside and let the Interfours of the world, and the 

Malhere Lumber Companies of the world to purchase. I’ve logged 

for those folks, I’ve purchased logs from those folks for my chipping 
66 

operation, which would benefit—if this plan went through just exactly the way you’ve got it set up—but it’s not going to help the 

forests. It’s not going to help the forests. 

Senator WYDEN. So, just from ballpark, how much have you sold 

to the Federal Government or, what has been the—— 

Mr. WOODWARD. I don’t sell timber to the Federal Government. 

Senator WYDEN. No, excuse me, the nature of your relationship 

with the Federal Government over the last 8 or 10 years. 

Senator WYDEN. What I’m trying to do, of course, is try to make 

sure that I can compare your experience with that of people 

who—— 

Mr. WOODWARD. Sure. 

Senator WYDEN [continuing]. Have worked on Federal lands extensively. 

Mr. WOODWARD. Right. In the last 8 or 10 years, I’ve been asked 

by the U.S. Federal Government to go to foreign countries and help 

them with their bug infestation problems, so I feel that I am qualified to speak here today. 

I’ve dedicated my time in the United States dealing with problems on my own land that are created by the problems that are 

next to me on National Forest Lands that aren’t being managed. 

But, as far as—I’ve logged several timber sales every year over the 

last 8 years. Actively logging a timber sale right now, and I am 

purchasing logs from other purchasers, and from the stewardship 

contracts that are ongoing on Federal lands. 

Senator WYDEN. Gentlemen, I don’t have any other questions for 

either of you. Obviously, we’ll hold the record open. 

Actually, Mr. Williams, I want to give you a chance—you’re on 

the Grant County Public Forest Commission, what is your hope 

with respect to the Grant County Public Forest Commission? 

Would you like to see them run the Federal Forests, or tell me, if 

you would, what’s your hope with that organization? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. My hope, as being as part of the Grant County 

Public Forest Commission is to see the forests of Grant County, the 

forests of Eastern Oregon to be managed in a resilient and—fashion, providing a sustainable, predictable, and level supply of forest 

products to the industries and the infrastructure of our community 

to keep our communities alive. That’s what we want. We want good 

management of our National Forests. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. Thank you. 

Let’s go to you, Mr. Maluski. The legislation calls for restoration 

of damaged forests and streams and wildlife. Now, in contradiction 

to your statement, it does not call for a tripling of logging levels, 

but an increase in the acreage managed for restoration. In many 

cases, of course, restoration treatments can supply wood products. 

Is it the Sierra Club’s position that no logging ought to occur as 

part of restoration? 

Mr. MALUSKI. No, that’s not our position, Senator. 

Senator WYDEN. But then, tell me what the organization’s position is. 

Mr. MALUSKI. I guess I would put it this way. Part of the challenge that we see in Central and Eastern Oregon—and I’ll refer 

back to some of the comments of some of the other panelists. We 

often hear very large numbers put out there, 9.5 million, 13.5 mil-
67 

lion acres that are at risk. I think the challenge is, is that we need 

to learn how to prioritize where are the most important places, and 

what are the most important types of things to be doing. 

From the Sierra Club’s perspective, the mechanical work really 

should start in the wild and urban interface, because it’s of utmost 

importance to us that we are protecting communities at risk of fire. 

You know, we have worked on projects like the Sisters Area Fuel 

Reduction which the timber industry appealed in order to get that 

project to a good place so we could support it, and help protect the 

community of Sisters. 

So, in terms of mechanical entry, that’s where we think we 

should start, and we should prioritize our efforts. 

More broadly speaking, we work on projects all of the time where 

we, at the end of the day, timber is moving forward, but what we 

try to do is make sure that the environmental protections that 

should be in place are informed by the best available are upheld. 

Senator WYDEN. So, you don’t have any problem with the idea 

of the timber industry financially benefiting from restoration? 

Mr. MALUSKI. No. 

Senator WYDEN. Now, in the previous panel, the witnesses testified about various projects that they had been involved in. Professor Johnson testified as to the science behind the need to have 

more active, you know, management of the forest, but the Sierra 

Club has blocked many of these kinds of efforts, and the Sierra 

Club has actively worked to block some of these projects. 

So, let’s look at the Glaze project. 

Mr. MALUSKI. Sure. 

Senator WYDEN. The Glaze project, Mr. Lillebo discussed, it was 

developed collaboratively with a broad range of stakeholders and 

I’m going to walk you through exactly what happened, because I 

just found myself looking at this and saying, ‘‘I just can’t sort out 

what the Sierra Club’s role in all of this was.’’ 

You’ve got a collaborative project, broad range of stakeholders, 

every aspect of the project was developed, lots of adjustments made 

to the final project to get sign off from the players. My understanding is your field staff participated and signed off on the 

project. 

Once the project was underway, your field staff then reversed 

course, objected to the project, and in effect said no to the years 

of collaboration and discussion. 

Other examples include the Club’s efforts that blocked much of 

the forestry program that had been planned on the Umatilla National Forest. So, my sense is, trying to get the Sierra Club to work 

specifically in these areas, particularly after years of collaboration 

and then to have reversed course, in my view is going to make it 

very hard to actually achieve the ideals that Tim Lillebo and many 

others in the environmental community correctly state are priorities in terms of restoration. 

So, start with the latest project, and then go to the Umatilla 

Project. But with the Glaze Project, specifically, given the detail 

that we’ve picked up with your staff’s involvement. After signing 

off, reversing, you know, course; how does that help foster the kind 

of collaboration that is in the public interest? 
68 

Mr. MALUSKI. Certainly, Senator, I’m happy to answer the question. 

In fact, we not only had our staff involved in developing the 

Glaze Project, we had a lot of volunteers on the ground, as well. 

We have a very active volunteer base out here. So, we did work collaboratively on Glaze and ultimately decided not to appeal. So, we 

have not objected in a formal sense to that project, we certainly 

could have chose not to. 

Ultimately, this project is only in its early stages of implementation. There was some concern—— 

Senator WYDEN. So, you’re not objecting to the project now? I 

mean, Mr. Asante Riverwind is quoted as saying, ‘‘There is no 

science to take this tree,’’ and it’s clearly a signal that all of the 

other partners took that you were objecting. But today you are saying you’re going to reverse course again, and you’re not going to object. 

Mr. MALUSKI. Let me clarify, because I was in the process of saying, we have not formally chosen to block the project. What—what 

I—— 

Senator WYDEN. Man, this sure looks like a pretty big deal to 

me, Mr. Maluski. We’ve got a headline, here, that says, ‘‘Split over 

tree thinning. Two conservation groups differ on habitat plan.’’ 

Mr. MALUSKI. It certainly, the Bend Bulletin—— 

Senator WYDEN. I guess if you’re now saying that you’re not objecting, that’s good. But I sure hope that years of collaboration, 

when folks in your organization agree on something, still counts for 

something. Because I don’t think very many stakeholders—if I was 

in the timber products industry, and I put all of this time and 

working with the Sierra Club and your guy signed off, and then he 

changed his mind, but then Mr. Maluski came to a Congressional 

hearing and said, ‘‘Well, we’re really not objecting,’’ somebody in 

the forest products industry is going to scratch their head and say, 

‘‘What’s going on?’’ 

So, maybe you can sort this out for me. 

Mr. MALUSKI. Sir, yes, I’d be happy to. 

Senator WYDEN. Great. 

Mr. MALUSKI. Let me, if you could just allow me to finish. 

So, upon viewing some of the areas on the ground, there were 

certainly some concerns that maybe some of the prescriptions that 

had been outlined had not been followed properly, particularly with 

respect to ground distributing activities right on the edge of the 

meadow. 

I think part of the challenge with the Glaze Project is it is in a 

very sensitive meadow and old growth area. So these are the types 

of issues that are more likely to occur when we’re straying outside, 

you know, more previously managed ecosystems and going into 

some of these more sensitive areas. 

We’re actually spending a lot of time on the ground over the next 

month with Oregon Wild, to talk—to look on the ground about— 

and also with the logging contractor—to look at the project, moving 

forward. 

I think that—I certainly can’t speak for Mr. Lillebo, but there 

may be some concerns that they have that they’re not articulating, 

as well, that we want to try to work together on. 
69 

So, we’re certainly, you know, we’re not intending to block the 

project, but we certainly feel it’s our right to raise concern if we 

feel that a project is not implemented the way that we thought it 

was going to be. 

Senator WYDEN. But, from a formal standpoint, you do not intend to object to the project? 

Mr. MALUSKI. From a formal standpoint, certainly not. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Then one last point on this Glaze issue, where Mr. Asante 

Riverwind was quoted as saying there was no science to take, you 

know, the tree. What science is the Sierra Club referring to that 

says you can’t thin some trees over a foot in diameter in a dense 

second-growth pine stand? The reason this is a big deal is because 

Dr. Johnson spent a considerable amount of time doing research in 

this area, and feels that there’s considerable science that makes 

the point the other way. 

So, if you all in your organization say that there’s no science to 

take the tree, I’d like to know what science you’re referring to. 

Mr. MALUSKI. Senator, I’d be happy to get back to you on that. 

We’re actually preparing some materials on Glaze that we’d be 

happy to share with you as soon as they’re ready. 

Senator WYDEN. But when Mr. Riverwind was quoted in the 

paper saying there was no science to take the tree, what science 

was he referring to? 

Mr. MALUSKI. Senator, if you look at your legislation, one of the 

things that it talks about is the ability to use the best available 

science actually to protect trees that are smaller than 21‘‘ in diameter. It’s an option that is articulated in your legislation. This is the 

same exact science that we’d be looking at. In some cases, it is appropriate to protect smaller trees that are under 21’’ in diameter. 

So, I haven’t been to that site on the ground, but certainly I think 

that there is science out there that calls for protecting smaller 

trees, as well. So, that’s what—— 

Senator WYDEN. I’ll hold the record open and I’d very much like 

to see the science that you all were talking about. Because there 

was science referred to in that article. So, at some point, we ought 

to be able to see what backs that up. 

One other set of projects the Sierra Club has sought to block. 

These are the ones in the Malhere National Forest, the Damon 

Thinning Project, the Sierra Club’s written comments state, ‘‘Indeed science research documents significant harm from commercial 

logging, and largely recommends against any commercial logging 

removal of trees and forest structure and mixed conifer.’’ The Sierra Club objected to this project. So, what science were you all relying upon there to say that commercial thinning should not be 

done in eastside mixed conifer? 

Mr. MALUSKI. Sir, I would have to have to get back to you on the 

Damon Project, in particular, because I’m not familiar with that. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. So—— 

Mr. MALUSKI. You mentioned some Umatilla projects, I’m more 

familiar with those. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. You want to expound on that? 

Mr. MALUSKI. Certainly. 
70 

I think the Umatilla projects you were probably referring to were 

the Wildcat, Cobbler, and the third one is escaping my name at the 

moment. But, some of our concerns there relate to treatments that 

are in mixed conifer stands. Oftentimes what we find out here on 

the Eastside is the Forest Service takes science and lessons learned 

from dry, low-elevation ponderosa pine forests, and sometimes applies them inappropriately to higher elevation, mixed conifer forests where, as I articulated in my testimony, there’s actually a lot 

of scientific controversy. 

In addition, we’ve got issues, and some of these timber sales of 

unroaded areas outside inventoried roadless areas, but areas that 

certainly should deserve some higher level of protection. If, again, 

you look at the Eastside Scientific Society panel report of 1994, it 

calls for protection of ecologically significant roadless areas that are 

smaller than what you’d typically find in the roadless inventory. 

