Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120358426
label
[Forest Management Crisis-Habitat Conservation Solutions] [Loose]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120358426
contentType
document
title
[Forest Management Crisis-Habitat Conservation Solutions] [Loose]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120358426
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-014-003-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
365b18e0c32ea225
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
17806
FolderID:
Folder Title:
[Forest Management Crisis - Habitat Conservation Solutions] [Loose]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
4
2
NORM DICKS
INCLUSION OF NON-FEDERAL (PRIVATE AND STATE) LANDS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S NW FOREST STRATEGY
The federal government is already engaged in de facto,
stringent regulation of private and state lands to protect the
northern spotted owl. Yet, the government's principal scientific
studies and owl management strategies (ISC, "Gang of Four," and
SAT) do not assume, and choose not to recognize, the non-federal
lands' contribution to owl protection. At the same time, as the
stringent regulation of the non-federal lands by the government
has removed massive acreages from the timber base, their owners
are rapidly running out of harvesting options and will not be able
to maintain present levels of timber supply. Well designed
inclusion of these non-federal lands in the NW Forest Strategy
would have multiple advantages; it would provide regulatory relief
and greater certainty to, and assure continued production from,
private landowners and the states, and accord more flexibility to
the federal land management agencies.
Background
1. Private lands are required by both federal and state
regulators to provide protection for the northern spotted owl and
other species.
Fish And Wildlife Service (FWS) And National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regulate Through S 9 Of The
Endangered Species Act (ESA) -- All persons --
including non-federal landowners -- are required to
adhere to the "take" and other prohibitions of ESA S 9
or suffer civil and criminal sanctions. The FWS and
NMFS enforce these requirements. For example, the FWS's
"voluntary" 1990 Owl Guidelines impose large buffer
zones around owl nests and activity sites on private and
state land (circles of up to 2.2 mile radii) and
threaten prosecution for any deviation. Although the
Guidelines were purportedly rescinded to moot a lawsuit
in 1991 and smaller owl circles (500 acres) were adopted
as a matter of enforcement discretion in 1992, the FWS
continues to apply the Guidelines' larger buffer zones
as "the best science."
States Regulate Through Forest Practices Acts -- State
forest practices acts impose constraints on the methods
and locations of timber harvesting on non-federal lands
that benefit spotted owl habitat.
2. The federal owl management strategies' failure to
recognize and "credit" the contribution of non-federal forest
lands to owl protection and their demand that full owl protection
be supplied solely by federal lands impose unnecessarily
- 1 -
burdensome constraints on timber harvesting on both non-federal
and federal lands and undermine the concept of ecosystem
management.
3. The NW Forest Strategy could resolve this situation by
providing for modest but explicit reliance on non-federal lands to
assist in the effort to protect the owl. 1/ Reasonable geographic
limitations and refinements of the "take" concept should be
included.
Recommendations
A.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Several administrative steps could be taken to incorporate
non-federal lands in the NW Forest Strategy:
1. General Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
The FWS (and, perhaps, NMFS) should prepare a general or
model HCP and offer to issue "incidental take" permits to all non-
federal landowners who voluntarily agree to comply with it.
If the model HCP were less restrictive (geographically
and in application of the "take" prohibition) than the
Guidelines and, like the Guidelines, included differing
requirements based on varying regional conditions, a
significant number of private landowners would likely
sign. Small landowners could sign without the expense
or time of preparing and negotiating their own HCPs.
Large landowners who have greater flexibility with a
larger land base could negotiate specific provisions
tailored to their circumstances. All landowners who
sign up would gain regulatory certainty, immunity from
the "rescinded" Guidelines' severe strictures and
threatened sanctions, and a more reasonable approach to
owl protection. It may be possible to encourage one
major landowner to serve as the "guinea pig," if you
will, and work with the FWS and NMFS in the development
of the model HCP.
Although preparation of and subscription to a model HCP
would take time (1 to 11 years), assumptions about
participation in such a program (with a safeguard of an
automatic "opener" or policy change for federal lands if
these assumptions about the degree of non-federal land
1/
It must be emphasized that this recommendation should in no
way be read as an acceptance of the FWS's highly expansive
reading of ESA authority over private landowners, or serve as
an invitation to validate the rescinded Guidelines or engage
in similar overregulation of non-federal lands.
- 2 -
protection are not met by a date certain) could be built
into the NW Forest Strategy.
2.
Interim Protection
Non-federal landowners likely will insist on some
measure of protection from ESA enforcement during the model HCP
preparation and sign-up process and will not subscribe to
continued de facto application of the rescinded Guidelines.
Likewise those preparing the NW Forest Strategy will also require
some level of guaranteed owl protection during this interim
period.
There are three options for this interim protection.
All three options would require clarification and relaxation of
the "take" prohibition of ESA S 9 to cover only activities where
evidence of current physical injury is present. This action is
particularly appropriate for the northern spotted owl given its
relatively large population 2/ and the primary focus on federal lands
for its protection.
The three options are:
Interim HCP. The FWS and NMFS would issue an "interim
HCP" similar to that issued by the FWS to apply to the
desert tortoise near Las Vegas while a full HCP on the
species was being prepared. The interim HCP would
sunset at the end of the sign-up period for the model
HCP.
Special rule. Alternatively, the agencies could
promulgate a special rule under ESA § 4 (d) 3/ Although
not voluntary like a model HCP, the special rule could
2/
Although the FWS's own rules defining "take" refer to habitat
modification that "actually kills or injures" a listed
species, and two courts in the last year have ruled that
"take" requires actual injury or death, the FWS's
"rescinded," but still used 1990 Owl Guidelines threaten
"take" prosecutions for any habitat modification within the
owl circles without evidence of any current physical injury.
3/
ESA $ 9 applies the "take" and other statutory prohibitions
only to endangered species; ESA S 4 (d), however, permits
application of these prohibitions, in whole or part, to
threatened species by rulemaking. In a blanket rulemaking
(50 C.F.R. $ 17.31(a)), the FWS applied ESA's prohibitions to
all threatened species, but provided that, for any specific
species, the agency could remove or tailor the prohibitions
by promulgating a special rule. The northern spotted owl,
the marbled murrelet, and a number of the salmon stocks are
all listed as "threatened" and, therefore, could be addressed
in such a special rule.
- 3 -
be made attractive to landowners if it includes
restrictions less severe than the Guidelines, and also
sunsets at the conclusion of the sign-up period for the
model HCP.
Voluntary Consultation. Instead of or in addition to
promulgating a special rule or issuing an interim HCP,
the FWS could offer to engage in a voluntary
"consultation" process with non-federal landowners. FWS
could model this 90-day review of non-federal activities
on its ESA S 7 process for consulting on federal agency
actions. Without a change in the statute, this
voluntary consultation process would not be as
advantageous to private landowners as the ESA $ 7
consultation process is to federal agencies, 4/ but would
still be an improvement.
3.
Eliminate Enforcement Threats Against States
The NW Forest Strategy and ESA should reject the FWS's
current practice of threatening prosecution of state regulatory
agencies which issue state forest practices permits in full
compliance with state law. Applying the "rescinded" Guidelines,
the FWS has threatened each of the three states containing spotted
owls with prosecution. This is unsupported in law and unnecessary
to ensure compliance with the ESA. 5/ A rejection of this practice
would relieve state agencies of the threat of criminal prosecution
for following state law, facilitate issuance of necessary state
permits, and make it easier for private timber to be timely
supplied to the mills, but would not affect the FWS's ability to
take ESA enforcement action against unlawful conduct (violation of
the "take" prohibition) on non-federal lands.
B.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
To make the NW Forest Strategy for non-federal lands work
several legislative steps should be taken:
4/
Non-federal landowners' activities would have to be reviewed
under the more stringent "take" any member of the species
standard rather than the "jeopardize the continued existence"
of the entire species standard applicable to federal agency
actions. And the landowners would not receive the immunizing
"incidental take" statements to which federal agencies are
entitled at the end of a successful consultation.
5/
In 1992, the Supreme Court held that the federal government
has no authority to compel states to regulate private
citizens, particularly where, like here, the federal
government interest is sufficient for it to directly regulate
the conduct. New York V. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408,
2429 (1992).
- 4 -
1.
All Species Covered
Legislation must be passed that would allow the model
HCP to cover all species within the same ecosystem that are listed
after, as well as before, its preparation. This would mean the NW
Forest Strategy would not be invalidated each time a new species
is listed. Representative Studds proposed a similar concept in
his ESA reauthorization bill last Congress. We expect the same
concept to be featured in both Mr. Studds' and Senator Baucus'
bills to be introduced this week or next.
2.
Elimination Of Redundant ESA Steps
Although species' listings should continue where
warranted, further management planning under the ESA should be
deferred in favor of the model HCP (and its counterpart federal
lands strategy). Therefore, the legislation should excuse the FWS
and NMFS from the requirements of writing recovery plans and
undertakings consultations for species covered by the model HCP
(and its counterpart federal lands strategy).
3.
Focussing Judicial Review
If the model HCP strategy is to work and non-federal
lands are to contribute to the Northwest timber supply, the
legislation must provide reasonable protections against
injunctions without foreclosing access to the courts entirely
(e.g., limit citizen suits, bar preliminary injunctions against
the model HCP or actions consistent with it (allowing non-federal
lands activities to continue and avoiding paralysis while the
legal validity of the model HCP is determined), etc.).
- 5 -
INCLUSION OF NON-FEDERAL (PRIVATE AND STATE) LANDS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S NW FOREST STRATEGY
The federal government is already engaged in de facto,
stringent regulation of private and state lands to protect the
northern spotted owl. Yet, the government's principal scientific
studies and owl management strategies (ISC, "Gang of Four," and
SAT) do not assume, and choose not to recognize, the non-federal
lands' contribution to owl protection. At the same time, as the
stringent regulation of the non-federal lands by the government
has removed massive acreages from the timber base, their owners
are rapidly running out of harvesting options and will not be able
to maintain present levels of timber supply. Well designed
inclusion of these non-federal lands in the NW Forest Strategy
would have multiple advantages; it would provide regulatory relief
and greater certainty to, and assure continued production from,
private landowners and the states, and accord more flexibility to
the federal land management agencies.
Background
1. Private lands are required by both federal and state
regulators to provide protection for the northern spotted owl and
other species.
Fish And Wildlife Service (FWS) And National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regulate Through S 9 Of The
Endangered Species Act (ESA) -- All persons --
including non-federal landowners -- are required to
adhere to the "take" and other prohibitions of ESA S 9
or suffer civil and criminal sanctions. The FWS and
NMFS enforce these requirements. For example, the FWS's
"voluntary" 1990 Owl Guidelines impose large buffer
zones around owl nests and activity sites on private and
state land (circles of up to 2.2 mile radii) and
threaten prosecution for any deviation. Although the
Guidelines were purportedly rescinded to moot a lawsuit
in 1991 and smaller owl circles (500 acres) were adopted
as a matter of enforcement discretion in 1992, the FWS
continues to apply the Guidelines' larger buffer zones
as "the best science."
States Regulate Through Forest Practices Acts -- State
forest practices acts impose constraints on the methods
and locations of timber harvesting on non-federal lands
that benefit spotted owl habitat.
2. The federal owl management strategies' failure to
recognize and "credit" the contribution of non-federal forest
lands to owl protection and their demand that full owl protection
be supplied solely by federal lands impose unnecessarily
- 1 -
burdensome constraints on timber harvesting on both non-federal
and federal lands and undermine the concept of ecosystem
management.
3. The NW Forest Strategy could resolve this situation by
providing for modest but explicit reliance on non-federal lands to
assist in the effort to protect the owl. 1/ Reasonable geographic
limitations and refinements of the "take" concept should be
included.
Recommendations
A.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Several administrative steps could be taken to incorporate
non-federal lands in the NW Forest Strategy:
1. General Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
The FWS (and, perhaps, NMFS) should prepare a general or
model HCP and offer to issue "incidental take" permits to all non-
federal landowners who voluntarily agree to comply with it.
If the model HCP were less restrictive (geographically
and in application of the "take" prohibition) than the
Guidelines and, like the Guidelines, included differing
requirements based on varying regional conditions, a
significant number of private landowners would likely
sign. Small landowners could sign without the expense
or time of preparing and negotiating their own HCPs.
