[Senate Hearing 107-756]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-756
STEEN MOUNTAIN ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO EXPLORE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOW PUBLIC LANDS ARE MANAGED AND
THE IMPACT ON RURAL ECONOMIES, REVIEW THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OF
NATIONAL FORESTS, EVALUATE
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO NATURAL RESOURCE-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES, AND
ASSESS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STEEN MOUNTAIN ACT (PUBLIC LAW 106-
399)
__________
MAY 29, 2002
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-711 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota CONRAD BURNS, Montana
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
EVAN BAYH, Indiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Kira Finkler, Counsel
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Brown, Richard T., Senior Resource Specialist, Defenders of
Wildlife, Lake Oswego, OR...................................... 41
Brumm, Tom, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Oregon Economic
and Community Development Department, Salem, OR................ 63
Collins, Sally, Associate Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture; accompanied by Jeff Blackwood, Forest Supervisor,
Umatilla National Forest; Leslie Welden, Forest Supervisor,
Deschutes National Forest; and Nancy Graybeal, Deputy Regional
Forester, Region 6............................................. 22
Ferrioli, Ted, State Senator, Salem, OR.......................... 28
Grasty, Steve, County Judge from Harney County, OR............... 4
Graybeal, Nancy, Deputy Regional Forester, Region 6.............. 28
Howard, John, County Commissioner, Union County, OR.............. 59
Jeffrey, Mark L., Superintendent, Paisley School District Number
11, Paisley, OR................................................ 67
Marlett, Bill, Executive Director, Oregon Natural Desert
Association, Bend, OR.......................................... 10
Morgan, John, Resource Manager, Ochoco Lumber Company,
Prineville, OR................................................. 33
Otley, Fred, Rancher, Diamond, OR................................ 12
Tovey, Bill, Confederate Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, Pendleton, OR..................................... 66
Wassinger, Chuck, Associate State Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Portland, OR, accompanied by Tom Dyer, District
Manager, Burns District, Hines, OR............................. 6
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 1
STEEN MOUNTAIN ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Redmond, OR.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m. at
the Deschutes County Fairgrounds, 3800 SW Airport Way, Redmond,
Oregon, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
of the U.S. Senate will come to order.
As chairman of this subcommittee I'm particularly pleased
to be home and to be able to chair this hearing. There were
really two areas I wanted to focus on as chairman of this
important subcommittee. The first is to get as much natural
resources policy making out of Washington, D.C., and back into
communities like the one that's hosting this hearing.
I think it's critically important that the Federal
Government get away from the one-size-fits-all approach to
natural resources and encourages more home grown locally driven
approaches that bring all of the parties, environmental people,
industry people, finance, local leaders, together to solutions.
And I'm particularly pleased that by working in a bipartisan
way we've been able to have some successes in that regard.
As many who are attending this hearing know, for example,
the County Payments Legislation, which was authored by Senator
Craig and I, is going to bring about $1.5 billion to Oregon
over the next 6 years. And more importantly, it's going to
encourage an unprecedented wave of corporation through the
money that is set aside for projects.
In addition, that work highlights the fact that everything
important in the natural resources area must be bipartisan.
It's just not going to happen unless it is.
Senator Smith has met me more than halfway in this effort,
as has Congressman Walden. And both of them will have
statements for our record. Very helpful and constructive
statements for the record as well.
And I also want to thank Chairman Bingaman. Ms. Finkler is
here from the full committee and joins us as counsel. And also
on Senator Craig's staff, Frank Lennox is here as well. Martin
Dorn, I believe, is with us as well from Senator Smith's
office, and Shelley Brown from Chairman Bingaman's as well.
This highlights in my view how critically important it is that
this work be done in a bipartisan way. And consistently Senator
Smith and Senator Craig and Congressman Walden have been
extremely cooperative in working with me in passing important
questions.
The reasons these issues are so important is more than half
the land in this part of our State is owned by the Federal
Government. Land management decisions naturally have enormous
impact on the economic health of local communities and right
now a big part of rural Oregon is hurting.
Unemployment rates for a number of our counties hover in
and around 15 percent, and it's clear that if rural Oregon is
to thrive and to come back, Federal agencies that have so much
impact on the local landscape must be better partners to people
in the region. So that's what we are here today to discuss.
I come in saying that you cannot sit in Washington, D.C.
and just remold local communities three thousand miles away.
These changes have got to come the other way. They've got to be
home grown with Federal policy being used as a tool to promote
areas of critical concerns for local communities.
I mentioned the legislation that Senator Craig and I
championed. To give you an idea how difficult a task this is,
the County Payments Legislation was the first bill on forestry
to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 15 years. It took 15
years to cut through the polarization and gridlock that
surrounds so many of these issues, and I'm proud of that bill
and I'm especially proud that the legislation gave the local
communities a key voice with respect to Federal land
management.
Today we're going to have three panels of witnesses that
are going to address important issues, and we'll be focused on
the implementation of the Steens Mountain Protection Act, the
management of national forests in this area, and the region's
current economic crisis.
Our first panel is going to update the subcommittee on the
ongoing implementation of the Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Act of 2000, and particularly I want
to express my appreciation to Senator Smith and Congressman
Walden for the many, many hours they put in to making this
legislation become law. And what began as a classic Western
land problem, the question of traditional use versus the
conservation of it, became instead a law that indicates that
true answers for public land management requires a good measure
of both.
The Steens Mountain presented mixed interests richer than
many seen in most land conservation efforts. There was
extensive private ownership, economic use, scenic splendor and
ecological diversity. In addressing these broad interests,
local stakeholders and a delegation took in effect a unique
approach to management.
The Steens Mountain Act did not only create the Nation's
first wilderness to exclude cattle grazing, it codifies the
stakeholders' most important points of agreement and that is
improving ecosystems and preserving open space are vitally
important to all Oregonians.
In coming to the table people who thought very often they
couldn't possibly find common ground were able to achieve many,
if not all, of their goals, and that's why it is important that
the subcommittee get an update on how that legislation is
progressing.
The second panel is going to address the Forest Service
efforts to manage the national forests in this community. If
there is any area of natural resource policy where the public
interest is not being served, it seems to me this is it. I will
tell you as part of my effort to serve Oregon, I hold open
community meetings in each county each year, and when I go to
those meetings I find two points of virtual unanimity.
First, I'm told that inland forests are in an ecological
crisis. And second, that the Forest Service is just not doing
what needs to be done to repair the damage. Our landscape is
dotted with both successes and failures in land that is managed
by the Service. This pattern of dots is precisely the problem.
Today much of forest management is a hit-or-miss
proposition. The basic principle of collaboration, ecological
recovery and commercial utilization are applied in a patchwork
fashion that means its success is rare.
About 350 miles from this hearing room stands a perfect
example of a missed opportunity in forest management. To
accommodate the changing face of forest management, the Joseph
Timber Mill retooled its operation to handle smaller diameter
logs. Environmentalists and many other local leaders applauded
the Joseph mill move. Forest management policy that pursued the
ecological health of the community's forests should have
provided plenty of material for the mill, but unfortunately
they recently shut their doors because the Forest Service
couldn't come up with a policy to get those raw materials
moving.
Everyone in the Joseph area, the timber mill, the
environmentalists, the community, was and is ready for the
future of forest management, but it sure does not look like the
Forest Service is ready as of today. Yet south of this hearing
room real progress is being made in ecosystem recovery in the
Fremont National Forest. In the Lakeview Sustained Yield Unit a
diverse group of stakeholders has managed to find common ground
on a host of ecosystem recovery projects, some of which are
already yielding substantial benefits.
This unprecedented cooperation between the Forest Service,
the environmental community, the timber industry, local
businesses and elected officials could be a model for Oregon
and our country on how to collaborate on managing the forests.
But the Fremont success is going to remain an isolated one if
its lesson cannot be applied across the spectrum of forest
management.
One other example of a current project in the balance
between success and failure, a few miles from here in the
Metolius Basin, environmentalists, the timber industry, leaders
and others are working together on a major forest restoration
project.
At one time the Metolius consisted largely of massive pine
trees on a carpet of grass. Today, thickets of small trees
choke the landscape. A forest fire there would likely destroy
large and small trees alike and threaten Camp Sherman. Now is
the time to put the basin on the path to ecological health and
provide logs for local mills.
The question is can the Forest Service move appropriately
and promptly to help the Metolius Project achieve its full
potential or is it going to go the other way and we will lose
terrific opportunities like the one that happened at the Joseph
mill?
Finally, on our last panel we're going to look at another
obstacle for a number of our local communities, and that deals
with economics. Today only two Oregon counties rank above the
economic average for the Northwest. Twenty-six rank near the
bottom of the nearly hundred counties in a four-State region.
As America's urban areas experience a boom, much of rural
America is moving in exactly the opposite direction. Mill
closures took major employers out. Agricultural markets
faltered. Farm income dropped to half the level of the previous
decade. Local communities took repeated cuts, repeated right
hooks, and in some cases social problems were inevitable after
the economic upheaval.
Public land management compounded local economic problems
with respect to forests and farms. While the Federal Government
owns more than half the land in the region, infrastructure
development like fiberoptic corridors, new roads, water and
sewer lines can take on a huge new dimension that so many urban
parts of the country just don't face.
We're here today determined that this region's particular
challenges not stop economic progress. So we are anxious to get
the views of the witnesses on today on how to use tools that
are so important to promoting economic development in rural
communities.
The goal at the end of the day is to have some fresh new
ideas for moving forward on the Steens, on national forest
management, and to insure that there is more economic vitality
in rural Oregon. We've asked that all of our witnesses give
their statements within 5 minutes. We will make prepared
remarks a part of the official record.
And why don't we go now to our panelists beginning with
Steve Grasty, the county judge of Harney County. And Mr. Grasty
has been very helpful to this subcommittee over the years
working on a whole host of issues. And, Judge, we welcome you
and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GRASTY, COUNTY JUDGE FROM HARNEY COUNTY, OR
Mr. Grasty. Thanks and thanks for the opportunity, Senator,
to present at this hearing. It's almost frightening to me to
think that it's 19 months since this law was signed by the
President of these United States. And I guess I just want to
take a couple minutes and talk about what I see as strengths
and weaknesses. As a strength I think what I see as most
important to this date is the working relationship which has
obviously grown out of the SMAC, the Steens Mountain Advisory
Council.
While I've been able to attend little of those council
meetings, and by the way, Senator, that's thanks to you and
your County Payments Legislation and the RAC that I can serve
on for the Northwest forest, but I have worked hard to keep up
with the issues that face the council and how they've been
addressing them.
I commend the people on that council for their commitment
of time and effort and the way that they've looked at the big
picture in providing their insight to the planning efforts of
the Burns District. They have been a good sounding board, and I
think they've attempted to apply both the law and a level of
fairness, if you would. And I think that's been important.
Without a doubt it's the SMAC that has brought the most
strength to the process so far. In the beginning I got a
perception, which I haven't entirely lost, but there was an
effort, if you would, to forget some of the promises and the
compromises that were made in getting the legislation in place.
But also I believe that one of the strengths has been the
stepping up to the plate of individuals to remind others of
those commitments.
In particular I refer to Bill Marlett and the running camp
and wilderness issue. And, Bill, I want to thank you for
remembering that and staying at the table on that issue. It's
meant a lot and I also think that that's helped build at least
a small step closer to having the community and the
environmental groups be able to work together and work
cooperatively.
As to weaknesses I can't hardly get past saying this. That
I believe that taking 10 months of the last 19 to get the SMAC
appointed is just short of ridiculous, and obviously put us
about 10 months behind the schedule where maybe we ought to be.
I believe that the legislation moved so quickly that we left
some interested parties out. Notably the snowmobile users and
some of the landowners that didn't fully understand the
implementation or the implications to their operations by the
legislation.
From here I hope we'll be able to work through issues that
have been identified by the work accomplished to this date. The
running camp needs to be protected. We need to look for a way
to allow some use by the snowmobilers. We need to preserve
access to inholdings.
I will say that I strongly disagree with any new
legislation dealing with the Steens or land swaps on or near
the mountain. We have enough challenges already identified, so
I would suggest that we work together to resolve those issues
prior to moving on to something that could create new
challenges.
Let's make sure we understand where we are and what we're
doing well with that. It's important that we continue to build
those relationships we've started which have just started to
grow. And if I might, I need to digress for just a second and
mention the forest issues. You've already gone over them enough
that you understand the issues, but it sure appears in the last
couple of decades that we've managed our forests to burn and I
hope we can get back to managing them for multiple use.
Senator Wyden. Steve, thank you very much. It's very well
said and gets us off on just the right note.
I had a number of congressional staffers come in and I just
want to recognize them. For Congressman Walden, Bryan McDonald,
Justin Rain and John Snyder here. With Senator Smith, Susan
Fitch is joining Martin Dorn. Let me express my appreciation to
all of them.
Back in Washington, D.C., there are congressional
delegations that hardly ever even speak to each other, let
alone work together, and Senator Smith and Congressman Walden
have just been extraordinarily constructive in trying to come
up with bipartisan solutions to these critical issues.
I think that's why their staffs are here again today to
reaffirm how important it is that we come together on these
issues. And I just want the folks here to know of all of their
efforts.
Let us go next to Chuck Wassinger, the Oregon Associate
Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK WASSINGER, ASSOCIATE STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT, PORTLAND, OR, ACCOMPANIED BY TOM DYER,
DISTRICT MANAGER, BURNS DISTRICT, HINES, OR
Mr. Wassinger. Yes. Good morning and thank you, Senator.
Before I start I'd like to introduce Tom Dyer, who is our
district manager in the Burns District and he is here to answer
any specific questions you may have. He's also been primarily
responsible for the implementation of the Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Act.
First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify regarding the Bureau the Land Management's experience
in implementing the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act of 2000. We appreciate the continuing interest
you and the entire Oregon congressional delegation have shown
in the implementation of the Steens Act.
Many in this room have lived here for decades and
generations and it is your wise stewardship and example that we
look to in our management of the public lands that are the
Steens.
Secretary Norton talks about the ``4Cs''--consultation,
cooperation and communication all in the service of
conservation. The Steens Act is an excellent example of the
Secretary's guiding principles put into action. The wide array
of natural characteristics, community needs and desires and
competing interests provide for many complex challenges and
rewarding opportunities.
The twelve-member Steens Mountain Advisory Council was
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior on August 14, 2001,
pursuant to the Steens Act. The Steens Mountain Advisory
Council has met four times since their first meeting in October
of last year. Four additional meetings are scheduled for the
remainder of 2002.
Issues including recreation, access, education, grazing,
wilderness and fire-fighting in the Steens have been addressed
by the Steens Mountain Advisory Council this year. The Steens
Act requires that we develop a comprehensive management plan
within 4 years of the passage of the Steens Act to set long-
term management direction for the area. The BLM is working in
close collaboration with the Steens Mountain Advisory Council,
the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council, other Federal
and State agencies, local governments, the tribes and with the
public to identify future management direction for the entire
planning area.
A Draft Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
are expected to be available for a 90-day public review period
in the spring of 2003. The proposed plan and Final EIS are then
anticipated to be completed by the winter of 2003/2004.
Title VI of the Steens Act mandates five land acquisition/
exchanges. Those exchanges have been a major focus of BLM's
efforts over the last year, and the final exchange was
completed in early April 2002. In addition, two Land and Water
Conservation Fund purchases involving inholdings within the
wilderness have been completed since the passage of the Steens
Act.
As you well know, $25 million for additional land
acquisitions and conservation easements is authorized through
the Land and Water Conservation Fund by the Steens Act. As the
BLM receives appropriations for such acquisitions, we will work
closely with the Steens Mountain Advisory Council and local
landowners to maximize the use of such money.
Access to wilderness inholdings and private inholdings are
governed by section 112(e) of the Steens Act and by the
Wilderness Act of 1964. Both require reasonable and adequate
access while minimizing impact on designated wilderness. We
want you to know that the BLM is committed to addressing this
issue.
The Steens Act requires that grazing within the wilderness
shall be administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act and
the guidelines established by Congress in 1990. BLM fully
intends to comply with this direction, and in preparing the
Environmental Analysis to analyze the potential use of
motorized vehicles and equipment and practical alternatives
that may exist for this purpose.
For as long as people have settled in southeast Oregon they
have used the Steens Mountain area for recreation purposes.
Those uses are both individual and commercial. For many of the
commercial activities BLM is required to issue special
recreation permits. The BLM Burns District Staff are preparing
Environmental Analyses to analyze the impacts of current
permitted recreational activities on public lands within the
Steens Mountain Area and in particular the Steens Mountain
Wilderness Area.
These EAs will identify impacts to resources and uses,
while providing for streamlined administrative processes for
permitting to be more responsive to our commercial and
recreation service partners.
We are deeply aware of the importance of recreational
issues to our local public. We will continue to work closely
with the Steens Mountain Advisory Council and all users,
whether recreational or commercial, to find ways to best
address their needs in the context of the Steens Act and other
applicable laws and regulations.
In conclusion, as we continue to move forward on planning
and implementation of the Steens Act, I give you my assurance
that the BLM will continue to involve all interested parties
who live in, recreate on, derive their livelihood from and love
Steens Mountain. We have learned much from those who call
Steens home and we continue to look to them for advice and
guidance. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wassinger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chuck Wassinger, Associate State Director, Bureau
of Land Management, Portland, OR
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the Bureau of
Land Management's (BLM) experience in implementing the Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-399.
We appreciate the continuing interest you and the entire Oregon
Congressional delegation have shown in the implementation of the Steens
Act.
Steens Mountain offers exceptional natural and geologic diversity.
The mountain provides visitors and residents with spectacular views of
deep, glacial gorges, stunning colorful alpine wildflower meadows, high
desert plant communities and the opportunity to see pronghorn antelope,
elk, mule deer, wild horses, bighorn sheep, and raptors. The 52-mile
Steens Mountain Backcountry Byway offers access to four campgrounds on
the mountain and affords remarkable views of Kiger Gorge, the east rim,
and wild horse overlooks.
None of this is news to the many people here today who love the
Steens. Many of you have lived here for decades and generations and it
is your wise stewardship and example that we look to in our management
of the public lands within the Steens.
Secretary Norton talks about the ``4Cs''--consultation,
cooperation, and communication all in the service of conservation. The
Steens Act is a stunning example of her guiding principles put into
action. Passage of the Act was a culmination of a cooperative effort at
the local level. This was not a top-down Washington-driven proposal.
Rather, it was the result of the hard work of the Oregon Congressional
Delegation, Governor Kitzhaber, local land owners, users of the land,
and local conservation organizations, to provide for long-term
protection of the cultural, economic, ecological, and social health of
this area.
The wide array of natural characteristics, community needs and
desires, and competing interests, provides for many complex challenges
and rewarding opportunities. I'd like to address some of the steps we
have taken toward implementation, as well as some of the challenges
that lie ahead of us.
steens mountain advisory council
The 12-member Steens Mountain Advisory Council was appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior on August 14, 2001--pursuant to the Steens
Act. Under the provisions of Subtitle D of the Steens Act, the Advisory
Council is charged with advising the Secretary in the management of the
Steens Area and in promoting cooperative management. In addition, the
Secretary is charged with consulting with the advisory committee on the
preparation and implementation of the management plan for the area. The
Steens Mountain Advisory Council has met four times since their first
meeting in October of last year. Four additional meetings are scheduled
for the remainder of 2002. Issues including recreation, access,
education, grazing, wilderness, and firefighting in the Steens have
been addressed by the Council this year.
steens mountain planning efforts
The Steens Act requires that we develop a comprehensive management
plan within four years of the passage of the Act to set long-term
management direction for the area. In accordance with that planning
process, in late February and early March of this year, the BLM held a
series of meetings to enlist citizen help in identifying planning
issues. The planning area consists of approximately 1.7 million acres
of Federal land including the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management
and Protection Area. We are working in close collaboration with the
Steens Mountain Advisory Council, the Southeast Oregon Resource
Advisory Council, other Federal and State agencies, local governments,
Tribes, and with the public, to identify future management direction
for the entire planning area.
The information that we have gathered at the four scoping meetings,
and through written comments, has been used to pinpoint issues and
develop planning criteria and alternatives for the management of the
area. The public comment period ended on April 15. After the comment
period ended, we assessed comments, finalized planning criteria and
worked on fine tuning draft alternatives. A document entitled ``Summary
of the Analysis of the Management Situation'' was published this
earlier spring to allow further public review of management
opportunities. A draft management plan and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) are expected to be available for a 90-day public review
period in the Spring of 2003. The proposed plan and final EIS are then
anticipated by Winter 2003/2004.
exchanges and acquisitions
Title VI of the Steens Act mandates five land acquisition/
exchanges. The Act authorized, and Congress subsequently appropriated,
over $5 million to complete these acquisitions. Those exchanges have
been a major focus of BLM's efforts over the last year and the final
exchange was completed in early April. In addition, two Land and Water
Conservation Fund purchases, involving inholdings within the
wilderness, have been completed since passage of the Act.
Twenty-five million dollars for additional land acquisitions and
conservation easements is authorized through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund by the Steens Act. As we receive appropriations for
such acquisitions we will work cooperatively with the Steens Mountain
Advisory Council, and local landowners to maximize the use of such
monies. We recognize that acquisitions and conservation easements are
an important part of successfully implementing the Steens Act, and to
that end we will continue to work with you, Governor Kitzhaber, the
entire Congressional delegation, and all interested stakeholders and
publics.
access
Access to wilderness inholdings and private inholdings is governed
by Section 112(e) of the Steens Act and by the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Both require reasonable and adequate access while minimizing impacts on
designated wilderness. We are committed to addressing this issue. Both
the Steens Act and the Wilderness Act provide some flexibility for
allowing access to private inholdings. Both recognize the importance of
providing the access and protecting wilderness values. We are presently
investigating access options, and through an open dialogue with the
public will provide for an analysis, disclosure of impacts, and
discussion of the various options. Two access options currently under
consideration are either a cooperative management agreement, or the
more traditional permitting process.
The BLM intends to provide reasonable access to inholders in a
manner that protects wilderness characteristics. The BLM Burns District
is presently preparing the required Environmental Assessment (EA) to
address inholding access needs in the Steens Wilderness in conformance
with the Steens Act, the Wilderness Act, and BLM's Wilderness
Management Regulations.
livestock grazing permittees
The Steens Act requires that grazing within wilderness shall be
administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act and the guidelines
established by Congress in 1990. Those guidelines provide direction and
examples of appropriate use of motorized vehicles and motorized
equipment where practical alternatives do not exist. They also require
that any occasional use of motorized equipment be authorized within the
grazing permits for the area involved. The BLM intends to fully comply
with this direction, and is preparing an EA to analyze the potential
use of motorized vehicles and equipment, and practical alternatives
that may exist for this purpose.
recreational use
For as long as people have settled in southeast Oregon, they have
used the Steens Mountain area for recreational purposes. Those uses are
both individual and commercial. For many of the commercial activities
the BLM is required to issue special recreation permits. The BLM Burns
District staff have prepared EAs to analyze the impacts of current
permitted recreational activities on public land within the Steens
Mountain Area and, in particular, the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area.
These EAs will identify impacts to resources and uses, while providing
for streamlined administrative processes for permitting to be more
responsive to our commercial recreation service partners. The National
Environmental Policy Act process will analyze all options, current
policy and the comments from the public and partners. BLM will work
with the Steens Mountain Advisory Council before a final decision is
made.
The BLM Burns District is also working with off-highway vehicle
users to help them better understand their responsibilities under the
Steens Act. Section 112(b)(1) of the Act clearly prohibits the off-road
use of motorized or mechanized vehicles on Federal lands, limiting
their use to designated roads and trails as determined in the
forthcoming management plan.
We are deeply aware of the importance of recreation issues to our
local publics. We will continue to work closely with the Steens
Mountain Advisory Council and all users, whether recreational or
commercial, to find ways to best address their needs in the context of
the Steens Act and other applicable laws and regulations.
conclusion
As we continue to move forward on planning and implementation of
the Steens Act, I give you my personal assurance that we will continue
to involve all the interested parties who live in, recreate on, derive
their livelihood from and love Steens Mountain. We have learned much
from those who call the Steens home and we will continue to look to
them for advice and guidance.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Let's just move right down the
row to you, Mr. Marlett.