So, you know, we have concerns about wildlife habitat and soils. 

Unlike the Westside, when we do a lot of temporary road—even 

temporary roadbuilding can have decades long impacts on watershed health and forest health and actually—and the wrong scenarios can actually increase fire risks, if you do the wrong types 

of treatments. So, these are the types of issues we’re concerned 

about, we never block any project frivolously. As I’ve stated, we’ve 

negotiated, very successfully, with the Forest Service and gotten 

them to agree that we are using the best available science and 

some of the concerns we’re raising and agree to make some modifications to projects. 

Senator WYDEN. I’ve worked, as you know, very closely with you 

all over the years, Mr. Maluski, and I intend to keep, you know, 

doing that. I think you’ve done some very good work in a lot of 

areas. This is one where I think clearly, as it relates to collaborations and the kinds of projects, I mean, the Glaze project, in particular, struck me as one that should not have produced that kind 

of headline. It should not have produced that kind of headline, 

given all of the history of the cooperation. We need to have you at 

the table, working constructively with us, our door is open to any 

ideas and suggestions to improve this. I think that after, literally, 

decades in our part of the country, we are on the cusp of some history-making legislation. 

The reality is, your organization wants to do a lot of restoration 

work, in Eastern Oregon and across this State, and frankly, around 

the country. If we can’t pass legislation like this, there will be no 

mills to do the work. Zero. They are not going to be here. 

So, we’ve got to find a way to work together, and I pledge my 

door is open, and Michelle’s and our staff, we are interested in all 

manner of ideas and suggestions and for you, Mr. Woodward, and 

Mr. Williams, the same applies. I will tell you, you can probably 

sense it’s a little hard to figure out how to move if somebody says, 

‘‘Nobody in the forest products sector is in favor of a piece of legislation’’ when you’ve got all of these people on the record, but Mr. 

Woodward, your point is a very valid one, that if somebody says we 

haven’t talked to them, on my watch I don’t want anybody to feel 

they haven’t been talked to so I’m going to take your names, and 

any that you have, Mr. Williams, and we’ll talk to them and we’ll 

pick up on any suggestions or ideas that they have. 
71 

So my—— 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It’s appreciated. 

Mr. WOODWARD. I very much appreciate it. 

Senator WYDEN. My tradition is always to give the witnesses on 

the last panel the last word. So, I think it’s especially appropriate, 

since this panel has clearly indicated we’ve got a little bit of heavy 

lifting to do to get this legislation exactly the way they would like 

it. 

Mr. Williams, Mr. Woodward, Mr. Maluski, any last words? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No. I appreciate you allowing us to talk. You have 

my written testimony. I believe that the motivation was noble. I 

think the methodology expressed in this legislation is not going to 

result in the anticipated outcome. I think that funding is the key, 

funding of planning teams for our National Forests is the key, further restrictions is not. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Woodward. 

Mr. WOODWARD. I think with cooperation, the tools are already 

there to do exactly what this bill is intending to do, without all of 

the extra red tape that goes along with the bill. 

Now, I realize both sides have not cooperated in the past, and 

I never thought I’d be on the same club as a Sierra Club member—— 

Senator WYDEN. But nothing has changed, you 2 still disagree. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. That’s the difference. That is, Mr. Woodward, 

that’s the point in a nutshell. The previous panel had Mr. Insko 

from Boise-Cascade agreeing with Mr. Lillebo, something you 

haven’t seen in 2 decades. 

Mr. WOODWARD. Right. 

Senator WYDEN. If we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll have 

panels like this where you and Mr. Maluski are going to keep fighting each other in court. So, you made the point. 

Mr. WOODWARD. Thanks. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Maluski. 

Mr. MALUSKI. Again, Senator, again appreciate you allowing us 

to testify today. I do think that some of the testimony you’ve offered, I really would urge you to take a look at some of the fixes 

we’ve suggested. We’ve provided your staff with some detailed language changes that would make us a lot more comfortable with certain provisions and, we think, again would, you know, we’re concerned that we’re putting a lot of eggs in the sawmill, you know, 

the logs to the mill basket. Historically, the Forest Service is not 

really very good at doing other types of non-timber oriented restoration work. It’s a huge area to create green jobs in the woods, 

it’s about economic diversification that can help weather the storm 

of the ups and downs of the price of 2 by fours or the lumber market and so hopefully we can look at some of those types of issues 

as we move forward. 

Senator WYDEN. We’re—and I’ll just close by commenting on the 

week. We’re putting a lot of eggs in a lot of baskets. I mean, that’s 

what the visit to Ziakem and Boardman was all about, this wonderful cellulosic ethanol facility supported—tremendous support 

from the environmental community and the industry. That was 
72 

what Shepard’s Flat was all about, world’s biggest windmill. So, 

this has been a week focusing on a brighter economic future for our 

State. To a great extent, it is a brighter future and it is a greener 

future. It is a greener future that is going to feature collaboration 

with a lot of folks who nobody conceived 15, 20 years ago would 

possibly be working together. 

So, what I’m going to do on my watch is every single day, show 

up early, go home late, and try to get as many of you good people 

to agree so we can get that brighter security, brighter economic security for each part of Oregon and leave nobody behind. 

Thank you all, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(73) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSE OF JERRY F. FRANKLIN TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Dr Franklin, what is the science and your professional opinion on 

thinning in eastside dry mixed conifer? 

Answer. I would begin by saying that—from the viewpoint of ecological science 

and natural resource values at risk—the eastside dry mixed-conifer forest is the forest type in greatest need of major restoration treatments, including thinning, of any 

forest type in the Pacific Northwest. 

My explanation of this position is as follows. 

First a definition of eastside dry mixed conifer is required. From the standpoint 

of ecological science, these are the forests that occur on sites characterized by the 

Douglas-fir and most of the White Fir and Grand Fir plant associations found east 

of the crest of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington. These forests are typically composed of multiple species of which ponderosa pine, white (in SE OR) or 

grand (elsewhere in E PNW) fir, Douglas-fir, western larch, and lodgepole pine are 

most important. Other species that may be present in eastern Oregon include incense-cedar and sugar pine. In contrast, forests on sites characterized by the ponderosa pine plant associations are generally dominated solely by that species. The 

forests on dry mixed-conifer sites are also generally denser and more productive 

than those found on sites where ponderosa pine is the climax species. There are, 

of course, moist temperate and subalpine forests found at higher elevations to which 

the following comments do not apply. 

From the perspective of ecological science, the dry mixed-conifer forests have undergone the greatest modification of all of the eastside forest types as the result of 

modern human activities, including fire suppression. Factors that are responsible for 

this include their relatively high productivity and the presence of grand or white 

fir and Douglas-fir, both circumstances resulting in the rapid development of large 

contiguous expanses of dense stands with large amounts of ground and ladder fuels. 

Historically, such dense, fuel-loaded forests occupied a much lower percentage of the 

dry forest landscapes and occurred as smaller, discontinuous patches within landscapes that were dominated by other dry mixed-conifer and pine forests of much 

lower density and which were often dominated by a small population of large old 

trees. 

It can be argued that there are more resource values at risk in the dry mixedconifer forests and landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington than in any other 

forest type in the region because of the dramatic changes that have occurred in 

these forests during the last century. For example, along the eastern slope of the 

Cascade Range, these forests provide most of the habitat utilized by the Northern 

Spotted Owl, as well as many other wildlife species, including game species, such 

as elk. These forests provide much of the protective cover for eastside watersheds, 

regulating the flows and sustaining water quality. The dry mixed-conifer forests collectively still contain large numbers of irreplaceable old-growth pine trees that are 

the structural and resiliency keystones of these ecosystems. All of these values are 

at risk of uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires, as well as insect outbreaks, 

in the highly modified dry forest landscapes. 

Hence, in my professional opinion, restoration treatments of dry mixed-conifer forests, including mechanical thinning and prescribed fire, are of the highest priority 

in terms of the risks that exist to ecological and other natural resource values in 

eastern Oregon and Washington. This may seem counterintuitive to individuals who 
74 

would argue that—since many dry mixed-conifer forests have only missed 3 or 4 

natural fire return intervals while many climax ponderosa pine sites have missed 

ten or more—the priority should be in the drier or more fire-frequent pine forests. 

What this fails to take into account is the greater productivity of the dry mixedconifer sites and the presence of species, such as white or grand fir, that provide 

fuel ladders of extraordinary quality and quantity. They also fail to take into account the high risk of insect attacks in dense, dry mixed-conifer forests even if they 

escape intense wildfire. This risk is to both the pine and the fir components of the 

dry mixed-conifer forests, taking the form of tree-(and often stand-) killing outbreaks of defoliators, such as spruce budworm, in the case of the firs and accelerated bark beetle kill of the old pine component, as a result of the competitive 

stresses induced on the pine by the high density of firs. 

These dry mixed-conifer forests actually dominate most of our eastside forest 

landscapes and, hence, provide most of the critical ecological services, including critical habitat for much of biodiversity. Large contiguous blocks of dense mixed-conifer 

forest were not the historical condition and are not sustainable as evidenced by the 

recent history of severe wildfire (e.g., B&B Complex on the Deschutes National Forest) and outbreaks of insect defoliators. Hence, aggressive restoration programs in 

dry mixed-conifer forest landscapes should have the highest priority for treatment, 

including thinning, in the opinion of Dr. K. Norman Johnson and myself. 

These programs do need to be planned and implemented at the landscape scale 

and incorporate the retention of significant areas of untreated denser forest as a 

part of the landscape mosaic. An example of such an approach is the current proposal for retaining 30% of the dry forest landscapes in patches of 300 acres (+/-) as 

nesting-roosting-foraging habitat for Northern Spotted Owls within a matrix of restored dry mixed-conifer forest. In fact, the US Forest Service and US Fish and 

Wildlife Service have been encouraged to create an ‘‘A’’ team of scientists and managers to develop a comprehensive and coherent landscape-level plan for restoration 

of the entire dry mixed-conifer forest zone found along the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Such an approach could 

provide a model for how to proceed in dry forest restoration elsewhere in eastern 

Oregon and Washington, since issues about the size and distribution of untreated 

blocks, for species such as the Northern Goshawk, require landscape-scale planning 

and implementation. 
(75) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF CAROLE HAGEN, WARRENTON, OR 

I am very concerned about the impact of proposed national forest legislation—S. 

2895—because it locks in costly and arbitrary annual acreage targets for damaging 

logging activity in our national forests in eastern Oregon, without providing protection for stands of old growth trees and unprotected roadless areas across eastern 

Oregon. 

Setting annual acreage targets in the bill with an emphasis on logging and mechanical forest entry will lead to an unfunded mandate that will undermine the 

laudable restoration goals of this legislation. 

Without clearer guidance, the Forest Service will continue to pursue large scale 

logging projects in old growth stands and unprotected roadless areas and rely on 

building dozens of miles of so-called ’temporary’ roads, which can scar the landscape 

and harm water quality for decades. 

This legislation should be amended to: 

• Remove annual acreage targets and the emphasis on mechanical entry and 

sawlog production. 

• Remove exemptions that allow logging of large diameter trees. 

• Provide explicit protection for old growth stands and unprotected roadless areas 

from logging and mechanical entry 

• Retain the public’s administrative appeal rights. 