Large landowners who have greater flexibility with a
larger land base could negotiate specific provisions
tailored to their circumstances. All landowners who
sign up would gain regulatory certainty, immunity from
the "rescinded" Guidelines' severe strictures and
threatened sanctions, and a more reasonable approach to
owl protection. It may be possible to encourage one
major landowner to serve as the "guinea pig," if you
will, and work with the FWS and NMFS in the development
of the model HCP.
Although preparation of and subscription to a model HCP
would take time (1 to 11 years), assumptions about
participation in such a program (with a safeguard of an
automatic "opener" or policy change for federal lands if
these assumptions about the degree of non-federal land
1/
It must be emphasized that this recommendation should in no
way be read as an acceptance of the FWS's highly expansive
reading of ESA authority over private landowners, or serve as
an invitation to validate the rescinded Guidelines or engage
in similar overregulation of non-federal lands.
- 2 -
protection are not met by a date certain) could be built
into the NW Forest Strategy.
2.
Interim Protection
Non-federal landowners likely will insist on some
measure of protection from ESA enforcement during the model HCP
preparation and sign-up process and will not subscribe to
continued de facto application of the rescinded Guidelines.
Likewise those preparing the NW Forest Strategy will also require
some level of guaranteed owl protection during this interim
period.
There are three options for this interim protection.
All three options would require clarification and relaxation of
the "take" prohibition of ESA S 9 to cover only activities where
evidence of current physical injury is present. This action is
particularly appropriate for the northern spotted owl given its
relatively large population and the primary focus on federal lands
for its protection. 2/
The three options are:
Interim HCP. The FWS and NMFS would issue an "interim
HCP" similar to that issued by the FWS to apply to the
desert tortoise near Las Vegas while a full HCP on the
species was being prepared. The interim HCP would
sunset at the end of the sign-up period for the model
HCP.
Special rule. Alternatively, the agencies could
promulgate a special rule under ESA § 4 (d) 3/ Although
not voluntary like a model HCP, the special rule could
2/
Although the FWS's own rules defining "take" refer to habitat
modification that "actually kills or injures" a listed
species, and two courts in the last year have ruled that
"take" requires actual injury or death, the FWS's
"rescinded," but still used 1990 Owl Guidelines threaten
"take" prosecutions for any habitat modification within the
owl circles without evidence of any current physical injury.
3/
ESA S 9 applies the "take" and other statutory prohibitions
only to endangered species; ESA § 4(d), however, permits
application of these prohibitions, in whole or part, to
threatened species by rulemaking. In a blanket rulemaking
(50 C.F.R. $ 17.31(a)), the FWS applied ESA's prohibitions to
all threatened species, but provided that, for any specific
species, the agency could remove or tailor the prohibitions
by promulgating a special rule. The northern spotted owl,
the marbled murrelet, and a number of the salmon stocks are
all listed as "threatened" and, therefore, could be addressed
in such a special rule.
- 3 -
be made attractive to landowners if it includes
restrictions less severe than the Guidelines, and also
sunsets at the conclusion of the sign-up period for the
model HCP.
Voluntary Consultation. Instead of or in addition to
promulgating a special rule or issuing an interim HCP,
the FWS could offer to engage in a voluntary
"consultation" process with non-federal landowners. FWS
could model this 90-day review of non-federal activities
on its ESA S 7 process for consulting on federal agency
actions. Without a change in the statute, this
voluntary consultation process would not be as
advantageous to private landowners as the ESA S 7
consultation process is to federal agencies, 4/ but would
still be an improvement.
3. Eliminate Enforcement Threats Against States
The NW Forest Strategy and ESA should reject the FWS's
current practice of threatening prosecution of state regulatory
agencies which issue state forest practices permits in full
compliance with state law. Applying the "rescinded" Guidelines,
the FWS has threatened each of the three states containing spotted
owls with prosecution. This is unsupported in law and unnecessary
to ensure compliance with the ESA. 5/ A rejection of this practice
would relieve state agencies of the threat of criminal prosecution
for following state law, facilitate issuance of necessary state
permits, and make it easier for private timber to be timely
supplied to the mills, but would not affect the FWS's ability to
take ESA enforcement action against unlawful conduct (violation of
the "take" prohibition) on non-federal lands.
B.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
To make the NW Forest Strategy for non-federal lands work
several legislative steps should be taken:
4/
Non-federal landowners' activities would have to be reviewed
under the more stringent "take" any member of the species
standard rather than the "jeopardize the continued existence"
of the entire species standard applicable to federal agency
actions. And the landowners would not receive the immunizing
"incidental take" statements to which federal agencies are
entitled at the end of a successful consultation.
5/
In 1992, the Supreme Court held that the federal government
has no authority to compel states to regulate private
citizens, particularly where, like here, the federal
government interest is sufficient for it to directly regulate
the conduct. New York V. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408,
2429 (1992).
- 4 -
1.
All Species Covered
Legislation must be passed that would allow the model
HCP to cover all species within the same ecosystem that are listed
after, as well as before, its preparation. This would mean the NW
Forest Strategy would not be invalidated each time a new species
is listed. Representative Studds proposed a similar concept in
his ESA reauthorization bill last Congress. We expect the same
concept to be featured in both Mr. Studds' and Senator Baucus'
bills to be introduced this week or next.
2. Elimination Of Redundant ESA Steps
Although species' listings should continue where
warranted, further management planning under the ESA should be
deferred in favor of the model HCP (and its counterpart federal
lands strategy). Therefore, the legislation should excuse the FWS
and NMFS from the requirements of writing recovery plans and
undertakings consultations for species covered by the model HCP
(and its counterpart federal lands strategy).
3. Focussing Judicial Review
If the model HCP strategy is to work and non-federal
lands are to contribute to the Northwest timber supply, the
legislation must provide reasonable protections against
injunctions without foreclosing access to the courts entirely
(e.g., limit citizen suits, bar preliminary injunctions against
the model HCP or actions consistent with it (allowing non-federal
lands activities to continue and avoiding paralysis while the
legal validity of the model HCP is determined), etc.).
- 5 -
1
1 INDUSTRY
LABOR-MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
April 30, 1993
United Brotherhood
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
of Carpenters and
Joiners of America
Office of Environmental Policy
The White House
Western Council of
Washington, D.C. 20500
Industrial Workers
International
Dear Katie:
Woodworkers
of America, U.S.
In some of our previous conversations, you asked us for some
information and analysis of the relationship of existing sawmill, plywood
American Forest
Resource Alliance
and pulp and mill capacity and federal timber supply in the Northwest. We
are pleased to provide this information since any resolution to the timber
National Forest
supply gridlock affecting northwest forest lands will clearly have economic
Products Association
impacts which must be accurately assessed, understood, and accounted for.
Attached is an analysis of alternative fiber supply scenarios from forest
lands in western Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and northern
California. We chose this geographic area because of the interrelated fiber
supply dynamics that occur in this area that affects all components of our
integrated industry. This includes the flow of chips and other residual
products as well as logs. As you can see from this analysis, a timber sale
level of 8.2 billion board feet per year from federal forest lands in these
five states would be necessary to maintain the forest products industry as it
exists today.
Please understand that it is not our intent to expand the scope of
the work your team is doing beyond the federal lands currently affected by
court ordered injunctions regarding the northern spotted owl. However,
the outcome of the post-Forest Conference resolution process that will
resolve the gridlock on lands affected by the spotted owl will have
implications and consequences for all of the firms located in this five state
area. Thus, the enclosed analysis provides an economic benchmark from
which it is possible to measure the economic and social consequences of
various alternative solutions.
As you will see, nearly 40,000 direct jobs are in jeopardy if the
current gridlock is not broken. Approximately twice as many indirect
service and trade jobs could be eliminated bringing the total to almost
120,000 jobs. This would be an economic catastrophe that simply doesn't
have to happen. We know you will examine every possible legislative and
administrative option to prevent such an outcome. However, it is
important to be mindful of the current employment situation in our
industry in order to measure and comprehend the magnitude of the job loss
that will occur under different alternatives.
P.O. Box 33246
Washington, D.C.
20033-0246
Obviously, a federal timber sale level of 8.2 billion board feet annually in this five
state region would avoid any job losses and allow this region's industry to contribute to
the nation's forest product demands as it has in the past. Equally obvious is that
alternatives that produce less timber will clearly have economic consequences, including
job losses, that must be mitigated to the extent possible. During most of the 1980's,
federal forest lands in this region did, in fact, produce 8.2 billion feet of timber per year.
Under the management plans in place at that time, the prescriptions described in those
plans and the assumptions inherent in those plans, 8.2 billion feet was a sustainable
timber sale level. However, we appreciate that many changes have occurred since the
mid 1980's. The degree to which we as a society move forward to break the current
gridlock and codify these changes into long-term policy will determine the magnitude of
economic disruption and job losses that will occur and must be addressed by mitigation
measures.
We hope you will find this information useful in analyzing the various alternatives
under consideration. Should you wish to meet to discuss any aspect of this economic
model in further detail, we would be delighted to meet with you.
Sincerely,
Mark Marl-Ry Rey
Dany Scott
Denny Scott
American Forest & Paper Association
United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America
2
Solving the Northwest Timber Supply Crisis
In attempting to end the timber supply crisis that has been precipitated by efforts to
protect the Northern Spotted Owl, it is essential to understand that the forest products
industry in the Northwest depends on wood fiber from public and private forests -- not
only from the "owl forests" in western Washington, western Oregon, and northern
California -- but from forests in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and parts of Idaho
and Montana as well. This Northwest "wood basket" supplies logs to regional producers
of wood products, who in turn supply wood residues, such as chips, to regional producers
of pulp and paper (see attached table).
Using a broadscale Timber Assessment Market Model similar to that utilized by the
Forest Service, a group of analysts led by Boise Cascade Corporation looked at the
implications of restricting timber supply from federal lands in this region. For the forest
products industry in the Northwest to approximate even today's depressed levels of
production and employment (first column) on a sustainable basis (far-right column),
federal forests in these five states must be the source of 8.2 billion board feet of timber
annually.
If federal forests in the Northwest wood basket fail to be the source of 8.2 billion board
feet of timber on an ongoing basis and the harvest on private forests returns to a
sustainable level from its present price-induced high (first column), then production of
wood products and pulp and paper will have to be curtailed to balance the region's
manufacturing capacity, with its diminished supply of wood and fiber. Production
declines of up to 47 percent for lumber, 25 percent for plywood, and 36 percent for pulp
and paper can be expected.
The only alternative to shutting down the production of wood products and pulp and
paper to compensate for the shortfall in federal timber would be to accelerate harvest of
the region's private forests.
Either action is undesirable. In the first instance, up to 39,000 people now working in
wood products plants and pulp and paper mills would lose their jobs, entire communities
would be devastated, and high prices for lumber and plywood would slow the
construction of affordable housing and restrain the nation's economic recovery.
In the second instance, it would be simply a matter of time before private forest harvests
could not be sustained and production of wood products and pulp and paper would
plummet to compensate for the shortfall of not only federal timber but private timber as
well. The economic and environmental impact would be catastrophic.
NORTHWEST WOOD BASKET
OREGON, WASHINGTON, IDAHO, WESTERN MONTANA, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
(PNW Chip Supply Area)
SITUATION
CURRENT
Federal Cut
Federal Cut
BASED ON
SITUATION
of 3.9 BBF
Required
AVERAGE OF
( based on 1992
AND
for jobs
1983-87
federal cut of 3.9 BBF)
Reduced Private
8.2 BBF
All data from public sources or calculated from listed assumptions.
Sources for logs (BBF Scribner scale - net merch. softwood)
All Federal
8.2
3.9
3.9
8.2
State and Other Public
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
Total Public
9.6
4.6
4.6
8.9
Private (including nonindustrial)
9.3
11.3
6.9 *
6.9
TOTAL Domestic Harvest
18.9
15.9
11.5
15.8
Log Imports
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
Log Exports
(2.9)
(2.2)
(2.2)
(2.2)
Total Logs Consumed in Pacific Northwest
16.1
13.8
9.3
13.6
Lumber Production (BBF)
18.5
16.6
8.9
16.6
Plywood Production (BSF)
10.3
7.4
5.6
7.4
Sources for chips (MMBDU'S)
Residual Softwood Chips (from Lumber & Plywood)
10.8
9.6
5.6
9.8
Sawdust & Hardwood Chips
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.2
Whole Log Chips and Other Wood Fiber
2.5
3.4
2.8
3.7
Chip Imports
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.8
Chip Exports
- Softwood
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.5)
- Hardwood
(0.4)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.8)
Total Wood Fiber Available for PNW Pulp/Paper
13.6
12.9
9.1
14.2
Wood Fiber Consumed by PNW Pulp/Paper
13.6
12.9
14.2
14.2
Shortfall of Wood Fiber for PNW Pulp/Paper
0.0
0.0
5.1
0.0
Direct jobs lost at 8750 per billion board feet log scale:
38,846
The private harvest levels are assumed to be reduced by additional regulations.
