^
FOREST ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT IN IDAHO
LAG 8/1:103-41
est Ecosgstens tlanagenent in Ida...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE OX SPECIALTY CROPS
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATR^S
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
AUGUST 20, 1993
BOISE, ID
Serial No. 103-41
JUN 2 7 ©54
Printed for the use of the Committee on AgnciII«fl««io,j-. *;;''« '^-irfy
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-302 WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044057-2
^
FORBT ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT IN IDAHO
l.AG 8/1:103-41
»st Ecosgstens Hmagenent in Ida.
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SrBCOMMITTEE OX SPECL\LTY CROPS
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATR^S
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
AUGUST 20, 1993
BOISE, ID
Serial No. 103^1
m
m 2 7 1991,
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agn<niHtfl«i|(^^r^jV'^»*/'in'f
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-302 WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044057-2
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
E (KIKA) DE LA GARZA, Texas, Chairman
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California,
Vice Chairman
CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina
GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
TIMOTHY J. PENNY, Minnesota
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
BILL SARPALIUS, Texas
JILL L. LONG, Indiana
GARY A. CONDIT, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
JAY INSLEE, Washington
THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
SAM FARR, California
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas,
Ranking Minority Member
BILL EMERSON, Missouri
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
TOM LEWIS, Florida
ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon
LARRY COMBEST, Texas
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
THOMAS W. EWING, lUinois
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, Cahfornia
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
NICK SMITH, Michigan
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
Professional Staff
DiANNE Powell, Staff Director
Vernie Hubert, Chief Counsel and Legislative Director
Gary R. Mitchell, Minority Staff Director
James A. Davis, Press Secretary
Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources
CHARLIE ROSE,
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky,
Vice Chairman
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., CaUfornia
GARY A. CONDIT, California
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
JAY INSLEE, Washington
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
SAM FARR, Cahfornia
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
North Carolina, Chairman
TOM LEWIS, Florida
BILL EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, Cahfornia
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
LaRocco, Hon. Larry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho,
opening statement 7
Prepared statement 9
Peterson, Hon. ColUn C, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Minnesota, opening statement 6
Rose, Hon. Charlie, a Representative in Congress from the State of North
Carohna, opening statement 5
Prepared statement 6
Witnesses
Andrus, Cecil D., Governor, State of Idaho 1
Prepared statement 55
Arno, Stephen F., research forester, Intermountain Research Station, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Missoula, MT, and Robert Steele,
project leader, Intermountain Research Station, Forest Service, Boise, ID .... 15
Prepared statement 69
Everett, Richard L., science team leader, eastside forest ecosystem health
assessment, Wenatche Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture 13
Prepared statement 59
Foruria, Lou, president, WCIW No. 2816, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America 50
Prepared statement 125
Gehrke, Craig, regional director, Idaho office. Wilderness Society 43
Prepared statement 119
Groen, Cal, chief, natural resources policy bureau, Idaho Department of Fish
and Game 30
Prepared statement 81
Malany, Herbert S., chief forester, Boise Cascade, Corp 27
Prepared statement 74
Neuenschwander, Leon F., professor and associate dean, research and inter-
national programs, college of forestry, wildlife, and marine sciences. Univer-
sity of Idaho 38
Prepared statement 115
Oliver, Chad wick D., professor, silviculture and forest ecology, college of for-
ests resources. University of Washington 34
Prepared statement 90
Partridge, Arthur D., professor, plant pathology, college of forestry, University
of Idaho 50
Prepared statement 129
Sampson, Neil, executive vice president, American Forests 46
Tuttle, Merritt E., Division Chief, Environmental and Technical Services
Division, Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .... 31
Prepared statement 83
(III)
FOREST ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT IN
roAHO
FRroAY, AUGUST 20, 1993
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Specialty Crops
AND Natural Resources,
Committee on Agriculture,
Boise, ID.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in the Gold
Room, Idaho Capitol Building, Boise, ID, Hon. Charlie Rose (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Peterson.
Also present: Representative LaRocco.
Staff present: Keith Pitts and Alexandra Buell.
Mr. Rose. The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty
Crops and Natural Resources will please come to order.
We are here today to conduct a public field hearing, and the sub-
ject is ecosystems management and applicability of new forest and
forest health techniques for forest ecosystems management in
Idaho.
We have a large panel of experts and people who want to testify.
We are very honored that the Governor of your State will be our
first witness today. I am going to let him, if he will, make his open-
ing remarks even before I make my opening remarks.
So if you will honor us with your statement. Governor, we thank
you for allowing us to use this great capitol building.
STATEMENT OF CECIL D. ANDRUS, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
IDAHO
Governor Andrus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If I might, before we get to the formalities of an actual hearing,
I would like to express my appreciation to an old friend coming
back to visit. The people of Idaho do not know of our personal rela-
tionship. I have been in Charlie's district in 1977, 1978, and 1980,
I guess, and probably some other times, to help out with some of
the problems in North Carolina.
I told the distinguished Congressman that it was more than 15
years ago that I wanted him to visit the great State of Idaho, and
now that you are here, Congressman, I can announce to you and
the world that I have fulfilled all of my desires in public office, and
I will not run for reelection.
So seriously, the public out here, we don't have an opportunity
to know of men like you and Congressman Peterson from Min-
nesota, the dedication that you have. I have been a proponent of
(1)
term limitations, but I would say if they were all like Charlie Rose
in North Carolina, I would change my mind.
Mr. Rose. You are very nice. Thank you.
Governor Andrus. Now, if I may be more formal, Mr. Chairman,
I would ask unanimous consent that my entire comments be sub-
mitted for the record, and I will be brief in my capsulation.
Mr. Rose. So ordered.
Governor Andrus. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Con-
gressman Peterson, for being here with Congressman LaRocco to
propose, as he proposes, his legislation that we know as H.R. 229.
I would just say to you, sir, that this legislation is both necessary
and urgently needed. I support the bill. The administration sup-
ports the LaRocco legislation.
Insect infestation continues to plague our woods. The combina-
tion of 6 years of drought, before we had any relief, brought about
an increased mortality rate that is totally unacceptable.
We have had dead and dying timber. We have had catastrophic
wildfires. We had the fire storms of the Lowman area in 1989, and
just last year we had, just east of this city where we are seated,
a 250,000-acre rangeland and timber fire that blackened millions
and millions of board feet of timber, as well as destroying the
range.
It is time that we had man not leaving all management to moth-
er nature, because man's intrusion into the ecosystems has caused
problems that man and man's science must be involved in correct-
ing.
I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the forest is more
than just trees. Too many people see the trees and think of that
as a forest, a wilderness, a woodlot, or whatever they choose, but
the timberland of this State and other States, as you know from
North Carolina and your district, provides the watershed that is
absolutely necessary for other ingredients. It provides a shelter for
wildlife. It provides the water quality for the fisheries in our
streams. It provides all of those things, including forage for live-
stock grazing.
So the forests are very important. As we have watched our for-
ests become devastated by disease and fire, we recognize something
has to be done. That is why I congratulate Congressman LaRocco
for coming forward with this legislation, and I would submit to you
that, yes, you are going to hear some controversial statements that
the Boise National Forest is using this type of current management
as an excuse to harvest timber. Well, the State of Idaho has
forestlands in the same area.
We increased our cut from 17 million board feet a year to 27 mil-
lion board feet a year the past 3 years, taking out basically the in-
festation from insects, the dead and dying timber, and the salvag-
ing of fire.
You must move fairly rapidly to salvage that wood fiber for com-
mercial uses, not only to sustain an industry, but also to avoid
wasting it, and thereby we can save the green stems for future
years. That is exactly what we have been doing. The timberlands
are very valuable to us in many respects.
I would just say to you that generally I agree with the manage-
ment philosophy of the Boise National Forest in this regard, even
though it has been accused of accelerating the cut. In my testimony
that I submitted to you we elaborate on that point.
I would point out to you, however, as we support that manage-
ment technique, we are also advocating that some areas be left
without man's intervention so we can compare the two and, down
the road, fme-tune Congressman LaRocco's legislation to see that
what we are doing is right.
There is one provision within the bill that I must speak to, and
that is the shared receipts that we have from timberlands to our
counties. That is a very important part of this legislation. I hope
that it won't be dropped out and that it will be maintained on the
gross figures of the sales because many of our counties, as in your
States, rely upon those receipts for the maintenance of local units
of government.
Out here, unlike some of yours, we have a tremendous amount
of federally owned land that is not on the tax base. Those receipts
have to be protected, and the Congressman from Idaho's First Con-
gressional District realizes that. He included it in the legislation,
and I hope it continues.
I think with that, Mr. Chairman, I would probably cease my for-
mal testimony and make myself available to you and your col-
leagues for any questions you might have, and submit the balance
of my testimony for the record.
[The prepared statement of Governor Andrus appears at the con-
clusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. Thank you. Governor.
In my own experience, the problems of local units of government
having large units of Federal land in the county, and the fact that
they don't pay any local taxes because of that, is something that
I am very sensitive to. We have two large military bases in eastern
North Carolina and they don't pay any property tax, yet the county
is supposed to educate the children. Aiid so the Government has
paid a type of impact aid to the local school unit to help them have
the resources to educate their children in the public school.
That is similar to what you are talking about, sharing the re-
ceipts from the sales of timber with the local units of government.
Governor Andrus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rose. I thank you very much for being here. I don't have any
further questions.
Representative Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. I was just wondering if Congressman LaRocco
was saying that 62 percent of your land was Federal land. Is that
correct?
Governor Andrus. Sixty-four, depending on who runs the num-
bers.
Mr. Peterson. Do you have counties that are totally Federal
land?
Governor Andrus. Not totally, but running 95 percent. If you
want to look into Idaho County on the east side of that county —
our largest county — it is all Federal forestland. You get down into
Owyhee County, Congressman, that runs with the BLM and the
public in excess of 90 percent.
We have many examples of that, where the alluvial valley floor
and the prime land was picked up either under desert entry or the
Homestead Act many years ago, and the rest is Federal.
Mr. Peterson. I assume there is something in lieu of taxes paid?
Governor Andrus. We receive receipts from some of those. Also
Public Law 80 in impact aid, we would see some of that. We have
a distribution formula of State funds to public schools that picks
up some of that. But if you would take away the 25 percent of
these to the counties, they would be in deep, serious trouble.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
Mr. Rose. Congressman LaRocco.
Mr. LaRocco. Governor, thank you for being here and for your
testimony. I find it to be a great honor to be on this side of the
desk while you are testifying. I can say I think your testimony is
going to have a great impact on the Agriculture Committee and the
Natural Resources Committee, not only because you are CEO of
Idaho's public lands, but because of your former position as Sec-
retary of the Interior.
One of the main goals of this legislation is to make Government
more efficient, to take in Government authorities. If you have any
extemporaneous comments on what we are trying to accomplish
through tying together these authorities with the Secretary of the
Interior and with the Secretary of Agriculture and allowing them
to declare this forest emergency so they can move ahead to test
management, fire suppression, reforestation, salvage, that would be
appreciated.
Governor Andrus. Let me briefly touch upon that.
I had a visit with the President of the United States earlier this
week on some of the western issues. We talked about not only the
forest, but the rangeland. I have talked to his Chief of Staff since
then, the Department of Interior officials, my colleagues in the
Governors' Conference. You are absolutely right. We can't stand out
there alone, one pitted against the other. Not only are our lands
intermingled, but society relies upon the proper and wise use and
productivity of these lands.
I meet annually with all the supervisors of the national forests.
I have a working relationship with the Director of the BLM. We
are trying to bring the State experts, if you will, and the Federal
experts together before we make a decision to see that we are in
harmony.
I think that your legislation provides that provision whereby the
State, through the elected Governor, would have that opportunity
to participate in it.
And, very candidly, Mr. LaRocco, I know the Boise National For-
est has been criticized by some, but again, if the people knew all
the work that went on behind the scenes to determine where you
would use helicopter logging so you would not put the roads in an
area that would endanger the water quality, what they did with
the cross vaulting on hill sides, what they did with the straw to
keep the sediment from washing into the streams, they worked
hard to improve that.
We worked with them, and I think your bill institutionalizes
what we are trying to do informally. And for future generations, I
think that is a wise move. Congressman.
Mr. LaRocco. Thank you very much, Governor.
You have mentioned there are going to be some controversial
statements about the bill. The intent is to bring everybody together
in a formal hearing, hear what they have to say, fme-tune this leg-
islation, and hopefully improve it.
Governor Andrus. Congressman, I don't know how you bring
about such controversy. I have been in politics 30 years and I have
never been in a controversial situation.
Mr. LaRocco. It is amazing how you have avoided that.
Mr. Rose. That is why you are such a joy to work with.
Governor ANDRUS. Your eminence, if I may be excused.
Mr. Rose. Yes, sir. You have other things to do.
Thank you. We appreciate you being here.
Let me go back now to my opening statement. I didn't want to
keep your Governor from doing the taxpayers' State work while I
was reading my opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE ROSE, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Rose. I want to thank all of you for attending this meeting.
We are basically here because of your Congressman, Larry
LaRocco. The key element that I would like to stress about this leg-
islation is the emergency nature of it.
Everybody knows that there are things that must be done to
change the way in which we manage our forest resources, but Con-
gressman LaRocco has asked the Secretaries of Agriculture and In-
terior to declare that a forest health emergency exists on Federal
lands under their jurisdiction, so that we don't let things move as
usual in Washington, but to carry out an accelerated forest health
improvement program steps that will prevent further forest dam-
age and reduce the risk of disastrous wildfires on these lands and
implement management strategies.
He is pushing it to the head of the line by putting it that way,
and I think that is what is called for. It is clear the Idaho forest
ecosystem is stressed. Ecosystems that for centuries have depended
on fire for rejuvenation and general forest health have been denied
because of successful attempts to control forest fires.
Policies that for decades seemed wise and in the interest of forest
health may have yielded an overabundance of tree species that can-
not be adequately supported in their current condition. This dif-
ficult situation has been further exacerbated by years of drought
that have made competing stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas-
fir even weaker and more susceptible to disease and pest infesta-
tions.
It is time to look to the future. Congressman LaRocco's bill asks
us to do that. In my opinion, many of the issues raised in this bill
about forest health are important components of ecosystems man-
agement.
I have basically made the comments that I have here and I will
put the rest of my statement in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rose follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charlie Rose
I thank everyone for attending this special meeting of the House Agriculture Sub-
committee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources. In particular, I'd like to thank
Congressman Larry LaRocco for inviting us out to Idaho. Congressman, I commend
you for your leadership in seeking a solution to the tenuous and potentially explo-
sive condition of forests in Idaho.
Even to a forestry layperson like myself, it is clear that the Idaho forest ecosystem
is stressed. Ecosystems, that for centuries, have depended upon fire for purification,
rejuvenation and general forest health have been denied an important component
of their livelihood by our successful attempts to control and suppress forest fires.
Fire suppression policies that, for decades, seemed wise and in the interest of forest
health, have yielded an overabundance of tree species that are not, and cannot be,
adequately supported in their current condition. This difficult situation has been
further exacerbated by years of drought that have made competing stands of pon-
derosa pine and Douglas-fir even weaker and more susceptible to disease and pest
infestations.
In recent years, from coast to coast, we have seen examples of how generally ac-
cepted forest practices have done great disservice to forest ecosystems. Clearly,
Idaho has seen its share of such miscalculations, shortsightedness and neglect.
However, now is the time to look to the future. In my opinion, many of the issues
Congressman LaRocco has raised about forest health are important components of
ecosystems management.
I think the concept of ecosystems management challenges all of us to rethink how
our natural resources are to be maintained, utilized and protected. The debate and
the ultimate implementation of ecosystems management will be met with skep-
ticism; nonetheless, the issue should be engaged and ecosystems management must
be implemented.
This fall, the subcommittee will begin working with all interested parties to begin
the arduous task of defining, funding and implementing ecosystems management on
all Federal lands. Certainly, forest health is a cornerstone to such a policy.
In closing, Larry, I want to assure you that I will work closely with you, the ad-
ministration, the environmental community, industry, and labor groups to expedi-
tiously craft a comprehensive policy to address the immediate and the long-term for-
est health concerns of the intermountain west. I appreciate your leadership on this
issue.
Mr. Rose. You have heard our first witness. Before we continue
with the witnesses, I am going to give Congressman ColHn C. Pe-
terson an opportunity to make any opening statement he would
hke to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MIN-
NESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take a whole lot
of time. I just want to thank Congressman LaRocco for inviting us
to his State and for the work he has been doing on this issue, and
on the whole issue of the future of the forest industry in this coun-
try.
I have a district that has some forest products industry, but not
to the extent you do in Idaho. We do have Boise Cascade in my dis-
trict to some extent.
I don't claim to be an expert. That is one of the reasons I wanted
to come out to this hearing, so I could learn more and see your
State. I have never been to Idaho before, so I appreciate the oppor-
tunity and look forward to hearing the testimony.
Again, I wanted to thank you for the work and leadership you
have provided on this issue.
Mr. Rose. Mr. LaRocco.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY LaROCCO, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. LaRocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may make an opening statement. First I want to say it is
very important we bring Washington, DC to the field and to the
constituents, instead of having people travel all the way back there.
As you can tell, this subcommittee is lean and mean. We don't
have a calligrapher on this subcommittee. Everjrthing is home
grown here. We did it this morning.
Let me make a formal statement, if I may, Mr. Chairman. First
of all, thanking you for coming to Idaho to conduct this field hear-
ing on my legislation, H.R. 229, and on forest health as it applies
to ecosystems management in Idaho.
Because 62 percent of Idaho's land is under Federal manage-
ment, I believe I speak for many of the people in this room when
I express how important it is to have the chairman of the Agri-
culture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources
with oversight of national forest issues visit our State.
I also want to thank Congressman Peterson for taking valuable
time to fly in from his district in Minnesota to hear firsthand the
testimony to be presented here today.
I also appreciate the work of Steve Mealey and the Boise Na-
tional Forest staff for taking the subcommittee staff and my staff
on a tour of areas being treated for forest health problems yester-
day.
Mr. Chairman, I believe 1993 marks a watershed year for a
major public policy shift in forest management. As in the past, wa-
tersheds are the result of widespread change in public attitudes,
actions, as well as changes in natural conditions, and require re-
sponsiveness on the part of policymakers.
For example, a major policy shift followed the controversy over
clearcutting on the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia,
which led to enactment of the National Forest Management Act in
1976.
Another policy shift resulted in increasing and confiicting uses on
national forests during the 1950's and 1960's. As a result, the For-
est Service had a real need for striking a balance, and Congress
gave the agency a tool to accomplish that in the Multiple-Use Sus-
tained Yield Act.
Today, one phenomenon foreshadowing a major policy change is
that many forest systems are on the verge of collapse due to years
of overeffective fire suppression and turn-of-the-century logging
practices. This pattern of historic use and management has been
brought to a crisis by recent drought conditions.
Pest problems have increased due to the many weakened trees.
And as trees continue to succumb to these attacks, forests become
virtual tinderboxes ready to explode into disastrous wildfires.
With the current fuel loads, wildfires are capable of setting the
ecological clock back to zero. Even the most fire-resistant, old-
growth ponderosa pines, currently mixed in with ailing firs, are at
risk, particularly if flames climb to the top of the trees and race
through the crowns.
Under present conditions, fires pose a tremendous hazard to the
many communities, homes, and people that have located in forested
8
areas in recent years. On one windy day alone in 1991, more than
90 wildfires destroyed 112 homes in the inland Northwest.
Another factor aligning with forest health concerns to precipitate
a policy change is the evolution of the spotted owl debate and the
listings of large numbers of fish and wildlife under the Endangered
Species Act. And, converging with the unraveling of forest systems
of the West is the development of ecosystem management, which
may be more a consequence of change than a cause.
As multiple-use was to the 1960's, ecosystem management is
being explored as a solution to today's natural resource manage-
ment problems. Ecosystem restoration action is needed to reduce
the risk of catastrophic wildfire and to repair watersheds and re-
store the natural dynamics and resilience of forest systems.
The Natural Resources Committee continues to explore the pa-
rameters of ecosystem management. As a member of that commit-
tee, I attended a workshop in May at the Black Butte Ranch south
of Bozeman, Montana. That workshop brought together scientists
and members of the committee to explore informally the issues and
challenges associated with ecosystem management in the northern
Rockies.
Last year, as many of you are aware, I introduced the National
Forest Health Act of 1992 to bring focus to and begin a dialog on
the issue of forest health. With the bipartisan cosponsorship of 30
Members of the House of Representatives, I was able to steer that
legislation through the full Agriculture Committee. And, in this
Congress, I continue to stir the pot by reintroducing that bill ap-
proved by the Agriculture Committee as H.R. 229.
I think we have spoken a lot about the bill, and I would just ask
unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my full statement be made
a part of the record.
I look forward to this testimony today. I think we have a broad
array of witnesses that will give us, I think, a good glide path to-
ward moving this legislation through Congress. I welcome that tes-
timony.
I know some of it is going to be critical of this legislation, but
we need to hear how people feel about this legislation, whether it
be critical or supportive, because I think it is part of the legislative
process that we hold these hearings, we take in all points of view,
and hopefully we can work together and manage our forests in a
more efficient manner.
With that, I will conclude and just say thank you again for being
here.
Mr. Rose. Your full statement will be a part of the record.
Thank you. Congressman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LaRocco follows:]
STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE LARRY LAROCCO
on
H.R. 229, the National Forest Health Act of 1993
Boise, Idaho
August 20, 1993
Mr. Chairman, thank you for coining to Idaho to conduct this
field hearing on my legislation, H.R. 229, and on forest health
as it applies to ecosystems management in Idaho. Because 62
percent of Idaho's land is under federal management, I believe I
speak for many of the people in this room when I express how
important it is to have the Chairman of the Agriculture
subcommittee with oversight of national forest issues visit our
State.
I would also like to thank Congressman Peterson for taking
valuable time to fly in from his district in Minnesota to hear,
first hand, the testimony to be presented today.
I also appreciate the work of Steve Mealy and the Boise
National Forest staff for taking the committee staff and my staff
on a tour of areas being treated for forest health problems,
yesterday.
Mr. Chairman, I believe 1993 marks a watershed year for a
major public policy shift in forest management. As in the past,
watersheds are the result of widespread change in public
attitudes, actions, as well as changes in natural conditions —
and require responsiveness on the part of policy-makers.
For example, a major policy shift followed the controversy
over clearcutting on the Monongahela National Forest in West
Virginia — which lead to enactment of the National Forest
Management Act in 1976.
Another policy shift resulted from increasing and
conflicting uses on national forests during the 50 's and 60 's.
As a result, the Forest Service had a real need for striking a
balance, and Congress gave the agency a tool to accomplish that
in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.
Today, one phenomenon foreshadowing a major policy change is
that many forest systems are on the verge of collapse due to
years of over-effective fire suppression and turn-of-the-century
logging practices. This pattern of historic use and management
has been brought to a crisis by recent drought conditions.
Pest problems have increased due to the many weakened trees.
And as trees continue to succumb to these attacks, forest become
virtual tinderboxes ready to explode into disastrous wildfires.
10
In central and southern Idaho, the Payette and Boise
National Forests are experiencing catastrophic damage from insect
and disease attack. Both forests are dying significantly faster
than they are growing. The statistics are startling and telling.
On the Payette's timber land, average mortality is 407 board
feet per acre, while growth is only 248 board feet. Mortality
figures on the Boise are even worse. Since 1988, the Forest has
lost more than 400,000 trees on more than 1 million acres of
affected forest.
With the current fuel loads, wildfires are capable of
setting the ecological clock back to zero. Even the most fire-
resistant old-growth ponderosa pines, currently mixed in with
ailing firs, are at risk, particularly if flames climb to the top
of the trees and race through the crowns.
Under present conditions, fires pose a tremendous hazard to
the many communities, homes and people that have located in
forested areas in recent years. On one windy day, alone, in 1991
the more than 90 wildfires destroyed 112 homes in the Inland
Northwest.
Insect-damaged riparian areas, which provide habitat for
native fish and threatened salmon, carry enormous fuel loads and
face the potential of extreme post-wildfire erosion.
Another factor aligning with forest health concerns to
precipitate a policy change is the evolution of the spotted owl
debate and the listings of large numbers of fish and wildlife
under the Endangered Species Act.
And, converging with the unraveling of forest systems of the
West is the development of ecosystem management, which may be
more a consequence of change than a cause. As multiple-use was
to the 60' s, ecosystem management is being explored as a solution
to today's natural resource management problems. Ecosystem
restoration action is needed to reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire, and to repair watersheds and restore the natural
dynamics and resilience of forest systems.
The Natural Resources Committee continues to explore the
parameters of ecosystem management. As a member of that
Committee, I attended a workshop in May at the Black Butte Ranch
south of Bozeman, Montana. The workshop brought together
scientists and Members of the Committee to explore informally the
issues and challenges associated with ecosystem management in the
Northern Rockies.
Just two weeks ago, I joined the committee for a workshop on
ecosystem management in the Everglades where water is the key
issue, as it is in Idaho because of drought conditions. Similar
workshops and hearings will help the Committee identify steps
11
that Congress may wish to initiate to overcome the legal and
institutional barriers to sound ecosystem management.
National Forest Health Act
Last year, as many of you are aware, I introduced the
National Forest Health Act of 1992 to bring focus to and begin a
dialogue on the issue of forest health. With the bipartisan co-
sponsorship of 30 members of the House of Representatives I was
able to steer that legislation through the full Agriculture
Committee. And, this Congress, I continue to stir the pot by
reintroducing that bill approved by the Agriculture Committee as
H.R. 229.
My bill authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior to carry out forest health improvement programs, in
consultation with state and federal fish, wildlife and
cooperative forestry experts, in an effort to reduce further
damage to forest resources and promote management of sustained,
diverse, and healthy forest ecosystems.
These lands are to be recognized as a forest health
emergency for a specific length of time, until conditions
favorable to forest health are restored. And, at the request of
the Governor of an affected state, adjacent state and private
lands can be included in the emergency areas and become eligible
for federal assistance to address forest health problems.
Another measure included in my bill is a provision for
multiple-year contracts where the focus is on long-term outcomes,
not outputs. The fiscal year ^92 and ^93 appropriations bills
for the Forest Service directed the agency to test this new "land
stewardship contract" approach to federal timber sale contracting
on several western national forests including the Idaho
Panhandle. And the agency is experiencing success.
In addition to the potential for enactment, the introduction
of legislation generates spin-off benefits which bring focus and
clarity to an issue, which has certainly been the case with my
forest health bill.
2. Report results froa hearings:
In response to my legislation, this Subcommittee, under the
direction of former Chairman, Harold Volkmer held three hearings
on forest health, one in Coeur d'Alene on Memorial Day of last
year. The testimony received during those hearings should not,
in my judgement, be lost or set aside because it continues to
provide a foundation upon which to build.
For example, primarily in response to hearings on my
legislation, a forest health report was released in May by the
Chief of the Forest Service. The introduction to the report
states, "During the hearings, members of Congress asked how the
12
forests recently damaged by drought, pest epidemics, and
wildfires will be restored and how similar damage will be
prevented elsewhere."
The report further states, "The strategic goals and actions
in this plan support the new emphasis on ecosystem management in
the National Forest System, . . . will help strengthen Forest
Service cooperative programs and provide for better coordination
and assistance on forest health problems, ...and will lead to
better integration of forest health considerations into agency
planning and decision making."
Also, in response to questions raised at the Coeur d'Alene
hearing, the Forest Service indicated that in FY91, 28 percent,
or 270 million board feet of the 980 million board feet of timlser
to be offered for sale in Region One was affected by appeals. Of
that, 26 percent, or 70 million board feet of the timber sale
volume appealed were salvage sales.
But, from the environmental community, I heard concerns
about any attempt to stymie public participation or short-cut
environmental documentation.
So, over the months following the hearings, with the help of
Neil Sampson and his capable staff at American Forests, I worked
closely with environmental, timber, and labor leaders for a
balanced and equitable process which would allow public
participation, but within a time frame sensitive to the rapid
deterioration of timber in the forest.
With this attempt to resolve the forest health issue in the
102nd Congress, it was the first time in many years that leaders
of the Audubon Society, The Wilderness Society, the National
Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the American Forest and
Paper Association, and the Brotherhood of Carpenters, met in the
same room together. And, while we were not completely success, I
am hopeful that through symposia and other similar forums, we
will develop a solid solution.
In conclusion, health problems on western forests are
complex, have developed over decades, and many predict it will
take decades to solve the problems. Both natural conditions and
public opinion play a role in formation of new forest management
policy, scientists will keep finding new ways to address these
concerns, and public officials and decision-makers should not be
afraid to heed science and govern.
And now, in 1993, the stars seem to be realigning for yet
another major change in forest management policy. During the
next few hours, I hope to gather information to help Congress and
the Administration to move ahead, with the involvement of all
affected parties, to direct land management agencies on forest
health and ecosystem management. I look forward to the testimony.
13
Mr. Rose. Our first panel is composed of Dr. Richard Everett,
the science team leader, Forestry Sciences Lab, State of Washing-
ton. He is accompanied by Dr. Mark Jensen. If you all will please
come up to the table now.
Dr. Mark Jensen is a regional soil scientist, U.S. Forest Service,
region I; Dr. Wendel Hann is a regional ecologist with the U.S. For-
est Service, region I; Mr. Patrick Bourgeron, is a western regional
ecologist with the Nature Conservancy in Denver; Dr. Steve Arno,
research forester, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Station; and
Dr. Robert Steele, project leader, U.S. Forest Service, Inter-
mountain Station, in Boise. He is accompanied by Steve Mealey,
the Forest Supervisor from Boise National Forest.
Thank you all for being here and for giving us the benefit of your
wisdom on this subject area. I would point out to you that we are
here to hear what you have to say, but if you choose to summarize
your statement or to hit the high points, all of your statement will
be made a part of the record. We have a rather large hearing group
to go through. Anything you can do to shorten that would be appre-
ciated. But please don't cut out anything that you think is of abso-
lute importance that we hear with our own ears.
Dr. Everett, we appreciate you being here. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. EVERETT, SCIENCE TEAM LEAD-
ER, EASTSIDE FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ASSESSMENT,
WENATCHEE FORESTRY SCIENCES LABORATORY, FOREST
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOM-
PANIED BY MARK E. JENSEN, REGIONAL SOIL SCIENTIST,
REGION I; WENDEL J. HANN, REGIONAL ECOLOGIST, REGION
I; AND PATRICK S. BOURGERON, WESTERN REGIONAL
ECOLOGIST, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Everett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. You have our full testimony, so I will simply sum-
marize the next 5 minutes.
First, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss forest health is-
sues in the forests of Idaho and Washington. Also, we welcome the
opportunity to discuss the onset of sustainable ecosystem manage-
ment presented in H.R. 229, the National Forest Health Act.
With me today, from the Forest Service, I have Dr. Mark Jensen,
regional soil scientist; Dr. Wendel Hann, regional ecologist from
Region I; and Dr. Patrick Bourgeron, western regional ecologist,
the Nature Conservancy.
The information on forest health in Idaho has been presented to
this subcommittee by numerous experts, and more expert testi-
mony will follow today. Declining forest health is widespread in the
interior forests of the Pacific Northwest. The recently completed
forest health ecosystem assessment as requested by Speaker Foley
and Senator Hatfield reports on similar problems in eastern Or-
egon and Washington.
Forest health problems are not restricted to disease or insect
damaged trees, but cover a broad spectrum of issues that include,
but are not limited to, erosion, livestock grazing, excess forest fuels,
fisheries, water quality, air quality, wildlife habitat, and sensitive
plant and animal species.
14
Although we do not discount the seriousness of the current forest
health situation, we suggest it is simply the symptom. Managing
for sustainable forest ecosystems is the long-term issue that must
be addressed. Ecosystems are dynamic. Forests in the interior
Northwest are subject to an array of natural disturbances, such as
fire, disease, insects, drought, flood, and severe windstorms.
I wish to emphasize the next sentence specifically. The conserva-
tion of disturbance effects is as important as the conservation of
unique habitats and species in designing sustainable ecosystems.
Human expectations and values are an integral part of sustainable
ecosystems.
Sustainable ecosystems are defined as the overlap of the biologi-
cal capacity of the system with the values and expectations of the
public, and the technology and economic capability to achieve that
desired state.
The findings of the site assessment suggest that past manage-
ment practices and accompanied forest response have adversely im-
pacted the sustainabiHty of forest ecosystems. They all treat the
disturbance processes and landscape characteristics. Fire suppres-
sion has significantly altered the fire regimes in those forests that
historically burn frequently but with low intensity.
Timber harvest practices have significantly altered species com-
position, forest structure, and increased forest fragmentation. All
eastside forests are not threatened by insects or disease, nor are
they all at immediate risk for catastrophic fire.
Declining forest health varies across the landscape in extent and
intensity. Large-scale insect outbreaks and disease epidemics are
evident in many watersheds, but they are also absent in others.
Disturbance regimes, fire, insect, and disease have been signifi-
cantly altered by effective fire suppression on sites prone to fre-
quent, low, and moderate to severe fires. Ecosystem management
is suggested as a means to improve forest health. We describe that
in volume 2.
Ecosystem management is an experiment. With uncertainties of
ecosystems characteristics and function, and also public values and
expectations, an adaptive management approach is required that
recognizes these uncertainties and requires that the current bio-
logical and social knowledge base be stated, that is, sustainable
ecosystem management strategy be developed and then continually
tested and adjusted as new information becomes available.