• Ensure the creation of a diversity of restoration jobs, not just logging jobs as 

the bill is currently focused on 

• Eliminate provisions that allow the Forest Service to sign 20-year contracts 

with private companies to remove biomass on public lands. 

Thank you for taking the time to address these concerns. 

STATEMENT OF DAN GALECKI, BEND, OR, ON S. 2895 

My name is Dan Galecki. I own and maintain a small forestry consulting business, teach forestry at Central Oregon Community College, and am a Certified Forester from SAF. 

I strongly disagree with the methods you are using to describe and define ‘Old 

Growth’. Specifically, the strict usage of placing a size of 21 inches at DBH and larger to designates trees as Old Growth does not fit with every ecological and silvicultural situation every time. Similarly, placing a specific age on old growth, such as 

150 years,does not fit for every stand of trees that occurs in every region in Oregon. 

My personal position is the same as stated from the local Central Oregon Chapter 

of SAF. Also I agree strongly with the testimony presented on June 4th, in Bend 

Oregon from Mark Webb, Grant County Judge, Canyon City, Oregon. 

Lastly, Senator Wyden, I did not appreciate your condescending remarks and 

questioning of Craig Woodward, Woodward Companies from the last panel, during 

the last portion of the meeting. Perhaps Mr. Woodard did not perform all of his 

homework, and maybe he did not represent the timber industry at a large scale. In 

any case, he felt he represented the opinions and consensus of industry in our local 

region and should be recognized, and his statements welcomed to the debate. Also, 

during the questioning of Ivan Maluski of the Sierra Club, you did not entirely 

agree with his position, and were extremely particular an overly inquisitive about 

‘what science’ GB was using and how he could back-up his statements. Yet you 

seemed to embrace and not interrupt Tim Lillebo’s unscientific anecdote about some 

guy named ‘Blonde’ cutting timber decades ago in several eastern and western 

states. It was encouraging to listen to different testimonies, but the lasting impres-
76 

sion is that the final decisions are already made and it is unlikely adjustments can 

be allowed. 

Here is the following position of the Central Oregon SAF, and it is my position 

also. Thank You Senator Wyden for allowing all testimonies and debate on this important subject. 

The Central Oregon Chapter of the Society of American Foresters includes field 

foresters, technical specialists, educators, and administrators who help manage 

much of the public and private forests in Central Oregon. The Chapter is a local 

part of the Society of American Foresters, the largest association of forestry professionals in the world. The Society of American Foresters supports and represents the 

forestry profession in advancing the science, education, technology, and practice of 

forestry. 

Quick Points 

• Central and Eastern Oregon foresters will be impacted by this legislation—our 

members work in and around these forests and have decades of experience managing forests, both public and private, in areas impacted by S. 2895. 

• We strongly support the goals of S. 2895—to improve forest resilience, retain 

forest products infrastructure, and target large areas of National Forest land in 

Eastern and Central Oregon for active management 

• Unfortunately the provisions in this bill will add process, cost and confusion to 

federal forest management—the opposite is needed 

• The bill would hamper effective and meaningful forest management projects 

with arbitrary prohibitions on harvesting (for example) not based on science or 

site-specific information 

• These prohibitions, though done with good intensions, could actually cause more 

harm than good by preventing much-needed management to prevent catastrophic wildfire or insect and disease infestations 

• Without the full funding needed to implement this bill, projects are unlikely to 

be implemented. Work on the ground is needed as soon as possible in many 

eastern and central Oregon areas to protect forest values 

• This legislation will complicate and increase the cost of federal forest management by requiring forests in Eastern and Central Oregon to be managed differently than forests in the rest of the country 

• The legislation outlines a collaborative process and science panel, yet nothing 

in the bill prevents endless litigation of projects supported by a community and 

collaborative group 

Detailed Points: Management of the National Forest System 

S. 2895 creates rules that apply only to Forest Service land in Central and Eastern Oregon. The result is that National Forests, such as the Deschutes National 

Forest which straddles eastern and western Oregon, would be further divided into 

areas with different laws applying to different areas of the Forest. This greatly complicates and increases the cost of forest management. The Chapter leaders believe 

it would be far better to provide clearer objectives for the entire National Forest 

System and avoid regulating the site-specific means to achieve these objectives. 

Diameter Limits 

Though counter-intuitive to many, the prohibition of cutting trees greater than 21 

inches in diameter in S. 2895 may actually prevent the healthy and resilient forest 

conditions desired by this bill. Chapter leaders know that a legal limit on cutting 

trees based only on diameter restricts the site-specific management of forests in the 

future. In Central Oregon a grand fir can grow to greater than 21 inches in diameter, and be off limits to cutting, in 60 years time. Grand fir has a low resistance 

to fire, but without being cut or burned will replace ponderosa pine in many areas 

while also dramatically increasing the fire risk to many forest stands. Placing larger 

grand fir off limits to cutting will promote the spread of this fire prone species and 

limit the growth and reproduction of ponderosa pine, a species more resistant to fire 

and disease. 

Unscientific Definition of Old Growth 

Redefining the term ‘old growth’ based on a single tree’s age and diameter rather 

than on the structure of a group of trees is problematic and not based in science. 

Current definitions of old growth are based mainly on a description of a forest’s 

‘‘structure,’’ not just the size and age of individual trees. Rather, the accepted scientific definition of an old growth forest is a forest that usually occupies a late seral 

stage and is composed of a group of trees with variable sizes and spacing, with a 

multilayered canopy, and the presence of snags and downed logs. Even if all trees 
77 

within a group meet the bill’s old growth standard, it does not mean they form a 

structurally diverse, late seral forest that would support old growth dependent species. Chapter leaders are concerned about legally designating individual trees as ‘old 

growth trees’ when those trees will not form a forest that has the characteristics 

of an old growth forest. 

Advisory Panel 

The Chapter’s leaders are also concerned that the bill gives an appearance of scientific legitimacy by forming an advisory panel of scientists to review the rules created should the bill become law. Our concern is that the limitation on cutting trees 

greater than 21 inches in diameter and redefining old growth by the age and size 

of individual trees are not rules that are based in science. The Chapter foresters 

believe these potential rules are based on political compromise and that appointing 

a scientific committee to assess the success of rules that are not based on science 

is futile. 

Funding 

S. 2895 authorized $50 million for full implementation. With the current budget 

deficit, it may be difficult to fully fund the bill. This could result in the science panel 

meeting and providing recommendations only to lack the funds necessary to plan 

and implement projects on the ground. 

Recommendations 

• Simplify the bill by removing arbitrary prohibitions and instead provide management objectives (such as creating an old growth stand)—foresters have the 

education and experience to design projects to move towards these goals 

• Open the Forest Service bottle neck—reduce the process and red tape that 

makes projects cumbersome and expensive to plan and implement 

• Allow collaborative projects to be implemented quickly and prohibit frivolous 

lawsuits from holding up projects 

• Work on comprehensive federal forest reform 

STATEMENT OF LARRY BLASING AND KING WILLIAMS, GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC FOREST

COMMISSION

I attended both hearings on 2895. I listened to all witnesses and saw common approval on some points and places where serious questions raised by numerous witnesses make the Bill unworkable as drafted. 

1. There is nearly universal agreement that significantly more acres need to 

be treated in order to regain forest health and retain the infrastructure that is 

essential to prevent an ecological disaster. While the Bill focuses on Eastern Oregon, the problem exceeds the area covered by the Gulf oil spill with similar 

loss to jobs and economic consequences. The Nature Conservancy testified as 

much as 500,000 acres per year need to be treated to catch up. 

2. The hearing record exalts the cooperation between forest industry and conservation interests. Beyond those testifying at the hearings, there is little agreement since several industry members oppose the Bill and the Sierra Club made 

it clear that they oppose the parts of the Bill that the forest industry supports. 

3. The Bill does nothing to reduce (other than short term) the abuses of the 

Equal Access to Justice Act that make it profitable for the Environmental Litigation Industry to litigate Forest Service management plans. The Sierra Club 

made it clear that they plan to continue appealing and litigating. Until there 

is a change in law to make litigation on equal risk to all parties, this Bill is 

meaningless. As an example, the League of Wilderness Defenders, Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club and Grant County 

Conservationists recently objected to the Damon Wildland Urban Interface 

Project—signed by Karen Coulter and Asante Riverwind—after participating in 

the Blue Mountain Forest Partners (collaborative group) debate and agreeing on 

the project. Their statement states ‘‘Local conservation residents are still very 

wary of publicly participating in Blue Mountain Forest Partners.’’ The legal opportunities for the environmental litigation industry will not go away under this 

Bill. 

4. Even though Senator Wyden says he will do everything possible to secure 

funding, neither he nor Presidents Obama control the appropriation process and 

the probability of funding is unlikely. This means that upon passage of the Bill, 

there will be no money to fund the required provisions of law and that because 

it is law, money will have to be stolen from other projects, National Forests or 
78 

Regions. This may even stop existing projects that are nearing completion and 

have a high level of public acceptance. 

5. The three scientists testifying universally rejected diameter limits as a 

method to retain ‘‘old growth’’. They testified that there has been a 16% reduction in ‘‘Old Growth’’ since the year 2000. There has been no harvest of trees 

or 21 dbh since 1994. It is impossible to maintain large diameter trees by a harvesting limit based on dbh and no salvage wastes the highest values in the forest. Trees over 21 inches dbh will need to be harvested to protect the health 

of large old trees. 

6. The Forest Service is ineffective and in internal gridlock. Firm direction 

must be given to force the agency to perform as required by law—Organic Act 

through NFMA. Any Legislation must reaffirm this basic mission. 

7. Our local economies have suffered and continue to be at risk. We must 

have increased output of solid wood products to maintain, let alone increase, 

economic viability. Biomass utilization is an admirable objective but, it will not 

sustain itself without inclusion of solid wood products. 

8. In the event of the passage of SB 2895, if a supplemental budget item does 

not occur and if real results are not realized in three years the Law must sunset 

and be deleted from all legal requirements. 

9. The only thing that prevents the Forest Service from achieving the objectives of the Bill is bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of firm direction and lack of 

appropriated funds. If the $50,000,000 appropriation for SB 2895 was given to 

the Forest Service until used, existing projects could be completed and the objectives of the Bill would be exceeded. All of this without codification. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. NIELSEN, ON S. 2895 

After a 30 year career with the U.S. Forest Service I retired as a Region 6 Certified Silviculturist. This position is basically that of an applied Forest Ecologist. I 

am very familiar with the ecology and management of the eastside forests covered 

by S.B. 2895 and have carefully reviewed the draft of this legislation. Following is 

my professional assessment of this bill. 

First, I agree that legislation is needed to permit effective management of National Forests and those forests managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

What is missing and needed in S.B. 2895 is a consistent national or regional (such 

as the western states) policy for the management of federal forests. While all different, these forests have many similarities that makes them compatible with such 

larger scale goals. These can then be made into forest specific management direction 

thru a program of expedited Forest (USFS) and District (BLM) land use plans. An 

important part of my training as a silviculturist was the strong emphasis on seeking 

out management direction from these plans and applying them to the site specific 

prescriptions I prepared. 

