<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:47909.wais]
HEARING ON THE IMPACT AND STATUS OF THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ON
NATIONAL FORESTS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 19, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-79
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-909 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
Bill Simmons, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 19, 1998...................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 03
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statements of witnesses:
Boyce, Dr. Mark S., College of Natural Resources, University
of Wisconsin............................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Cosgrove, Sean, Legislative Coordinator, ForestWater
Alliance, Washington, DC................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Irwin, Dr. Larry L., National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement, Stevensville, Montana......................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Jackson, Gerry, Assistant Director, Ecological Services, Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC; accompanied by David Wesley, Assistant
Regional Director, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Portland, Oregon;
Bob Williams, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland,
Oregon; and Martin Raphael, Ph.D., Chief Research
Biologist, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Services, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington............. 26
Prepared statement of Gerry Jackson...................... 64
Lyons, James, Under Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department
of Agriculture............................................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Taylor, Dr. Robert J., Endangered Species Group, Orangevale,
California................................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Additional material supplied:
California Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement of..... 44
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPACT AND STATUS OF THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL
ON NATIONAL FORESTS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. [presiding] The Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting
today to hear testimony on the impact and status of the
northern spotted owl on the national forests.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health meets to evaluate the impact and status of the northern
spotted owl on national forests in the Pacific Northwest. It
has been 8 years since the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the
owl as a threatened species in June 1990. In its listing
decision the Service found that past trends, and I quote,
``past trends strongly suggest that much of the remaining
unprotected spotted owl habitat could disappear within 20 to 30
years, and on some forests the unprotected habitat could
disappear within 10 years.''--end quote.
Time has proven that prediction wrong. Since 1990, the area
of known habitat has increased each year. Population counts
have increased significantly over time, as well. And thanks in
part to better inventories, we have also learned that the owl
uses a greater variety of habitat than was initially assumed.
In 1994, when the President's Forest Plan was adopted, the
landscape really changed. In one fell swoop, millions of acres
of spotted owl habitat were set aside and stringent standards
and guidelines were adopted, drastically altering the
management of 19 national forests in 8 BLM districts.
As a result, at least 88 percent of the 24 million acre
land base is now off-limits to timber management activities.
This created a vastly different picture from the one described
in 1990 when the Service decided that the owl's habitat was
threatened because 63 percent of the national forest land
within its range was subject to timber harvest.
Now, 4 years after adoption of the President's Forest Plan
and 8 years after the spotted owl was listed, it is time to re-
evaluate the status of the owl, the condition of its habitat,
the results of the agency's management under the plan,
monitoring results, and plans for future research.
We must ask how its management affected the owl and what
effect the owl has had on forest management. How much have we
spent on management and monitoring activities, and what were
the results? And most importantly, when and how will we know
whether the decisions we made in the first half of this decade
have worked so that the owl can ultimately be removed from the
threatened list?
The growing body of scientific data on the population of
the northern spotted owl, the area and type of habitat it
requires, and changing management direction for both Federal
lands and other lands have rendered obsolete many of the
original assumptions about the owl and its habitat.
Now, scientists and land managers have raised new concerns
that the invasion of the barred owl and the very real threat of
catastrophic fire in reserved lands pose an even greater threat
to the owl. These concerns need to be addressed. It is critical
that we ensure, through this Committee's oversight
responsibility, that national forest management decisions are
made and taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. It is my intent
that this hearing will shed light on some of our questions and
help identify what changes may be needed to significantly
improve management of the owl and its habitat in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho
This afternoon the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health meets to evaluate the impact and status of the northern
spotted owl on national forests in the Pacific Northwest. It
has been eight years since the Fish and Wildlife Service listed
the owl as a threatened species in June, 1990. In its listing
decision, the Service found that ``past trends strongly suggest
that much of the remaining unprotected spotted owl habitat
could disappear within 20 to 30 years, and on some forests, the
unprotected habitat could disappear within 10 years.''
Time has proven that prediction wrong. Since 1990, the area
of known habitat has increased each year. Population counts
have increased significantly over time as well. Thanks in part
to better inventories, we have also learned that the owl uses a
greater variety of habitat than was initially assumed.
In 1994, when the President's Forest Plan was adopted, the
landscape really changed. In one fell swoop, millions of acres
of spotted owl habitat were set aside and stringent standards
and guidelines were adopted, drastically altering the
management of nineteen national forests and eight BLM
districts. As a result, at least 88 percent of the 24 million
acre land base is now off limits to timber management
activities. This created a vastly different picture from the
one described in 1990, when the Service decided that the owl's
habitat was threatened because 63 percent of the national
forest land within its range was subject to timber harvest.
Now, four years after adoption of the President's Forest
Plan and eight years after the spotted owl was listed, it is
time to reevaluate the status of the owl, the condition of its
habitat, the results of the agencies' management under the
plan, monitoring results, and plans for future research. We
must ask, how has management affected the owl, and what effect
has the owl had on forest management? How much have we spent on
management and monitoring activities, and what were the
results? And most importantly, when and how will we know
whether the decisions we made in the first half of this decade
have worked, so that the owl can ultimately be removed from the
threatened list?
The growing body of scientific data on the population of
the northern spotted owl, the area and type of habitat it
requires, and changing management direction for both Federal
lands and other lands have rendered obsolete many of the
original assumptions about the owl and its habitat. Now,
scientists and land managers have raised new concerns that the
invasion of the barred owl and the very real threat of
catastrophic fire in ``reserved'' lands pose an even greater
threat to the owl. These concerns need to be addressed.
It is critical that we ensure, through this Committee's
oversight responsibility, that national forest management
decisions are made and taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. It is
my intent that this hearing will shed light on some of our
questions and help identify what changes may be needed to
significantly improve management of the owl and its habitat in
the future.
Mrs. Chenoweth. If and when the Minority Member arrives, I
will recognize him for any statements he may have; otherwise,
I'm sure he'll have a statement that we'll be happy to submit
in its entirety to the record. So with that, I'm very pleased
and honored to introduce our first witness, the Honorable Wally
Herger. Mr. Herger.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I
thank you for this opportunity to testify today regarding
oversight of the northern spotted owl.