STATEMENT OF BILL MARLETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON NATURAL
DESERT ASSOCIATION, BEND, OR
Mr. Marlett. Thank you, Senator Wyden. Welcome to Central
Oregon and thanks for the opportunity to speak on
implementation of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management
and Protection Act.
The path chosen for Steens was a novel course of action,
one that attempts to balance competing interests, accommodate
diverse stakeholders and provide for direct citizen involvement
with the goal to ``conserve, protect and manage the long-term
ecological integrity of Steens Mountain for future and present
generations.''
While the overarching goal of the Act is clear, the path in
reaching our goal will be anything but smooth.
Today, I want to focus on three issues I believe are
impeding the progress towards achieving that goal.
The first is that Oregon's delegation should not try to fix
every problem, perceived or otherwise, that manifests as we go
through this arduous planning process. By way of example, when
we agreed to the Nation's first ``cow-free'' wilderness area on
Steens Mountain, we did not fully appreciate nor did the bill
acknowledge the fact, that it would take several years to
achieve cow-free status in the newly-formed wilderness area.
And while we could have raised a political fuss, we didn't. We
decided, in the spirit of cooperation, we would let the process
run its course.
My point in raising this is to illustrate that whether the
issue is access to private lands or ongoing livestock
management, people need to exercise patience. Senator Wyden, I
know that you and the rest of the delegation did not intend
that the Steens Act would solve all the problems on Steens
Mountain, which is why you established the Steens Mountain
Advisory Committee (SMAC), to assist BLM in preparing a
detailed management plan that addresses myriad issues.
The second issue relates directly to the SMAC. Congress
gave very explicit direction to BLM to prepare a management
plan with the help of the SMAC. The problem I see is the
committee is spending too much of its precious time on issues
secondary to completing the plan. I believe with the short time
left, the SMAC must focus its limited energy in completing the
plan, and only when necessary, and as time permits, delve into
the interim issues BLM is having to contend with daily.
The third issue, and in my opinion the biggest
disappointment of the Steens Act, is the complete absence of
promised funding for land acquisition, easements and juniper
management. Just within the Steens Mountain Wilderness, there
are nearly 5,000 acres of private inholdings that pose a threat
to BLM's ability to manage the land as wilderness. Some of
these landowners have expressed a willingness to sell their
lands to BLM, but there is no money. I, along with the Steens-
Alvord Coalition, firmly agree with Governor Kitzhaber, that
potential development of private lands is a primary threat to
the undeveloped integrity of the Steens Mountain landscape that
people value so highly.
All stakeholders who were party to drafting the Steens
legislation agreed that acquiring land and easements from
willing sellers would be part of the long-term strategy to
achieve the goal of the Steens Act. Oregon's delegation agreed
and Congress authorized $25 million for land acquisition and $5
million for juniper management. To date no funds have been
appropriated for these purposes. To my dismay, some
stakeholders are purposely blocking appropriations. Senator
Wyden, the integrity of the Steens process hinges on honoring
past commitments to future funding; in short, a deal is a deal.
It is my strong conviction that this funding commitment was
as much a part of the consensus agreement we made 2 years ago
as the land exchanges, making ranch operations whole and
designating wilderness. For myself, this promise of future
funding was the critical carrot that convinced many of us to
support national legislation over a monument proclamation,
which as you know, carries no commitment of Federal dollars.
This is not to suggest there is no active role for Oregon's
delegation outside the appropriations process. The Steens Act
did not designate approximately 100,000 acres of Wilderness
Study Area lands within the management boundary as wilderness.
For political reasons, these wilderness designations were left
on the table for another day, and it is our understanding that
Congress will revisit this issue when appropriate.
Second, Congress may wish to legislate additional land
exchanges, as currently being proposed for George Stroemple and
others, to consolidate public and private lands, secure new
wilderness, or eliminate inholdings. ONDA supports the current
batch of land exchanges. As you know, during the course of the
original discussions on the Steens Act, several important land
exchanges, including the Scharff and Hammond exchanges, were
dropped for lack of time to reach consensus. To the extent such
land exchanges meet the objectives of the Act, in particular
where Congress is creating new wilderness, some, but not all in
the conservation community will support Congressional action on
this front to expedite the process. Of course, we must be
vigilant to balance any legislated exchange absent NEPA to
ensure that the public's interest is protected.
Which is not to say that we didn't make mistakes two years
ago. The fact that we are now proposing boundary adjustments as
part of new legislation for Steens suggests otherwise.
But Congress should not prematurely involve itself in
management issues, in particular policy matters related to the
Wilderness Act that have not been fully debated and discussed.
The BLM has rules and regulations along with the public
involvement in the process that should be given a chance to
work.
In short, Senator Wyden, Congress should not attempt to fix
problems with implementation of the Steens Act that may be more
perception than reality. Congressional fixes may be necessary,
but should be actions of the last resort. Legislative tinkering
at this juncture sends a message that the Steens model is
flawed. I believe it would be unwise for us to send that
message. In short, let the SMAC and BLM carry out their
representative duties.
If the Oregon delegation wants the Steens model to be
successful, I suggest we limit legislative action to discreet
matters that have consensus, ask BLM if they have the staff and
resources to thoroughly develop a solid management plan, and
give the SMAC the support they need to assist BLM in developing
that plan.
In conclusion, we should stay the course, not meddle in BLM
and permitting protocol, let the SMAC focus on getting a plan
on the streets, and appropriate the critical dollars we were
promised 18 months ago for juniper management and land and
easement acquisition.
Senator Wyden, thank you again for your time and interest
on this important issue. And while we don't see eye to eye, I
would like to compliment BLM District Manager Tom Dyer, Area
Manager, Miles Brown, along with Burns District BLM staff, who
I think are doing a great job on a difficult task. Thanks.
Senator Wyden. Let's welcome now Fred Otley, who ranches
near Diamond. And we're really pleased to have you here with
us, Fred. You and the other ranchers have been so helpful, not
just on this but on a variety of issues. As you know, the old
3rd Congressional District that I represented for 15 years in
the House, there's really not a lot of cattle ranches or
national forests there in northeast Portland, but you all made
a very, very significant effort to reach out to me and help on
these ranching issues and I'm very appreciative of that. Please
proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF FRED OTLEY, RANCHER, DIAMOND, OR
Mr. Otley. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank you for
your help in the past, complaint trips and whatnot that helped
get to the center core of certain issues.
The Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection
Act is indeed a precedent setting act in a number of ways. It
creates a new type of special designation. One that emphasizes
and even promotes current and historical uses.
The first purposes of the Act was to maintain the cultural,
economic, ecological and social health of the Steens Mountain
Area. I think that's fundamental to your whole hearing today,
and I think it's fundamental to why the legislation was created
in the first place.
For instance, the purposes to promote viable and
sustainable grazing, recreational operations on public and
private land; to conserve, protect and manage for healthy
watersheds and the long-term ecological integrity of the Steens
Mountain, these are balanced purposes. They are not one-sided.
They recognize the need for long-term sustainability in terms
of both the economy and the biology and ecological needs of the
area.
Other purposes emphasize cooperative management, in
addition to the title Cooperative Management and Protection Act
and all the five objectives of the cooperative management area.
How many designations can you come up with that have
cooperative management in the title and in eight of the
purposes setting up the designations?
The cooperative management protection area is indeed
inclusive also of other special designations that are within
the cooperative management protection area. Wilderness, four or
five wild and scenic rivers, the wild lands juniper management
area, and a number of ACC research natural areas and a whole
host of special designations. And it is indeed going to be a
challenge to pin all these together, because they are under the
umbrella of the purposes and the objectives I've stated.
The critical elements, I think, that needs to be kept in
front of us is promoting uses that are sustainable, puts people
in the process, both in terms of the landowners that are there
and the public that's such a strong part of the mountain. And I
think there's a couple litmus tests that are vital to look at.
One is indeed the Steens Mountain Running Camp that has
operated for 27 years. And most people don't even know it
exists there.
A hundred fifty runners run throughout what is now the
wilderness area a few times a week, and they have specific
routes for safety and other considerations, and nobody even
knows they exist. Most people are still asleep in their camp
when 150 runners go by and they don't even know they were
there. It's a very, very special part of the mountain.
There's seven other recreational permits, commercial. And I
don't think in terms of non-commercial and commercial, because
both non-commercial and commercial are part of the mountain.
Public use is part of the mountain. But there are eight total
commercial recreational permits on the mountain, and they were
basically without being specifically grandfathered in, they
were fundamental to the sustainable recreation and grazing
businesses, as were the grazing permits that exist up there
that remain.
So I think BLM erred in terms, and I don't know why their
starting point was where it was. It had to be at a higher
level, the State office or Washington, D.C., to my way of
thinking. Because they started by taking the assumption that
because we created a wilderness, that we had to put these
historical uses under great scrutiny on an interim basis. That
is inconsistent with the Act.
The assumption should have been that the starting point is
what is there, what is existing that isn't specifically altered
by the Steens Mountain Act. Let me give you one example. I'm
sure my 5 minutes is about up. But the direct effect of the
running camp that they immediately--well, all the recreational
permits, they were up in the air whether they would have a
permit the first year it was established. And thanks to Tom
Dyer and Miles Brown some of this has been resolved, but it's
why we're sort of at an impasse on certain issues.
They assumed that those permits had to be changed and they
were under scrutiny. They never received their permit until
after they were slated to start their activities. The running
camp runners, the first two bus loads, were there before Harlan
Moriarty got his permit. Now Harlan Moriarty, 80 percent of his
purpose is environmental education and appreciation for Steens
Mountain and the way he operates his camp. He just loves that
camp.
All the recreational permit holders received that delayed
permit, and I worry about it again this year. They are a part
of the new wilderness management from my standpoint. They all
operate to a certain degree inside the wilderness boundary and
they should be used cooperatively to help educate the public
and to help find a better way of managing public use when there
is a conflict. When there is activities that might impair some
resources. But that ought to be the trigger when there's damage
occurring or obviously uses that will suggest damage if the
activity continues in that manner. That's called monitoring and
that's central to the Steens Mountain. In existing situations
that's what we do, we try to monitor and avoid problems, not
monitor, you know, after the fact. So, again, I appreciate
everybody's effort up to this point. I am afraid that there
might be legislative fixes necessary because of the starting
point way over here.
We have certain outside groups that are trying to challenge
these fundamental things that should be just ingrained as part
of the implementation of the Steens Mountain Act, and that's
where I think we've sort of got off the track here. And there
are things as far as access to inholdings that I think for full
use and enjoyment should be reestablished, because the
interpretation of reasonable means you get a permit. I don't
think a permit to go to your property inside the boundary, I
don't that's consistent with what we were talking about.
There is room in terms of cooperative management agreements
and other components of the Act that existing uses of
management can continue. And we don't need to assume things are
wrong. We need to monitor and make sure that they don't go
wrong. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Fred, thanks very much and I particularly
appreciate your mentioning the running camp, the Steens
Mountain Running Camp. Senator Smith and I in fact have been so
concerned about this particular point, because it really goes
right to the heart of the philosophy of whether we're going to
continue so much of what already goes on in the Steens that
works. And the congressional delegation wanted to make sure
that those historic operations were preserved, so Senator Smith
and I actually put into the Congressional Record a fairly
lengthy exchange called a colloquy, which is kind of Washington
lingo of a description, that lays out that the congressional
intent was exactly as you have described it, to ensure that
these running operations, which by the way are on private land,
are not harmed by a group of people who are from out of State.
I can tell you our delegation is not being flooded by
people from the State of Oregon saying that, you know, we have
got to change the running camp or western civilization is going
down the tubes.
Mr. Otley. Your letter early on really helped get that
issue back on track, because there was a number of conditions
and requirements coming forth at one point that, well, we're
still nervous that they're going to be able to operate in the
long term.
Senator Wyden. I got the drift and as chairman of this
subcommittee with jurisdiction over public lands and forestry,
we're going to carry out what the law intended, which is to
protect that running camp and ensure that those opportunities
for young runners are still there.
Let's start with you, Mr. Wassinger. Why did it take so
long to get the advisory committee appointment? I gather it
took pretty much a year, and what was the reason it took so
long to get that going?
Mr. Wassinger. The nomination process and the review
process were quite complex. The first Advisory Council of its
type, while it's similar to a Resource Advisory Committee, it
was the first specific committee of its type, and I think it
just took a while to get that process in place.
Senator Wyden. Well, I asked mostly because I think what
has concerned people is that this has been so important we
would just like it to reflect the sense of urgency that the
people of Oregon and all of the stakeholders feel, and if it
takes a year just to get everybody appointed, you can
understand why there is a fair amount of concern.
Let me ask you, if I could, representing BLM fire
management, we've been told that BLM current procedures require
BLM to obtain permission from the State office in Portland
before they can authorize fire fighting measures in Steens
Mountain Wilderness. If that's correct, tell me why that's the
case and sort of how you deal in emergency situations?
Mr. Wassinger. Senator, I'm not familiar with that
requirement. I don't know the answer to that, but I can get you
an answer to that.
Mr. Dyer. Usually any type of a fire situation in the
wilderness requires some checks and balances. We do have the
authority to make the determination on how we go in there and
suppress the fire, but it will be made using not only the
district personnel there, but also other folks that have a lot
of experience working with fire suppression in wilderness.
Senator Wyden. So what happens if there's an emergency?
What if there is an emergency on a weekend morning or a
holiday, is it not possible for local people to move in those
kinds of situations?
Mr. Dyer. Yes.
Senator Wyden. They can?
Mr. Wassinger. There are procedures and we do have 24-hour-
a-day coverage in our fire fighting programs. So there is
provision for in emergency situations to not only allow the
district to act, but to allow that interchange to happen at any
time.
Senator Wyden. Good. That's important and I think it's
important to make that clear. With respect to livestock grazing
in the Steens, as you all know a key part of our ability to
reach an agreement on the expanded Steens program was because
of our decision to adopt the long-standing guidelines on
grazing in the wilderness.
Those guidelines established very straightforward
principles that wilderness status not affect grazing, usual
methods of access, including the use of motorized equipment
should be allowed where necessary and reasonable. So it was our
understanding as a delegation that very little would change on
this key issue with respect to grazing management as a
consequence of the wilderness designation. Is that the
understanding of this group of witnesses?
Mr. Wassinger. I can speak to that, Senator. Motorized use
within the wilderness area was specifically addressed in this
legislation, that motorized use under the guidelines prescribed
by Congress was acceptable. Those guidelines require that we
determine whether or not the motorized use is appropriate and
reasonable for the uses that are being proposed. That's what
we're in the process of analyzing right now. Not if they have
the right to these uses, but how these uses might be applied.
Senator Wyden. What does that mean to people out in the
real world?
Mr. Wassinger. Well, it means that there may be a more
appropriate way to deal with maintenance of the facilities that
would be more appropriate for the wilderness itself and at the
same time still get the job done.
Senator Wyden. What would that be?
Mr. Wassinger. It just could be a different kind of
motorized use or a different type of use. It may not require
motorized use. There could be other options and that's what the
burn district is assessing right now. Not if they have the
right to those issues, but how those uses are applied.
Senator Wyden. I'd like everybody on the panel to weigh in
on this point, not just the question of motorized use, but the
overall question of the intent of Congress.
Mr. Grasty. Well, I have to admit I'm kind of lost on what
to add to this. The comments that Mr. Wassinger was making, I
guess my concern around those is they require a change in
management style, if you would, of the landowners or grazers up
there, if you would, even to the point that I'm hearing I know
we were talking about having to hand pack rocks in, but not
being able to pick up rocks that are in the neighborhood
because they're in the wilderness. Or having to move rocks from
outside the wilderness into the wilderness if they were going
to build a rock chair, and those kinds of things. And that
level of change in operation creates quite a bit of concern to
me.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Wassinger, do you want to make sure
people don't walk out of here thinking that's what the BLM is
going to do?
Mr. Wassinger. Why don't I let Tom Dyer speak to the kinds
of things that are being considered in the Environmental
Analysis right now, or Miles Brown. They are both involved.
Mr. Dyer. We're going through the Environmental Analysis
right now. What Chuck mentioned as far as the access and the
work on it, that's not the question. The question is how? We
are talking about reasonable and practical. That's what's in
the legislation. It's also in the Wilderness Act of 1964. And
we really need to identify what that means, as far as the idea
of other methods that maybe the number of trips that they have
normally gone in on have been a very few. Does it necessarily
need to be a four-wheel drive rig versus a four-wheeler or an
ATV?
So right now we are working with the stakeholders in this
process to try to make a determination in the analysis to help
us make the best decision we possibly can, Miles, do you have
anything you want to add?
Miles Brown is the BLM field manager for the natural
resource area and the manager right over the Steens area, and
staff is working directly with the landowners and their range
permits.
Senator Wyden. To the extent that you can give people some
concrete impressions about how you're going about this, I think
that would be helpful, because obviously there's a lot of
concern. Steve's reflecting it. I think it would be helpful.
Mr. Dyer. The main thing is yes, they have access. Yes,
they can work on their projects right now. What we're analyzing
is the how. How many? Are there other opportunities to help?
What might be the best way to address that? What has the least
impact on the Steens Act, the new direction?
Mr. Brown. I think part of the issue is getting to the
bottom line, and that is Appendix A referenced by the Steens
Act talks about placing those uses within wilderness, the
mechanized motorized uses within the wilderness, in the grazing
permit. And when we place something in the grazing permit, it's
a discretionary action and that requires a decision that
subsequently requires use of the National Environmental Policy
Act--which is an Environmental Assessment.
The bottom line is if we don't do that we'll likely be
challenged. If we don't do that we'll likely lose, and if the
BLM loses, the grazing permittees lose. So the primary reason
why we're going through the process is to protect those uses.
Senator Wyden. Okay. I want to hear from Mr. Marlett and
Mr. Otley on that point, grazing.
Mr. Marlett. During the course of the negotiations on the
bill, you know, when you're sitting around a kitchen table
chatting about whether grazing will be permitted or not, the
general understanding was that grazing would continue in the
wilderness area. That was a fundamental understanding between
all the stakeholders.
We believed that grazing would continue consistent with the
guidelines that Congress had so carefully crafted in the years
past dealing with ongoing grazing management in designated
wilderness. To the extent that it would be grandfathered
exactly as it was in the past, I don't think that point ever
came up clearly or the question was never asked, you know, Can
we do exactly what we did in the past in the same manner and
degree? That notion was never on the table.
It was assumed that grazing would continue and under the
cooperative nature of the bill that the permittees would
cooperate with BLM in adjusting where necessary their
operations to be consistent with the Wilderness Act,
recognizing that that use would continue.
Senator Wyden. Fred, anything to add?
Mr. Otley. Yes. The issue did come up, though, concerning
motorized uses in terms of maintenance of facilities and other
management activities, like placing salt and those types of
things. Because we don't like to go out there and spend 20 days
to do one day's job for a number of reasons. One, we don't have
the time. Two, it costs money.
And if you place restrictions on the ability to get up
there with a motorized vehicle, we no longer can sustain our
operations as they have been in the past and we cannot properly
maintain certain facilities, like water reservoirs, small water
catchments, that are absolutely necessary to properly manage
the watershed and properly manage our grazing.
So the interim challenges, and I understand Miles's
comments on having to go through NEPA, but basically the
existing management activities should be continued and a
process set up so that we would determine, you know, if there
was uses that may have alternatives that nobody's considered.
For instance, a four-wheel drive pickup on a muddy road
compared to a four-wheeler. If the pickup was necessary, you
could still get out of the muddy period. That's called
cooperation, and that's called ongoing cooperation that we've
had with the Agency in the past. I mean we private landowners
close certain roads when they get to the point of where using
them will cause problems with the road. That only makes sense
because it costs money to fix up those roads. It's very
expensive and that requires additional mechanized equipment.
So right now people assume they can go up there and do the
day-by-day, which isn't very often. It's salt earlier in the
year. Most of the motorized activities are prior to the public
use ever going up in those areas. So the best way would have
been to not--The Agency clearly in the guidelines may allow
those uses to continue, and to put them up for scrutiny under
NEPA. It should have been said that these activities will
continue and major changes in those activities, i.e., repair of
roads, maintenance of roads so we can get into the wilderness
area, should have been the issue under scrutiny of NEPA, not
whether we are going to go up there on horseback or not.
Senator Wyden. I think the reason that this is important is
you take the piece of legislation which says that current
operations are going to continue. They're going to be
respected. That the current guidelines are going to be
respected. And then you get into all these questions of how the
Act is being implemented and I think there is a concern, you
know, by some that, Well, somebody may hijack this in terms of
implementation, taking it a different direction than Congress
intended.
And let me wrap up this line of questioning just by asking
the BLM folks, on this implementation on the grazing issue,
what is your plan to reach out to all of the stakeholders so
that people really feel as you get into the nuts and bolts of
implementation on the key issue, that everybody is being
listened to and you don't have a situation where somebody can
just kind of run off and take the Act in a different direction
than Congress intended?
Mr. Wassinger. I'll speak to it generally and I'll let Tom
speak to it on a more specific basis. But on all of the
implementation issues, Senator, of this complex Act, our intent
is to involve everyone who has a stake in the issues that are
being addressed. We're working directly with those grazing
permittees.
On the other issues, on the special recreation permits, on
the access to inholders, our guidance to the Burns District is
exactly the same. We want you to consult and cooperate and
involve and engage and participate practically with both the
Steens Mountain Advisory Committee and all of those individuals
that are affected directly or indirectly in these issues.
Senator Wyden. Well, let's move on, but I just want it
understood that I want you to keep our subcommittee fully
abreast of the issues relating to implementation generally, but
particularly on this point which is generating so much concern.
I'll leave it at that, but we want you to keep us abreast.
To move on, Mr. Marlett, on the land use issues and the
land use plan, obviously here again there is a question to
really make the kind of progress people need, we've got to get
all the stakeholders together on, I assume if it comes to it,
Senator Smith and Congressman Walden and I can go lock the SMAC
in a room with the BLM and just have everybody sit there until
it gets done. And obviously that's not exactly the ideal way in
which you go forward with legislation, but what are your
thoughts in terms of getting everybody together, the
stakeholders, on the land use plan issue to get this done.
Mr. Marlett. I think that with respect to the plan itself,
the SMAC just needs to refocus its energy away from the kind of
day-to-day decisions that BLM is making with respect to grazing
management in the interim and special recreation permits, and
focus exclusively on the plan itself and developing the
necessary alternatives that are required under NEPA, so that
the plan gets out in a timely fashion and has enough thought
and consideration that goes into it such that, you know, we've
got something at the end of this process, you know, that has
meaning and will give people something to think about.
I think it's just a simple question of and this is the SMAC
itself has wrestled with this issue where do they put their
time and energy? And I think that they're realizing now that in
spite of the fact they've had four meetings, that it is a time
intensive process and these, I won't call them minor issues,
but they are interim issues for lack of a better word, are just
sucking up their time and energy, and they only have so much to
give, so they just need to refocus.
Senator Wyden. Steve, it seems to me you make an important
point about getting into new challenges and, you know, new
issues before you clear the decks in terms of the old ones, and
obviously just in terms of any new ones. There is a lot of
homework somebody has to do before they can do many of those
land exchanges, you know, and others that clearly have to be
given an opportunity to get into those first. But we can come
close to wrapping this up maybe with another question or two in
this area. But highlight for us what you think the major
outstanding issues are now. What are the most important things
that have to occur?
Mr. Grasty. Well, I guess specifically the inholding
issues, access for the inholds. Personally I like the
cooperative agreements rather than permitting. I think they're
somewhat longer lasting. As Mr. Wassinger said earlier, they
also don't come with a fee attached to them.
I think on the specific one, that's probably the easiest
one to get and most important to the guys that live on the
mountain, the people that live in Harney County. Broadly I'm
worried that the committee, as Bill said, is focused where it
needs to go, but doesn't lose sight of all these little issues
have got to be talked about. If you go around them, we're going
to end up with what we may have done in the legislation of
moving so quickly that there isn't enough thought put into it
to end up with a good plan.