Assumptions:
% of Domestic Logs used for Lmbr.
79%
84%
80%
84%
Lmbr Recovery (mbf)/ Log (mbf)
1.460
1.450
1.200
1.470
Plywd Recovery (msf)/ Log (mbf)
3.010
3.200
3.000
3.200
Sustainable Private Harvest (MMBF-net merch. conifer) is
6.90
6.90
Net Log Imports/Exports are
(2.8)
(2.2)
(2.2)
(2.2)
Net Chip Imports/Exports are
(1.1)
(1.9)
(1.5)
(1.5)
Change in Domestic Fiber Consumption from 1992 is
0.7
1.3
1.3
BDU's Chips/mbf Lumber is
0.45
0.47
0.50
0.50
BDU's Chips/msf Plywood is
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.20
MMBDU of Sawdust & Hwds Used for Pulp
1.35
1.30
2.20
2.20
Per Cent WTC of Total Domestic Harvest Consumed
6%
10%
10%
11%
Recycle Feasibility Test
MMBDU Chip incremental volume needed to replace WTC increase
0.0
0.0
5.1
0.0
1.6
Westem BDU's per ton of pulp - RISI Dec. 92
1.6
1.6
1.6
Million Tons of pulp needed to replace WTC increment
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
Recycled fiber yield
75%
75%
75%
75%
Million Tons of recycled fiber needed per year
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
Percent of Current Recycle Production @ 3.690 tons/year
0%
0%
115%
0%
Percent of 1995 Projected Recycle Production @ 5.690
0%
0%
75%
0%
Operating days per year
360
360
360
360
Tons per day needed
0
0
11,806
0
Average daily production per deink plant
250
250
250
250
Number of plants needed to replace WTC increment
0
0
35
0
Cost per deink plant (millions)
$70.00
$70.00
$70.00
$70.00
000 Investment for the PNW paper industry for fiber supply
$0
$0
$2,479
$0
t from page 80 footnote of Future Prospects for Western Washington Timber Supply, Oct. 1992 College of Forest Resources, University of Washington
Jack Shipley
Dwayne Cross
Danny Ford
Dick Barnes
MAY 1993
THE FOREST SUMMIT
CHART FS 1
THE FOREST SUMMIT
A FOLLOW UP PROGRAM
May 1993
MAY 1993
OUTLINE
CHART FS 2
FOREST SUMMIT
ISSUES
THEMES
ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVES RELATED TO THEMES
A PROGRAM
THE COMMUNITY PROJECT
FOREST AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDUSTRY
THE NORTHWEST
RESPONSIBILITIES : COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT
MAY 1993
FOREST SUMMIT
CHART FS 3
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
QUALITY IN THE FOREST ENVIRONMENT
JOBS IN FOREST-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES
CHANGE IN THE TIMBER SUPPLY
CHANGES IN THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
MAY 1993
FOREST SUMMIT
CHART FS 4
THEMES
DIRECTIONS
IMPLICATIONS
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
LESS TIMBER VOLUME
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
LOCAL MANAGEMENT
VALUE ADDED MANUFACTURING
-PLANT INVESTMENTS
TRAINING AND EDUCATION
IMPROVED SKILLS
ECONOMIC SUPPORT
RISK MANAGEMENT
MAY 1993
ADMINISTRATION
CHART FS 5
OBJECTIVES - THEMES
REINVENTING GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY PROJECT CONCEPT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY PROJECT STRUCTURE
GENERAL TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
ADDED VALUE AND MATERIAL HANDLING TECHNOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTALLY EFFICIENT MANUFACTURING
ADDED VALUE NO-WASTE MANUFACTURING
WORK OF NATIONS/NEXT FRONTIER THEMES
CHANGE FROM HIGH VOLUME TO HIGH VALUE INDUSTRY
JOB QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
ADDED VALUE MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING SKILLS
MAY 1993
THE COMMUNITY PROJECT
CHART FS 6
CONCEPT
FOREST MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ARE DIRECTLY RELATED
A FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE
MOST POWERFUL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOOL
AVAILABLE
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY PROJECTS OFFER A WAY TO COMBINE
FOREST MANAGEMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAY 1993
COMMUNITY RESOLUTION
CHART FS 7
OF THE ISSUES
FOREST MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR QUALITY FOREST
REVIEWED AND DEVELOPED AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL
ADAPTATION AND INNOVATION IN LOCAL INDUSTRY
VALUE ADDED MANUFACTURE AND IMPROVED JOBS
COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOREST INDUSTRIES BUSINESS PLAN AND INVESTMENTS
COLLABORATION AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL
"REINVENTION OF GOVERNMENT"
MAY 1993
COMMUNITY PROGRAM
CHART FS 8
CHECKLIST
"REINVENTING GOVERNMENT" THE TEN PRINCIPLES
1
COMPETITION
BETWEEN SERVICE PROVIDERS
2 * EMPOWER
COMMUNITY CONTROL
3
OUTCOMES
PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT
4 * MISSIONS
GOALS - NOT REGULATIONS AND RULES
5
CUSTOMERS
MARKETS NOT DEPENDENT "CLIENTS"
6
PREVENTION
STOP PROBLEMS RATHER THAN REPAIR
7 *
EARN MONEY
DON'T BUDGET AND SPEND BUT MAKE $
8
DECENTRALIZE
USE PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT
9
MARKET
USE FREE CHOICE NOT BUREAUCRACY
10* CATALYZE
PULL SECTORS AND INTERESTS TOGETHER
* EMPHASIS IN COMMUNITY PROJECTS
MAY 1993
THE CHALLENGE OF
CHART FS 9
THE SUMMIT
REVITALIZE THE FOREST-RELATED ECONOMY OF THE NORTHWEST
RAPIDLY INCORPORATE CHANGE TO HELP THE PEOPLE
DEVELOP A NEW-BASIS FOR THE LOCAL FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
DESIGN A PROGRAM TO MEET THE ABOVE OBJECTIVES
DEFINE A PROCESS TO CARRY OUT THE PROGRAM
MOBILIZE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAM
MOBILIZE SMALL BUSINESS RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAM
DEFINE AND COMMIT BUDGETS TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE
EXPRESS ADMINISTRATION POLICIES AS GUIDANCE AMD SUPPORT
COMMUNITY PROJECT
MAY 1993
PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
CHART FS 10
PLANNING AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT
FOR COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
DEVELOP OPERATING AND BUSINESS PLANS BASED UPON
WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF FOREST AND ITS PRODUCTS
FOREST CONTENT RELATED TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
RELATE TO NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
HARVESTING TECHNIQUES FOR THOSE PRODUCTS
CONVERSION AND VALUE MANUFACTURING METHODS
SKILLS BASE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LOCAL PROGRAM
BUSINESS PLAN TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM
MAY 1993
THE OPPORTUNITY
CHART FS 11
FOR INDUSTRY
ENVIRONMENTAL AND FOREST MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ARE CHANGING FOREST PRODUCT MARKETPLACE
TO ACCEPT HIGH VALUE PRODUCTS AT HIGH PRICES
ADDED VALUE MANUFACTURING ALLOWS
HIGHER MARGINS
BETTER JOBS
HIGHER REVENUES USING MUCH LESS MATERIAL
ADDED VALUE MANUFACTURING REQUIRES TECHNICAL INVESTMENT
BUT NATIONAL POLICY WILL SUPPORT THAT INVESTMENT
COMMUNITY WILL PROTECT THAT INVESTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT WILL SUPPORT INVESTMENT
MAY 1993
COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO
CHART FS 12
THE CHALLENGE
COMMUNITIES ORGANIZE PROJECTS WITHIN REGIONAL PROGRAM
USING PROTOTYPE PROJECTS (APPLEGATE) AS GUIDANCE
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTS
USING GENERIC PLAN FOR GUIDANCE
USING SUPPORT FROM UNIVERSITY EXTENSION PROGRAM
USING GOVERNMENT EDUCATION/TRAINING SUPPORT
GOVERNMENT SET UP PROGRAMS TO ASSIST THE ABOVE ELEMENTS
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT PROJECTS
TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT
MAY 1993
A PROGRAM FOR
CHART FS 13
THE NORTHWEST
A REGIONAL PROGRAM BASED UPON
INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY PROJECTS THROUGHOUT NORTHWEST
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS TAILORED TO
LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS
LOCAL INITIATIVE PROVIDES BASE OF LEVERAGE FOR
RAPID MULTIPLICATION OF RESULTS THROUGH NORTHWEST
BUILD UPON EXISTING PROTOTYPE COMMUNITY PROJECTS
ASHLAND AND APPLEGATE
MAY 1993
COMMUNITY
CHART FS 14
RESPONSIBILITY
MANUFACTURE AND MARKET
IMPROVED RANGE OF FOREST PRODUCTS THAT ARE
ENVIRONMENTALLY EFFICIENT
ADD VALUE TO SUPPORT TRADITIONAL REVENUES
UPGRADE COMMUNITY JOBS
PROTECT INVESTMENTS IN LOCAL INDUSTRIES
PROVIDE MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY OVERSIGHT
COLLABORATE WITH BEST SCIENCE IN MANAGING FORESTS
RESPECT NATIONAL PRINCIPLES FOR ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION
MAY 1993
GOVERNMENT
CHART FS 15
RESPONSIBILITY
SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT THROUGH UNIVERSITIES AND AGENCIES
LAND MANAGEMENT WHICH SUPPORTS ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES
TRAINING GRANTS FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRY
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FOR INDUSTRY
REVISED SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITIES
RESTORATION AND FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
TIMBER PROGRAMS FOR COMMUNITY BASED INDUSTRY
USING ADDED VALUE MANUFACTURING
WITH IMPROVED "DESIRED FOREST CONDITION" CONTRACTS
DIVERSIFIED NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCT INDUSTRIES
MAY 1993
FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
CHART FS 16
THE FUTURE
SMALLER. PROFITABLE FACILITIES
DIVERSIFIED FOREST PRODUCTS COMMUNITY BASE
HIGH REVENUES
ATTRACTIVE JOB OPPORTUNITIES
PROTECTED IN THE MARKETPLACE BY
US LEAD IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BASE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY
WORLD LEADERSHIP POSITION FROM ENVIRO-TECH
NEW RESPECT FOR INDUSTRY
FOREST-RELATED COMMUNITIES
QUALITY OF LIFE AND QUALITY OF JOBS
INTERNAL COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Historic Timber Sale Volumes
Region 6 - Forest Service
Purchased and Harvested
Billions of Board Feet
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Fiscal Year
Purchased
Harvested
Source: Timber Data Company
Historic Timber Sale Volumes
Region 6 - Forest Service
Volume Under Contract
Billions of Board Feet
20
15
10
5
0
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Fiscal Year
Contract Volume
Source: Timber Data Company
U.S. Softwood Lumber & Structural Panel Prices
1983 to 2/12/93
500
Structural Panel
Lumber
450
437
419
400
350
$/MBF
300
294
282
250
244
240
219
221
229
228
229
229
234
235
211
208
215
206
215
199
209
200
194
150
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Source: Random Lengths
Chronology of Compromise
A History of Land Withdrawals
Acres:
Unresolved Issues:
All Multiple Use 23%
Spotted Owl
Recovery Plan
5,589,000
Ancient Forest
Owl Critical Habitat
1%
Legislation
363,000
ISC Owl Plan 7%
Wild & Scenic Rivers
1,850,000
Forest Plan
Other T & E Species:
Limited Multiple Use
15%
Salmon
3,609,000
Marbled Murrelet
Fisher
Forest Plan Withdrawals
37%
9,088,000
19,214,000
Post-1970 Wilderness
7%
acres
withdrawn
1,857,000
or 77%
Pre-1970 Wilderness
10%
2,447,000
24,803,000
Oregon & Washington National Forests
Northwest Forestry Assoc. 3/93
Source: Forest Plan FEIS's
Federal Harvest Under Various Legislative Proposals & Spotted Owl
Management Plans
On USFS & BLM lands in Washington, Oregon & California
7
Historic evel
Forest/Families Protection
6
Lujan Recovery Plan
5
DeFazio Plan
Thomas Plan
Billion Board Feet
Recovery Plan
4
Volkmer/Kopetski Bill
Miller/Vento Bill
3
2
1
California
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
Washington
1.3
1.1
1
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
Oregon
3.8
3.1
2.6
2.1
2
1.9
1.3
1
Total
6
5
4.2
3.4
3.1
3
2
1.5
July, 1992
MANAGEMENT OF NATIVE OLD GROWTH FORESTS
On Federal Forests Lands In The Pacific Northwest
10
8
Millions of Acres
6
4
2
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Decades
Preserved Forests
Available Forests
Harvested & Planted
Source: USFS, BLM, NPS
Norm Dicks 5/6
INCLUSION OF NON-FEDERAL (PRIVATE AND STATE) LANDS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S NW FOREST STRATEGY
The federal government is already engaged in de facto,
stringent regulation of private and state lands to protect the
northern spotted owl. Yet, the government's principal scientific
studies and owl management strategies (ISC, "Gang of Four," and
SAT) do not assume, and choose not to recognize, the non-federal
lands' contribution to owl protection. At the same time, as the
stringent regulation of the non-federal lands by the government
has removed massive acreages from the timber base, their owners
are rapidly running out of harvesting options and will not be able
to maintain present levels of timber supply. Well designed
inclusion of these non-federal lands in the NW Forest Strategy
would have multiple advantages; it would provide regulatory relief
and greater certainty to, and assure continued production from,
private landowners and the states, and accord more flexibility to
the federal land management agencies.