When this species originally was listed by the Fish and
Wildlife Service on June 26, 1990, the Service indicated two
reasons for declaring the northern spotted owl as a threatened
species. One, widespread destruction and modification of its
habitat, and, two, existing regulatory mechanisms were
inadequate to control further habitat loss.
However, since 1990 the definition of suitable habitat for
the northern spotted owl has expanded until it now includes
approximately 80 percent of the forested lands in California
alone. Therefore, of the Service's two reasons for listing the
owl--one, widespread destruction and modification of owl
habitat has not occurred, and, in fact, an increase in habitat
has been found; and, two, California regulatory mechanisms have
been found to provide adequate habitat protection.
In addition, since this listing, owl numbers have been
found to be much higher than previously estimated. In 1986, the
National Audubon Society convened a blue-ribbon panel of
experts to determine how many owls were needed to keep the
species viable. They determined viability would require between
1,100 and 1,200 pairs, or 2,200 to 2,400 total owls.
In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that
further studies established that at least 3,500 known pairs of
owls, or 7,000 total owls, throughout California and the
Pacific Northwest.
Madam Chairman, this is three times the number experts
originally reported were needed for a viable population. In
addition, in 1995 the U.S. Forest Service reported an
additional 2,600 to 4,000 California spotted owls in northern
California. According to Forest Service biologists, California
spotted owls are genetically identical to northern spotted owls
and fully capable of inter-breeding with the northern spotted
owl.
The only difference is that California owls live in the
Sierra Nevada mountain range, while the northern owl lives in
the Cascade mountain range. This means that just two years ago
there were between 9,600 and 11,000 total spotted owls in
California and the Pacific Northwest--between four and five
times the number that sci-
entists have stated are needed to keep the species viable. Each
year the total number increases as new nesting sites are
confirmed, yet the species is still listed as threatened and is
still managed as though it were in decline.
Since the listing of the northern spotted owl, 36 mills in
my district alone have been forced to close their doors. A
thirty-seventh mill is currently shut down until more local
timber supplies can be found. This dramatic loss of jobs has
forced many community members into the welfare rolls.
A professor at the University of California at Berkeley
estimated, in 1993 alone, the unemployment compensation
resulting from the implementation of the President's plan for
the spotted owl increased by over $745 million. In recent
years, Trinity County, in my district, has had an unemployment
rate that has at times hovered around 20 percent.
Siskiyou County reported that in some years 23 of 29
schools in the county have 50 percent or more of their children
receiving meals for needy children. This is a tragedy. These
people don't want welfare. They want to work.
Madam Chairman, a strong economy and a healthy environment
need not be mutually exclusive. The Endangered Species Act was
never intended to foster intolerance in our society, yet that
is exactly what happens every time we pit saving species
against jobs and education.
By relying on sound science, we can maintain spotted owl
populations and ensure jobs for our communities and support for
our schools. If there was once a need to protect the spotted
owl, that need has clearly been met. It is time to review the
manner in which we deal with the spotted owl.
Madam Chairman, in closing I would like to draw your
attention to the testimony of the California Farm Bureau
Federation President, Bill Pauli, and request it be entered
into the record. This testimony goes into greater detail on
what the impacts of listing of the owl have had on California.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf
of my constituents in northern California.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
Statement of Hon. Wally Herger, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Madame Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today regarding oversight of the
northern spotted owl.
When this subspecies originally was listed by the Fish &
Wildlife Service on June 26, 1990, the Service indicated two
reasons for declaring the northern spotted owl as a threatened
species: 1). widespread destruction and modification of its
habitat, and 2). existing regulatory mechanisms were inadequate
to control further habitat loss. However, since 1990, the
definition of suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl has
expanded until it now includes approximately 80 percent of the
forested lands in California alone. Therefore, of the service's
two reasons for listing the owl, 1). widespread destruction and
modification of owl habitat has not occurred and in fact, an
increase in habitat has been found, and 2). California
regulatory mechanisms have been found to provide adequate
habitat protection.
In addition, since its listing, owl numbers have been found
to be much higher than previously estimated. In 1986, the
National Audubon Society convened a ``blue ribbon panel'' of
experts to determine how many owls were needed to keep the
species viable. They determined viability would require between
1,100 and 1,200 pairs, or 2,200 to 2,400 total owls. In 1991,
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service reported that further studies
established at least 3,500 known pairs of owls--or 7,000 total
owls--throughout California and the Pacific northwest. This is
three times the number experts originally reported were needed
for a viable population. In addition, in 1995 the U.S. Forest
Service reported an additional 2,600 to 4,000 California
spotted owls in northern California. According to Forest
Service biologists, California spotted owls are genetically
identical to northern spotted owls and are fully capable of
interbreeding with the northern owl. The only difference is
that California owls live in the Sierra Mountain range, while
the northern owl lives in the Cascade Mountain range. This
means that just 2 years ago there were between 9,600 and 11,000
total spotted owls in California and the Pacific northwest--
between four and five times the number that scientists have
stated are needed to keep the species viable. Each year the
total number increases as new nesting sites are confirmed. Yet
the species is still listed as threatened and is still managed
as though it were in decline.
Since the listing of the northern spotted owl, 36 mills in
my district alone have been forced to close their doors. A 37th
mill is currently shut down until more local timber supplies
can be found. This dramatic loss of jobs has forced many
community members onto the welfare rolls. A professor at the
University of California at Berkley estimated, in 1993 alone,
the unemployment compensation resulting from the implementation
of the President's plan for the spotted owl increased by over
$745 million dollars. In recent years, Trinity County in my
district has had an unemployment rate that has at times hovered
around 20 percent. Siskiyou County reported that in some years,
23 of 29 schools in the county have 50 percent or more of their
children receiving meals for needy children. This is a tragedy.
These people don't want welfare. They want to work.