Second, I am very concerned that this legislation contains site specific limitations 

on management practices. The most glaring example is the 21 inch diameter limit 

on tree harvest. From my training and 30+ years of experience this is counter productive to the development of healthy forests. This requirement is politically rather 

than biologically based. I have applied diameter limits as part of some of my 

silviculture prescriptions but they were based on stand examinations, management 

direction, my field assessments and long term stand management objectives. I understand that S. 2895 allows exceptions to the 21 ‘‘ limit but this will require agreement from the collaborative group and/or the science team. My concern about this 

process is at what scale will they make these determinations—individual tree, 

stand, basin or Forest/District?. Suppose the collaborative group disagrees with the 

science team? This process adds another layer of analysis and paper work to the 

management planning process. Right now the Forest Service and BLM are drowning 

in analysis and procedures that prevents on the ground work from being accomplished in a timely, cost effective manner. To me the most effective solution is the 

development of Forest/District plans with management direction as above and then 

allow an interdisciplinary team and silviculturist make specific stand management 

decisions including harvest diameters. 

Lastly, I am deeply concerned that federal forest management must seriously address the social/economic needs of eastside communities. I understand that there are 

statements to this effect in S.B. 2895 but to make this a formal part of this bill a 

change needs to be made to section 4 (a)(1) (General Forest Goals). I suggest adding 

a section (E) with a statement such as ‘‘to support the social/economic stability of 

eastside communities’’. 

Thank you for considering my input on this important legislation. 
79 

STATEMENT OF THE SIERRA CLUB, ON S. 2895 

Please find attached and below supplemental materials related to questions asked 

of the Sierra Club by Chairman Wyden at the June 4 Field Hearing on S. 2895 in 

Bend, Oregon. 

Regarding the science behind concerns articulated in the Bend Bulletin newspaper 

on the implementation of the Glaze Meadow project in the Deschutes National Forest. As discussed during the hearing, we are not blocking or planning to block the 

Glaze Meadow project. The vast majority of the project’s implementation is supported by the Sierra Club, a fact not reflected in the Bend Bulletin article. Our concerns rest with a very small portion of the sale, in particular, in the implementation 

of mature tree removal within close proximity of the Glaze Meadow edge. Within 

the larger Glaze Meadow project, some of the focus is on wet edge ponderosa pine 

forests—where high moisture levels in the seasonal wetlands meadow support higher densities and structural complexity of ponderosa pine than dry forest locations. 

Our concerns is that in the Glaze project, the Forest Service applied dry ponderosa 

pine density formulas to moist ponderosa pine areas along the meadow edge and 

thus the project has logged a significant number of well established mature and 

older trees up to 21’’ diameter at breast high along the meadow’s edge. Across 85% 

of the Glaze project, outside of the moist locations along the meadow and along a 

nearby creek, the Forest Service accurately applied dry pine density formulas. It is 

only within the wet meadow edge area—about 5% of the project, but containing 

some of the best wildlife habitat—that there are issues concerning logging of mature 

and old characteristic trees. It is unfortunate that the Bend Bulletin article discussed at the hearing did not reflect these broader issues, and hopefully these supplemental comments better highlight some of the basis for our concerns. We are 

working collaboratively with others, including Oregon Wild and the logging contractor, to address these concerns before remaining logging along the meadow’s edge 

in old growth stands occurs this upcoming winter. 

Regarding the science relating to our concerns over the appropriateness of logging 

in historically mixed conifer mid and higher elevation forests at projects such as the 

Damon project in the Malheur National Forest, and the Farley, Wildcat, and Cobbler Projects in the Umatilla National Forest, please find attached again the March 

16 letter from eleven scientists active in the fields of western forest and fire ecology. 

This letter identifies key pieces of scientific information related to the management 

challenges related to Oregon’s eastside, including mixed-conifer forests, and concludes with more than two pages of published scientific references relevant to these 

issues. 

We have also attached information related to the Wildcat Fuels Reduction project 

on the Umatilla National Forest including both our complaint filed August 2009 before the US District Court in Portland, which identifies our core concerns with this 

project and which encapsulates the types of issues related to logging in roadless 

areas and mixed conifer forests we have seen on a number of projects in the 

Umatilla and Malheur National Forests in recent years. Accompanying this is the 

supporting Declaration of Dr. Richard Waring, Distinguished Professor of Forest 

Ecology, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, College of Forestry, Oregon 

State University, which discusses the Wildcat project and provides a list of supporting scientific references. 

It is our view that the burden of proof is on the Forest Service to provide adequate 

supporting science for projects it decides to pursue on National Forest lands. To the 

extent that the Forest Service has not provided convincing scientific justifications 

for projects in Oregon’s eastside national forests, or has failed to acknowledge scientific debate over some of its key assumptions, they have found these projects challenged by not only the Sierra Club, but a number of other organizations. Our goal 

is to hold the Forest Service accountable when they fail to use the best available 

science to justify projects that could have harmful and long-lasting impacts to watershed and forest health, risk to communities from wildfire, and the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species. 

STATEMENT OF CHAD HANSON, PH.D., DIRECTOR AND STAFF ECOLOGIST, JOHN MUIR

PROJECT, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, PLANT & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS

As scientists conducting research in the fields of forest and fire ecology, we feel 

compelled to provide input to Congress when proposed legislation does not accurately represent the current state of scientific knowledge. Some current bills, including the ‘‘Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act 

of 2009’’ (the ‘‘Act’’), sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), propose measures to 
80 

increase logging levels on national forests based upon the assumptions that the current levels and intensities of wildland fire and beetle mortality in these forests are 

‘‘uncharacteristic’’, are harmful to the forest ecosystems, and increased logging will 

reduce the extent or intensity of these natural processes. Because these assumptions 

are not based upon a sound scientific foundation, and because of the concern that 

these bills include annual logging-level mandates that might undermine existing environmental laws, we urge you not to support such proposals as currently written. 

Ecological considerations should guide what we do on our national forests, rather 

than setting logging targets independently of ecological considerations. 

Below, we briefly outline some important current scientific information that 

should be reflected in any Act dealing with forests of eastern Oregon or elsewhere 

in the western United States: 

• There is currently a significant deficit of large snags (dead trees) in Oregon’s 

forests relative to the minimum habitat needs of many native cavity-nesting 

wildlife species, especially in eastern Oregon (Donnegan et al. 2008). This Forest Service report, based upon thousands of field plots, concluded that large 

(over 20 inches in diameter) snags are ‘‘currently uncommon’’ in eastern Oregon, 

at only 1 per acre presently, and determined that ‘‘management may be necessary to produce a greater density of large snags’’ (Donnegan et al. 2008 [pp. 

47-48]). 

• Fire and insect-mortality are probably the most effective natural processes for 

providing the snags and large wood that are currently in deficit in these forests. 

• Where snag densities are relatively higher, these areas do not tend to burn at 

higher severities (Bond et al. 2009). 

• The scientific data contradicts the assumptions that, prior to fire suppression, 

wildland fire in eastern Oregon’s forests burned only at low-intensity levels and 

patches of high-intensity fire are somehow ‘‘uncharacteristic’’ or unnatural. We 

now know that forests of the intermountain west, including ponderosa pine forests, have burned at various severities historically, and high-severity fire is a 

natural part of this mix (Pierce et al. 2004, Sherriff and Veblen 2006, Baker 

et al. 2007, Hessburg et al. 2007, Sherriff and Veblen 2007, Klenner et al. 2008, 

Whitlock et al. 2008, Baker 2009). 

• In the eastern Cascades, high-severity fire occurrence is very low, with a current (since 1985) rotation interval of 889 years, i.e., at current rates, high-severity fire will only affect a given stand every 889 years—well beyond the normal 

lifespan of the conifer species (Hanson et al. 2009, Hanson et al. 2010). Moreover, fires are not getting more intense in eastside forests (Hanson et al. 2009, 

Hanson et al. 2010), and overall fire occurrence is far below is historic extent 

(Medler 2006). It is also apparent that recent levels of fire occurrence make it 

highly unlikely that fuel treatments could affect fire behavior even in the forest 

types that tend to burn most frequently (Rhodes and Baker 2008). There is no 

good evidence that current high-severity fire in eastern Oregon exceeds the natural range of variability. 

• Fuel treatments do not always reduce fire severity in the relatively rare cases 

when fire affects treated areas. 

• Fuel treatments are not effective in maximizing carbon storage relative to fire 

alone (Mitchell et al. 2009). 

• Fire has numerous ecological benefits, even when it is high severity. Patches 

of high-severity create the forest and montane chaparral habitats that are some 

of the most ecologically important, highly biodiverse, and rarest forest habitat 

in our western U.S. forests (Hutto 2006, Noss et al. 2006, Swanson et al. 2010). 

Many rare and imperiled wildlife species native to eastern Oregon, such as the 

Black-backed Woodpecker, depend upon unlogged patches of high-severity fire 

for nesting and foraging (Hutto 1995, Hutto 2006, Hanson and North 2008, 

Hutto 2008, Swanson et al. 2010). High-severity fires also provide a bonanza 

downed wood which benefits aquatic systems (Beschta et al. 2004, Karr et al. 

2004, Swanson et al. 2010). 

• Fuel treatments in many widespread forest types are likely to be ineffective in 

restoring natural fire behavior (Veblen 2003; Schoennagel et al. 2004; Noss et 

al. 2006; Baker et al. 2007). 

• The Act’s diameter limit of 21 inches is excessive, and allows far too many mature, old trees to be removed unnecessarily. 

• Extensive logging typically involves road activities, including the construction 

of ‘‘temporary’’ roads and landings which have negative impacts on watersheds 

and aquatic systems. The negative watershed impacts of so-called ‘‘temporary’’ 

landings and roads are not temporary, but persistent (Beschta et al. 2004, Karr 

et al. 2004). 
81 

• Many imperiled fish species depend on habitats that are affected by land use 

on public lands in Oregon (USFS and USBLM 1997). Many of these habitats 

are already widely degraded (Henjum et al. 1994). Additional degradation from 

extensive logging, elevated use and/or construction of roads and landings is likely to further imperil these fish species and increase the likelihood of extirpation. 

• Remaining roadless areas are critical to biodiversity and larger roadless areas 

typically have the lowest potential for altered fire regimes, especially due to 

their location at higher elevations (Henjum et al. 1994). Such areas should be 

protected from logging. 

Due to the foregoing, we urge that any legislation aimed at restoring forests on 

public lands include the following: 

• Explicit statements that all activities must fully comply with existing environmental laws. 

• Retention of citizen review provisions. As stated in Karr et al. (2004): ‘‘Managing public lands for the benefit of present and future generations is challenging—a process most likely to succeed in an open atmosphere that actively 

uses existing scientific and technical information and expertise.’’ 

• Restrict fuel treatments only to areas where multiple lines of empirical evidence 

clearly indicate that the fire regimes have been altered and that there is currently more high-severity fire than there was prior to fire suppression. In such 

areas, limit thinning to small-diameter trees beneath the forest canopy. Ensure 

that treatments do not occur in systems where fire regimes have not been altered. 

• Prohibit construction of new landings and roads. Require significant levels of 

permanent road decommissioning and closure prior to any fuel treatments. 

• Retain all mature trees, including those that pre-date settlement (Baker et al. 

2007). 

• Significantly curtail fire suppression in areas where human infrastructure is 

not at risk. Curtail domestic livestock grazing in areas where it has contributed 

to fire regime alteration. 

• Exclude treatments from roadless areas greater than 1,000 acres. These areas 

are scarce, biologically important, and serve as important controls for monitoring effectiveness of any fuel treatments. 

• Require sound scientific analysis and disclosure of the potential ecological costs 

and benefits of fuel treatments, prior to initiating treatments. 