Background
1. Private lands are required by both federal and state
regulators to provide protection for the northern spotted owl and
other species.
Fish And Wildlife Service (FWS) And National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Requlate Through S 9 of The
Endangered Species Act (ESA) -- All persons --
including non-federal landowners -- are required to
adhere to the "take" and other prohibitions of ESA S 9
or suffer civil and criminal sanctions. The FWS and
NMFS enforce these requirements. For example, the FWS's
"voluntary" 1990 Owl Guidelines impose large buffer
zones around owl nests and activity sites on private and
state land (circles of up to 2.2 mile radii) and
threaten prosecution for any deviation. Although the
Guidelines were purportedly rescinded to moot a lawsuit
in 1991 and smaller owl circles (500 acres) were adopted
as a matter of enforcement discretion in 1992, the FWS
continues to apply the Guidelines' larger buffer zones
as "the best science."
States Regulate Through Forest Practices Acts -- State
forest practices acts impose constraints on the methods
and locations of timber harvesting on non-federal lands
that benefit spotted owl habitat.
2. The federal owl management strategies' failure to
recognize and "credit" the contribution of non-federal forest
lands to owl protection and their demand that full owl protection
be supplied solely by federal lands impose unnecessarily
- 1 -
burdensome constraints on timber harvesting on both non-federal
and federal lands and undermine the concept of ecosystem
management.
3. The NW Forest Strategy could resolve this situation by
providing for modest but explicit reliance on non-federal lands to
assist in the effort to protect the owl. 1/ Reasonable geographic
limitations and refinements of the "take" concept should be
included.
Recommendations
A.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Several administrative steps could be taken to incorporate
non-federal lands in the NW Forest Strategy:
1. General Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
The FWS (and, perhaps, NMFS) should prepare a general or
model HCP and offer to issue "incidental take" permits to all non-
federal landowners who voluntarily agree to comply with it.
If the model HCP were less restrictive (geographically
and in application of the "take" prohibition) than the
Guidelines and, like the Guidelines, included differing
requirements based on varying regional conditions, a
significant number of private landowners would likely
sign. Small landowners could sign without the expense
or time of preparing and negotiating their own HCPs.
Large landowners who have greater flexibility with a
larger land base could negotiate specific provisions
tailored to their circumstances. All landowners who
sign up would gain regulatory certainty, immunity from
the "rescinded" Guidelines' severe strictures and
threatened sanctions, and a more reasonable approach to
owl protection. It may be possible to encourage one
major landowner to serve as the "guinea pig," if you
will, and work with the FWS and NMFS in the development
of the model HCP.
Although preparation of and subscription to a model HCP
would take time (1 to 11 years), assumptions about
participation in such a program (with a safeguard of an
automatic "opener" or policy change for federal lands if
these assumptions about the degree of non-federal land
1/
It must be emphasized that this recommendation should in no
way be read as an acceptance of the FWS's highly expansive
reading of ESA authority over private landowners, or serve as
an invitation to validate the rescinded Guidelines or engage
in similar overregulation of non-federal lands.
- 2 -
protection are not met by a date certain) could be built
into the NW Forest Strategy.
2.
Interim Protection
Non-federal landowners likely will insist on some
measure of protection from ESA enforcement during the model HCP
preparation and sign-up process and will not subscribe to
continued de facto application of the rescinded Guidelines.
Likewise those preparing the NW Forest Strategy will also require
some level of guaranteed owl protection during this interim
period.
There are three options for this interim protection.
All three options would require clarification and relaxation of
the "take" prohibition of ESA S 9 to cover only activities where
evidence of current physical injury is present. This action is
particularly appropriate for the northern spotted owl given its
relatively large population and the primary focus on federal lands
for its protection. 2/
The three options are:
Interim HCP. The FWS and NMFS would issue an "interim
HCP" similar to that issued by the FWS to apply to the
desert tortoise near Las Vegas while a full HCP on the
species was being prepared. The interim HCP would
sunset at the end of the sign-up period for the model
HCP.
Special rule. Alternatively, the agencies could
promulgate a special rule under ESA $ 4(d). 3/ Although
not voluntary like a model HCP, the special rule could
2/
Although the FWS's own rules defining "take" refer to habitat
modification that "actually kills or injures" a listed
species, and two courts in the last year have ruled that
"take" requires actual injury or death, the FWS's
"rescinded," but still used 1990 Owl Guidelines threaten
"take" prosecutions for any habitat modification within the
owl circles without evidence of any current physical injury.
3/
ESA § 9 applies the "take" and other statutory prohibitions
only to endangered species; ESA S 4(d), however, permits
application of these prohibitions, in whole or part, to
threatened species by rulemaking. In a blanket rulemaking
(50 C.F.R. S 17.31 (a) the FWS applied ESA's prohibitions to
all threatened species, but provided that, for any specific
species, the agency could remove or tailor the prohibitions
by promulgating a special rule. The northern spotted owl,
the marbled murrelet, and a number of the salmon stocks are
all listed as "threatened" and, therefore, could be addressed
in such a special rule.
- 3 -
be made attractive to landowners if it includes
restrictions less severe than the Guidelines, and also
sunsets at the conclusion of the sign-up period for the
model HCP.
Voluntary Consultation. Instead of or in addition to
promulgating a special rule or issuing an interim HCP,
the FWS could offer to engage in a voluntary
"consultation" process with non-federal landowners. FWS
could model this 90-day review of non-federal activities
on its ESA S 7 process for consulting on federal agency
actions. Without a change in the statute, this
voluntary consultation process would not be as
advantageous to private landowners as the ESA $ 7
consultation process is to federal agencies, 4/ but would
still be an improvement.
3.
Eliminate Enforcement Threats Against States
The NW Forest Strategy and ESA should reject the FWS's
current practice of threatening prosecution of state regulatory
agencies which issue state forest practices permits in full
compliance with state law. Applying the "rescinded" Guidelines,
the FWS has threatened each of the three states containing spotted
owls with prosecution. This is unsupported in law and unnecessary
to ensure compliance with the ESA. 5/ A rejection of this practice
would relieve state agencies of the threat of criminal prosecution
for following state law, facilitate issuance of necessary state
permits, and make it easier for private timber to be timely
supplied to the mills, but would not affect the FWS's ability to
take ESA enforcement action against unlawful conduct (violation of
the "take" prohibition) on non-federal lands.
B.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
To make the NW Forest Strategy for non-federal lands work
several legislative steps should be taken:
4/
Non-federal landowners' activities would have to be reviewed
under the more stringent "take" any member of the species
standard rather than the "jeopardize the continued existence"
of the entire species standard applicable to federal agency
actions. And the landowners would not receive the immunizing
"incidental take" statements to which federal agencies are
entitled at the end of a successful consultation.
5/
In 1992, the Supreme Court held that the federal government
has no authority to compel states to regulate private
citizens, particularly where, like here, the federal
government interest is sufficient for it to directly regulate
the conduct. New York V. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408,
2429 (1992).
- 4 -
1.
All Species Covered
Legislation must be passed that would allow the model
HCP to cover all species within the same ecosystem that are listed
after, as well as before, its preparation. This would mean the NW
Forest Strategy would not be invalidated each time a new species
is listed. Representative Studds proposed a similar concept in
his ESA reauthorization bill last Congress. We expect the same
concept to be featured in both Mr. Studds' and Senator Baucus'
bills to be introduced this week or next.
2. Elimination Of Redundant ESA Steps
Although species' listings should continue where
warranted, further management planning under the ESA should be
deferred in favor of the model HCP (and its counterpart federal
lands strategy). Therefore, the legislation should excuse the FWS
and NMFS from the requirements of writing recovery plans and
undertakings consultations for species covered by the model HCP
(and its counterpart federal lands strategy).
3. Focussing Judicial Review
If the model HCP strategy is to work and non-federal
lands are to contribute to the Northwest timber supply, the
legislation must provide reasonable protections against
injunctions without foreclosing access to the courts entirely
(e.g., limit citizen suits, bar preliminary injunctions against
the model HCP or actions consistent with it (allowing non-federal
lands activities to continue and avoiding paralysis while the
legal validity of the model HCP is determined), etc.).
- 5 -
ASSOCIATION OF O&C COUNTIES
COMM. ROCKY McVAY, PRES.
RAY E. DOERNER, EXEC. DIR.
CURRY COUNTY COURTHOUSE
486 HEYDON ROAD
GOLD BEACH, OR 97444
ROSEBURG, OREGON 97470
PHONE 503-247-7015
PHONE 503-673-5286
COMM. DOUG ROBERTSON, V. PRES.
DAVID S. BARROWS, COUNSEL
DOUGLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SUITE 200, CENTURY TOWER
ROSEBURG, OR 97470
1201 S. W. 12th AVENUE
PHONE 503-440-4201
PORTLAND, OREGON 97205
PHONE 503-227-5591
COMM. STEVE CORNACCHIA, SEC.-TREAS.
LANE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
JOSEPH S. MILLER, PUB. REL.
EUGENE, OR 97401
19 3rd STREET, N.E.
PHONE 503-687-4203
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
May 1993
PHONE 202-546-6661
PROPOSED SOLUTION
As a result of the Forest Conference on April 2nd of this year, it is clear
that the direction from President Clinton is for federal agencies involved to
come together and craft a solution to the federal forest management crisis
that has gripped the Pacific Northwest for the last five years.
President Clinton made it clear that the solution had to be within the
guidelines of existing law, scientifically credible and balance the needs and
requirements of people and communities with those of endangered species
and ecosystems. It is within the context of those guidelines that the
Association of O&C Counties submits the following proposal.
The proposal basically is in the form of a petition for a Section 10
incidental take permit as provided for in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The petition will, of course, be accompanied by a comprehensive habitat
conservation plan (HCP).
Why This Proposal for the O & C Lands?
1. As the attached document entitled "A Brief Description of a Unique
Category of Federal Lands" clearly points out, the O&C lands are not, nor
were they ever intended to be public lands as defined by the federal
government. The O&C lands are special purpose lands and have been so
recognized in federal statutes and in federal court rulings.
II. The receipts from the O&C lands are used for general county
purposes such as law enforcement, health and social services, veterans
service offices, libraries and a host of other county services. This is an
important contrast to the dedicated funds received by counties from the
federal forest service. Those funds can be used only for the county road
fund and for aid to education. In many counties in Oregon, O&C receipts
literally run county government.
How Does a Section 10 Exemption Work?