Madame Chairman, a strong economy and a healthy environment
need not be mutually exclusive. The endangered species Act was
never intended to foster intolerance in our society, yet that
is exactly what happens every time we pit saving species
against jobs and education. By relying on sound science we can
maintain spotted owl populations and ensure jobs for our
communities and support for our schools.
If there was once a need to protect the spotted owl that
need has clearly been met. It is time to review the manner in
which we deal with the spotted owl.
Again thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of
my constituents.
[The prepared statement of the California Farm Bureau
Federation may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Do you know if the
National Audubon Society or the Fish and Wildlife Society have
indicated how many owls are necessary today to preserve
viability in that species?
Mr. Herger. I do not. All I know is what they at one time
indicated.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Mr. Herger. Back in 1986.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So you don't know if they've changed
their--revised their earlier estimates.
Mr. Herger. I do not. I do know that we have identified at
least four times--three to four times more than what they at
that time indicated they needed for a viability.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In the best of all worlds, if we had the
best of all worlds, what would you recommend happen?
Mr. Herger. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you for asking. I
support the Endangered Species Act. I believe, however, it is
not being implemented in a fair and equitable manner. I think
we've shown in our area that we know a great deal more in how
to manage our forests today than we did 20 to 30 years ago, and
we have shown that we can manage and be able to have viable
northern spotted owl populations and still be able to go in,
and by thinning our forests, working to restore them to their
historic levels--they are currently in areas two to three times
denser than they were--that we can thin these forests out, be
able to have a very viable habitat for the northern spotted
owl, and at the same time be able to supply our communities
with the jobs to keep wood products for our mills and supply
our country with the very needed wood products that they need
to keep our country going.
I would like to see some of this balance brought into play
that is very obviously out of balance now. I'd like to see the
politics removed. We have a number of special interests. I'm
afraid within the environmental community that they have staked
out a philosophy that seems to be refusing to look at new
science. I don't believe our country can afford to continue in
that direction any longer.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Herger, is there anything else you
would like to add for the record?
Mr. Herger. I really don't. Again, I thank you for holding
this very important hearing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are very welcome, and if you have the
time you are welcome to join me on the dias.
Mr. Herger. Thank you. If you could excuse me, I do have an
airplane--I'm headed back to California--but thank you again
very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Herger.
I'd like to call our second panel of witnesses now. I do
want to explain that I intend to place all of our witnesses
under oath. This is a formality of the Committee that is meant
to ensure open and honest discussion and should not affect the
testimony given by witnesses. I believe all of the witnesses
were informed of this before appearing here today, and they
have each been provided a copy of the Committee rules.
And so now we welcome Dr. Mark Boyce, College of Natural
Resources, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Wisconsin;
Dr. Robert Taylor, Endangered Species Group, Orangevale,
California; Dr. Larry Irwin, National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement; Sean Cosgrove, legislative coordinator,
ForestWater Alliance in Washington, DC.
Gentlemen, I wonder if you might rise and extend your hands
to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Under our Committee rules, witnesses must
limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire
statement will be admitted to the record and appear in its
entire context. We will also allow questioning after you have
finished, and I also want you to know that the record does
remain open for a period of 10 days should you wish to
substitute any information or add to your testimony. You are
welcome to do so. You also need to know that I, too, will
probably be sending you additional questions, and so we would
appreciate a response from you within 10 days.
The Chair is very pleased to see that Mr. Faleomavaega has
joined us. Mr. Faleomavaega, do you have a statement?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity and for your conducting this hearing on this issue.
I don't have an opening statement, but I do look forward to
hearing from our witnesses this morning. I'm sorry that I
missed the testimony by our colleague, Congressman Herger, whom
I understand has already testified before the Subcommittee, but
thank you for the opportunity and I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, and the Chair recognizes Dr.
Boyce.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK S. BOYCE, COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Dr. Boyce. Thank you. Madam Chair, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address this
group.
I've been conducting research on the northern spotted owl
since 1987. I wish to call your attention to our new study
recently accepted for publication as a Wildlife Monograph. I've
attached the abstract from this monograph to the written
testimony.
Our research provides new information that challenges the
dispersal-based model that is the fundamental basis for the
President's forest management plan. Despite the focus on
ecosystem management in the President's forest management plan,
there is no question but what the spatial outlay of protected
areas was driven initially largely by the Interagency
Scientific Committee's work on the northern spotted owl.
Forest fragmentation--that is, the break up of the forest
into isolated pieces--has been presumed to be a major factor
threatening the future of the spotted owl. In fact, it's
fundamental to the model that drove the forest management plan.
Our study was designed explicitly to test this assumption
of the role of forest fragmentation, and we found no evidence
that large-scale fragmentation influences the distribution or
occupation of habitat by the northern spotted owl. Rather, the
distribution and occupancy was driven by the loss of habitat,
and habitat is a rather complex configuration as it relates to
the northern spotted owl. It includes such things as the
juxtaposition of old growth with shrubby areas and pole timber
stands that are very important because they provide dispersing
rodents that are prey for the northern spotted owl.
This new information challenges the focus of the
President's plan on designated conservation areas and raises
the hypothesis that dispersed smaller blocks of old growth may
be actually more effective at ensuring the viability of the
northern spotted owl.
Ours is not the only such study. Several studies have been
published in the last 4 years that have come to the same
conclusion, that the early focus upon the dispersal of young
owls and the importance of spatial distribution for the owls,
has been misplaced.
Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am concerned
that our new information will not be used. I believe that there
is so much bureaucratic inertia in the President's Forest Plan
that there will be little attempt to evaluate how effectively
the plan is working for the northern spotted owl, nor will
there be opportunity to reconsider its effectiveness.
The forest management plan needs adaptive management. It
needs a rigorous interface between science and management. In
the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team report,
adaptive management areas were designated to be set aside for
experimental management. There are 10 such areas in the Pacific
Northwest. The Forest Service has been slow to implement these
adaptive management areas, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
has created hurdles to conducting experimental management on
the north-
ern spotted owl. We cannot break the management gridlock in the
Pacific Northwest without new information and without research
and monitoring.