Senator Wyden. I think that's a good one to quit on. I want
to give each of you a chance to have a last word and offer
anything before we wrap up. But I think Steve's point is
important. A number of these issues probably can be considered
small in terms of if you just look at them in a discreet sort
of way, just one. But cumulatively they go right to the heart
of our ability to hold this coalition, you know, together. And
that's what's critical, you know, here.
I had lunch last Thursday with Senator Smith and
Congressman Walden, and we all talked at length about how
important it is to keep this coalition together. We have a
piece of legislation that by any calculation was unique with
protection for existing uses on the grazing side. The first
cow-free wilderness area. Something that environmental groups
had sought for quite some time.
And so the stakes are really important here, and I can see
the good will of this table, but it's going to be important
that all sides really make a Herculean effort to reach out and
to make sure that as implementation goes forward, everybody
feels they have had a chance to work through all these
questions to keep this coalition together.
And let me give you all a chance to have a last word and
then we'll excuse you. Let's start at the other end. Fred, you
can start and go right down the line. Anything you'd like to
add further before we wrap up?
Mr. Otley. Yes. Just tell everybody that a lot of the
things that have been going on in implementation of the Act has
been done smoothly, but the ones--I'll disagree with Bill a
little bit here--are the test on whether it's going to work on
an interim basis when you get these major upheavals that
threaten the businesses that depend on the mountain. The
businesses and the people who come there for family outings.
I mean a person that comes from New York to visit their
twenty acres, and there's lots of inholdings on the mountain,
and they find out that they're arrested by a law enforcement
officer for visiting their land. That doesn't make any sense.
The other issue, well, like one of the ones that's worked
really good is the juniper activities. The juniper fire
management activities that Bill and I together have come to
greater agreement on than we have in the past, are progressing
and the mountain isn't at a standstill. So a lot of things are
working.
The one that I wanted to get to also did have to do with
economics. Economic incentives are a big part of the
legislation. Four things in addition to land acquisition, which
everybody automatically said that one, there's three other uses
of the Land and Water Conservation money. And that is
conservation easements, nondevelopment easements to protect
against the major resort developments that we all think are
inconsistent and not really appropriate on the mountain
necessarily, or at least we'd like to have them guided into the
right spot if we're going to have that type of development, but
also cooperative agreements are authorized through incentives
to manage like for the ecological integrity of the mountain:
juniper projects, prescribed fire where everybody gets together
and shares their expertise and efforts and resources.
And relative to those moneys Bill mentioned funding, and
the earlier agreement was that half needed to be put forward in
terms of nondevelopment easements, conservation easements,
cooperative agreements relative to the other half being
available for certain key land purchases inside the wilderness
that are high profile or high priority. And I do believe that a
certain level of funding is needed right now to implement it.
It is hard when some of these things like access to
inholdings starts blowing up or whether the running camp or
other recreational permits are going to operate. Those things
shake everybody up and it shakes the local support at the
community level, and I think that's critical to success.
Senator Wyden. Bill, the last word.
Mr. Marlett. Well, I've got three things that I saw as
impediments, and that shouldn't, I guess, mask the fact that
there has been significant progress made. You know, we got the
implementation of EA done last year. Much of the same
discussion going on now was happening last year over that.
We thought perhaps we were going to have to go through some
congressional fix to let that pass forward. You know, the land
exchanges are done. So there has been a lot of progress and I
think it's prudent for us to keep in mind the big picture, and
as I pointed out earlier, it's not going to be easy. People are
going to get upset, but we just need to work through it and
kind of keep our eyes glued to the final outcome.
Mr. Wassinger. I think I'd like to close on the plan
itself, the planning process, which is critical to the long-
term implementation and success of this Act. That planning
process, we completed the scoping in April, however I want to
make it very clear to you, Senator, that we want to
continuously involve the public, all publics, in that process
throughout the plan development and finalization, including
very importantly the Steens Mountain Advisory Committee.
We are pushing that process as fast as we feel we can push
it and still be inclusive of all of the concerns and issues
that people need to bring forward and feel comfortable with
whatever that plan ends up looking like.
Senator Wyden. Steve.
Mr. Grasty. I'll make two quick points. One is just sitting
at this table shows the issue around the different meanings one
word has for people. And the word historic may be a classic
here. The community of the snowmobilers think that their use
was historic. The ranchers see the way they manage their
grazing allotments as historic. The environmental community
sees it as something else.
It's important that we do what we can to get a good
understanding around those individual words that slow us up,
and I suspect the bureaucracy within the BLM will change it to
yet something else.
And then the final point I'd make is that it's important in
this implementation for your help to help us with an issue that
is tied certainly to this, and that's to have a sister Federal
agency make a run on water rights that takes about 120 percent
of the water that ever came off the mountain at one time, would
take it all, complicates this issue and ruins the level of
trust locally, and that's the refuge system. And, boy, if
they'd back off a little bit, I think we could keep the level
of trust up a little bit higher in getting this plan in place.
Senator Wyden. Very good. We'll adjourn you and thank you
for your help. The next panel is Sally Collins, Associate
Chief, Forest Service, accompanied by Leslie Welden, Forest
Supervisor for the Deschutes Forest; Nancy Graybeal, Deputy
Regional Forester, Region 6; Jeff Blackwood, Forest Supervisor,
Umatilla Forest; Rick Brown, senior resource manager, Defenders
of Wildlife; John Morgan, resource manager of Ochoco Lumber;
and the Honorable Ted Ferrioli, State Senator for central and
eastern Oregon.
We're going to have to have quiet in the hall so the panel
can begin. Let us begin with you, Ms. Collins. Welcome and
thank you for your patience.
I note you have a fine assemblage with you from the various
Forest Service offices, and as a former supervisor from Bend
you know the area well and just please proceed with your
testimony. If you've prepared remarks for the record they will
be included and if you can highlight your major concerns in 5
minutes or so that would be great.
STATEMENT OF SALLY COLLINS, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY JEFF BLACKWOOD,
FOREST SUPERVISOR, UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST; LESLIE WELDEN,
FOREST SUPERVISOR, DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST; AND NANCY
GRAYBEAL, DEPUTY REGIONAL FORESTER, REGION 6
Ms. Collins. Good morning, everybody. It's a pleasure to be
here today as always in Central Oregon. Lots of family, friends
and----
Senator Wyden. Folks, we have an awful lot of discussion
there in the back and it's not going to be possible to hear the
witnesses.
Ms. Collins. Actually, let me ask them because I was in the
back row. Can you all hear me? Okay. It's not cutting out?
Raise your hand if it's cutting out. It kind of hard to hear.
As the Senator said, we have some folks behind me that can
answer some specific questions about Oregon and people that
I've worked with, Leslie and Jeff Blackwood and Nancy Graybeal,
for many years, and I admire and respect and they'll be here to
answer any questions that come up specific to Oregon that I
can't answer.
So we look forward to assessing these issues about
environmental health on the east side of Oregon together. I've
summarized my testimony, so let me just make a few points. In
the 13 years that I lived in Oregon, on the east side of
Oregon, our communities experienced unprecedented change. The
population doubled in central Oregon. Our economy shifted. New
problems and opportunities emerged.
Collectively, taxing, growth issues, youth at risk,
education, expansion, transportation crises and changes in our
natural resource economic base. For communities further to the
east, the traumas and the economic shift have even been more
traumatic. All of these communities, I mean I can't think of
one, have rallied to adapt, to diversify and to work to
maintain the kind of quality of life that makes people want to
live and work here.
And while the story is different in every community, it is
true that all communities on the east side of Oregon have
experienced great change. We have strong communities here in
Oregon and we are willing to work for the changes, but it isn't
easy and it hasn't been easy, and we want and need to figure
out ways to help. So what I'd like to talk about today is to
summarize briefly the forest health situation as we see it in
eastern Oregon and then move on to what I believe are some
areas of substantial agreement around which I think many of the
interests can come together on.
And I really do believe this and I believed for many years
when I lived here in central Oregon that the forest health
situation and forest ecosystem health concerns provides one of
the best opportunities to bring people together and to really
collectively problem solve, to move beyond polarized positions
and beyond political rhetoric and really get some work done.
I think the opportunities are there and we have a community
interested and focused on delivering on that. As most of you
know, the catastrophic fires of the last several years have
highlighted this problem that's been developing for decades.
The growing susceptibility of many Western forests to insect,
disease and catastrophic fire. And I don't need to say to all
of you that this problem is very much related to a century of
fire suppression, and it's going to take a lot to solve this
problem and we are not going to be able to do it overnight.
We are looking at, even under an active restoration
approach, using the most optimistic assumptions, these forests
with large widely spaced Ponderosa pine and Doug firs could at
best be increased to about two-thirds of their historic
abundance over the next century, just because it takes that
long to grow trees and create that kind of structure.
The most significant issue facing national forest
management in eastern Oregon over the next two decades is going
to be the problem of fuel build-up and declining forest health
and their subsequent ecosystem effects on diversity and
sustainability. Senator Wyden, it's really appropriate that you
came to Oregon to have this kind of hearing because of a couple
of things. We have a long history of problem solving in a
collaborative way here.
I think about a decade ago, 15 years ago when we started
working on Newbury Monument, we started working on the Metolius
while we were working on this project that involved 17,000
acres. Now we started working on that a decade ago and started
building a base of support and understanding for many, many
years. Applegate Partnership, the Eastside Citizens' Panel has
been very effective. We've been working together on many issues
and, again, I think this is a great place to be talking about
what we can do together.
Some of the examples, and some of the others I'm not going
to touch too much on, are the Blue Mountain Demonstration
Project. Again, it got kind of off to a rough start. Seemed
like not enough was happening fast enough, but we're now seeing
some great progress there. And I think there's a brochure in
the back of the room that talks about some of the
accomplishments.
The Lakeview Sustainability Initiative, great work. And
just many other examples. The use of the Wyden Amendment pretty
extensively as well as the County Payments Legislation has
resulted in about $13 or $14 million coming back to seven
different counties for their RACs for lots of good restoration
work. Those RACs are going to be and they have been so far very
successful.
Now, many of you have been reading about and hearing our
chief, Dale Bosworth, talk about his frustration over analysis
paralysis. How long it takes us to get through a process of
project planning as well as planning for forest plans. We are
looking at a number of ways to tackle that problem and we've
got sessions ongoing at the national level with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Council of Environmental Quality, and
our agency partners as it relates to the National Fire Plan, as
well as--well, let's just basically say all of our work, and we
believe we've got an environment now where we're going to have
some productive discussions and we're encouraged by that.
We are also doing a lot internally, and I think this Region
6 in Oregon and Washington has done quite a lot to try to make
the National Fire Plan in particular much more effective
through its expedited ESA consultation processes as well as
some expedited eco process. So people are working on that and I
think coming up with some really good ideas.
So again we are looking at ways that we can cut through a
lot of the analysis that we have been having to--what's really
happened on that front is that over the years, we've
accumulated a lot of process. We've had the National
Environmental Policy Act for about 30 years now, and we are
really looking at how a series of court case decisions over the
last couple of decades have required much more than is actually
necessary to accomplish the work on the ground. So we're
working with them to see where we might be able to make some
modifications.
And as I said, I want to conclude but I think this issue of
forest health offers a lot of opportunities to come together.
I'll be interested to see what you all think about what I think
our areas of consensus are, but let me just name a few because
I think we do have broad agreement on some concepts. Let's talk
about these.
First, the forests are out of balance and need to be
treated through a variety of tools to bring them back to a
condition that's sustainable and resilient. Second, that we
agree that ecosystem health is a key goal of providing for
sustainable ecosystem dynamics. Third, that fuels reduction is
critical to the health and safety of the communities and the
safety of fire fighters fighting those fires, and that without
fuels reduction activities our fires will burn hotter, they
will cost more and will do more ecological damage than they
would if the forests were in balance.
We agree, I think, that fuels reduction activities that can
help us begin as wild fires, and we've seen example after
example right here in central Oregon of that. We also agree
that accountability is essential. It's been one of the
hallmarks of what Dale Bosworth is talking about. We need to be
able to deliver on our commitments, do what we say we're going
to do and be fiscally accountable in every way. And we also
know and agree that monitoring is essential to know that the
work that we're accomplishing is getting done and having the
effects that we want it to have.
We also agree that sound research is essential to guide our
efforts in all of that. We agree that the commercial value of
products can and should be captured and utilized to help
sustain communities, rural communities, and to help sustain
mill capacity. I think we agree that alternative products made
of small diameter material offer potential for economic
diversification in the wood products industry, and we are doing
quite a lot on that front, and I'll be happy to talk about that
some more.
We also agree, I think, that biomass can play an important
role in the thinning of forests and supporting an alternative
renewable resource. And finally, I think that we agree that we
need to get some creative ideas out there on the table like
stewardship contracting, which offer new ways for people to
come together on the land and talk about what needs to happen
in their watersheds. Many of the concepts included in
stewardship contracting we have consensus on.
I think we are challenged by and we have some areas of
disagreement that we need to spend some time talking about and
those are how fast do we go and how much do we treat where and
first? I think we're also challenged by how certain we can be
of a continuous supply of whatever that product is that we are
trying to provide, whether it's small diameter material or
biomass or any other alternative use that we might find for
this material.
And finally I think we're challenged by how we work
together. Are we going to find a way to work together so that
we're not polarized, but that we find ways and maybe it
hundreds of ways that we can collaborate that requires all
sides to come together and talk, that we build solid working
relationships together so that we can begin making action a
reality.
Senator Wyden, I really want to say thank you for having
this hearing and inviting me and holding it in Oregon and in
eastern Oregon and highlighting the issues that we have here.
And if it's okay with you, would it be all right for me to just
ask if anyone behind me has any comments to make?
Senator Wyden. Sure.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sally Collins, Associate Chief, Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be back here in
Redmond today to discuss forest health issues of eastside Cascades
ecosystems. I am Sally Collins, Associate Chief, USDA Forest Service. I
have with me today, Deputy Regional Forester, Nancy Graybeal and
Deschutes National Forests Supervisor, Leslie Weldon.
I will talk about three perspectives today:
1. The current forest health situation.
2. The important connection of local communities to resource
solutions.
3. Complex legal and policy concerns associated with forest
health project planning and implementation. Forest Health in
Eastern Oregon.
forest health in eastern oregon
A number of studies have been made which demonstrate the profound
ecological changes that have occurred in Western forest landscapes.
These studies record dramatic increases in the understory density and
decreases or complete elimination of both the aspen component and the
herbaceous understory in conifer stands. In addition, grasslands have
become woodlands and open woodlands have become dense forests. Events
of the last several years have spotlighted the results of these changes
that have been building for decades--the growing susceptibility of many
Western forest areas to insects, disease, and catastrophic wildfire.
Ironically, the cause of these problems is a century of reduced
presence of fire in these ecosystems. And, it will take time to address
these issues. Under an active restoration approach, using the most
optimistic assumptions, forests with large, widely spaced ponderosa
pines and Douglas-firs could at best be increased to about two-thirds
of their historical abundance over the next century.
The twin problems of fuel build ups and declining forest health,
and their effect on ecosystem diversity and sustainability, are likely
to be the single most significant environmental challenge facing
National Forest managers in Eastern Oregon over the next two decades.
The challenge will be great physically and biologically because such
problems are extensive on federal forest lands.
It will also require the Forest Service and the forest conservation
community to come to grips with the issue of whether and how humans
should intervene in natural forest ecosystems. Land management agencies
are faced with the challenge of restoring forests to healthy
conditions, and assuring species conservation while producing a
sustainable flow of resources.
Studies over the last decade, such as the Interior Columbia Basin
Science Assessment, characterize much of eastern Oregon as an area of
low ecological health. These studies looked at factors such as current
conditions of hydrologic functions, wildlife and fisheries habitats and
vegetation. Natural disturbances occurring in landscapes that are not
functioning within historic parameters can be more intense and larger
in scale than occurred in the past. Such ecologic factors, coupled with
low economic and social resiliency of rural communities, set the stage
for ongoing partnership efforts currently underway.
collaboration in forest health efforts
How do we propose to proceed with this apparently massive
undertaking? The federal government cannot do it alone. There are
several important collaborative efforts between the responsible federal
agencies with each other and with the people and communities of eastern
Oregon that address forest health problems east of the Cascades. Let me
highlight some examples:
Blue Mountain Demonstration Area (BMDA)--A series of
projects on both private and public lands that include 26
projects on private lands. Grants of over $800,000 are already
allocated through the Watershed Restoration and Enhancement
Agreement Authority. Expected outcomes from these projects
include 800 acres of thinning and forest fuels reduction, 3535
acres of noxious weed treatment, 163 acres of wetlands
restoration, four miles of stream restoration and five miles of
road restoration. BMDA accomplishments in 2001 include 61
million board feet (MMBF) offered in timber sales on national
forest lands, 132 miles of stream restoration, 18,250 acres of
noxious weed eradication and over 6,000 acres of fuels
reduction. An Eastside Forest Citizen Advisory Panel worked
with the agency to establish performance standards to measure
efficiency and increase accountability. The current cooperative
relationship between the panel and the Federal agencies has
helped overcome early serious barriers. We support the
continuance and expansion of this partnership.
The Chewaucan Project in Lake County, treats both private
and public lands, improving stream channel flows, eradicating
encroaching juniper, enhancing aspen stands, and reducing fuel
loads with thinning and prescribed fire. This project is
another example of working across land ownership boundaries
through authorities established under the Wyden amendment.
The Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit--The community of
Lakeview, Oregon and the Fremont National Forest reworked a
policy established under the Sustained Yield Forest Management
Act of 1944 to promote economic stability of forest
communities. The current policy provides small diameter timber
from national forest lands to sawmills in the community of
Lakeview. The overriding management emphasis within the unit
lands is ecosystem restoration and maintenance.
La Pine, Oregon residents have received grants awarded
through the National Fire Plan. Seven families pruned and
thinned trees around their homes and installed metal and
composition roofs. Later, when the 146-acre La Pine wildfire
broke out, firefighters were able to use these seven properties
as an anchor to stop the fire from spreading.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination
Act of 2000 (PL 106-393) has brought $13,696,607 Title II
dollars to seven Resource advisory Committees (RACS) in Oregon.
A recent Regional Office award of a Title II RAC project was to
the Lake County Resources Initiative for $132,490 to conduct
monitoring of these ongoing treatments.
The Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks
to Communities and the Environment: The Ten Year Strategy-
Implementation Plan signed just last week in Boise, Idaho will
ultimately result in many projects to reduce fuels and improve
forest health throughout Oregon. Governor Kitzhaber and his
office were highly visible in leading the coordination between
the Western states and federal agencies.
legal and policy concerns
Many factors contribute to agency challenges to efficient
management to improve forest health in eastern Oregon. Certainly
project planning and the application of environmental laws and
regulations and policies are critical. Other complications involve
increasing analysis requirements brought about by case law and in some
instances new agency policies; new and sometimes conflicting science;
and new species listings under ESA that ultimately require a higher
level of analysis to assure species conservation. As analysis
requirements have grown, the agency is suffering from a drain of NEPA
analysis skills. To address these concerns, the agency is currently
exploring or taking a number of actions. For example:
Reducing, simplifying, and in some instances eliminating
analysis requirements where this can occur without reducing the
quality of decisions or the adequacy of public disclosure;
Contracting for skills or analyses where this can
effectively meet agency needs;
Better focusing NEPA analyses on individual or connected
Federal actions rather than attempting to combine NEPA analyses
for numerous independent actions;
Emphasizing the importance of quality control to reduce the
number of instances where NEPA analyses are found to be
inadequate through administrative appeals or litigation.
A task group has been working on ways to speed up the consultation
process required by ESA. Starting with the National Fire Plan process,
which identified project design criteria, the task group adapted it for
the BMDA. Once completed, this process will allow agreement on the ``no
effect and not likely to adversely effect'' calls. This is likely to
expedite consultation on up to 40% of Forest Service projects in the
area. With increased listings of T&E species in the 1990's there is an
increased consultation workload. Staffing demands must be addressed in
eastern Oregon offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The Fiscal Year 2003 President's Budget
includes $15 million to reimburse Federal agencies responsible for
expedited ESA consultations.
Stewardship Contracting authority is currently being tested under
the ``Stewardship Pilot'' program that allows for restoration
treatments on acres that would otherwise not have been treated.
Application of this authority is limited in number but, BMDA partners
are interested in using a pilot approach to help achieve forest
restoration goals. Long-term partner commitments, such as those of
Wallowa Resources, Grande Ronde Model Watershed, and others have worked
long and hard to make BMDA successful.
A major area of disagreement has been over how much commercial
timber is available for harvesting and processing on federal lands
within the BMDA. To answer this question, a joint study with Oregon
State University, Oregon Department of Forestry and the Forest Service
has been evaluating the type and amount of vegetation. Preliminary
findings indicate that less than 20% of overstocked stands would be
able to support a commercial timber sale.
There is general consensus from more than 90 years of fire research
that a fire burns hotter and spreads faster when there is more fuel
available to feed it. The Cohesive Strategy prescribes an integrated
strategy of thinning and prescribed burning to reduce hazardous fuels.
The USDI-USDA Joint Fire Science Program is supporting the National
Fire Plan through a long-term study to assess how ecological processes
may be changed, if ``surrogates'' such as cuttings and mechanical fuel
treatments are used instead of, or in combination, with fire. More
landscape-scale, adaptive management research is needed. It is
expensive and takes time to produce conclusive results. However, it is
imperative that these research projects go forward without long delays
from appeals and litigation. The purpose of research is to find
answers; not to object to or delay decisions because we don't have all
the answers.
Finally, maintaining appropriate funding for hazardous fuels
reduction activities (e.g. thinning and prescribing fire) is critical
to reduce the risks associated with wildfires. This includes both
National Forest System fire funds and Cooperative Fire funds in the
State and Private Forestry budget as well as Research and Development
funds. Without focused and ongoing fuel reduction efforts, progress
will be limited on landscape scale processes that affect fire behavior.
summary
It is clear that restoring eastside forest health requires a
significant investment of time and resources. Communities and the
Forest Service share the common goals of sustainable forests and
grasslands. The Forest Service remains committed to working together
with people, integrating our thinking with action to realize these
potential opportunities.
This concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer any
questions you or the subcommittee may have.
STATEMENT OF NANCY GRAYBEAL, DEPUTY REGIONAL FORESTER, REGION 6
Ms. Graybeal. I guess I can say good afternoon now. I'm
Nancy Graybeal. I'm Deputy Regional Forester for the Forest
Service here in the northwest region. And again, I'm really
grateful to be here accompanying Sally to discuss these really
important issues to the local areas as well as the region. And
I just want to commit to you all that we understand very
clearly and I've worked really hard and no action is not an
option, not for our communities, not for our forest. The gap is
growing and the cost to communities and forests and watersheds
really is too great. And we are here and committed to hear your
ideas and suggestions on how we who manage the public land can
be much more important players and offer you the services,
forests, watersheds and communities that we really wish to
have. And we're open and eager to answer any questions and
discuss these issues. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Okay. Very good. Mr. Ferrioli, we'll proceed
with you.
STATEMENT OF TED FERRIOLI, STATE SENATOR,
SALEM, OR
Mr. Ferrioli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Wyden, thank
you. I'll echo the comments of the rest of the panelists for
having this hearing. Thank you for sponsoring and carrying
legislation to help stabilize communities. I feel that the
Oregon Legislature has failed you in not making sure that the
benefits of that legislation were distributed to schools as it
was intended, but I really appreciate your ongoing efforts in
that direction.
And finally, your advocacy of local input and more local
control for communities and Federal resource management is
something that we very deeply appreciate. It's my pleasure in
District 30 to represent Baker, Gilliam, Grant, Harney,
Jefferson, Malheur, Sherman, Wasco, Wheeler and parts of
Clackamas, Deschutes and Marion Counties. District 30 is about
30,000 square miles. It has the same population as your Senate
District, just more distance between households.