The incidental take permit provisions of the ESA specify that:
"(1) The Secretary may permit, under such terms and
conditions as he shall prescribe-
(B) any taking otherwise prohibited by section 9(a)(1)(B)
if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the
carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." 16 USCA 1539(a)
The Section 10 process is one of three balancing provisions within the ESA.
The other two are the Section 4 Exemption Process and the Section 7
Endangered Species Committee process.
The Legislative History notes that Congress intended the Secretary to use
this provision to encourage creative partnerships between the public and
private sectors in the interest of species and habitat conservation. 1982
U.S. Code Cong & Adm. News 2871 - 2873.
Congress also recognized that in order to provide sufficient incentives for
the private sector to participate in the development of long tern and
expensive conservation plans, there must be adequate assurances that the
incidental take permit will be available for the length of the project. 1982
U.S. Code Cong & Adm. News 2872.
As a requirement for each permit, the applicant must submit to the
Secretary a conservation plan ("Habitat Conservation Plan") that specifies:
"(i) the impact will likely result from such taking;
(ii) what steps the applicant will take to minimize and
mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to
implement such steps;
(iii) what alternative actions to such taking the applicant
considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being
utilized;
(iv) such other measures that the Secretary may require as
being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan."
16 USCA 1539(a)(2)(A).
Once the Secretary has received an application and habitat conservation
plan, he must provide a public hearing on the plan and make specific
findings that:
"(i) the taking will be incidental;
(ii) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking;
(iii) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the
plan will be provided;
(iv) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood
of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
(v) the measures, if any, required under subparagraph
(A)(iv) will be met." 16 USCA 1539(a)(2)(B).
The permit is to include any terms and conditions the Secretary deems
necessary or appropriate including reporting requirements. In addition,
during development of the San Bruno Mtn (San Mateo County) habitat
conservation plan an environmental assessment under NEPA was developed.
Friends of Endangered Species V. Jantzen 760 F2d 976, 980 (1985).
In adopting this provision, Congress intended that the Secretary utilize this
provision to approve habitat conservation plans that provide long term
commitments to conserving listed as well as unlisted species. In the event
an unlisted species that is addressed in an approved conservation plan is
subsequently listed, no further mitigation requirements should be imposed
if the conservation plan covered the conservation of the species and its
habitat.
The HCP will provide for the management of the O&C lands on a basis that
emphasizes the perpetuation of a forest with old growth characteristics.
The plan will incorporate three main elements to achieve this result:
1. Extending the rotation age to a point at which the old
growth characteristics of the forest are established for the
benefits of the dependent old growth species and ecosystem.
2. Increase the size of the riparian protection corridors to
address the concerns of fish and help implement the proposal
of connectivity.
3. Reduce the amount of timber harvested to achieve the first
two goals and yet still provide for the economic base necessary
to sustain the timber dependent communities an counties for
which the O&C lands were originally created.
We believe that this proposal follows closely the necessary elements of a
solution as presented by the President as he closed the Forest Conference:
#1 - a solution should be community based and not driven from the top
down, #2 - any solution must meet the guidelines of existing laws, #3 -
the solution must be based on credible science and #4 - any solution must
address the human dimension of this problem as well as the economic
consideration of the region and the entire nation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rocky mcray
Rocky McVay
President
fax 583/945-7212
Cotton
P.1/7
APR 24 '93 22:24 BEST & CO.
THE PACIFIC FOREST TRUST
P.O. BOX 858
BOONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95415
707-895-2166 Phone
707-895-3616 Fax
Facsimile Cover
DATE:
April 23, 1993
TOTAL PAGES: 7
TO:
Katie McGinty, Office of Environmental Policy
Jim Lyons, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Tom Tuchmann, Special Assistant to the Secretary,
Dept. of the Interior
FROM:
Constance Best, President
Laurie A. Wayburn, Executive Director
RE:
Proposal Summary for Federal Sustainable Forestry
Program: Restoration and Enhancement of Private
Productive Forestland
In follow up to the Forest Conference we would like to submit the following
suggestions toward improving federal programs designed to protect and
improve the stewardship of private forestlands.
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
C.C.
Hon. Dan Hamburg
Sierra Club
WAFC
MEC
6978
Int
Rev
APR 24 '93 22:24 BEST $ CO.
P.2/7
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
THE PACIFIC FOREST TRUST
P.O. Box 858
BOONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95415
707-895-2166 Phone
707-895-3616 Fax
Memorandum via Facsimile
DATE:
April 23, 1993
TO:
Katie McGinty, Office of Environmental Policy
Jim Lyons, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Tom Tuchmann, Special Assistant to the Secretary,
Dept. of the Interior
FROM:
Constance Best, President
Laurie A. Wayburn, Executive Director
RE:
Proposal Summary for Federal Sustainable Forestry
Program: Restoration and Enhancement of Private
Productive Forestland
The Pacific Forest Trust is non-profit public benefit corporation
dedicated to the preservation and restoration of private productive forestland
in the Pacific Northwest region (including northern California, Oregon and
Washington). The Pacific Forest Trust provides private forestland owners
with technical assistance, information, planning tools and land conservation
programs to assist them in the ecologically sound, long-term management of
the multiple resources of their land. We are familiar with the range of
federal programs available to private landowners for forestland stewardship:
Forest Legacy, the Forest Incentives Program (FIP), and the Stewardship
Incentive Program (SIP). These programs, which offer technical services,
information and protection through conservation easements, are a necessary
complement to regulatory reform if we are to successfully influence the
stewardship of private forestlands. We would like to make the following
suggestions which we feel would greatly enhance the effectiveness of these
programs.
An overarching federal program encouraging and supporting
sustainable forestry on private forestland is urgently needed. More than 70%
of the 347 million acres of productive forestland in the U.S. today is privately
owned. Even in our region of the Pacific Northwest (including northern
APR 24 '93 22:25 BEST : 00.
P.3/7
Federal Sustainable Forestry Program Proposal
Page 2
The Pacific Forest Trust
California, Oregon and Washington), with its vast expanses of public lands,
close to 50% of forestland is in private hands. Much of this is owned in large
tracts by industrial and non-industrial owners, and has been aggressively
managed for the production of timber without adequate regard for future
productivity or ecological integrity. Tremendous ecological and social
damage has been suffered in this process. The Federal government can play a
key role in facilitating the restoration and long-term enhancement of this
critical forestland through implementation of a Sustainable Forestry Program.
This can be accomplished efficiently through gathering the existing forest
improvement programs cited above under the umbrella of the Sustainable
Forestry Program and recasting them as described below.
The central element of the proposed Sustainable Forestry
Program is the creation of a public-private partnership to rebuild America's
private forestlands on an ecologically and economically sustainable basis.
Such "infrastructure investment" will pay off both immediately and for years
to come through increased biological diversity and productivity of this key
natural resource, as well as improved economic stability for timber-
dependent communities.
The existing Federal programs for the preservation and
restoration of private forestland could be effectively expanded to deal with a
very pressing issue: ensuring that the prime productive forestland held by
larger industrial and non-industrial landowners is restored, enhanced and
maintained as ecologically healthy and economically productive forestland,
and is not converted to other uses due to the combined pressures of resource
depletion and urbanization. These programs are voluntary and directed to
willing landowners, and could be powerfully reinforced through tax-based
incentives as well. No landowner would be required to participate, however
the economic benefits could be compelling. The Sustainable Forestry
Program proposed herein serves as an appropriate complement to the
vigorous enforcement of current environmental regulations, such as the
Clean Water act and the Endangered Species Act.
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
APR 34 '93 22:25 BEST 2 CO.
P.4/7
Federal Sustainable Forestry Program Proposal
PHOTOCOPY
Page 3
The Pacific Forest Trust
PRESERVATION
The threat of conversion is increasingly critical as huge tracts of
private forestland across the country are overcut, with resulting low
inventories of very young trees and diminishment of future productivity due
to a history of poor logging practices. Under these conditions, many private
landowners consider alternate land uses, not having the patient capital to
allow for the maturation of another "crop" of trees. A corollary and equally
threatening problem is the degradation of soil quality, fertility and watershed
functioning due to one hundred-plus years of high-impact forest practices.
These losses in site productivity mean that the understocked conditions of
many hundreds of thousands of acres of forestland will be difficult to
overcome. Therefore the loss of private productive forestland to non-forest
uses is looming -- and with it a myriad of public benefits, from water quality
and air quality to fisheries and wildlife habitat, to the jobs in timber, value-
added forest products, fishing, recreation, tourism and wildlife management
that flow from a healthy, productive forest. Aside from the economic
impacts, the result would be man-made ecosystem conversion on a massive
scale in the Pacific northwest.
Briefly, Forest Legacy is a recently initiated program only
available on a limited basis in New England and Washington State. The
current goal is to prevent conversion of private forestland to residential and
other uses by providing for the Federal government's acquisition of
conservation easements which include at a minimum the development (sub-
division) rights of the property. No change in forest practices, or other
overlay of environmental protection, are required currently, though the
program seeks protection of "environmentally sensitive areas" if the
landowner is willing.
This program should be expanded to all major timber producing
regions and fully funded to reach all threatened properties. However, in
return for receiving this benefit of selling off the development value to the
Federal government, and therefore subsidizing the maintenance of the
property as forestland, the landowners participating in Forest Legacy should
be required to adhere to a set of best management practices that will improve
the long-term productivity of their forestland and ensure the ecological
APR 24 '93 22:26 BEST $ CO.
P.5/7
PHOTOCOPY
Federal Sustainable Forestry Program Proposal
PRESERVATION
Page 4
The Pacific Forest Trust
sustainability of the harvest of timber from their property. These best
management practices should be included in the same conservation
easement so that this requirement would become part of the title to the
property. In this fashion, future property owners who will reap the benefits
of the public investment in this private forestland will be bound by the same
terms of forest practices (and therefore won't be able to improperly exploit the
renewed forest inventory and biological productivity that has been enhanced
at public expense).
The definition of best management practices should be regional
in nature, reflecting different sites and species; and could be established by
joint USFS, EPA, FWS, NMFS scientific panels. Such best management
practices would include prohibitions on clear-cutting, harvesting in riparian
zones and steep slopes, removal of an unsustainable volume of trees,
maintenance of a diversity of age classes, establishment of leave stands with
natural forest structural features that will enhance the regeneration of the
harvested area, etc. (A central program of the Pacific Forest Trust is the
design, implementation and monitoring of similar conservation easements
on private working forestland in our region.)
A more fully realized Forest Legacy program dovetails with the
next suggestion: An expansion of the existing FIP and SIP programs to
include properties greater than 5000 acres. As these programs are currently
designed, they are targeted to reach smaller, non-industrial landowners. FIP
and SIP provide for site preparation, reforestation, stand improvement, soil
and water improvement, riparian and wetland restoration, fisheries habitat
enhancement, and forest recreation/aesthetics. These are cost-share
programs, with the participating landowners provided 25-35% of the costs,
either through cash or in-kind contribution.
Due to the degradation of industrial forestlands, combined with
growing development pressures in most prime forest producing regions,
industrial landowners would be better persuaded to restore, maintain and
enhance their lands from the current depleted state if they were subsidized.
The Forest Legacy program is one such subsidy. FIP and SIP are others. This
APR 24 '93 22:26 BEST $ 00.
P.6/7
Federal Sustainable Forestry Program Proposal
PHOTOCOPY
Page 5
The Pacific Forest Trust
PRESERVATION
is not "free money", however: Participation in these programs requires a
corresponding long-term investment by the landowners. In return for the
expansion of these programs, again, the participating landowners would
agree, through the use of conservation easements, to adhere to clearly defined
best management standards. The SIP program is currently based on the
development of a "Stewardship Plan." Under this proposed expansion, this
plan would be prepared to implement the terms of the conservation
easement and would be updated and renewed every ten years. Under the
new program, the Stewardship Plan would genuinely provide for the long-
term sustainability of the forestland.
Such a Sustainable Forestry Program could be complemented and
made even more effective by a range of tax-based incentives. These include
the following programs that would be available to owners of forestland
encumbered by conservation easements as above: (1) graduating the capital
gains tax for timber harvest receipts to encourage the holding of forestland for
longer than average periods, thereby providing an incentive for longer
rotations and the maintenance of older age classes of trees on forestland;
(2) eliminating estate taxes for such encumbered forestland; and (3) providing
investment tax credits for forest infrastructure investments, e.g., stream
restoration, road removal and revegetation, other major erosion control
projects, reforestation.