We are happy to answer any questions about these issues. Please feel free to contact us. 

OREGON CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB AND ALLIED CONSERVATION TIMBER SALE APPEAL

SETTLEMENTS

(updated May 2010) 

19 SUCCESSFUL APPEAL RESOLUTIONS 2006-2010 (SIERRA CLUB ET AL)

Deschutes National Forest: BLT (09), West Tumbull HFRA (09), Snow Fuels (08), 

South Bend HFRA (08), ODOT Pass Sale (06) 

Ochoco National Forest: Upper Beaver (10), East Maury (08), Burns & Crystal 

Springs (08), Spears (07), Harvey Gap (07), Cougar Salvage (06) 

Umatilla National Forest: Sunflower Bacon (06) 

Malheur National Forest: Thorn-Egley-Crawford (08—the Thorn appeal resolution 

also settled two additional projects, Egley and Crawford), Balance (08), Dads Creek 

(08), Black Rock (07), Canyon Creek (06) 

Resolution of appeal issues included: 

• dropping units in unlogged roadless area habitat; 

• dropping units in old growth habitat; 

• dropping units in ecologically complex mixed conifer mid and high elevation 

habitat; 

• dropping units in salmonid riparian area habitat and on steep slopes; 

• dropping new roads including ‘‘temporary’’ new road construction; 

• protecting all old characteristic trees regardless of diameter; 

• employing 16’’ and 18’’ lower diameter cutting limits based on the best available 

science; 

• switching some units to non-commercial thinning with 9’’ to 12’’ maximum diameter cutting limits based on the best available science; 
82 

* Other signatures have been retained in subcommittee files. 

• adopting provisions protecting wildlife habitat focal areas, including forest 

edges, rock outcrops, meadows, connective cover, increased basal area retention 

levels; • requiring 15% to 25% of unit areas be left untreated as wildlife habitat refugia; • requiring additional large downed logs and/or snags left per acre; • requiring post-project vegetative recovery determination before livestock grazing 

can be resumed; • protection of popular recreational and community trails; • requiring pre-project implementation review and/or post project assessment; • requiring the timely removal of project slash and debris. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DONNELLY, FIRENDS OF THE BREITENBUSH CASCADES, OR* 

We the undersigned strongly oppose Senate Bill S. 2895, introduced by Senator 

Ron Wyden (D-OR), the name of which—the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, 

Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009—belies its true effects. S. 2895 represents a concerted effort on the part of the timber industry and its political allies, 

with support from some not-for-profit organizations, to cripple essential environmental laws in order to increase logging across 8 million acres of publicly-owned forests—forests which have already been severely degraded by logging. This bill is the 

latest in a series of bills that increase logging on our national forests, weaken legal 

protections, and consign the trees from our national forests to be burned in wood 

energy plants all across our nation. 

We oppose this and all other legislation that will increase logging on our public 

forests, whether federal, state, or local, especially when the ‘‘product’’ will be utilized 

as fuel for biomass-to-electricity plants or biofuel plants creating cellulosic ethanol. 

S. 2895 is unacceptable and cannot be fixed or improved by amendments, and we 

urge you to vote against it. 

S. 2895 claims it will protect, restore and increase the old growth forest stands 

and trees, but offers heavy logging of these forests as the supposed magic elixir that 

will ‘‘restore’’ them. Logging is what caused the tragic degradation of these great 

eastside forests in the first place. 

The only proven method of growing—or regrowing—natural old growth forest ecosystems is for natural processes—nature, not humans with chainsaws—to manage 

the forest—a process that takes centuries. The remaining primary old-growth forests 

on Earth are living proof of nature’s ability to grow forests hundreds or thousands 

of years old. 

However, there is not a single example anywhere on Earth of a natural centuriesold forest ‘‘grown’’ by humans using chainsaws. Therefore, there are no scientific 

studies of these non-existent old-growth forests ‘‘restored’’ by chainsaws. This legislation’s assertion that using heavy logging will ‘‘restore’’ old-growth forests is without scientific foundation. 

S. 2895 claims that the increased logging mandated by this bill will somehow 

mitigate the effects of climate change. Recent scientific studies (Public land, timber 

harvests, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. 

public timberlands, Depro, B.M., et al, Forest Ecology and Management, 2007; Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: Net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products, Nunery, J.S., Keeton, W.S., Forest Ecology and Management, 2010) have shown conclusively that forests which 

grow without logging grow more biomass, and subsequently sequester more carbon, 

than forests that are logged, and that it takes a newly-planted forest from 50-100 

years to attain the level of carbon sequestration the logged forest was providing 

when growing. Further, another study (Peters, W. et al., An atmospheric perspective 

on North American carbon dioxide exchange: Carbon Tracker. PNAS, 2007) concluded that North American ecosystems, mostly forests, remove 0.65 Pg C/year, offsetting one-third of the country’s estimated 1.85 Pg carbon emissions. Compromising 

the capacity of forests is therefore equivalent to increasing emissions. Therefore, the 

increased logging mandated by this bill will not only increase forest destruction, it 

will decrease the amount of carbon stored by these forests, diminishing the ability 

of our public forests to combat global climate change. 

However, this legislation goes even farther in contributing to global climate 

change. It instructs the Forest Service to take the wood logged from these forests 

and burn it in wood-energy plants. Nothing could possibly contribute more to global 

climate change than increasing logging on our national forests and then burning the 

wood in biomass plants. According to a recent study (Matera, Chris, Wood-Fueled 
83 

Biomass Power Plants and CO2 Emissions, http://www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf 

February 2010) wood-burning energy plants contribute greatly to global climate 

change. Using data from a permit application in Massachusetts and from the Department of Energy, the study concludes, ‘‘Overall, wood fueled biomass power 

plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more 

than existing natural gas plants, and 330% more than new power plants.’’ 

But there are also tremendous amounts of carbon released by the use of petroleum when logging and chipping the forests and the burning of gasoline used by the 

trucks that will make thousands of trips totaling thousands of miles transporting 

the cut wood fiber to the biomass/biofuel plants. Burning trees from our national 

forests in biomass plants is a net carbon-loss disaster for global climate change. A 

recent article (Searchinger, et al., Fixing A Critical Climate Accounting Error, 

Science, 2009) reveals that emissions from biomass burning are entirely uncounted, 

either under land use change or under smoke stack emissions from utilities. This 

failure in accounting has resulted in the claim that biomass burning is ‘‘carbon neutral’’ and led to a flow of public-funded subsidies into these biomass burning facilities. This accounting error must be fixed. Doing so will reveal that logging and 

burning of forest biomass is not a viable solution to climate change. The claim by 

this legislation that burning wood in biomass plants will reduce global climate 

change is no more than a disproven, unscientific fabrication. 

S.2895 goes so far as to suspend all applicable laws in favor of biomass removal. 

In Section 12 of the bill titled, BIOMASS, the specific language reads: 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations) relating to the use of biomass energy, in accordance with 

each purpose and goal of this Act, and any applicable recommendation of 

the advisory panel, the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary 

to further enhance the use of woody biomass in the covered area. 

The area covered by this legislation is more than 8 million acres of public 

forestlands across Eastern Oregon. 

S. 2895 also tilts towards commercial interests, stating; 

On a determination by the Secretary that forest conditions, commercial 

interests, and an adequate supply from a combination of Federal and nonFederal sources indicate a viable economic supply and demand for establishing a regional biomass project, the Secretary may designate an area 

within the covered area in which— 

(A) the removal of biomass is necessary to restore forest health; and 

(B) a sufficient volume of material is expected to be available to support 

a 20 year-lifespan of capital investments for biomass use. 

S. 2895 is honest in at least one respect, when it admits its purpose is to supply 

the wood industry with a guaranteed supply of wood from our federal forestlands. 

S. 2895 guarantees a minimum of 20 years of vastly increased logging to supply 

these newly constructed wood energy plants. This mandated amount of logging will 

devastate the very forest ecosystems that S. 2895 claims to be restoring. Biomass 

burning utilities require about 13,000 tons per megawatt per year, and transportation logistics require sourcing feedstocks from a limited distance (generally around 

50 mile radius). Providing and maintaining sufficient feedstocks to biomass burning 

facilities is unlikely to be harmonious with the goal of forest protection and ‘‘restoration.’’ 

The stripping of our forests for biomass means that woody debris that previously 

had been left for mulch in the forests and which enriched the forest soil and provided essential habitat for biodiversity will now be taken away from the forests and 

burned. If this legislation and other bills like it proceed, our national forest soils 

will be stripped of nutrients and our forests will die of starvation. 

S. 2895 clearly cripples environmental laws which have given our forests some 

level of protection, not only by unconscionable suspension of the laws, but also by 

rushing the normal environmental enforcement procedures. S. 2895 would effectively circumvent NEPA by having pre-made decisions come out of advisory committees, even though NEPA will ostensibly be followed. NEPA requires an objective 

analysis of alternatives before decisions are made. Under this process, in effect, the 

decision is made before the analysis, making NEPA a pro-forma exercise. The process is further tilted toward increased logging of these forests by the use of advisory 

groups made up primarily of paid employees of the timber industry and others who 

are forced to either agree with this increased logging program or be denied from 

participation. This disenfranchises the American people of our and our children’s 

heritage, the national forests of Oregon—it is no less than grand theft and destruc-
84 

tion of federal property. This bill is the equivalent of allowing a small number of 

people from New Jersey, subsidized by federal tax dollars, to dismantle the Statue 

of Liberty and sell it for scrap metal while claiming it is good for the economy. 

S. 2895 claims that one of its goals is to protect large trees, trees larger than 21 

inch diameter, and it even lists exceptions for protecting trees smaller than 21 inch 

diameter. However, S. 2895 gives all final authority, stripped of any legal check and 

balance, to the Secretary of Agriculture to determine what trees can logged, rendering the supposed protections of trees of any size, including any and all large 

trees, completely meaningless. This legislation is a green light to demolish our public forests, even allowing logging of the giant old trees the bill is allegedly supposed 

to protect. 

Roads are one of the greatest causes of forest degradation. S. 2895 will allow an 

unlimited number of new roads, including permanent roads, to be constructed. 

A new scientific report (Bond, Monica L., et al., Influence of Pre-Fire Tree Mortality on Fire Severity in Conifer Forests of the San Bernardino Mountains, California, The Open Forest Science Journal, 2009) suggests that bark beetle outbreaks 

will not lead to greater fire risk, and that tree thinning and logging is not likely 

to alleviate future large-scale epidemics of bark beetle. The report’s findings apply 

to millions of acres of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests across North America. 

This report completely contradicts the goals and unscientific claims of this bill that 

increased logging will reduce these naturally occurring events. 

‘‘Drought and high temperature are likely the overriding factors behind the current bark beetle epidemic in the western United States,’’ said Scott Hoffman Black, 

executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. ‘‘Because logging and thinning cannot effectively alleviate the overriding effects of climate, it will 

do little or nothing to control these outbreaks.’’ (Black, S. H., et al., Insects and 

Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives, National Center for Conservation Science & Policy, Ashland OR, 2010). 

S. 2895 will lead to hundreds of millions of dollars of additional subsidies to log 

our national forests at a time when Americans are saddled with a soaring national 

debt. 

Since the rise of large scale civilizations around 8,000 years, over 80% of the 

Earth’s forests have been either completely wiped out or severely degraded by humans. Logging by humans is the greatest threat to the survival of the remaining 

natural forests on Earth, yet this legislation will increase logging. All the verbiage 

in S. 2895 about so-called ecological forest restoration, watershed health, conservation, ecosystem function, carbon cycling, and scientific advisory panels are thin cover 

for a timber industry logging bill. 