I'm the joint chair of the Legislative Committee on Natural
Resources and chair of the Senate Revenue Committee. And I only
mention those two things, Senator, because in Oregon natural
resources and revenue are connected. I am very disturbed and
actually very fearful of the prospects of having to go back to
Salem early in June for a legislative special session facing a
potentially $1 billion shortfall in revenue in Oregon's budget.
Much of that in the past has been derived from rural
communities that produce value-added wood products and
agricultural products.
The globalization of our markets, competition from Canadian
producers and elsewhere has changed the face of the market. But
also what's been added to that and what exacerbates that
problem is the fact that Region 6 has the best planning and
analysis process in the world and the worst outputs, the
poorest forest health and the most devastated local
communities. So I would submit to you that we've traded is
procedure and process and productive discussions for outputs.
And the outputs that used to support our schools and our roads
and keep our communities healthy, and the entries in the forest
that used to keep our forest free of a lot of fuels and
debilitating wood build-ups is what is lacking.
Judge Grasty on his panel mentioned that the Forest Service
seemed to manage the forests so they could burn. I was
wondering if he hadn't heard some of the rank and file Forest
Service's motto, which is burn to earn. We spend millions and
tens of millions of dollars in forest fire suppression and
forest fire fighting. We can't seem to get our act together to
actually enter the forest to do the fuel reduction that we need
to do to restore forest health.
I brought testimony, which will be entered into the record,
I'm sure. I just wanted to bring up one example, the Crawford
Vegetative Environmental Assessment. Thirty-three thousand
acres that everybody agrees needs to have fuel load reductions
and ladder fuel removal and management of stand density and
decommissioning of unneeded roads and improved watersheds. This
project will treat 20,000 acres that's been deemed as having a
very high fire hazard potential, about 13,000 acres that has a
very high potential for crown fires, the most devastating and
most rapidly moving type of fire.
We all acknowledge that this kind of fire can create
terrible impacts on soil erosion and wildlife, and it's the
very kind of thing that most folks agree needs to happen in our
national forests to improve forest health. In fact most people
agreed with that when this project was first proposed in 1993
as the Flat Project. They also agreed in 1994 when it was
carried forward as a project into the next fiscal year and
every year thereafter until in 1999 the project was repackaged
as part of the Blue Mountain Demonstration Project, and only
nearly a decade after the conception of this project comes out
as a project under the Blue Mountain Demonstration Project
banner.
The bottom line, Senator, is that this project has been
reworked a dozen times, delayed a decade and now comes as a new
repackage, and it's called essentially improving or increasing
shelf life through repackaging. This is exactly the example
that you heard with the discussions over the Steens Mountain,
where the Agency's given the order to continue a management
direction in your legislation on the Steens, assumes to have
additional authority and then makes an issue and requires an
eco process. And basically instead of an outcome, which is a
continued management direction for grazing, you get a process
that threatens to involve hundreds of people and takes several
years and on the face of it it appears to be insoluble.
It is in fact as the chief of the Forest Service called it
analysis paralysis. That paralysis has in fact been so
frustrating and created such fear and anger in my community
that I am speaking to you as a resident of the only U.N. free
zone in the State of Oregon. Some people may think that that
makes Grant County residents look somewhat ridiculous, but I
will tell you that vote is a referendum on the inability of the
National Forest System to manage for sustainability. Not only
sustainability of wildlife and watersheds in its own forests,
but sustainability of the communities that are nested on the
landscape of the forest.
I have some specific recommendations and I hope the
committee will be able to carry those forward. First of all,
there is over 65 million board feet of carryover in the Malheur
National Forest that's been cut in this analysis paralysis, and
that 65 million board feet is in a variety of stages of
completion in terms of project delivery. They have had
environmental impact statements or environmental assessments
completed. There is some work left to be done and the Agency
simply lacks the personnel or the will to put this project
forward.
We absolutely have to do, as the Senator suggests,
reinstill accountability and judge the success of this Agency
by its accomplishments, not by its willingness to participate
in meaningful discussions. Accomplishments and accountability
are lacking.
Then, furthermore, the Agency has lost some capacity within
itself. The spiral, the death spiral of national forest
management is illustrated in the graph that I included in my
testimony, and it shows that from 1999 to fiscal year 2002, the
outputs of the Malheur National Forest have dropped to near
zero, even though the Congress has funded this forest for a
significant output of goods and services.
So I would say that the capacity or the competence is
lacking in this Agency. And where either capacity or competence
is lacking, this Agency ought to be required to contract
outside the Agency with the private sector using stewardship
contracts, as Ms. Collins mentioned, or just outright
contracting for NEPA processes that would bring some of these
carryover projects to fruition and bring them forward out of
the Agency.
Finally, I guess, Senator, the fact of the matter is that
the local community, Grant County, voted on again what I'll
call a referendum on lack of management, lack of accountability
and lack of faith in this Agency to do its mission. I sincerely
hope that you will take the time to read the editorial that
appeared in The Sunday Oregonian and actually look at the whole
commentary section, which relates to the fact that the east
side of the State of Oregon has the highest level of poverty,
the highest level of hunger, the highest level of unemployment,
and the highest level of bureaucracy of any area of the State.
And I would submit that those two things are connected.
We simply have to make the decision whether we agree with
some of the environmental community that believe eastern Oregon
is the site of all our future ghost towns, or whether we
believe that we ought to take active management and implement
the actions that we have heard described as necessary and
desirable. And that's our challenge here, Mr. Chairman, is
whether or not this Agency has the will and the capacity to
actually implement with accountability the outputs that these
communities depend on.
Our schools are currently in Grant County running on a 4-
day week as we do not have a 5-day school week in the State of
Oregon as far as Grant County is concerned. We are now looking
at shortening the school year. We are looking at other
districts in the State of Oregon having to go to a 4-day week
because we simply do not have the revenues and the resources
that we would have if we actively managed Oregon's natural
resource base.
It's approaching criminal, Senator, and I'm terrified that
the outcome may be far more expensive than communities in
Oregon should ever have to endure. So I'm hopeful that your
hearing acts as a catalyst. That we create here a public record
that will spur your colleagues in the Senate and in Congress to
action. We simply cannot afford to dither any more while our
forests burn and our schools close. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrioli follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ted Ferrioli, State Senator, Salem, OR
Honorable Senator Wyden and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before this committee and for your personal
commitment to the issues of forest health and community stability. Your
willingness to explore these issues, particularly in this venue, offer
hope and encouragement to citizens whose communities are suffering from
the Nation's highest rates of unemployment, and whose forestlands,
watersheds, and wildlife habitats, reflecting years of neglect and
mismanagement, are among the Nation's least resilient.
Other witnesses may recap the history of fire exclusion on the East
Side and the current, deteriorated condition of forest health on our
national forests. These conditions are documented in the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Environmental Impact
Statement and in the Cooperative Mortality Report produced in
cooperation between USDA Forest Service and Oregon Department of
Forestry.
My objective today is to help clarify the connection between
deteriorating forest health, deteriorating community stability, and the
cost of inaction by the USDA Forest Service to the taxpayer, to the
ecosystem and to local citizens.
crawford vegetative management environmental assessment
This project would treat approximately 33,000 acres on the Blue
Mountain Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, with prescriptions
designed to reduce fuel load, remove ladder fuel promote lower stand
density, decommission unneeded roads, improved watershed function and
move treated stands toward desired future old-growth conditions.
More than 20,000 acres in the project area have been assessed as
having a high fire hazard level, including 13,411 acres exhibiting high
potential for crown fire. According to the EA, ``Forest fires under
current conditions are more likely to burn hotter, follow the available
fuel ladder fuels into tree crowns and spread over larger areas. This
type of fire behavior can cause undesirable impacts to soils,
vegetation and wildlife habitat. Such fires leave barren, sterile soils
that take considerably longer to revegetate, leaving the ground more
vulnerable to erosion.'' (Pg. 10 Purpose and Need, Crawford Vegetative
Management Environmental Assessment, USDA Forest Service, November
2001).
In addition, the project is designed to produce 15.2 miles of road
closures, 24.5 miles of road decommissioning, hardwood protection at 22
sites, prescribed burning on 9,498 acres and approximately 7.5 MMBF of
timber which could be captured by the local community for conversion
into primary and value-added forest products.
This project defines precisely what is needed to improve forest
health on the project area, and features components that will provide
local employment opportunities and economic values.
Amazingly, these actions were first proposed and funded in 1993 as
the Flat Project Environmental Assessment, and every year thereafter,
as the project was carried forward on the books and in the work plan
from 1994 to the present.
Each year, as the project was carried over, it was included in the
budget proposal and used to justify funding for the Malheur National
Forest. The timber volume represented by the project was included in
the annual plan of operations for almost a decade. During each
successive year, funds were allocated and expended on the project.
Finally, in 1999, this EA was renamed and became part of the Blue
Mountain Demonstration Project and is only now, nearly a decade after
conception, ready to move forward. Similarly, the SE Galena Project,
involving treatment of 56,800 acres proposed for completion in 2001.
This project was designed to improve riparian conditions, update travel
management plans, reduce fuel loads and ladder fuels, correct
overstocking, eliminate noxious weeds and restore wildlife habitat.
This project has been scheduled for completion, then delayed, five
separate times, for a total delay of fifteen months so far, with
potential for much more significant delay now that the project is being
broken up and reworked.
In all, more than 65 million board feet of volume on the Malheur
National Forest, and tens of thousands of acres scheduled for needed
management services have been deferred, delayed, cancelled, put on
indefinite hold or are otherwise unavailable for projects scheduled by
the agency and funded by Congress over the past decade.
Loss of revenue to the federal treasury and loss of income to the
local employment base is obvious. Far less obvious, but just as real,
is the damage to forest ecosystems where restoration plans have been
delayed or cancelled. Maddeningly, these projects continue to be
carried forward, reworked (but rarely offered for sale) and used to
justify continuation of federal investment of human and financial
resources.
No one benefits from this exercise. As I see it, environmentalists
are being cheated out of restoration programs advocated and funded by
Congress, local citizens have been cheated out of economic and social
benefits advocated and funded by Congress, and taxpayers are being
cheated out of the return on investment of their tax dollars in
national forest management.
Even forest service workers lose as funding cuts resulting from
lack of accomplishment, low return on investment and failure to
complete scheduled projects drive a cycle of layoffs, consolidations
and office closures increasing unemployment in rural areas.
Over the past decade (1992-2002), Malheur National Forest has
accomplished less than half of the program of work authorized and
funded by Congress. Less than half of the forest health treatments were
accomplished, as illustrated by the attached statistical analysis and
graph.
To reach a solution, we must break the cycle of gridlock, return
accountability, and demand that forest health become the driver of all
our management activities. Immediate action is needed to protect
fragile and fire-susceptible areas from catastrophic wildfire that has
become common in the West.
We must also act immediately to increase economic and social
opportunity in timber-dependent communities, or risk the loss of the
well-trained workforce and mill capacity necessary to meet ecosystem
management objectives now and in the future.
recommendations
All Eastside national forests have ``carry-over'' projects
in their work plans in various stages of completion. On the
Malheur NF, nearly 65 MMBF fit this description. Bringing
forward all available Eastside ``carry-over'' projects would
help deliver forest health benefits previously advocated and
funded by Congress and help alleviate timber shortages,
stabilizing local timber-dependent economies.
Accomplishment and accountability must be reinstituted
within management agencies. Failure to act has brought forest
health and community economic issues to a crisis.
Where capacity or competence is lacking, agencies should be
required to contract with the private sector, using Request for
Proposals based on existing funding authorizations to complete
pending projects.
Private sector contracting of NEPA work could help move
``carry-over'' projects quickly and efficiently, improving the
record of accomplishment and accountability and helping to
restore confidence in agencies.
attachments *
A statistical analysis of STARS Report 37-2 and 38-2 details Region
6 Eastside Forest Timber Sale Program and Accomplishment for fiscal
years 1993 through 2002 reveals that accomplishment for Malheur
National Forest averages only 48% for the past decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The graph, titled Malheur National Forest Timber Sale Program, also
based on STARS Report 37-2 and 38-2, demonstrates trends evident from
fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2002.
Editorial, Grant County's Fury, The Sunday Oregonian May 26,2002
Senator Wyden. Well, thank you very much, Senator. You make
a number of extremely important points. We are going to retain
those articles in the subcommittee files. I think they make
such an important point. And I will just tell you, as you know
my home is Portland and I love Portland. It's a wonderful home
town. But I am not a U.S. Senator from the city of Portland.
And as far as I'm concerned we are not back economically until
Grant County comes back.
With you I've seen the hurt in these open, you know,
community meetings, and these are people who work hard, play by
the rules and the government is letting them down. It's just
that simple. And I'll have some questions for the government
folks here in a moment.
I want to thank you for voicing that important issue and
for the cooperation you've shown me and our office in working
with you. You can believe we will be back with the County
Payments Bill to get every single dime of that money, every
dime where it was intended, which is to the rural communities,
and we'll have some discussions about that.
John Morgan, welcome. I've worked with you often and know
the frustration you all have felt at Ochoco and look forward to
your statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MORGAN, RESOURCE MANAGER, OCHOCO LUMBER
COMPANY, PRINEVILLE, OR
Mr. Morgan. Thank you, Senator Wyden, and thank you for
coming to central Oregon to discuss the issues on energy and
natural resources and also on economics, and they all tie
together very well. I am resource manager for Ochoco Lumber.
And I spent my first 6 years in the U.S. Forest Service, and
the last 29 years with Ochoco, so I have quite a forestry
background and have seen a lot of changes in this length of
time.
My testimony today is also on behalf of the American Forest
Resource Council and its nearly 80 forest landowners and forest
product companies throughout the twelve States that it
represents on the west side of the Great Lakes. Our forest
products industry has sales of over $195 billion annually and
employs about 1.6 million people, so it does have a major
impact on the economics in our Nation.
Ochoco Lumber Company, the members of AFRC, the forest
products industry at large are committed to sustainable
forestry in all forest lands whether it be public or private.
Specific to Ochoco Lumber Company, and I think you're aware of
that, we were in business for 63 years and closed the doors
last July.
It all started in Prineville in 1938 with the first mill
started there. We've made quite a contribution and investments
throughout the years. In 1978, because of the change in the
species and the size of timber, we retooled to do that. Again
in 1988 we invested over $15 million to build a small log mill
because that was the type of wood that was being commercially
thinned from the forest.
However, because of the lack of timber being sold and some
of it being sold that wasn't economical for our operations,
again we had to close the doors. I know that you're familiar
with the Prineville area. At one time it had five sawmills and
a chip mill. None exist today. Redmond here where we sit today
had a big plywood plant that closed. Bend had a large
manufacturing facility with both large capability and small
capability closed. And recently in the last 3 or 4 weeks,
Korpine, which actually used a lot of products from the
sawmills closed its doors. So the impact has been great to the
workforce, but also the tools are being lost for the U.S.
Forest Service and BLM to manage the forests, along with the
private lands, that is a major ownership also in this area.
We still have our sawmills in Prineville. We're sitting
there kind of in a moth ball state. We would like to reopen
them, but again it's lack of resource availability that we have
them closed today, and until that changes they'll stay closed.
And I don't again know how long we can sit on a piece of land
67 acres without going forward to do something with it shortly.
Forest health is a major concern of ours, and I would like
to address with that four major issues today. Number one is
active forest management, including timber harvest must be a
part of the solution. And, you know, with that we need to be
able to manage--the forest managers need to be able to manage
all ages and all size classes. It's hard to manage just a
certain bracket of forest. I think we have to start with
seedlings to old growth, and we have to be able to manage the
entire landscape.
As I mentioned before, timber harvesting is a tool and that
tool is being taken away from both the BLM and the Forest
Service to manage. And also with that the private lands. If
there's any manufacturing facilities left it impacts us also.
The second issue, there's enormous risks to private
landowners. So much of the private lands, and we own 68,000
acres, which isn't a great amount to manage but it's a lot to
us, and many of these lands are at high risk because of the
inactive management on Forest Service grounds and BLM grounds,
because we're adjacent to or intermingled with Federal lands.
And with fuel loading the way it is and through forest health
issues, catastrophic fires are real and they do take private
ground with it as it comes through in its path.
The third issue is hurdles to the implementation of the
national strategy on forest health. And as an investment we're
concerned with the processes. The NEPA process, Sally talked a
little bit earlier, has been driven more by bureaucracy than
the ultimate objectives in the decisions that's best for the
resources on the ground. And it is indeed a lot of good
management possibilities.
Lawsuits and appeals are prevalent and many of them are
frivolous, and because of this it's purely a delay tactic and
oftentimes it slows a project. And I think a good example of
this is catastrophic fires and being able to harvest that
timber immediately, and through the appeals and delays that is
not happening and a lot of times the value is lost.
Other land management policies such as PACFISH and INFISH
and Eastside Screens, they were interim policies but they're
still with us today, 8, 9, 10 years later, and they have a
major impact. And also with that is the Endangered Species Act
and the consultation and the time that it takes to work through
the processes, and again delay is what is harming us.
And the fourth issue I'd like to bring out is utilizing
fuel reduction material to help produce electrical energy, and
I think that this has potential. Millions of acres throughout
the national forests and even private lands are overstocked and
fire suppression is hard to suppress because of the
overstocking. There should be some opportunities made available
for the use of biomass. And I think that sometimes it can't
stand on its own, so there might have to be some tax incentives
or some grants made available in some communities that lack the
infrastructure to be able to handle it on their own.
And, Mr. Senator, various serious problems are facing our
Nation's forests and we've heard a lot about that and we'll
probably hear some more, but it affects 72 million acres on the
national level and places at risk millions of private acres
also. Thousands of rural communities are also affected by the
management or no management that takes place in the decisions
from that.
We don't need to authorize additional studies or pilot
projects. Our forests, wildlife and communities can't afford
any more delay. We have the science. We have the
professionalism and the trained managers that are in the work
place or the workforce that are available today to go out and
handle the task that is in front of us.
What we need is leadership and we need leadership to act.
And our expectation is that both the administration and
Congress will provide that leadership to address the hurdles,
provide the funding and to meet the challenges of improving
forest health.
Again, we along with AFRC and others thank you for being
here today and to act on the issues that have been brought
forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morgan follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Morgan, Resource Manager,
Ochoco Lumber Company, Prineville, OR
executive summary
Our Nation is experiencing record breaking fire seasons that
are leaving in their wake millions of acres of blackened
forests and wildlife habitat, hundreds of destroyed structures
and the loss of human life.
Report after report have documented the problem--we have 72
million acres of national forest, and millions of acres of
private land, and tens of thousands of rural communities that
are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. Many of the same reports
have prescribed the solution--active management, including
timber harvesting.
There are numerous impediments that prevent the treatment of
our forest health crisis. We need to address a never-ending
environmental analysis process, overlapping agency
jurisdictions, conflicting management policies and inadequate
funding.
The opportunity exists to utilize much of the excess forest
fuels to manufacture wood products, produce paper goods and
generate electricity that are so important to our nation's
economy.
What is needed is leadership--leadership from the
Administration and Congress to aggressively address the problem
with the goal of protecting our forests, wildlife and
communities.
testimony
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Morgan and I am the
Resource Manager for Ochoco Lumber in Prineville, Oregon. My testimony
today is also on behalf of the American Forest Resource Council and its
nearly 80 forest landowners and wood product manufacturers located in
twelve states west of the Great Lakes. Our proud forest products
industry has sales of over $195 billion annually and employs 1.6
million people, making a significant contribution to our nation's
economy. Ochoco Lumber Company, the members of AFRC, and the forest
products industry at-large are committed to sustainable forestry for
all forestlands, public and private.
To start, I would like to tell the subcommittee a little about
Ochoco Lumber. We started in 1923 and built our first sawmill in
Prineville, Oregon in 1938. Originally, our log supply came exclusively
from private lands because we had acquired the cutting rights to
approximately 80,000 acres. The forests of central and eastern Oregon
have been managed under a mixed aged scenario and harvest was done on a
selective tree basis. The criteria for cutting the private land
included removal of the dead, diseased and high-risk trees.
Shortly before the end of World War II, the Forest Service began
offering timber sales on the surrounding national forests. Since these
forests were comprised of about 70 percent ponderosa pine, all of the
sawmills in the Prineville area including Ochoco Lumber Company gained
a reputation for producing quality ponderosa pine boards. In the late
1970's we experienced the Wilderness debate and the RARE I and II
assessments. During this period, timber sale projects that were planned
for unroaded areas were put on hold. As a consequence, management was
limited to those areas previously treated. Management objectives for
these areas included improving forest health and reducing fuel loads.
Prescriptions typically were removing larger dead and dying trees and
thinning overcrowded stands.
In response to these changing conditions, we installed new sawmill
equipment in 1978 to better utilize the small logs being harvested from
the national forests. These multi-million dollar improvements made it
possible to continue to process large logs, but also efficiently handle
the higher percentage of small logs. During this time, we developed new
markets for products coming from the small logs while continuing to
supply customers who were using the clear lumber for furniture,
mouldings, and other engineered wood products coming from the large
logs.
As the next few years passed, it became increasingly obvious that
the direction the Forest Service was heading was to do more thinning in
the smaller diameter classes, so in 1988 we invested $15 million to
build a small log sawmill to compliment the original sawmill. To remain
competitive, we needed to adjust our sawmilling operations to more
efficiently manufacture the increased percentage of small logs from the
surrounding national forests. Our forecast at the time told us that a
long-term balance had been struck. The Forest Service had decades of
thinnings to do in conjunction with selectively harvesting large high-
risk trees.
Also during this period we acquired more private timberland as an
insurance policy. Currently, Ochoco Lumber Company has over 60,000
acres of private timberland, and although our sawmills are starved for
the raw materials growing on them, we have remained good stewards of
the land, only harvesting what is sustainable from those lands. Our
private timberlands only produce about 20 percent of our needs, and we
will not deplete and degrade our lands short term to supply our
sawmills.
But on May 25, 2001, we made a difficult announcement that we were
closing our Prineville operations. Prior to that, Ochoco Lumber Company
was employing 180 people with a payroll of nearly $5 million, contract
loggers and truckers were paid an additional $8 to 10 million and the
U.S. Treasury was receiving annual payments totaling about $15 million
for timber sales, which resulted in significant payment to the local
counties. Finally, Ochoco Lumber has proven itself to be a very civic-
minded member of the community always willing to lend a hand or help
support a good cause.
The reality is that our mill is closed, while our forests and
communities are threatened with catastrophic wildfires. The reality is
that substantial efforts must be made to address the underlying cause
of the problems facing our wildlands and the associated urban
interface. If these efforts bear fruit, there may be an opportunity for
our Prineville sawmill to begin operating again.
The rest of my testimony will focus on four issues associated with
existing forest health strategies, such as the National Fire Plan and
suggestions for addressing them. The issues are: active forest
management, including timber harvesting, must be an integral part of
fuel reduction efforts; there are enormous risks to private forest
landowners; there are hurdles that must be overcome to implement the a
national program addressing forest health; and there is an opportunity
to utilize fuels reduction material in the production of electrical
energy.
My emphasis here is on sound management practices that help promote
the long-term sustainability of our nation's public and private
forestlands. It is imperative that efforts be focused on protecting
forests, wildlife and communities. In order to accomplish these
important objectives, timber harvesting must be a tool available to,
and used by, the Forest Service.
issue #1: active forest management, including timber harvesting, must
be a part of the solution
Over the last decade, numerous efforts have identified the problem
we are discussing here today. The disastrous effects of wildfires are
mounting with each successive year. Already this year, nearly 3,000
fires have destroyed over a million acres. Last year over 81,000 fires
burned 3.5 million acres, killing 15 firefighters. In 2000, one of the
worst wildfire seasons on record, almost 123,000 fires scorched 8.4
million acres, killing 16 firefighters. There has been a long legacy of
clear warnings and little action following the smoke of the last
catastrophic wildfires.
There is no escape from the conclusion--our forests are in trouble.
Numerous reports have indicated that the most important tool that can
help reduce the threats to our forests--timber harvesting. We are
talking about common sense thinning to reduce the overly dense forest
conditions that lead to catastrophic wildfires and destroy important
ecosystems.