A myriad of disturbance processes create and maintain
ecosystems in a constant state of shifting vegetation patterns
across the landscape. These patterns have historically provided the
habitat that supports species and processes that people value in
forest ecosystems. The use of natural or historical ranges of varia-
bility in ecosystems attributes provides a reference point, but only
a reference point for evaluating sustainabiHty of current forest
ecosystems.
Disturbance effects that create and maintain ecosystems also
provide insight into the potential resource flows that can be derived
from forests in the process of maintaining desired ecosystems.
There are opportunities to improve forest health and sustain-
abiHty of ecosystems through management activities: The use of
silviculture practices when appropriate to remove excess small di-
15
ameter timber, and also to reduce fuel loading and restore historic
stand structure; the reintroduction of fire and other ecological proc-
esses into forest ecosystems in a manner that reduces hazard for
catastrophic fires, insect and disease outbreak, and conserving the
long-term site productivity and biodiversity of the forests.
In summary, several desirable management concepts are found
in H.R. 229, the National Forest Health Act, including forest man-
agement for ecosystems as well as commodities to conserve future
biological options and meet future public values and expectations;
the use of historical conditions as management reference points;
the retention of deadwood as legacies for future forests; and com-
bining multiple-management practices into a coordinated effort to
improve forest health and sustainability of ecosystems.
Improved forest health depends upon the development of sustain-
able ecosystems and the designing of landscapes for positive cumu-
lative effects from each management activity. Forest health
projects should represent the immediate step in long-term planning
to provide for sustainable ecosystems. The planning process will re-
quire inventory and analysis of information on current historical
potential landscape conditions at several hierarchical landscape
scales.
We support accelerated investment in ecosystem management
and the short-term forest health projects that support the long-
term objective. Comprehensive inventory and analysis is required
to evaluate where the two activities are in unison.
That concludes our statement. We welcome any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Everett appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. Thank you very much, Dr. Everett.
I take it that your accompanying party is available for questions,
mainly.
Mr. Everett. They certainly are.
Mr. Rose. Do any of you have your own statements?
[No response.]
Mr. Rose. We will now turn to Dr. Steve Arno, Research For-
ester, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research.
I believe you have a combined statement with Dr. Steele?
Mr. Arno. That is correct.
Mr. Rose. Dr. Steele is the Project Leader, U.S. Forest Service.
You will read together or separately?
Mr. Arno. We would like to split it.
Mr. Rose. All right. Go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN F. ARNO, RESEARCH FORESTER,
INTERMOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION, FOREST SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MISSOULA, MT; ROB-
ERT STEELE, PROJECT LEADER, INTERMOUNTAIN RE-
SEARCH STATION, FOREST SERVICE, BOISE, ID; ACCOM-
PANIED BY STEVE MEALEY, FOREST SUPERVISOR, BOISE
NATIONAL FOREST
Mr. Arno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the sub-
committee, for this opportunity. I would like to read the back-
16
ground information for this statement, and Dr. Steele will proceed
with the recommendations.
As far as an overview, what I am going to state in fairly simple
words, I hope, is repetition in the sense of something that is now
widely recognized, but hasn't been in the past, and we still have
to cope with it, and that is that in Idaho, as in much of the West-
ern United States, east of the Cascade Mountains, we have a vast
area of national forest whose ecology is closely related to the
changes in the role of fire.
It is a semiarid region, and prior to 1900, fires burned unchecked
every year through summer and early autumn for months at a
time, covering millions of acres, over a landscape that was not
tilled, was not irrigated, it was not developed, and therefore fire
was able to spread over vast areas.
The Lusan Tar expedition found when they came through the
area in the early 1800's that there were 10 large wildfires they re-
ported on at the time of their passage.
The Intermountain Research Station scientists and other sci-
entists have studied the historic frequency of these fires by dating
annual growth rings associated with fire wounds on ancient trees
as well as charcoal layers deposited in ponds.
I have an exhibit here which I would like to pass to the commit-
tee which is a cross-section of a ponderosa pine. It shows a typical
sequence of fire wounds on this tree.
Between 1559 and the early 1900's, there were 21 different fires
that scarred that tree, and there were several other fires that
didn't scar the tree but scarred nearby trees. Evidently the fuels
were so light that even though this tree was already scarred, not
every fire was recorded on it.
This is the kind of thing we find in every Western State that has
these inland semiarid forest types. This record of frequent fire goes
back at least a couple of thousand years. The fire wounds that were
recorded in these kinds of forests are at intervals of 5 to 30 years.
This high frequency of burning maintained low levels of fuel, and
fires then burned mainly along the ground rather than in tree
crowns.
This kind of fire generally killed only small trees and the fire
susceptible species. So it perpetuated open park-like stands of fire-
resistant trees, ponderosa pines, for instance. These species and
those kinds of open stands are very resistant to insect and disease
problems.
At higher elevations, where there is poor moisture, fire was also
playing a role, but it was more of a crazy quilt pattern. Fires oc-
curred at longer intervals, between 40 and 150 in 200 years, and
left a mosaic on the landscape of fire-killed trees, as well as
nonlethal underburned areas in between.
The fire-adaptive species were favored by this crazy quilt pattern
of fire.
Since the early 1900's, fire suppression has become effective at
controlling the low and moderate intensity fires. It isn't effective in
controlling severe fires. Because we can control the low and mod-
erate intensity fires, this has led to the development of dense
stands of trees which are now highly vulnerable to disease and in-
sect epidemics.
17
Ironically, they now have fuel buildup which makes them suscep-
tible to severe wildfires. I have here a photo comparison of a site
which is viewed in the early 1900's and the 1920's and 50 years
later, and you can see the thickening of forest fuels in a formerly
open stand by the 1920's. There were already Christmas-tree-Hke
conifers approaching, but by the 1900's, we have a very dense
stand, much more than the fuel and much more living tree volume
than the site can sustain.
Then I have another photograph of the 1980's and 1990's condi-
tion of many of these forests. The dense understory trees are hit
by a variety of insect and disease problems, and they are dying,
and wildfire is now ever more of a threat, because we have a wall
of fuel in an ideal arrangement for burning under very severe con-
ditions.
The Forest Service is now taking a broader view. As we are try-
ing to initiate management of the forest's ecosystems, some activity
by insects and disease is a normal part of the ecological process;
but when the insect and disease activity levels exceed the normal
range of variation for a particular ecosystem, then a forest health
problem exists.
The historic range of fire intervals has now been greatly ex-
ceeded in the drier forests where ponderosa pine once dominated.
This ecosystem makes up a major portion of the Boise National
Forest and is extensive in Idaho and neighboring States.
The Boise National Forest has recently experienced record levels
of several tree-killing insects such as Douglas-fir beetle, western
pine beetle, fir engraver beetle, and Douglas-fir tussock moth.
I would like to point out. Dr. Steele will carry on the presen-
tation, but there has been one publication by the Forest Service
that deals with forest health in the Blue Mountains, "A Manage-
ment Strategy for Fire-Adapted Ecosystems," that gives technical
advice for this kind of situation, and in an ecosystem management
fashion or viewpoint.
I would just like to pass that on to the subcommittee.
[The publication is held in the committee files.]
Mr. Steele. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to talk about the forest health prob-
lem in Idaho as it relates throughout the West. I am going to sim-
ply conclude this testimony with some statements about how we
can fix this problem.
Mr. Rose. I don't want to interrupt to ask questions, but what
you might talk about as we go along here is what policies did we
follow that made that happen in the first place. Just kind of so we
have that in — fixing the problem I want to know about, but I also
want to know how it happened in the first place.
Go ahead.
Mr. Steele. Mr. Chairman, in terms of how it happened in the
first place. Dr. Amo's testimony talked about the role of fire and
how the natural processes worked.
Mr. Rose. When was the decision made to change, and why?
We can put you under oath, if you want to, if you don't want to
testify without — I am being facetious, of course. Go ahead.
Mr. Steele. There really was no decision. It was just an accumu-
lation of activities over time that has resulted in the problems we
18
have. They largely stem from the accumulated effects of fire control
which has interrupted the natural processes, as Dr. Arno has de-
scribed, and some of the logging practices that took place in the
early days, by removing the early species and leaving climax and
other disease susceptible species.
Mr. Rose. So in this picture right here, you would have said that
these beautiful trees were then cut down?
Mr. Steele. Yes, sir. That was the case.
Mr. Rose. That was kind of the start of it?
Mr. Steele. That plus the control of these frequent low intensity
fires that were coming through on a 10 to 30-year cycle, and not
only reducing the amount of fuels thereby preventing large destruc-
tive fires, but also keeping the stand in an open condition, such as
the photograph here, as far as maintaining stands in this kind of
condition, which keeps them in a situation so that with the low fuel
loadings, fires are not able to bum destructively very often in these
conditions.
We also have evidence of recent studies that show these open
grown trees, there are fewer of them on the site, each one has more
space, sunlight, nutrients, and moisture. They are able to resist in-
sect attacks more readily.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rose. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mr. Peterson. Why did people start stopping this burning? Be-
cause the population started to — houses started to be built? Why
were they putting out these fires? What happened there that
changed?
Mr. Rose. Let me ask it another way. Was there clearcutting?
Mr. Steele. In the early days, there was not clearcutting. The
clearcutting came a little later.
To answer Mr. Peterson's question, the fires were, I think, per-
ceived as bad.
Mr. Peterson. By whom?
Mr. Steele. By the people who were settling the country.
Mr. Peterson. What time would this have been?
Mr. Steele. This would have been starting in the late 1800's and
then on into the early 1900's, then we began organized fire control,
and from that time on, fire control activities began to become effec-
tive by controlling these low to moderate intensity fires.
Mr. Peterson. And they perceived them as bad because they
threatened
Mr. Steele. Threatened homes and timber.
Mr. Peterson. But now you are saying they are not bad?
Mr. Steele. We are saying they still threaten homes. We do
need to control fire. What we are saying is that the interruption —
the consequences of the interruption of the fire cycle has resulted
in dense stands that are now more resistant to — more susceptible
to insects and disease and devastating wildfire, whereas in that
photograph, that stand condition was much less susceptible.
Mr. Peterson. But at the time
Mr. Steele. They didn't understand that.
Mr. Peterson. They didn't understand that?
Mr. Steele. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. So we have developed this situation.
19
Mr. Steele. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rose. Do you want to add a quick answer?
Mr. Arno. Yes. I have studied quite a bit of the history of this
fire problem that we have gotten into, and I think more than any-
thing it was concepts of European forestry that were brought to
this country by Gifford Pinchot and others in the late 1800's, that
fit fairly well for human forests, human environment forests, but
they didn't work well in the semiarid interior West, which had this
frequent fire situation.
There was also a lot of indiscriminate burning going on, and
there was no fire control technology. Today we have a technology
for using fire in a prescribed fashion and doing what we want to
with fire. That kind of technology did not exist in the early days.
I think there are a whole variety of reasons that fire was viewed
as an alien factor. People in Europe were not used to fire in their
forests. That is where forestry was born and has evolved over a
long time period.
However, over the last few decades, there has been virtually, I
believe, a very strong consensus that we see that, as you have
heard many speakers here today already say, that fire is necessary
in these western forests, but that it has to be a prescribed fire in
the sense that we have to be able to control that fire.
Mr. Steele. I have one more comment, Mr. Chairman.
There are other ways to treat this sick ecosystem besides just
using fire. We can compensate the ecosystem by thinning the
stands either commercially or precommercially so as to create a
stand composition and stand density similar to that last photo we
just showed, to get back to what nature has shown us to be a more
healthy, more resistant model for these particular dry forests.
Mr. Chairman, I think my time is about up. My full testimony
is on the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arno and Mr. Steele appears at
the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. Thank you.
Mr. LaRocco.
Mr. LaRocco. Can I follow up on what Dr. Steele was just say-
ing?
With silvicultural practices to thin, at what time would you enter
a stand that has one species as a result of prior fire or prior logging
activities? At what point are you talking about this thinning oper-
ation?
Mr. Steele. Congressman, I think the key here in terms of de-
ciding when to enter the stand would be determined by the stand
condition. We are using the term "normal range of variability" now-
adays as a model for — or a guideline for deciding when a stand
needs some management help. If the stand condition has proceeded
successionally beyond that which was maintained normally by the
recurring fires, in other words, it has become more dense and has
a stronger component of the late serai climax species, which are
more susceptible to insects and disease, then we would say it is
time to do something with that stand, to turn it back to the last
photo, similar to the last photo, so it is within its normal range of
variability again, and remains healthy.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman
20
Mr. Rose. We are really through with the panel, and now it is
time for questions, so the field is open.
Mr. Peterson, the field is yours.
Mr. Peterson. If I could, I don't claim to understand a whole lot
about this, but as I understand what is happening now, because we
don't have as much fire or whatever, we have dead trees and we
have other kinds of less desirable trees that are in these stands,
and evidently they are not — how do you go about getting those
dead trees and getting those other trees out of there?
Is it economically viable to do that? Do people want to do that?
Do you have to force them to do it? What is the process? If you
can't burn it, is there some way you can do this, or does the current
policy stop you from doing this?
Mr. Steele. I would defer that question to Mr. Mealey here.
Mr. Mealey. Congressman, I understand your question to be the
process for salvaging trees.
Mr. Peterson. Well, that, and also maybe cleaning them out be-
fore they are dead.
As I understand it, there are some problems getting that accom-
plished. I just want to better understand what the situation is,
whether people want to do this or whether you have to entice them
to do it.
Mr. Mealey. Let me give a couple of examples. I have been on
this forest about 2 years, and we have salvaged about 300 million
board feet of dead and dying trees. Those probably died without
killing very many with powersaws, I might add. Most of those trees
have been harvested with the use of helicopters.
The point here is that the values of the trees are such that they
can be harvested, even dead and dying trees can be harvested eco-
nomically without growth.
The point here is that access is minimized, access difficulties are
minimized both environmentally and from a construction stand-
point because of increased values and because of the strong de-
mand for these resources. That has been our experience in the last
couple of years. I would have to say that it is principally a result
of market value of the product.
So our principal method, 80 percent of that volume, has been ex-
tracted by helicopter systems, so access hasn't been a significant
problem.
As far as green trees are concerned, using thinning methods to
do precommercial thinning and commercial thinning, we are not
into that mode as strongly as I would like to be, frankly. Much of
our precommercial thinning will be done in plantations that were
made in the last decade or so, so access is not a difficulty.
As far as commercial thinning is concerned, again, we have op-
portunities to thin using technology, aerial technology, helicopters,
and again, this is a function of market price.
We didn't discover thinning in 1993. On this forest, 10 to 15
years ago, there was an effort to thin the forest. The base rates
then were $6 to $8 per thousand. It simply couldn't be done eco-
nomically. Today the same products can be sold for $300 to $400
per thousand. Frankly, folks are eager to buy any sales that we
offer. And again, the technologies that are available make that very
feasible.
21
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up, if it is
feasible and if the market is there, is it happening? Are you going
to be able to go in and thin this out, clean out the dead and dying
timber and fix this problem?
Mr. Mealey. We have a very strong intent to do that, Congress-
man. I want to say I have in front of me a little brochure that out-
lines the Boise forest health strategy. There are three pieces to
that strategy. The first is to salvage dead and dying trees, and be-
cause of the magnitude of the problem, that is what we have been
doing the last couple years.
Mr. Peterson. How much of the forest, 10 percent or
Mr. Mealey. I will say in the last 5 years probably 500,000 trees
have been killed by bark beetle, perhaps 250,000 acres have been
defoliated by tussock moth, and perhaps more dramatically, in the
last 5 years some 56,000 acres per year are burning in wildfires.
Now, the previous average, the previous 30-year average was
3,000 acres per year. So something has gone haywire here, you can
tell, dramatically and radically. What we have been doing here in
the last couple of years is dealing with salvage, dealing with dead
and dying trees. It is a function of workforce and how much you
can put on the market and salvage quickly.
This last year, the Boise Forest will have salvaged approximately
180 million board feet. Much of that is off the Foothills fire salvage,
some 300 million board feet were killed by fire. We have sold about
130 million board feet to this point at a value of some $45 million.
In terms of getting that thing done, that means I start — it isn't like
a green sale program where you have a pipeline.
The more important thing is dealing with the green stands that
are still alive. We do that through commercial and precommercial
thinning. Because of our efforts at salvage, we haven't moved into
that. We wanted to go there next, aggressively.
Mr. Peterson. Do you have an estimate, how much of the prob-
lem you have solved?
Mr. Mealey. From the standpoint of the salvage, how much of
the dead trees have we actually salvaged? I would say as far as the
high-quality commercial value that we could do in an environ-
mentally sensitive way that meets the standards of law and the
public's tolerance and our professional responsibility, I would say
probably 85 percent.
I think we have gotten a big dose of it. But yesterday, I want
to say, we made a flight with the staff that is all here, a great trip
yesterday. We flew from Lowman in the helicopter due south back
to prairie. I was shocked at the amount of new dead trees I saw.
So it looks like we are in for another round as we go look at it.
Mr. Rose. Thank you.
Let me get to a broader question than just salvaging. I am sure
that is something you have worked on a lot, but I want to know,
is there a forest health emergency? What do we do about it, and
how do we assure people that by using the term "forest health
emergency," we are not trying to just return to old forest practices
with a new name on top of it, which I think we will talk about after
you all take your seats.
Do you like Congressman LaRocco's approach to it?
22
Mr. Jensen. The bill is fine. It is in how we assess emergency
status and health. To do that we have to fiilly embrace the sci-
entific concepts that underlie ecosystem management. These are
summarized in the volumes which Rich Everett has provided to the
group here.
There were 120 scientists fi-om across the country which worked
on this particular project. I think the scientific basis is there to do
it.
What is missing fi-om our discussion right now is scale. I am very
concerned about the scale here. What is a disturbance, what is a
health problem at one scale is not a health problem at another
scale. In fact, it may be necessary. So it is critical that we look at
these systems, our problems today. If we look at water quality in
the inner mountain, great basin areas, it is because we have tradi-
tionally done all our treatments looking at timber stands.
We have never backed up to understand the concepts of those
treatments, logical watershed boundaries to define the ecosystem.
Now we have problems with sedimentation. We never would
have detected that if we continued to look at the stands. The same
thing applies with forest health. Within a watershed you may have
disease problems. At that scale, you would say you have a health
emergency. But if you look at a broader regional river basin con-
text, a certain percentage of that landscape did have insect and dis-
ease, creating a young habitat that was critical for certain species.
There is no discussion of scale in this bill, and there are major
implications as to how we make this statement of emergency. I am
very concerned that if that is done strictly at a district level of the
Forest Service, we are going to have the same problems we have
had in the past. We are not providing the proper context to make
that assessment.
Mr. Rose. Can it be made in a bigger context?
Mr. Jensen. It certainly can. That is why we need to start orga-
nizing.
As Dr. Everett emphasized, there is a process that has not been
discussed that is critical to making sure we are in fact improving
ecosystems. The current language, and we all agree with the prin-
ciples, historic availability ranges give us an initial template to as-
sess sustainability. But how do you know that?
You can justify a lot of bad practices by taking one or two points,
like taking those particular photos and looking at one snapshot,
one point 56 years ago, current, and say, based on this, we need
to do treatments. It is much bigger than that. You have to look at
some different scales, regional scale, down to forest level-type
scales, down to district scale, tiered analysis, feeding down to iden-
tify where the problems are on a statewide basis.
Mr. Rose. That is a very helpful comment. I would also observe
that when you put the word "emergency" in a bill, to people with
concerns that you and environmental people have, the word "emer-
gency" is sort of a signal that says we are going to suspend the nor-
mal administrative safeguards that are usually in place in forest
rules and regulations, and that causes some problems.
Would you care to speak to that, or anybody here, would you care
to talk about that suspension of normal administrative
23
Mr. Mealey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a quick shot at
your first question, and then an answer — take a shot at answering
that one. You ask, is there an emergency? That is clearly, as you
find out, a subject of debate.
Mr. Rose. I think the greater emergency, I feel, is get Mr.
LaRocco's bill passed, you understand. Whether it keeps — I don't
want the safeguard system wrecked. He doesn't either. But by call-
ing it an emergency, I think we can get it through the House a lot
quicker, and I think we want you to tell us how you feel about, if
there is an emergency, where is it. Go ahead.
Mr. Mealey. It is my opinion that the Boise National Forest and
I will limit my comment to that forest area which I have some re-
sponsibility and knowledge for, has conditions that are occurring
which haven't occurred before, and that is we have gone from a fire
regime which was high frequency, low intensity, to a frequency
that is high frequency, high intensity.
In regard to the Foothills fire last year, we can talk for hours
about the effects of it, but as I said before, the dramatic effects are
that 30 years average in wildfire acreage was 3,000 per year from
1955 to 1985. Something is wrong. Is that an emergency? I think
it is. We have had in the last 5 years half a million trees killed
by bark beetles.
In the same period, we have had a quarter million acres defoli-
ated by tussock moth. This tells me that we have something we
have to deal with. I don't frankly need a whole bunch more data
to tell me that. I think there is an emergency.
Mr. Rose. Do you like our bill's approach to deal with it?
Mr. Mealey. I think it does that in a thoughtful way. I don't
want to say I don't want to collect data in a thoughtful way. That
is an important thing to do, and I am a trained scientist and be-
lieve that. But there are some things happening out there on the
ground that haven't happened before, think.
Second, how are we going to respond to that? Is it going to be
business as usual? Is this a Trojan horse, just to do the same old
practices we have done in the past? That is what I wanted to re-
spond to. Right now in the Boise National Forest we have two draft
environmental impact statements. That is not accurate.
We have one environmental assessment completed on the logging
gulch timber sale, which is a green sale near an inventory area,
and the other one is Spruce Creek, which we are about to finish
up the environmental impact statement.
These are different habitat types. One is Douglas-fir, the other
is grand fir. They are very different ecosystems, but our culture
isn't business as usual. We are going in on acres, on up to 3,000
acres, and we are practicing a low intensity silviculture. We are
going to take Douglas-fir and grand fir and select for more resilient
species of ponderosa pine.
We are going to enhance habitat for bull trout. We are doing that
in silvicultural ways we have never done before. I am also pleased
to say we got through the appeal period with no appeals from our
folks in Idaho. A lot of folks who weren't wild about that program
are in the room.
24
We did have two appeals, both from Montana. So we can work
together and figure out how to solve these things silviculturally,
and we have already demonstrated that.
It is not business as usual. It is a very different approach to
management of stands. No clearcuts, except in a few cases.
Mr. Rose. Dr. Everett, did you have a comment?
Mr. Everett. Just if we approach this as an emergency situa-
tion, our response should be an opportunity to invest in the sus-
tainability of future forests. It is an opportunity, and we ought to
recognize that. We should build for long-term forests.
Mr. Rose. Do other members have questions?
Mr. LaRocco. Dr. Jensen, you had mentioned dealing with the
scale issue. You are the scientist, and we are the lawmakers, but
do you feel that this bill or any legislation can address the scale
issue, and then make it reasonable to the land managers on the
ground if we move ahead in this regard? Do you think we can ad-
dress that scale?
Mr. Jensen. Yes, and we are currently doing that on a number
of national forests. What Rich is talking about, it is critical. In our
previous planning we had static notions of landscapes. We assumed
when we scheduled allowable sale quantity, we said, here is a vol-
ume, and we scheduled out over the next 50 years.
Well, landscapes change. Ecosystem.s are not perfectly predict-
able. We have had fire, insect, disease. It has been difficult to meet
some of those projections. Another key factor is that ecosystems op-
erate at different scales. To understand your activities at one scale
you have to look up one scale. So for a district doing timber sales,
working with forest health, you at least need to work with, at a
minimum, how do those activities contribute to the health of a wa-
tershed.
Then for other issues, say, for grizzly bear, northern Rocky
Mountains, we need to look at the effects of our activities if we are
going to start doing forest health. What that means is viability of
species that use larger regional scales. That is being recognized in
the Forest Service. The Forest Service is looking at developing that
currently.
I met last week with our Washington office, new ways, proto-
types for forest plans to recognize different levels of planning and
analysis. I think that is critical if we are going to come up with
a strategy for assessing health. I am very concerned if it is done
at a small scale and we run around to do a lot of projects under
forest health, we are going to miss the picture at larger scales, and
species that operate at larger scales.
So we need to have a coordinated effort here to tier analysis
down, and we are currently staffed to do that. I think the scientific
community, the management community, and the products indus-
try are ready to work together to make that happen. My colleagues
here probably have more comments.
Mr. Hann. I would like to summarize three points in response
to the groups of questions I have heard here. I think one is that
I would like to emphasize, I don't think the scientific community
blames the fire suppression organization for the situation. We had
to control fires to protect people and their property. But what we
didn't do in the scientific community and management is we did
25
not plan how to manage the biomass that would accumulate as a
result of fire suppression.
So that was just a lack of knowledge at that time. I think a sec-
ond point in response to some of the questions is that if we look
at salvage, salvage of dead material itself does not necessarily im-
prove the health of the system. It is the management of the live
vital mass that creates the stress that is important. So if we want
to be proactive, we probably need to put higher emphasis on man-
agement of the live material that is under stress.
And third is just this emphasis of what Dr. Everett and Dr. Jen-
sen have said. I think this bill is similar to NEPA in scale, and it
is very excellently written at the stand of site level. However, we
have no solid direction, when we look at the very broad volume, re-
gional-type level, when we look at some of these bills that direct
our management. And I think we will bring in that need to connect
these regional biome scales to that site-specific scale.
Mr. Rose. So you would say that this bill could be an important
part of the overall answer, but you are concerned about areas of
a broader area that it doesn't cover; but what it does cover you
think it covers well?
Mr. Hann. I think this bill, in emphasizing a sustainable eco-
system, is on the cutting edge of science today, and it could be a
landmark bill if it would bring in this connection of the regional
biome-type scale to the progressive selection of projects for im-
provement of forest ecosystem health.
Mr. Rose. Thank you.
I want to ask Mr. Patrick Bourgeron from the Nature Conser-
vancy, you represent the Nature Conservancy and you are part of
the science team that developed these reports.
Mr. Bourgeron. Yes.
Mr. Rose. Have you had a chance to look at Congressman
LaRocco's bill?
Mr. Bourgeron. Yes, I did.
Mr. Rose. What is your opinion?
Mr. Bourgeron. I have the same comments as Dr. Jensen and
Dr. Hann, which is it is a very good bill at the local and landscape
level. You address very well the issue of managing stands and then
small landscapes. There is no connection with higher levels of eco-
logical organization. That is possibly a result of the way we have
been looking and the way — Dr. Arno said rightly that the forestry
is coming from Europe.
It is the idea of managing systems that had been impacted for
up to 2,000 years, and have been fragmented for a long time, and
that are still complex but work on a much smaller scale.
When you look at some of the descriptions this morning, you
have to go back to the notion of ecosystem management. Ecosystem
management, at least the way we look at it, is the management of
systems to satisfy social values with economy constraints and eco-
logical constraints we have. The functioning of ecosystems goes all
the way from the square inch all the way to the globe.
That is very practical. That is what is happening in the North-
west, that is what is happening in southern California and inter-
nationally, that is the problem. So if you can make the link to high-
er ecosystem functioning, and link that with higher levels of plan-
26
ning, regional, national as well, then you will be in very good
shape.
Mr. Rose. So we have the potato from Europe, and that worked
pretty good out here, but the forest systems maybe need to have
Mr. LaRocco's bill imposed on it so that
Mr. BOURGERON. As Dr. Jensen said, that is something we have
to deal with. It is what we call adaptive management, which is an-
other issue. The whole issue of fire suppression is an issue of con-
trol. It is the issue that things come and go over large areas, and
as Dr. Jensen said, if you try to get the same output over more
than 20 to 30 years from the same site, you may be in trouble.
We are not adaptive to that in terms of economics, because peo-
ple don't want to travel more to log trees, and I would not like that
either, and we are not adaptive to that in terms of responding in
terms of economic values.
Mr. Rose. Thank you.
Any other comments or questions?
Mr. LaRocco. I would just say this issue that was brought up
I believe by Dr. Jensen on live material under stress is a very im-
portant issue, because right now this bill is being characterized by
some people as just a salvage sale bill, which is nowhere even close
to where I think this bill is written presently and where we want
to go with it, because I think you brought up a very important
issue there, this whole scale issue, and these comments are critical
to this subcommittee and to me in terms of fine tuning it.
Dr. Jensen.
Mr. Jensen. Just one last comment on one of the key factors
when we are looking at systems and we are assessing health, and
that is what we are proposing to do. I focused in on how are we
going to consistently make assessments of health, and that is a
major scientific question right now, what is a healthy system.
I think we need to be fairly consistent as we move forward. We
will adapt as we understand systems. But currently there are three
things if you are going to look at a piece of ground and say if it
is good or bad that you need.
One is an understanding of the environmental constraints. What
is the relationship of that vegetation to the soils, the geology, the
climate, what species can be there given those constraints.
The second are biotic processes. Those need to be considered.
Species migration, evolution, extinction. These are all related to
different scales and different time events. Those have major impli-
cations to different levels of planning. We look at different features
at different levels of planning. They all tier together.
The third, which is really critical, which you talk about in your
bill, are the processes, to maintain the processes that the species
evolved with, fire being one process. So we need all three to know
what is happening on the site. And I think it is absolutely critical
that we integrate that knowledge.
If we take just one component and look at frequency of fire inde-
pendent of species migration and the other things that happen to
explain what you see on the ground, we are going to miss the pic-
ture. So we fully support your discussions in here of historic ranges
of variability. We think it is critical.
27
The major factors, we have interrupted the processes that main-
tain diversity in landscapes, fire being one example. Flooding is an-
other one. Sedimentation is another one.
So you are on the right track. I think there is a little more that
could be added to this. You bring it fully into ecosystem manage-
ment. And we support the bill, we like what we see here. We would
like to see more dialog with other people related to this.
Mr. Rose. Thank you.
Mr. Amo, briefly.
Mr. Arno. One final comment. I think there is a danger in study-
ing these problems to death. We have an example here of some-
thing that Supervisor Mealey has been planning, and this is man-
agement of the live trees in these stands, with silvicultural cutting.
I would like to pass this up there. Thinning and use of prescribed
underburning. This was first recommended in a detailed article in
1943 by Harold Weaver.
He had to have a disclaimer. He was a Government forester, and
for 20 years he had to run a disclaimer under his articles that said,
we need to apply prescribed fire and silviculture to get into more
of an ecosystem management approach. He didn't use those words,
but his detailed descriptions of managing these semiarid forests
were just what we are talking about today.
That started in 1943. He was on the bandwagon ever since. He
picked up a few advocates as time went on. We are doing this work
on an experimental basis here and there. Several of us are in-
volved. But I think there is great danger in trying to get all of the
scientific information and .feel comfortable before we will do any-
thing. There is a great deal we know needs to be done, and the
science is there.
Mr. Rose. Thank you all very much. It has been very helpful to
us, both for this piece of legislation and for greater education about
the work that you do in the Northwest.
Thank you, gentlemen.
I want to call Mr. Herb Malany from Boise Cascade to come up
and take a seat. I am taking him out of order because he has a
tight schedule. I would like to ask the following to come up: Mr.
Jerry Conley, Idaho Fish and Game; Mr. Tuttle, NMFS, Seattle;
Dr. Chad Oliver, college of forest resources, University of Washing-
ton; and Dr. Leon Neuenschwander.
Herb is with Boise Cascade and has a tight schedule. We will
hear from you and ask some questions.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT S. MALANY, CHIEF FORESTER,
BOISE CASCADE CORP.
Mr. Malany. That would be fine, or I can wait until the end of
the panel.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. LaRocco, and Mr. Peterson. I am Herb
Malany, chief forester of Boise Cascade's timberlands in Idaho. I
have worked in this area for a lot of years. I have had the oppor-
tunity to make a lot of management mistakes and also do a lot of
things that turned out right.
We basically have been practicing what I understand to be — and
everybody has their own definition of ecosystem management in
this area for the last 20 years at least. Our lands have never been
28
under what you call business as usual. We have spent a lot of time
learning how to manage our forests under an uneven age selective
harvest system.
We didn't realize at the time we were doing it, but we have fairly
much emulated what the forest was in this area prior to the fire
suppression that started at the turn of the century. We are return-
ing their stands back to that level. It will probably take us 60 years
at three entries before we get our forests back in that healthy con-
dition.
The management regimes we follow basically remove 20 to 30
percent of the standing trees at each entry. We feel that we will
have to reenter these stands on a 20- to 30-year reentry cycle, de-
pending on the quality of the stands.
In the last 3 or 4 years, we have been working with our contrac-
tors to be sure that we protect the amenity values for the public,
and we believe they are very important, water quality, riparian
zones, and we have developed some very unique ways of logging.
Historically, because of gravity, everything has gone down to the
creeks, and just basically decimated, in early days, the draws.
Later on we moved over 5 feet and still put an awful lot of sedi-
ment in the streams.
Today we take all the logs up the hill and away from the
streams. In steep ground we don't get within 150 feet to 200 feet
of the draws. So when you talk to me about protecting riparian
areas, I don't understand the problem anymore. We have solved the
problem. We don't operate very heavy equipment close to streams
or we put a light hand on the forestland when we are close to
streams.
We have learned how to protect habitat for the birds. Overstory
trees or snags are left. When we get all done with this, on a lot
of tours I find the public accepts and likes the way we operate on
our lands.
Our stands have been managed on a selective harvest basis for
the last 30 years. Today it is very easy to see what we have.
Yesterday I was given the opportunity to spend the day with
staff and Supervisor Mealey. You have to see what I saw yesterday
to understand the magnitude of the problem.
As a land manager who is trying to do what I think is respon-
sible, it really makes you sick to see what we saw.