S. 2895 was written without public participation, contrary to the claims of some 

of the bill’s supporters. It is undemocratic in conception and would also be so in implementation. Senate Bill 2895 is an environmental disaster-in-the making for our 

national forests and an economic disaster for the American people and will contribute greatly to lost biodiversity and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. 

We urge you to completely oppose it. 

MIKE HAYWARD, CHAIRMAN, WALLOWA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on S. 2895. First let me say that I 

appreciate the work of Senator Wyden and his staff in attempting to address the 

issues of forest health and community well-being in Eastern Oregon. I appreciate 

greatly that they recognize that a problem exist and that it needs to be dealt with 

quickly. Having said that I have concerns about this bill in its current form that 

I believe must be addressed before it moves forward. 

The issue that is perhaps the most troubling is that the legislation calls for a $50 

million appropriation to carry out the work of the bill. There is no doubt that for 

the Forest Service to meet the requirements as outlined this money will be necessary but given the current state of the federal budget I question if it will be available. 

The Forest Service finds itself in a perpetual planning, appeals and litigation 

cycle, with little work actually happening on the ground. We frequently hear about 

the use of ‘‘best available science’’ and yet we seem to want to manage out national 

forest by a consensus process. This bill would seem to expand on that concept with 

the inclusion of the advisory panels and collaborative groups. At some point, if we 

are to attain a healthy forested landscape, we have to allow the professional foresters to do their job. 

It appears that the bill requires that before any tree, of any size, can be cut it 

has to meet a set of criteria as outlined in the bill. Given the size of the landscape 
85 

that the Forest Service is dealing with this is not possible. One could argue that 

I have read too much into this portion of the bill and I believe that this was not 

the intent, but given the past history of litigation there would appear to be an open 

field for potential lawsuits. 

Lastly, I believe that we must recognize both a forest health and an economic reality. The Blue Mountain Forests (Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa Whitman) are 

currently engaged in forest plan revision. The proposed action references that sixty 

percent of the forested landscape is in need of treatment due to excess fuel loadings. 

The plan also acknowledges that the three forests have a net growth, after mortality, of 791 million board feet yet calls for an Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) of 

approximately 200 million board feet, with anticipated actual harvest being a fraction of the ASQ because of budgetary constraints. This level of harvest will not only 

fail to improve the stocking level but will actually increase the number of forest 

stands outside the historic range of variability. 

The reality is that under current harvest protocols timber sales lose money and 

the Forest Service is limited in how much activity they can accomplish. The sale 

and removal of larger trees (greater than 16 inches) is necessary to make forest restoration work cost affective. Certainly not all, nor even most, larger trees need to 

be cut, but if we are unwilling to cut any larger trees I fear that the economics of 

thinning small diameter material will prevent significant work from happening on 

the federal land. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

STATEMENT OF ZANE G. SMITH, JR., RETIRED U.S. FOREST SERVICE REGIONAL

FORESTER

I am pleased to offer testimony related to SB 2895 to restore forest landscapes, 

protect old growth forests, and manage national forests in the eastside forests of the 

State of Oregon, and for other purposes, the subject of your hearing in Bend, Oregon 

June 4. Athough I applaud the effort of Senator Wyden and the various interests 

in breaking through the stalemate so adversely affecting the management of our 

National Forests, I have grave concerns about possible unintended consequences for 

the National Forest System (NFS). The proposed Bill has many positive provisions, 

as a matter of fact, the Forest Service under existing statutes is trying mightily to 

practice them now. I am sure you received valuable counsel on how some of these 

provisions can be strengthened to improve the outcomes. 

My concern surrounds what I feel could lead to the fragmentation and eventual 

elimination of the National Forest System. I am a third generation career Forest 

Service retiree. My career led me through every line position in the Forest Service 

except Chief. I served in AZ, ID, OR, WA, CA and the Chief’s office. So, I admit 

to having a bias, but we all know that the NFS, put together by President Theodore 

Roosevelt and many others, is the envy of the World and represents an extraordinary treasure for our Nation. 

The management of the NFS is guided by a host of statutes dating back to the 

Organic Act of 1897 followed by literally hundreds of Acts into the 21st Century. 

The thought of overlaying this direction with Bills such as SB 2895 and others like 

Montana Senator Testor’s, absolutely stagers the mind. My fear is that it lays the 

ground work for the demise of the National Forest System. 

My plea is to keep these thoughts in mind and I urge the Committee to consider 

carefully how the existing statutes can be cleaned up and added to, thus applying 

up to date direction to the entire National Forest System. Thanks so much for your 

consideration. 

Thank you for adding this to the Record. 

STATEMENT OF TOM DAVIS, PE, UPPER DESCHUTES VOLUNTEER RIVER STEWARD, THE

NATIVE FISH SOCIETY

These S. 2895 comments use the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests as examples, but apply to all Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land east of 

the Cascades, as well as all forestlands in the State of Oregon. We enthusiastically 

support S. 2895 but aquatic ecosystems must be given a top priority in the final bill. 

The important forest issues that S. 2895 and its implementation must address include: 

• Erosion-Sedimentation Reduction 

• Roads 

• All terrain Vehicles 
86 

• Stream Temperature 

• Wildfire and Fire Fighting 

• Tree Removal 

• Passage Barriers 

• Instream, Riparian and Stream Corridor Protection 

Erosion-Sedimentation Reduction—The most important issue is erosion from the 

thousands of miles of road prisms (cut, road and fill surfaces) in the National Forests. The roads also include hundreds of culvert passage barriers. This will become 

a more serious problem in the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests with the reintroduction of steelhead, Chinook and sockeye, and the restoration of passage for 

bull trout to their spawning tributary headwaters. Riparian conditions are poor in 

many locations, causing stream temperature problems and exacerbated sediment delivery to streams. 

Most of the soils are very erodible and range from coarse sand and gravel soils 

in the west side subbasins to predominantly fine grained soils in the Crooked River 

subbasin. In the west side subbasins the coarse-porous soils allow rapid infiltration, 

which often mitigates peak flow rates, resulting in long sediment delivery times to 

the main stems. In the Crooked River subbasin less infiltration occurs so peak flows 

are higher and much of the eroded clay and silt stays suspended and moves faster 

in the water column. Turbid or ‘‘muddy’’ streams are seldom seen in the Metolius 

subbasin where most of the eroded soil is pushed downstream by clear water as 

bedload, but ‘‘muddy’’ streams are common in the Crooked River subbasin. 

A 2004 Forest Service (FS) Metolius watershed assessment update acknowledged 

the high erosion risk. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/projects/planning/majorplans/wa-metolius-update2004-summary.pdf 

The highest Metolius risk areas were found by the FS to be the headwaters of 

First Creek (shown running ‘‘muddy’’ in the Spring, 2009 photo by Mark Yinger), 

Jack Creek, Canyon Creek and Brush Creek. The assessment stated that ‘‘The 

Metolius River is spring fed, stable, sensitive to sediment—one of the most stable 

rivers in the world for its size, vulnerable to sediment because of the lack of flood 

events to flush gravels clean.’’ 

The Metolius example and publications regarding the erosion of forest soils indicate that wildfires cause significant erosion. The soil disturbance caused by the fire 

fighting equipment likely caused more erosion and sediment delivery than the 

wildfires per se. 

The two 2009 Mark Yinger photos illustrate the normal sediment delivery, i.e. 

bedload movement, in the westside subbasins. This unnamed Metolius tributary is 

between Lake and First Creeks. The photo on the left is during May and the water 

is running clear. The June photo on the right shows that the creek had been carrying significant amounts of bedload sediment and deposited some of it behind the 

culvert. 

The east side soils, primarily in the Crooked River subbasin, are highly erodible 

but consist of fine grained silts and clays that, when eroded travel in the water and 

are easily visible and monitored as turbidity. 

The S. 2895 essentials for reducing erosion and sedimentation from forest activities and projects include: 

• No new roads except for projects that are essential for watershed recovery, or 

that will not cause soil erosion and sedimentation impacts on an ephemeral, 

seasonal or permanent channel. 

• Maximum road-prism width limits that reflect the soils and slopes present, and 

are smaller/narrower on more erodible soils and/or steeper slopes. 

• Accelerated decommissioning of non-essential roads to achieve road densities of 

< one per sq. mile. 

• Performing subsoiling, or ‘‘tillage’’, of compacted soils for road decommissioning 

or revegetation of disturbed sites in ways that eliminate the potential for transport of eroded soil from the site. 

• Limiting the use of ATVs to roads suitable for two-wheel drive vehicles. 

• Soil disturbance slope limits that are specific for the soils present, ranging from 

15% to 30%. Steeper sites would require enhanced mitigation measures, for examples reduced weeks of exposure, higher levels of mulching and multiple rows 

of silt fence. No disturbance on slopes => 30%. 

• Project and activity design that reduces the grading and soil disturbance area 

to a minimum. 

• A time limit in weeks on the exposure of disturbed soils, with no carryover from 

one activity phase to the next, and requiring a disturbance-free period during 

high-risk seasons of at least four (4) months. 
87 

• Establishment of water management systems immediately after grading and 

soil disturbance begins. 

• Interim controls including early mulching on slopes steeper than 5 percent, revegetation and temporary sedimentation traps for the 5-year storm recurrence 

interval runoff. 

• Transitioning from natural to post-development/activity water conveyance and 

storage systems within one activity phase, or nine months at most. 

• Out sloping or in sloping of roads with ditch relief culverts every 200 feet or 

less. 

• Maintenance measures that ensure no rutting of the road surface and do not 

increase the fine material available for erosion. 

• Minimal compaction and mitigation of all compaction not essential for long-term 

use of a road. 

• Silt fences if soil disturbance is within 200 ft of an ephemeral, seasonal or permanent channel. 

• Sediment catchments downgradient in rills and gullies prior to any soil disturbance. 

Roads.—The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests contain exceptionally high 

road densities. On the Deschutes, according to a March 2010 FS study, there are 

8,120 miles at some level of maintenance. The Ochoco contains 3,240 miles. The 

Deschutes road density using the ‘‘maintained’’ numbers is 3.7 miles of road per sq. 

mi. The Ochoco density using the ‘‘maintained’’ numbers is 2.5 miles of road per sq. 

mi. 

‘‘Oregon Wild’’ did an assessment of roads in the forests and concluded that the 

numbers were: ‘‘Deschutes NF—9,784 miles of roads (about 3.9 miles of road per sq 

mile); and the Ochoco NF—5,400 miles of roads (3.6 miles of roads per sq mile).’’ 

To paraphrase Oregon Wild’s statement when the numbers were provided—The figures are from an analysis we did a few years ago. Our figures may or may not be 

close to USFS figures. If, for example, they put a berm on a road and it still appears 

to be a road, our analysis would include it as a road but theirs would not. Plus we 

may overestimate some and underestimate others. 

A likely possibility is that the FS counted the road prisms that were maintained 

at some level, but Oregon Wild counted all road prisms regardless of maintenance 

or current use. 

Road prisms are a major source of eroded sediment that is detrimental to the 

aquatic ecosystems. Some road prisms may erode less with maintenance that eliminates rills, but maintenance, particularly ‘‘blading’’ can bring new soil particles to 

the surface, which are subject to surface erosion. Sediment delivery rates during the 

road construction period and the first few years after construction are particularly 

high. 