The practice of thinning to reduce the potential for stand
replacing crown fires works. Every day, our foresters see more and more
examples of the efficiency of thinning to reduce the effects of
catastrophic wildfires and substantially aid in the success of
firefighting operations. For example, the Newberry II Fire on the
Deschutes National Forest, the Hash Rock Fire on the Ochoco National
Forest and many others are recent examples of the role thinning of
forests plays in fire control successes. Harvesting of trees played a
major role in containing and reducing the effects of each of these
wildfires.
The condition of the forests determines the risk of catastrophic
wildfire and ignoring overcrowded forests along with the large
component of dead and dying trees is clearly a prescription for
disaster. As described above, millions of acres of national forests are
at risk for catastrophic fires. As the GAO reports, ``timber harvesting
may make useful contributions to reducing accumulated fuels in many
circumstances.'' \1\ Further, a Forest Service research report states,
``well-thinned, relatively open areas scattered across the landscape,
interspersed with denser, less intensively managed areas, would provide
a wide array of wildlife habitat, and would be a forest less prone to
large-scale catastrophic wildfire.'' \2\ Failure to treat these un-
natural fuel levels dooms forest ecosystems and watersheds to
catastrophic wildfires that are so devastating that it will take
centuries for them to recover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ann Bartuska, Letter to John Talberth, November 6, 2000.
\2\ Dahms and Geils, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases, depending on local conditions, hazardous fuel
reduction through prescribed burning or other means may be more
effective than timber harvesting. However, in most areas of the West,
the most effective and cost-efficient method to reduce fuels includes
timber harvesting, and this tool should remain available to the Forest
Service for reducing hazardous fuels. Furthermore, when timber
harvesting is used as part of the solution, the opportunity to utilize
this excess vegetation to manufacture wood and paper products or even
generate electricity means that a portion, if not all, of the public's
cost can be captured. This would allow for treating more acres within
the budget limitations, providing economic opportunities for rural
forest communities, while utilizing material that would otherwise
simply go up in smoke. Ochoco Lumber and AFRC respectfully suggests
that language should be included in all national plans and in relevant
related documents specifically stating that timber harvesting is a tool
available to the Forest Service and Department of the Interior to
maintain and improve forest health.
issue #2: there are enormous risks to private forest landowners
Ochoco manages over 60,000 acres of some of the most fire prone
forests in the Oregon. All of our management plans have one thing in
common--how can we protect our forests from catastrophic wildfire
losses. Our experiences and observations over the last 20 plus years
have led to one inescapable conclusion--we must thin our forests to
significantly reduce the fuel accumulations. We rely on existing
authorities of the Oregon Forest Practices Act, the underlying science
of fire management, our experiences, and the professional judgment of
our foresters when we develop site specific harvesting plans to protect
our forests. We are confident that our efforts in thinning and fuel
reductions are effective in reducing the threats and, most importantly,
they are developed in an economically efficient manner.
We recognize that we cannot ``fireproof' our forests. But we can
reduce the effects of wildfires by reducing the amount of fuel loading
within our forests. Our principles are simple--open the canopy of the
forest by thinning and reduce the potential for the most devastating of
fires, crown fires. On areas nears roads and ridges where we logically
fight fire, our fuel reduction efforts remove the largest amount of
vegetation and trees. This allows fire fighting forces a chance to
control the fire, improve the effectiveness of air attack and fire
retardant applications and control ``backfires'' when they are
necessary for wildfire control.As we move beyond these obvious defense
zones, we thin our forests and leave more trees to achieve a balanced
goal of reducing the potential for crown fires while maintaining
adequate growth rates on our thinned stands.
We can only do so much on our own lands. The greatest threat comes
from the fact that our ownership, like so many other private forest
landowners, is interspersed with federal lands which are in need of
fuels reduction. Private forest products companies, like ours, as well
as non-industrial forest landowners have aggressively tried to reduce
the risks for catastrophic wildfires on their own holdings for many
years, largely through the use of thinning. However, these efforts
cannot be effective without the cooperation of our federal neighbors,
since wildfires do not recognize property boundaries.
According to the Forest Service, most of the 72 million acres of
National Forest System lands at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire are
not in the wildland-urban interface.\3\ However, because of limited
resources, hazardous fuel reduction in many of these areas will be
deferred for years. Accumulation of fine ground fuels and encroachment
of shrubs and other vegetation beneath dominant canopies will continue.
As a result, the likelihood of severe fire behavior in these areas will
escalate. The forest industry is very worried about this situation,
since these areas are precisely where our property is adjacent or
intermingled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Lyle Laverty, USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan
Coordinator, Statement before the House Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health, March 8, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of acres of public land that require hazardous fuel
reductions far exceeds the number of acres treated by the federal land
management agencies. The Forest Service's hazardous fuel reduction
efforts have not kept pace with the steady increase in over-
accumulation of vegetation, outbreaks of insect infestations and
disease, and accumulation of fine fuels even though these efforts have
steadily increased over the past decade. The Forest Service estimates
that of the land it manages which is at risk of catastrophic wildfires,
given the current pace of treatment, it will take more than 30 years to
treat the existing areas.
Reversal of fuel conditions cannot occur overnight. Clearly,
however, there is an urgent need to prevent fuel conditions from
advancing at their current pace. It is not enough to provide funding
for additional fire fighters and equipment. Ochoco Lumber and AFRC
request increased appropriations in the next several, fiscal years, for
hazardous fuel reduction efforts in areas at high risk of catastrophic
wildfires. Additionally, we respectively request that the appropriation
language recognize and emphasize funding collaborative partnerships
with owners of inholdings, state foresters, and other entities who have
established strong programs to reduce the threats of catastrophic
wildfires and are pursuing long-term fuels treatment strategies.
issue #3: hurdles to the implementation of a national strategy
on forest health
The fuels reduction efforts are no different than other land
management projects considered by the Forest Service--they must first
go through a lengthy and sometimes cumbersome environmental analysis
process as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Given the complexity of the ecosystems involved, there is no argument
that a professional, scientific-based analysis must take place to
assure that the proposed fuels treatment project will meet the needed
objectives and not adversely affect the environment.
But what we have seen over the decades is a NEPA process that is
driven more by bureaucracy than the ultimate objectives and decisions
on the ground. As a result, the project planning process takes years,
tends to be very redundant, with little or no innovative thinking. The
NEPA process has become an impediment to professionally planned and
executed land management projects and the entire NEPA process, as well
as individual agency regulations and policies, must be reexamined.
In today's reality, very few land management projects, especially
if they involve the cutting of trees, are implemented without first
going through an administrative appeals process or litigation. Appeals
and lawsuits take an enormous amount of time and effort, and often
delay the implementation of a project for years. In most cases, a
successful challenge can be traced to simple procedural mistakes and
not the merits of the final decision. Often agency managers report that
the NEPA process discourages innovation and professional decision-
making because it focuses on procedures and not the substance of
decisions.
Again, examples of this recently have been on the Hash Rock and
Timber Basin Salvage Sales that were burned sales. Though both
environmental analyses addressed the substance, they were remanded for
procedural problems.
Given the critical forest health situation facing millions of acres
of our western forests, special rules or exemptions must be authorized
so that the land management agencies can quickly treat these
overstocked and fire prone forests. The environmental consequences of
not treating these areas in a timely fashion, resulting in the
destruction of thousands of acres due to an uncontrolled wildfire, must
be part of the environmental assessment and decision-making process.
The NEPA process is complicated by the jurisdiction of the
President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) over the underlying
NEPA procedures of agencies. CEQ must examine its rules and the
agencies must examine their procedures and policies to ensure they are
part of the solution to the wildfire crisis, and do not remain a
significant part of the problem. Regardless of whether the CEQ and the
agencies revise the regulations or policies, there needs to be better
utilization of categorical exclusions, emergency stay or appeal
exemptions, and expedited procedures. There must be recognition of the
fact that a ``no action'' alternative does indeed have serious and
significant effects. Without these changes, more money will be spent in
planning and assessing a project than will be realized by the land
management activity on the ground.
In many areas in the west, due to the number of endangered species
listings, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation on land
management projects, including fuels reduction activities, has become a
real bottleneck. Since the existing Section 7 regulations were put in
place in 1986, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) have been asked to conduct nearly 300,000
consultations, with a dramatic increase in the numbers in the last
several years. The first cause of this bottleneck has been a shortage
of personnel to perform the consultations. A special appropriation this
year to supplement the agencies' budgets for National Fire Plan support
should help, but it is like buying more fire trucks, it treats the
symptoms and not the cause.
One real fix is to address the Section 7 consultation problem,
which is shifting more of the assessment responsibility to the land
management agencies. A review of the Section 7 consultations finds that
less than 1 percent resulted in a jeopardy opinion by either NMFS or
FWS.Given this extremely low risk, changing the threshold at which the
land management agencies are required to enter into formal consultation
from a ``may affect'' to a ``likely to affect'' threshold would seem
like a logical proposal. This would free up personnel in both the land
management and regulatory agencies for review of activities with the
much higher risks to listed species and would also allow them to get
out of the office and focus on efforts to protect and enhance the
species at risk.
Existing regional land management plans and policies can also be
impediments to the implementation of the National Fire Plan. They lack
flexibility for project planning to address actual on-the-ground
circumstances. Allocating areas to ``no treatment'' with the objectives
of providing habitat for listed species ignores the reality that the
listed species are at great risk of losing critical habitat to a
catastrophic wildfire.
Specific here to Eastern Oregon are the PACFISH, INFISH and
Eastside Screen interim land management policies also directly affect
the ability to the land management agencies to treat excessive fuel
buildups and suppress wildfires. These interim policies limit the size,
number and location of trees that can be cut without allowing site-
specific professional determinations based on the specific ecosystem
conditions. It also appears that guidelines of the PACFISH and INFISH
management policies severely restrict firefighting personnel from
dropping fire retardant within 300 feet of (and dipping water from)
streams that are inhabited by listed fish species. These short sighted
guidelines have resulted in wildfires growing larger than necessary,
and in some cases totally destroying the fish habitat they were
intended to protect.
The ultimate solution to addressing the hurdles affecting the
implementation of a national strategy is for the Administration to
designate a senior official to coordinate its implementation. We feel
that CEQ is the best place for this leader to be located. As I have
described, CEQ has the responsibility for overseeing NEPA and could be
empowered to facilitate coordination between departments and agencies.
Without this kind of leadership, agencies will continue to operate
under their own visions and directives. Clearly CEQ could address the
problems with NEPA and facilitate the use of categorical exclusions,
emergency stay or appeal exemptions, and expedited procedures. The
Council could also provide the leadership and coordination for dealing
with challenges to fuels reduction projects. They could also facilitate
a more workable Section 7 consultation process and coordinate
consistent and timely products from NMFS and FWS. Finally, CEQ could
coordinate changes to regional land management plans and policies that
would result in professional, science-based decisions at the project
level that address the conditions present on the ground. Ochoco Lumber
and AFRC believe that the failure to have this kind of leadership will
result in more acres burned by catastrophic wildfires, destroying not
only productive forests, but also wildlife and fisheries habitat, and
rural communities.
issue #4: utilizing fuels reduction material to produce electrical
energy
For years now, forest product manufacturers and others have been
generating electricity from wood waste, or biomass. While the
operations have been small, limited in their geographic distribution
and most cases for internal use, the technology is clearly available
and proven. Several of these facilities are operated by our competitors
here in Eastern Oregon and my company has investigated adding this
capability to our operations.
Given the fact that millions of acres are in dire need of treatment
to reduce unnatural accumulations of small trees and that much of this
is too small to be utilized in the manufacturing of lumber products,
there is a perfect opportunity to utilize this material to generate
electricity. Currently, over two-thirds of the biomass-fueled electric
power is generated from forest-related activities, which includes:
slash, brush & tops associated with timber harvesting activities; bark,
chips and sawdust from forest products manufacturing processes; and
small diameter material derived from thinning overly-dense forests
identified as being at great risk to wildfire. Some have commented that
there could be a biomass power plant associated with each ranger
district on our western national forests.
Promoting biomass electric power generation is not only fiscally
sound, but also environmentally and socially beneficial. In 1999, the
Department of Energy published an independent research report entitled
``The Value of the Benefits of U.S. Biomass Power,'' which compared the
impacts of biomass energy production with the most probable alternative
fate of the residuals described above. The report also looked at the
values of non-energy benefits resulting from biomass power production
such as: air pollutants; greenhouse gas emissions; landfill use, forest
and watershed improvement, rural employment and economic development;
and energy diversification and security.
In a market economy, one would assume that with the great potential
and benefits described above, that there would be an abundance of
biomass power facilities on line or under construction. Unfortunately,
this is not the case. This is primarily due to the fact that benefits
of biomass as a clean, renewable energy source are extremely hard (if
not impossible) to quantify in market terms. It is very difficult to
assign market values to forest fuel reduction when the benefits are
clean air, watersheds, wildlife habitat and other environmental
benefits. Finally, much of the potential fuel supply is located on
lands that are under public ownership and therefore, tend to operate
outside the marketplace. For these reasons, we believe an appropriate
role for the federal government is to make commitments and support an
opportunity with such great net public benefits.
There are two categories of impediments to an expansion in biomass
energy production that need to be addressed. First, there must be a
commitment to a long-term supply of biomass (at least 10 years),
through innovative government contracting and congressional
appropriations, so that investments into facilities are worth the risk.
Second, there needs to be some sort of upfront tax incentives or grants
to construct and operate these facilities in locations close to the
biomass supply and in rural communities lacking the needed
infrastructure.
An opportunity to marry a national energy policy with the national
forest health strategy is not only good energy, forestry and fiscal
policy, but also good environmental policy. It will take at least a
decade to get new fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear energy on
line, so we need a bridge to close that gap. If not, history has shown
us that mother nature will consume these excess forest fuels, leaving
in her wake destroyed homes, wildlife habitat and forest ecosystems
that will require millions of dollars and decades to repair. Ochoco
Lumber and AFRC feel that the opportunity is clear--produce clean
affordable and renewable electricity from the nation's forests, while
supporting economic diversification of rural communities.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, a very serious problem facing our nation's forests
has been identified and needs our immediate attention. It affects 72
million acres of our federal forests and places at risk millions of
private acres and tens of thousands of rural communities. We don't need
to authorize another study or pilot project--our forests, wildlife and
communities can't afford any more delay. We have the science, the
professionally trained resource managers and a workforce ready for the
task. What we need is leadership--leadership to act. Our expectation is
that both the Administration and Congress will provide that leadership,
in a bipartisan fashion, to address the hurdles, provide the funding
and meet the challenges of improving forest health, enhancing wildlife
habitat, protecting rural communities and utilizing this excess forest
fuel to manufacture wood products, produce paper goods and generate
electricity that are so important to our nation's economy. This
concludes my prepared remarks, I would be glad to answer any questions
you or the subcommittee may have for me regarding this important issue.
Senator Wyden. John, very good. Very helpful. Rick Brown,
welcome.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD T. BROWN, SENIOR RESOURCE SPECIALIST,
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, LAKE OSWEGO, OR
Mr. Brown. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the topics at hand and also I think I'll
thank you for getting me over to the east side today.
I think I'd like to start by trying to make one thing very
clear. It's a little frustrating that I need to do that, but
that is that I unequivocally support forest thinning as an
element of ecosystem restoration, and I understand that much of
the material that would be removed in those thinnings has
economic value, and I support capturing that economic value for
the benefit of the American public and for the benefit of the
communities here on the east side.
I think I can tell you, to the extent that I talked to them
all, I agree with Sally Collins' suggested points. But I think
we need to be clear, too, about how we consider that activity
of thinning and the context that we put it in. And I'm afraid,
frankly, that the term forest health is not adequate. It's a
term that historically has been used to speak only about trees,
and we need to talk about ecosystems and watersheds in their
entirety from soils to treetops.
We need to talk about a whole host of activities, not only
prescribed firing and things, but dealing with culverts and
roads and livestock management and noxious weeds and other
activities. And as Steve Grasty suggested in the previous
panel, we need to be careful about terminology. There's a lot
of seemingly simple words like fire or thin for forests that
seem friendly, but can mean many, many things, and we need to
be careful about the context in which we're using those words.
And in particular, I think we need to be very careful about
distinguishing the Wildland-Urban Interface and the wild lands.
The concerns and condition and the treatments that may occur in
both those areas are oftentimes very different. I won't bore
you with the entirety of my checkered past, but I will say that
it was almost exactly 10 years ago and before this very
subcommittee that I know that I can document that I was
speaking in support of thinning and in support of a strategic
approach to forest restoration that I think you were alluding
to in your opening comments.
And over those 10 years I've also had substantial
opportunity to go out on the ground to look at recently burned
areas, and in part I've sort of overcome my indoctrination by
Smokey Bear and come to clearly understand that even a severe
fire can be not such a bad thing and maybe even a good thing
under certain circumstances. But I've also seen a lot of
uncharacteristically severe fire in dry forests that did not
experience that fire prehistorically. And I've seen a lot of
old growth pine lost in those fires that I think unnecessarily
died because we did not treat those lands either with thinning
or prescribed fire prior to wild fire.
So I share many of the frustrations that have been
expressed by others on the panel that more of these activities
have not been taking place, but I also think it's important
that we not let that frustration blind us to what's happening.
We have a clear articulation policy and an actual cohesive
strategy, and the National Fire Plan now has a 10-year strategy
and implementation plan that the administration has developed
in concert with the Western Governors Association involving a
broad array of interested publics.
There has also been an effort going on over the last year
and a broad variety of environmentalists and community forest
practitioners have developed a set of principles and guidelines
that they agree on for restoration projects. There's a lot of
overlapping and commonality among all of us.
More locally, I think the Blue Mountain Demonstration Area
has not been perfect, but I think it's also gotten a bum rap to
be honest, in large part due to, I think, unrealistic
expectations. There are, I think, now at this point some 70
stewardship pilots underway around the West testing a variety
of authorities. There's a monitoring program associated with
that, but I think that's going to allow us to learn a good deal
over the next year or two.
There are the new County Payment Resource Advisory
Committees that are not only getting money around for projects,
but getting people at the table talking to one another and
finding agreement that they never thought they had. And then
there are a host around the West, but especially here in
Oregon, I think, of what you might think of as unsanctioned or
informal efforts, such as the Lakeview Sustainability
Initiative that's been alluded to and of which I'm a member.
That gives me great hope not only that things are happening but
even more will happen in the future.
What we have here, I think, is a lot of experimentation,
and I think not only is it making things happen but it's going
to shed some light on how to proceed down the line. And I think
it would be unwise to prejudge the results of those
experiments.
There is one point I would like to make that I have
learned, I think, over my years of working on these issues
that, I think, is key and that is that it's unreasonable to
expect that restoration projects will pay their own way. If you
expect them to do that, and especially if you couple that with
goods for services and retention of receipts, I am certain that
that will lead to inappropriate projects in the wrong areas and
it's guaranteed to deepen the mistrust on the part of the
environmental community that's so much the source of our
inability to move forward at this point.
There are two key things that I think Congress can do to
help the situation. First of those is continued oversight, such
as this hearing today. My experience is that good ideas, such
as those generated in Lakeview, can be well received by the
Forest Service and things can move forward. But if indeed it's
the case that good ideas are being resisted within the
agencies, then I think we need to highlight that and we need to
try to understand why and we need to try to understand how to
overcome that, and oversight is a key way of doing that.
The most important thing, however, I think, that Congress
can do is in the realm of appropriations. In my experience the
problem is not a lack of will, it's a lack of capacity within
the Agency. We have cut and cut and we've cut beyond the bone,
I think, frankly at this point. But maybe even more important
than the amount of funding is how that funding comes down.
At this point the Forest Service is trying to accomplish
restoration using timber sale funds, because that's what
Congress provides. And what that leads you to is circumstances
that the timber industry looks and says, these are timber
sales. Where's the volume? The environmental community looks
and says, Aha, I knew it. This restoration stuff was all just a
ploy to keep on pushing timber.
Until the funding, the budgetary message, the Agency gets
from Congress is consistent with the restoration message that
is given verbally, I don't think we're really going to move
ahead with what the Agency needs for funding for restoration.
Thanks again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard T. Brown, Senior Resource Specialist,
Defenders of Wildlife, Lake Oswego, OR
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Richard Brown,
Senior Resource Specialist in Defenders of Wildlife's West Coast Office
in Lake Oswego, Oregon. I am pleased to have this opportunity to
discuss the important topics of forest health and ecosystem restoration
in eastern Oregon. I have previously addressed some aspects of these
issues in a paper titled ``Thinning, Fire and Forest Restoration: A
science-based approach for National Forests in the interior
Northwest,'' published by Defenders of Wildlife. I will not elaborate
on the themes from the report here, but encourage you or others who may
be interested to read the report itself. I have received much positive
feedback on the report, from sources ranging from agency personnel to
timber industry representatives, community forestry practitioners and
environmentalists, leading me to hope that the report identifies some
important common ground, at least as it pertains to the science that I
hope will provide the foundation for action.
Any discussion of these topics should probably be prefaced by a
clarification of terms, since many of the relevant words have multiple
formal and informal meanings. ``Forest health'' can be a convenient
short-hand for a more inclusive concept such as forest ecosystem
integrity, but has a history of being used too narrowly, to refer
simply to the status of trees while ignoring other essential elements
of ecosystem integrity such as soils, water, fish and wildlife, and the
ecological roles of fire and other disturbance. Similarly, when
discussing fire, one must be careful to keep in mind what kind or
severity of fire, burning in what kind of forest (or other vegetation),
in what condition and in what landscape context, and whether the
severity is characteristic of historic fire regimes for that vegetation
or not. Finally, one must take care to clearly distinguish between the
needs for fuel treatment in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) a
relatively narrow zone including dwellings and their immediate
surroundings and wildland settings, where concerns about fire and the
need to integrate fire-related treatments into a more comprehensive
approach to ecosystem restoration are apt to be very different.
It is also important to be clear about expectations. For instance,
even if implementation of the National Fire Plan and other efforts at
ecological restoration are highly successful, we should not expect
acres burned (the most common, if often misleading, measure of wildland
fire) to decline. In fact, considering the necessity of expanding
prescribed fire programs, total acres burned should increase. What will
change is the nature of the fires that occur and the severity of their
effects on ecological values. Similarly, it is unreasonable to expect
restoration of wildland ecosystems to have much effect on the incidence
and severity of residential fires in the WUI, as these fires are almost
exclusively a function of structures and their immediate surroundings.
And, as a final example, one should not expect post-fire salvage to
contribute to ecological restoration. In fact, the purely economic
impetus behind salvage virtually ensures that it will contribute to
ecosystem degradation, a result I have seen play out all too
frequently.
It has been almost thirty years since I first visited the Blue
Mountains with a forest ecologist who could help me understand the
natural dynamics of the forests there and how they had been changed by
logging, grazing and fire exclusion. It has been ten years since I
first testified before this Senate subcommittee in support of
understory thinning as one element of ecosystem restoration and in
support of a strategic approach to deciding how and where to apply
limited resources to thinning and other restorative techniques. In the
intervening years I have on many occasions visited the sites of
wildfires, often seeing the unsurprising results of fires (even severe
fires) burning in much the way they did historically in higher
elevation forests. But I have also seen the results of fires burning
with uncharacteristic severity in dry forests, killing old growth
ponderosa pine that may have survived twenty low-severity fires prior
to the changes fire exclusion and other practices have brought about. I
continue to believe that carefully conducted understory thinning in
many of these dry forests could reduce the frequency of such losses,
and I also believe these thinnings can provide--as a by-product--trees
that can be processed in local communities. I share much of the
frustration expressed by others that more of this thinning has not
occurred, and I understand that we need to find ways to sustain the
community and industrial infrastructure that will be necessary to
accomplish much-needed restoration.