We have some serious problems in this forest. I had the oppor-
tunity to attend a forest health conference several months ago that
was put on as part of the forest health initiative. In listening to
the scientists there, I missed the first part of the first panel, but
I learned at that conference, we have studied these problems to a
great degree, and the scientists told us what we need to do to man-
age this forest in the proper way for today's standards anjrway.
I think one of the things, in closing, is that I do know, and I
want to underscore, and I do preach, that I think Mr. LaRocco is
on the right track with his bill, but I do want to say I feel there
is a very urgent need to do something, whatever it is, to regain for-
est health. I agree with the remarks at the end of the last session,
we have also got to look at the green trees and their stocking lev-
els.
29
At the turn of the century we had 20 to 30 trees per acre. We
now have stands exceeding 800 trees per acre. The numbers are
just over the capacity of the land to sustain the forest.
I think you have my comments there. With that, I will quit.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Malany appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. Thank you. Your whole testimony will be made a part
of the record.
But you do hke the bill H.R. 229, and we appreciate you coming.
Congressman LaRocco.
Mr. LaRocco. Mr. Malany, I understand you have to scoot out
of here to get some sort of an award. Exactly what is that? Are you
getting a little recognition for what you do?
Mr. Malany. Yes. Our company gives out an annual award for
environmental practices to some entity in the company. We have,
I believe, something like 20-some-odd thousand employees. There
are 16 of us in our department, so pretty small entities can apply,
and we won this award this year. The president of our company is
going to give us this award this afternoon.
I do have time — I would be glad to answer questions. Our process
is unique.
Mr. Rose. I have an International Paper Company, I also have
Weyerhaeuser, Georgia Pacific, Federal paper plants, and a lot of
other things in my district in eastern North Carolina. They tell me
that forest practices vary widely between timber companies who
manage their own timber on their own property. But you don't own
your own stands of timber out here, do you?
Mr. Malany. Boise Cascade owns about 200,000 acres of
timberlands in southwest Idaho. They are intermingled or adjacent
with the Forest Service lands.
Mr. Rose. Do you have the patchwork problem out here, Mr.
Malany?
Mr. Malany. We are kind of forcing that in this particular area.
The lands I believe were gathered in under the Timber and Stone
Act, and the predecessor company, which by the way was a
Weyerhaeuser holding company at one time, gathered in the
forestlands that are close to the valley floors. So our lands are real-
ly quite contiguous. They are in blocks, but they are not all patch-
work.
Mr. Rose. Any other comments or questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Rose. Well, thank you very much. You are welcome to stay
as long as you can before you have to catch a "plane. You may catch
some more questions by doing that.
But we are going to have our third panel, starting with Mr. Cal
Groen.
You are here representing the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game? All of your statements will be a part of the record. Make
what comments you want to make, it is up to you, including read-
ing the whole thing if you want to.
Gk) ahead.
76-302 0-94-2
30
STATEMENT OF CAL GROEN, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES
POLICY BUREAU, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Mr. Groen. Thank you, Congressmen Rose, Peterson, and
LaRocco, for conducting this field hearing and allowing the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game to assess forest health and H.R.
229.
I am Cal Groen, chief of the natural resources policy bureau for
the department, representing director Jerry Conley.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is required by State
law to ensure that the State's resources are "preserved, perpet-
uated, and managed."
Although the department does not have regulatory authority over
many habitat activities, we do serve a significant role in reviewing
and commenting on actions that may affect fish and wildlife re-
sources in the State. The department reviews, evaluates, and re-
sponds to 600 to 900 proposals annually that could impact fish or
wildlife.
The opportunity to review this bill is greatly appreciated and is
significant in that 70 percent of Idaho is in public ownership.
The recent 7-year drought in Idaho has exerted tremendous
stress on all biological systems. These systems include trees, fish,
wildlife, water quality, which are all dependent on the maintenance
of critical levels of soil moisture and streamflow. It appears that
the prolonged drought is now over. We must be cautious and not
base our entire forest health management strategy on a dramatic
event such as the Foothills fire and the drought.
The drought, although it seemed to have lasted a long time in
human perspectives, was merely a blip in time from the standpoint
of ecosystems. If we can learn from it, we are making progress.
Looking back in our rearview mirror, it is generally agreed that
past management practices on national forests have contributed to
our forest health emergency. Fire suppression and high grading of
commercially valuable timber species have tended to accelerate
succession toward climax. Climax forests are more susceptible to
fire, insects, and disease. No one considered some of the con-
sequences of this management direction.
To once again think we have a simple answer for a complex eco-
system and move full scale into salvage and thinning may be re-
peating some of our past mistakes. Forest succession often spans
several generations of man which makes it difficult for people to
visualize forest dynamics. Ecosystem management and forest res-
toration is a new field we must cautiously move into.
We must remember that a sincere desire to implement good for-
est management brought us to our present forest health concerns.
We cannot achieve our desired future conditions overnight. We
must move slowly and humbly into the future of our public lands.
Congressman LaRocco's legislation lays out a process and safe-
guards this cautious approach, we believe. This legislation recog-
nizes multiresource values, such as retaining snags, and encour-
ages a wide range of future uses, and authorizes coordinated forest
health improvement projects that carry out both product and non-
product-related management actions.
In the past, too many projects were based solely upon commodity
considerations. Making sale volumes and revenues secondary and
31
justifying the harvest of live trees are necessary steps to a healthy
forest ecosystem.
Important aspects of this legislation are basing the declaration of
forest health emergency upon sound science, compliance with envi-
ronmental laws, and expanded public comment opportunity. Pre-
serving the appeal and judicial processes and providing two new
opportunities for public comments are necessary and especially re-
freshing in view of recent attempts to curtail and exclude public
comments from salvage or timber sales.
Stronger language for coordination and consultation with other
management entities such as Idaho Fish and Game is encouraged,
especially when looking at questions on wildlife and water quality
issues.
Past efforts to include multiresource efforts have failed due to
the lack of funding and monitoring. Funding support is welcome
from salvage sales and K-V funds for both product and nonproduct
treatments. Appropriate consideration to these values is long over-
due. Necessary monitoring is necessary to see if the prescribed
treatments are working as intended.
I recommend that control areas that receive no treatments be set
aside for comparison to treated areas. Excluded roadless areas may
serve as partial controls for long-term monitoring.
In summary, careful and thorough work must be done to define
what healthy forest ecosystems are. And management strategies
must be designed to produce sustained, diverse, healthy forest
ecosystems that seek the full range of ecological variability and
biodiversity.
Forest health must become more than merchantable tree health
and include fish, wildlife, water quality considerations. A healthy
forest will have many different appearances or succession stages.
A recent report from the Society of American Foresters states more
emphasis must be given to protecting wildlife and diversity in for-
ests across broad landscapes. A question of scale, again.
It recommends an ecosystem approach that would base logging
on protection of wildlife, water quality, and overall ecologic health.
H.R. 229 has the legislative elements to accomplish overall eco-
logical health if properly implemented.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groen appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. Thank you, sir, very much.
Mr. Tuttle.
STATEMENT OF MERRITT E. TUTTLE, DIVISION CHIEF, ENVI-
RONMENTAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION, NORTH-
WEST REGION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NA-
TIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Tuttle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressmen Peter-
son and LaRocco, for the opportunity to address the important
issue of the health of Idaho forests and their shared role in assur-
ing healthy runs of salmon.
32
I am Merritt Tuttle, Chief of the Environmental and Technical
Services Division, Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Portland, Oregon.
Various Federal statutes give the National Marine Fisheries
Service the role of providing leadership and expertise for the pro-
tection, conservation, and recovery of anadromous fish throughout
the full extent of their range.
I am here today to provide an assessment of the overall health
of national forests as salmon habitat in Idaho, and the applicability
of management strategies authorized in H.R. 229, the National
Forest Health Act, to the national forests in Idaho.
The Department of Commerce is reviewing H.R. 229 and has not
taken a position at this time on the bill. H.R. 229 calls for an expe-
dited review of forest health, improvement programs under other
applicable environmental laws, and from scientific input from other
agencies. The National Marine Fisheries Service is currently work-
ing closely with other Federal agencies to ensure that section 7
consultations under the Endangered Species Act are conducted in
a comprehensive and timely manner.
Should H.R. 229 be enacted, the National Marine Fisheries Serv-
ice would work with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Man-
agement to ensure that any forest health improvement program is
consistent with the Endangered Species Act.
Although you have requested that I comment on the forests of
Idaho, my office is concerned with the health of forests as anad-
romous fish habitat in Washington and Oregon as well.
The definition of forest health can vary, depending on your inter-
est and expectations. To people interested in harvesting trees, the
definition may involve sustained yield of timber. To other interests,
the definition of a healthy forest involves a variety of watershed
functions and forest outputs such as timber products, aesthetics,
wildlife, and fish.
To us, the definition of a healthy forest includes all of these func-
tions, especially those for fish. Forest streams are where the salm-
on's life history or life cycle begins, first with the spawning, then
with the incubation of eggs, the emergence of fry, and the rearing
of smolts; thus the forest serves as a nursery for juvenile salmon.
The general health of the forest ecosystem determines the number
of smolts, or seaward migrants, that the watershed is capable of
producing.
National Marine Fisheries Service's approach to the conservation
of Snake River salmon, listed under the Endangered Species Act,
is based on an ecosystem management approach.
Therefore, I will focus my comments on characteristics of water-
sheds. These are critical building blocks of the salmon's ecosystem.
Idaho once had an abundance of salmon, and many of its resi-
dents, including the Indian tribes, used these fish for subsistence,
trade, and income. Now, however, Idaho's wild salmon are listed as
threatened and endangered species. The Endangered Species Act,
obligates all Federal agencies, including in the case of forests those
responsible for Federal land management, to use their authorities
to conserve endangered and threatened species of wildlife so that
they can be recovered to the point of no longer requiring the protec-
tion of the Endangered Species Act.
33
In addition to working toward the recovery of these species, Fed-
eral agencies are required to ensure that, at a minimum, their ac-
tions are not hkely to jeopardize the continued existence of the hst-
ed species. The National Marine Fisheries Service's role in this
strategy is to provide professional advice to those action agencies
as to how they can best meet their endangered species obligations.
A team of scientists appointed by the National Marine Fisheries
Service is currently developing a plan designed to lead to the recov-
ery of the listed Snake River salmon species. National Marine Fish-
eries Service will consider their advice in adopting a recovery plan
that will provide guidance to the Federal action agencies, including
the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, to meet their
obligation and work toward the recovery of listed species.
In the meantime, however, to evaluate the impacts of listed
salmon in Idaho, the Northwest region of National Marine Fish-
eries Service is currently providing professional advice to the For-
est Service and BLM and other action agencies through what are
commonly called section 7 consultations. These are under the En-
dangered Species Act.
These consultations cover four major sectors that led to the salm-
on's decline.
These four sectors, referred to as the four H's, are hydropower,
harvest, habitat, and hatcheries. These four sectors are an integral
part of the Pacific Northwest. Unhealthy watersheds are a part of
the habitat sector.
Depressed stocks of salmon are not unique to the rivers of Idaho.
During the past few months, various petitioners have requested
that National Marine Fisheries Service list several other stocks of
salmon in coastal Oregon and Washington for Endangered Species
Act protection and recovery.
Although unaffected by hydropower development, these salmon
populations are also in decline. In coastal watersheds of Oregon
and Washington, intensive road construction and timber extraction
in these watersheds are linked to reduced salmon production. Re-
cent reports stemming from President Clinton's Forest Conference
recommend sizable changes in the way forests are currently man-
aged.
Land management agencies now recognize this need to change
forest management. Scientific evidence supports a new approach
which places emphasis on ecosystem-based management.
For example, human impacted river systems have lost 50 to 75
percent of the large pools during the last 50 years. Large pools are
critically important to salmon since they function as resting and
hiding areas for adult fish prior to spawning, are preferred rearing
areas for juveniles, and serve as refuges during periods of drought
and winter icing.
While the quality of spawning and rearing habitat has dimin-
ished in managed lands, anadromous fish population have re-
mained constant or have improved in wilderness areas. The water-
sheds in these areas continue to sustain productive habitats for
salmon despite impacts from natural forces. We must learn to man-
age in a manner which mimics those watersheds that have re-
mained productive despite fires, droughts, and other natural forces.
34
Managing the ecosystem at the watershed level will improve
salmon runs and expedite the Endangered Species Act consulta-
tions. Watersheds must be protected if we are to sustain Idaho's
salmon. We are urging a sound ecosystem-based approach to forest
management, utilizing science and state-of-the-art restoration tech-
niques. This can help recover threatened and endangered salmon
and help prevent additional species from being listed.
This approach can reduce the complexity of consultations for en-
dangered species such as salmon and expedite ESA consultations
on all forest activities.
Thank you for asking me to appear before you. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tuttle appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. Thank you very much.
Next is Dr. Chad Oliver from the University of Washington's Col-
lege of Forest Resources.
STATEMENfT OF CHADWICK D. OLIVER, PROFESSOR,
SILVICULTURE AND FOREST ECOLOGY, COLLEGE OF FOR-
EST RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Oliver. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I have given
you a long statement, and I will extract from that.
I agree with much that has been said before, many parts of it.
I would like to put some of it in perspective. I have studied the for-
ests in the Rocky Mountain region. Pacific Northwest, most other
places in the country and other parts of the world, and find very
similar patterns here as to elsewhere.
What I would like to first do is talk about a perspective on the
policies of managing lands. Then I would like to get into a little bit
of discussion of ecosystem management in detail. Then I can make
some specific comments on the bill.
Our policy of managing forestlands can be looked at with three
different approaches. Originally we had the commodity-based ap-
proach, and then two other approaches, the natural reserves ap-
proach and the landscape management approach, which I, and I
think many people here, interpret as the ecosystems approach.
Now, these are very different in their practices, their philoso-
phies, their costs, and their outcomes.
The commodity-based approach is what we had historically, and
this was partly based on such ideas as the impending timber short-
age which was expected in this country, and which historically has
occurred at past times in this country.
Therefore, the emphasis was to provide those commodities that
looked like they would be in short supply. Consequently, foresters
would enter each stand and both extract wood and manage it in a
way that would produce the maximum timber in the future. Let me
give you an example.
Do each of you have a copy of my statement? If you look at the
next-to-the-last page, figure 2 back there, going back a little bit
into ecological concepts, if you look at A, the changes in stand
structures, this is just an example of some of the changes in force
structures.
35
After a disturbance, you have it growing from an open condition
to a closed condition to then one that gets more open later on.
What we know now — and I will touch on this a little later — we
know that some species require each of these structures to live in,
and if we begin to have any of them in short supply, we begin to
lose species.
With commodity management, the objective was maximum tim-
ber production, which meant you didn't try to preserve all the
structures, you just preserved those that were most efficient.
Now, if you had highly productive lands, then you would often
do something like clearcutting, because that would then allow you
to grow a very productive new forest. In areas that were marginal
for being economically efficient at managing, you would either do
selection cutting or what often became "high grading" instead, re-
moving just the best trees and leaving the others.
Also, if you couldn't economically justify thinning the stand, you
let it grow overly dense.
Many places around here have these overly dense stands, be-
cause that was most efficient for commodity production. The mul-
tiple use started moving away from this; however, there was still
some concerns with funding.
Now, the shortcomings of this management approach, of course,
is that it doesn't maintain all the structures across the landscape,
and therefore would get into trouble when we shifted the values to
want to maintain all of these different structures and species; we
aren't necessarily getting them. Those areas that contained struc-
tures that basically had a lot of insects or fires, and that we
couldn't economically afford to do much harvest in — ended up hav-
ing the forest health problems we have now.
Now, the second approach: When people started becoming more
concerned about all of the structures, all the processes, they began
looking at it from two perspectives. Ecologically, we originally had
not appreciated the significance of large fires, and mainly thought
our forests existed in a relatively stable condition.
As we began to understand that disturbances did occur, our first
concept was that the disturbances were somewhat benign; and we
thought if we just set-aside areas and preserved them, we would
have a stable condition. This was based partly on philosophical per-
spectives that humans shouldn't try to interfere in these natural
processes, that left to themselves they exist in a stead state that
is basically a balance of nature and that the commodities that were
provided from these will be provided elsewhere.
What we are finding is that natural disturbances are actually
much larger than we had anticipated. They occur periodically and
infrequently, so we don't have the historical records of them. How-
ever, what we found from the Yellowstone fire was that that size
area wasn't enough to maintain a strong balance of structures, if
we are going to go to the reserve system.
So the other thing that is happening is we are finding eco-
logically that nature doesn't exist in this, balance of nature.
Figure 1 at the back of your paper shows an article written after
an Ecological Society of America meeting, in which one of the ecolo-
gists is quoted as saying: 'The balance-of-nature concept makes
nice poetry, but it is not such great science."
36
Mr. Rose. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, I think this balance of nature on relatively
small scales doesn't occur — it is poetry, but not good science.
What happened, though, is that we no longer have the large ex-
panses of forest. We intervene them with cities, rural communities,
farms, et cetera. This does two things: Natural disturbances that
take over a large area will wipe out some of these. We also have
made it where the species can't really migrate the way they did be-
fore, and we have smaller areas of forests.
Now, if we are going to put together the reserve policy, we will
find we will be going to larger and larger areas, and we may find
that we are better off instead doing an alternative system I will
suggest, and using the excess money to look at preserving other
areas in other places, or maintaining the ecological values.
The reserve system, the costs of this, are often hidden in that
you reduce the primary productivity of the area, you reduce em-
ployment, you get higher wood costs, and you shift to harvesting
of timber in other regions of the country or the world, and also sub-
stitution from steel, brick, aluminum, et cetera.
The other thing is it is not proven, and I frankly think these
large reserves aren't going to maintain the balance perspective. I
think modern science is bearing out that they won't.
The third approach is the landscape management approach,
which is different than the reserve approach in that it says, let's
try to maintain across a landscape area some balance of the dif-
ferent structures that were found there naturally.
Now, exactly what that balance is, we don't know. We know that
it fluctuates, and this is where the adaptive managements would
become important. Also, I would caution us about a couple of
things. Whereas the management — the fire prevention and the
dense stands and the selective cutting — have exacerbated our
present imbalance of structures in this region, I think we will find
that very large natural disturbances happened anyway, so that I
don't think we can blame everything on just pure past manage-
ment. We would have these disturbances anyway.
Rather than look at what the natural range of variation is and
use that as the only criteria to maintain within, we find that the
disturbances fluctuate over quite a large scale, so we can use that
as a first guidepost, but we would probably want to maintain struc-
tures so that we don't get too large of a natural fire or too large
of a single insect outbreak.
Now, this is not business as usual, because it is maintaining
structures that may not be the most economically efficient for com-
modity production. On the other hand, it is removing commodities
in thinnings where you have too dense stands, and by clearcutting,
where you need open areas where you have a lack of those.
Now, what we are looking at then is maintaining these balances
of structures in some balance over our admittedly smaller land-
scape areas. Now, what we would do is use our various silvicultural
operations to mimic these. This gets to be — where we have a short-
age of a certain structure than exists there, we would save that
structure, recognizing that it wouldn't be there permanently be-
cause of natural disturbances. We would increase the amount of it
where it didn't exist through our silvicultural manipulations. We
37
would protect it, and if it blew over or burned up, we would try to
replace it as efficiently as possible.
Right now, we have an imbalance in the Northwest. I like your
definition of forest health in the bill in that it did not say no in-
sects, because we will probably find that insects are very important
for certain birds. It is just that we want to maintain a balance of
them so they don't get out of hand.
An interesting thing is if one is to do ecosystem management in
terms of landscape management, what we would be doing is look-
ing at certain thinning and burning operations which would not be
paid for by the cost of the commodities you extracted alone. How-
ever, the cost of doing it would be reduced by extracting these com-
modities. What we are looking at is a joint production of both prod-
ucts and the ecosystem values. So it would be a cost.
One reason we haven't done it in places in the past is because
we have been accused of having below-cost timber sales. If it is not
economical, if you are looking at it in terms of maintaining an eco-
system balance, you may want to do it.
Now, it is true we don't know what the target balance of struc-
tures would be. On the other hand, we do know that many of our
areas are very much out of balance, and we could be moving to-
ward putting them in balance, shifting them away from their ex-
tremes, right now while we do adaptive management and learn
more of what the balance is.
Now, this is what I defined as the concept of ecosystem manage-
ment using our silviculture to mimic disturbances, to protect from
natural disturbances, and to help recovery from disturbances where
they have created an imbalance. This system can be done. The ac-
tual techniques, it would use the whole variety of techniques from
this various green tree retention, selective cutting, maintaining or
creating snags, controlling fires, having controlled fires,
clearcutting, thinning, pruning, planting — whatever is takes; but it
would have to be on an area by area basis rather than a central
planning, central control approach.
I do have a couple of comments specifically on this bill, if you
have a couple of minutes for me to say that. I think it is a very
positive step toward managing across the landscape to maintain all
the structures. I think it does do a joint — it is a very scientifically
sound, proactive approach that has a joint production of forest pro-
tection, maintenance of diversity, local employment, and production
of ecologically sound forest products.
A couple of things I would suggest is that I realize that there are
certain things that have to be done immediately, and they should
be, but I would encourage moving away from declaring an emer-
gency and going in on some type of a pulse basis and going back
as quickly as possible, making this a more standard process, so
that the management process occurs at all times, through joint pro-
duction of ecosystem values and helping pay for them through the
removal of excess forest products, that you basically keep the for-
ests in this balance on a constant basis rather than on a constant
emergency basis.
The concerns I have about the emergency basis are that it will
cost more to run during an emergency and fix things up than if you
38
had started early and kept the stands in healthy balances to begin
with.
A second thing is, we can tell way ahead of time when we are
going to have a forest health emergency. You asked when do we
know. We know very long ahead of time. We knew what was going
to happen in Yellowstone. We are very much anticipating a similar
problem on the Coconino Plateau, because we know those stands
are overcrowded — not that they are unhealthy now, but if they are
not thinned, they will grow larger, become overcrowded, and be-
come much of a disease and fire problem in the future.
So we can go in way ahead of time and protect against that in-
stead of doing it on an emergency basis. More of a stead manage-
ment concept, keeping these forests out of that emergency basis,
will also help keep a more stable employment labor, rather than
having a quick pulse and then a movement out.
One last point that I don't want to say would happen here, but
historically has happened in most places in the world when a simi-
lar policy has been enacted, so that people are not allowed in the
forest except when an emergency occurs. The emergency practice of
salvaging trees that have been burned and weakened but still alive
to prevent spread of insects is biologically sound. However, you
don't want such policies to give the local people a lack of interest
in preventing wildfires.
Basically, this attitude among the local people has occurred in
many places in the world where they didn't have a stake in pre-
venting the fires. If they only salvage after it's burned, it changes
their perspective on the forest.
A couple of other things. Overcrowding of trees has been a very
common cause of this weakening. The large scale of natural dis-
turbances, you referred to the natural range of variability. Given
that we have our forests in smaller areas now and — in between
them we have settlements and humans and others, we may want
to have slightly less variability than occurred naturally.
I wanted to compliment you on your definition of forest health.
One thing I think is good is the expansion of the K-V money uses.
I am not sure of the exact present condition, but I may want to
have the K-V money used not just on the stand it came from, but
applied to a much broader approach.
I hope these have been helpful.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. All right. Excellent.
Dr. Neuenschwander.
STATEMENT OF LEON F. NEUENSCHWANDER, PROFESSOR
AND ASSOCIATE DEAN, RESEARCH AND INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMS, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY, WILDLIFE, AND MA-
RINE SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
Mr. Neuenschwander. Mr. Chairman, members of the sub-
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing.
My name is Leon Neuenschwander. I represent the University of
Idaho as the associate dean for research and international pro-
grams in the college of forestry, wildlife, and marine sciences.
39
I am a forest and range ecologist, and I will speak from that ex-
pertise.
As you have heard this morning, the condition of many of the for-
ests in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and southern Idaho,
is in decline. The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
the State of Idaho, and private lands are affected by occurrence of
insects and disease. Some people call this a health problem, as if
the symptoms could be treated as medical science treats human pa-
tients.
I don't believe we know enough about forest ecosystems to do
that with the comparable degree of confidence. But we need to de-
velop the knowledge on how to improve forest conditions, because
the long-leaf pine forest-tjrpes such as ponderosa pines will con-
tinue to decline and give way to more and more shade-tolerant tree
species, and will become even more threatened by wildfire, insects,
and disease.
Extensive landscape ecosystem management with silvicultural al-
ternatives and prescribed fire is needed to restore forest conditions
and prevent further forest decline.
Dead and dying trees from insects and disease provide fuel for
wildfires. Catastrophic stand replacement by wildfires are increas-
ing in the northern Rocky Mountains. In some locations, dead and
dying forests have recently been subject to catastrophic fires.
For example, in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, some of these in-
clude Joseph Canyon, Tepee Butte, Dooley Mountain, and there are
more.
A well-known example was the fires in Yellowstone National
Park in 1988, and the Foothills fire near Boise in 1992. In the past,
and I fully expect in the future, the dead and dying forests set the
stage for catastrophic fire by increasing the amount of understory
plants as well as the dead woody material to support these intense
and fast spreading fires.
That will cost more to suppress, limit resource options, and cre-
ate economic loss. I believe the decline in the forest condition is re-
lated to both natural processes and management policies, especially
at the exclusion of fire. Some of the natural processes include forest
succession, moving toward more dense forests with more shade tol-
erant trees.
For example, ponderosa pine is being replaced with Douglas-fir,
white fir, or grand fir. This change in species composition includes
more trees that are more susceptible to insects and disease, espe-
cially under drought conditions. There has also been an increase in
biomass and density of trees, and in some locations, tree numbers
and biomass have exceeded the carrying capacity of the site.
Historically, a combination of wildfire, drought, insects, and dis-
ease have regulated these natural successional processes, and gen-
erally favor serai trees like ponderosa pine. For 6 of the last 7
years, forests in Idaho, eastern Oregon, and Washington have been
subject to drought conditions. Historically, fire has occurred often.
As you heard from Steve Arno, that is every 7 to 25 years in the
ponderosa pine-type in southern Idaho. These fires remove small
trees, but the large trees generally survive. Most of the fires to
date have been suppressed and fire no longer plays a natural role
40
in reducing the stocking levels and favoring the large serai forest
species.
In fact, fires today are often of high intensity and frequently
wipe out large areas of trees. This pattern was historically present,
but seems to be more extensive today. Even so, the total number
of acres being burned is substantially less than what it was before
the turn of the century when we began to fight forest fires.
The fires are killing many of the large ponderosa pine that sur-
vived the surface fires of the past. Old-growth ponderosa pine is
more at risk of being killed by fire today than ever before.
This is occurring at a time in which the natural regulators of in-
sects and disease, such as forest birds, parasitic insects, and even
other critters, may be in decline.
Forest management research is needed so we can understand
what some have called forest health issues, and to understand
them as an ecosystem process. Insects, disease, and fire are a part
of these natural processes. However, these factors are out of bal-
ance and appear to be changing the forest ecosystem at this time.
I think Dr. Oliver explained what out of balance was; not all of
the structural stages are present.
If global climate change occurs as some have predicted, this will
create a more serious problem for forest management activities in
the health of the forest in this region. I feel that an urgent need
is to focus on sustaining productive forests and work to prevent low
growth and high mortality rates that are now occurring in the
northern Rocky Mountains.
We can do this only by addressing the condition of the forests'
ecosystem as a whole, and in addition to treating the symptoms of
forest decline. Dead and dying trees on the national forests, BLM
lands. State lands, private lands, represent an economic loss to
Idaho.
Salvage of dead and dying trees should be considered and exe-
cuted in such a way as to guarantee the future productivity and
maintenance of the forest ecosystem. Some scientists have studied
the forest ecosystem conditions — well, scientist versus studied the
forest ecosystem conditions for decades.
Even with this extensive knowledge base, we do not have conclu-
sive answers. There are many different opinions and views, all sup-
ported in part by research. However, the bulk of the research has
not addressed issues dealing with forest health as an ecosystem
process.
I hope we do not have to treat forest conditions in a state of de-
cline as emergencies, or wait for forest health emergencies to occur
before we manage forest ecosystems for sustainable productivity.
Forest health is a condition of the forest, and is not only scientif-
ically complex, but highly emotional. We at the University of Idaho
can assure you we will do our part to help address these needs.
Please consider that you need the long-term science based solu-
tions to forest ecosystem productivity in addition to the short-term
treatment of the visible symptoms of forest health problems.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neuenschwander appears at the
conclusion of the hearing.]
41
Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. That completes all the panel's
statements.
Are there questions? Congressman LaRocco.
Mr. LaRocco. Dr. Neuenschwander, what forest management ac-
tivities do you believe are needed to increase forest health and re-
turn the number of acres of dead and dying trees? Do you have
anything in mind that would be guidance for us here?
Mr. Neuenschwander. It has been said by others before me, and
I completely agree, the most important thing is reduce the stocking
level, and do that with a set of thinning treatments, some kind of —
and followed in most cases, if we are looking at the ponderosa pine,
dead fir zone, followed by the use of prescribed fire. Reducing the
stocking levels is the most important thing.
Mr. LaRocco. We have heard a lot about density, I guess that
is what you are addressing, right?
Mr. Neuenschwander. Right.
Mr. LaRocco. Dr. Oliver, thank you very much for your com-
ments. I look forward to reading your testimony in its entirety. You
have done a lot of work, and I appreciate that.
To Cal Groen, two populations of bull trout and one population
of butterflies, I guess, were lost in the Foothills fire. Do you see
that other similar losses are at risk with the forest system that
strongly appears to be outside its range of variability?
Mr. Groen. Yes, we are going to have other species at risk. I
want to reiterate the point that I see different appearances, many
different structures, so that we have to have that type of diversity
on the lands. Some are saying if we selective cut, that is good for
elk. That is too simplistic. We need lots of different appearances.
For example, north facing slopes would have a differance in ap-
pearance. One glove is not going to fit all in this. We need the
biodiversity and the many different structures.
We are losing some of our natural regulators, like Neotropic
birds. Studies show they do a good job on insects, a lot better job
than we do. So we have to consider all those needs.
Mr. LaRocco. As Dr. Neuenschwander said, if the decline of for-
ests in this region are happening, if there is a decline, then you
would agree that that places more species at risk through cata-
strophic wildfires based on the amount of fuel that is available, the
density of the stands, and other factors? What you are concerned
about are the species out there?
Mr. Groen. And water quality. And Foothills was a big situation.
Yet when I testified, I think we had to keep our eyes on this broad
landscape approach, much broader approach than individual tim-
ber sales.
Mr. LaRocco. Mr. Tuttle, it is good to see the National Marine
Fisheries Service in Idaho. I have just finished a tour of my district
and some people think you are a stealth agency. It is good to see
you in person, in the flesh here.
Do the sections of the bill that deal with NEPA and other things
meet your needs for consultations? Is there anything that should
be added that takes in this new situation where you are looking
over the shoulder of every land manager just about in the State of
Idaho now, because of the listing?
42
Mr. TUTTLE. I think the sections in the bill do a fairly good job
with that. Our concern is looking at the broader picture, rather
than getting into a case by case, timber sale here, timber sale there
approach. We need to look at a watershed and make sure that
when we worked over the watershed with the Forest Service or
BLM, that there will be improved salmon production in that water-
shed.
So if we can go by the broader approach, we are better off.
Mr. LaRocco. I know you are not here to make a commitment
on all of this, but if we moved ahead on forest health activities in
those areas, and your position is to increase the habitat for salmon,
are you confident that the two are compatible, that we can move
ahead with forest health activities in those areas? Whatever they
may be, and I am not talking about just salvage here, because this
bill is broader than that, but is it your new role that you are going
to be shaking your head no and saying these forest health activities
can't move on?
Mr. TuTTLE. I think there are ways we can accomplish the goals
of saving the salmon as well as forest health. We have seen the
helicopter logging. We have seen the use of straw bales to stop sil-
tation on slopes. In some cases, roads are being put to bed, roads
that were scars on the landscape that were bleeding silt into the
streams, and that silt has a choking effect on salmon eggs and the
productivity of aquatic life.
So there are ways to address those kinds of problems. I don't see
it as a matter of saying no to forest health activities. I see it as
a matter of working together, solving the problems, and moving on.
Mr. LaRocco. Once again, you feel the language in the bill prop-
erly allows for your role as the language now stands?
Mr. TuTTLE. As I saw it, it did. I am not making a comment,
though, for the Department of Commerce. I made that fairly clear
in my opening statement.
Mr. LaRocco. But as you read it?
Mr. TUTTLE. Yes.
Mr. LaRocco. Because we are looking for ways to fine-tune this.
We are trying to realize obstructions, deal with them, and move on.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this panel has been very helpful.
Mr. Malany, I certainly appreciate your testimony, the work you
have done. I have done a lot of work with Dave Van DeGraaff, I
have seen his work on the ground, I have seen the way the Boise
Cascade managers operate. I appreciate your being here. Congratu-
lations on your award.
Mr. Malany. Thank you.
Mr. Rose. Thank you all very much.
What is the condition of the salmon now, say, down in the mouth
of the Columbia River? I have four coastal counties in my district
in North Carolina. I subscribe to a magazine called National Fish-
erman. In the current article, current issue there is a big article
about salmon, those people who trawl for salmon. I think you have
done something to pretty well shut that down; is that right?
Mr. TuTTLE. We have cut back substantially on the fisheries.
Mr. Rose. On the trollers?
Mr. TUTTLE. On the trollers as well as the gill netters in the Co-
lumbia system, and some of the Native American harvest as well.