I ask the Subcommittee to do two things; one, to do what is
necessary to ensure that the Forest Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service work together to ensure adaptive management
protocols for big picture issues related to the northern
spotted owl, and that these be implemented on each and every
adaptive management area. And second, I request that you enlist
the National Research Council to design institutional
mechanisms that would facilitate true adaptive management on
our public lands.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Boyce may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Dr. Boyce. The Chair
now recognizes Dr. Robert Taylor, Endangered Species Group,
Orangevale, California.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT J. TAYLOR, ENDANGERED SPECIES GROUP,
ORANGEVALE, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I've been asked to
testify today because for the last 6 years I have spent a great
deal of time working with data on the northern spotted owl in
California--analyzing it, plotting it on maps, and feeding it
into computer models.
I shall limit my answers to the three questions that form
the topic of this hearing to conditions in California alone,
and I'll be repeating to some extent Congressman Herger, I'm
afraid.
Question one: the status of the northern spotted owl. To
understand the status of the owl in California, it helps to
know that the State's Department of Fish and Game has, for a
number of years, maintained a centralized data base for spotted
owl observations that everybody who surveys owls, public and
private, contributes to and considers reliable.
At the time of the spotted owl status review in 1989, the
State data base contained observations on about 500 pairs of
owls. Observations were heavily clustered on national forests,
with a light scattering on private land. Scientists looking at
this pattern thought it meant that the owl population was
becoming increasingly patchy as its old growth habitat
disappeared. The few owls known to occupy second-growth forests
on public or private lands were considered outcasts from good
habitat, residents of population sinks where survival and
reproduction were low.
Data on private lands were largely absent at the time the
listing decision was made. Intensive surveys of private
industrial forests only began at that time. Subsequently, those
surveys have found surprisingly large numbers of owls, resident
and breeding, in second-growth commercial forests. We know now
that the first impressions of the size and extent of the
spotted owl population did not reflect the ecology of the
spotted owl so much as they reflected incomplete and biased
survey data.
Using a recent version of the State data base, I've
estimated the number of breeding pairs in California to be
approximately 1,800. The spatial pattern of these territories
shows complete coverage of the surveyed forests of northwest
California. Spotted owls are found breeding in habitats ranging
from redwood forests in the north to hardwood-dominated stands
in the south. California exhibits an enormous variety of
managed forest types, all of which appear to be occupied by
owls.
Although various habitat studies suggest that owls prefer
dense stands of large trees, banding studies have not shown a
difference in survival and reproduction between owls living in
relatively undisturbed old growth and in managed second growth.
To summarize, the scientific theory that dominated the
President's Forest Plan, that the spotted owl population was
headed toward a precarious existence in a limited number of
refuges, has not held up to new information gathered in
California. The spotted owl appears to be more flexible in its
use of forest habitats and its population more robust than
originally thought.
Question two: the impact of national forest management
activities on owl populations. The primary effect of the
President's plan in California has been to stop nearly all
logging in the national forests. What impact this has had on
the spotted owl is difficult to assess since the plan was
implemented shortly after the Forest Service put a nearly
complete stop to owl monitoring.
One can only speculate about the effects of an aging and an
increasingly homogeneous forest on owl populations. My own
speculation is that the trend will be worse for the owl, as its
preferred prey in more open forests, the dusky-footed woodrat,
is replaced by the smaller and less common flying squirrel.
Question three: the impact of the owl on management
activities. How much of the change in national forest
management should be attributed to the concern for spotted owls
is difficult to know. While the owl served as the poster child
for the President's Forest Plan, the FEMAT team generalized the
issue far beyond this one species.
The major impact on private land, in my opinion, is the
concentration of the forest industry into fewer larger
landowners. Sixty-four lumber mills have closed in northern
California in the last 10 years, a number of these small,
family owned operations. The larger companies that survived
have more resources to put into regulatory issues and have seen
the values of their land soar.
How this shift will play out in forest management is not
yet clear. Optimists think that private forest management will
fall into increasingly professional hands. Pessimists believe
that return on investment will increasingly win out over good
forest stewardship.
Nobody I talk to in the regulatory agencies in California
seems particularly concerned about spotted owls anymore. The
species has become a low priority item. Given that, one wonders
why Federal and State regulators will not consider revising
habitat standards crafted back in the Dark Ages of spotted owl
science. Presumably, new, relaxed standards would still ensure
the conservation of the species, yet we seem to be permanently
stuck in limbo on spotted owls.
Six years after the publication of a draft recovery plan,
no final plan has appeared. Four years after the Fish and
Wildlife Service initiated section 4(d) rules for private
lands, no rule has been published. While local Fish and
Wildlife personnel are perfectly willing to accept that science
has changed, the agency itself seems unable or unwilling to
reflect those changes in a programmatic document.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Taylor may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Dr. Taylor.
Dr. Larry Irwin, National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement, Stevensville, Montana.
STATEMENT OF DR. LARRY L. IRWIN, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR AIR AND
STREAM IMPROVEMENT, STEVENSVILLE, MONTANA
Dr. Irwin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My purpose today is
to present to you four topics that are related to scientific
information that has been gathered about the owl since the owl
was listed in 1990.
The first topic has to do with the spotted owl population
trends. We've been doing a study on the spotted owl population
since 1990 in the eastern Cascades of Washington. We found
that, using innovative analytical techniques, survival rates of
adult female owls in that population have apparently been
stable since 1990, therefore there is some room for optimism
for at least that population.
The second topic has to do with linking population trends
with trends in habitat conditions. Since 1990, we have found
that the relationship, between spotted owls and forest
conditions are much more complex than we thought previously.
For example, in our studies in eastern Washington, we have
found that owls in managed forests there have twice the rate of
reproduction, despite having access to about half as much late-
successional old growth forests as spotted owls in reserved
areas along the crest of the Cascades. That seemingly totally
contradictory pattern is related to physical environmental
attributes that presumably translate into abundance or access
to the spotted owl's food base.