Nonetheless, I find there is much that causes me to be encouraged
and hopeful that more ecologically appropriate thinning, as well as
other practices of ecological restoration, will be taking place, with
multiple benefits for both ecosystems and communities in eastern Oregon
and throughout the West. None of the initiatives I will mention below
is sufficient, and none is without flaws, but collectively they give me
substantial hope that we can frame a strategy for ecosystem
restoration, find broad agreement for the role of thinning in that
strategy, and continue and expand on-the-ground efforts that will both
improve the sustainability and resilience of forest ecosystems and
provide meaningful work and valuable by-products for communities in
this region. At the risk of sounding chauvinistic, it seems to me that,
in many key respects, Oregon is leading the way and setting an example
for the rest of the West.
The Forest Service's Cohesive Strategy, which underscores the
importance of clearly distinguishing among forests (and other types of
vegetation) based on their historic fire regimes and current condition,
is about to become more truly cohesive with the involvement of agencies
in the Department of Interior. The odds that the Cohesive Strategy and
the National Fire Plan will be effectively and appropriately applied
have increased with the joint development of a 10-year strategy and
implementation plan by the Western Governors' Association and the
Administration. Also at a national level, a broad group of conservation
advocates and community forestry practitioners have agreed upon a set
of principles and guidelines for forest restoration that will provide
them with a common basis for evaluating proposed projects.
Regionally, I see very encouraging cooperation among federal and
state agencies to develop strategies and priorities for implementation
of the fire plan, including refinements such as design criteria and
streamlining that should speed consultation under the Endangered
Species Act while maintaining the integrity of that process.
Cooperation and coordination among agencies and private landowners
continues to be facilitated by your amendment encouraging cross-
ownership cooperation and allowing use of federal funds for restoration
on private lands when the results will also benefit public resources.
Close at hand, the Blue Mountains Demonstration Area, while much
maligned in some quarters, actually has many accomplishments to be
proud of, both in terms of on-the-ground projects and improved
relationships among agencies and levels of government. The relatively
newly established Resource Advisory Committees (RACs) working to
recommend allocation of funds under Title II of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self Determination Act are providing
opportunities for people of varying interests to sit down together,
perhaps for the first time, discuss issues around forest restoration,
and, sometimes quite unexpectedly, find areas of agreement. Stewardship
Pilots are having mixed success, I believe, in accomplishing this same
goal, but at least there is a formal monitoring process for these
pilots that may eventually provide some useful insights as to what
fosters improved approaches to restoration and what does not.
And, around Oregon and throughout the West, a variety of
cooperative efforts are underway, some officially sanctioned under one
program or another, many not. I have had the good fortune for nearly
four years now to participate as a member of the Lakeview
Sustainability Initiative, which has brought together what some would
consider an unlikely group of people who have worked through some
difficult issues, moved forward with a common vision and purpose, and
are beginning to see some tangible on-the-ground results. Most
recently, the Winema-Fremont RAC has approved funding for a community-
based monitoring program that will not only ensure that this often
neglected element of management will occur, but will also train and
employ high school students from the local communities.
All of these efforts, especially those formally incorporating
monitoring or other forms of accountability, can be viewed as
experiments of a sort, experiments that are still very much in process.
There is sufficient activity and foment that it will be difficult to
properly document and learn from the lessons these experiments will
provide over the next year or two. In the meantime, I think Congress
has little need to instigate additional formal exercises such as more
Stewardship Pilots. It would also be premature to make permanent the
authorities being examined in the pilots.
While I have no wish to prejudge the outcomes of these experiments,
there are some lessons I believe I have already learned from my years
in the field, as well as participation on Governor Kitzhaber's Eastside
Forest Advisory Panel, the Lakeview Sustainability Initiative, two
Resource Advisory Committees and a regional monitoring team for the
Stewardship Pilots. Chief among these is that we should not expect
restoration projects, including thinning projects, to pay their own
way. I have no doubts that such projects can produce by-products that
have commercial value and can help off-set costs. Nonetheless, it is
also clear that we have for decades extracted the wealth of these
forests while forcing forest ecosystems to bear many of the costs. To
expect those ecosystems to now pay for their own rehabilitation would
be both unrealistic and misguided. As a nation we benefited from that
unsustainable extraction, and we have a national responsibility to
provide the investment necessary to restore these lands to a condition
where they can again provide the values we expect of them.
Although I understand the enthusiasm with which many Forest Service
employees view the Stewardship Pilots' provisions for goods for
services and retention of receipts, it is an enthusiasm I am afraid I
do not share. It is inevitable that these authorities will lead to
projects that are located not where restoration is most needed, but
where there is the greatest prospect for valuable products. They also
likely to encourage projects designed to remove trees not because their
removal is ecologically appropriate, but because they can help pay for
the project. Permanent adoption of these authorities would be
guaranteed to perpetuate the distrust that is the fundamental
impediment to moving on with much-needed restoration efforts.
I see two things that Congress can do to help foster the current
experimentation that is allowing Oregon to set an example for the West.
One of these is continued exercise of Congress's oversight authority.
The greatest promise of collaborative efforts is that local knowledge
and the creativity that can come from bringing varied interests to the
table will lead to better proposals about how to proceed. A major fear
of those participating in these collaborative efforts is that they will
come up with good ideas that won't be seriously considered by the
federal land management agencies. Reluctance on the part of the
agencies may be quite appropriate if the collaborative efforts don't
comply with the law, but resistance may also be based on bureaucratic
opposition to new ways of doing business or a misplaced and exaggerated
sense of expertise on the part of agency staff. A continuing
conversation among Congress, the agencies and other interested parties
can help bring these inappropriate impediments to light and explore
ways to overcome them.
The single most important thing Congress can do to help make
restoration projects happen is to provide the Forest Service a budget
that corresponds to the need. While I am referring in part to the need
to improve overall funding for an agency that has already been cut to
the bone and beyond, I am mostly suggesting that the funding provided
needs to be explicitly targeted for restoration, and, to the extent
possible, be part of a long-term commitment. Agencies will attend to
your words, but what they hear most clearly and convincingly are the
messages carried in their budget. While some of the National Fire Plan
funding can be used for ecological restoration, and while some funding
is provided for watershed restoration, the majority of the funding
currently being used to try to accomplish restoration is in the timber
budget, which comes with timber targets. Even in the best of
circumstances, the result is hybrid projects that are part restoration,
part timber sale. Such projects help perpetuate the suspicion held by
many in the environmental community that restoration thinning is just a
ruse to allow more industrial-scale logging. Even if they might be
persuaded that understory thinning can be an appropriate element of
restoration, groups and individuals opposed to the timber sale portion
of projects must appeal the entire project, delaying or halting
restoration along with the timber sale.
While many of the disputes over these projects may appear to be
arguments about the subtleties of ecological responses to various
restoration treatments or the merits of different equipment to apply
these treatments, the real issue is lack of trust--most importantly,
lack of trust from environmentalists that restoration really is the
agenda. I think many, perhaps most, Forest Service staff in this region
are ready to move on with an agenda of ecological restoration. What
they need now is a budgetary message that can make that a reality.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be
happy to try to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Brown. We are going to take
some time with this panel, because this is an area that I
really want to make a sequel to the County Payments. We broke
new ground last session. I think we are going to need to do it
again in the forest health area, and I'm going to spend some
time now walking through some of these issues with you. And let
me start with you, if I could, Ms. Collins, and let me just
paint a picture in terms of what people tell me at these open
community meetings in central and eastern Oregon.
What they tell me in central and eastern Oregon is that
there are millions and millions of board feet on the ground in
these forests in central and eastern Oregon where the EA's been
done. The Environmental Analysis has been completed. And they
just say, Ron, what in the world is it going to take to get
these projects unstuck and to get them actually out and the
wood to these mills and these communities, such as the ones
that Senator Ferrioli represents where there is so much hurt?
What's your answer to that? What is it going to take? And
this is work that has been done. The Environmental Assessment
is completed. Maybe Mr. Ferrioli has the exact number. I know
there's millions and millions of board feet just on the Malheur
alone that is not getting unstuck. What is it going to take?
Ms. Collins. Well, I think there's some general issues
around this analysis paralysis that really relates to this
question, and it really, I think, comes down to a couple of
things. We have had so many----
Senator Wyden. Just stop there for a second. This is not an
analysis paralysis question. This is work that's been done. The
EA is done.
Ms. Collins. I understand that. And what I was getting at
that with that point is that when we have projects that get
litigated, and many of our timber sales and salvage sales do
get litigated and appealed and then challenged further, the
test in terms of winning that particular lawsuit are pretty
high. And what that requires and what that does, as time goes
by, for example, in this case that Mr. Ferrioli talked about,
as time goes by we get new requirements added to that that
requires retooling and retooling.
All I'm saying is that in general what happens is that we
have to add more to make sure it can absolutely sustain itself
if it goes into court. Now, I think we have a lot of projects
that are done that we are getting ready to move forward with.
And in fact I was just talking with Leslie this morning about
it. We've got a number of projects in central Oregon that I
don't know of any that we're sitting on that we're not going
forward with and the EA is completed. Maybe you have an
example.
We have a number of large scale plans, I think, all the way
from Sisters down to Crescent that will result in quite a lot
of wood. I think 50 to 60 million board feet.
Senator Wyden. When is it going to get unstuck? A lot of
this is always like the marque at the old movie house where the
movie house, you know, outside says, you know, coming soon and,
you know, it talks about this wonderful picture and it never
quite gets there. So tell us, if you would, if you're able to
come to central and eastern Oregon today and say all of these
projects where the EA's done are getting unstuck, tell us when
and where and how much.
Ms. Graybeal. I would say that it depends on where you're
talking about. I don't think they're struck. I don't think
they're stuck. I think they're going through a process here in
central Oregon that it takes roughly 1 to 3 years to get a
project completed, and when the EA is completed it will be--it
will go through and have a decision and then after the
decision, we'll actually within 30 days have a timber sale if
it's a timber sale project.
But why don't I let Leslie answer? Do you want to do that?
Senator Wyden. Great. I want to hear about the ones that
are prepared.
Ms. Welden. I would like to know what those are too,
because I have to tell you, Senator, that I'm not aware of any
that are simply sitting there with no litigation, with a
decision, the computations are completed that are sitting there
and not being offered. So I mean I'm simply unaware of those.
We may have some projects prepared, maybe a few road projects
or fire projects that are unfunded that might be sitting there,
but I'm unaware of that situation. So we just need some more
information.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Ferrioli, which of the projects do you
want to get out?
Mr. Ferrioli. Senator, in the Malheur National Forest there
are programs and projects at various stages of completion,
where the Agency works on a project for a while, changes
priorities, goes to another project, works on that one for a
while, encounters a difficulty, gets a new directive, adds
another memo, and that's the process I think Ms. Collins was
alluding to.
So 65 million board feet is over the past decade. They're
in a variety of stages of completion in a variety of different
projects. Many of them are in stages where very little
additional activity could bring the project to the point where
it could be sold. We've documented those. We've submitted that
documentation to the Malheur and the region. We'd be happy to
do it again to identify those projects by name.
Ms. Collins. Would it be helpful to give you some
information about the projects here in central Oregon?
Senator Wyden. Yes, let's hear about what's coming to
central and eastern Oregon some time soon.
Ms. Welden. Thank you. Coming soon I would say in central
Oregon we have a number of projects that we've worked on over
the last 2 years that I would say that just over the last 3 to
4 months have what we would call made it through most of our
process, including the Charlie Brown Project, McCash up at
Sisters.
Senator Wyden. How much wood would be available in the
first one?
Ms. Welden. I can give you a total for each and then for
all three together. For all three together we're looking at for
commercial harvest about 54 million board feet. So we're in the
process now of developing timber sale contracts, doing pre-sale
layout work, to get those offered--advertised, offered and
awarded.
On top of that there's quite a bit of pre-commercial
thinning to the tune of 14,000 acres across all of those
projects, which is getting into that work that is understory
thinning, some of that smaller diameter material. When you talk
about projects that we have probably trouble implementing, they
do follow more in the range of those pre-commercial thinnings
that we do have a longer period of time to wait for funding. So
I would say if there is a backlog of projects, it's in that
realm where we are waiting for funding to get to that.
The National Fire Plan is helping and to a degree our
ability to submit projects to the RACs is also helping. But
that's an area where if we have some backlog it would be with
pre-commercial thinning.
Senator Wyden. Well, that's another area that has been
baffling to me. I've heard it said we could get more out if we
had more funding. But my understanding is that the region has
volunteered basically to give up some of its funding and that
it's going to other areas. This region, Region 6, is slated to
lose 2 to 3 percent of its overall funding over the next 5
years.
So I guess I just don't want to see the Forest Service put
these rural communities into debtors' prison. In effect it just
looks like for many of these projects we're not getting the
projects unstuck, and that's what I'm told again and again in
one iteration or another. It's not getting unstuck. The wood is
not getting out.
Ms. Collins, your associate just told me if we had more
funding we could get it out, but there's been an agreement for
this region to give up funding presumably because people don't
think we're cutting enough. So make sense out of this.
Ms. Collins. What Nancy was talking about and what Leslie
was talking about earlier, we notoriously have been underfunded
for pre-commercial thinning. That's that thinning where you
don't have a product coming out, but you are actually doing
some of the forest health treatment that needs to be done to
produce the stand density that we've all been talking about
here.
It's watershed restoration work that's not necessarily
directly tied with the National Fire Plan and Fuels Reduction
work. That's the work that we need funding for. Now, again the
timber sale, salvage sale program, is one of those programs
that we've got a lot of--each region gets an--we get an
allocation per region, and we basically are falling back on
this premise of accountability, where we are putting the money
where we get results, which is the right thing to do. It's good
government. And we are trying to get results everywhere.
As you said earlier I think we're finding that the results
are scattered. They are different. Some places seem to be able
to magically get work done and others are struggling. And some
of it depends on the forests we're dealing with and the
community dynamics.
Senator Wyden. Well, your associate just said, We could get
more work done if we had more funding. And I just cited what
appears to be an agreement among the regional foresters for
this region to give up funding to other parts of the country.
Is that right?
Ms. Collins. Every regional forester could say that, that
they could get more work done if they had more funding.
Senator Wyden. Is this region giving up money to go for
this work? I'd just like a yes or no answer to that.
Ms. Collins. I think they are, and I think that was the
agreement that all the regional foresters collectively agreed
the money would again be distributed along--actually it's a
part of a pattern that was started probably a decade ago as the
timber volume from Region 6 in Oregon and Washington started to
go down, the money started to shift to other regions. And so
this is part of kind of a long-term plan. It's just how we're
actually implementing it. And I think it's coming from the
frustration of not getting on with it.
Senator Wyden. It just seems as if the Forest Service is
putting the rural communities into a death spiral and then
saying it's their fault. I mean just think about it. Debtors'
prison, people aren't being put into jail any longer just
because they're poor, and if effect what we have got here are
policies that are very similar. What happens is we've got
projects that are ``stuck'' for various reasons. Money would
help to unstick them. That is what your associate has just
said. But yet the region is loosing out on that money that
would free up those projects because the cut is going down.
By way of what you have described, I think this area is
just being put by the Forest Service on a sort of relentless
kind of death spiral that I want you to know I'm going to do
everything in my power to block. I have been impressed by a
number of the approaches that you have taken, but for the life
of me I can't understand the analysis here today. There are
projects that need to get out now and we have got a variety of
descriptions being used to describe at what stage of the
process they are, but what these communities tell me is they
are ready to go. And we were told about a number of them today
that more could be done if there was money for it. But yet
somehow we're giving up the money because the cut is going
down, and once you give up the money the cut is just going to
go down, and down, and down until you've turned these
communities into sacrifice zones. I'm not going to be part of
it.
I'm going to move on unless you want to add anything
further, but I hope that you will change your mind on this
question of taking money out of this region at such a key time
when Mr. Ferrioli's constituents and others obviously would
benefit from having that money to complete these projects. Do
you want to look at that again?
Ms. Collins. I will take a look at that again. I want you
to know that we are committed to this region and we are
committed to putting money where we can get results. And like I
said in my opening statement, I have seen in eastern Oregon
people coming together to get results, and when we start seeing
results the money will come. It's going to be tried again.
Mr. Ferrioli. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Yes.
Mr. Ferrioli. The budgeting process in the Forest Service
does not include a process for the partial completion of
projects. Each of the projects that we referred to on the
Malheur was previously fully funded. It was accumulated along
with other projects to create an annual operating plan which
was submitted to the region, which was then forwarded to the
national office and approved at that level and then forwarded
to the Congress.
Projects typically are not submitted for partial funding.
So that the projects that we're referring to on the Malheur
over the past decade that were carried forward as unoperated
volume or unfinished projects have been repeatedly fully funded
year after year and carried forward in the funding requests for
the Agency.
And when we use the term lack of accountability, I think we
do a violence to our argument because people don't understand
what we mean. When we say accountability, what we mean is when
you're funded for a project that you described in your work
plan and Congress appropriates the project and the dates of the
gateways of completion and you don't get through those
gateways, that is a lack of accountability.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Collins, I don't think anybody can say
it any more clearly. What's your response to that? These are
projects that Mr. Ferrioli is saying his constituents got them
through the process not just once, but again and again and
again. How do you get them unstuck?
Ms. Collins. I know. We need to get it unstuck. And part of
our concern is taking a look at that, what is it in terms of a
larger dynamic that gets things stuck and how can we work
through that? And that's why I said at the beginning we're
working with a lot of these process requirements are getting it
stuck and trying to see how we can make some changes there.
Let me also just say one other thing about this region's
funding, because I want to make sure it's real clear. We do
have every region making the same case about funding and
outputs and the ability to take action with appropriate
funding. And I also don't want to leave you thinking this isn't
a region that produces, because they do good work here. And we
have some really good examples of that here, so let me just
make sure that this is really not about people not performing;
it's about people operating in a system that is somewhat
dysfunctional, and we're trying to fix that.
Senator Wyden. Well, you aren't going to fix it by taking
money out of this region. And if you believe that good work has
been done here, and I know you're sincere in your views, then
certainly that doesn't make the case for sending the money
somewhere else because people aren't any good in Region 6.
You've got to get this money back here.
When will you report back to me on whether this money is
going to be returned to this region? This was something that
was done, I gather, internally and I want those dollars back so
we can get projects out, and particularly the projects along
the lines that Mr. Ferrioli was talking about where again and
again they have been approved.
Ms. Collins. What I will do is commit to you that we will
get together with you. We will get the information on what's
happening with that money and----
Senator Wyden. Isn't the region slated to lose 2 to 3
percent of its funding on these key projects over the next 5
years?
Ms. Collins. I really do not know that.
Senator Wyden. Do your associates know the answer? That's
correct, isn't it?
Ms. Graybeal. That's correct.
Senator Wyden. What I want to know, Ms. Collins, now that
your associates have said that's right, when we're going to
hear we're going to get that money back?
Ms. Collins. What I will commit to you is I will tell you
what exactly is going on and what decisions were made and why.
And again I'm not--I need to talk through this at a much larger
level, because we have every regional forester, as I've said,
making that exact same case. And we did come together in terms
of national priorities and looked at this.
Senator Wyden. Who were the people in this region who said
they were willing to give up their money for work that would
unstick these projects? What are their names?
Ms. Collins. One of the things that really--I will say I'm
proud of the fact that we have regional foresters that came
together looking at a very national perspective and said, What
is it that we need to do nationally? And they came to a
consensus about that. And it wasn't an easy decision for
anybody because there were losers and there were winners all
over the country. And there were people frustrated and people
feeling like it's about time. This is a well-funded region. It
has been a well-funded region for many, many years.
Comparability between regions is if you go to a place like
Colorado, you'd find a very different situation in terms of
funding.
Senator Wyden. Do your associates know the people from the
region who said it was okay to give up the money? Any of your
people in the back?
Ms. Collins. It wasn't a person. It was a collection of
people, and that was the point I was making.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to wrap this part of this
discussion up by way of asking you how does the Forest Service
reach their national priorities to cut this money from a region
like this? We've got the highest unemployment rate in the
country. We've got projects that you have said work and what
more do we have to do to get a fair shake in terms of the
dollars? Highest unemployment, projects that work, projects
that Mr. Ferrioli has said repeatedly have been approved. What
else is there left for us to do to get our fair share?
Ms. Collins. Well, I think one of the things that continues
to make a difference is to have hearings like this, to talk
about the issues, to talk about what is going on to make people
aware of what's going on here.
Like I said before, I think people are making this case
everywhere, but you are and we have great examples in Oregon.
As I said at the beginning, this is a place where the
beginnings of a lot of creative ideas start here, and so I
think it just makes people aware of what's going on.
I also think that we live in a national world with national
priorities, and we have got to keep all of those, we have got
people all over the country making the same or a different set
of cases.
Senator Wyden. Let me ask you a technical question. Did
NEPA law and regulations allow forest agencies to use
categorical exclusions as a way to expedite the NEPA process?
The service lost its categorical exclusion authority for timber
sales because it lacked information for why it set the levels
for categorical exclusions. You know, 250,000 board feet and
that sort of thing.
Now, the Forest Service still has not corrected that lack
of information. What is the time line for the Service to
complete this work so that once again you can use these, you
know, exclusions again to help the people in this part of the
country?
Ms. Collins. Yes, categorical exclusions are really an
important tool and they were taken away through a lawsuit a
couple years ago. We have been in the process of gathering that
information and we do have that information gathered. We should
have a draft Federal Register notice out this summer on a
couple of those categorical exclusions, getting them back. And
the ones that are really important to us here are the ones for
small sales of material and prescribed burning and some of
those that relate to forest health treatments. Two that are
coming out this summer are related to the sale of product,
vegetation of the national forest.
Senator Wyden. Let me ask another couple of process
questions that might speed things up for folks in central and
eastern Oregon. I think it would be fair to say that probably
every few months we get pretty frantic phone calls, our
delegation does, that some particular project, XYZ project, is
going to be stalled for 6 months or so unless your NMFS or Fish
and Wildlife Service can complete endangered species
consultation responsibilities.
Now, as you know Congress has considered allowing
authorized agency biologists--Forest Service, BLM, a variety of
agencies--to perform this function. What do you think having
this kind of authority would do for you in terms of expediting
the process for these projects that we're talking about?
Ms. Collins. Somebody presented that just in the last
couple of days, so I haven't really done a lot of thinking
about it. What we do know is that the kind of biologists--the
qualifications of the average biologist who does consultations
for the National Marine Fishery Service basically has the same
credentials as the biologists that are doing our biological
work. So there's no reason in terms of skills that we could not
do that work, and I believe they would have the knowledge or
understanding or ability to do it.
And so the question is, I think, it's one of those things
that we're going to have to talk about and spend some time
exploring. As it stands it would take some legal authority.
We're not right now a regulatory agency. We're given some
regulatory authorities. But the side that we have to look at is
what does that bring to us in terms of we might be able to
expedite projects, but I also know that National Marine Fishery
Service has a lot of lawsuits. We may be inheriting all of
those along with all the benefits of an expedited process.
I think we just need to talk about it and look at it. I
certainly think we have got the qualifications. We have got our
folks out there talking with each other, and I think 99 percent
of the time there's unanimity and agreement on what we need to
do. And there are places where we actually have paid to have a
National Fishery biologist to do our consultation. They work
for National Marine Fishery Service but we work closely with
them.
Senator Wyden. Rick, what's the take on this from the
environmental community? It would seem to me that working
something out here among all the stakeholders would just make
sense, and I'd be interested in your position.
Mr. Brown. I guess I wouldn't rule out the possibilities,
but I guess as part of that checkered past that I alluded to, I
spent 6 years as a biologist with the Forest Service. And I
think it's really important that, particularly in the
endangered species setting where the stakes are so high
biologically, it's really important to have that independent
examination of what's being proposed without sort of the
within-agency context and the pressures that go with that.
As I said, I don't want to rule out any possibilities, but
I think there will be a lot of reluctance on the part of the
environmental community.
Senator Wyden. There's a couple of other questions, Ms.
Collins, for you. On this question of streamlining and
paralysis analysis issue, this is an area that is indisputable.
There is all kinds of just sort of excessive, you know,
gobbledegook in those rules. My colleague, Senator Craig, made
a number of very good suggestions over the years to get at some
of these rules and requirements. And I know you all are looking
at a number of them and we're anxious to have your views on it.