43
The reason for that is because we found that each of those four sec-
tors that I mentioned earher, harvest, hydropower, habitat, and
hatcheries, needed to make improvements in order to bring these
salmon back or stop their decline.
That is why we have substantially cut back on the harvest of
fish.
Mr. Rose. Thank you all very much. We appreciate your pres-
ence. We got some good information from all of you.
Our last panel consists of Mr. Neil Sampson, executive vice presi-
dent, American Forests; Mr. Lou Foruria, president, WCIW No.
2816 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica; Mr. Craig G^hrke, regional director, the Wilderness Society;
and Dr. Art Partridge, professor of plant pathology, college of for-
estry, University of Idaho.
Mr. Gehrke, why don't you lead off here. We will make your
whole statement a part of the record. We would like you to summa-
rize, or whatever you would like to do.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG GEHRKE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, IDAHO
OFFICE, WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Gehrke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Craig Gehrke. The Wilderness Society is based in
Washington, DC.
Mr. Rose. What is in Seattle?
Mr. Gehrke. We have a regional office in Seattle. All the West-
ern States have regional offices that address the single State they
are located in.
Mr. Rose. I have some friends that work in Seattle. I don't know
whether you are aware of them or not.
Go ahead.
Mr. Gehrke. I appreciate the opportunity to come and testify for
you. The forest health issue has dominated national forest manage-
ment discussions for the past several years. People are very con-
cerned about the long-term health of the forests and all the re-
sources there, not just the trees, but also the water quality, the
wildlife, plant communities.
It has also been a very emotional issue. Over the last couple of
years we have been hearing that leaving trees in the forest — leav-
ing dead trees in the forest is a waste and that bad, very large fires
go through the watersheds and subsequently destroy the fisheries.
But I think a lot of folks have evolved to the point where they
know that nothing is really wasted in an ecosystem.
If a tree dies out there, it falls over and rots in the ground, it
replenishes the soil. While it is standing, it provides habitat for dif-
ferent species. I would like to point out that in the Panhandle For-
est in Idaho, they recently surveyed the water quality and found
it is declining out there. The Forest Service tied that to logging and
roadbuilding.
In fact they found that the watersheds up in the St. Joe River
were some of the best water quality they have. Those are the same
ones that burned in the 1910 fire, which is the largest fire this re-
gion has ever seen.
The direction we need to go with forest health is to where a lot
of the people testified today have mentioned, and that is called eco-
44
system health. It is true that the forest ecosystems in Idaho are
under stress. There is no question about that. It is not just related
directly to insects and disease, though. It is also linked to some of
the activities that man has done to the forest.
The most important thing we can do is make sure the Forest
Service avoids past mistakes in assuming we now know exactly
what to do to fix forest health and go about to effect a single cure.
Ecosystems are very complex and varied. The strategies to mimic
these processes will be no less complex and no less varied.
Unfortunately, the Wilderness Society doesn't support H.R. 229,
the National Forest Health Act. We think the idea of declaring for-
est health emergencies and forest health programs is a step back-
ward from ecosystem management, and it is likely to create a siege
mentality within the Forest Service that they have to get out and
do something.
Mr. Rose. I reacted to that before you talked about the emer-
gency nature of things. But you basically do support ecosystems
management as the approach that should be taken.
Mr. Gehrke. That is correct.
Mr. Rose. But you say you worry about calling them an emer-
gency. Isn't that mainly because of your concern about procedural
matters?
Mr. Gehrke. Correct.
Mr. Rose. Go ahead.
Mr. Gehrke. We are afraid by having emergencies declared, by
having a setup that, like I said, presents a siege mentality, there
would be the temptation to cut corners in forest management, and
that is the last thing we want to do at this point. We think there
needs to be a careful, thoughtful approach to national forest man-
agement, one that involves as many agencies as possible.
We are very concerned about the provision that, as I read it,
would suggest that section 102 subsection 2 of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act wouldn't apply to the declaration of the emer-
gency or the forest health program. This section is a very impor-
tant part of the environmental analysis, in that it requires alter-
native actions to be developed, short-term or long-term effects to be
identified, irretrievable commitments be identified, and also consult
other agencies, bring them into the process early.
I think you want to do that with forest health management, in-
cluding the urgency of declarations. I think H.R. 229 suggests that
part of NEPA not apply to the program subsequently developed.
It is also confusing to me in the legislation whether or not the
administrative appeal process would apply to the emergency dec-
laration or the forest health program. I think it is quite clear that
if a forest plan amendment is required, that it would be an appeal
possibility. However, a forest plan amendment is not acquired to
implement an emergency, there would not be an appeal process.
The forest plans are broad documents. You talked about the
Boise Forest plan. They have been salvaging almost 100 percent of
their timber harvest under salvage. That was not seen in the forest
plan, yet they have been able to do that. They have seen no need
for an amendment.
So like I said, forest plans are very broad, very programmatic. I
think by saying you don't have an appeal opportunity unless you
45
have made your forest plan, that is effectively saying there is not
going to be an appeal possible.
Mr. Rose. The whole business of salvage is a pretty hot issue
with your group.
Mr. Gehrke. It is very hot. We have worked with the Forest
Service on a lot of salvage sales. Some of them we have been very
pleased with how the Forest Service goes about them. We are not
against salvage. We are against salvage all across the forest on a
broad landscape. We would not go in and salvage in all places.
Mr. Rose. What is your understanding of what is being done
with the salvage material?
Mr. Gehrke. Salvage is just the extraction of commercial value
of dead trees, as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Rose. What use do you see that being used for?
Mr. Gehrke. Lumber products, whatever.
Mr. Rose. Chips?
Mr. Gehrke. After the logs leave the forest, I don't trace them
anymore. They are basically down the road, as far as I am con-
cerned.
Mr. Rose. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Gehrke. There was a recent Forest Service publication they
put out about the strategy for forest health. In that document they
stressed the need for adequate NEPA analysis. I would just like to
read that briefly to you. It says, "Forest pest suppression activities
require supporting environmental analysis. Conducting a NEPA
analysis on a planned basis avoids the higher costs incurred when
these analyses are done on an emergency basis and would allow for
rapid responses against low-level but increasing populations of a
threatening pest. Preparation of program-level or broad-scale
NEPA documents also facilitates early communications with the
public."
I think if you are going to deal with ecosystem health you don't
want to leave out any steps of NEPA. You want to go through it
by the book. I mentioned earlier, and I will just conclude to say,
I do agree that Idaho's national forests are under stress right now.
A lot of them are unraveling. Part of it is from insects and disease,
but a large part is from our past forest practices. Idaho's national
forests already have a road system six times the size of the State
highway system.
Each year these roads put sediment into our streams and frag-
ment wildlife habitat. Fish and game now questions the long-term
viability of cutthroat trout in Little North Fork. Statewide, fish and
game estimates that 11 percent of blue ribbon cutthroat trout is
left. We have lots of problems on our forests. Those are emer-
gencies in my mind also. But I don't think we need — what I think
is needed is ecosystem management.
The opportunity is here for the Forest Service to really get into
it and not just talk about it more. I am afraid that H.R. 229 would
diffuse that. People will focus attention on, quote, emergencies. I
am afraid the whole attitude of the bill, whether or not it is inten-
tional or not, is going to foster short-term programs without look-
ing at the long term, and that is not going to solve these problems.
What I think does need to happen is that the Forest Service
through the appropriations process does need additional funding to
46
develop fire management plans to put fire back in the ecosystem.
They need to look at landscape level planning, not emergencies, not
forest health programs. They need to step back and look like they
are looking at the entire Payette drainage, what is happening fur-
ther down as it drains into the larger rivers.
I think the Forest Service may be inching toward that on their
own. It is slow. I think they need direction probably through the
appropriations process to speed up ecosystem management, to de-
fine it, to get going on it. But nevertheless, I believe that H.R. 229
would diffuse that. I don't think this legislation is needed. I think
that what they need is a long-term solution that the scientists in
the Forest Service are prepared to try to implement.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gehrke appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. Mr. Sampson, executive vice president, American For-
ests, Washington, DC.
STATEMENT OF NEIL SAMPSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN FORESTS
Mr. Sampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Neil Sampson, executive vice president of American Forests,
we are a citizen conservation organization. It is great to get back
to Idaho. I left an office in this building 20 years ago. That was
as a fourth-generation Idahoan whose great grandparents got here
in 1850. So it is good to be back. It is not good to see some of the
things we see, but it is good to be back.
There are a couple of comments that I would like to make. My
statement is before you, and I ask that it be inserted in the record.
Let me focus on a few things that perhaps add a little breadth. We
talked this morning about the change in fire histories. Mr. Peter-
son asked about what caused this. I would like to only put in the
record three things that weren't mentioned.
Our predecessors virtually eliminated the effect of Native Ameri-
cans on this land. Native Americans used fire in their management
considerably, and it made a considerable change. Settlers brought
in millions of sheep and cattle and grazed out all the fine fuels that
would feed the ground fires. They plowed up the valleys, which had
historically carried the fires from one mountain to another.
We changed this landscape a great deal. We have changed the
forests a lot, not always with forestry. So we have a situation that
is very different. Three years ago I was asked by the Secretaries
of Agriculture and Interior to chair a national commission on wild-
fire disasters that stemmed from legislation written in the House
Agriculture Committee, and was given the charge to take a look at
this.
The original question asked was, do we have a fire suppression
and control problem? Our studies, which took us all over the coun-
try, but mainly in the west, discovered that that really wasn't the
problem. What we had was a land problem. We had major regions
where forest and grassland systems were going far out of range, as
you heard this morning. It is not just Idaho. It runs from here to
Mexico. There are major systems where conditions are out, way out
of their standard range.
47
It was not just drought that caused the current problem. I want
to hasten to say that. We have heard about the drought triggering
forest dieback, and it certainly did. But the drought in the 1930's
and the 1960's didn't trigger those same effects. We are at a decade
unlike those we have ever known. We are 100 to 120 years after
the initial impact of settlement, which saw farming move into these
areas. These forest stands have had that long to get into the condi-
tion they are in today.
In the 1960's drought, when I was working around this State
doing hydrology and watershed studies, we didn't see this kind of
impact on forests. But you have to understand that the forests
were nowhere near as thick. The canopies were nowhere near as
large. There was not anywhere near as much demand on soil mois-
ture or soil nutrients.
The physics of getting water and nutrients from dry soil to the
top of a 50-foot tree are very different than the physics of getting
water and nutrients in similarly dry soil to the top of a 90-foot tree.
This event has happened in a particular time. It happened in
time and space both, and you have heard about that. The conclu-
sion today, from many people, is that disaster wildfires are almost
certain to come to much of this area at some point in time. The vi-
sion of a Yellowstone event complete with houses, towns, and busi-
nesses is pretty frightening, particularly to those people with
houses backed up against a piece of forest that is so overly laden
with fuels there is not a chance to stop a fire once it gets started.
Those people have great fears, and rightfully so.
So we are looking at what we think is not just a major financial
risk, but I want to also point out there are major environmental
risks. You have heard about fires this morning that are far more
intense than the natural range of events. That has implications for
soils and watersheds as well as trees and other species. When we
see soils with the soil carbon burned out, so far as we can tell, to
12 and 14 inches deep, and watersheds destroyed almost totally for
at least a short time, you can have so much site change in just that
little short time, that you are at great risk of getting back the for-
est you had there before.
When fire takes all that organic matter out of those soils, make
many of those soil layers hydrophobic for several years, so they
don't take water at all, it converts a watershed into a complete run-
off machine. This can change that site so that you just have a very
difficult time reinventing a forest under any circumstances, by na-
ture or by human assistance.
I hasten to remind you that the forests we are looking at, many
of them, including the Boise, are on the edge of a desert. It doesn't
take much change on the Boise before you have sagebrush, not
trees. That is the situation we face.
Of course, the issue is, what do you do now? I love this notion
about long-term studies and things. I am a scientist, and I look at
that too, but when you are a land manager, and have facts in your
face, what do you do now and what do you do next, and where does
that take you in the long term?
The second major thing we discovered is that this situation is
counter intuitive to a lot of the forest issues with which folks are
used to dealing. We use the term forest health not because we are
48
so sure scientifically we know what health is, but because it con-
jures up the notion of treatment. And what these forests need is
not timber sales, not salvage sales. They need treatment, and that
need differs from site to site and place to place.
You have heard plenty about this this morning. We use the
health notion to conjure up the idea that these forests need treat-
ment, they need help. That includes fuel reduction, burning,
changes in grazing, roads fixed or closed, riparian areas restored,
a lot of things besides just the removal of forest products. You have
heard a lot about that.
There are at least some market opportunities that can help pay
for that work, and that is a pretty good opportunity.
Mr. LaRocco took the leadership on this issue a year ago when
we testified. I want to commend him for the leadership he exerted
in getting us all together to talk this whole situation out. Yes, we
use the term "emergency." We weren't trying to create a bunker
mentality. We were trying to change business as usual. Business
as usual clearly wasn't doing it. If there had been a better word,
we would use it. If there is a better word today, I would be willing
to change.
What we are trying to do is hasten the switch to ecosystem man-
agement, build a bridge between business as usual, which wasn't
working, and a set of practices which now science and a lot of pub-
lic opinion tell us are going to be a lot better.
We have to change the culture, the practice, the budgets, the ap-
propriations, and a whole lot of other things that have caused us
to be where they are at. To do that you have to say "whoa" loud
enough to get the folks back in Washington to look hard enough
to see what needs to be changed, and to get the folks in the agency
to agree that something needs to be changed.
I would be happy to change the bill if there is another way to
accomplish the same thing, but it has to happen. We can't just
keep muddling along doing old paradigm forestry under these cir-
cumstances. In spite of the issues that still must be resolved in
H.R. 229, I happen to think it offers one of the best opportunities
available for Congress to help the Forest Service into a new era of
stewardship on public lands, an era consistent with the demands
of an environmentally demanding public and a real opportunity for
these forests to produce jobs and products while being operated in
an environmentally sound manner.
I said before, as a fourth-generation Idahoan, I am personally
gratified that you brought this hearing to Boise to listen to testi-
mony about this situation. What we have going on out here is dif-
ferent than what is happening in a lot of other places. All the for-
ests in the world are not Pacific old-growth forests, despite what
we see in the newspapers. This is a different problem and it needs
different attention.
The forests in this region are crying out for help. The people that
live within them are at significant risk. Our public Treasury is at
significant risk. They talk about 257,000 acres burning here in
1992. We should also talk about $22 million in fire control and re-
habilitation; $900 an acre that was spent on the Foothills. We
could have done preventive work on a fair comer of the forest with
$900 an acre. I wish we had been able to do it.
49
In the testimony last year, we held forth, and were castigated for
holding forth, PoUyannaish visions. I testified we could bring the
forest products industry and the environmental community to-
gether and make mutual cause for the first time in recent memory
on a forest management issue.
To my great satisfaction, with Mr. LaRocco's leadership, we darn
near achieved that goal. We made great strides. Our friends in the
environmental community, including the Wilderness Society and
other organizations, as well as in the forest products industry, were
able to come together. And we worked out a lot of problems. We
are a lot closer to where we want to be right now with H.R. 229,
in my judgment, than we were last year when we started with H.R.
4980.
We would like to urge the Congressmen on this subcommittee to
not give up now. You are on the right track. Events have proven
you right. One of the participants in last year's marathon said, "I
hope we don't have to do that again." My advice to him was, I hope
he keeps his credit card and his airplane tickets handy, because,
Congressmen, I hope we do it.
I hope you take this bill in front of you, refine it in ways we have
heard about today and will hear about more, and begin to move it
as a bridge to a new era in national forest and public land manage-
ment.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rose. Thank you very much.
We are running out of time, and I want Mr. Foruria to go next,
and then Dr. Partridge, but Mr. Gehrke, can you all, can the Wil-
derness Society — how far apart would you say you and Mr. Samp-
son are? Is there any room to work there? Does your organization
just believe that — I mean, the name Wilderness Society does not
imply managed forest practices, you understand. Let's just sort of
get that out.
If you all don't want any forests touched for any purpose, that
is fine. The Forest Trust Organization that I have met with has
more of a managed forest approach.
Mr. Gehrke. We do a lot of work on forest management, so we
have been involved in this. I would still say, of course we can talk
with Mr. Sampson, we talk with Congressman LaRocco. I still in
my heart don't think legislation is needed. I still think that the
goal of this is to get more attention on the ground and to address
ecosystem management. That can be done through the appropria-
tion process. I don't think you need freestanding legislation.
Mr. Rose. We in the authorizing committees don't like to hear
a lot of things being done, you understand, by the appropriators.
We know that has become popular and fashionable in Washington.
Mr. Gehrke. And quicker.
Mr. Rose. Well, sometimes, sometimes. But we — all right. Well,
it is Steve Whitney that I am thinking about.
Mr. Gehrke. He is my counterpart in Seattle.
Mr. Rose. He doesn't like the way I vote. He is my friend, but
he probably wouldn't be any happier than you would be with man-
aged systems.
Mr. Foruria.
50
STATEMENT OF LOU FORURIA, PRESIDENT, WCIW NO. 2816,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA
Mr. FORURIA. Good morning, Chairman Rose, Representatives
LaRocco and Peterson. I am a native Idahoan.
At this time I would Hke to — I am going to make this short. I
don't want to take too much of your time. I want to thank Rep-
resentative LaRocca for letting me come before you and testify.
I have been representing the forest products workers for several
years. I have seen our future threatened by the Federal Govern-
ment, how they are mismanaging the forest and the public lands
in Idaho. We do have a problem on the forests. And I can attest
to that. But I will cut this short.
I strongly support Representative LaRocco's bill, H.R. 229, the
National Forest Health Act.
I feel Representative LaRocco's bill is going to be a balanced ap-
proach to this issue on the forests. I strongly support it.
Idaho residents are also concerned about timber jobs in Idaho,
we are concerned about the wilderness. The forest health salvage
issues, the effects on endangered species, right on down the line.
You have my testimony so I won't read all of it.
I just want to say in closing, I believe like the majority of Idaho-
ans we must find a reasonable balance, a balance that guarantees
the health of our forest and of our subcommittee, enables Idaho
residents to continue to provide a future for their families and com-
munities.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foruria appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. We thank you very much for bringing us this testi-
mony. It will all be printed in its entirety in the record, together
with the letter that you have sent to us from your president, Ran-
dall Ambuehl. Tell him thank you for letting you come. We appre-
ciate what you had to say.
Mr. FORURIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rose. Dr. Partridge, professor of plant pathology, college of
forestry, University of Idaho.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR D. PARTRIDGE, PROFESSOR, PLANT
PATHOLOGY, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
Mr. Partridge. Thank you.
I have given you an outline of my thoughts. I am going to high-
light them rather than spend a great deal of time with you. I want
it stated at the outset that I have severe reservations about the
bill, although I think it has a lot of potential. However, I think the
bill has been generated using Forest Service data and is greatly er-
roneous in terms of its impact statements.
There are indeed disease and insect problems here in the North-
west. They are not imminent. Let me tell you now that most dis-
eases take decades to develop. Most insect populations take dec-
ades to evolve. They don't happen overnight and you don't cure
them overnight. If that is the intent of the bill, it won't work. It
never is going to work.
51
I don't think that is the intent, but that is the apparent intent.
These things take ages to work. I have indicated some of the things
that have happened before in what I have given you. I am not
going to go through those.
Also I want you to notice that a direct attack on an insect or dis-
ease problem in a forest in the United States has never worked.
You can't name me one disease or one insect population that has
been controlled by direct attack, whether it be spraying,
silviculture, or anything else. It has not worked.
We have to go to ecosystem dynamics and we have to recognize
these things as a part of an ecosystem, that fungus is there be-
cause it fits there. It is not put there accidentally. And if it causes
a root disease, it also does other things as well. It provides feed for
other animals and other deposits. It also provides that that tree
goes back into the ecosystem, becoming part of that soil, developing
a soil which is friable and dynamic, that absorbs moisture.
This is not something to destroy. If you destroy that fungus in
the ecosystem, you destroy the ecosystem. So we have to watch
that viewpoint when we talk about health of forests.
I think if you are going to have this sort of a plan, and the Forest
Service is going to oversee it, it is kind of like the fox in the hen-
house. You have to watch it.
I think you want to put some strong provisions in here to watch
it. I represent the environmental community, not the University of
Idaho here. I represent them because I have seen a change in phi-
losophy here that disturbs me.
The salvage bill has been misused greatly since it was intro-
duced. I went to a place just the other day, a root rot center, where
the salvage bill is being used. They were cutting
Mr. LaRocco. Dr. Partridge, excuse me for interrupting, but
there has been no bill passed.
Mr. Partridge. I know that. I shouldn't have said that that way.
Mr. LaRocco. You were not referring to my salvage bill.
Mr. Partridge. I said that wrongly, if I did. But in the name of
salvage, put it that way. The salvage concept, I should say, has
been misused. Excuse me if I misled you.
Mr. LaRocco. When you said "your," you were looking right at
me.
Mr. Partridge. I was thinking about what I testified to about
that bill. I am sorry.
Anyway, the concept has been greatly distorted, and the place I
went to the other day, there was a root rot center that they wanted
to manage, and in order to manage it they are trying to encompass
another area equal in size of green timber. This is why I don't trust
the Forest Service in this bill.
I think if you are going to implement this you need some strong
external control. One of the things I see that is particularly bad is
that you have diagnosticians in the Forest Service who do not know
their business. I say that, and I will stand up and say it to any
one of them. I will take them out in the woods and show them.
You have some excellent people there. But you have a system
now that uses inventories. Do you know what those inventories
consist of? Mostly seasonal personnel who go out with a sheet of
paper and mark the things that happen to be on that sheet of
52
paper. If the problem is not on the piece of paper, it does not get
marked. If the person is incapable of diagnosing it properly, it is
not properly diagnosed.
So what you are looking at, the — in my opening remarks I said
the data base is faulty. The inventory data is not reliable. That
needs to be changed if you are going to make this work.
You need an inventory that truly represents what is happening
on the ground. It has to be a systematic thing. On top of that, you
need to retrain these people so that they truly can diagnose. Most
foresters cannot diagnose forest health problems. That is a very im-
portant point. I don't want to go on and on. I think it is all written
down here. I don't think there is a need to talk about it in great
detail.
Thank you for listening to me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Partridge appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rose. We are glad to have your comments. All of your state-
ments will be made a part of the record.
Are there any questions for the members of the panel?
Mr. LaRocco.
Mr. LaRocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say that, Craig, I am admonished all the time by my
friends in the environmental community to use science. We had
panelists up here who without exception said we were on the right
track in this bill. I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, that you
realize — I don't know what paragraph it is, the Wilderness Society
does not support this legislation, and I understand that.
But the Wilderness Society helped write this legislation. They sat
there with Neil Sampson and members of the timber industry and
labor and helped develop this. To the extent we could draw out rep-
resentatives of the environmental community to say where the pit-
falls were and where we should fine-tune this legislation, we lis-
tened and tried to move forward.
But it is important to recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the Wilder-
ness Society does not support this legislation. I wish that you had
put "as written," "not yet," "we hope to," "perhaps," "down the
road," "you are on the right track," "we hope to see you again
soon." But you didn't say that.
Instead, this is a pretty sharp indictment of the legislation. But
you either legislate or you retreat when you know that the facts
present problems. I think that the forests are unraveling. I think
we are in a crisis situation. Whether it is an emergency, as Mr.
Sampson has said, or whatever, I intend to move along. I invite ev-
erybody to help me move along.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy that we can hear all this, because we
as legislators have to make a decision whether we just stop dead
in our tracks, before a problem that is plain as a hand before our
face, or whether we move on. And we did have some productive ses-
sions. I remember when people were in my office together and they
were just amazed they were sitting in the same office together, be-
cause the forest issues have become so emotional and polarized,
people couldn't believe they were in the same room talking about
issues of common interest; and that is, productivity of our forests,
proper management, and so forth.
53
I have always thought this legislation was a vehicle to bring peo-
ple together rather than tear us apart, to move us down the road,
to see where areas of concern were, where we could legislate to-
gether, recognize problems and go forth. It is not like I am thrown
for a loop over the testimony of the Wilderness Society. I think we
just have to recognize that I am receiving mixed sigrials.
There have been some hard feelings with the environmental com-
munity and me because I said they had been in the room together,
and that we had worked on this, but at various stages I have been
asked not to introduce the legislation, and I introduced the legisla-
tion. Then I was asked not to take it to markup, we took it to the
markup, and we are still moving.
Mr. Rose. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaRocco. Of course.
Mr. Rose. I think everybody needs to understand that Washing-
ton doesn't deal very well with problems where the various inter-
ests involved in the issue are at each other's throats. In agri-
culture, you hear a lot of testimony about dairy farmers from all
over the country, how much power they have in Washington. It is
basically because they have ironed out their regional differences
and try to work together.
That may not be the best example for this particular problem,
but I really share Congressman LaRocco's concern. I think the cre-
ative thing for us to do is to continue to try to reason together.
There is really a new sort of dynamic here. George Miller, who
chairs the former Interior Committee, he came 2 years after I did.
We have been buddies for a long time. We don't always agree on
every issue. That is just not the nature of Congressmen. But we
try to work together to come up with compromises.
We have been able to do that, and I hope that — I am tempted
to get a debate going here about salvage. But maybe we could do
that in an atmosphere in Washington where we can take our shoes
off and just talk about these things to see if there is a place that
we can all work together. But the Natural Resources Committee
and the Agriculture Committee, are going to try to work our prob-
lems out among ourselves, and interest groups, whatever their side
might be, should not assume anymore that if you get something out
of the Agriculture Committee, it is going to be automatically op-
posed when you get over to the Natural Resources Committee, or
that we are going to automatically oppose anything that comes out
of their committee.
It is not helpful in any area of Grovemment where there is a
problem to have gridlock or polarization. We have heard a lot about
gridlock. It is more helpful when we can try to reconcile our dif-
ferences and take different points of view.
I am not always happy with the Forest Service. I am not going
to get into a discussion about how they have used C-130's for fire-
fighting. We had a hearing on that the other day. I continue to be
on their case.
But I thank you all for coming. Let's continue this dialog in
Washington. And we will.
I want to thank Congressman LaRocco for being brave enough to
start the process.
54
Michael Jordan is from my constituency and he has often pointed
out to me that you would never have any successful basketball
goals unless you kept trying, until you got it right. I say, let's keep
trying on this until we can get it right. I hope we can do something
that is in the best interests of all the people of America.
Thank you all very much for being here. This hearing is ad-
journed.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee was adjourned, to re-
convene, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
55
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 83720-1000
(208) 331-2 lOO
CECIL D. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
Remarks by Cecil D. Andrus
Governor of Idaho
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Congressman Charlie Rose, Chairman
Statehouse, Gold Room
Boise, Idaho
August 20, 1993
For Delivery: 9:00 AM
56
1
Thank you. Congressman Rose, for chairing this hearing, which is of
tremendous importance to the forests and therefore the economy of Idaho.
I also appreciate the attendance of Congressman Peterson in this hearing on
Congressman Larry LaRocco's "National Forest Health Act."
I believe Congressman LaRocco's legislation is both necessary and urgently
needed, and I support the bill. Forests in the Pacific Northwest — from the Blue
Mountains to Yellowstone Park ~ show evidence of stress from inordinately high tree
mortality.
Insect infestation continues to plague our woods. Until this year's relief, we
experienced seven years of below normal precipitation. A longtime policy of total fire
suppression without appropriate prescribed burning has added fuel to the forest floor.
The combination of drought, insects and stressed and dead timber has made our
forests more vulnerable to large, catastrophic wildfire. We've experienced more and
more of them in Idaho.
Events on the scale of the 1989 Lowman firestorm and the complex of fires in
the Boise and Payette National Forests, and the 250,000 acre foothills fire east of
Boise in 1992 used to be the exception, but today they have almost become the rule.
Specific examples of each of these mpnaces can easily be found in southern
Idaho forests, particularly in the Boise National Forest. Dead and dying stands are
widespread from bark beetle, tussock moth, and of course burning of wildfire.
A forest is more than just trees, and skeptics have pointed out that the
discussion of forest health seems to dwell on tree health. I would argue that while
these arguments need to be heeded. The biological functions provided by trees -
water and soil retention, shade and ground cover — are critical to the maintenance of
fish and wildlife species that populate our forest, streams and rivers. If the trees are
more vulnerable to widespread and catastrophic mortality, the other forest values are
equally at risk.
In response to the increasing tree mortality in southwest Idaho, both federal
and state foresters have begun to change strategy.
57
2
In 1989, the state Department of Lands increased its annual harvest from state
lands in this area from 17 million board feet annually to 27 million board feet. This
three-year step-up salvaged 30-million board feet of dead, dying and diseased timber
before we scaled back to previous levels.
This year the state timber harvest in southwest Idaho is exclusively salvage of
dead or stressed timber, while the green sales will be postponed until future years.
Boise National Forest specialists have articulated and demonstrated a need for a
forest health strategy. The greatly increased timber harvest levels in recent years
result form an aggressive attempt to capture the value of fire-killed, bug-infested
timber that must be harvested within a year before losing its economic value.
The Boise National Forest also sees a need to move beyond just the salvage
effort ~ toward thinning the existing stands that are overstocked compared to the
historic conditions that existed in the forest.
Generally, I agree with the management philosophy on the Boise, and I believe
the lessons we have learned can be applied to other troubled forests in our region.
Implementation of thinning and other methods to improve timber stands need to
include the necessary monitoring so see if these strategies work as intended. I
recommend that we also identify sites where no management is being applied so that
we can compare the treated areas to a control forest.
I believe that Congressman LaRocco's legislation will help the Boise and other
at-risk forests in the Northwest. This legislation provides for use of multi-year
contracts for silvicultural treatment of timber stands, and gives the Forest Service
some needed flexibility to dip into both the salvage sale fund and the Knutson-
Vandenberg Act (KV) monies to accomplish forest health improvements.
The provision to protect the shared receipts that go to counties is necessary
because we have county governments with limited tax bases due to federal land
ownership.
The legislation also mandates the governor be consulted before a forest health
emergency can be declared. I hope my testimony today indicates that the state of
58
3
Idaho will be a constructive and active participant in the implementation of a forest
health strategy.
An important aspect of this legislation is the recognition that strategies for
forest health improvement will have to comply with existing laws that govern the
national forests, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
I hear voices of concern that the Boise National Forest is moving too fast and
that other forest values will fall to the wayside in a too aggressive and thinly veiled
plot to increase the annual cut. But I believe that the mechanisms exist to design these
timber sales and other forest health treatments so that roads do not harm wildlife or
water quality.
These values must be protected — in the name of forest health and for many
other good reasons.
The Forest Health Act is a positive first step in changing how we should think
about our forests. We don't have to view the resources in the extreme context of the
total devastation of clearcuts against what the Forest Service calls "even-aged
silviculture."
Nor should we have the attitude that only Mother Nature can repair a sick
forest. Science and management can be strategically employed to make a difference.
As the National Forests shift toward ecosystem management, man will be part
of the equation, and the demand for the resources by our ever increasing numbers
must still be part of the picture.
This time, we can move forward with the knowledge that we may not know all
there is to know, but that we can make adjustments to our practices and improve the
resiliency of the federal forests.
—the end—
59
STATEMENl' OF
RICHARD L. EVERbTl'
SCIENCE TEAM LEADER
EA5TSIDE FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ASSESSMENT
WENATCHEE FORESTRY SCIENCES LABORATORY, FOREST SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Before the
Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources
Committee on Agriculture
United States House of Representatives
Conceminq the Health and Productivity of Idaho's National
Foreats and the creation of sustainable forest ftfrnsvstems
August 20, 1993
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss forest health issues
in th« inland empire forests of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Also, we welcome the opportunity to discuss concepts of
sustainable ecosystem management prasented in K.R. 229,
"National Forest Health Act." I note that my discussion today
of H.R. 229 focuses only on the scientific aspects of the
ecosystem management concept. It does not address other policy
concerns or iesues the Administration may have with the bill.
With me today I have Dr. Mark Jensen, Regional Soil Scientist,
Dr. Wendel Hann, Regional Ecologist, USDA, Rl, Forest Service,
Missoula MT, and Dr. Patrick Bourgeron, Western Regional
Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy, Denver, CO.
Previous reports to this subcommittee by George Leonard,
Associate Chief of the Forest Service, Clair Beasley, Deputy
Regional Forester, Intermountain Region; and Chris Riabrudt,
Deputy Regional Forester, Northern Region; in May and June of
60
1992 and information presented today by other 9p«ak«rs describe
forest health problems of Idaho forests. Declining forest
health is widespread; the recently completed forest ecosystem
health assessment requested by Speaker Foley and Senator
Hatfield reports on similar problems in eastern Oregon and
Washington.
* Forest health problems arc not restricted to disease or
insect daunaged trees, but cover a broad spectrum of issues
that include but are not limited to reading, livestock
grazing, excessive forest fuels, fisheries, water quality,
air quality, wildlife habitat, and sensitive plant and
animal species.
* Although, we do not discount the seriousness of the
current forest health situation, we suggest that it is only
the synptom, and managing for sustainable forest ecosystems
is the long- term issue that must be addressed.
Over a hundred scientists from across the Nation participated
in a recent assesament of forest health in eastern Oregon and
Washington (Volume III, Aasessaent) , and the development of a
framework for ecosystem management (Volvime II, Ecosystem
Principles and Application*) and restoration of ecosystem
structures and processes (Volume IV, Restoration) to address
the long-term solution of creating sustainable, forested
ecosystems. Here are the key findings of our study.