As part of our national commitment to reducing carbon emissions,
another key incentive to forestland owners to achieve reforestation and
longer rotations could come from investments by utilities and other carbon
producers for the purpose of carbon sequestration. Participation by utilities
and others in such a carbon sequestration program could be coordinated with
the Administration's other carbon reduction efforts SO as to offset taxes or
other costs that may be required of these carbon producers. The Pacific Forest
Trust has begun a program to help accomplish these goals.
The essence of the Sustainable Forestry Program is a deal
between the Federal government and private forestland owners: The
government will contribute significantly to the preservation and restoration
APP 24 193 22:27 BEST $ 00.
P.7/7
Federal Sustainable Forestry Program Proposal
PHOTOCOPY
Page 6
The Pacific Forest Trust
PRESERVATION
of prime private forestland if the landowner agrees to abide by ecologically
sustainable forest stewardship practices in perpetuity. Public monies would
be made available, through purchase of development rights, cost-share for
forest improvements and tax incentives; so as to provide public benefits, such
as the protection of public trust resources of water, air, fish and wildlife, as
well as maintenance of forest ecosystems for ecologic and economic values.
This infrastructure investment is matched by the landowner's agreement to
maintain the value of that investment by improved management practices,
preventing the liquidation of an improvement provided by public monies.
No one is compelled to participate. Yet the incentive to participate will be
strong for those owners committed to being long-term producers of forest
products.
The Pacific Forest Trust would be pleased to discuss further with
you the Sustainable Forestry Program or any of these ideas to increase federal
effectiveness in promoting stewardship on private forestlands.
#
#
#
#
04/30/93
16:15
20202 543 6142
AMERICAN RIVERS
01/08
American Rivers
April 30, 1993
BY FAX
Post-It™ brand fax transmittal memo 7671
# of pages 8
Kathleen McGinty, Director
To David Cottingham
From Tom Cassidy
President's Office on
Co. President's
Co. American Rivers
Environmental Policy
ROOM 360
Dept. liffice.
Phone # 547-6900
Old Executive Office Building
Fax # 456-2710
Fax # 543-6142
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Katie:
American Rivers looks forward to working with you and other
members of the Administration as you develop a set of coordinated
strategies to address and correct the Northwest forest crisis,
including the management of salmon habitat on federal lands.
American Rivers has been deeply involved in forest planning
issues for many years. Earlier this year, we completed a
comprehensive compilation of the existing planning direction for
management of anadromous fish habitat in Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management land management plans throughout the
Northwest, Northern California, and Alaska. This project was
undertaken in cooperation and with the support of the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management. We have enclosed a
summary of the project, including recommendations for actions.
Since we completed our project, the Scientific Analysis Team
(SAT) has released its report. The report includes a
progressive, science-based strategy for managing the habitat for
"At-Risk" fish stocks on National Forest lands. SAT Report,
Appendix 5-K. Implementation of the "5-K strategy" is designed
to have a "high" probability of providing for the viability of
"at-risk" fish stocks on Forest Service lands. SAT Report at 20.
As American Rivers' report detailed, existing Forest Plans and
RMPs fail to assure that the high-quality aquatic and riparian
habitat necessary for the protection and restoration of Pacific
salmon will be available on federal lands.
The strength of the "5-K strategy" is its emphasis upon a series
of Riparian Management Objectives and a set of prescriptive
Standards and Guidelines designed to conserve and restore habitat
for at-risk fish stocks. The elements of "5-K" represent a
marked improvement over existing agency planning direction.
801 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., S.E.
SUITE 400
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
(202) 547-6900
(202) 543-6142 (FAX)
04/30/93
16:16
202 543 6142
AMERICAN RIVERS
002/008
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
April 30, 1993
Page 2
The "5-K strategy," however, needs to be supplemented by the
establishment of measurable and time-specific objectives for
anadromous fish stocks and habitat conditions. Quantifiable
objectives for the primary environmental factors that influence
the productivity of fish habitat, including sediment, water
quality and quantity, channel morphology and riparian vegetative
cover, are necessary to provide a baseline against which the
prescriptive standards and guidelines can be measured. For
example, Grazing Management standard GM-1, specifies that grazing
practices will bc adjusted "to eliminate adverse effects" of
grazing upon riparian resources. SAT Report at 451. However,
the failure to specify quantifiable standards precludes
management accountability.
Further, quantitative objectives are the only reliable standard
to evaluate the cumulative effects of land management activities
throughout the watershed, and not merely within the proposed
"Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas," upon fish habitat
conditions.
Amending the "5-K strategy" to include the development of a
quantitative and qualitative analysis or past, present and
predicted resource use and condition will provide the basis for
formulating measurable objectives and quantitative standards and
guidelines to provide watershed level planning for the
maintenance and recovery of "at-risk" fish stocks in the Pacific
Northwest.
We would be pleased to meet with you and other members of the
Administration to discuss these issues with you in greater
detail.
Sincerely,
Tom Cassidy
Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr.
General Counsel
enclosure
CC: Jim Lyons, Assistant Secretary-Designate for Natural
Resources and the Environment, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Tom Tuchman, Special Assistant to the Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior
David Cottingham, Associate Director for Natural Resources,
President's Office on Environmental Policy
04/30/93
16:16
202 543 6142
AMERICAN RIVERS
003/008
American Rivers
FOCUS ON THE FOREST CONFERENCE:
FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS
FAIL TO PROTECT NORTHWEST SALMON
Katherine Ransel
F. Lorraine Bodi
Co-Directors
American Rivers Northwest Office
Seattle, Washington
Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr.
General Counsel
American Rivers
Washington, D.C.
April 30, 1993
801 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., S.E.
SUITE 400
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
(202) 547-6900
(202) 543-6142 (FAX)
04/30/93
16:17
7202 543 6142
AMERICAN RIVERS
004/008
FOCUS ON THE FOREST CONFERENCE:
FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS FAIL TO PROTECT NORTHWEST SALMON
Introduction: Salmon at the Crossroads
Northwest salmon are in terrible trouble. In the Columbia/Snake
basin alone, historic runs of 16 million adult salmon now number
fewer than 2 million, only a few hundred thousand of which are
wild. Oregon Trout has estimated that 200 Columbia Basin salmon
and steelhead stocks are already extinot. The American Fisheries
Society (AFS) has identified 214 native stocks of Pacific salmon
and related anadromous fish that are at risk of extinction, and
more stocks are expected to be added to its list.
Salmon are an essential part of the life, culture and economy of
the Northwest. Even though salmon runs are disappearing at
alarming rates, they still support as many as 60,000 jobs and net
the regional economy as much as $1 billion annually. Sustainable
salmon populations are also fundamental to fulfilling the federal
government's treaty commitments to Tribal governments.
Improved federal land management is absolutely necessary if
Northwest salmon are to survive. Nearly two-thirds of the stocks
identified by AFS utilize habital managed by the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM Salem
District in oregon manages habitat for 33 of the AFS listed
stocks.
The Forest Service and BLM have not acted with sufficient urgency
or leadership to protect endangered salmon runs. The Forest
Service's 1991 Columbia Basin Program Implementation Guide
("PIG") is a case in point. This policy, designed to provide
improved and consistent management of anadromous fish habitat
throughout the Columbia River Basin contains management
objectives that describe the physical, biological, and chemical
characteristics necessary to protect and restore salmonid
habitats throughout the Columbia Basin. Yet the PIG has never
been formally incorporated into forest plans and regulations, and
thus does not bind Forest Service activities.
The Forest Conference and Fish
Forest Service and BLM land management plans fail to protect
Northwest salmon. American Rivers has recently completed a
comprehensive review of Forest Service and BLM management of
Pacific anadromous fish habitat. We evaluated twenty-five forest
plans and 20 BLM management plans in Oregon, Washington,
California, Idaho and Alaska. The project was undertaken in
cooperation and with the support of the Forest Service and BLM.
American Rivers analyzed the plans for consistency with planning
criteria specified by the Forest Service and BLM. The criteria
04/30/93
16:17
C202 543 6142
AMERICAN RIVERS
005/008
were based upon existing agency policies and other program
guidance for management of anadromous fish habitat.
American Rivers concluded that the plans generally fail to comply
with agency policy. As a result, the plans fail to protect high-
quality aquatic and riparian habitat on federal lands, habitat
that is vital for Pacific calmon.
The Forest Conference will provide the Administration and the
Congress information on strategies to improve forest management
and halt the salmon's slide into extinction. our research
demonstrates that reform of Forest Service and BLM management of
salmon habitat on federal lands must be a cornerstone of both
legislative and administrative strategies designed to recover
threatened and endangered salmonid stocks.
American Rivers' Findings
American Rivers' evaluation of Forest Service and BLM plans
resulted in the following findings:
1. Cumulative Effects
Forest Service and BLM land management plans do not adequately
address the cumulative effects of land management practices on
fisheries and other aquatic resources.
Agency management plans do not describe existing fish habitat in
quantitative terms, nor is the relationship between existing and
historic habitat conditions adequately evaluated.
The result is that managers are unable to predict the response of
aquatic ecosystems to land management practices, including timber
harvest and road construction.
The increasing scientific consensus that land management plans
should identify the relationship between the cumulative effects
of land management activities on watershed conditions and fish
habitat has not been integrated into federal land planning.
2. Measurable Fisheries Objectives
Forest Service and BLM land management plans only rarely
establish measurable, quantitative objectives for fisheries
resources, such as instream flows, pool depths, water
temperature, and pool/riffle ratios. Most plans provide only
general and qualitative objectives for fish habitat conditions.
In addition, few plans adopt any standards for evaluating the use
of anadromous fish as management indicator species ("MIS").
-- 2 --
04/30/93
16:18
202 543 6142
AMERICAN RIVERS
006/008
3. Monitoring and Evaluation of Management Activities
Few plans incorporate comprehensive monitoring programs to
determine the effects of land management activities on aquatic
and riparian habitats, or to evaluate whether the monitoring
program itself is valid.
Where there are monitoring programs, they do not identify
thresholds that, if exceeded, would trigger modification or
revision of the plans.
Integration of monitoring between agencies, even in the same
watershed, is almost nonexistent.
4. Watershed Level Planning
Forest Service and BLM land management plans generally do not use
watershed and ecological boundaries as management areas.
Rather, plans divide the landscape into various "management
areas," each of which emphasize particular -- and different --
land uses, such as timber production, riparian protection or
highlighting areas for scenic viewsheds.
Few plans adopt any standards for the conservation of aquatic and
biological biodiversity.
5. Riparian Management Areas
The treatment of Riparian Management Areas ("RMAS") in Forest
Service and BLM land management plans is inconsistent and widely
divergent.
Any consistency that may exist between the selection,
identification and application of administrative guidance to
riparian area management appears to be random.
6. Interagency Coordination of Fisheries Management
The decentralized character of Forest Service and BLM planning
has resulted in a confusion of planning direction and criteria
that is inconsistent from forest to forest and/or resource area.
This is true even for adjacent forests which manage fish habitat
in the same drainage.
Although plans acknowledge the importance of coordinating forest
planning with other related federal, state and Tribal planning
3 --
04/30/93
16:19
202 543 6142
AMERICAN RIVERS
efforts, there is very little, if any, effort to integrate
management strategies.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FOREST CONFERENCE
Recommendation: The Administration and the Congress should make
protection and restoration of Pacific Northwest ecosystems a
national priority. Salmon habitat in the Northwest has already
suffered tremendous damage. Preservation of Ancient Forest
ecosystems is essential to provide the high quality habitat
necessary for long-term restoration and protection of salmonid
stocks throughout the Northwest.
Action: Ancient Forest Reserves should be considered salmon
protection areas, and should be added to existing wilderness
Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and other special management areas
to provide one key part of an ecologically-based watershed
restoration program.
Recommendation: Land management plans must ensure protection and
restoration of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Existing Forest
Service and BLM land management plans are inadequate to protect
and restore salmon runs. Even the Forest Service and BLM
acknowledge that major revisions to existing land management
plans must be initiated to meet this objective.
Action: The Administration should direct the immediate revision
of existing Forest Service and BLM land management plans to
reflect the status of threatened, endangered and sensitive
salmon. In keeping with our findings, we recommend that amended
plans incorporate the following changes:
* A quantitative and qualitative analysis of cumulative
impacts -- the past, present, and expected future resource
use and conditions -- should be the starting point for all
management planning.