The ‘‘decommissioning’’ of roads, which is an essential component of watershed recovery, can cause erosion-sedimentation. Often ‘‘subsoiling’’, sometimes called ‘‘ripping’’ or ‘‘tilling’’ is used to reduce compaction and/or encourage infiltration and revegetation during road decommissioning and to help revegetate soils that have been 

exposed or compacted. The FS photo shows a subsoiler. 

A FS soils scientist stated in March 2010 email communication ‘‘I prefer to use 

the term subsoiling when referring to our Forest tillage program. A subsoiler differs 

from a ripper in that it has wings on the bottom of the shanks. The purpose of the 

wings is to lift and fracture the soil across the entire width of a compacted trail 

without mixing the soil horizons. Monitoring has showing that ripper shanks without wings do not fracture the entire width of the trail. Another important point is 

that subsoiling does not instantly restore the soil back to its un-impacted condition 

but instead sets up the conditions so the soil can rehabilitate at an accelerated rate 

compared to an area that is not subsoiled. Therefore avoidance of as much soil impacts as possible is still very important.’’ 

All Terrain Vehicles.—The FS research on all-terrain erosion rates at various 

sites in the U.S. by Randy B. Foltz documents the exceptionally high erosion rates 

from all terrain vehicles. The rates were even higher than forest roads and agricultural lands. The graph above presents the findings and the research is described in: 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/library/Foltz/Foltz2006e/ASABE2006e.pdf ; and 

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/news/streamnt/pdf/SNl04l07.pdf 

Stream Temperature.—A February 2009 paper on stream temperature, riparian 

harvest and total harvest in a watershed states, ‘‘stream temperature increase was 

correlated with both the total amount of timber harvest in a watershed and the total 

amount of riparian forest harvest in a watershed.’’ This is important for understanding the significance of the level of logging in any watershed. The February, 

2009 paper is ‘‘STREAM TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIPS TO FOREST HAR-
88 

VEST IN WESTERN WASHINGTON’’, by Michael M. Pollock, Timothy J. Beechie, 

Martin Liermann, and Richard E. Bigley. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/ 

fulltext/121663614/PDFSTART 

Wildfire and Fire Fighting.—The watersheds of the Upper Deschutes have experienced extensive and damaging wildfires in the last decade. Wildfires and the firefighting equipment have particularly affected the Metolius subbasin. In 2 years, four 

times as many acres have burned than burned in the previous 100 years. From 

1900-1999, 29,449 acres burned. In 2002 and 2003, 122,450 acres burned. This is 

presented by the FS Metolius Watershed map of five large fires from 2000 to 2003. 

The largest was the B & B fire. 

The 2004 FS Assessment Update states: ‘‘There are elevated erosion risks associated with severely burned areas. . . .Ten debris flows (landslides) occurred in the 

Metolius Basin during an intense winter storm in 1996 Nine of the ten debris flows 

in 1996 were associated with managed areas where vegetation had been manipulated in varying degrees. Five older debris flows were discovered in the Highway 

20 corridor and appear to be associated with a similar intense winter storm in 1964. 

Slopes exceeding 25% in areas of stand replacement fire have an elevated risk of 

debris flows within 3 years of the fire as tree roots decay and lose soil holding 

strength. Slope stability in these areas is not likely to return to pre-fire levels within the next 20 years, although returning shrubs and trees will help stabilize soil.’’ 

Surface/sheet erosion was likely also high, but much less visible. 

Whether the damage occurs directly because of the fire in the overstory resulting 

in lack of protective cover and soil instability, the equipment used in suppressing 

the fire, or the damage to riparian zones, it’s clear that wildfire in the Upper 

Deschutes presents a threat to our native salmonids. 

Tree Removal.—The removal of trees, whether for thinning, biofuels or wood, presents the potential for damage to the aquatic ecosystems. Logging per se has been 

reduced in the Upper Deschutes, but biofuels and thinning projects present risks to 

the habitat required for native salmonids. 

Passage Barriers.—The fish passage barriers involving road culverts are important and prevalent, particularly with the thousands of road miles in the two National Forests. These barriers are receiving attention from the FS and projects to 

provide passage merit support. 

Instream, Riparian and Stream Corridor Protection.—According to the Forest 

Service ‘‘31% of Riparian forest areas burned at moderate to high severity’’ in the 

Metolius during the B & B Fire’’. It’s clear that forest activities and events affect 

riparian cover, which affects aquatic health. The stream corridor protection and the 

riparian methodology used in the ‘‘Glaze Forest Restoration Project’’ should be combined, optimized and applied on all forest projects where wildfire in the riparian 

zone could damage the vegetation or coniferous tree removal is essential for riparian 

health. The project is described at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/projects/ 

units/sisters/glaze/index.shtml 

Specific, quantitative criteria to prohibit disturbances in the stream corridor are 

essential and S. 2895 implementation should address this. Water quality, floodplain 

function and aquatic life protection should be provided through no-disturbance 

stream corridors, which will also provide important habitat for aquatic and terrestrial insects that provide food for fish and other aquatic life. Many species of birds, 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates also require healthy riparian 

habitat for nesting, hiding and birthing cover, travel corridors, thermal refuge, and 

forage. 

The floodplains, riparian zones and adjoining wetlands define the stream corridor. 

Maps are needed of all perennial, intermittent and ephemeral floodplains. Intermittent streams are defined as a stream which carries water a considerable portion of 

the time, but which ceases to flow occasionally or seasonally because bed seepage 

and evapotranspiration exceed the available water supply. Ephemeral streams are 

defined as a stream channel, which carries water only during and immediately after 

periods of rainfall or snowmelt. The PACFISH and INFISH requirements should be 

expanded to include these concepts and be included in S. 2895. 

The floodplain maps can be determined by hydrologic analysis of the contributing 

watersheds using: 

• HEC-HMS: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/index.html or 

• HSPF: http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/hspf/ and a stream hydraulics 

model such as 

• HEC-RAS: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/ 

All planned and existing upstream tree harvest areas and areas altered or proposed for alteration from natural conditions must be included in the hydrologic anal-
89 

ysis of the contributing watershed, including roads. Inventories and maps of wetlands and riparian areas are also essential. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD H. WARING, PH.D., CORVALLIS, OR 

1. I am an ecosystem scientist with expertise in forestry and a number of related fields. I provide this declaration to explain scientific and technical deficiencies in the Environmental Assessment for the proposed ‘‘Wildcat Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management Project’’ prepared by the U.S. Forest Service and published in March 2009. 

2. On June 2nd and 3rd, 2009, I toured the Wildcat sale sites numbered 33, 

34, 22, 79 and 133 with Karen Coulter, field coordinator for the Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project, and observed the forest composition including standing 

dead and fallen trees, as well as the herbaceous vegetation. Trees planned to 

be thinned were marked for cutting, allowing me to assess expected changes in 

stand structure and composition. 

3. Although the proposed project may temporarily reduce the threat of 

wildfires, to be effective in the long term, much heavier thinning than proposed 

is required to reduce the danger of insect outbreaks and to conserve water in 

the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer types. The present plan lacks an assessment of the effects of selective thinning, whole tree harvesting, and slash disposal on nutrient availability and carbon sequestration. 

4. In the long run, the chosen options for management fail to consider the effects of practices that will continue to simplify stand structure and composition, 

and thereby reduce biodiversity on the Umatilla National Forest. In addition, 

the Forest Service fails to disclose the need to ameliorate microclimatic conditions to foster the movement of species from their current environments to similar ones that are predicted to shift to higher elevations or out of northeast Oregon within the next few decades. 

5. There is a general deficiency in the Environmental Assessment on how 

managed and unmanaged areas interact across the landscape. Specifically, the 

proposed plan does not recognize how attempts to maintain high populations of 

elk and cattle impact aspen groves, the role that roads play as a conduit for 

plant and animal migration, nor the fact that subalpine forests are adapted to 

large, but infrequent disturbances. 

6. To explain these scientific and technical matters and to underscore what 

was omitted from the Wildcat Environmental Assessment, I draw on my experience and familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature. For this particular review, I include a few Forest Service publications that counter the proposed management options or summarize state-of-the-art knowledge. My evaluation is organized by management options applied to four forest types, followed by sections on the implications of proposed activities on biodiversity, the implication 

of climate change, and landscape interactions. 

7. The range of vegetation on which activities are proposed include four broad 

forest types: dry ponderosa pine; moist, mixed conifers; cool and moist subalpine 

forests; and groves of aspen. On each of these types, the Forest Service has 

identified trees to cut, with the intention of disposing of slash by burning, by 

complete tree harvesting, and by extracting deadwood on the forest floor to generate energy. 

DRY PONDEROSA PINE FOREST TYPE

8. The dry ponderosa pine is a forest type through which a ground fire historically burnt every decade or so, which limited the presence of young trees and 

species with thin bark. This type occurs on small pockets of shallow soil at mid 

elevations and more extensively at lower elevations, particularly on aspects exposed in the afternoon to direct solar radiation. Forest Service activities are 

aimed at removing most of the small trees that have established following years 

of fire suppression activities. They plan to introduce prescribed fires to mimic 

historical conditions. 

9. Depending on how slash and biomass are disposed of, the plan is biologically sound, assuming sufficient standing dead trees are left to meet wildlife 

requirements and erosion is minimized during road construction and logging. 

The proposed practices, however, will reduce soil organic matter, which 

Jurgensen et al. (1997) consider a critical resource required to sustain forest 

health and productivity, particularly on drier sites. 

10. At some of the sites, the density of large diameter trees that will be left 

following treatment is more than 50 per cent of the maximum basal area and 
90 

leaf area that can currently be supported. Additional thinning of larger diameter trees would be required to protect residual trees from being attacked and 

killed by mountain pine beetle during an outbreak and to accommodate climatic 

trends leading to increased natural mortality (van Mantgem et al. 2009). Moreover, residual trees need to be evenly spaced to reduce mortality from bark beetles (Larsson et al. 1983), which would be a major departure from historical conditions (Harrod et al. 1999). 

MIXED CONIFER FOREST TYPE

11. The mixed conifer forest type is one where snowmelt has historically been 

adequate to recharge the soil profile fully each spring so that drought is normally not a problem (Waring et al. 1992). Grand fir, which establishes under 

the shade of the other species, has notably thinner bark, and because of this 

feature is easily damaged by fire. With the burning of slash, grand fir will become progressively less abundant in this type, even if large diameter trees were 

to be left standing. Less shade-tolerant trees with thicker bark will become relative more dominant, even with some selective removal, with implications that 

will be discussed later. 

12. Experiments in this forest type in northeastern Oregon indicate that nitrogen limits growth and that defoliation of Douglas-fir and true firs by spruce 

budworm or tussock moth recycles this limiting element and foster increases in 

stand growth (Waring et al. 1992). Fire generally encourages the establishment 

of nitrogen-fixing plants, but it may take decades to centuries to restore the nitrogen capital (Jurgensen et al. 1997), particularly in soils lacking molybdenum, 

an essential micro-nutrient (Silvester 1989). The Environmental Assessment 

omits discussion on the loss of nitrogen and other elements associated with 

whole-tree harvesting and the burning of litter and slash that would affect site 

productivity and the ability of trees to withstand defoliation (Waring and Running 2007). 