Ecosystems. Are Dynamic:
* Forest ecosystems are in a constant state of flux with
or without human intervention.
Forest types, extent, and location on the landscape have
changed dramatically in response to global climate change,
species immigration and extinction, eiboriginal use of lire.
61
natural disturbance effects and more recent fire supprsssion
and timber harvest activities.
Forests of the interior northwest are subjected to an array of
natural disturbance effects such as fire, insect, disease,
drought, flood, and severe wind storms.
* Disturbances are required to initiate stand renewal and
to maintain the historical range of variability in
landscape patterns that support wildlife habitat, ecosystem
processes (hydrologic and carbon cycles) , and species
viability.
* The conservation of disturbance effects (the dynamic
nature of forests) is as important as the conservation of
unique habitats and species in designing sustainable
ecosystems.
Hum^ lacoectationg and Valuaa Are An Integral Part of
Prior to European settlement, Native Americans used fire to
create open par]c-like forest stands to neet their cultural
needs. Early Buropean settlers changed forest and associated
aquatic ecosystems through their use of livestock and their
timber harvest ajctivitles.
* People are not only a. component of sustainable forest
ecosystems; their participation is required if forests are
to meet multiple resource demands and conserve future
options in sustaincible ecosystems.
* Peoples' expectations of forests in the interior
northwest have changed dramatically and often.
Forest management emphasis has shifted from watershed
protection, to livestock grazing (sheep then cattle) , to timber
producticn, to an emphasis on multiple uses, and now to
sustainable ecosystems.
76-302 0-94-3
62
We hypothesize that, peoples' expectations and values are
expressed on the landscape, and sustainable eco9ystein3 are
achieved by integrating peoples' expectations with the
biological and physical capabilities of ecosystems,
^^resr Manarrompn^ Practices and Foraat Health fVolume III) ;
Past management practices and accon^ianying forest responses
have adversely in^jacted sustainaUsility of forest ecosystems by
altering disturbance proceaaea and landscape characteristics.
* Fire suppression has- significantly altered the fire
regimes in thoae forests that historically burned
frequently but at low intensity. Currently much of this
type burns infrequently, but with severe intensity and
greater extent .
* Timber harvest practices significantly altered apecies
composition, forest structure, £uid increased fragmentation
of lemdscapea. The high level of timber harvest and
reading contribute to the diaruption of hydrologic regimes,
and declining fisheries habitat.
* Liveatock grazing aignif icamtly altered riparian
vegetation and hydrologic processes and contributed to a
decline is water quality and fiah habitat.
Forest Health Asaeaament (Volume III) :
* All eastside forests are not threatened by insects or
diseases, nor are they all in isinediate risk, of
catastrophic fire.
Declining forest health varies across the landscape in extent
and in intensity. Large-scale insect outbreaks and disease
epidemics are evident in many watersheds but absent in others .
* Tree densities, fuel loads, vertical and horizontal fuel
continuities., and fire hazards have increased in many
watersheds, and decreased in others.
* Change in insect and disease hazard severity could not
be shown to be significantly different Chan historic levels
at the river basin scale, but hazards were significantly
changed in some watersheds.
4
63
In many standa w« have tree densities beyond rhe carrying
capacity of the land, with subsequent increases in disease and
insect attack and potential for catastrophic fire.
* Disturbance regimes (fire, insect and disease) have been
significantly altered by effective fire prevention and
suppression on sites adapted to frequent, low and moderate
severity fires.
Historically, late aeral forests occupied less thaui 30% of the
landscape, and we have significantly reduced their extent
through timber harvest. Through fire suppression we have
significantly reduced the extent of early serai stages as
well. The extent of middle-aged forests has increased.
* Landscape characteristics of reserved areas, such as
roadless or wilderness, have also changed over time.
Vegetation patch size has increased, with increased homogeneity
and a buildup in fuels and fuel continuity across the
landscape. Reserved areas are subject to the same disease,
fire, and insect hazard of more intensively managed forests,
but fewer management tools afe available to correct the
situation.
* Land management practices have simplified fish habitats
and reduced aquatic habitat quality by reducing the
frequency and diversity of pools, reducing large wood
debris, increasing fines in stream bottom composition and
reducing water quality.
Ecosystem Management Principles (Volume II) :
* Ecosystem management is an experiment, with
uncertainties in ecosystem characteristics and function and
public values and expectations.
The biology and ecology of ecosystems will never be completely
understood as they are conatantly evolving, and public values
and expectations of forests will change over time. An adaptive
5
64
management eipproach requires the current biological snd Bociai
knowledge bass be stated and a sustainable ecosystem management
strategy be developed and then continually tested and adjusted
as new information becomes available.
Forest ecosystems of the interior northwest are dynamic,
complex and heterogeneous.
* A myriad of dieturbance processes create and maintain
ecosystems in a constant state of shifting vegetation
patterns across the landscape.
* These patterns have historically provided the habitat to
support species and processes that people value in forest
ecosystems.
* The use of the natural or historical range of
variability in ecosystem attributes provides a reference
point for evaluating sustainabillty of current forest
ecosysteins.
This information is used to accurately define the historical
range of disturbance effects, disturbance type, intensity,
extent and frequency across multiple hierarchical landscape
scales.
Disturbances occur at different spacial and temporal scales; a
hierarchical landscape evaluation is required to correlate
disturbance effects to desired or historical landscape
patterns.
* A forest health problem at one scale may be within
historical limits of the next higher scale. Forest
planning, including forest health projects, needs to occur
at scales above the proposed activity.
* Disturbance effects that create and maintain cjosyatcms
also provide insight into potential resource flowa that can
be derived from forests in the proceea of maintaining
desired ecosystems.
65
We hypothesize that public expectations and values can be
reflected in alternative landacape designs. Sustainable
ecosystems can be achieved by integrating peoples' expectations
with the biological and physical capacities of ecosystems.
* Landscape designs must reflect a hierarchical landscape
ecology approach where ecosystems are nested one within the
other such that positive cumulative effects can be derived
from the highest to lowAst hierarchical levels.
A "coarse- filter" approach to conservation biology is
recommended which maintains vegetation -patterns at desired or
historical levels that provide for desired species and
ecosystem processes. In other words m2Lnagement should focus on
maintaining intact ecosystems. The need for a "fine-filter"
approach (i.e. managing for each species or process
independently) would be reduced over several decades as
sustainable ecosystems are created.
Restoration of Bcosvatems (Volume IV) ;
There are several opportunities to improve forest health and
sustainaJoility of ecosystems through management activities.
H.R. 229, the "National Forest Health Act, " suggests combining
numerous management activities such as salvage logging,
thinning, reforestation, fuels management, and insect and
disease suppression in a coordinated effort to improve forest
health and gustainability in ecosystems. Scientists writing in
the Restoration Volume (IV) made similar suggestions including:
* Use of silviculture practice?! when appropriate to remove
excess small diameter timber re reduce stress on re^^ining
trees, reduce fuel loading, and restore historic sta^rd
structure.
66
* Reintroduction of fire and other ecological- processes to
forest ecosystems in a manner that reduces hazard of
catastrophic fires and insect and disease outbreaks and
conserves long-term site productivity and biodiversity.
* Mimicing of desirable disturbance effects through
management activities when the historical disturbance is no
longer possible.
* Conservation of biodiversity by leaving forest structure
legacies for wildlife, using harvest practices that improve
the gene pool of forest species, closure of unneeded roads
to protect wildlife and fisheries habitat, wildlife and
livestock management to protect riparian and aquatic
systems, and control of noxious weeds to protect native
plant communities.
* Equal attention is needed on the dynamics of dead and
live biomass components. In many systems the answer to
providing long-term sustainability is in harvesting some of
the live material, which is under stress, and conserving
much of the dead material for nutrient cycling eind habitat
values. Consequently, salvage operations must provide for
sufficient dead material to maintain the health of st«uida
and ecosystems.
Several ecosystem majiagement concepts are found in H.R. 229,
including holistic forest management for ecosystems as well as
commodities, use of historiczQ conditions as management
reference points, retention of deadwood as legacies of future
forests, and combining multiple management practices into a
coordinated effort to improve forest health and sustainaJDilicy
of ecosystems. These concepts are similar to what we concluded
in our ecosystem study.
* Our study concluded that a holistic approach to managing
for all ecosystem attributes as well as commodities
provides a means to conserve future biological options and
meet future public values and expectations.
We suggest the uwe of historical conditions only aa a reference
point for management, as forests naturally change ovsr tirr.c,
67
9
and historical conditions may not meet current or future public
needs .
* The key point is to use historical conditions as a
reference point for previously sustainable systems and
describe the extent of disparity with current conditions
and the potential risks involved.
* Iir^roved forest health depends upon the development of
sustainable ecosystems and the designing of landscapes for
positive cumulative effects from each management activity.
Positive cumulative effects occur when the decision at one
ecosystem level is based on the needed action in the next
higher level as referenced to the historical or otherwise
desirable range of variability.
We would caution that a long-term ecosystem management approach
is needed to manage for improved forest health. Current forest
health problems are significant, but urgency to resolve current
issues should not detract from long-term ecosystem management
goals .
* Forest health projects should represent the immediate
steps in long-term planning to provide for sustainable
ecosystems.
* The planning process will require inventory and analysis
of information on current, historical and potential
landscape conditions at several hierarchical landscape
scales.
* Information is not availcible at many of the higher
Ismdacape scales and is required for a sound planning and
decision processes that feed back to lower scales including
individual forest health projects.
Historically, societies' expectations of interior forests and
forest resources have changed often and dra*Tatically over
time.
* A major goal of forest health projects and ecosystem
management should be to conserve all future management
options such that we sustain the biological capacity to
meet future and different societal expectations.
68
An adapcivp management approach is required in ecosysr.er^
managen\ent as our knowledge of ecoayatems and public
expectations will always be imperfect.
* There are many management uncertainties associated with
societal expectations and ecoayatem potentials, but when
learning is part of management, then rapid evaluation and
redirection of management activities is possible.
* For this reason of uncertainty, we are compelled to
suggest that landscape management designs must be flexible
and conservative.
♦ When ecosystems are managed conservatively, that is,
below ma-ximum resource output levels, they are buffered
against surprise events and error in management decisions.
Our findings support th« need for investment in ecosystem
management and short term for««t health projects that support
the long-term objectives.
♦ Comprehensive inventory and analysis is required to
•valuate where the two activities are in unison.
That concludes our statement. We welcome any questions which
you may have.
69
STATEMENT OF
ROBERT STEELE
PROJECT LEADER, CONIFER ECOLOGY
INTERMOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION, FOREST SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND
STEPHEN F. ARNO
RESEARCH FORESTER, PRESCRIBED FIRE PROJECT
INTERMOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION, FOREST SERVICE
Before the
Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources
Committee on Agriculture
United States House of Representatives
Concerning the Health of Natural Forests in Idaho and the
ApplicabilitY of Management Strategies Authorized in H.R.229
August 20, 1993
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the health of National
Forests in Idaho.
OVERVIBW
In Idaho and in much of the western United States east of the
Cascade Mountains, the health of national forests is closely
related to changes in the role of fire. In this vast semi -arid
region, prior to 1900 fires burned unchecked through siimmer and
early autumn. Interaoxintain Research Station scientists have
studied the historic frequency of these fires by dating the
annual growth rings associated with fire wounds on ancient
trees and charcoal layers deposited in ponds. In the extensive
dry forests where ponderosa pine once was the predominant
species, these fire wounds recorded fire intervals which
averaged 5 to 30 years. This high frequency of burning
maintained low levels of fuel and the fires burned mainly along
70
the ground rather than in the tree crowns. This kind of fire
generally killed only the small trees and fire susceptible
species. It perpetuated open parklike stands of fire resistant
ponderosa pine and western larch. These tree species are also
resistant to many of our insect and disease problems.
At higher elevations where there is more moisture, the historic
fire pattern was more complex. Fires occurred at longer
intervals, generally between 40 and 150 years, and left a
mosaic of fire-killed trees and nonlethal underbums.
Fire-adapted tree species were favored. These fire-mosaic
forests composed of serai species tend to be more resistant to
insect and disease epidemics than are dense late serai and
cliinax forests which now dominate many of these sites in the
absence of fire.
Since the early 1900' a, fire suppression has become effective
at controlling low and moderate intensity fires. This has led
to development of dense atzmds of drought -stressed trees which
are highly vulnerable to insect and disease epidemics.
Ironically these forests are now more susceptible to severe
wildfires.
THB FORgST HEALTH PROBLEK
The Forest Service is now taking a broader view of the effects
of fire, insects, and disease as we are trying to initiate
management of forests as ecosystems . Some activity by insects
71
and disease is a normal part of the ecological process. But,
when the insect and disease activity levels exceed the normal
range of variation for a particular ecosystem, then a forest
health problem exists. The historic range of fire intervals
has now been greatly exceeded in the drier forests where
ponderosa pine once dominated. This ecosystem makes up a major
portion of the Boise National Forest and is extensive elsewhere
in Idaho and neighboring states. The Boise National Forest has
recently experienced record levels of several tree -killing
insects such as Douglas -fir beetle, western pine beetle, fir
engraver beetle, and Douglas -fir tussock moth.
PlXnra THE PHOBLBC
Solving the forest health problem will require an ecosystem
management approach. Management practices must match the
ecological capabilities of each site in order to create and
maintain healthy forests. This is the focua of ecosystem
management. The understamding of ecological capabilities is
derived from the scientific study of the processes that
maintained a given forest type during past centuries . Forest
commodity production and fire management activities need to
accommodate these natural processes.
The harvesting of dead and living trees is among the treatments
that, if applied carefully, could help meet goals of ecosystem
management, but timber harvesting alone will not address the
fundamental problems of forest health. A more holistic
72
addressing of forest health will require the development of
ecosystem management as a multidisciplinary approach guided by
the best science and silvicultural knowledge and the freedom to
adapt this )cnowledge to their local situations.
Fortunately, because most of Idaho's forest health problems are
related to the human interruption of natural fire cycles, the
problem can be fixed. The basic approach is to compensate the
ecosystem for the lack of recurring wildfire. This can be
achieved in several ways:
1. Identify high-hazard landscapes rather than individual
stands as the first priority areas for remedial forest
health trsatmsnt.
2. Create a mosaic of stand conditions at the landscape
level that represents the normal range of variation for
the ecosystems involved.
3. Favor the early serai tree species in silvicultural
activities in order to develop insect and disease
resistant stands^ while ensuring desired ecosystem
condition.
4. Thin stzmds on a commercial and precommercial basis so
as to restore stocking densities and species composition
to prei-fire control conditions that were more resistant
to insect attacks.
5 . Use prescribed fire to help maintain ecosystems that
historically experienced frequent low intensity fires,
73
thereby reducing fuels and preventing stand-destroying
wildfire.
This completes our testimony, we will be happy to address any
questions that you may have.
76-302 0-94-4
74
NATIONAL FOREST HEALTH ACT
HERBERT S. MALANY
CHIEF REGION FORESTER
BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION
SOLTTHERN IDAHO TIMBER REGION
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS ON
CURRENT FOREST HEALTH PROBLEMS ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS
IN SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO.
I HAVE BEEN A PRACTICING LAND MANAGER FOR THE BOISE
CASCADE CORPORATION FOR OVER 30 YEARS IN SOUTHWESTERN
IDAHO.
I AM A MEMBER OF THE IDAHO FORESTS PRACTICES BOARD AND
THE COMMITTEE DEVELOPING METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS IN IDAHO.
OUR TIMBERLANDS EMPLOYEES AND HARVEST CONTRACTORS
HAVE DEVELOPED SILVICULTURE PRESCRIPTIONS AND HARVEST
PRACTICES THAT PROVIDE THE INCOME NECESSARY FROM THE
SALE OF OUR FOREST PRODUCTS TO PAY ALL OPERATING
EXPENSES AND PROVIDE A VERY NICE RETURN TO THE OWNERS OF
OUR CORPORATION. IN ADDITION TO PAYING ALL OUR
OVERHEAD, PLANTING, SILVICULTURE, ROAD CONSTRUCTION,
ROAD MAINTENANCE AND HARVESTING EXPENSES OUR FORESTS
ARE MANAGED TO PROVIDE A SUSTAINED YIELD AND TO
PROVIDE, PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE AMENITY VALUES THE
FOREST PROVIDES.
WE HAVE DEVELOPED UNEVEN AGED OR SELECTIVE HARVEST
PRESCRIPTIONS. 20% TO 30% OF THE TREES AND 40% TO 50%
OF THE VOLUME IS REMOVED EACH ENTRY. THIS SYSTEM
REQUIRES ENTRIES EVERY 12 TO 20 YEARS. THE FREQUENT
ENTRIES:
PERMIT US TO REGULATE THE SPECIES COMPOSITION,
DIAMETER DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY IN OUR STANDS.
PREVENT OUR FOREST FROM BECOMING STOCKED WITH OLD -
DECADENT TREES OR OVERSTOCKED WITH YOUNGER TREES.
PREVENT THE INSECT AND MORTALITY PROBLEMS THAT ARE
PLAGUING ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS.
75
ALLOWS US TO IMPLIMENT NEW IDEAS, PROGRAMS OR
PROCEDURES THAT WILL IMPROVE OUR FORESTS HEALTH,
PRODUCTIVITY AND AMENITY VALUES
WHEN OUR HARVEST TREATMENTS ARE COMPLETED, THE
TREATED STAND CONTINUES LOOKS LIKE A FOREST, IE., THE
TREATED STANDS RETAIN THE VISUAL LOOK OF FORESTLAND THE
PUBLIC IS DEMANDING, WATER QUALITY IS MAINTAINED OR
IMPROVED AND THE RIPARIAN AREAS ARE PROTECTED. BY
PREVENTING THE FOREST FROM BECOMING VERY DENSE, MORE
SUN LIGHT IS ABLE TO REACH THE FOREST FLOOR. AS A RESULT,
THE AMOUNT OF SHRUBS FOR FORAGE AND HIDING COVER FOR
BIG GAME ANIMALS IS INCREASING. HABITAT FOR OUR FEATHERS
FRIENDS IS RETAINED BY LEAVING SNAGS AND LOW QUALITY
MERCHANTABLE TREES. OUR TREATMENTS PROVIDES ALL THE
ABOVE AND OUR FORESTS ARE HEALTHY AND RESILIENT.
IN RECOGNITION OF THE EXCELLENT TIMBERLAND PROGRAM WE
HAVE DEVELOPED. OUR DEPARTMENT WON BOISE CASCADE
CORPORATIONS 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARD. ONLY ONE
AWARD IS GIVEN EACH YEAR.
I WILL DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING:
1. CURRENT FOREST HEALTH CONDITIONS IN SOUTHWESTERN
IDAHO
2. HOW WE GOT HERE
3. THE CHANGES NECESSARY IN SILVICULTURE
PRESCRIPTIONS, HARVEST TECHNICS AND PROFESSIONAL
ATTITUDES THE ACCOMPLISH THE PROGRAM
4. HOW LONG THE PROGRAM WILL HAVE TO LAST
5. WHAT THE PAYBACK FOR THE EFFORT WILL BE
1. FOREST HEALTH CONDITIONS ON NATIONAL FOREST U\NDS IN
SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO
AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES, THE PINE - MIXED
CONIFER FORESTS ON THE DRY EDGE OF THE FOREST
ECOSYSTEMS RANGING FROM NORTHEASTERN WASHINGTON.
THROUGH EASTERN OREGON, INTO SOUTHERN IDAHO BACK UP
76
TO SALMON AND MISSOULA, MT. HAVE BECOME OVERSTOCKED
DUE TO THE EXCLUSION OF FIRE AND LACK OF LAND
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR 100 YEARS. TODAY, THESE
FORESTS ARE STOCKED WITH PHYSIOLOGICALLY OLD TREES
AND THICKETS OF THE REGENERATION, POLE AND SMALL
SAWTIMBER SIZED TREES THAT ESTABLISHED AFTER 1890.
NATURE EXCESSIVELY OCCUPIES ALL GROWING OR CARRYING
CAPAClPi' OF ALL ECOSYSTEMS WITH SOME TYPE OF PLANT OR
ANIMAL. THE APPROACHING OF THE IQIAL UTILIZATION OF
AVAILABLE MOISTURE AND NUTRIENTS HAS BEEN GOING FOR
THE LAST 100 YEARS. THE LACK OF MOISTURE FOR THE LAST
SEVEN YEARS PUSHED THE FORESTS OVER THE CARRYING
CAPACITY OF THE SITE AND NOW THE PIPER IS BEING PAID
WITH DEVASTATING MORTALITY AND CATASTROPHIC FIRES.
WE KNOW THE CARRYING CAPACITY ON SOME STANDS IN
BOISE CASCADES FORESTS WERE EXCEEDED PRIOR TO THE
CURRENT DROUGHT BY THE INCREASE IN INSECT ACTIVITY
AND MORTALITY. THE CURRENT HIGH LEVEL OF MORTALITY ON
NATIONAL FOREST LANDS IS NATURES WAY OF REBALANCING
THE FOREST TO A LOWER MOISTURE LEVEL.
TODAY, THE RESULT OF NOT ENOUGH WATER TO GROW ALL THE
EXISTING TREES IS:
IN PURE PONDEROSA AND DOUGLAS FIR STANDS - OLD
TREES HAVE BEEN KILLED BY BARK BEETLES, YOUNG TREES
HAVE BEEN KILLED BY BARK BEETLES.
IN MIXED DOUGLAS FIR - GRAND FIR STANDS - WESTERN
SPRUCE BUD WORM HAS BEEN EATING THE NEEDLES FOR
YEARS. RESULTING IN DEAD REGENERATION, POLES, TREE
TOPS AND FINALLY DEAD TREES.
2. HOW WE GOT HERE
FROM CARBON RINGS ON 300 AND 400 YEAR OLD TREES IN
SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO, WE KNOW THE FIRE FREQUENCY IN
SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO WAS EVERY 10 TO 15 YEARS UNTIL
1890 AND THEN THE OCCURRENCES STOPPED. FROM
COMMENTS INCLUDED WITH TIMBER CRUISES OR VOLUME
ESTIMATES MADE ON THE CORPORATIONS LANDS AROUND
77
1916 WE KNOW THE FOREST LANDS FROM NORTH OF BOISE TO
MCCALL, IDAHO CONTAINED 20 TO 40 TEN INCH OR LARGER
DIAMETER TREES PER ACRE. THERE WERE FEW DOWNED LOGS
WOODY MATERIAL AND LITE BRUSH ON THE FOREST FLOOR,
THE FIRE HAZARD WAS LOW AND THE LANDS WOULD MAKE
EXCELLENT GRAZING AFTER HARVEST. THE LANDS WERE
ESSENTIALLY A PINE GRASS LANDS OR SAVANNAH.
TODAY, INSTEAD OF 20 TO 40 TREES/ACRE, WE HAVE
UPWARDS TO 800 YOUNGER TREES/ACRE IN ADDITION TO THE
REMAINING OLD TIMERS ON NATIONAL FOREST U\NDS.
THE TREES THAT WERE LARGE IN 1890 ARE NOW 100 YEARS
OLDER AND PHYSIOLOGICALY OLD. THE SUCCESSFUL FIRE
PREVENTION PROGRAM HAS ALLOWED NATURAL
REGENERATION TO FLOURISH AND PERMITTED THE FORESTS
TO INCREASE STOCKING LEVELS UNTIL THE CARRYING
CAPACITY OF THE ECOSYSTEMS HAS BEEN EXCEEDED,
TODAY, THE RESULT OF 100 YEARS OF EXCLUDING NATURES
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTION - FIRE - PLUS THE ABSENCE OF
STAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY ON NATIONAL FOREST LAND
BY MAN IS A SICK AND DYING FOREST.
3. THE CHANGES NECESSARY IN SILVICULTURE PRESCRIPTIONS,
HARVEST TECHNICS AND PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES THE
ACCOMPUSH THE PROGRAM
THE BOISE NATIONAL FOREST HAS APPROXIMATELY 600,000
ACRES OF SUITED TIMBER BASE. 10 TO 12,000 ACRES PER
YEAR RECEIVE A SILVICULTURE TREATMENT. AT THE
CURRENT RATE IT WILL TAKE 55 YEARS TO COVER THE
FOREST, OR ONLY 10% SUITED LAND BASE WILL BE TREATED
IN THE PROPOSED 5 YEAR EMERGENCY PERIOD UNDER THE
CURRENT FOREST PLAN.
THE ANSWER TO RETURNING OUR NATIONAL FORESTS TO A
RESILIENT AND HEALTHY CONDITION IS NOT DECLARING A 5
YEAR FOREST HEALTH INITIATIVE THAT IS ONLY GOING TO
HARVEST DYING AND DEAD TREES. THE PROGRAM MUST BE
ONE THAT WILL NEVER ENDS AND MUST ENCOMPASSES ALL
FOREST VALUES.
THE FOREST IS A LIVING ENTITY, JUST AS YOU ARE AND AN
ECOSYSTEM IS GOING THROUGH THE CHANGES, JUST AS YOU
78
DO.
AT THIS TIME IN OUR HISTORY, THE ONLY WAY TO RETURN OUR
NATIONAL FORESTS ECOSYSTEMS TO HEALTH AND
RESILIENCY, PROVIDE LONG TERN HIGH VALUE EMPLOYMENT
AND FOREST COMMUNITY PRESERVATION, AND PROVIDE THE
PRODUCTS AND AMENITIES VALUES THE PUBLIC ENJOYS FROM
THE FOREST IS THROUGH MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL
FORESTS BY HUMANS. NOT NATURE.
THE PUBLIC, IN MY OPINION, DOES NOT WANT THE FOREST TO
CONTINUE ON THE PRESENT COARSE OF WASTING VALUABLE
COMMODITIES AND CATASTROPHIC BURNING WITH NO EFFORT
TO PROVIDE THE MATERIAL AND AMENITY VALUES OUR
SOCIETY NEED AND DEMANDS.
THE PUBLIC, IN MY OPINION, IS NOT GOING TO PERMIT CLEAR
CUTTING AS THE PRIMARY HARVEST PRESCRIPTION OR ALLOW
RIPARIAN AREAS, STREAMS OR WATER QUALITY TO
DEGRADED.
THE PUBLIC, IN MY OPINION, DOES WANT THE PRODUCTS THE
NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCES, THEY WANT THE NATIONAL
FOREST TO CONTINUE TO LOOK LIKE A FOREST WHEN
TREATMENTS ARE COMPLETE, AND THEY THE EMPLOYMENT
THE NATIONAL FORESTS PROVIDE.
IN ADDITION TO MANAGING OUR FOREST LANDS, I HAVE
BECOME A PROFESSIONAL TOUR GUIDE DEMONSTRATING THE
RESULTS OF OUR LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND
DISCUSSING OUR PHILOSOPHIES WITH MANY PEOPLE. I
ALWAYS RECALL ONE LADY WHO IS ACTIVE IN ONE THE LOCAL
PRESERVATION CLUBS. AFTER THREE OR FOUR STOPS SHE
CAME UP TO ME AND SAID, "I AN GOING TO HAVE TO RETHINK
MY WHOLE THOUGHT PROCESS ON TIMBER HARVESTS, WE HAD
BEEN TOLD THE ONLY WAY FORESTS COULD BE MANAGED WAS
BY CLEARCUT AND I DON'T LIKE THEM, I HAVE NO PROBLEM
WITH THIS TYPE OF TIMBERLAND MANAGEMENT'.
THERE ARE FEW SECRETS OR NEW THINGS TO LEARN BEFORE
THE FOREST SERVICE CAN BEGIN THE LONG TREK BACK TO A
HEALTHY FOREST. THE BASIC RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE ON
HOW TO MANAGE THE FOREST, PROTECT WATER QUALITY,
INCREASE FORAGE AND COVER FOR WILDLIFE.
79
PRESCRIPTIONS WILL REQUIRE FREQUENT ENTRIES THAT
INITIALLY REMOVE THE DEAD. DYING. DISEASED AND HIGH
RISK TREE AND MUST COMPLIMENT, ENHANCE AND PROTECT
THE OTHER IMPORTANT VALUES OF FOREST LANDS.
THE NECESSARY CHANGES ARE:
A. SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS - THE NATIONAL FOREST
LAND MANAGERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE
THEY CAN CHANGE FROM THEIR PAST PRACTICES OF
TREATING ONE ACRE TO THE MAXIMUM, IE., CLEARCUTTING,
AND THEN ALLOWING THE REST OF THE FOREST TO DIE.
THAT THE PRACTICE THE NEW FORESTRY REALLY MEANS
USING A LIGHT TOUCH ON LAND AND IT DEVELOPS A
HEALTHY FOREST, AND PROTECTS OR IMPROVES THE
OTHER IMPORTANT VALUES AND USES THE FOREST
PROVIDES.
WHEN IT IS DEMONSTRATED TO THE INTEREST GROUPS
THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE ABOVE, I BELIEVE THE
PUBLIC WILL SUPPORT THEM TO THE DEGREE THAT
DISRUPTIVE AND COSTLY REDOS, APPEALS, LAWSUITS OF
TODAY WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST.
B. PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES - THE PERSONAL AGENDAS,
INTRIGUES, TURF WARS, ETC, OF THE DIFFERENT
PROFESSIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO END AND "DOING
THE RIGHT THING" TO ACHIEVE FOREST HEALTH IS MADE
EVERYONES MISSION WILL HAVE TO PREVAIL.
C. SILVICULTURE TREATMENTS - THE FOREST LAND
MANAGER, WITH ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER LAND
MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS, MUST PRESCRIBE
TREATMENTS THAT BEGIN THE LONG TERM SOLUTION OF
THE FOREST HEALTH PROBLEM.
D. NEW LOGGING METHODS - SINCE 1990, NEW AND
EXCITING METHODS ARE BEING DEVELOPED THAT ARE
CHANGING THE TRADITIONAL WAY OF LOGGING TRACTOR
GROUP. TREES ARE BEING LINE SKIDDED UPHILL AWAY
FROM WET AREAS INSTEAD OF DOWN TOWARD THE
RIPARIAN AREAS WITH TRACTORS AS HAS BEEN
TRADmONALY DONE.
THE INDUSTRY HAS LEARNED THEY HAVE TO "DO THE RIGHT
6
80
THING" IN ORDER TO BE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE NATIONAL
FOREST TIMBER.
THE INITIAL TREATMENT SHOULD ONLY HARVEST DEAD,
DISEASED, HIGH RISK TIMBER AND THIN ONLY AREAS THAT
WILL EXPERIENCE MORTALITY BEFORE THE NEXT ENTRY.
THE AREAS TREATED MUST BE DESIGNED TAKING ADVANTAGE
OF THE LOGGING SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN
THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS. THESE SYSTEMS TAKE LOGS
UP HILL TO THE RIDGES AND AWAY FROM THE STREAMS AND
RIPARIAN AREAS INSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONALLY METHOD
OF GOING TO THE STREAM.
4. HOW LONG THE PROGRAM WILL HAVE TO UVST
TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A
HEALTHY AND RESILIENT FOREST, THE NATIONAL FOREST IS
EMBARKING ON A LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THAT IS
GOING TO BE EXCfTING, CHALLENGING. AND NEVER ENDING.
BECAUSE FORESTS ARE DYNAMIC AND ALIVE, JUST LIKE
PEOPLE, THEY ARE CONSTANTLY BEGINNING. MATURING,
GROWING OLD AND DYING. EACH AGE HAS DIFFERENT
REQUIREMENT.
AND BECAUSE EACH OF THE THESE STAGES IS ALWAYS GOING
ON, WE CANNOT GO OUT FOR FIVE YEARS, WORK LIKE HELL,
AND SAY THE JOB IS DONE. TO BE SUCCESSFUL, A CONSTANT
PROGRAM MUST BE DEVELOPED THAT TREATS ENOUGH ACRES
OF THE FOREST EACH YEAR TO INSURE THE TREES ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO BECOME OVERSTOCKED AND THE CURRENT
PROBLEMS ARISE BEFORE THE NEXT TREATMENT IS PLANNED.
5. WHAT THE PAYBACK FOR THE EFFORT Wll i RF
A HEALTHY, RESILIENT NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM WHERE THE
THE MANAGED FOREST WILL LOOK LIKE A FOREST - NOT A
CORN FIELD - AMENITY VALUES PROTECTED OR ENHANCED
AND EMPLOYMENT IN LOCAL RURAL COMMUNITIES RETAINED
PLUS THE GOODS AND SERVICES THE FOREST PRODUCES AND
PROVIDES WE ALL WANT CONTINUE TO BE PRODUCED.
81
IDAHO DEPARTMEKT OF rISH AND GAME TESTIMONY
On H.R. 229, the "National Forest Health Act"
Before Che House Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and
Natural Resources
August 20, 1993 in Boise, Idaho
Thank you Congressmen Rose, Peterson, and LaRocco for conducting
this field hearing and allowing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game
to assess the overall health of National Forests in Idaho and the
applicability of management strategies authorized in H.R. 229, the
"National Forest Health Act" to National Forests in Idaho. I am Cal
Groen, Chief of the Natural Resources Policy Bureau for the
Department .
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is required by state law
(Idaho Code Section 36-103) to ensure the State of Idaho's fish and
wildlife resources are "preserved, perpetuated and managed...."
Although the Department does not have regulatory authority over many
habitat activities, it does serve a significant role in reviewing and
commenting on action that may affect the fish and wildlife resources
of the state. The Department reviews, evaluates and responds to 600
to 900 proposals annually that could impact fish and wildlife
resources. The opportunity to review H.R. 229 is greatly appreciated,
and is especially significant because 70 percent of Idaho is in public
ownership.