* Desired physical, biological, and chemical conditions for
fish habitat -- including instream flow levels, temperature,
pool depth and pool-riffle ratios -- should be established
as quantitative standards for each plan.
* Scientifically based monitoring of plan implementation to
meet these standards should be established, and should be an
internally enforceable limit on management activities. When
standards are exceeded, management should change
immediately.
* Plans should reflect a watershed/ecosystem approach rather
than arbitrary land boundaries or "management areas."
-- 4 --
04/30/93
16:19
202 543 6142
AMERICAN RIVERS
008/008
Management objectives, indicator species and monitoring
programs should be consistent within a particular watershed.
Plans should shift from stratogies based on mitigation of
poor management practices to programs of watershed
protection.
* Salmon stocks depressed by non-forest management factors
should not be used as management indicator species to
indicate the condition of forest aquatic habitats. In such
cases, the health of aquatic habitats should be monitored by
utilizing surrogatec for healthy salmon populations, such as
macro-invertebrate populations or resident fish.
*
Riparian management areas should be established based on
new national guidance that is ecologically sound (rather
than the typical, arbitrary 100 foot riparian management
area).
* Federal land mangers should ensure coordination of
fisheries management on federal, state and tribal lands.
Management objectives and management indicator species
should be common to lands within a particular watershed.
Recommendation: If future generations are to enjoy salmon in the
Northwest, federal land managers must be accountable for
conserving salmon and their aquatic habitats. Land management
activities such as timber harvest and road construction must be
designed to be compatible with sustainable riparian and aquatic
ecosystems.
Action: American Rivers supports comprehensive legislation to
preserve Ancient Forest ecosystems in the Northwest and improve
federal land management of salmon habitat, consistent with the
recommendations above.
5
AMERICAN
FOREST &
PAPER
ASSOCIATION
April 21, 1993
Katie McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
360 Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Katie:
On behalf of all of the "owl biologists" and one "fish squeezer," I want to thank
you for your and Tom Collier's time and attention to our discussions yesterday. I
firmly believe that private forest landowners have much to offer in the formulation of
alternatives to the forest management crisis in the Pacific Northwest.
Enclosed are the list of questions Tom requested, and a second set of the
questions with associated background discussion for each question. If you have any
questions regarding any of these, please do not hesitate to call me.
As we expressed in our closing remarks, we hope it is possible to have one or
more of our scientists fully involved with the Forest Ecology Team. We believe there
is much to be gained by the day-to-day participation with the Forest Ecology Team in
the drafting of alternatives. It will increase information transfer and minimize
conflicting debate.
I look forward to hearing from you as you move forward in setting the course
for the Forest Ecology Team. If I can be of help on this or any other forest wildlife
concerns, please feel free to give me a call:
Sincerely,
JAMES M. SWEENEY, Ph.D.
Director, Wildlife Ecology
cc: Tom Collier
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Second Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-463-2700 Fax: 202-463-2785
HABITAT
1.
What is the habitat assessment (amount of habitat by type, within the median
annual home range areas or "circles") of all known owl sites on Federal land?
How has this assessment changed in the last three years, or how has this
assessment guided the development of recovery strategies?
2.
Recognizing the high frequency of northern spotted owls occurring and
successfully reproducing in younger managed forests, what is the current definition
of "suitable habitat," what definition was used in the formulation of past and
current management and recovery strategies, and what management flexibility is
offered for new alternatives with the new, broader, definition of suitable habitat?
3.
What is the current definition of dispersal habitat, its technical basis, and what
proposals exist to test or clarify that definition?
4.
It is generally accepted that there are regional differences in owl habitat and
habitat use. What management flexibility might be crafted from this variable
habitat/use pattern and incorporated into a new set of conservation strategies?
SURVEYS
1.
How current are your data on northern spotted owl locations and habitat
associations? On federal lands? On other public (State, Municipal, etc.) lands?
On private lands?
2.
What is the current survey and monitoring effort for northern spotted owls on
federal lands? How does this compare with past (3 to 5 years) survey and
monitoring efforts? How does the federal survey effort compare to that on State
lands, and on private lands?
3.
What portion of federal lands has been surveyed? What portion of State and
private lands has been surveyed? Is there a forest type(s) or administrative land
classification(s) that represent the majority of unsurveyed lands? (i.e., Has one
type been more heavily surveyed in the past?)
SILVICULTURE
1.
How will the probability of forest health declines and fire risks be integrated into
alternative conservation strategies?
2.
What silvicultural treatments have been considered, and what personnel
(silviculturists) or data have been consulted to arrive at silvicultural strategies?
RESEARCH/ECOLOGY
1.
Recent studies and ecological theory show that wildlife populations in reserved
areas are buffered against random demographic failure by sub-populations that
exist in habitats outside of the reserved areas. How will these non-reserved (i.e.,
managed) habitats be recognized in future conservation alternatives?
2.
What assumptions were used in calculating estimates of known pairs from all site
records, and in the projection of total population estimates from known owls?
3.
How has the use of contemporary methods for estimating home range size, such
as the adaptive kernel technique, and the core-area concept been explored in
locating the most-important habitat within home ranges?
4.
To what extent has the USFS and/or BLM implemented adaptive management
concepts, that is, simultaneously implementing more than one option to probe for
scientific information? Examples would include testing precepts of conservation
strategies or testing silvicultural options for creating owl habitat.
5.
To what extent were terrain features used in the definition of suitable habitat and
home range interpretations?
ANADROMOUS FISH
1.
What assurance is there that proposed stream protection actions will:
a)
Restore at-risk fish stocks?
b)
Maintain at-risk fish stocks at present levels?
Can/will the stream protection actions on federal lands achieve maintenance
and/or restoration of at-risk fish stocks without other actions in other portions of
the total watershed, estuary, and ocean?
HABITAT
1.
What is the habitat assessment (amount of habitat by type, within the median
annual home range areas or "circles") of all known owl sites on Federal land?
How has this assessment changed in the last three years, or how has this
assessment guided the development of recovery strategies?
We know where a lot of owls occur. We have Federal guidance as to the amount
and type of habitat thought to be needed to maintain productive spotted owl pairs
based on studies of only Federal old growth habitats. Several private landowners
have assessed habitat conditions occurring in "circle" areas that affect their lands,
and have determined that habitat definition and quantity are extremely variable
and not necessarily consistent with federal guidance. Owls are now known to
occur in areas not thought likely only a few years ago. The "search image" for
likely owl habitat has become younger and more diverse than that previously
expected. It would be enlightening to know the extent of change in habitat search
image as the result of federal experiences.
2.
Recognizing the high frequency of northern spotted owls occurring and
successfully reproducing in younger managed forests, what is the current definition
of "suitable habitat," what definition was used in the formulation of past and
current management and recovery strategies, and what management flexibility is
offered for new alternatives with the new, broader, definition of suitable habitat?
In the last three or more years, private-land surveys have documented increasing
numbers of successfully reproducing pairs of owls in young managed forests. The
definition of "suitable habitat" has therefore been documented to be broader than
previously thought, yet reluctance appears to exist in acceptance of this broader
definition. Specific forest stand structural criteria used for defining suitable
habitat could be useful to establish mutual understanding, and acceptance of
habitat variation.
The definition of "suitable habitat" has apparently been unyielding to change.
Historically, it was originally believed that few or no owls lived in private,
managed forests. When many were found, instead of a broadening of the habitat
definition, the claim was made that these birds were not breeding. When these
owls were shown to be breeding successfully, the assumption was forwarded that
survivorship in managed stands was likely poor. Since numerous, successfully
breeding pairs of owls have been located in young managed, private forests, the
definition of suitable habitat commands revision irrespective of the assumption of
survivorship.
3.
What is the current definition of dispersal habitat, its technical basis, and what
proposals exist to test or clarify that definition?
Establishment of a "dispersal matrix" between Designated Conservation Areas is
recommended in several owl recovery strategies. Prescribing "50-11-40" as a
matrix habitat formula appears to lack technical foundation. There also appears
to be no proposal being put forward to test or refine this guideline. A dispersal
habitat obligation could prove highly encumbering to land management depending
upon its definition. Clarification, technical elaboration, and validation are needed.
4.
It is generally accepted that there are regional differences in owl habitat and
habitat use. What management flexibility might be crafted from this variable
habitat/use pattern and incorporated into a new set of conservation strategies?
While most biologists readily recognize there exist significant differences in
northern spotted owl habitat on a regional basis (both on a vegetation/forest type
basis and management history basis), which are reflected in differential habitat use
by the northern spotted owl, all conservation strategies developed to date apply
one fixed set of management protocols across the full range of the owl. Such a
fixed solution does not take advantage of the variability demonstrated by the owl.
SURVEYS
1.
How current are your data on northern spotted owl locations and habitat
associations? On federal lands? On other public (State, Municipal, etc.) lands?
On private lands?
2.
What is the current survey and monitoring effort for northern spotted owls on
federal lands? How does this compare with past (3 to 5 years) survey and
monitoring efforts? How does the federal survey effort compare to that on State
lands, and on private lands?
3.
What portion of federal lands has been surveyed? What portion of State and
private lands has been surveyed? Is there a forest type(s) or administrative land
classification(s) that represent the majority of unsurveyed lands? (i.e., Has one
type been more heavily surveyed in the past?)
The importance of this set of questions is:
1)
to determine what data (how current and of what origin) are being used as
a basis for formulating alternatives,
2)
to demonstrate the declining effort in federal survey efforts, while also
determining if the team is fully aware of the extensive survey efforts being
conducted by the private sector on its lands and on federal lands.
3)
to document previous biases in surveys, and determine the total, as well as
habitat specific, areas that remain to be surveyed.
SILVICULTURE
1.
How will the probability of forest health declines and fire risks be integrated into
alternative conservation strategies?
Recent information from the East-side Cascades and elsewhere indicate that
northern spotted owl habitat has developed as a result of 50 years of fire
suppression; and that this habitat is highly susceptible to catastrophic fire (25 to 50
year fire cycle; 125 to 150 year catastrophic, stand replacing, fire cycle). Given
this information, two management strategies are possible. One is to use prudent,
conservative harvest techniques to reduce fuel loadings in these areas while
maintaining viable owl habitat post treatment. The other is simply to set aside
more land in the hopes not all will burn.
2.
What silvicultural treatments have been considered, and what personnel
(silviculturists) or data have been consulted to arrive at silvicultural strategies?
Experimentation on private and tribal forest lands is now underway to develop
appropriate silvicultural techniques for the manipulation of spotted owl habitat.
These techniques have three objectives:
1)
To accelerate development of second growth stands to desired future
habitat conditions for spotted owl using thinning, pruning, fertilizing, and
other proven silvicultural techniques. Since these treatments have been
applied to millions of acres of forest lands in the past 25 years, there are
data and predictive models available which may be used reliably to predict
future stand conditions to assure they are suitable for spotted owl recovery.
For example, the combination of thinning, fertilization, and pruning can
create stands with the necessary flyways and crown development believed
to be necessary for owl dispersal.
2)
To provide for at least limited economic opportunities for harvest of
merchantable timber in spotted owl areas, while maintaining habitat
conditions using partial cutting practices such as "New Forestry," green tree
retention, snag retention, and/or coarse woody debris conservation in a
conservative harvest prescription.
RESEARCH/ECOLOGY
1.
Recent studies and ecological theory show that wildlife populations in reserved
areas are buffered against random demographic failure by sub-populations that
exist in habitats outside of the reserved areas. How will these non-reserved (i.e.,
managed) habitats be recognized in future conservation alternatives?
All natural populations are composed of loosely associated sub-populations. The
entire set is described as a "metapopulation". Some sub-populations exist in very
good habitat conditions, where animal densities are expected to be greatest. Such
"source" populations may produce the largest number of juveniles for colonizing
vacancies in other sub-populations in poorer habitats, which are called "sinks".
Although absolute densities are greater in the habitats for source populations,
individual reproductive success within all sub-populations may be equal, due to the
equalizing effects of within-population competition for food or other resources.
Therefore, sub-populations outside of reserved areas can buffer those in the
reserved habitats during occasional periods of poor productivity there.
2.
What assumptions were used in calculating estimates of known pairs from all site
records, and the projection of total population estimates from known owls?