The third topic has to do with the risk of large-scale
wildfires. After the owl was listed in 1990, we learned that
extensive wildfires are likely to occur in owl habitats in the
eastern Washington and Oregon Cascades, as well as the Klamath
Region in southern Oregon and northern California.
The risks are highest and sometimes extreme in areas where
dense, undergrowth trees create ladder conditions for small
fires to enter forest canopies and thereby escalate into
landscape-scale fires.
Given that, managers have to face a very difficult
question. How can we protect spotted owls in areas that are
also prone to landscape-scale fires? One implication, similar
to what Dr. Boyce pointed out, is that simply mapping old
forests and setting aside large blocks of those forests, may
not be the optimal strategy in the long run for spotted owl
conservation in fire-prone areas.
What to do about these topics is my fourth point, the value
of adaptive management. It should be possible to condition
forests in fire-prone areas to reduce the risk of fire and yet
maintain the owl, and it should also be possible to create
spotted owl habitat in managed forests. Working toward both of
those goals requires manipulating forests to test several
promising options simultaneously in an adaptive management
program. However, to my knowledge, the adaptive management
activities proposed for northern spotted owls by the Thomas
Committee in 1990 have yet to become operational. Moreover,
Federal monitoring programs for the owl have been reduced.
In summary, there appears to be significant new information
on spotted owls that would seem worthy of consideration in
conservation and management. Possibly a group of scientists
might be empaneled to examine the data and suggest mechanisms
for rapid application.
Furthermore, and mindful of the need for justifiable
budgets these days, I respectfully make the following specific
suggestions. I suggest to increase funding for research that
links owl population dynamics with habitat factors and with
attributes of the physical environment.
Secondly, I would encourage research on forestry methods
that may be compatible with spotted owls and that
simultaneously reduce the risk of large-scale wildfire. And
third, I suggest to enable adaptive management programs that
can identify a combination of conservation strategies--not
necessarily a single strategy, but a combination for protecting
spotted owls across a landscape mix of managed and unmanaged
forests.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Irwin may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Dr. Irwin.
The Chair recognizes Sean Cosgrove, legislative
coordinator, ForestWater Alliance, Washington, D.C. Sean?
STATEMENT OF SEAN COSGROVE, LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR,
FORESTWATER ALLIANCE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Cosgrove. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Mr.
Faleomavaega, for allowing me the opportunity to testify here
today. It is an honor to be here before the Subcommittee and on
this panel with these learned gentlemen here.
The coalition I represent consists of 21 national and
grassroots conservation groups across the Pacific Northwest.
These are groups that have a long history of involvement in
Federal forest management, and particularly involvement with
the Northwest Forest Plan. Across the region these groups
collectively represent about 100,000 citizens.
For decades in the Pacific Northwest, the Federal
Government has been in the business of selling off ancient
forests from our public lands. Throughout the 1980's, the
Forest Service allowed ancient forests to be logged at a pretty
phenomenal rate. By 1987, the timber industry was logging an
estimated 170 acres of old growth--that's the equivalent of
about 129 football fields of ancient forest every day. The
draft forest management plans that the Forest Service was
looking at at that time called for the continued liquidation of
old growth forests.
By the early 1990's, much of our national forests in
western Washington, Oregon, and northwest California were a
tattered maze of clear-cuts and logging roads. Ancient forests
that previously covered the region have been left in scattered
remnant stands. The practice of clear-cutting old growth
forests has not only harmed forest-dwelling species, but has
also seriously damaged salmon streams and degraded watersheds
that provide drinking water to so many people in the Pacific
Northwest.
Well, by this time in the early 1990's several forest
species and salmon runs were on the brink of extinction.
Continued illegal logging of ancient forests eventually led a
U.S. Federal court to stop old growth logging until a plan was
devised to protect the Northwest's ancient forests and salmon
streams. This injunction and the need to provide better,
scientific management led to the creation of the Northwest
Forest Plan.
The Northwest Forest Plan was heralded by the Clinton
Administration as the plan that would protect and recover
ancient forests, salmon populations, and numerous other forest-
dwelling species. However, since this plan was put into effect
in May 1994, we believe it has fallen quite short. Four years
after Mr. Clinton's Forest Plan, Forest Service personnel have
been exploiting loopholes in the plan to clear-cut in
streamside reserves, log on steep, landslide-prone slopes, log
in ancient forest reserves, log in unprotected wilderness, and
log in watersheds that provide communities with drinking water.
The ForestWater Alliance compiled a report that provides a
snapshot of Northwest national forest management in fiscal year
1997. Compiling information from Federal fiscal year 1997
timber sales in the 17 national forests and 6 BLM districts in
Washington, Oregon, and California that are managed under the
Northwest Forest Plan, we found that the Forest Service logged
over 7,000 acres of ancient forest, over 5,500 acres of forest
in streamside reserves, and over 7,800 acres of forest in
ancient forest reserves.
To compound that problem, we've seen that more timber sales
sold in municipal watersheds and unprotected wilderness. One of
these sales is--I'll give you an example--the Lane Creek timber
sale, which is the municipal watershed for the town of Cottage
Grove, Oregon. If you were to go hiking up there or walk
through this municipal watershed, you'd see that the Forest
Service and the town of Cottage Grove have put up signs asking
people not to camp in this area and asking people not to go
swimming in the streams or ponds in these areas because they
want to protect the municipal water supply. But at the same
time, the Forest Service is planning a timber sale there. I can
show you some pictures here--maybe I'll pass them up to you
afterwards--of the signs up there in the forest, in the
municipal watershed, asking people to stay out of there.
Well, another reason for this Northwest Forest Plan is the
need to protect salmon. Salmon are part of our national
heritage and an important symbol of Northwest culture.
Preventing salmon extinction means protecting the forest
streams where these fish feed and lay their eggs. Logging and
road construction can fill the streams with silt and eroded
material, and as you know, this smothers fish eggs and
literally chokes salmon to death.
Well, the Northwest Forest Plan has failed to protect
threatened and endangered salmon populations in several ways.