The recent seven-year drought in Idaho has exerted tremendous
stress on all biological systems. These systems include trees, fish,
wildlife, and water quality, which are all dependent on the
maintenance of critical levels of soil moisture and stream flow. It
appears the prolonged drought is over now. We must be cautious and
not base our entire forest health management strategy on a dramatic
event such as the foothills fire and the drought. The drought,
although it seemed to have lasted a long time in human perspectives,
was merely a "blip" in time from the standpoint of ecosystems. If we
can learn from it , we are making progress .
Looking back in our rear view mirror, it is generally agreed that
past management practices on the natural forests have contributed to
our forest health emergency. Fire suppression and the high grading of
commercially valuable timber species have tended to accelerate
succession toward climax. Climax forests are generally more
vulnerable to fire, insects, and disease. No one considered the long-
term consequences of this management direction. As a result, some
areas, such as southern Idaho forests, are more susceptible to
defoliator infestations and high- intensity wildfires.
To once again think that we have a simple answer for a complex
ecosystem and move full scale into salvage and thinning may be
i-epeating our past mistakes. Forest succession often spans several
generations of man which makes it difficult for people to visualize
forest dynamics. Ecosystem management and forest restoration are a
new field that we must cautiously move into. We must i-emember that a
82
sincere deaire to implemenC "good forest mar.agement " brought ug to our
present forest health concerns. We cannot achieve our desired future
condition overnight. We need to move slowly and humbly into the
future of our public lands.
Congressman LaRocco's legislation, the "National Torest Health
Act, " lays out a process and safeguards this cautious approach. This
legislation recognizes multi- resource values such as retaining anaga,
encourages a wide range of future uses, and authorizes coordinated
forest health improvement projects that carry out both product- and
non-product-related management actions. In the past, too many
projects were based solely upon commodity considerations. Making sale
volumes and revenues secondary and justifying the harvest of live
trees are necessary ateps to a healthy forest ecosystem.
Important aspects of this legislation are basing the declaration
of a forest health emergency upon sound science, compliance with
environmental law, and expanded public comment opportunity.
Preserving the appeal and judicial review processes and providing two
new opportunities for public comments are especially refreshing in
view of recent attempts to curtail or exclude public comment from
salvage and timber sales.'
Past efforts to include multiple-resource elements have failed
due to the lack of funding and monitoring. Funding support is welcomed
from salvage sales and Knutson-Vandenberg Act funds for both product -
and non-product -related treatments. Recreation, wildlife, watershed
restoration, and protection have been short changed in tlie past, and
appropriate consideration to these values is long overdue. Necessary
monitoring is essential to see if the prescribed treatments are
working as intended. I recommended that control areas that receive no
treatment be set aside for comparison to treated areas. Excluded
roadless areas may partially serve as controls for long-term
monitoring.
In summary, careful and thorough work must be done to define what
healthy forest ecosystems are, and honest management strategies must
be designed to produce sustained, diverse, and healthy forest
ecosystems that seek the full range of ecological variability and
biodiversity. Forest health must become much more than merchantable
tree health and include wildlife, fish, and water quality
considerations. A healthy forest will include many different
appearances or successional stages. A recent report from the Society
of American Foresters states that more emphasis must be given to
protecting wildlife and diversity in forests across broad landscapes.
It recommends an ecosystem approach that would base logging on
protection of wildlife, water quality, and overall ecological health.
H.R. 229 has the legislative elements to accomplish overall ecological
health if properly implemented.
83
TESTIMONY OF
MR. MERRITT E. TDTTLE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION CHIEF
NORTHWEST REGION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
D.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BOISE, IDAHO
AUGUST 20, 19 9 3
Thank you for the opportunity to address the important issue of
the health of Idaho forests and their shared role in ensuring
healthy runs of salmon. I am Merritt Tuttle, Chief of the
Environmental and Technical Services Division, Northwest Region,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) , National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Various
Federal statutes give NMFS the role of providing leadership and
expertise for the protection, conservation and recovery of
anadromous fish throughout the full extent of their range from
the forests to the ocean and back again.
I am here today to provide an assessment of the overall health of
national forests as salmon habitat in Idaho and the applicability
of management strategies authorized in H.R. 229, the "National
Forest Health Act" to national forests in Idaho.
84
The Department of Comraerce is reviewing H.R. 229 and has not
taken a position yet on the bill. However, we note that the term
"forest health" as defined includes elements of ecological
variability which we believe would also promote the maintenance
of healthy populations of fish and wildlife resources, as well as
the other uses identified in the bill. H.R. 229 also calls for
the expedited review of forest health improvement programs under
other applicable environmental laws and for scientific input from
other agencies. NMFS is currently working closely with other
Federal agencies to ensure that our section 7 consultations under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are conducted in a comprehensive
and timely manner. Should H.R. 229 be enacted, NMFS would work
with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
ensure that any forest health improvement program is consistent
with the ESA by not jeopardizing any listed salmon and does not
contribute to the decline of the important salmon populations of
the Northwest.
Although you have requested that I comment on the forests of
Idaho, my office is concerned with the health of forests as
anadromous fish habitat in Washington and Oregon as well. The
definition of forest health can vary, depending on our interests
and expectations. To people interested in harvesting trees, the
definition may involve a sustained yield of timber. To other
interests, the definition of a healthy forest involves a variety
85
of watershed functions and forest outputs such as timber
products, aesthetics, wildlife, and fish. To NMFS, the
definition of a healthy forest includes all of these functions,
especially those for fish. Forest streams are where the salmon's
life cycle begins, first with the act of spawning, then the
incubation of eggs, the emergence of fry, and the rearing of
smolts. Thus the forest serves as a nursery for juvenile salmon.
The general health of the forest ecosystem determines the number
of smolts the watershed is capable of producing.
NMFS' approach to the conservation of Snake River salmon, listed
under the ESA, is based on ecosystem management. We recognize
that forest conditions are vital components of watershed quality
and salmon abundance. Therefore, I will focus my comments on
characteristics of watersheds. These are critical building
blocks within the salmon's ecosystem.
Historically, watersheds throughout the forests in Idaho produced
an abundance of salmon. The Journals of Lewis and Clark identify
drying racks and fish traps for salmon in Idaho which attest to
the abundance of salmon they encountered along their journey.
Data collected by the U.S. Fish Commission during the late 1800 's
further documents an abundance of salmon in Idaho. These studies
report that thousands of pounds of sockeye salmon were
commercially harvested and dried each year. These salmon
86
provided food for miners working in Warren and Idaho City, Idaho.
Idaho had an abundance of salmon and many of its residents,
including Indian Tribes, used these fish for subsistence, trade,
and income. Now, however, Idaho's wild salmon are listed as
threatened or endangered species.
The ESA obliges all Federal agencies, including in the case of
forests those responsible for Federal land management, to use
their authorities to conserve endangered and threatened species
of wildlife so that they may be recovered to the point of no
longer requiring the protection of the ESA. In addition to
working toward the recovery of these species. Federal agencies
are required to ensure that, at a minimum, their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed
species. NMFS' role in this strategy is to provide professional
advice to these action agencies as to how they can best meet
their ESA obligations.
A team of scientists appointed by NMFS is currently developing a
plan designed to lead to the recovery of the listed Snake River
salmon species. NMFS will consider their advice in adopting a
recovery plan that will provide guidance to the Federal action
agencies, including the Forest Service and BLM, to meet their
obligation to work toward the recovery of the listed species.
87
In the meantime, however, to evaluate impacts on listed salmon in
Idaho, the Northwest Region of NMFS is currently providing
professional advice to the Forest Service and BLM, and other
action agencies, concerning the listed salmon, through what are
commonly known as "section 7 consultations." In such a
consultation the Federal agencies consult with NMFS to ensure
that actions they conduct, authorize, or fund are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered
species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat.
These consultations cover four major sectors that lead to the
salmon's decline. These four sectors, referred to as the four
H's, are hydropower, harvest, habitat, and hatcheries. These
four sectors are an integral part of the Pacific Northwest.
Unhealthy watersheds are part of the habitat sector.
Depressed stocks of salmon are not unique to the rivers of Idaho.
During the past few months, various petitioners have requested
that NMFS list several other stocks of salmon in coastal Oregon
and Washington for ESA protection and recovery. Although
unaffected by hydropower development, these salmon populations
are also in decline. In coastal watersheds of Oregon and
Washington, intensive road construction and timber extraction in
these watersheds are linked to reduced salmon production. Recent
reports stemming from President Clinton's Forest Conference
88
recommend sizeable changes in the way forests are currently
managed.
Land management agencies now recognize this need to change forest
management. Scientific evidence supports a new approach, which
places emphasis on ecosystem-based management. For example,
fish habitat surveys conducted in Idaho and Oregon about 50 years
ago described relatively undisturbed watersheds. A recent
comparison of those surveys done in Marsh Creek, a tributary to
the Middle Fork Salmon River, and the Grande Ronde River
indicates that human-impacted river systems have lost 50 to 75
percent of the large pools during the past 50 years. Large pools
are critically important to salmon since they function as resting
and hiding areas for adult fish prior to spawning, are preferred
rearing areas for juveniles, and serve as refuges during periods
of drought and winter icing.
While the quality of spawning and rearing habitat has diminished
in managed lands, anadromous fish habitat in wilderness areas has
remained relatively constant or has improved during the same
period. The watersheds within thase wilderness areas continue to
sustain productive habitats for salmon despite impacts from
natural forces. We must learn to manage watersheds in a manner
that mimics those watersheds that have remained productive,
despite fires, droughts, and other natural forces.
89
Managing the ecosystem at the watershed level will improve salmon
runs and expedite ESA consultations. Watersheds must be
protected if we are to sustain Idaho's salmon. We are urging a
sound ecosystem-based approach to forest management, utilizing
science and state-of-the-art restoration techniques. This can
help recover threatened and endangered salmon and help prevent
additional species from being listed. This approach can reduce
the complexity of consultations for endangered salmon and
expedite ESA consultations and all forest activities.
In summary, I would like to close with three brief reflections:
1. A healthy forest ecosystem is based on healthy watersheds
which are vital to salmon.
2. Restoring watersheds must begin now because it may take
decades for some watersheds to begin to recover and for the
number of salmon to increase.
3. Restoring watersheds improves the likelihood of salmon
recovery, which combined with other actions, can result in
delisting of threatened or endangered species and eliminate the
need for future listings.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
90
STATEMENT OF
CHAD WICK D. OLrVER
PROFESSOR OF SILVICULTLUE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
COLLEGE OF FOREST RESOURCES
Before the
Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources
Committee on Agriculture
United States House of Representatives
A field hearing on ecosystems management and the applicabihty of new
forestry and forest health techniques for forest ecosystems management
August 20, 1993
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
This statement will be divided into three parts:
1. A perspective on diflFering policies for managing forest land;
2. A detadled description of a proactive approach to ecosystem
management;
3. Specific comments on H.R.229 (103rd Congress, 1st Session).
Parts #1 and #2 will serve as background for the specific comments
(part #3).
PART #1: PERSPECTIVE ON POLICIES FOR MANAGING FOREST
LAND
Policies for managing forest land can be grouped into three
approaches. These approaches are based on historical and'or current
scientific principles, philosophies of Hfe, and practicalities:
1. The commodity-based approach;
2. The "natviral reserves" approach;
3. The "landscape management" approach.
91
The Commodity -based Approach
Historically, forests in the United States aiid elsewhere have been
managed with a policy of producing specific products-timber, grazing,
minerals, water, etc.--and controlling undesirable natural catastrophes (fires,
floods, etc.).
PhiloBonhicfll hflckyrnnnd
The attitude toward natural process was that human activities were
not powerful enough to overwhelm nattiral processes-but that hxmians could
sway natural processes to gain specific commodities and values.
Active management of forests was for timber because of the expected
"impending timber shortage." This "timber shortage ' had actually occurred
in some places in North America-with serious hardships. With timber
management as an objective, "old growth" forests were considered
imdesirable, since their timber was rotting faster than it was growing;
consequently, meeting the timber management objective meant replacing
these unproductive trees and stands with efficiently growing, young stands.
This timber production policy shifted to maximum efficiency of
extraction of trees, and maTiTnnm efficiency of regrowth in plantations where
it was economically feasible. In areas where it was not economically efficient
to regrow trees, management was often various forms of uneven-aged
harvesting to avoid the coste of establishing plantations combined with
protection from forest fires.
Northern Rnrkv Mntintains
Memy of the stands in the northern Rocky Mountains are of low
productivity, so the optimum management was often uneven-aged cutting.
Other stands grew as even-aged following very large fires in the early 1900's
or before; these stands were overly crowded but not thinned because it was,
again not logistically or economically worthwhile based on timber production.
The consequences have been many uneven-aged stands infected with
defoUating insects, and many even-aged overcrowded stands susceptible to
bark beetles.
92
These conditions of high insects and diseases and impending fires has
been exacerbated by meinagement; there is increasing evidence that these
(and other forests) periodically developed conditions which created large
outbreaks of insects and diseases and subsequent fires even before European
settlement,
FuJiding
The stated policy of commodity production was changed to "multiple
use" several decades ago; however, funding for active management of forest
stands (e.g., K.V.funding) and building of roads was still largely allocated
based on the potential to produce timber. Consequently, timber production
remained an extremely active objective of management. Prevention and
fighting of fires were also actively funded, since fire was believed harmful to
many forest values. Fxinding for active management has slowly both
increased and shifted to support other values.
Shortcomlnga
Commodity management has been very effective in producing its
objectives--so much so that plentiful, inexpensive wood is taken for granted
by most U.S. citizens. On the other hand, a diversity of stand structures for
sustaining biodiversity and other values were often not maintained. In
stands were production of timber was only marginally economical (in many
parts of the northern Rocky Mountains), the stands oft«n grew to very
unhealthy conditions and became prone to insects and fires.
In recent years, timber management has been increasingly adjusted to
accommodate other objectives as well.
The "Natural Reserves" Approach
National Parks and wilderness areas have been managed with the
genera] policy of avoiding human intervention to provide natural conditions,
patterns, and processes. Recently, this policy has been advocated for
managing other federal lands as a means of ensuring adequate habitat for
"old growth" species.
93
PhilDsnnhical Background
It seems based on a combination of several philosophies:
--that humans can notyshould not try to interfere with natural processes
to promote their values-even biodiversity or saving endangered
species;
"that humans do not understand enough to intervene in natural
processes;
"that forests exist in a "steady state"; therefore, free of human
intervention, there will be a natural "balance of nature ' which will
maintain the various environmental values;
-that commodities formerly provided by the forest will be provided from
somewhere else.
Setting aside of "reserve" areas has not resulted in a natural "steady
state." As the Yellowstone Fire and other natural events has shown, natural
disturbances often occur over very large areas; and the forest does not
necessarily return to a "steady state. " (See newspaper article at end of
statement.) The response by those still advocating "reserves" is to advocate
increasing larger and more "reseire areas."
Nnrfhpm Rf^jlKV M"""tJiin«
Such reserves in the northern Rocky Mountains would become
susceptible to periodic fires. Historically, these fires have spread over
hundreds of thousands of acres in a single season. It is incorrect to assiune
the present susceptibility of stands in the region to insects, diseases, and
fires would not have occurred without previous management practices; in
fact, large outbreaks and fires occurred even before intensive colonization by
Europeans,
Funding
The costs of a "reserve" poUcy are often hidden. Since there is no
active management, there is no "up-front" co.<its of management. The costs of
"reserves" are often:
-a reduced primary production base for the region and nation's economy;
-reduced employment opportimities;
"higher wood costs because of the reduced supply;
94
--a shift to more intensive harvesting of timber from other regions of the
world, as well as substitution of more polluting steel, aluminum,
brick, and concrete for wood.
Shortcomings
It is still not proven that increasingly large reserves will be effective in
maintaining "old growth" features, or any other natural balance of species
and processes.
The "natural reserve" approach- -when practiced on a large scale-is
based on the outmoded concept of the "balance of nature " Over the past few
years, ecological theory has shifted from a concept of a climax" (or "old
growth" or "ancient" forest) as being a stable entity to the recognition of small
"gap phase" disturbances to the recognition of very large disturbances (e.g.,
hundreds of thousands (rf acres).
The lack success with small reserves has led to pressure for
increasingly larger reserves-a "central control" approach to policies. Such
reserves often exclude local people from obtaining any benefit from the
forests-thus alienating them. Historically, rural land use poUcies have
rarely been eflFective which do not have the support of the local people.
Where increasingly large reserves are imposed, the costs of these
reserves becomes very high. It is probable that the amount of money spent
(or income foregone) on these reserves could ensiire more global biodiversity
by being spent on "landscape management", described below.
The large reserve area is being modified by advocating a managed
"matrix" of forests between the reserves.
The "Landscape Management" Approach
The landscape management approach has been advocated as a means
of ensuring all patterns, processes, species, and habitats are maintained over
an area. This approach uses to active management to mimic, avoid, and
mitigate the effects of large natural disturbances. Over each smaller
landscape area, it maintains (or creates where necessan') a fluctuating
95
balance of all structures and processes wliich are found naturally over the
very large landscape.
Philnaophiral Rarkgrmind
Landscape management seems to be based on several philosophies:
"that natural processes are indiflFerent to himian values; however, by
wise management, htunans can gain many values from nature-
including biodiversity and commodities;
-that change will proceed—not necessarily to the benefit of humans-
without or without human intervention; therefore, waiting before
intervening may be worse than active intervention;
"that natural processes are neither in a steady state, nor will they
maintain the various human values if left untouched by humans;
"that various human values (including biodiversity) can best be ensured
by managing natural systems.
Landscape management recognizes that the forests are constantly
changing in structures as a result of disturbances and regrowth. Each forest
stand structure and process is important for some species; consequently, it is
important to maintain all structures and processes if all species are to be
maintained (Figure 2). This maintenance of all species, structures, and
processes in some form of fluctuating balance corresponds to the term "forest
health" in H.R.229. Insect outbreaks are natxiral and probably helpful to
some species (e.g., migrating birdsl; therefore, "forest health" should not
imply elimination of insect outbreaks. Rather, the size of the outbreaks
would be managed to avoid their becoming so large that other patterns and
processes are excluded.
Since forested landscapes occupy smaller areas than, they did before
populations increases of the past two centuries, the variety of patterns and
processes need to be maintained over smaller areas than was done natiu-ally.
Consequently, it will probably be necessary to manage for a variation in
patterns and processes which fluctuates less extremely than the "natural
variation." (Seepg. , H.R.229.) In addition, the very large natural
disturbances would destroy human property in non-forested areas; therefore,
the sizes of disturbances would be controlled as much as possible
96
Landscape management would use silvicultural operations to mimic
many natural processes. Landscape management recognizes that human
well-being (above the subsistence level; is beneficial to humans and the
landscape. Wood removal (and production of timbers and employment would
be byproducts and additional benefits of ecosystem management, but would
not be the driving objective of management. Emplo>'ment and wood products
from these silvicultural operations would provide local people with a value
from the forest and therefore an interest in maintaining it. The wood
products produced in this way would substitute for steel, Eduminimi, brick,
concrete, or wood firom other regions of the world where forests are managed
in a less environmentally sound manner.
Landscape management would leave isome areas as "temporary"
reserves (lasting from several decades to several centuries). These reserves
wovdd be of several types:
-areas where a certain structure (e.g., old growth) exists is such small
amoxints that all remaining stands with this structiire are needed
to maintain a balance of structures,
--areas where structures, processes, or species exist for which little is
knovm of their requirements (e.g., riparian areas). Since nothing
is permanent in nature, these "reserves" would not be expected to
last forever; as more information is learned, active manipulation
would ocoir to ensure more of the critical structures occur. These
reserves would be restricted to individual stands or very small
landscape areaa.
Norfriifim RnrJcv Mnnnfj^ina
The northern Rocky Mountains contain a large number of insect-
infested, overly crowded stands in even-aged and uneven-aged conditions.
Lacking in many areas are open areas, open park-like stands, and stands will
very large trees. Very large fires will occur barring human intervention,
resulting in xmplanned. destruction of human property and very large open
areas lacking dense forests. Landscape management would use timber
harvesting, thinning, and prescribed fires to produce a variety of structures
which provide a variety of habitats, help protect the remaining forests from
catastrophic fires, and provide a flow of wood and employment for local eind
global well-being.
97
Funding
Thinning and even-aged management is probably not economically
justifiable on the basis of timber returns alone in many parts of the northern
Rocky Mountains where such practices are needed. If timber production
were considered the objective of the silvicultural operation, the sale would be
considered "below cost"; however, the income from selling the timber will
help reduce the cost of the silvicultural practice. In this way, joint production
of timber and biodiversity will reduce the cost of maintaining biodiversity,
increase employment, and provide for ecologically sovmd timber products.
The cost of biodiversity then becomes the amount the sale is "below cost." (In
both economics and ecology, the same saying is true: "There is no such thing
as a free lunch.")
The cost of this landscape management will probably be less than
"natural reserves' when all considerations of the benefits from landscape
management are considered: increased productions of goods and services,
reduced unemployment, increased tax base, reduced costs of forest protection
and restoration.
Shnrtrffftminrp
The two criticisms of landscape management are:
1. We do not know if management c€m create the structxires, patterns,
and processes required by ail species.
In response, we are even less certain that doing nothing will create the
necessary structures, patterns, and processes at the correct times
and places.
2. We do not know the most appropriate patterns of stand structures to
manage for.
In response, most landscape areas contain extremely imbalanced stand
structures at present which we know are not sustainable. There is
some knowledge already; therefore, forest managers can begin
correcting this imbalance by reducing the large amounts of excess
structure while increasing the structures in short supply. It will
take a long time before these extremes are corrected; meanwhile,
more information can be learned about the desired patterns.
98
PART #2: A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO ECOSYSTEM
MANAGEME>rr
A Definition of Ecosystem Management
For this testimony, I shall define my concept of Ecosystem
Management. It is similar to the one described by Saiwasser, MacCleery,
and Snellgrove (1992. "New Perspectives for Managing the U.S. National
Forest System" Report to the North American Forestry Commission, 16th
Session, Cancun, Mexico, February, 1992). It is similar to the one
incorporated into the recently completed Eastern Oregon and Washington
Forest Health Report (requested by the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives, and chaired by Dr. Richard Everett of the U.S.Forest
Service). It is vfery similar to the concept of memaging across landscapes,
which I described in a statement before the Subcommittee on Forests, Family
Farms, and Energy of the Committee on Agriculture, United States House of
Representatives, March 11, 1992. It is very sinular to the "coarse filter"
approach to management, whereby species are protected by trying to
maintain a balance of all possible habitats to keep species from becoming
endangered, rather than waiting to focus management on individual species
after they have become endtingered.
Basically, ecosystems management attempts to maintain the full
balance of natural patterns, processes, and species across a landscape area-
for example a watershed or other geographic sub\mit. This management is
distinctly different from many historical management approaches which
focussed on producing specific commodity outputs. In ecosystems
management, the focus is on maintaining a balance of processes; commodity
outputs can be a byproduct of maintaining this balance, but not the primary
goal. For example, in a balanced forested ecosystem, a certain araoimt of
timber can be removed to maintain the balance; however, a need for a
specified amount of timber would not dictate the management practices.
It is also different from traditional management, since it attempts to
maintain all patterns, processes, and species across the landscape rather
than only maintaining those of immediately perceived benefit.
Our understanding of forests and other ecosystems has changed
dramatically during the past few decades (Figure 1). Rather than 3ta>'ing in
99
iO
a relatively stable condition--a "steady state -ecosystems change
dramatically through various disturbances and regrov,th. Consequently, a
wide range of patterns and processes across the landscape-some of them
quite disastrous-can occur and still be natured.
Ecosystems management would attempt to manage natural patterns
and processes well within their natural range of fluctuations so that no single
pattern or process becomes so large that it excludes other patterns, processes,
and species. Within this narrower range of fluctuations, management would
still have a variety of options.
To give a specific example, Figure 2 shows one classification of forest
development patterns foUowring- stand-replacing disturbances. As can be
seen, the forest develops through a series of structures. Each structure is
suitable for some species but not suitable for others. Ecosystems
management would attempt to maintain all species, patterns, and processes
across a landscape area. Specific patterns, processes, and species would
naturally move within the landscape area rather than be confined to one
place, since forests are disturbed and regrow.
The amount of any given pattern and process fluctuated quite widely
in natural conditions; and there is evidence that these fluctuations were
necessary for survival of many species. Ecosystems management, however,
would maintain minimal amounts of all patterns and processes while
allowing fluctuations. The old concept of the "balance of nature" still holds,
however, so that too much of one pattern, process, or structure necessarily
excludes other natural patterns, processes, or structures.
Ecosystems management would not be a rigorous adherence to
completely natural processes. Natural processes were often extremely
catastrophic, with extremely large natural disturbances-windstorms, fires,
and volcanic eruptions-covering tens to hundreds of thousands of acres.
Within a given area, some of these natural patterns and processes were so
large that they excluded other natural patterns and processes-causing local
extirpation of species, for example Such large-scale processes also disrupt
human lives and economies, reduce availability of many resources for human
use, and necessitate use of more environmentally damaging products (e.g.,
steel, ailuniinum, brick, concrete, and pla.stic) as substitutes for wood.
100
Much of ecosystems management will involve using silvicultviral
operations for several purposes:
"to mimic natural disturbances;
-to protect areas from natural disturbances where the size, time, type,
or location of the disturbance is undesirable; and,
--to help a landscape recover a balance of patterns, processes, and
species when an undesired natural disturbance occurs.
Ecosystems management, therefore, involves maintaining a balance of
patterns, processes, and species across an area through active management
(Figure 3). This management would avoid the extremes of natural
disturbances and, at least at first, attempt to maintain a fluctuating balance
across smaller areas than was done historically in nature. Although much is
not known about the appropriate pattern and range of fluctuations,
ecosystems management can begin by correcting extreme imbalances which
currently exist while more is learned. Ecosystems management should
produce the byproducts of timber, fish, and other natural resources. Timber
products, for example, also contribute to the quality of the global
environment where they substitute for more polluting steel, aluminum, brick,
and concrete.
Ecosystem Management Can Be Done
For several years I have taught mid-career and graduate/
undergraduate courses where we have developed and refined ecosystems
management principles, as I have described them above. Various students
and I have incorporated them into several ongoing management projects—the
Washington State Olympic Experimental State Forest, the Vashon Island
(Washington) project, and the Mt. Everest Ecosystem project (Nepal).
It is not only conceptually possible to implement ecosystems
management, we have realized that it is extremely difficult to achieve many
management objectives-e.g., animal, riparian, and aquatic habitats-without
an ecosystems management approach. An ecosystems approach allows an
appropriate amount of fluctuations and variations in patteinsj and processes
to occur simultaneously with a sustaining of all patterns and processes.
101
Our various implementation and training projects show it is possible to
do ecosystems management; however, it requires a shift in thinking on the
part of managers at all levels and a shift in other aspects of management as
well. It is also a highly technical process, wliich requires skill, equipment,
knowledge-based systems, and a dedicated organization.
Oxxr experience with ecosystems management shows that the approach
creates a great degree of consensus among frequently antagonistic groups.
The approach first determines what possible alternatives and consequences
are possible on a landscape, and then determines which will achieve the
management goals in a "bottom-up" planning process.
The limitation to implementing ecosystems management is not the
lack of silvicultural and forest management operations techniques. These
techniques include:
planting & other regeneration operations;
thinning;
pruning;
fertilizing;
weed control;
controlled fire;
clearcutting;
shelterwood & seed tree cutting;
green tree retention (very sinular to shelterwood cutting);
selective cutting;
creation and maintenance of snags, "wildlife trees", and down logs;
and others.
All of these techniques are useful AT THE RIGHT TIME AND PLACE
in ecosystems management, since all of these have their coiinterpart in
nature. (See Eastern Oregon and Washington Forest Health Report referred
to earlier.) Large fires following windstorms, for example, created many
structures similar to (or more severe than) clearcut areas; while other fires
and windstorms created many structures similar to shelterwood, seed tree,
and selectively cut £ireas.
102
13
The appropriateness of many operations needs to be assessed on a
case-by-case basis. As examples:
"The stabiUty of roads and their potential for causing siltation
problems depends on the local soil conditions and how the road
was built. Consequently, the desirability of constructing,
maintaining, or removing a given road needs to be made within
each local area.
"The size of each area to be managed depends on the local topography.
For example, it does little good to restrict the area to be
harvested to a small size if the svtrrounding forest will blow over
soon afterward, anyway. Decisions here, too must be made at
the local level.
"The need/use of fire also depends on the local ecological conditions.
In some places, the forest vdll bum naturally if controlled fires
are not done.
--Similarly, the current practice of avoiding management around
riparian areas may be changed as more is learned about
behavior of riparian and aquatic habitats. Siltation and other
disturbances always have and will occur in these areas, since
the Pacific Northwest is in an area of geologic uplift. As more
becomes known, it may prove better to plan the times and
distributions of these events throu^ management than to let
them occvur naturally in an unexpected way. Riparian
vegetation and forest structures may also be enhanced through
various management practices.
For silviculture and management practices to be appropriately prescribed,
there must be local flexibility. This can best be achieved by avoiding central
planning, having directions be goal-oriented, and gi\'ing local managers the
flexibility and resources to make site-specific decisions.
Many sUviciilture and management techniques are quite well known.
There is a concern that bad management practices we have learned to avoid
will reemergs in the neime of "ecosystems management." For example, the
practice of "high grading" may be resumed in an attempt to create uneven-
aged stands if past knowledge and great care is not used "High grading" can
result from cutting the wrong trees when attempting to do "selective cutting."
Foresters have worked hard to get away fi-om "high grading" over several
I
103
I'l
continents during the past few decades. Much of the fire and insect problems
in eastern Oregon and Washington are the result of "high grading. "
A certain amount of concentrated research and development and mid-
career short courses wiU help appropriate silviculture and management
practices be implemented more effectively; however, the bottleneck to
ecosystems management is not a lack of ability to do these techniques. Once
the other bottlenecks are cleared, research and development on these
operations could proceed quite effectively through "adaptive management."
Many of the operational techniques described above are presently not
being used because they are not economically feasible under cxirrent
accounting and funding allocation systems-even though the techniques may
be desirable for ecosystem stability. (The funding systems will be discussed
later in this paper.}
The major need for ecosystems management to be efifective is to have a
systematic way to determine the correct time and place to use the various
silviculture and management operations. Any one technique used to excess
or too infrequently may cause patterns, processes, and species to become
extirpated from the area. Five specific forest management techniques are
needed to promote ecosystems management:
i. Much investment is needed in developing and obtaining highly
technical decision support hardw£u% and software, and
specialists to service this equipment. This hardware and
software will allow rapid processing and flow of information
necessary for ecosystems management.
iL Forest resource managers at all levels will need to be trained in the
fundamentally different way of viewing management and using
the technical tools. The training will be needed for all members
of local U.S.Forest Service I. D. (prescription issue identification)
and E.A. (environmental assessment) teams, as well as
managers at all levels. Such training has been occurring
through various mid-career short courses, but could be
increased.
104
iii. Research and development will be needed to deterniine the tsu-get
patterns and processes to be managed for across the landscape.
This research will include "reconstruction" and "landscape"
studies and "adaptive management ' as ecosystems management
is implemented.
iv. As discussed above, research and development will be needed in
developing and refining various silviculture and management
operations.
V. A silviculture/management infrastructure, including a strong
component of monitoring, will need to be incorporated into the
ecosystems management process and supported to maintain the
etfectiveness of ecosystems management. Once this
infrastructxire is built, it will probably prove very cost-eflfective.
It is sometimes suggested that we shovdd wait \intil we have more
basic knowledge before proceeding with any management. I disagree with
this, since forests continue to grow and disturbances continue to occvir, even
when the decision is made to do no management. No management is an
active decision to allow certain patterns and processes to occur which may
exclude other patterns and processes across the landscape. Since we are
beginning management with limited knowledge, we can begin ecosystems
management by trying to avoid and correct the extremes of patterns and
processes we presently find. We can adjust our targets and techniques with
time and experience throu]^ £Kiaptive management.
Local forest managers are generally moving toward ecosystem
management anyway, since it appears to be a very effective way to sustain
the various values of the forest.
The riiany alternative directions of management are intensive
management for single values-preservation or timber production for
example. These alternatives probably will not be effective since there are so
many values from the forest that we can not provide single-use areas for each
of them. In addition, the importance of the various values continues to
fluctuate more rapidly than they can be grown as single uses.
105
Where no coordinated management is done, such as in subsistence
agriculture in many parts of the world, many of the patterns, processes, and
species are lost.
As more values are becoming threatened (e.g., fish, forest health, ajid
clean air), it is a very efifective way of maintaining those values which require
large sireas of diverse patterns and processes.
There are several thrusts which would help implement ecosystems
management:
i. Begin technical programs to develop the needed hardware and
software to make ecosystems management planning efficient;
ii. Begin providing this Decision Support and other hardware and
software needed for ecosystems management to the local levels
of the foreste (even as it is being developed, rather than waiting
xintil it is fully developed);
iii. Begin training local forestry and other resource people as well as
people at all levels of management in the concepts of ecosystems
management. Mid-career short courses could be effective here;
iv. Encourage ecosystems management to begin in a "bottom-up"
approach, NOT a "top-down" central planning approach.
Presently, state-of-the-art technology is beginning to allow the
various ecosystem patterns and processes to be coordinated over
areas of about 10,000 to 15,000 acres. Ecosystems management
at this level could begin. Then, management over broader areas
can be done through creative coordination among managers of
these smaller areas. This "bottom-up" approach will also allow
immediate identification and correction of currently hazardous
conditions even before all decision support hardware and
software is in place.