But isn't it correct to say that the only way you're going to
cut through some of the regulatory surplus, the stuff that's on
there really for no logical reason, isn't it correct to say the
only way you're going to do that in a timely fashion is through
legislation?
I mean you can go off and spend probably 5 years talking
about this and having discussions that are useful, and it
certainly sounds useful from what I've heard, but isn't it
correct that the only way you're going to make significant
changes in streamlining the process in a timely fashion is
through Federal legislation that does it?
Ms. Collins. I think you're right. I think that we have the
ability and the authority to work with regulations, Council of
Environmental Quality, which we're doing, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, which we're doing, and we will do that and we
will continue to do that and we will continue to try to make
the changes that we can make internally with our own
regulations, which we're looking right now, but it does take a
tremendous amount of time.
John and I were talking before the hearing that I've only
been back in Washington 2 years, but things move slowly there.
I thought they moved slowly in terms of project management out
here. They work really slowly back there. And so I do think
that there's a potential to expedite the process if there's
some congressional help.
Senator Wyden. The Forest Service is looking at a variety
of ways to work with resource dependent communities to find new
commercial uses for various opportunities: small trees that
need to be removed to decrease catastrophic fire risk. And my
question to you is if Congress accepts the administration's
fiscal year 2003 budget request to zero out the Forest
Service's economic action programs, how would that affect your
ability to assist communities in creating these economic uses
of various kinds of products on the forest floor?
Ms. Collins. Well, I think in some places it will have an
impact for sure.
Senator Wyden. A negative impact?
Ms. Collins. A negative impact. We've seen a lot of
positive impacts with those dollars being distributed in
Oregon, but we also still have quite a lot of authorities for
economic development in our State and private authorities. We
still have the Wyden Amendment. The National Fire Plan has a
number of dollars that are going to continue to be available
for biomass, for additional alternative forest products, small
diameter material. So while we've traded some programs, we've
gotten others with the National Fire Plan funding.
Senator Wyden. Well, you just did something really gutsy,
because, as you know, the administration is proposing to zero
out those programs, and you've said, and what I think I've
heard from every single official in rural Oregon, that's going
to have a negative impact. And (A) I commend you for your
candor, and (B) we will work with you to try to make existing
dollars stretch, number one. Number two, I can tell you Senator
Craig, Senator Murkowski, myself and Senator Bingaman have
already weighed in we're going to do everything we can to keep
those dollars, because I think it would be a tragic mistake to
take away the Forest Service funds for economic action programs
when there is so much to do. I don't think you can defend that
in front of Senator Ferrioli's constituents.
Let me turn now to some of our other panel members. I'm
sure Sally will be happy to have a break. John, if you would,
describe what has happened at your mill and why the predicament
that the community now faces in your view has reached this
point and what we ought to do.
I mean it seems to me you, and nobody wants to be the
poster child, you know, for this, but it seems to me that you
provide a very real world example of what all sides ought to be
somersaulting to void. It just seems so needless and so
unnecessary, and I think it would be helpful if you could sort
of lay out what you think got us to this point and then what
you think is necessary to extricate us starting on a path that
makes sense for the environment and for economic needs.
Mr. Morgan. Well, number one, I think we're victims of
circumstance. I don't think it's lack of management skills or
anything that's caused where we are today with the shut down of
facilities and with the amount of dollars that we have invested
in retooling, because we thought that the Forest Service was
heading towards smaller material and we retooled and invested,
like I said, a lot into that.
The problem is a lack of resource availability. The funding
is there but a lot of times it has to be--they're redoing over
and over because of appeals and lawsuits and having to go back.
In industry when we get a certain amount of dollars we go out
and we put that into good work and we accomplish something.
It's like a farmer plowing his field. You make a circle, you
look back and you feel that you accomplished something.
With the Forest Service, they look back and I don't see
that they feel that they've accomplished anything. And a good
example of this is a 34 cent stamp and the process that halts
it. A good example, I think, is just 2 years ago when the Ash
Rock Timber Sale burned 18,500 acres, 15,000 of that was in the
wilderness and was not going to be touched at all. There was
only 3,500 acres that was outside that was in management to
where it could be logged and harvested. Of that 3,500 acres,
only 500 acres was targeted for cutting. The 34 cent stamp
comes, goes through the court system, and it was held up not on
content, more of a procedural deal, because it didn't identify
aspects in the report. All of the things the Forest Service did
in the EA was there, but because they didn't mention a certain
report that was mentioned by the regional forester, the project
got halted.
We can take a look at the BLM sale in the John Day area.
Timber Basin same way. There is one right now, the R and R
salvage in the Deschutes is the same way.
It's a lot of money and time and effort has been put into
these projects, but they're being halted and then you have to
redo them, and all of a sudden they give up on them.
Particularly fire sales. They throw it out and they go forward
and all that money is wasted.
Senator Wyden. So you've got people particularly on each
side of your flank, two people that can do something about
this: an environmental leader and a leader from the Forest
Service. What do you want to tell him that everybody ought to
work on together to avoid this?
Mr. Morgan. Well, I think I know for our company and I
think the industry as a whole, you're always going to find
extremes on either side, and we need to find the middle ground
to go forward. And with the Forest Service I feel their
frustrations a lot of times, because I know some of the
questions that you asked Sally about the funding and all the
things that goes forth there, that the money is being spent and
work is being done over.
From the environmental community we understand that
everybody has their thoughts and their ideas on how things are
running, but again we need to find a middle ground and go
forward and not have to be halted. And there is a certain group
that's on the outside that'll come back after something's been
done collaboratively supported by a general group and it's
stopped. And I think that's the processes that we've got to do
is we've got to get back to reason and common sense and let the
professionals be able to manage.
It's like us as foresters, we don't go and tell a doctor
how to operate on a brain surgery. And a lot of times I think
that that's it, the professional people are not being able to
manage scientifically. It's more public sentiment.
Senator Wyden. Rick, you've heard John talk about what
happened with the mill and all the devastation that he's seen
visited on the community. You've heard Senator Ferrioli talk as
well. What is your sense about how the environmental community
can help make some common ground here and come up with projects
that make sense?
And by the way, when I was talking to you about unsticking
the huge number of board feet in terms of the projects, I want
to make it clear, that projects consist of a lot more than just
board feet. There's a tremendous amount of restoration work
that can be done that is enormously important in terms of
environmental value. So that is why I have become so passionate
about getting these projects done, is that they make sense from
the environmental standpoint and they make sense from an
economic standpoint. Rick, what are your thoughts in terms of
how you respond to the frustrations that John and Ted have
described?
Mr. Brown. Well, on a very simple level I share them. As I
alluded to earlier, I've been writing, testifying, talking for
years, better than a decade at this point, trying to get these
same sorts of things moving on the ground. I've spent 3 years
on the Governor's Eastside Forest Advisory Panel. I've spent 4
years in Lakeview trying to promote this. I've put substantial
time and effort into producing a report for Defenders of
Wildlife, Getting Fire and Forest Restoration, a Science-based
Approach for National Forests in the Interior Northwest.
Trying to find that common ground of a science, we spent a
lot of time, I think, pretending that the issues are either
scientific or technical or that they're part of NEPA process or
something else. What they're really about is trust: lack of
trust. And particularly a lack of trust from many in the
environmental community.
I think that there are some in that community who you will
never bring in the fold of agreement. They are steadfastly
opposed to commercial logging and logging on the national
forest lands.
I think there is also a substantial number in the
environmental community that are currently opposed to many of
these activities because of their history with the Agency and
with the funding that the Agency is getting and how things have
been driven in the past. Until we can get a clear message of
what restoration is and that that is what is going on and that
the timber is a by-product of ecologically justified
restoration, we are not going to get past that distrust.
The Forest Service is easy to pick on and it's many things.
It's a bureaucracy. It's a collection of individuals that have
the strength and opinions that we all do, but it's also an
instrument of public policy. And I think a large part of the
problem right now is that the public policy is not clear. There
are divided messages. There's the one that you clearly state
today about restoration and a lot of things need to be
happening on the ground. The budget that comes down doesn't
correspond.
Senator Wyden. I don't want to go into the budget with Ms.
Collins anymore.
Mr. Brown. Until we get that message out, we're not going
to overcome that distrust, and overcoming that distrust is
manifest. That's what I spend a lot of my time trying to do. I
think I've made some progress, but not enough obviously.
Senator Wyden. Let me just ask one other question in terms
of projects. As I approach it seems to be low hanging fruit
from the standpoint of the environment and the timber industry,
and yet it hasn't worked out that way, and that's the biomass
and energy production question. Now, Mr. Morgan's been
interested in this for quite some time in developing long-term
biomass contracts in which the Agency would assure an energy
producer a 10- or 15-year steady supply of a certain amount of
wood fibers. Here would be a chance for a real live
partnership. You know, mills, Forest Service and the
environmental people. And yet we can't seem to get there. Can't
seem to get it done.
Why don't we just lock you two in a room with the Forest
Service and say we're going to keep you there until we get a
major biomass initiative done that will address clean energy,
family wage jobs for Ted Ferrioli's constituents and something
the Forest Service can back stop? Why shouldn't I just go tell
Senator Smith and Congressman Walden, Let's clear our calendars
for a couple days and we'll all just sit there until we walk
out of there with a major biomass initiative?
Mr. Brown. It's not clear to me, Senator, that that
proposal that has been brought forward in this state anyway,
that have been brought forward to the point where they have
been actively and effectively opposed by the environmental
community. What I run into is simply lack of inventory data.
Knowing what's out there in terms of potential for reducing
that material. But I agree in the abstract, it's a potentially
very viable use. To the extent that I have heard concern from
the environmental community, it's about establishing yet
another industrial capacity out there that then 10 years down
the line somebody turns around and says, The capacity's here;
the forest is obliged to meet its demands.
I think if we can find a way to get past that hurdle, but I
think it's largely a scaling problem. Maybe a technology
problem. But I think there's some real possibilities.
Mr. Morgan. Senator, a lot of it is of course based on
economics, and the intent there, I mean, if you could have the
facilities operating, just the small material itself won't
stand on its own. It can't pay its way. There has to be a
fallout of some kind of a merchantable product that goes with
it. But there's so many other benefits that goes with it. I
mean fire suppression, of course, is key. Besides the benefit
of reducing the stock, you're adding growth on other trees to
bug proof them and also be able to grow bigger trees quicker.
But I think the real key to it is the economics, and it
won't stand on its own currently, and it's a trust level. I
mean it's just like us putting in $15 million for a small log
mill and 13 years later we're out of business because we don't
have a supply. I think there's always that fear going also. And
so that's why there needs to be a long-term supply availability
and a commitment level and accountability level to make sure
that that's there.
And there is so many benefits positive that would come
forward with that, but again the initial part of it is it won't
stand on its own with just dealing with a small product and the
power to pay for it because of investment.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Collins, I'd welcome your views on this.
Mr. Blackwood. I'd just like to comment on that because we
really agree there's a lot of material out there that could be
utilized along those lines, and the question of how much has
pestered us for years. And through the Blue Mountain
Demonstration Area, we teamed up with the Oregon Department of
Forestry to actually find out how much is out there and where
it is. And especially these densely stocked stands. And what we
found was in a report that is soon to be released here, that
only about 20 percent of those densely stocked stands will pay
their own way out of the woods. So Mr. Morgan is right on. The
economics aren't there.
We're exploring some other things through the Fire Plan and
other methods to see if there are ways to rent processes to
help augment that transportation cost, but I think there are
some options out there, and there certainly are some
opportunities.
Senator Wyden. My understanding of this situation is that
the Forest Service does not have the legal authority today to
enter into long-term contracts on something like this, but if
we could get the Forest Service, our mill operators and
environmentalists together on a significant biomass initiative,
that would certainly lay the ground work for me to try to get
the legal authority for the Agency to do that. I'd like to
pursue that. I'd like us to have the Forest Service get with
Mr. Morgan and others in the industry and, Rick, you would be
involved and anybody else you'd like to bring in. Could we
pursue that as a joint effort between the Forest Service, the
timber industry and the environmental community in terms of a
biomass initiative?
Ms. Welden. I think that would be great, if I can just
speak for Sally here. In central Oregon we have an effort
underway that's resulted from one of our Fire Plan grants that
is specifically looking at how we build markets and really
examining what the need is, and around central Oregon there's
quite a bit of need associated with our Wildland-Urban
Interface and our wild lands.
We've got a market analysis that's going on through a grant
that was provided to Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
asking that question: How can you figure out how to make this
kind of market work? And as John has said and Jeff has echoed,
a lot of it has to do with our ability to guarantee some profit
as it relates to getting those materials out of the woods.
And I think further analysis will be needed to make sure
that we've got the ability to have some infrastructure to
support those kinds of studies. So we're right here, I think,
to take on that kind of opportunity.
Senator Wyden. Let's do this, then, let us have the Forest
Service, and Mr. Morgan and the industry, Rick and the
environmentalists begin to work with Mr. Blair, who all of you
know in our central Oregon office, to see if we can get the
outlines of a significant biomass initiative together. One that
would have support from the major stakeholders. I'll tell
Senator Smith and Congressman Walden about that, and of course
their folks are here. And if we can come up with a significant
biomass initiative here, we might be able to break the gridlock
on something that looks like a very promising opportunity.
This is something that could make a real difference to
people in rural Oregon. If it's sound from the environmental
standpoint, if it's sound from the energy standpoint, then it
looks to me like a no brainer in terms of going out there and
hustling and trying to put it together.
So we will have all of you designate one of your people.
David Blair is this young gentleman sitting behind me. He's
single so he has all kinds of free time, evenings and weekends,
and just work him to the bone to get this biomass initiative.
All right. Let me wrap up with one last thought. This is by
any calculus a really blue ribbon panel. I look at a
legislative leader who speaks with great expertise for his
constituents. Rick is an environmentalist. John is on the front
lines in terms of industry issues for years and years. And Ms.
Collins is someone who a lot of people think will be the head
of the Forest Service one day.
By any calculus this is a blue ribbon panel. And I want to
wrap up by way of saying that we're going to try very hard to
pass a significant Forest Health bill in this session of
Congress, even though there's not a lot of time left. And it's
built around the proposition that I don't think you can do the
important work without legislation. And to your credit, Ms.
Collins, you basically said as much in terms of one of the key
elements is some way to get out of this unnecessary set of
regulatory hoops that seem to accomplish nothing except add
time and expense to the process. But to do it we're going to
have to find some common ground among people like yourself.
We did it on the County Payments. Nobody thought that that
was possible. Nobody thought that you could bring together
people like Larry Craig and I and pass a bill where there was
tremendous pressure from all sides to drive this to extreme
positions. We will have even more of that on the forest health
issue.
So I want to wrap up by way of saying thank you and these
are important issues to people in these rural communities who
feel strongly about them. People all over the State of Oregon
feel very strongly about them, because we've said in this State
that we want to protect our treasures and be sensitive to the
need for people to have good paying jobs, and that's a lot
easier to say than to actually do day in and day out. But I've
got enough confidence that there's talent in this panel to help
us and help us in a meaningful way.
We urge you to give us your suggestions as to what ought to
go into a forest health initiative and invite you to do it with
us, and we'll do it on a bipartisan basis. And Senator Craig
and I have talked already about a number of times. Your ideas
and suggestions are very welcome and I thank you for taking the
extra time this afternoon. I guess we began in the morning and
people must think they ought to start ordering dinner. But
you've been very helpful, very constructive, and I thank all of
you for your participation.
Let us go now to our third panel: John Howard, commissioner
from Union County; Bill Tovey, Confederate Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation; Tom Brumm of the Oregon Economic
and Community Development Department and Mark Jeffrey,
superintendent of Paisley School District Number 11.
Folks, we've been going at it now for about 3 hours, and I
want to let these good souls have a chance to get at least part
of their day for their business. Let's go first to John Howard,
and we're going to make everybody's prepared remarks part of
the record in their entirety. And I know there's almost a
biological compulsion to read the statements, but if you can
just sort of summarize your key concerns.
We're very pleased to begin with somebody who's been a
great help to this subcommittee in the past. John Howard is an
outstanding county commissioner and, John, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HOWARD, COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
UNION COUNTY, OR
Mr. Howard. Thank you, Senator Wyden, and, you know, again
from our county we'd like to express our appreciation to you
for all the work you've done for us and working with Senator
Smith and Congressman Walden, and particularly in the County
Payments Legislation. It's been put to good use.
But I do have my written statement and then I'll just leave
that for the record and just summarize my comments. I think
what I'd like to do, Senator, is talk a little bit about
resource management issues and fold it into the need of looking
at economics.
But in the early nineties the issue of forest management
and when I look at it it actually occurred in the early
nineties when the salmon, steelhead, bull trout were listed in
the Endangered Species Act. That started a watershed fall of
putting in interim strategies called PACFISH and INFISH, and
then Eastside Screens came into play with concerns over the old
growth management. And from the early nineties, that pretty
much tightened the net up on the pipeline as far as timber that
was in the works.
And there was an attempt to try to resolve these interim
strategies around 1994 with the Interior Columbia Basin
Management Strategy was established. We thought we were there
in 1996. We had a first draft plan. The counties were really at
the table at that time. However that draft plan got put on hold
and it was pretty much politics was downhill from there on. And
the whole process pretty much collapsed from that point on.
And then from that period on there's been a lot of mill
closures, and I just can't count how many mills have closed.
There have been three in our county, two in Wallowa County, one
in Baker County, several in Harney County, and I can just go on
throughout eastern Oregon. The heart of the problem that I see
is the need to replace the interim strategy, PACFISH and
INFISH. Those are very restrictive strategies and we still
don't have anything resolved in the long-term. And we need to
figure out how we're going to address these outstanding issues
and that's how we're going to get back to the process of
managing our public lands.
There have been some bright moments in eastern Oregon. It
was mentioned earlier by the panel, the Blue Mountain
Demonstration Project. It did stumble early on. It's gotten
back on track to a certain degree and we are seeing some
projects coming out. But we need to use that demonstration to
get to the heart of the problem on the process, on how the
projects are developed and the time and length it's taken.
Some of the things that we have done in our county, we have
taken initiative in creating a Community Forest Restoration
Board. In fact, Senator, we talked about this last year.
Senator Wyden. Right.
Mr. Howard. And I told you I'm interested in it and I've
been working with the district ranger on this and our goal is
to kind of turn out projects within a year's turn-around time
to the NEPA process. And we are getting close to being there.
We've got one that's taken 13 months. We have one more it's on
track for about 12 months and another one about the same
schedule.
But we do have a pilot authority stewardship contract. We
are looking at what we call an integrated resource contract. It
uses a timber sale contract as the basis and refines the
contract methods from other steward-like service contracts. It
creates a new method. And we feel this is probably a trend
that's going to be seen and developing.
We think it gives more flexibility to the ranger for
management and it gives more long-term contracting ability for
local contractors. I would like to also add that the other
areas of concern that I've seen over the years is we're dealing
with three cabinet levels on resource management. We're dealing
with the Department of Ag with the Forest Service, Department
of the Interior with Fish and Wildlife Service, and then with
the Department of Commerce with National Marine Fishery. It's
somewhat of an uncoordinated effort in resource management and
it just takes so long getting projects through the consultation
process. And I'd like to give you a little history.
Last year we had a county bridge that we were going to be
replacing on Pelican Creek, and it dried up around August or
September or so. And we were toward the end of the window of
opportunity to do this construction work for the bridge
replacement, and our public works director called me and our
watershed program called me and said, Time's running out. We
have until Tuesday to do the work. And this is Thursday.
And I called the consultation office in La Grande and said,
Randy, now would be a good time to get that permit. And it was
in the afternoon and finally we got the go ahead to do the
work. But it was a not likely effect call. It was a no brainer.
No water in the stream. The creek was dry. We were taking a
culvert out and putting an eco block bridge construction in
place. But, you know, it took me to call to get the project out
and get the work done on it.
I'd like to talk about Region 6 a little bit. And Region 6
Headquarters Forest Service is looking at a new appointee for a
person there. I would like to see this person be very
aggressive in going after funds, defending the region during
when budget cuts are being sought. We need someone there that
can stand up and defend the rest of the rank and file within
Region 6 office.
I would also add, Senator, we need a Region 6 supervisor
that will take their share of stewardship contract authority. I
think the last go-around I think we got three, four, something
of that nature, stewardship contracts out of 23 or 26, whatever
it was. When I was back in D.C. in March I had a chance to
visit with Dale Bosworth, the forestry chief, about when he was
in Region 6 how come he got so many stewardship authorities?
And, you know, basically I went and got his take on it. But
when I came back to take a look at it again, it was not in the
interest of the region to look at these stewardship
authorities. So I guess I would ask you, Senotor, to help us
get a Region 6 supervisor that's going to be a strong advocate
for the region, and also somebody that's going to be looking
out for rural assistance programs as well.
We utilize those programs to the max. In fact we used our
county funds to match Forest Service projects on their public
land and then we used rural systems projects to work for our
benefit as well. It's been working both ways. I would also say
that we are working on the biomass end of it too. We have a
company called Sustainable Northwest or Sustainable Energy, I
believe it is, is making an investment into the biomass
operation in our county, so we're working on it too.
One of the things that I would like to talk more about is
the economic assistance program. We've been working the last 3
years in eastern Oregon communities and I want to say Idaho,
Montana and Washington and the interior Columbia Basin on an
economic investment strategy. And we have done studies on this
doing some analysis on it, looking at social impacts. And we
made an effort to try to get it in the budget last year. We
thought it was going to be there, but it was taken out, and not
only was that taken out, but other rural assistance economic
programs were cut as well.
And when you have communities in eastern Oregon that have
double-digit unemployment rates for the last 4 or 5 years or
beyond, and we have not seen the economic surge in the nineties
on the east side as the west side, you know, that's kind of
heart breaking for us to do to take those setbacks. And I guess
what I'm asking you, Senator, is we need your help to secure
funding for these rural assistance programs as well as fixing
the problems on forest management. And that concludes my
comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Howard, County Commissioner,
Union County, OR
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this field hearing
today. I would like to take this opportunity to answer some questions
regarding public land impacts on rural communities.
1. Explore the relationship between how lands are managed and the
impacts on rural economy.
How our national public lands are managed has a direct economic and
social impact to communities. In the early 90's when bull trout,
steelhead and salmon were listed as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act, it lead to review of existing management plans
and as a result temporary management strategies were set in place which
included PACFISH and INFISH. Additionally, Eastside Screens were set in
place to address assumptions that forest plans did not give direction
for management of old growth forests. Eastside Screens have directed
public land mangers to only remove trees that are 21 inches and smaller
constraining their ability to meet resource objectives. The PACFISH and
INFISH strategies have created 300 feet buffer zones on each side of
streams. There are also buffer zones of 150 feet on each side of
intermittent streams.
These temporary strategies were only to be in place for 18 months
and that was back in the early 90's. There was an attempt in the mid
90's to develop a long-term plan for the eastside forest and rangeland
called the Interior Columbia Basin Eastside Ecosystem Program that
would replace the restrictive temporary strategies. However, the
planning process became polarized by Washington politics and collapsed.
We are also witness to the time and energy it has taken for public land
managers to produce projects through the NEPA planning process and the
consultation process with regulatory agencies. These federal decisions
have had a profound effect on the economies in rural communities in
Eastern Oregon. We have consistently seen double-digit unemployment in
the majority of rural counties from the closure of so many sawmills. To
date these communities have had limited success in improving their
economies and with limited federal help.