Sites where owls are detected are not always occupied by owl pairs. For example,
some observations, such as in young-forest sites in coastal California, suggest that
about 70-80% of "known" owl sites (i.e, locations where 1 or more owls respond to
night-time calling) are occupied by territorial pairs. Thus, the total number of
known sites might be reduced by 20-30% to estimate the number of sites occupied
by pairs. On the other hand, occupancy rates of mixed-conifer forests in Oregon
and Washington are over 80%. Further, many sites where single birds respond to
calls actually contain pairs in which a non-breeding female may not respond to
calls. Thus, using a single rate of occupancy to estimate the total number of pairs
across the entire range of the owl may be quite conservative.
Also, some population estimates are made on the basis of survey effort relative to
the amount of ostensibly suitable habitat. Such estimates clearly depend upon the
definition of habitat used. If the definition of suitable habitat is restrictive, which
apparently is the case, then only a conservative estimate of total population is
possible from the proportion of habitat surveyed.
3.
How has the use of contemporary methods for estimating home range size, such
as the adaptive kernel technique, and the core-area concept been explored in
locating the most-important habitat within home ranges?
Owl biologists were informed in 1986 that the common method of "minimum
convex polygons" (or MCP) to estimate home-range areas was considered obsolete
by the scientific community. Several scientific publications have pointed out that
MCP consistently over-estimates the total area actually occupied. This occurs
because a small percentage of peripheral points cause the estimated home range
to increase by as much as 50%. The current recommended methods now include
the adaptive kernel technique, which conforms more closely to the areas actually
used by animals.
Such methods also provide estimates of areas that contain differing proportions of
areas used. For example, adaptive kernel techniques can identify "core areas",
which are relatively small areas of intensive use within home ranges. Core areas
may contain the habitat conditions that most closely accord with habitat
requirements.
4.
To what extent has the USFS and/or BLM implemented adaptive management
concepts, that is, simultaneously implementing more than one option to probe for
scientific information? Examples would include testing precepts of conservation
strategies or testing silvicultural options for creating owl habitat.
The prevailing opinion holds that 60-80 years are required to test silvicultural
options in currently occupied habitat. Thus, the conservative approach is to
preserve old-growth habitats until it is proven that forestry treatments can result in
habitat occupied by a viable population of owls. On the other hand, empirical
observations have located breeding owl populations in managed forests that were
regenerated as little as 30 years ago.
Also, many untested options exist to manipulate 20- or 30-year old forests, which
occupy several million acres in the Pacific Northwest and California. For example,
pruning and thinning may improve forests in a few years, by making prey
available. And under-planting could increase vegetative diversity important to the
owl's prey.
Further, the ISC Report recommended active adaptive management, so as to test
the 5 basic precepts for the conservation strategy (bigger is better, etc.). Such
testing was to provide a rapid means for modifying the strategy with new
information. Several studies have developed information indicating silvicultural
intervention is required to maintain owl habitats in some areas (e.g., reduce risk of
extensive crown fires). However, there appears to be no modification of the
conservation strategy.
5.
To what extent were terrain features used in the definition of suitable habitat and
home range interpretations?
Any map-based strategy for protecting wildlife associated with late-successional
forests must account for the effects of terrain. For example, placing lines around
stands of old forests risks failure because it does not recognize that ecosystem
productivity and wildlife diversity decrease with increasing elevation. Other
examples of this phenomenon are shown by recent scientific studies that were
unable to correlate owl reproductive success with amounts of mature and old-
growth forest. In those cases, topographic variation was thought to be involved.
Thus, using old-growth only to specify wildlife conservation areas constitutes an
hypothesis to be tested via adaptive management experiments.
ANADROMOUS FISH
1.
What assurance is there that proposed stream protection actions will:
a)
Restore at-risk fish stocks?
b)
Maintain at-risk fish stocks at present levels?
Can/will the stream protection actions on federal lands achieve maintenance
and/or restoration of at-risk fish stocks without other actions in other portions of
the total watershed, estuary, and ocean?
Additional actions are needed for significant at-risk fish restoration. It is
physically and biologically impossible to increase salmonid survival values for life
stages that live within streams on federal forest land (or on federal, state and
private forest land) enough to mitigate for more significant mortality factors that
occur elsewhere in their life cycles. Proposed actions must relate to realistic
limiting factors analyses for fish stocks at-risk. Otherwise we are wasting very
limited resources that could better be applied elsewhere.
ASSOCIATION OF O&C COUNTIES
COMM. ROCKY McVAY, PRES.
RAY E. DOERNER, EXEC. DIR.
CURRY COUNTY COURTHOUSE
486 HEYDON ROAD
GOLD BEACH, OR 97444
ROSEBURG, OREGON 97470
PHONE 503-247-7015
PHONE 503-673-5286
COMM. DOUG ROBERTSON, V. PRES.
DAVID S. BARROWS, COUNSEL
DOUGLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
SUITE 200, CENTURY TOWER
ROSEBURG, OR 97470
1201 S. W. 12th AVENUE
PHONE 503-440-4201
PORTLAND, OREGON 972051
PHONE 503-227-5591
COMM. STEVE CORNACCHIA, SEC. TREAS.
LANE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
JOSEPH S. MILLER, PUB. REL.
EUGENE, OR 97401
19 3rd STREET. N.E.
PHONE 503-687-4203
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
May 1993
PHONE 202-546-6661
PROPOSED SOLUTION
As a result of the Forest Conference on April 2nd of this year, it is clear
that the direction from President Clinton is for federal agencies involved to
come together and craft a solution to the federal forest management crisis
that has gripped the Pacific Northwest for the last five years.
President Clinton made it clear that the solution had to be within the
guidelines of existing law, scientifically credible and balance the needs and
requirements of people and communities with those of endangered species
and ecosystems. It is within the context of those guidelines that the
Association of O&C Counties submits the following proposal.
The proposal basically is in the form of a petition for a Section 10
incidental take permit as provided for in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The petition will, of course, be accompanied by a comprehensive habitat
conservation plan (HCP).
Why This Proposal for the O & C Lands?
I. As the attached document entitled "A Brief Description of a Unique
Category of Federal Lands" clearly points out, the O&C lands are not, nor
were they ever intended to be public lands as defined by the federal
government. The O&C lands are special purpose lands and have been so
recognized in federal statutes and in federal court rulings.
II. The receipts from the O&C lands are used for general county
purposes such as law enforcement, health and social services, veterans
service offices, libraries and a host of other county services. This is an
important contrast to the dedicated funds received by counties from the
federal forest service. Those funds can be used only for the county road
fund and for aid to education. In many counties in Oregon, O&C receipts
literally run county government.
How Does a Section 10 Exemption Work?
The incidental take permit provisions of the ESA specify that:
"(1) The Secretary may permit, under such terms and
conditions as he shall prescribe-
(B) any taking otherwise prohibited by section 9(a)(1)(B)
if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the
carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." 16 USCA 1539(a)
The Section 10 process is one of three balancing provisions within the ESA.
The other two are the Section 4 Exemption Process and the Section 7
Endangered Species Committee process.
The Legislative History notes that Congress intended the Secretary to use
this provision to encourage creative partnerships between the public and
private sectors in the interest of species and habitat conservation. 1982
U.S. Code Cong & Adm. News 2871 - 2873.
Congress also recognized that in order to provide sufficient incentives for
the private sector to participate in the development of long tern and
expensive conservation plans, there must be adequate assurances that the
incidental take permit will be available for the length of the project. 1982
U.S. Code Cong & Adm. News 2872.
As a requirement for each permit, the applicant must submit to the
Secretary a conservation plan ("Habitat Conservation Plan") that specifies:
"(i) the impact will likely result from such taking;
(ii) what steps the applicant will take to minimize and
mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to
implement such steps;
(iii) what alternative actions to such taking the applicant
considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being
utilized;
(iv) such other measures that the Secretary may require as
being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan."
16 USCA 1539(a)(2)(A).
Once the Secretary has received an application and habitat conservation
plan, he must provide a public hearing on the plan and make specific
findings that:
"(i) the taking will be incidental;
(ii) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking;
(iii) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the
plan will be provided;
(iv) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood
of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
(v) the measures, if any, required under subparagraph
(A)(iv) will be met." 16 USCA 1539(a)(2)(B).
The permit is to include any terms and conditions the Secretary deems
necessary or appropriate including reporting requirements. In addition,
during development of the San Bruno Mtn (San Mateo County) habitat
conservation plan an environmental assessment under NEPA was developed.
Friends of Endangered Species V. Jantzen 760 F2d 976, 980 (1985).
In adopting this provision, Congress intended that the Secretary utilize this
provision to approve. habitat conservation plans that provide long term
commitments to conserving listed as well as unlisted species. In the event
an unlisted species that is addressed in an approved conservation plan is
subsequently listed, no further mitigation requirements should be imposed
if the conservation plan covered the conservation of the species and its
habitat.
The HCP will provide for the management of the O&C lands on a basis that
emphasizes the perpetuation of a forest with old growth characteristics.
The plan will incorporate three main elements to achieve this result:
1. Extending the rotation age to a point at which the old
growth characteristics of the forest are established for the
benefits of the dependent old growth species and ecosystem.
2. Increase the size of the riparian protection corridors to
address the concerns of fish and help implement the proposal
of connectivity.
3. Reduce the amount of timber harvested to achieve the first
two goals and yet still provide for the economic base necessary
to sustain the timber dependent communities an counties for
which the O&C lands were originally created.
We believe that this proposal follows closely the necessary elements of a
solution as presented by the President as he closed the Forest Conference:
#1 - a solution should be community based and not driven from the top
down, #2 - any solution must meet the guidelines of existing laws, #3 -
the solution must be based on credible science and #4 - any solution must
address the human dimension of this problem as well as the economic
consideration of the region and the entire nation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rocky Rocky McVay
mcray
President
CLALLAM COUNTY
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
223 EAST FOURTH STREET
PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362-3098
SCAN: 575-1446
PHONE: (206) 452-7831, EXT. 446
FAX: 452-0470
8888 06
0088
HARRIETTE BUCHMANN
SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR TIMBER IMPACTS
AMANIA
COUNTY
SKAMANIA COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MELISSA CARLSON-PRICE
District 1
Skamania County Courthouse
DEAN EVANS
Post Office Box 790
District 2
Stevenson, Washington 98648
ED CALLAHAN
(509) 427-5141 FAX: (509) 427-4165
District 3
WAS
HINGTON
SKAMANIA COUNTY
TIMBER IMPACTS AND NEEDS
Skamania County is located in southwest Washington State along the Columbia River. It is a
rural, timber-based county with a population of 8500. Nearly 80 percent of the county is national
forest. Eight percent of the land is in state timber land and 11 percent is in private timberlands.
Much of the limited private land in Skamania County is included in the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area.
The National Forests have been our lifeblood for decades. They used to provide nearly half the
jobs in our workforce, raw materials for our mills, and revenues to local governments and schools.
This is now changing.
Skamania County timber industry employment has been reduced from 700 jobs to 200 jobs since
the late 1980's. Several mills have closed, including our largest employer, Stevenson Co-Ply.
Only one mill remains in operation. Many small logging companies and independent loggers and
haulers are also without work. They have been forced to sell their equipment or are struggling
to make payments.
The Gifford Pinchot National Forest sold over an average 350 million board feet per year prior to
the current forest controversy. While the national forest plans reduced the sale of timber by
about 20 percent in the Pacific Northwest, the impact of the environmental decisions reduced the
sale of timber in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest to only 25 million board feet in 1992. Mills
in the mid-Columbia region of the Pacific Northwest are forced to purchase logs from as far away
as Utah.
Historically, Skamania County received an average of 45 percent of its revenues to provide public
services and facilities from the Federal Forest. A substantial reduction in timber sales and harvest
will significantly reduce county and school revenues. A 50 percent reduction in funds from the
federal forest is equal to our total budget for law enforcement, jail services and courts.
Skamania County needs a stable base of revenue to operate County government and the
opportunity to diversify its economy. With the large federal and state ownership and the economic
restrictions imposed by the National Scenic Area, we have limited opportunity to increase public
revenues and diversify. Given these restraints, our economic diversification efforts must be high
impact and productive.
We seek minimum federal forest payments to provide adequate public services and funds for
infrastructure in our urban areas to build a sufficient economy to provide family-wage employment
opportunities for Skamania County citizens.