76-302 0-94-5
106
17
PART #3: 3. Specific commeate on H.R229 (103rd Congress, Ist
Session)
H.R.229 is a positive step toward landscape (ecosystem ) management.
It allows a scientifically sound, pro-active, joint production of tlie various
values of:
--forest protection from catastrophic disturbances,
—maintenance of a diversity of forest stjructures and processes;
"local employment:
-production of ecologically sound forest products.
One major sviggestions is to change from an "emergency fund" to be
instituted only at "times of crisis" to a constant fund to maintain the forests
in a condition of health through constant manipulation of stands BEFORE
they reach crisis stage. This constant mjtnagement would be much more
similar to landscape management. There are several reasons for this change:
1. The cost of proactive management of stands will be much less costly
and much more efifective thsm "emergency" measures after
problems have begun.
2. A problem with declaring an emergency will be to identify when
forests are in a condition of poor "forest health." For example,
using technical "density diagrams" and "decision keys",
silviculturists can recognize that a stand will become overcrowded
and poor in vigor many years (even decades) before it actually
becomes infested with insects.
As examples, foresters were predicting the insect outbreak in
the Yellowstone in 1981. Similarly, an insect outbreak 'and
subsequent fire) can be expected in tlie ponderosa pine forests on
the Coconino Plateau (Flagstaff, Arizona) based on the stand
history and structure, although insects may not appear for several
years or decades.
3. Relatively steady management activities in an area will be much more
logistically efficient than working on an "emergency" basis, since
relatively steady employment and flows of wood will maintain a
trained labor force, equipment, and markets in the area. The
107
emergency basis will require unstable "booms" and "busts" of
unemployment, equipment, and markets.
4. The "emergency" practice of salvaging burned trees to prevent spread
of insects in the weakened trees is biologically sound.
Sociologically, however, such policies have given the local people no
interest in preventing wildfires. (This lax attitude among local
people has occurred in many places in the world where they had no
stake in preventing fires.)
Specific comments refer to lines of text:
pg. 2, In. 13. Overcrowding of trees is a very common cause of
weakening, resulting in windthrow, insect infestations, etc.
pg. 2, In, 17 & 18. As discussed above, because of the large size of natural
disturbances (jmd the currently firagmented landscape), you
probably want to be concerned with conditions which are actually
within the "natural range of variability." (For example, a million
acre fire is within the range of natural variability, but probably not
desirable.)
pg. 3, In. 1. The forest health "emergencies" also are part of (and the
result of) natural patterns and processes. (Management is not
responsible for all of the emergencies.)
pg. 3, In. 6. Suggest add words to read; "...substantial ecological and
economic losses..." since loss of habitat is an ecological loss.
pg. 5, In. 16. Good point.
pg. 8, In. 8-10. Tliis appears like a robust definition of "forest health." It
is much better than an "insects are bad" perspective.
pg. 12, In. 23-25. This ability to provide incentives to non-Federal lands
is ecologically, managerieilly, and technically sound.
108
19
pg. 15, In. 1 & 2. Putting this into and "adaptive management"
framework will make tlie monitoring most efficient.
pg. 15, In. 13-16. Are experts from academic inGtitutions included in this?
I suggest they be included.
pg. 18, In. 18-20. This expansion of K.-V. money uses is a very positive
step.
pg. 26, In. 20 &21. This forest health report is a good idea. Suggest use
term "health" to describe distribution of structures across
landscape.
(Attachments follow:)
109
THE Mi^V YORK TIMES
SCIENCE rvL'iO'W. iuly u. im
New Eye on Nature: The Real
Constant Is Eternal Turmoil
The ^balance* theory
may be more poetry
than science.
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
In « rvvUion th«t hts far-r«ach{ng
ImpllciUona (or tne way humane .tcr
(h« natural world nnd ihcir role In it.
many $cicn«Ui« are for»akmi5 on* c(
the molt dc«ply einb«<ld«d cortcqn*
oi ecology: (ht balaiK:e ul nature.
r.cotoghtn have irndHlonallv oper-
ated on the «$»(jmpllon that tne nor-
mal condition ot nature is a xtaie of
tqulllbrlum. In which organj.imi
comp»i« and cocxiirt In an acolo|ilcRi
lyjtcm whojf worklnfit are essential-
ly stable. Pr«<ltlort and prey ~
ntoose and waives »t rJK;rfBh5 and
gaielles, lor inftianrc --> orr Mrppn^cd
to remain In eit«niialiy Mntir. b'-il*
ance. Ancfwvlea and salmon rrarrh n
tnaxiumm pcpolatlon th.it oin \k mi&-
lained t>y ihelr wccanic environment
»nd rrmaln at ihM level, A; forest
growi to • b«auUful. mature climax
stage ihat bixome* U» naturally
permanent condition.
Ttili concept of natural equiritn lum
ksng ruled ecdoglcal rfsean:*? ami
governed the managnrnvnt of soch
naiurol resources i»5 (oresta wid fish-
tries. It led to the doctrine, popular
among conservationists, ihai n»iurc
knows best and that human Inicrven-
lion In U in had by tlcfmUlon.
No*- a4i accu."n.<U:lnn of cvMcr.ce
hB$ gradii»<lly |pd many ccologists to
abandon the concept or declare It
trreievani. and others to alter it drjv
Ucally. They say Uiai naiur* ix .icni'
ally In a cimilnuinn sintc of distur-
bance and fluctuation. Chanpe and
lurmoM. more than constancy and
balance. Is the rule. As a coii%e-
quence, say many leaders In the r.eid,
itexttxxSis will have to l>e rr»vr>ucn
and strategies of con^firvntim and
resource management will have to be
rethought.
Changing View
Of N<iturQ
U'Kli.^lUfbOd
noltjr^
\
I Rfsponse
»
oiitwimieil:'
s> •••'-•JIviiJSWi.j,
Tlmt -^
In th« past, tcolDglaiB
Assumed that nstur«
undi5turt7«d waa a conatant
8tet9 to which ©coiystams
and popufatloni oi animgili
i^ouid ration alt^r
c}Taturtsnc«4 liK« nrnjt.
Undiaiufbi^d n.-iiuro
variBS b«lws»n
soma limUs
Tlmt —
Ma;)/ $Cl«0tl5l« n^vr &«li«v9
\Ni lOCxiOl 10 t^ U^COrfUCl.
Populatlone and ecosystems,
Ihey say, ehvays vary wltWn
soma boundarlas and thsra Is
no "perfecr atala to which
Ihelr number* and growth will
reluio il th9y aro disturbed
Soun»: Dmnitl fll BotkJn
110
Thr bRiwnce-of-nature concept
"makes nice po€iry, bui Jfs nm au« h
great science," 93IJ Dr. Sirward
T. A. Pickeu, n plant ♦coJvkui ai iite
In^tUuicof Ecosystem Studies of die
N«w Ynrk Brnnplcjil (jRr<len ai Mill-
brnok, NY Hn wa', h cn-orRflnl.'et of
a lympfinlum thni rxplurr<J [hr inRl-
ter ycMrrtlny In ^nnwhlrfl. t.'inh. ni
lilt annual meeting of ihr I- rilnflcaj
SucUriy uf Amrrira, ihr nRllOM s pre
rnicr PfRanlzntlon of ecolocical scien-
tists.
WiDir (he ynift in thinking h.is not
yd produced a coiier^ni nc-.v i'hx,;y
to leplacf the Ohl (»np. Or Pk kr;<
c^3l iiLienirx whni Is gnlnR on «i<5 "a
majt'r rrviston of one of onr Dasic
«S3unnptlon3 of how the nnlurnl world
worKj." Tlie drivirlnping c«>nvtrt)on
•JlRt naiuf* 13 rul-d more hy flux and
dlSturdanc? Is "bOCOmmjj the Ounu-
n«ni I'iea/'he said.
"Tticrr will alwny? h>* p'.'ut>le wIfO
*lll rling tp olM Idcnj " «3('J Dr. Si-
mon A levin, n Cornell Uolveislly
ec»)i<igi.-.( who I', ihc iPO'iniine piesl-
dent of the RrijlnRiral Society '"LlJt
frrialnly ihr center ol n)a!!i of lliltiH-
Ins* nmone ccoloatsi*,. hrf r.imi. h(i$
shifiod owby (rdfri cquilibnutii and
■tV^fil Ibi' (llirtuallllg ll.llllC cf Pi»t-
<jial sv^tcMi^. r,i>tnr ji.iciiinis now
lay ibfti (.Toloclcol rflmntunllfti uf
plants and i»nlm«l« are lnt\orr.r(|Y
unjtaMe lar(icly bcrpuse of Wlor.yn'
erotic dillofenow (n behavior amoMR
COmmMnllkes and Individuals In them.
A «upf r-«i4ir*Mivc wo(fp«(K Je«d<!r,
ivr exompTc. c«n gre«tly Increo jc ihe
pack'B hunting ?/ficlency and dr.-itnhl.
h:« iIk? ev^yiiem — jtiji At iH* Uealh
of a pnck tBpcKT can promote inaiatjll-
Ity by cauflnR the par.H lod'6l>frBf.
D>i( even II <^cnlci|lcnl communlilr*
do (ll."»pl«y »yrne aorl of Inlr.i n;>| fij^l-
Ut^rlum, mony ir,h>ni(«t» belteve. ex-
tcrnfll digiurbances Ilk* cllmailc
change, year-to-year variations In
wrAiner bAllerrs. llrcfl. w|iv<j3ior/n5,
hurricanes tiKt Jlieaac jcldom. i(
*vrr. Jive tbe communuies A Clinnce
to settle Into « aiabie stale. »n fbit
view, the climax forr^t. lUt n-aily
tymmclrlcQl prciJAli>r-prry rcinlJnii.
»hip fliirt the bumper fK^ p<'>pttlaUon
become translwi conditions et best.
*ven in the absence of huoK^n Inter-
vention.
Sclcni|»t/mre finding Ihm to bft inie
«> tnnny scoIm of iln>e and space,
from t/>e giftclal and gJobol to lh«
eeftsunal and foc«l, fimJ tn porU of ih«
world Icyifk o7n^ldrr«d lb* most pri.'j-
ttiie and «;t9hir Via the trorlcul rain
foroji»of Svulh and Central Amcrira,
for Insianc-e, cr the north wtmJa o<
Canada ond the northern Untted
Sifltrj)
In the tiaiurHl lamlsr ope, "tl*n; ij
■Irooii i>iMlr«tim<tBnc«- gne ton find
•"Xre something |»a-t cbanaina Uie
irstnn." Mnjd Dr. <:mrai> L Jocobsnn
!»'• . who, OR A PAleoccoioflUt <»| ih»
UnlvergUy of Maino, nudlcs ecotonl-
Cal chanftr a» It |a revealed In ancient
scdlnicmj and rock* AlxJ while lhcr»
»««y be 0 lend<^ncy toward a Jidble
Mulllhilitm. he said, "jl'j never al.
luvred to get there, so wc mlglu as
w^ll iKil expect It toeMil."
In this dc^eluvlng new pei 8p«cllvc,
ht»rnans irn •merK'ng ax ju?l we of
many 9:)t|rres of ivcolo^iial dJxtur-
b*iice thnt hrcp |>nlure In a pcrp^nmJ
alotc of upnior. lT)e qiieeijun of
whfitirr humini «l|v<jld Jntervcn*) in
n»*wt-n? pr(v*«*«^ 1^ m/vw. ••'OJnRlsts
•ay. SMK'e humans ftt>d their ntar-
human ancestors hove bcon dvlnR so
lor eo«i|, Bfxi rrolofU-al sysioma
• r«i/^ the worU bear their indelible
Imprint.
TV (Uippoccdly prlatlnc rain for-
♦sla of I.Aili) America, (or ln;t«ncc,
owa ^ome ol tnelr character to ihe
Inlcrvcnilwi of liumonx who planted
and Iranrpianlcd ifiv>* nno olfx'r
pUfiii throuf ruxil Ihe lungln. And the
auppcwftdly unspoiled krrnRetl plain
Of Alrka, tonip e«.tjlDgisi)i sre con-
vinced, owes lis irrmendous (\bun-
dance of Rrft?.((;^ animal* a\ jeftst
partly «o humon-cot f jrea that created
lt<YBnno hnbltats.
"n>« real quc.<;tloii. ecoluRKi* ifly, |s
which oc.ri of human Iniervcntfonj
Should be promoicd and which op.
pnaed.
Onr nf U)o hlj^pnf human Intervetv
HCHl«. »wme say. It taking plncf rt^w
as people pour hcat.lrappjnf: chcmU
cars, mainly cartKHi dtontdr. Into the
Bimosp»>f te. Many r.HmniQlop.jsis ex.
pj'Ct that this will cause the F.mih's
cllmalr to warm Mgniflcantly, cnu«.
ll»8 ecpeclally wW^-jpread crolofilcal
dIslocRtlon,
The temperature of the r.nnt\ I1.15
•hllted up «rtd down many times in
psjt evna, ccniogljij point wit, (tnd
ecosyfitainj hsve Alwayj Bd|uslRd.
Bvf Ihia human Inlervenllnn, $<-len-
tilts say. tltrealcn* to force. In a
ceriu<y or kr.t. vj^jj climatic? »nij
e^nlof tea) chongos that haw<? uvjally
toKcn millennia Ecoh^ljis fe.ir tnpt
thi? time, eeo^y^tvms will nri adjust
rapidly n^.^h \o ^tavf off cataslro-
plir lor many *poi|*<(i.
M^rcovfi. wme wnJopljt!* sny.
people are ellmin/itlryi aomc of the
diversity nf habitat — find therrloro
Of fpeclcs — iPflt other natural dl.'.-
ruplKHiB crente inrt prnmolc. "We
thn'oieii thai vftrlrtbltlty tx-r«uv we
want to msjtiiKc evcryihiit^ ijXc corn.
flRM«," jold Dr Julie Dcn'slow, a
tn.'plcal ccolofili't at Tuisn.* Unlver.<:i.
ly. Tt\trt; (s, shr «bIJ, 'a vrhctornnip
ol Mi" oppn<»«ft to thi.i •rwiirllile ho-
mogrnlilnj^.'
HI
New View of the Balance of Nature
Finds the Real Constant Is Tuniioil
A Difficulty
Posing a Question:
What Is Natural?
The nc* vu-w (j( rianiro j«;5tj diffi
cul.'lc.« fiir cc>r4crvfni(.n)rit jnd f nvi-
f^iTtcnlallKi/i w(>u wani lo i>rT5crvo
Ihingr. hi iSfir naiui*! condiuon. «c)-
em!.'.ix Sjty, since thr qiitjlluii now
lA'wmrs If clilurcn (s ronstnm. n^I'^I
K ilio nnturni r.inri-'
Wh.d, frii lii';V,uitr., Is iln- i-xiijf'l
rfxnJliloiiQt Ihr A(11tviuln<;kr.. whcf/i
iplrllrrt ^^(tjL'jmral ir. pttlng on ;»!>imiI
whfihor ■Toiifl)!" fisli hkr siiokci*,
jihlnoi; jind rhun* slumlj be klll'^rt
(iiij rcmnvr>l fi<ini r.on>r piin<l» lo
niaki' way i(ir (icu( I'l'iifvlr oi ruic
?l<lv «( (hr nrpiiMH-ni, clllna q si.iir
policy ihm I Imj to "pciPC'nuie natu
rAl )<miollc "coiyAi^tiii"' In the men.
say thni ilif uuirIi It.ilt irpr«-<( m ilu?
nnuir*l ci>n<llll(m nn«l ilv/it tin." i^iitil!:
jJiwiil'l !« pi CJM'i vo) In Ihal r.«ii<ilili>ii
Olhcra sAy t|i«i nl IcnK somif ivuRh
ftjh or>: dr.*f<-fvjp«i* ol haUfUli
broup.ni III by humnns onj Ui.m Ihcv
h^vf crourdrd mil (nnil »mt flom-
lahrd ilifr^ enrllcr.
U ♦lihcr o( tfies* «li<;moiivc wmOl-
tlons "ih^" nolurQl staio' Or l! the
fimurBJ sloir ihe *8y Ihc Adltyn-
dacXs w«;rf when Europ«fti>^ (jrsl ar-
rive? Or. (or iliit maUc.r. tho way
Ihay w^ce in the m|ll«jinla when the
ttfslon won ^^l^^cd under en Ice-nge
(tlflr-tcr. Or In the «jrc««8iun oi dtltr.r-
tnx {crests, animals and ccft*y«i«rms
Ihal folJOw-rd?
"Nslurc -cun b? In mnny cvndl-
lion?." «<\id LJr. Daniel 6. tolkln, fti)
Kck^tst at ir>« Unlvcrsliy of CAlKor-
nifl ftt Stn\A bartiara who Is o lcad«i
o( the r(}a!i&«Mmonl effort. Decause
0( that, he RAW. owiervatlonmi and
n^vitct managrrn w|i) b« required
to inolyy^ B Jtlven sItuAilvn more
cororully than In ilrx: (>ni»l nnd llici»
CffMK whlc^ n<Moref condftlyn \v
prcmote rather C«n »lrnply Insist
Ihat humanj ehouW not up«ct s sup
poofO balance of ofliurt
"1 think »x'8 ri^t," »nh1 Rupert
CX3tl«f, the prcildoni oJ (he De(cn<1f.r$
Of WlldlK*. a meijor consflrv««tion or.
Rflnl?4ll(on. He luld thtit the .ihift jji
thinking "WKtesLi lh»l the responsl-
timy tor proLBCtU^jJ rwlurs will re-
quire « moch higher \fyt\ of inicnie
Ipplluitlon of Klenc« thAn ll vr«»
•vtf «isum«d to r«Qulre In the pnsl."
Empty Th»onr
Observations Find
No Neat Balance
In U« clasflc (ormulattoo, Ihe bil-
»fK«-«f«n*tUre conctpi hoJda thai In
ecoffyit^m malnulflS A constant equl-
Ii^rlufD arxi when diuurti^d, it re-
turns to lu former status wl>er3 thft
C#U» of «>« ai«lurb*nce la removed.
Many sclenUjU ncnr ny Ic (a cJcir
lh»t lhl» »< rKX Ihe way ihlrg* w«rk.
"Wc ran tay that's d<>fld fur most
pfople In ihB xclcnttflc comnjvjnliy,"
»»lo Dr. Pelrr I.. n>f*»iin. n Ihrnrril.
eal coiof.lAt at Uhlo Sime Unlvrrntly
wtiti tcjk p:iri Ift yeslerday'K ?y»»po
slum olyor with br. Plckcll, Ur. Jn-
WbMn, Dr, Butkln or>d Dr, Denskjw.
ThPOiher pnrtlclpfntJ were Dr Mar-
|:arcl R. OawIji. « pnteocroioglm at llic
University of Minttfftyta who h^)J)^^d'
orxanl?^ Uie symposium ftihlDr. Judy
I- Meyer. ■ si ream ccolopisi «) the
Univrri^liy vf CreorftU.
NUny chsorvRtJviiJ of Ihr hrluivii^r
of antirtol j>couIallr)n:» In the wild.
$i»y« l)r. BotVin, Oo not xtipp^m the
of;?:umpit<)n vf ncnl hal«Mi> prcdictisl
t>y trftdlllcnnl rcolvRjcal theory Qtit
«:p«-to' t>ie theory /IB yj that when a
pOf'Ulatton of nnlmnli moves luu' -in
area, li gn>wj iiredually ty n Jevrl of
uhundance at Which Its cnviiomm-ni
vrlll nllrvw u U) be s"iilaln.'«l Ip'Jcflnltr..
ty. aixj (hon iTn»i»ln5 at that (t-v*).
AtKithrr says i\vtl prcOoioi xml prey
pomjIfltWinK In a ^Ivfn ^.oiystcm os-
cIllAtc In numh*>r(t. w|ih cxi.-' rxV^vla-
tl<jn at a p"-*''' while trta other k at a
low f«>lrt nnd vl<o vrrsa, Ihcir-liy
CKnllnR nn «-(|iiilibrlgm ovr-r tlme.i
Bui In teal llfr-, mys Or. BrnKln,
■ Vhen yoii loinxJucc n nopMlallon to n
new ftr^o It ROC* up ana then crrtshtv
and Ihm II ij^.-onnl romsln cw^iant.
1lK l>>iig-ii>rm nuniN i» vnry nnd bi«
much lower' ilirtn prcdictr.d hy the
theory Similarly, h* tA'ij, p numhor
nf JUidles and n)><rrvatlon9. la the
Inborr.torv *t \\cll on the wild. jIkiw
thai pr-dalor proy poiiulatlonj; rtn nut
Ofclll.Tlc stpljfy nnd prriUvlnUy In
.':(f.nfi. insy either IIvk lunie wildly mid
imprediciohiy mt the pre)' •tp^clvT u
<llmlnmrO Ahd Ihe prr/^niur ipti If^
rtl«»9 vl jtorvAiinn In one fttni/^uJ e.t-
perlmpru. Doramwliini rnl:robo« in
rr»aaed rnpKlly Vihrn prr<l3l«;r ml-
tro(>r» *f»rc Ir.lirtjih Aj. Ihry In-
< '■esccd. I(«i Hill In the < itif 111": p,i( n-
meclo wi IT rKlrfuiinslcfl ann iln-
pi flijiiior: di<^l • f siorvailfiii
112
A'tcirpi* io oppH the cl3''i<'^l
Vitlibrturp f.tliii.fplp
r<Hlllibrturp f.tlili.lpip to IT* irnPARO-
(fi, ;<'<<)iJI'ia Ml III. llt'lkiti. I »i
yrnj-;. In- kaU), intrriiAliftJt.'il hkmIb
[>>rr. «'t ff/n!riirii;lal ll.'.hhiR (\{i^i-
mmrO ;tlluA.-\h!f. Aiimiflj culihcr. hy
calrulatiiip, tnaximum iii«iftlii.|l)k<
yt>.'li)» ;ici or<1lii5 ii) rtj\(<llbrliiin \\)t>.
01 y lilt- Hilary vm»s «ii<|| » )ux>r
K^ilJo. 1)1 RriOdiM-iiJ.lh-lt p<>|)iil;ntiiii
flflr*! |;<j|>tll.T|)tin (.f <NHliii|i<i( |:il Ihll
stif('i"0 rilosdiijdih; Jvi;II(irn In lln*
lyilii s niiO iorP'\ <in(l fomt- (i:ivi- imi
y«( riTtivrtrd
Manngriy nt lirhrrlr^ nrr ii ytiir-. li»
liliiVf *\»(iy lioill IliftI «l«nlr>'.y lldW,
III' "tiiUt, by nnn))riiip. (Iir nior'- ('itiii-
|>ll(ni'>il ';uiiiii that nriD.tlly ^ii.icr
mine flyli popuUil<)Mn Amunp ihctr,
i(ir rxni(il>k'. arr (he riwhimiiu-nlfti
iltMurlKinrc.< dmi imiTty tlclrrmliKj
<|ir *!/" uf '• (••'•in yrnr't IiO(< Ihpr \ii
yniMiR iKIr Itv '"ftilinullnR «n<l k(^(>-
Jiif Tiftrk vf <hcic vftrylnp, "ycir
(,l;iry''?: " mniinp/ff hype (n rjdjiiif
< ni>'h (|init;i» vi'nr bv yf^ni n»nl nvnirf
ni|)|i>H "<ll t^K •'Mlll» I {(inr
Sftiiu- Fi;l'.viil»ij arc nft« quHt 'rt'Jy
Id rit>3ndnn fiiiiir-ly the cwicpj i>t ivu
JiiliriCi'l iCiWriicy inwuril cqnlHh
vliim til M o:.y»(i iii^ A kind ol ci)iiliili-
limn, lliny sav. nifty ch\^{ ni» wmr.
jcolrs ol ilm(' mnj jparr.
S'.^'lc, In (.in. Dioy U: very Jnipor-
I.TMi. wjiili' ilirrc may Ut fnyrjnuul^.
iiiil';0;iHrlnR illHtuhninc? anO lUu itt-
Biloiifc niiiviiK .vmnll iMipnlnti'Mi; in
r'n:»ll cc(«v*i"""<, says Or Piihrfl,
llM* (liK'ivaiKtnr- ni^y ht darnpritril
wlirn the Li I »',i'r- jiir lure Is r imui On '0.
^Immi':i y(>j| ii( turillltiil-xv^llo cqiilllla
I linn mt^il ii|ft>>r An n>i||li;«l j^fJHltii-
iii>C.)>i i>ui il'i '•II I' :i|l<i<*7d tu ron;^c
pvri A *kI' ' ;iica. l)f nmHn itttn
(Dill U «'• qi'ilC p-Ottl.tli- (h:il WlHlO II
J^IVPD lUf ulily'x rrnloRy WOtllil < li.-iii;«f
utiiiki.'JIy (ivci lliinnciiids v( yen ft,
ihTr niiilO [f: iiTunlng '?lii>llaiiii«x
— ;«inJ Jhwr- n KImiI uf llg.iling r(}iillir>.
rlijiii — 111 MioJiuitt-rAtip.o liar
lIvAi, In (an, 15 whM Dr. Ch-sr.i^ii,
Ihe ih<^iii««(ivi:m. pofilul4»i(-i. There
•Tiny, for irvinmr. 1^ 3 llniUwl ninjsr
In wUltlmn nnlmni papuUiio4i llurtu-
nui nvcr »<vriiil lioniirci) yrnf« An
raulllliHum vwild ho rnkulaujil by
^(•VlrR Ihr ov<"u«Rc ul Ihfl JUmna-
llnnR. Hill II \»«ukl fj^ )i "rMl mU^
>*«k<«." sold Or ChC^rOl). to •■'m;Ui;
Ihlc wlih nnylhlnn •'rrmulcly ilkt^"
III': cin^slcal hU'ti v( (he tMlftnic nl
nniuff
Outside Factors
Shape Ecosystenis ,z.
PCfhSpj th« innj; outalantJIiiR cjj>
dcnce (avorlnn an ccoloity ol cnnsivS'
chai)|t« and dlJrupdnn oyer onr yt
stnllr hi^toncc cnm«s from |ii>iJir5,of
n^ilurallv occurring fxiimml faciOTif
IhBi dljfocBtr e<^o^ysltms.
For • KinA Umc. wys Dr. M»ycr <ji,
ihf Unlveriliy <if Gcorglfl. ihcsc oin-
jliic Inllircnccj w#re Insufllclfnliy^
fuukltrrd. V]* empha*l8. the soUii'
was "ofi piTTcctios joliyt on within 9J<*
tyrlcm. " *v<fr; thoug^i "wliafs hnp<
pcnIiiB is drivrn by whofx h(»|i|x7nc<<
OulsltK." Fci'loRiJu:. ^\t saw. "h»4
hllnflf r« wi In ininKlnR obaii exicmaj
t.\>ntn3lllnp, factors." t
CJIrnntc and WfjUKr appear foirti
rno.1t imoiui ihcit fectori. By KiiKhi*
Ing ihc rccortl l»ld down Ip (X^an bM
lake ef<31ment». icWtiUia lir>ow Ihof
CUtnalc. In ihf wordu of Dr. DaviRjjf
Ihc Unlvr^Trslty of Mlrmecoto, h«» l.ecff
"^^lldly fluciudlt.na' cvftr Ihe Itil tw»
million vrari. and ih« jJmpo <^ e<3j:
ftvutmi wiih li lh«fli>ciiiA«iofij loie
place rK>l only frop) ton to pon. |^l
• l.iw) from yi>»r \v year snd 41 cvr.ry
jcalc In tiiMMrecn. 'So you cani \l8y
niu? B time In <>Qul!lbrluni," Jafd r5r,
Dovlj
E'r JBco<^.<on iald ih«r« Ib viriuftjly
na »l»nf when Ih* overall ♦nvlron.
nicnl siayo cw»i3t»ni lor ycr>' long.
'•lTu»i mrsni in»i ihc confignrrtiion
of <lw ecosyai^ms Is aiwAjr) chang-
ing."
113
Figure 2A (after Oliver 1992fc) . Forest structures change
after natural and human disturbances, as shown here
simplistically (after Oliver 1981).
2B. Different plant and anizal species are found in each
structure, but all structures are necessary within a fores:
area to maintain biodiversity. (Vertical axis = number of
mammal species; after Franklin et al. 1986).
2C. The structures change with age (shown here
schematically for western Washington); however, the time
before each structure was reached following a natural
disturbance varied greatly.
A. CHANGES IN STAND STRUCTURES FOLLOWING DISTURB^\NCES
STAND
INITIATION
^jTi ffmfii?rt
STEM - UNDERSTORY
EXCLUSION REINITIATION
^ \^y
OLD
GROWTH
B. MAMMAL SPECIES UTILIZING EACH STRUCTURE
C. PRE- 1850 WESTERN WASHINGTON FORESTS
::W5mw^
100
^^
200 300
STAJ^ID AGE (YEARS)
400
114
Figure^ . A targeted variety stand structures (Fig. :Z )
could be maintained in a dynamic balance across a landscape
unit through silvicultural operations. The size of the
landscape unit and each stand would be determined by
scientists and professionals based on ecological,
geomorphologic, and climatic processes as well as logistic
considerations. Target spatial distributions of structures
would also be defined by scientists.
SCfVLE ; • ' :ii-2t.. 1 (iiiiilo^i. ri.iM.xiimpliO
(DEPENDS ON RIOI.OCICAL. GEOI-CKilCAL. AND
CLIMATIC FACTORS I
TARGET LANDSCAPE PATTERN (EXAMPLE)
I I STAND INITIATION : >15% of area
STEM EXCLUSION: >lS%ofarea
UNDERSTORY REINITIATION: >15%
OLD GROWTH: >15%ofarca
PATTERN AND AREA IN EACH STRUCTURE IS
DICTATED BY ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
115
Mr. Chairman. Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at
this hearing.
My name is Leon F. Neuenschwander and I represent the University of Idaho as the
Associate Dean for Research and International Programs for the College of Forestry,
Wildlife and Range Sciences. I am a forest and range ecologist and will speak from that
expertise.
The condition of many forests in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and southern Idaho is
in decline. The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, State of Idaho, and private
lands are affected by the current insect and disease epidemics. Some people call this a
"health" problem, as if the symptoms could be treated as medical science does with human
patients. We don't know enough about forest ecosystems to do that with comparable degree
of confidence. But we need to develop the knowlwlge of how to improve forest conditions
because the long leaf pine forest types such as ponderosa pine forests will continue to decline
and give way to the more shade tolerant tree species and will become even more threatened
by wildfire, insects, and disease if we continue to manage these forest as we are currently.
Extensive landscape ecosystem management with silvicultural alternatives and prescribed fire
is needed to restore forest condition and prevent forest decline.
Dead and dying trees from insects, disease provide fuel for wildfires. Catastrophic stand
replacements by wildfires are increasing in the northern Rocky Mountains.
In some locations dead and dying forests have recently been subject to catastrophic fire. For
example, in the Blue Mountains of Oregon some of these fire areas include: Joseph Canyon,
Tepee Butte, Dooley Mountain and others.
A well-known example was the fires in Yellowstone National Park in 1988 and the Foothills
fire near Boise, Idaho. In the past, and I fully expect in the future, the dead and dying
forests set the stage for catastrophic wildfires by increasing the amount of understory plants
as well as the dead woody material to support intense and fast spreading fires. That will cost
more to suppress, limit resource management options and create economic loss.
I believe the decline in forest conditions is related to both natural processes and management
policies, especially the exclusion of fire. Some of the natural processes include forest
succession moving toward more dense forest with more shade tolerant tree species. For
example, ponderosa pine is being replaced with Douglas-fir, white fir, or grand fir. This
change in the species composition includes more trees that are more susceptible to insects
and disease, especially under drought conditions. There has also been an increase in
LFN'(<»-l>Hi.91>
116
numbers and density of trees in these forests. In some locations, tree numbers and biomass
have exceeded carrying capacity of the site.
Historically, the combination of wildfire, drought, and insects and disease, have regulated
these natural succession processes and generally favored serai trees like ponderosa pine. For
six of the last seven years, forests in Idaho, eastern Oregon, and Washington have been
subject to drought conditions. Historically fires occurred often, that is once every 7 to 25
years in the ponderosa pine forests of southern Idaho. These fires removed small trees but
the large trees survived. Most fires have been suppressed and fire no longer plays the
natural role of reducing the stocking levels and favoring the serai forest species. In fact, the
fires today are often of high intensity and frequently wipe out large areas of trees. This
pattern was historically present, but seems to be more extensive today. Even so, the total
number of acres being burned is substantially less than what it was before the turn of the
century when we began fighting forest fires. The fires are killing many of the large
ponderosa pine tiiat survived the surface fires of the past. Old growth ponderosa pine is
more at risk of being killed by fire than ever before. This is occurring at the same time that
the natural regulators of insects and disease, such as forest birds, parasitic insects, and other
critters, may be in decline.
Forest management research is needed so we can understand what some have called forest
health issues and to undentand them as ecosystem processes. Insects, disease, and fire are a
part of these natural processes. However, these factors are out of balance and appear to be
changing forest ecosystems at this time. If global climate change occurs as some have
predicted, this will create even more serious problems for forest management activities and
the health of forests in this region. I feel that an urgent need is to focus on sustaining
productive forests and work to prevent low growth and high mortality rates that are now
occurring in the Northern Rocky Mountain forests. We can do this only by addressing the
condition of forest ecosystems as a whole in addition to treating the symptoms of forest
decline.