SUBALPINE FOREST TYPE

13. The subalpine forest type rarely burns (Schoennagel et al. 2007), but 

when it does, most trees are killed (Romme et al. 2006). Larch and lodgepole 

pine establish on bare soil following a stand replacement fire; Englemann 

spruce and subalpine fir seed in on duff once shade is provided. Ponderosa pine 

is not a major component of this forest type because it is subject to snow breakage (Waring 1969). 

14. Thinning in subalpine forests creates unnatural conditions because most 

species are adapted to regeneration following a stand replacement fire. Although centuryold lodgepole pine can be thinned and residual trees made resistant to bark beetle attack, this requires that up to two-thirds of all trees be removed (Coops et al. 2009) and often results in accelerated windthrow (Veblen 

et al. 1991). 

15. The subalpine type is usually nitrogen deficient (Waring et al. 1985, 

Waring and Pitman 1985, Waring et al. 1987 ) and requires considerable time 

to restore what is lost following fire (Jurgensen et al. 1997) because the main 

source of nitrogen in this area is atmospheric deposition (Fenn et al. 2003). The 

proposed plan would reduce the available of nitrogen and other nutrients, which 

is unlikely to improve tree resistance to insects and diseases. This needs to be 

disclosed, assessed and alternatives considered. 

16. The Environmental Assessment does not adequately recognize the departure from historical conditions that the proposed thinning and fuel reduction 

project would create in subalpine forests. Young lodgepole pine stands generally 

do not require thinning because small diameter trees lack sufficient resources 

(phloem tissue) under the bark to support development of bark beetle larvae 

(Waring and Pitman 1985). 

ASPEN GROVES

17. Attempts to perpetuate aspen by removing competing conifers are likely 

to prove inadequate. The reason for lack of aspen regeneration is an over abundance of browsing and grazing animals that consume most, if not all aspen regeneration and heavily impact many other species, as noted by Forest Service 

scientists Shirley and Erickson (2001). Fenced areas are required to allow aspen 

to regenerate without a reduction in elk and cattle populations. The Environmental Assessments lacks an explanation as to how one can expect to foster 

successful aspen regeneration while proposing to improve elk habitat without 
91 

fencing. It might also recognize the role that predators play in allowing aspen 

to regenerate even with large populations of elk (Larsen and Ripple 2003). 

BIODIVERSITY

18. To be effective, the proposed thinning and fuel reduction program will 

need to be repeated at frequent intervals over wide areas. This will result in 

simplification of stand structure and a reduction in biodiversity. What are the 

implications? Forests of mixed ages and species composition are generally not 

subject to complete defoliation because native insects have discrete numbers of 

hosts. As a result, the growth of ponderosa pine increases when spruce 

budworm attack grand fir, and the reverse happens when Pandora moth attack 

pine in a stand of mixed composition (Speer et al. 2001). There are similar advantages to multi-species stands when it comes to diseases, as outlined in a recent publication on ‘Managing insects and diseases of Oregon Conifers’ (Shaw 

et al. 2009). The disadvantages of repeated thinning and slash disposal need to 

be considered particularly in the mixed conifer type. 

19. A diversity of insects favors a wide variety of bird species, each with different requirements to complete their life cycles. Other animals, both resident 

and migratory, require a range of conditions not available in a forest with simplified structure and frequent disturbance. These tradeoffs are not adequately 

addressed in the Environmental Assessment. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

20. Discussion of climate change is completely omitted from the Environmental Assessment. Yet, over the last half century, the climate has progressively become warmer throughout most of western United States (http:// 

climatewizard.org). As a result, the snowpack melts more quickly, the growing 

season starts earlier, and vegetation is subjected to longer periods of drought. 

Although these changes in climate may not totally explain a doubling of tree 

mortality across the West in the last two decades (van Mantgem et al. 2009), 

there is no question that drought can cause an increase in tree mortality (Bigler 

et al. 2008). Less tree cover may reduce water use, but it will also encourage 

the growth of understory vegetation which contributes more fine fuels in a given 

season than do leaves shed slowly from dying trees (Veblen et al. 2000). 

21. The trends in climate observed over the last 50 years are likely to accelerate. The Environmental Assessment should consider that peer-reviewed literature indicates that both western larch and Engelmann spruce are predicted 

to be unable to survive in most of northeastern Oregon by 2030 (Rehfeldt et al. 

2006). If shifts in climate are recognized as highly probable, achieving historical 

conditions through the proposed management may be impossible. Certainly 

thinning cannot improve residual tree vigor during an extended drought (Kolb 

et al. 2007). 

LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE

22. The Environmental Assessment does not consider the ramifications of 

management practices on areas not directly involved, such as the protected riparian zone and adjacent wilderness area. An enlargement of the protected zone 

along streams might be considered to maintain populations of species adapted 

to less disturbed conditions. It might also serve as a corridor, as do roads (Lugo 

and Gucinski 2000), for allowing species to move up or down slope in a changing 

climate. At the same time, a connected corridor of dense, multi-storied vegetation is a conduit for the spread of wildfire (Agee 1998). Alternatives that should 

be considered are large blocks of different aged forests, a shifting mosaic of age 

classes (Everett et al. 1994) and the advantages of letting fires burn in wilderness areas (Collins and Stephens 2007). 

23. The management of National Forests to enhance carbon storage is under 

discussion with controversy over the relative losses from wildfires versus those 

associated with harvesting and fuel management. Recent publications from faculty at Oregon State University have clarified these issues, and the kind of 

management proposed on the Umatilla National Forests should evaluate the 

proposed plans in light of these findings (Campbell et al. 2007, Mitchell et al. 

2009). 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

24. The Environmental Assessment fails to take into account the longer-term 

implications of the proposed management options. Climatic conditions are 
92 

* Other signatures have been retained in subcommittee files. 

1 J. Fargione, J. Hill, Tilman D., Polasky S., Hawthorne P (2008), Land Clearing and the 

Biofuel Carbon Debt, Science 319:1235-1238. 

changing and these changes are predicted to accelerate. This makes using historical conditions a questionable benchmark. The dry ponderosa pine type may 

become more extensive, but if this happens, larch, Engelmann spruce and many 

other species may become rarer. To assess the impacts and efficacy of the proposed project, the Forest Service must disclose how repeated thinning and fuel 

reduction efforts will affect tree nutrition, because nutrient-stressed trees will 

become more susceptible to insect and disease attack. 

25. Some modifications of the proposed plan are required, particularly for the 

mixed conifer and subalpine forest types where stand structure and composition 

will be highly modified. Even in the dry ponderosa pine type, where thinning 

and fire are logical management options, the spacing of trees may need to be 

much wider than proposed to increase resistance to bark beetle attacks and to 

adapt to trends in climatic conditions. To increase aspen groves will require a 

significant reduction in elk and cattle on the forest, or extensive fencing. The 

proposal to remove conifers will have little effect. 

26. The Forest Service has not taken into account a landscape perspective in 

the Environmental Assessment or looked at how blocks of vegetation in different stages of development can be positioned on the landscape to reduce the 

spread of fire. Without taking a landscape approach, the Forest Service will not 

be able to reduce the threat from fire or maintain biodiversity in a changing 

climate. 

27. The Forest Service would be prudent to consider broadening buffer strips 

along streams and roads to offer maximum protection for areas least likely to 

burn or to become drought-stressed, and best able to provide corridors for flora 

and fauna to adjust to on-going climatic change. Large blocks of mixed conifer 

and most of the subalpine forests would best remain untreated. In this way, 

benchmarks will be available for comparing response to wildfires and insect and 

disease outbreaks. The reserved blocks will also offer refuges to flora and fauna 

not adapted to frequent disturbance. 

28. In summary, to meet the stated objectives of the Wildcat Environmental 

Assessment requires a much broader perspective. The Forest Service must disclose and consider the implications of climate change, the implications of simplifying stand structure, landscape interactions, and the losses of nutrients and organic matter associated with proposed harvesting and fuel reduction efforts. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. SCHLESINGER, MEMBER, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF

SCIENCES* 

We write to bring to your attention the importance of accurately accounting for 

carbon dioxide emissions from bioenergy in any law or regulation designed to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. Proper accounting can enable bioenergy 

to contribute to greenhouse gas reductions; improper accounting can lead to increases in greenhouse gas emissions both domestically and internationally. 

Replacement of fossil fuels with bioenergy does not directly stop carbon dioxide 

emissions from tailpipes or smokestacks. Although fossil fuel emissions are reduced 

or eliminated, the combustion of biomass replaces fossil emissions with its own 

emissions (which may even be higher per unit of energy because of the lower energy 

to carbon ratio of biomass). Bioenergy can reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide if land 

and plants are managed to take up additional carbon dioxide beyond what they 

would absorb without bioenergy. Alternatively, bioenergy can use some vegetative 

residues that would otherwise decompose and release carbon to the atmosphere rapidly. Whether land and plants sequester additional carbon to offset emissions from 

burning the biomass depends on changes both in the rates of plant growth and in 

the carbon storage in plants and soils. For example, planting fast-growing energy 

crops on otherwise unproductive land leads to additional carbon absorption by 

plants that offsets emissions from their use for energy without displacing carbon 

storage in plants and soils. On the other hand, clearing or cutting forests for energy, 

either to burn trees directly in power plants or to replace forests with bioenergy 

crops, has the net effect of releasing otherwise sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, just like the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. That creates a carbon 

debt, may reduce ongoing carbon uptake by the forest, and as a result may increase 

net greenhouse gas emissions for an extended time period and thereby undercut 

greenhouse gas reductions needed over the next several decades1. 
93 

2T.D. Searchinger, S.P. Hamburg, J.Melillo, W. Chameides, P.Havlik, D.M. Kammen, G.E. 

Likens, R. N. Lubowski, M. Obersteiner, M. Oppenheimer, G. P. Robertson, W.H. Schlesinger, 

G.D. Tilman (2009), Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error, Science 326:527-528 3 E.g., J.M. Mellillo, J.M. Reilly, D.W. Kicklighter, A.C. Gurgel, T.W. Cronin, S. Patsev, B.S. 

Felzer, X. Wang, C.A. Schlosser (2009), Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important?, 

Science 326:1397-1399; Marshall Wise, Katherine Calvin, Allison Thomson, Leon Clarke, Benjamin Bond-Lamberty, Ronald Sands, Steven J. Smith, Anthony Janetos, James Edmonds 

(2009), Implications of Limiting CO2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy, Science 

324:1183-1186 4 National Research Council (2009), Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: 

Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.) 

Many international treaties and domestic laws and bills account for bioenergy incorrectly by treating all bioenergy as causing a 100% reduction in emissions regardless of the source of the biomass. They perpetuate this error by exempting carbon 

dioxide from bioenergy from national emissions limits or from domestic requirements to hold allowances for energy emissions. Most renewable energy standards for 

electric utilities have the same effect because bioenergy is viewed as a renewable 

energy even when the biomass does not eliminate or even reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. This general approach appears to be based on a misunderstanding of 

IPCC guidance2. Under some scenarios, this approach could eliminate most of the 

expected greenhouse gas reductions during the next several decades. 

U.S. laws will also influence world treatment of bioenergy. A number of studies 

in distinguished journals have estimated that globally improper accounting of bioenergy could lead to large-scale clearing of the world’s forests3. 

The lesson is that any legal measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must 

include a system to differentiate emissions from bioenergy based on the source of 

the biomass. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated significant potential 

energy production from the right sources of biomass4. Proper accounting will provide 

incentives for these sources of bioenergy. 

Æ