The effect is continued degradation of salmon habitat, decline
in salmon populations, and an impact on tens of thousands of
fishing jobs. If you look on the back of my written testimony
there, you'll see a cut-out there from the Oregonian newspaper
which shows a scale of the size of acreage of imminent listings
for threatened and endangered salmon species.
Our Federal forests also provide many people with clean,
clear drinking water. In Oregon alone, more than half of the
population gets its drinking water from streams originating in
Federal forests. Logging and road construction in community and
municipal drinking watersheds add erosion and silt to the
drinking water. During winter storms, the runoff from roads and
clear-cuts can turn clear streams into muddy torrents. In some
instances this can place the drinking water supplies for whole
communities in jeopardy.
In 1996, the North Santiam River was filled with silt and
mud when heavy rains hit a landscape that had been degraded by
clear-cuts and logging roads. This caused many major
landslides. Residents and businesses were forced to
dramatically curtail water use and buy water from a neighboring
community when muddy water threatened to destroy Salem's
filtration system.
Many landslides have occurred since 1996, and many slides
continue to bleed silt into Salem's drinking water supply.
Despite these circumstances, four 1997 timber sales will log an
additional 791 acres in the same watershed. The Mayor of Salem,
Mike Swaim, the past mayor, and several Salem City Council
members have sought to protect the watershed from Federal
logging plans, pending results of a Government Accounting
Office investigation.
Mayor Swaim comments, ``Every time they log off another
timber sale in Salem's municipal watershed, I worry about our
drinking water. What you see in a clear-cut is what you get in
your drinking glass--dirt.'' Well, the government's response
has been to double logging in the North Santiam watershed in
1998.
The Northwest Forest Plan was an ambitious undertaking, and
it has made some improvements to Federal forest management in
the Pacific Northwest. However, the plan still allows for the
destruction of ancient forests, the degradation of salmon
streams, and the development of unprotected wilderness. The
Northwest Forest Plan allows logging and road construction in
communities' drinking water supplies. The Northwest Forest Plan
is full of loopholes that allow logging in ancient forests and
streamside reserves. Some loopholes even allow for clear-
cutting across streams.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Cosgrove, will you be able to wrap it
up?
Mr. Cosgrove. Real quick here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Cosgrove. Is this what Northwesterners thought they
were getting when the forest plan was devised? We don't think
so. Four years after adoption of the plan, it is clear that
residents of the Northwest want better protection. A recent
poll conducted by the ForestWater Alliance shows that 72
percent of residents across the region want to see more Federal
lands designated as wilderness. The time has come to honestly
assess the problems with the Northwest Forest Plan and Federal
forest management to work together for better forest protection
on our public forests.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cosgrove may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
I'd like to ask Dr. Boyce first, and then I would like Dr.
Irwin to also answer this. If you would explain your concerns
with the Fish and Wildlife Service's models that predict owl
populations are declining.
Dr. Boyce. The demographic models that have been used
provide only a capture of the current, or recent past, change
in the population. They give you no idea, whatsoever, of the
future for that population. So, characterizing lambda, which is
the growth rate for the population based upon these models that
include information on survival and reproduction are a
characterization of how the population is changing at the time
that it's being monitored. But, that tells you absolutely
nothing about the long-term trajectory for that population.
And, it's often times misunderstood, I believe, that people
think that if the population is declining, that it's going to
continue to decline. There's no necessary reason that would be
the case whatsoever.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Irwin?
Dr. Irwin. I, too, respond to that, Madam Chairman. One is
that whenever we do modeling for wildlife population trends, we
like to use several lines of evidence to help us make
conclusions. In this case, we have, basically, two lines of
evidence; one are the models, which are computer-based models
of survival of adult females, for example. It's based on
sampling female owls in the summer habitats that they occurred
in. The other has to do with, just simply, observations from
year to year, to find out whether the owls that were there last
year are occupying the sites again this year. It turns out that
those two forms of evidence don't exactly correspond with each
other, which raises some question about the accuracy of the
modelling procedure.
And, in asking those questions, we commissioned some
statisticians to examine some of the assumptions that go into
those models and found that, when those assumptions fail, that
there's a high likelihood for selecting a model that can be
interpreted to mean that the owl population is declining at an
accelerating rate, but--which would be an incorrect
interpretation of what is actually happening. We accounted for
that in some new modelling that we did that had to do with the
way female owls are captured. One of the assumptions has to do
with the expectation that all individuals are captured
independently of each other. We know that is not true for
spotted owls, because we don't find females unless we find
their mated males first. When we accounted for that in our
study on the east side of the Cascades in Washington, we found
out that our annual survival rate trends were flat, were
constant, and were not declining.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Interesting. Dr. Taylor, what is needed, in
your opinion, to demonstrate that the owl is in recovery beside
the population?
Dr. Taylor. Madam Chairman, I think the evidence in
California is that the owl is constant, and I think there is
almost unanimous agreement among scientists in California that
it is. I don't know how--this is a territorial species. It's
intolerant of crowding above a certain level. I don't know how
you could show growth in this population. I don't think the
owls are going to permit themselves, the population, to grow.
If the standard that's been articulated is we have to show
growth in the population, then we will never meet a standard
for recovery. I think we have recovery in California.
Mrs. Chenoweth. We just heard Dr. Boyce testify about
cycles, where we see cycles in the declining of the population
and increase in the population. Based on your studies, what is
the period of time of these cycles?
Let me back that up by saying I was in California just
recently, and I had heard that actually there are more owls
down there now than there were in pre-Columbian times.
Dr. Taylor. Well, I don't think we have very good data from
pre-Columbian times.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I don't think so either.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wondered where they got that.
Dr. Taylor. But, I think a lot people feel that the
conditions for the owl are as good now as they could possibly
be.
Mrs. Chenoweth. By the way, I heard that from the agencies.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Taylor. Maybe they have better data than I have. The
owl is a long-lived species and, as such, is not really
vulnerable to too many short-term oscillations. There's no
question but that--the primary variation in its life history
has to do with its apparent failure to breed in wet springs.