The dead and dying trees on the national forests, BLM, state, and private lands represent an
economic loss to Idaho. Salvage of the dead and dying trees should be considered and
executed in such a way as to guarantee the future productivity and maintenance of the forest
ecosystem. Future timber, wildlife, recreation, and water resource values must also be
considered along with the economic loss, and the effects of salvage logging should be
identified on a site by site basis in consideration of the socially determined desired future
conditions with respect to these low timber values.
Scientists have studied forest ecosystem conditions for decades. Even with an extensive
existing knowledge base we do not have conclusive answers. There are many different
opinions and views, all supported in part by research. However, the bulk of the research has
not addressed issues dealing with forest health as an ecosystem process. A first step in that
Ai«al 1>, 199)
117
direction will be the forthcoming "Forest Health Conditions in Idaho" report by the CFWR
Policy Analysis Group. We will need additional scientific information to fill in our
information gaps, especially in the area of the effects of salvage logging on natural regulators
(such as bird communities), on fire hazard potential, management future fire effects, on
sustaining long-term forest productivity and on ecosystem processes.
I hope, we do not have to treat forest conditions in a state of decline as emergencies or wait
for "forest health emergencies" to manage the forests ecosystems for sustainable productivity.
Forest health, is the condition of forests, particularly when expressed in the vernacular of not
only scientifically complex but also highly emotional. We at the university can assure you
that we want do our part to address these needs. Please consider that you need long-term
science-based solutions to forest ecosystem productivity in addition to short term treatment of
the visible symptoms of forest health problems.
118
Suggested Questions for Leon F. Neuenschwandcr
1 . If the drought were to end would that solve the forest health problems?
2. What about "new forestry"? Will the new forestry activities and management
practices reduce forest health problems?
3. If we stop all forestry management activities and harvesting of timber will he forests
continue to have the vast areas of dead and dying trees?
4. What forest management activities are needed to increase forest health and return the
number of acres of dead and dying trees?
5. Can we afford to let wildfires run their course? How can the natural role of fire be
restored to our forests?
6. Do you agree in principle with the findings of congress and with purposes started in
Sec. 2, H.R. 229 - the National Forest Health Act.
UN fc»-Mik.93>
At«wi 19, 1993
119
'9j;- Kjft*"
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
IDAHO OFFICE
TESTIMONY OF CRAIG GEHRKE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE IDAHO OFFICE
OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, BEFORE THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES REGARDING
H.R. 229, THE "NATIONAL FOREST HEALTH ACT" AUGUST 20, X993,
BOISE, IDAHO
Thank your Mr. Chairman. My name is Craig Gehrke. I'm the
regional director for the Idaho Office of The Wilderness Society.
The Wilderness Society is a non-profit conservation organization
based in Washington, D.C. whose mission is the wise stewardship
of our public lands. Nationally the Society has over 300,000
members.
The Society has been intensively involved in national forest
management issues for the past decade. My comments today will
reflect my experiences with national forest management here in
Idaho.
The forest health issue has dominated national forest
management discussions for the past several years. People are
rightly concerned about the long-term health and sustainability
of all the unique resources found on the national forests. Too
often that concern has been addressed by the management agency,
the U.S. Forest Service, on 'management techniques which only
address tree health, not forest health.
The health of the national forests has been an emotional
issue as well. You will no doubt hear from the timber industry
that leaving dead trees in a forest is a "waste," and that
subsequent fires roaring through dead trees will destroy our
watersheds and fisheries.
Yet even sixth grade biology students understand that
nothing is ever wasted in diverse ecosystems. Dead trees provide
homes for numerous species while rotting logs enrich the soil.
Claiming a desire to "save" the forest watersheds from fire
is equally self-serving. Past observations do not support the
contention made by some that fire will irreversible destroy
watersheds. The Idaho Panhandle Forest recently documented a
forest-wide decline in water quality and tied that decline to
logging and roadbuilding. By contrast, the roadless watersheds
of the upper St. Joe River provide some of the best remaining of
high quality water on the entire Panhandle Forest. These are the
413 WEST IDAHO STREET, SUITE 102, BOISE, IDAHO 83702
(208) 343-8153
120
same watersheds that were burned by the 1910 fire, one of the
largest wild fires in history.
There is a need to step back from the current debate over
forest health and reconsider the ultimate goal of any forest
health recovery plan. The ultimate goal should not be to
expeditiously salvage log the maximum amount of dead wood from
the national forests. Instead, the forest health issue presents
the U.S. Forest Service with the rare opportunity to stop talking
so much about ecosystem management and finally take steps toward
implementation.
The question is not forest health but ecosystem health.
It's true that the forest ecosystems in Idaho are under stress.
In fact, our national forests are unraveling. But only in a few
circumstances can that stress be traced back to the culprits the
Forest Service would like the public to believe are responsible:
insects, disease, and the drought. More often Idaho's forest
ecosystems are stressed by management activities implemented by
the Forest Service. It is important that the Forest Service
avoid repeating past mistakes of assuming it knows exactly how to
restore healthy forests and rush about thinning and salvaging -
in essence, applying a single management scenario over vast
landscapes. Ecosystems are complex and varied. Strategies to
mimic ecosystem processes will be no less complex and no less
varied.
Unfortunately, H.R. 229, the "National Forest Health Act,"
is a step backwards from ecosystem management. It encourages
hastily developed strategies which will likely emphasize a
salvage logging and thinning "business as usual" approach to the
forest health issue. The Wilderness Society does not support
this legislation.
H.R. 229 sets up a scenario where the Forest Service can
declare a "forest health emergency" to provide for rapid adoption
and implementation of a forest health program. What this really
does is set up an opportunity for the Forest Service to declare a
type of "martial law" on the national forests where
administrative appeals and parts of the National Environmental
Policy Act can be suspended to expedite salvage logging.
H.R. 229 cuts corners in national forest management. This
is not the time to rush about under the guise of emergency
declarations and implement hastily developed management practices
designed to "cut the forest back to health." Management of the
national forests must be to protect biological diversity and
sustain functioning ecosystems across broad landscapes.
This requires a careful, thoughtful approach to national
forest management, not an approach developed under the siege
mentality of some forest health emergency. The current situation
of forest health developed over several decades. There will not
be any easy solutions. Management actions must be developed
under the existing public participation process and environmental
laws to ensure that the other resources on the national forests
121
are not trampled underfoot by poorly designed and hasty attempts
to "fix" the national forests.
The Wilderness Society specifically objects to the following
provisions of H.R. 229:
The provisions which preclude administrative appeal of
the emergency declaration and the forest health program unless
found to be inconsistent with the forest plans. Forest plans
are broad, programmatic documents which give land managers
enormous discretion to approve many types of activities. Given
this, it is extremely unlikely that the emergency declaration and
the health program would be found to be inconsistent with the
forest plan. Therefore, there will be no real option to
administratively challenge the emergency declaration and health
programs.
The provision directing the Forest Service to by-pass
sections of NEPA, specifically section 102(2). This section is
the heart of an objective environmental analysis, requiring among
other things that adverse environmental impacts be identified,
alternative actions be developed, short-term and long-term
affects of the alternatives be disclosed, and irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources be identified. Insulating
forest health programs from this section of NEPA cheats the
public out of an honest, fair disclosure of the environmental
impacts of these programs.
This section of NEPA also requires coordination with other
management agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game. H.R. 229 cuts out these management
agencies from formal, effective participation in forest health
programs. Given the fact that many other national forest
resources are affected by forest health management actions, the
involvement of these other agencies is crucial to assure
protection of these other resources.
H.R. 229 would exempt enormous portions of some national
forest tin±)er programs from this section of NEPA. In 1993 100%
of the timber cut on the Boise Forest has been salvage material.
Over half the timber cut on the Nez Perce Forest has been
salvage, over 60 percent on the Idaho Panhandle, and over one-
third on the Clearwater. Salvage operations of this magnitude
must be done under a full NEPA analysis.
A recent Forest Service publication supported the need for
adequate NEPA analyses for forest health:
"Forest pest suppression activities require supporting
environmental analyses. Conducting NEPA analvses on a
planned basis avoids the higher costs incurred when these
analyses are done on an emergency basis and would allow for
rapid responses against low-level but increasing populations
of a threatening pest. Preparation of program-level or
122
broad-scale NEPA documents also facilitates early
communications with the public." (emphasis added) .
The definition of a "forest health emergency" existing
where "forest conditions . . . are outside the natural range of
variability for the forest site involved." Yet for most areas
there exists only a few decades worth of knowledge of what
constitutes the natural range of variability. Our national
forests evolved over several centuries, and it is unlikely that
the current conditions are the first time in history that these
forests have experienced some level of disease and insects.
Trying to define what constitutes a natural range of variability
with only a relatively small sample of years is dangerous for the
integrity of the ecosystem.
H.R. 229 congressionly defines what constitutes an
amendment versus a revision of a forest plan. This is
inappropriate. The on-the-ground effect and the extent of the
emergency declaration and the health program, not Congress,
should determine whether or not a plan revision or amendment is
required.
- H.R. 229 declares that only an environmental assessment
will be used to prepare a NEPA analysis. The scope of the action
should determine whether or not an EA or EIS is prepared.
H.R. 229 states that "current programs of the federal land
management agencies are not able to respond rapidly and fully
enough to meet tt\e greatly increasing forest health
emergencies ..." A rapid response is exactly the type of
response which must be avoided. Such a response encourages a
Chicken Little "sky is falling" approach to forest health. By
declaring forest health emergencies, suspending sections of NEPA
and administrative appeal rights, and ordering only abbreviated
environmental assessments be prepared as opposed to environmental
impact statements implies that everything can be put to right in
short order. This approach perpetuates the timber industry's
view that we can't let a reasoned, thoughtful scientific approach
to forest health restoration get in the way of salvaging dead
trees. H.R. 229 is designed to short-circuit planning and do
something — anything — immediately. Hasty actions to address
forest health are not necessary, and in the long run will be
counter productive.
The attitude that forest health starts and stops with
salvage logging and more logging - as put forward through a
glitzy media campaign here in Idaho paid for by the timber
industry - is wrong. Unfortunately, H.R. 229 would let the
Forest Service and the timber industry squeeze yet some more logs
from the already over-worked and over-stressed national forests.
Idaho's national forests are unraveling, but not because of
insects and disease. The forests are coming apart from the
cumulative effect of past management actions. These actions have
done more to destroy the integrity of the forest ecosystems than
any so-called forest health crisis. For example:
123
• Idaho's national forests already have a road system over
six times the size of the state highway system. These roads
fragment wildlife habitat and annually pour tons of sediment into
mountain streams.
• The Idaho Fish and Game Department recently determined
that the river channel of the Little North Fork of the Clearwater
River, once a prized blue ribbon cutthroat trout fishery, is
"completely destabilized" by erosion from logging and
roadbuilding. IDFG now questions the long-term viability of
cutthroat trout populations in the Little North Fork.
• Statewide, the IDFG estimates that only 11 percent of
the traditional range of westslope cutthroat trout is currently
occupied. The primary cause of this decline is degradation of
habitat.
• Forest Service status reviews indicate that the bull
trout is in moderate risk of extinction in the St. Joe River
drainage. Dwindling populations have led to petitioning of the
bull trout for endangered species status.
• Over 70 percent of the streams on the Clearwater
National Forest fail to meet even marginal standards to protect
fish populations. One stream on the Clearwater is estimated to
have as much as 97 00 tons of accumulated sediment per mile of
channel .
• Chinook salmon populations on the Clearwater are "on
the threshold of extinction" according to the Forest Service.
• The Forest Service recently announced that it would
not end livestock grazing practices that harm endangered
populations of Chinook salmon, even though many studies have
found livestock grazing erodes stream banks, raises stream
temperatures and dumps sediment into spawning and rearing gravel.
The Forest Service claims in doesn't have the resources it takes
to properly manage its grazing programs.
• The Targhee National Forest once boasted a 45-day
elk hunting season, the longest on a national forest in the lower
48 states. Because of the loss of security cover by logging and
greater hunting pressure due to increased logging road
construction the current season is now limited to five days in
order to maintain any kind of elk population.
• The Sand Creek elk herd used to have a six-week fall
migration from Yellowstone Park to its winter range south of the
Centennial Mountains. Now, due to lost cover and security from
timber harvesting and roadbuilding, the herd races through the
same area in 48 hours or less. Monitoring of radio-collared bull
elk showed that in one area none of the collared bulls survived
the migration.
• Two grizzly bear recovery areas on the Targhee
National Forest are now being re-evaluated to see if they can
124
still support grizzlies at all because of the extensive loss of
habitat within the units from logging activities.
In summary, H.R. 229 is unnecessary. There is no need for
federal legislation to authorize the Forest Service to restore
ecosystems stressed and fragmented by man's activities or by
current levels of disease and insect infestations. The agency
already enjoys more than enough management discretion to
undertake forest restoration activities. Rather, what is needed
is for the Forest Service to take a bold step towards ecosystem
management by developing forest-wide plans which recognize the
complicated processes that make up forest ecosystems and attempt
to mimic those processes where needed to restore the health of
the overall systems.
Such plans would include forest-wide prescribed fire plans
to reintroduce fire as a natural component of Idaho's forest
ecosystems. Rather than do "spot treatment" prescribed burns as
money becomes available, each forest should adopt a forest-wide
fire plan which allows fire to resume its natural role to the
extent possible in the ecosystems.
There needs to be additional funding for the Forest Service
to develop management strategies that recognize and incorporate
the ecological significance of insects and fire. Not considering
these factors in planning attempts will result in incorrect
assumptions about forest health and in the eventual use of
emergency measures that are usually more expensive and do not
provide long-term solutions. Again, this component of forest
ecosystem management can be achieved through the existing
planning and appropriation and budget process. There is no need
for special legislation like H.R. 229 to make it happen. All
there needs to be the will for the Forest Service to think in
terms of ecosystem management, not just in terms of tree health
management.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
125
Local Union No. Z816
Mnitei ^roiIi<rl]oair of (^arpwtter* ant ^omexs of ^«tcrica
INSTITUTKO AUSUflT tS, ISSl
CMMFTT. IDAHO (83617), Auqust. — 20 , ,#_3_
STATEMENT BY LOU FORURIA
PRESIDENT, WCIW »2816 OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, EMMETT, IDAHO
REGARDING WILDERNESS AND FOREST HEALTH , CONCERNING TIMBER JOBS
AND HEALTH OF IDAHO FOREST.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN ROSE , REPRESENTATIVES, LaROCCO AND PETERSON.
MY NAME IS LOU FORURIA AND I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA LOCAL UNION #2816 IN EMMETT, IDAHO.
I HAVE BEEN REPRESENTING FOREST PRODUCTS WORKERS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND
HAVE SEEN OUR FUTURE THREATENED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, S MISMANAGEMENT
OF OUR PUBLIC FOREST LANDS IN IDAHO. IDAHO RESIDENTS ALSO ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT TIMBER JOBS, WILDERNESS, FOREST HEALTH AND SALVAGE ISSUES.
HEALTH OF THE FOREST FOREST HEALTH DEFINES THE RELATIVE CAPACITY OF
A FOREST TO SUSTAIN VALUES WHILES MAINTAINING INTEGRITY AS AN ECOSYSTEM.
A HEALTHY FOREST HAS THE VITALITY TO PERPETUALLY PROVIDE THE AMENITIES
OF AESTHETICS, CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER, WOOD PRODUCTS, WILDLIFE AND
FISHERIES HABITAT.
A HEALTHY FOREST CONTINUES TO PROVIDE FOR HUMANKIND TODAY WITHOUT
COMPROMISING ITS ABILITY TO DO THE SAME FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
TODAY, I WOULD. LIKE TO FOCUS ON SALVAGE ISSUES. A MAJORITY OF IDAHOANS
BELIEVE SALVAGING DEAD AND DYING TREES IS NEEDED TO ASSIST IN THE
PREVENTION OF FOREST FIRES AND TO IMPROVE FOREST HEALTH. OVERALL . IDAHOANS
FEEL BUILDING TEMPORARY ROADS IN ROADEESS AREAS FOR SALVAGING WOULD BE
ACCEPTABLE AND SUPPORT SALVAGING IN ROADLESS AREAS IF IT CAN BE DONE WITH
OUT BUILDING ROADS.
CURRENTLY, IDAHO FEDERAL FORESTS, SUCH AS THE CUDDY MOUNTAIN AREA. FACE A
SEA OF DEAD AND DYING TIMBER THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED TO PREVENT FOREST
126
Ldcal Union No. Z816
^nitei» ^xoihttkoob of (^arpenfera anb ^a'tntxB oi ^tncx'ua
tNaTtTUTSB Auouar la, laai
CMMETT. IDAHO (B3C17),
T9-
FIRES AND TO IMPROVE FOREST HEALTH.
MANY FOREST IN IDAHO ARE SO DESPERATELY DRY THERE EXISTS A REAL AND
DRAMATIC THREAT OF CATASTROPHIC FIRE THAT ENDANGERS ANIMAI, LIFE, FOREST
ECOSYSTEMS AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES WHERE OUR MEMBERS AND THERE FAMILI
LIVE.
OUR STATE ALSO FACES A SEVERE FOREST HEALTH CRISIS, IN THE HORIZON SUN
AREA, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FEET OF DOUGLAS FIR ARE INFECTED WITH ROOT RO'
IN COEUR d,ALENE, THE FERNAL RANGER DISTRICT HAS THE WORST ROOT ROT
INFECTION OF ANY FORESTED AREA IN THE COUNTRY. SALVAGE OPERATIONS CAN
HELP STEM THE CRISIS,
SALVAGE SALES ARE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT AS TIMBER SUPPLY CONTINUES TO
DWINDLE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DUE TO RESTRICT
TIONS PLACED ON FEDERAL TIMBER SALES TO PROTECT THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL.
SALVAGING CAN PROVIDE SOME TIMBER FOR PRODUCTION, EASING THE TIMBER
DROUGHT AND KEEPING MILLS OPEN AND PROTECTING JOBS.
IN THE IDAHO PAYETTE AND BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, WHERE SPRUCE AND PINE
TREES HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED BY SEVERAL SPECIES OF BEETLES, AN ESTIMATED 272
MILLION BOARD FEET OF TIMBER HAS BEEN KILLED. THIS IS ENOUGH TIMBER TO
KEEP THREE OR FOUR SAWMILLS RUNNING FOR A FULL YEAR. REGRETFULLY, SOME
SALVAGE PLANS ARE UNDER APPEAL AND NO TIMBER CAN BE RELEASED.
I BELIEVE, LIKE THE MAJORITY OF IDAHOANS, WE MUST FIND A REASONABLE
BALANCE TO THE WILDERNESS ISSUE. A BALANCE THAT GUARANTEES THE HEALTH OF
OUR FOREST AND THE HEALTH OF OUR ECONOMY, ENABLING IDAHO RESIDENTS TO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A FUTURE FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES.
THANK YOU.
do^ 4
yVCV/NA-O^
(Attachment follows:)
127
IDAHO STATE AFL-CIO
225 NORTH 161h STREET
BOISE. IDAHO 83702
PHONE (2081 345-8582
FAX (208) aae-a-io?
OFFICERS:
James E. Kerns
President
Edward L. Johnson
Vice-President
Randall A. Ambuehl
Secretary/Treasurer
-i.J?-i ">
August 18, 1993
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Agriculture
Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources
Room 1301, Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Rose and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for requesting the comments of the Idaho State AFL-
CIO regarding the overall health of National Forests in Idaho and
the applicability of H.R.229, the "National Forest Health Act" to
National Forests in Idaho.
In regard to the overall health of National Forests in Idaho.
It runs the spectrum from excellent to poor, depending on the
circumstances of the individual forests, which includes the
management practices of the various Forest Supervisors. From a
non-management practice standpoint, we see many areas with varying
degrees of dead and dying trees due to insect and disease
infestation, end of species lifecycle - in particular Lodgepole
Pine as a first growth species in areas which have suffered a
large fire, and fire killed timber.
The Idaho State AFL-CIO and its timber industry affiliates
fully supports H.R.229, the "National Forest Health Act" and
commends Congressman LaRocco for introducing it.
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEIUIBERS
DUANE ALLEN
Stielley
JAMIE CUNDIFF
Boise
JOHN CARLSON
Pocaielio
DENNIS O'BRIEN
Post Falls
BILL SHROPSHIRE
Twin Falls
RIAN VANLEUVEN
Lewislon
CHUCK VOGEL
Nampa
128
H.R.229 Testimony by Idaho State AFL-CIO
Page 2
We believe that while some dead wood needs to be retained,
dead and dying trees should be removed for resource utilization
rather than being allowed to decay and become useless and, in the
case of infestation, to spread the insect or disease to healthy
trees. More attention needs to be given to salvage and restoration
rather than allowing the stands of dead timber to become the tinder
box of forest fires, which in extreme instances will actually
sterilize an area, preventing any regrowth.
We also believe that the Forest Service should begin an
aggressive reforestation program, investment in which has been
sadly neglected in recent years. We believe that such
reforestation needs to be done within one year, with a maximum
limit of two years, rather than the current five years, in order to
allow the seedlings to grow before a shrub canopy develops and / or
the soil structure decays, both of which can inhibit seedling
growth.
In conclusion, we fully support the enactment of H.R.229 as
introduced and believe that it is a step in the right direction of
sound forest management for sustainable timber yields and offers
the potential of reversing a decade of neglect of our National
Forests .
Sincerely,
Randall Ambuehl
President
129
August 20, 1993
A. D. Partridge, Ph. D.
re: Congressional hearing on H. R. 229,
The National Forest Health Act., Boise, ID.
Congressman Larocco;
We read The National Forest Health Act (H. R. 229) that you
propose and share your concern for our nation's forest health. We
are professional foresters with demonstrated specific expertise and
longstanding interests in forest health. We have published more
than 60 articles about forest health, including 4 books. Our
comments are based on 40 years of logging, diagnostic consulting.
University-level teaching, research and observations from Maine to
California including 30 years of detailed studies in the Inland
Pacific Northwest. In measuring forest health, we have used PhD-
level scientists and trained aides to examine more than 700 areas
and destructively-sample more than 2500 randomly located trees,
including at least 500 mature to overmature trees. The sampling
included entire stems, crowns and root systems with concurrent
inventories of all associated plants, fungi, and insects; plus
soils measurements. Much of this was in cooperation with U. S.
Forest Service Personnel. We do not find that forest health is in
decline and our data corroborate this.
Here are some examples:
1. Our records show that during 1963 & 1964 root disease in
the Inland northwest was actively killing trees at a rate of
approximately 110 per 1000 trees per year of all ages and species.
By 1970, this killing declined to approximately 8 per 1000 and
again reached a high of almost 200 per 1000 in 1972. Then, after
another period of declining loss, mortality reached approximately
90 per 1000 in 1980. By 1992 almost no new mortality was recorded
(<3 per 1000). This is "biological periodicity" and occurs
commonly among forest insect or disease occurrences. It is usually
ignored in Forest Service estimates of loss.
2. Our records show that the killing of native western white pine
by blister rust in 1963 was approximately 650 per 1000 of that
species per year. Now natural selection has reduced that rate to
approximately 130 per 1000 in the Inland Northwest.
3 . Our records show repeated defoliation by spruce budworm in
many areas now reduced to insignificant numbers. The Payette
National Forest experienced several peaks beginning approximately
25 years ago, but currently the insect causes only local damage.
Similarly we recorded the beginning of severe defoliation
throughout northeastern Oregon beginning in 1979. This year (1993)
Forest Service scientists declared this outbreak finished and we
could find no evidence of significant damage.
Besides these examples, there are many other records of
"outbreaks" by mistletoes, root disease, defoliators, and bark
beetles during our tenure in the Northwest, but most often we see
tree damage and mortality in some years only to return in following
years and be unable to complete studies because of the lack of
suitable symptomatic subjects. Our measurements and current
130
observations of these areas indicate that on most sites, problems
develop, peak and subside without interference. In addition,
severe cases show natural conversion to resistant species has
occurred and continues to occur. Nature is far better at healing
than we are.
Again, some corroborative examples:
1. During the early 1960s the U.S. Forest Service liberally
applied actidione and phytoactin to white pines throughout the
Northwest with assurance it would control blister rust. The result
was total failure to control disease at enormous expense with no
incurred accountability.
On the other hand, disease resistant white pine has appeared
by natural selection on our forests. Specifically, these trees are
genetically adapted by natural processes to resist not only blister
rust but local root diseases and insects et al .
2. During the 1970s lindane was sprayed on lodgepole pine logs
and stands to control mountain pine beetle infestations. Another
failure. In fact, the oil-based insecticide did more damage to
trees than did the insect. And this was followed by a series of
silvicultural procedures of, at best, questionable value.
On the other hand, stands affected by mountain pine beetle,
for the most part, have some residual lodgepole pine but often
convert to the understory douglas fir or true firs present beneath
the killed lodgepole pine. A natural serai sequence.
3. Tussock moth populations sprayed with insecticides
declined at the same rates as unsprayed populations during 1970s
build-ups .
4. Root disease plantations converted to "resistant species"
by planting now show more current disease than those with natural
reproduction and residual unaffected trees.
The list is almost endless but the point is: direct attacks
on a "forest pest", an extremely costly procedure, rarely or almost
never has worked to control long-term damage and probably never
will. These are not ways to preserve forest health and often
injure forest components other than trees.
It's important to state also that diseases and insects are
normal parts of forest ecosystems and some are directly responsible
for successional changes in plant composition. These and other
living agents help return biomass to the ecosystem. Others offer
a base for wildlife feed and nesting. Many are responsible for
soil health, the basic building block for forest health. Diseases
and insects are not, as often portrayed, always enemies and they
are not causing "ecological collapse" and "large brushfields" as
some officials have declared. The problems need to be managed, not
controlled and they need to be recognized as important ecosystem
components whose demise may result in forest decline. We refer to
them as "the engines that drive forest succession."
Some more verifying examples:
1. When spruce budworm "outbreaks" occurred in the Northwest
the first action was to spray. The spray, indeed, killed budworms,
and along with the budworms many parasites including other insects
and viral parasites, and it killed preying bird populations or
131
reduced their numbers. Thus, the system was tipped off-balance
and budworm numbers built rapidly as insects can do without preying
birds, large populations of parasites and predatory insects, or
other natural barriers. The result was massive defoliation of a
forest, that if left untouched would have rectified itself.
Records show that in unsprayed areas the insect did relatively
little damage throughout the same period.
2. Areas of douglas fir, grand fir and larch having "laminate
root rot" was cut and "converted to ponderosa pine". The openings,
created during a dry year changed the microflora by dehydration and
heating of the soil and the "shoestring-rot" fungus thrived on wood
residuals left on site. Then container-grown seedlings of
ponderosa pine with tightly compacted roots were planted. The
result was 70 % mortality of the pine within 6 years. In contrast,
adjacent areas of uncut trees lost some firs but resistant white
pines and some larch are coming in naturally. Conversion to
ponderosa pine after removing douglas fir and grand fir is a common
Forest Service recommendation at present. Also recommended is a
50-foot clearcut around each "root rot center" as a control. This,
first tried on several diseases in the 1960s, is ineffective and
can increase the impacted acreage by more than 80%.
This bill, as written, asks us to believe the these disease
and insect occurrences all are potential emergencies that the
Forest Service can avert with proper hasty action. This means a
root disease center that was ignored as killing trees on the
Panhandle National Forest for 30 years suddenly becomes a dire
threat because the Forest Service says so. Also, this means these
agencies suddenly have acquired the abilities to control forest
problems that history shows they can not manage. Nothing in the
record supports faith in these beliefs.
Now, as to why the agencies have not been able to manage
disease or insect problems. This goes to the heart of your
proposal and all forest health. They cant' manage because of a
faulty information base and unsupervised, incorrect diagnostic
procedures coupled with no accountability for misdiagnosis or
mismeasurement . Presently, the information used to define and
evaluate disease, insect or other forest problems relies heavily on
"inventory" data. Information largely gathered by seasonal
personnel with minimal training, often only 3 days. And it doesn't
stop there. If the inventory form doesn't include a space to
record a problem it never even gets noted. We found 3 important
root-disease systems excluded form forms for the Panhandle National
Forest. The present focus is on a few organisms in a forest
ecosystem; those deemed spectacular, or dramatic, not necessarily
the most common or most damaging. And when we go to the field with
Forest Service technicians, silviculturists, or District Rangers
most can not diagnose even the major basic problems correctly. As
severely diseased trees are predisposed by poor or unstable soil,
we find them declared to be primarily "root rot." When you ignore
major problems by exclusion in inventory forms and training manuals
and you have inept professionals, you can not assess "forest
health." You will also find that the Forest Service has erected a
132
structure that permits everything to be done in-house, with in-
house "experts" and in-house publication of information so that
ideas or publications contrary to their design rarely are
considered in the decision-making process. The insufficiencies are
so far-reaching that full discussion at this point is impossible,
but your bill to be effective and practical must provide for and
require:
a. structured, rigorous pathological, entomological and
ecological training and testing of all persons involved in
diagnostics, recommendations, or silvicultural prescriptions. This
best would be done by external agents not controlled by or allied
with the federal agencies.
b. revision of all inventories to permit recording all
pertinent or potentially pertinent data - not just what's
obvious, spectacular or popular at the moment.
c. examinations of the diagnostic capabilities of and
diagnoses by agency personnel to be done by highly qualified
persons not assigned to or responsible to the federal agencies
involved.
d. provision for timely, immediate appeals to the declarations
based on expert evidence.
e. a shift in commitment by the agencies to quality
diagnostics and quantifications that consider long time frames
instead of the deliberately impressive but often erroneous
quantities of numbers currently espoused.
The agencies, particularly the Forest Service, have shown an
inability or unwillingness to change and will not improve without
these safeguards. And, without these safeguards, your bill will
cause unending challenges and litigation regarding declarations of
forest health emergencies. As now written, under the guise of this
bill, a few chewed needles or a pimple on a District Ranger's nose
could be construed as a forest health emergency.
Over the years, after reviewing their harvesting plans to
improve forest health, we find that their actions have resulted in
current and probably future deterioration of the forests . We have
witnessed and documented gross misdiagnosis of health problems,
notably disease and insect agents. Furthermore, placing major
emphasis and funds on managing poor, unproductive sites rather than
superior sites is a money-wasting venture.
More important than any other omission is a lack of statement
about anything but tree problems, while if indeed these is a
decline in forest health it is in the health of forest soils. I'm
sure the health of animals is equally important, and the health of
forest economies and more. There is no protection for increasingly
valuable mushroom or huckleberry crops or other valued vegetation
which are equally susceptible to "forest pests?" Nor is there
protection for water quality, another major and vital component of
healthy forests and one often impacted by "silviculture." Much is
missing from the proposed evaluation of forest health. These
omissions, or superficial coverage, imply a severe lack of
complete, sound data for making decisions to improve forest health.
133
It appears the intent is to protect only forest trees and products
and to subvert potential appeals.
Additionally and very importantly the agency currently do not
consider "forest stand recovery" a part of forest system dynamics.
All forest systems are highly resilient and tend toward stability
if left undisturbed. The current health situation is not a crisis,
but is a normal ecological event. Indeed, there has been
considerable mortality, but concurrently ecological reinforcement
has been replacing the dying trees with genetically-superior,
resistant species that historically populated the area. Even
blister rust damage of white pine is being reduced by natural
selection of resistant individuals without human intervention. We
contend that abuses committed using this Act will disrupt this
normal recovery.
What is even more disturbing to us is the likely future if
emergencies are used to enter the "sick areas. Many are those with
fragile ecosystems particularly soils which if manipulated by
increased "silvicultural" activity will result in deterioration,
not improvement, of forest health. Repeated entries, made to
salvage trees in "disease centers," are known to disturb soil
structure and soil microflora and stress residual trees which will
only result in more timber harvesting, rather than improved health
of the forest. Furthermore, contrary to popular concepts,
harvesting dead trees does not usually remove pathogens or
destructive insects. There are exceptions but, in general, cutting
and especially species conversion by planting are not answers to
pathogenesis. Predators of insect pests need these trees as
refuges and breeding places. Dead trees harbor large numbers of
beneficial organisms and decomposition enriches the soil and
provides nutrients to the residual stand. As the Europeans have
discovered, a "manicured" forest is a detriment to overall forest
health.
In conclusion, we suggest that your act needs considerably
more converse input from sources outside the federal agencies to
assure preservation of the biological integrity and diversity of
our forests which are the keys to forest health. It furthermore
must include more than tree health if it is to be a true progenitor
of current and future forest community and attendant forest
workers' health. And it must be implemented with accurate, well-
defined, scientifically sound documentation of the consequences.
We further suggest a need for unbiased studies of the health of all
forest components over time and relation to one another with
natural recovery and resilience considered integral to forest
health. We also reiterate a strong need for unbiased external
reviewers from concerned industrial. Forest Service, academic and
environmental sectors . Management must be based on documenting
both deterioration and recovery, mapping the locations of
biological agents involved in health problems, and considering
progression during time in untouched and manipulated forests.
Constraints proposed and others that should be added within the
Forest Health Act must be strictly enforced by qualified external
sources .
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
134
3 9999 05018 523 8
Dr. Arthur D. Partridge, Ph.D., President
TREAZ, Trees from A to Z, Inc.
and Professor, Forestry, Pathology
2437 Moscow Mountain Road
Moscow, Idaho 83843
and
Dr. Catherine L. Bertagnolli, Ph.D.
TREAZ, Inc.
Research Scientist
o
76-302 O - 94 (138)
ISBN 0-16-044057-2
9 780160"440571
90000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11