2. Review the environmental health of the National Forest.
With the limited ability of the public land managers to manage the
forest and those organizations that have been successful in their
attempts to stall the process, we are a long way from having eastside
forests sustainable for the long haul. In fact, with the public land
managers having been tied up with policy constraints and the lack of
past leadership ability to resolving the issues surrounding public land
management direction, the eastside forests have continued to become
over stocked with small diameter trees. The Blue Mountain Forest
historically was comprised of 60 percent pine and 40 percent grand fir
and Douglas-fir species. Today we have just the opposite of 60 per cent
fir species and 40 percent pine. The gridlock of management from the
early 90's to date has accelerated the forest condition to be prone to
beetle bait and has become more susceptible to major wildfires. Many
streams in Eastern Oregon also lack the woody debris and stream
structures for improving habitat conditions for aquatic species. There
has also been an encroachment of fir stands in riparian habitat that
has pushed out cottonwood and brush along stream sides. Cottonwood and
brush provide excellent habitat conditions for streams. There is much
work that needs to be done to improve our riparian habitat conditions
for our forest and rangeland streams. The current PACFISH and INFISH
interim strategies are standing in the way of improved stream habitat
conditions.
The Blue Mountain Demonstration Area has given rural communities
some encouragement working with state, private and local public
officials to improve the management conditions. We have seen success
with the Blue Mountain Demonstration Area, but more needs to be
accomplished such as replacing the temporary restrictive strategies
with a long-term plan and improving the length of time it takes to
produce projects. The consultation process also needs improvement to
assist land managers. The process spends too much time worrying about
short-term impacts and not considering the long-term improvement
benefits for species habitat conditions.
I want to stress that the restoration needs on public lands
surpasses the ability to complete work because of interim strategies
and the NEPA and consultation processes. Thus, even though on the La
Grande Ranger District they are exploring innovative techniques and
processes they are unable to get ahead of the restoration curve.
Our Union County Community Forest Restoration Board that was
created last spring has been working hard with our local U.S. Forest
Service district ranger to improve the planning process and to give
guidance for restoration projects. We also have been supportive of
testing new contract methods for improving forest function conditions
such as an integrated resource contract. We also will be monitoring the
new contracting method. We believe that we need to explore new
contracting methods to meet the needs of restoring our forest
sustainable levels.
3. Review the economic assistance to natural resource dependent
communities.
Federal policies from the past ten years and the laws that govern
public land management have hard hit resource dependent communities'
economies. During the last ten years we have seen these rural economies
tumble to double-digit unemployment as mill after mill closed. Many of
these mills have been auctioned off and sent to other Countries.
Eastern Oregon rural communities did not have the economic surge that
was seen in the 90's in other Oregon communities. State, Tribal and
local officials have been working together to form an Interior Columbia
Basin Economic Adjustment Strategy for the past three years. We had
hoped that the President had budgeted the funding of the initiative. We
not only lost our struggle to secure funding for the strategy in the
Presidents budget to rebuild our rural economies cause by federal
policies, but we were also surprised to see major cuts proposed in
other existing rural assistance programs. The communities in Eastern
Oregon need federal economic assistance to rebuild our struggling
communities from there past federal decisions. Our federal government
also needs to resolve the long-standing forest management constraints.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on these
issues of critical importance to Eastern Oregon communities.
Senator Wyden. Very good, very good. Mr. Brumm, welcome. No
one has done more on these issues than you.
STATEMENT OF TOM BRUMM, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MANAGER,
OREGON ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SALEM, OR
Mr. Brumm. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon. I appreciate
being here. John took a little bit of my thunder but not enough
that I won't go into it. I would like to discuss with the
committee a project called the Inland Northwest Economic
Adjustment Strategy. It's a project of Oregon, Washington,
Idaho and Montana, that we've been working on for 2 years. This
region consists of 97 counties and 14 tribes in eastern Oregon,
eastern Washington, Idaho, and western Montana.
I don't need to go into all the Federal resource management
policies and court decisions that have got us to the point of
where we're seeking Federal assistance to redress some of
these. I think you heard a lot of real life examples from
Senator Ferrioli. But I would like to point out why I think the
Federal Government has a particular responsibility to this 97-
county region that we have identified.
There is a greater concentration of Federal land ownership
in the inland northwest, 54 percent versus 23 percent
nationally. And just, for example, we know that 52 percent of
Oregon is owned by the Federal Government. Nearly two-thirds of
Idaho is owned by the Federal Government. Our economic analysis
that Commissioner Howard referred to shows that 97 of the 99
counties in this region are economically distressed with 53
counties or 55 percent low or very low economic vitality.
Possibly the 2000 census might change that, but I doubt it
will change it much, and I think in many areas it's getting
worse. Such as the 17.5 percent unemployment in Wallowa County,
for example.
There's been a continued decline in per capita income with
this region falling further behind the rest of the Northwest
and the Nation and widening the urban-rural economic divide in
all four States.
This region is also more dependent upon forest products
than the west side of Oregon and Washington or the Nation. More
mills have closed in this region than remain open. While 110
have closed, 109 remain open and these aren't counting mills
that have closed in the last year. We've heard about one,
Ochoco, so there are others.
Our analysis also shows that lack of Federal timber
supplies is a significant factor in the closure of eight of ten
of these mills. In addition to wood products, this region has
seen serious declines in many agricultural sectors, mining and
the downsizing of Federal energy facilities in Washington and
Idaho.
From 1993 to 1998, the Federal Government spent
approximately $1.2 billion addressing very similar problems in
western Oregon, western Washington and northern California.
Even though the problems of this region are the same or
possibly more severe because you have more remote, more
resource dependent communities, no Federal funds have been
targeted to relieve the economic distress in this region, and
the needs of this region exceed existing allocations for
Federal economic assistance programs.
What we are looking for is a coordinated effort on the part
of the Federal Government working with State, local and tribal
governments to address economic conditions in the region.
As I've said, we've been working on this for a couple of
years. We've done a number of things and I'll just mention them
very quickly to show that this isn't, you know, sort of
something that we just happened upon. We've really tried to
make a case as to why things are different.
We secured two Economic Development Administration Grants
thanks to Ann Burg, who's sitting in the back of the room
there, to help us do these studies. We have a steering
committee that's representative of State and local governments
and tribal governments in all four States. We hired some
consultants to review 164 community and tribal economic
development plans to try to get some idea of what people
thought needed to be done.
We held 14 forums in four States attended by over 800
people to tell us what kind of assistance communities needed
most. This project has been endorsed by all four governors, the
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and most city and county
associations in the four States.
We've continually met with representatives in the Bush
administration and had a continuing discussion with members of
the Congressional delegations from the four States.
However, despite all that we failed in an attempt, as
Commissioner Howard said, to get included in the President's
proposed fiscal 2003 budget. I think we might have succeeded
had not 9-11 happened, but nevertheless it doesn't change the
need. We're going to review whether we should try for 2004, but
we do need help from Congress. We would like to secure some
funding in this appropriation cycle.
Our forums identified needs in the areas of business and
workforce development, funding to support value added and
sustainable natural resources, infrastructure investments,
tourism promotion and community capacity and building.
I think the Federal Government can and should help this
region. I just noticed that in the farm bill something called
the Great Plains Basin Initiative or whatever secured $180
million over 6 years to address economic problems in five
Midwest States, none of which have hardly any Federal land
whatsoever. So I do think that this--I think we can make a case
as to why the Federal Government needs to be involved. We just
need your help in getting there. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brumm follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Brumm, Intergovernmental Relations Manager,
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, Salem, OR
Good Afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
field hearing. I would like to discuss with you a project that we call
the Inland Northwest Economic Adjustment Strategy. City, County, Tribal
and State governments in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana have
been working for over two years to help distressed resource-dependent
communities in the Inland Northwest, a region consisting of 97 counties
and 14 tribes in Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, Idaho, and Western
Montana. Over the past decade a collection of federal resource
management policies, federal court decisions, and other factors, have
had intended and unintended consequences for this regional economy.
Therefore, we are asking the federal government to help mitigate the
effects of its decisions on local economies and communities. The
federal government can do this by working with the States, Tribes and
local communities to invest in their continued social and economic
vitality.
In attempting to answer your questions on the relationship between
how public lands are managed and the impact on rural economies and an
evaluation of economic assistance to natural resource dependent
communities, I would like to give the committee some examples of needs
and conditions in this 97 county region and why the federal government
has a special responsibility to the region:
There is a greater concentration of federal land ownership
in the Inland Northwest, 54.6% compared to 23.5% nationally,
nearly two-thirds of Idaho is owned by the federal government.
Our economic analysis shows that 97 of the 99 counties in
the region are economically distressed with 53 Counties or 55%
with low or very low economic vitality.
There has been a continued decline in per capita income with
this region falling further behind the rest of the Northwest
and the nation and widening the urban-rural economic divide in
all four states.
This region is more dependent on forest products than the
Westside or the nation.
More mills have closed in the region, 110, than remain open,
109, and these figures have worsened since our analysis.
Lack of federal timber supply is a significant factor in 8
of 10 of these mill closures
In addition to wood products, this region has seen serious
declines in many agricultural sectors, mining, and the
downsizing of federal energy facilities.
From 1993 to 1998, the federal government spent approximately $1.2
billion addressing very similar problems in Western Oregon, Western
Washington, and Northern California. However, despite the growth of
similar and possibly worse problems in the Inland Northwest region, no
federal funds have been targeted to relieve the economic distress in
the region and the needs of the region exceed existing allocations for
federal economic assistance programs. What is needed is a coordinated
effort on the part of federal, state local, and tribal governments to
address the economic conditions of the region.
We have done the following to build understanding and support for
the Inland Northwest Economic Adjustment Strategy:
Secured two Economic Development Administration grants to
help document the conditions and needs of the region.
Created a Steering Committee, which has met quarterly,
consisting of four state representatives and representatives of
Tribal, City and County governments in all four states.
Reviewed 164 community and tribal economic development
plans.
Held 14 forums in the four states, attended by over 800
people, to both document the need for federal assistance and
tell us what kind of assistance the communities needed most.
Received endorsements from the four Governors, the
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and most City and County
Associations in the four states.
Met with Administration representatives to seek federal
funds in the President's FY 2003 proposed budget
A continuing discussion of the proposal with Members and
staff from all seventeen Congressional offices in the 4-state,
97 County region.
We failed in our attempt to get funds allocated to the Inland
Northwest in the President's FY '03 proposed budget. We are evaluating
whether we should try again for the FY '04 budget. We would like help
from Congress and our 17 member collective delegation in securing some
funding for FY '03. Our forums identified needs in the areas of
business and workforce development, funding to support value added and
sustainable natural resources, infrastructure investments, tourism
promotion and community capacity building. The federal government can
and should help this region in these areas. I hope this committee
hearing is a beginning in that direction.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this
committee.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Thank you. We have a delegation
that teamed up and brought $1.5 billion plus to the region in
terms of the County Payments Bill. So we're holding our own and
you did draft very good work. I'm going to have to keep you all
to the 5-minute rule just so we can close up the building at
some point.
Mr. Tovey, you've been very cooperative, you and the Tribe
working with us.
STATEMENT OF BILL TOVEY, CONFEDERATE TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA
INDIAN RESERVATION, PENDLETON, OR
Mr. Tovey. Thank you, Mr. Senator, and good afternoon. My
name is Bill Tovey. I'm the economic development director for
the Umatilla Tribes of Northwest Oregon. I've been working with
John and Tom for these last 3 years on this economic
development initiative.
On behalf of the great tribes of the Pacific Northwest, the
Umatilla Tribe is one of those 14 tribes that is working with
the four States within that region. The Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians have approved a resolution supporting this
effort. However, there is one issue, there's a condition. The
Tribes are really interested in supporting it, but they don't
want restrictions lifted on timber cutting, those types of
things. It's sometimes amazing that the Tribe is involved in
timber cutting, grazing, agriculture, mining operations. And we
are affected by Federal policies.
One example is the Warm Springs Tribe which revenues
dropped from $26 million annually to $4 million. Similar to the
effects of county governments and timber receipts they receive
from the Forest Service. One major issue is over the last 15
years over half of the mills within this four-State region have
closed. That's over 110 mills. Even within our county, Umatilla
County, we've had two, both in Hepner and Pilot Rock that have
drastically reduced, been drastically downsized or closed.
Some of the key elements of the initiative is the Federal,
State and tribal local teamwork. The support of the four
Governors, the support of Affiliated Tribes of Northwest
Indians, which encompasses 14 tribes. It's a group of 54 tribes
in a four-State region.
I think we've done a pretty good approach which will follow
the Westside Adjustment Strategy. What that requires is
significant financial support both from staffing as well as
money. I believe the States and the tribes must be key and
equal participants in that. I think there's still within
project development within a regional coordinated body we need
to develop that.
Currently through economic development administration we've
got an application in to them to fund a position that would
help out local communities, tribes and county governments.
Valuation and feedback. I think benchmarking is very
important. The tribes are working hard to develop their own
benchmarks. A lot of benchmarks that have been created are
Federal or through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes are
wanting to develop their own benchmarks and to have access to
those similar to the census that's been done 2 years ago.
Finally the information is coming out. We want that now so we
can move forward from there. Information on employment, income,
education, landownership are very important.
A few things that the tribes and States can do to implement
this strategy is to create a regional hub, provide assistance
with economic development administration on their planning
grants that will help projects come to fruition rather than
decide we want to do a project to develop time lines and
financing options, work with different agencies that we need
to.
Pretty much--I know my 5 minutes is getting pretty close,
but I think our goal has been to obtain Federal fiscal year
2003 moneys. I think the time is now. I hope we can move
forward to make that happen. This concludes my testimony, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you.
Senator Wyden. Very good, Mr. Tovey, and thank you for all
the work you do for the tribes. Mr. Jeffrey, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARK L. JEFFREY, SUPERINTENDENT, PAISLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT NUMBER 11, PAISLEY, OR
Mr. Jeffrey. I think I can stay within my 5 minutes if
you'll allow me to read my comments as opposed to rambling on?
Senator Wyden. Whatever works.
Mr. Jeffrey. Thank you very much. My name is Mark Jeffrey.
I am the superintendent/principal of Paisley School District
Number 11. Our district serves the communities of Summer Lake
and Paisley, Oregon. We have a combined population of about 350
people. We are an isolated, rural community located about 3
hours southeast of Bend, Oregon, and approximately 50 miles to
the next nearest school district either north or south. We have
an average enrollment of 100 students in kindergarten through
twelfth grade. We run an international dormitory housing 18
foreign exchange students and four American students. This
arrangement allows us to support our enrollment and provides an
opportunity for our students and community to gain exposure to
a wider world view. We have a nationally ranked FFA program, a
zero percent drop-out rate, and have been rated as an
``Exceptional School'' by the State of Oregon for the last 2
years.
I wanted to speak today on the importance of our local
Federal agency to our local school district and our
communities. The Forest Service office in Paisley is vital to
the health and survival of our community. The economic
structure of our community is dependent on three major
employers. The best analogy for this is to picture a three-
legged stool. These legs are the Forest Service, the school
district and the ZX Ranch, which is a division of Simplot
Corporation. Instability in any one of these legs will have a
negative impact on the whole. Each leg is inseparably connected
and necessary to the continued existence of the communities of
Paisley and Summer Lake. While there will always be locally
owned and operated ranches in the area, the quality of life
would be diminished with the loss of any one of these three.
The Forest Service brings much to the communities that make
up our school district. They have partnered with other groups
and individuals in numerous community service projects, most
recently the purchase and installation of new playground
equipment at the school. They bring people into our community
with a range of skills, broader contacts, new and different
perspectives and access to programs that would not be available
without them. All of this expands the community capacity,
enriching and improving the general quality of life.
The essential and interconnected relationship between the
Forest Service and our two communities is not unique. I'm
certain that there are a multitude of other small towns and
small school districts that share this vital relationship. Many
of our predominantly rural counties share the benefits of these
relationships. In Lake County, where our school district is
located, Federal agencies are an essential part of the economic
health of the cities of Lakeview, served by Lake County School
District, and Silver Lake, served by the North Lake School
District.
The quality of life in any community is tied to its
economic health. Federal agencies by their presence and their
function play a key role in determining the quality of this
economic health. Decisions on staffing, local hiring, timber
cutting, access to public lands and a myriad of other decisions
both big and small have a significant impact an our quality of
life. We are fortunate that our local Forest Service office is
staffed by personnel who understand their role and importance
in the life of our communities. Our local ranger, Bill Aney, is
an excellent example of this. His support of our school and our
community and his active involvement serves as an example of
how Federal agencies and our communities can work together.
The obvious and vital connection Federal agencies have to
the communities in which they are located make it essential to
consider the economic needs and health of those communities in
the decision making process at both the local and national
level. It would be very easy for a single decision made without
such consideration to have a significant enough impact to
damage a school district or kill a small community. I would
encourage your thoughtful consideration in any and all future
decisions.
The relatively stable nature of Federal funding, at least
as compared to State funding, is now more important for our
community than ever. Our district is in serious peril due to
State funding shortfalls and negative financial adjustments
related to long-term inadequate funding and the current
condition of our State economy. With the recent failure of a
legislative plan to cover some of the shortfall, Paisley School
District faces the very real possibility of closure. We are
left waiting the outcome of a special session and the
importance of which for us could be life or death. The
instability of the district leg increases the importance of a
consistent Federal agency presence in our communities. The
assurance that community needs will be considered in decisions
relating to that agency are essential to assist in providing
some form of stability in these uncertain times.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to come. I feel I'm
a bit of an anomaly in that I don't speak for a large group,
but I do speak for a hundred wonderful children and about 350
excellent citizens. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. I'll just tell you on my watch, Mr. Jeffrey,
you're only a small town but a big voice.
Mr. Jeffrey. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Most of the towns in Oregon have under 5,000
people. It's really striking. That's where our State is. So
your voice is particularly important. I'm glad you're here.
Mr. Jeffrey. I appreciate that.
Senator Wyden. Just a few questions. John, first for you.
As you can tell from the previous panel, I intend to stay very
close in attempting to look at the activities in Region 6 with
respect to forestry, because I think we've got to have some
changes there so we can address these concerns we're hearing
about in terms of economics and restoration work and the
various issues that came up earlier.
If you could wave your wand and just divine, you know, the
changes you would want in Region 6 to be responsive to what
folks are talking about in Union County, what would they be?
Mr. Howard. I think it would be on the budget. I think I
have a concern about the up years of 2 to the next 5 years in
the budget for the Forest Service. In our Community Forestry
Board, we're really ramping up some major projects, and about
the time we get ramped up, I have a big fear we're going to
have a downturn on the funding and we're going to be going down
rather than continuing on the path of working together on these
projects that we've been working together on. So I think that's
a big one.
The other one is having an advocate for stewardship for our
forests. I really think that's the key for restoration work.
Where, you know, you can get a contractor for 3 years, you can
hire out the employment and do restoration work throughout the
year. That's not seasonal employment; that's year-round
employment. And I think that's where we need to be at.
Senator Wyden. Tom, in terms of getting the money, Federal
funds, Northwest Economic Assistance Funds, what would be your
priorities if you get the dollars?
Mr. Brumm. Well, I think the first priority and what was
identified in the forums we had is that most of the communities
in the four States are very small and they need more help in
building capacity to really determine what they do want. That
money could either go through the Economic Development
Administration or through the States themselves.
There's a huge need for infrastructure. That is very
expensive and I don't know whether you could pull that off in
one appropriation cycle. But I did note that the farm bill
provided some new authorities for the U.S.D.A. rule, and there
might be some way to focus some of those funds to our part of
the country.
The other areas are probably more general. Business
development, working with the Forest Service and the BLM to
help do community forestry type projects. There's certainly
some good examples in this region, such as the project at the
Blue Mountain Demo, the projects that Wallowa Resources is
involved with. Those could and should be expanded throughout
the region, but I don't think the Forest Service probably has
enough funds to do those or BLM, and also frequently they don't
also have the right leadership to focus on that community
forestry.
Also to just kind of jump in on John's answer on Region 6,
I think one of the things you want in a regional forester is
someone who's really committed to working with communities.
That has not always been true of the regional forester. I think
our current one is better than the two previous foresters in
working with communities, but I think that's a very, very high
priority because if they're not committed to working with
communities, it really makes it difficult for these communities
like Paisley to partner with the Forest Service.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Tovey, in terms of the tribes' efforts
to work with the Western States as we have tried to distribute
the money, the Umatilla Tribe, I think, is recognized as one
that has consistently good relations with all the surrounding
governmental bodies. Are there additional ways for the tribes
to participate with the Western States to ensure that the
tribes get a fair shake in terms of distribution and that we
practice good government and have some sound criteria for
dealing with that.
Mr. Tovey. Yes. I think the main one is working with the
four States and being involved with them in the technical
assistance and how the funding is distributed out to the local
governments and to tribes. I believe continued support of
Economic Development Administration and a lot of--the past
administration was pushing a lot of that toward more glitzy
urban type funding rather than the rural communities, and just
deal with the regional base type funding.
I think another area with the Affiliated Tribes, their
Economic Development Corporation, currently they do a lot of
technical assistance with tribes in energy development, towards
telecommunications, and I think those are very important in
rural communities both for tribal and non-tribal is getting
hooked into the telecommunications and energy as well as bio,
which we have been working on as well.
Senator Wyden. Yes. Mr. Jeffrey, on the secure rural
schools and money, first, so that people understand the math on
this, Oregon is going to get $260 million or thereabouts each
year over the next six. What's in question is the $30 million
or thereabouts that's supposed to go to rural schools and
because of our school fund it goes into kind of a pot. And I'm
curious whether you're having any discussions, the school
districts among themselves, the rural school districts, about
how this might be dealt with come January with the new Governor
and new legislature? And I want to make sure that money goes
where it's intended to go.
Mr. Jeffrey. Well, we wish it would have too. The impact of
your dollars on our district would have been much greater. We
estimated that even in our little district we would have
received about $86,000, which in times like these would have
been--could be life saving. As it was the way it was
redistributed through the equalization formula, we received
about $23 per ABMW or per weighted student numbers. A
significant loss to our district.
So the districts who have never cut a tree or seen their
forest receipts restrained are receiving the benefit of that
money. It's a great frustration. As far as what to do, I don't
think that at least as far as I'm involved there's been much
discussion on a solution. One of the common things we hear is
that that was a battle that was fought and lost. I'd like to
see it fought again and come out to our benefit.
I think one of the things that was most frustrating is that
those districts who argued against it going to where it was
intended was one of equity, and yet what they failed to discuss
was that they had access to donations through patrons that
aren't equalized: Intel, Hewlett Packard, the city of Portland,
places like that. There was a Portland elementary, I think,
that just this year received $600,000 in donations.
Schools like Paisley have no patrons that we can rely on to
that extent. We have started a fund-raising effort in our
community looking at attempting to raise $100,000 just to keep
our building, our school, open. To date we've raised about
$20,000, but that's being done through our contacts, through
our alumni and our community members, who again have seen their
income earning ability decreased over these years. So anything
you can do on our behalf.
The Wyden money is spoken of fondly in our districts, at
least in its attempt, not necessarily the outcome, because it
would have made a great deal of difference. If our State
legislature doesn't act on our behalf, at least on behalf of
small districts, I estimate in the next 3 years we will see
significant district closures in schools with under 300
students, because they're no longer economically viable and
most of them are located in communities that are suffering due
to significant downturns. And it'll be a very different
landscape if it continues.
Senator Wyden. I want people to know that 90 percent of
this money is going where it was intended to go, which is to
rural communities. And what is at issue is the education side,
which has been so critical. The metropolitan area is huge of
course to yours and others. You go back and tell that fellow
who said the battle was fought and you lost, he hasn't bumped
up against me.
Mr. Jeffrey. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to stay at this until we get that
money where it was intended to go. I take a back seat to nobody
in terms of fighting for education in metropolitan areas. I did
that as a House member and I'm doing that in conjunction with
Senator Smith now serving Oregon in the Senate. This money was
intended to go to the rural communities period. That's what the
legislation is about. It says supplement, not serve as
substitution for existing funds. It's to supplement them.
So anybody who thinks this battle is over and operating
under that premise ought to be ready for the next round.
Mr. Jeffrey. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Well, I thank you all. We've been at it, I
guess, close to 4 hours at this point. This has been a very,
very good three important subjects on Steens, on forest health
and economic issues. To all of you who have been so patient in
the audience, we'll hold the record open for additional
submissions for 1 week so that those who would like to add
their views and were unable to participate today will have a
chance to add their views to the subcommittee, the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. And with that the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]