This year, for example, has been wet in California, and, so
far, we're not seeing owls calling or showing evidence of
breeding. And, evidence suggests that they may be able to go
for a couple of years with complete failure to breed, but they
live so long that they recover in the good years.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And, they live how long?
Dr. Taylor. Oh, people are talking about 15-20 years,
sometimes, as a maximum life span.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Based on the models that the agencies have
been operating within, can a stable but fluctuating population
meet the Fish and Wildlife Service's test today for recovery?
Dr. Taylor. I don't think so. The only test that I have
seen was in the draft recovery plan, and that test was so
stringent, that I don't believe we will ever, ever get the data
that will meet that test, no matter how stable the owl
population is.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I see that my time is almost up, and I do
want to yield to Mr. Faleomavaega.
But, specifically, if you were to change the models and the
tests to make it reflect a more accurate population, how would
you do that, specifically?
Dr. Taylor. The original demographic model, which Dr. Boyce
referred to, only has three simple equations in it. There's a
new generation of models, of computer-simulation models based
upon individual models--owls of individual--pardon me--it's
based upon the aggregation of models of individual owls in the
computer. There are different ways of doing this. I think this
new generation of models has a lot to offer. Unfortunately,
very little attention has been given to getting the data that
will make that generation of models operational.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair yields to Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to
thank the gentlemen for their testimonies.
I feel a little, somewhat intimidated by the caliber of the
witnesses that we have. I'm just a little country hick from
some little dinky island out there in the middle of the
Pacific. I'm trying to have some sense as a layman and trying
to understand the scientific issues affecting the fate of the
status of the spotted owl in California. As a layman, I also
have come to understand that even scientists disagree among
themselves as to what is the truth, if we're looking for the
truth or the facts on this issue. And, it seems that for now,
some 8 years later, that we've taken another turn in examining
and reviewing this issue. I want to thank you, Madam Chairman,
for doing this because it is needful. And, hopefully, that we
might come out with some viable solutions to the problems that
are before us.
As I said earlier about even disagreements among the
scientists, or even in the scientific community, I'm reminded
of a story that was told to me about the $10 billion industry
that our country now has in conducting open-heart surgeries.
For about $50,000 a pop that a surgeon would gladly cut into
your chest, and do a bypass operation. Only to find out that in
recent years that medical doctor who graduated from Harvard Law
School, and, of course, this is not new information or a
discovery by this doctor about this amino acid called EDTA,
that, for much cheaper costs, in clearing your clogged up veins
and arteries--the process is now called ``killation'' and that
the American Medical Association frowns and literally opposes
any use of this, a fact that has been proven. Many of the
people who have taken this EDTA amino acid--it has done wonders
for them--and they didn't have to pay for a $50,000 heart
surgery operation because of this.
So, I'm a little puzzled here, gentlemen, because I'm sure
that we have also members of the scientific community among the
agencies that are going to be testifying this morning. So, we
have this sense of disagreement. If I heard correctly, and
correct me if I'm wrong, I think, Dr. Irwin, you say that
spotted owls tend to become prolific when there's logging
operations. Has that been a true observation?
Dr. Irwin. I'm sorry. Would you repeat that, please?
Mr. Faleomavaega. That spotted owls tend to become more
prolific when there's logging operations?
Dr. Irwin. That's not a general conclusion that anyone
shares, I believe. And, if it's attributed to me, it would
certainly apply only to a few areas in the eastern Cascades,
where it had nothing to do with clear cutting. It was partial
cutting, apparently, and maybe previous fires that created a
condition under which spotted owls, in managed forests, are
doing better than those in more extensive, late-successional
forests that have not been managed. That is true.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What is the total population of the
spotted owl now in the area in question?
Dr. Irwin. I don't know.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Gentlemen, have you conducted any studies
recently, Dr. Taylor or Dr. Boyce?
Dr. Taylor. Well, I gave you a statistic estimate of 1,800
pairs of owls in California and a probable estimate of about
5,000 total owls. I think that's reasonable and conservative
for the State of California.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And, this is the only reason the spotted
owl survives or exists, or does it exist in other areas of the
country?
Dr. Taylor. No. It's just one of three states. I think
California has a very large population, probably equal to that
of Oregon, but it's one of the few places where we've got the
kind of statistics--data available that allow you to make that
kind of projection.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Boyce?
Dr. Boyce. If you sum Bob's numbers with the agency numbers
for Oregon and for Washington, you'll come up with
approximately 12,000 owls, I believe.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Am I taking correct here that you
currently have a basic disagreement on how the Fish and
Wildlife and the Forest Service go about doing this scientific
studies--exactly in determining what the fate and the status of
the spotted owl has become, let's say, for the past 8 years,
since we've taken this issue now since 1990 and it's to the
forefront. Dr. Irwin?
Dr. Irwin. I would like to respond to that. I wouldn't say
it's a basic disagreement. I would say that there are some
differences in opinion on how to go about that kind of
research. And, my suggestion is that, the spotted owl issue has
been cast in simple terms as old growth versus the owls, and I
think that's been a very problematic dichotomy. Really, the
issue is much more complex than that, and habitat is much more
complex than simply trees.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Dr. Irwin, by expressing that
opinion, it seems to me that there is disagreement in terms of
your friends here among the Federal agencies which have taken
the issue at heart. But, no, I appreciate your sharing that
with us.
Dr. Taylor?
Dr. Taylor. If I could pose a question that I think you
would agree would be nice to have an answer to--well, I could
pose several--How much cutting would cause owls to fail to
breed? That would be an interesting thing to know.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Good question.
Dr. Taylor. How much cutting would cause, say, a 10 percent
reduction in adult survival. That would be good to know. Or,
how much cutting would cause owls to pick up stakes and move
somewhere else. We don't have answers to any of those three
questions. Not only that, there is no research going on or
planned that will answer those questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think, basically, Dr. Taylor, my time
is up, I know, but here's the basic issue of the problem that
we're faced with. At first there was indiscriminate logging,
then, I think the Federal Government's come about and said
we've got to do a more planned methodology in doing logging so
that we don't create erosion. And, then the here in the
question right in the middle of the whole thing is the spotted
owl being involved in this. As I understand it, I think it was
last year or a number of years ago, that there were 167 million
cubic board feet worth of logging that has been done. So, it
isn't that the logging has stopped. We're still cutting logs
but in a more planned and a more systematic way, so that we
don't indiscriminately cut the logs at the expense of erosion
and causing other ecosystem or environmental harm.
And I, for one, believe in a balanced approach to this
whole thing about development, and, at the same time, also make
sure that our ecosystem is kept safe, and make sure also that
animals like the spotted owls and others are also protected.
Now, whether or not 5,000 owls or 1,600 owls is a relative safe
number to say, well that's all we need to have the owls to
survive. I don't know, because I'm not a scientist. But, I
think this is the crux of the issue that we're looking at.
And, I think even from our friends who are in the logging
industry, I don't think there's any problem that we should
conduct logging, but doing it in such a way that doesn't
detrimentally affect the environment. And, if it means that
killing 5,000 owls, than maybe that's another question that you
may want to add to the questions that you raised, and I
appreciate your raising that issue. Maybe our friends in the
Federal agencies will help us with that.
Dr. Boyce?
I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, but could I have one more
question of Dr. Boyce?
Dr. Boyce. Well, I'd just like to make the point that I
think that scientists work with available information and
existing data, and the available information and existing data
are changing all the time. And, I think that it's very
important that the Federal Government have in place the
institutional capability to be flexible, to be able to adjust
their management schemes when new information becomes
available. And, it's not clear to me that we have that
flexibility. I think that there's a lot of institutional
inertia. We have a complex bureaucracy that has developed
associated with the northern spotted owl and the existing
management assessment plan, and so forth. It becomes very
difficult to change the way in which the management is going
on, as new information becomes available.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I appreciate your comments, gentlemen,
because I, for one, do not appreciate sometimes the
bureaucratic hassle that we go through in trying to get a check
or social security check to that constituent out there. But, at
the same time, I think there's got to be a balanced approach to
the situation. Now, I'm all for logging. I think the industry's
got to survive. Americans need it. I don't know, necessarily,
about exporting it to other countries, but for our own local
consumption demands, I think it's needful.
So, gentlemen, I want to thank you for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Gentlemen, I want to ask a personal favor of you. I do have
some more questions, but our Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture, Jim Lyons, has managed--he has another
appointment, so I want to be able to bring him on so we can
hear from him. Do any of you have a plane that you have to
catch, or could you wait until we've heard from Mr. Lyons and
the third panel, and then we will probably be calling you back.
Thank you very much.
The Chair now calls for our--and I'm just going to ask Mr.
Lyons to come up--our Under Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Thank you, so much, for your patience, and I know
that you do have another appointment, Mr. Lyons, so we'll----
Mr. Lyons. I sincerely apologize, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, that just never happens, but it did
today. So, I wonder if you could stand and----
Mr. Lyons. Oh, yes. But, of course.
[Witness sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please proceed. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JAMES LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyons. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to
appear before the Subcommittee, and I would let you know that
the witnesses who accompany me will remain and be able to
address the substantive questions that the Subcommittee may
have as the hearing continues.
I do want to thank you for this opportunity to address the
Committee, to discuss the impact and status of the northern
spotted owl on national forests. I'm accompanied by Bob
Williams, who's the regional forester from Portland, region 6,
and Marty Raphael, scientist with the Forest Service's Pacific
Northwest Research Station, who was intimately involved in the
efforts to put together the President's Northwest Forest Plan.
I'm also pleased to appear with representatives of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service today.
One of the reasons we faced the problems in the Pacific
Northwest at the beginning of this decade was in large measure
because many Federal agencies had difficulty speaking with each
other, let alone appearing on the same dais to discuss issues,
and I'm glad to say that, over time, we have developed, I
think, good solid working relationships among the Federal
agencies who have some role or jurisdiction in addressing issue
like the spotted owl. And, I think that's all to the betterment
of the resource and the people that we serve.
The Committee asked a number of questions, and I'll try to
briefly address some of those and offer some insights into
others.
One obviously important question is how is the owl doing.
We refer to the testimony here of our colleagues from Fish and
Wildlife Service, the answer being, it's probably too soon to
tell. Spotted owl is a long-lived species in a forest
environment that changes slowly. Its populations may be
affected by unique events and conditions from one year to the
next that are, in part, unrelated to forest management. Thus,
the data from the first years of the Northwest Forest Plan are
not sufficient to give us confidence in any trend with regard
to population dynamics for the owl. We, along with many, are
looking forward to the results of the analysis next year that
will give us our first scientifically credible look at recent
trends.
The Northwest Forest Plan, though, is not just a plan for
spotted owls. As you know, Madam Chairman, we tried to write
plans for the northern spotted owl, as was attempted late last
decade, and we found that they didn't work. In fact, we know
that they won't work. In 1988, and again in 1992, the Forest
Service issued guidelines for the management for the habitat
specifically for spotted owl. Both times, Federal courts ruled
that our efforts were not adequate, and, in fact, enjoined
timber sales in spotted owl habitat. The Bureau of Land
Management encountered similar difficulty in its attempts to
put together strategies to harvest timber on the O&C lands that
they administer in Oregon.
New timber sale offerings on Federal forests in northern
spotted owl country came to a virtual halt at the turn of the
decade. Timber workers in timber-dependent communities, already
impacted by changes in the industry, by automation, and
alternative markets and reorganization, were further impacted.
Congressional efforts, such as section 318 of the 1990
Appropriations Bill, while they sought to provide relief, in
fact, only provide limited relief.
In spite of these efforts, the gridlock that affected the
region, primarily western Washington and Oregon, and
northwestern California, continued. That led, in large measure,
to the President's efforts, the President's Forest Conference
in Portland, the subsequent efforts of the FEMAT team chaired
by former Forest Service Chief Jack Ford Thomas, with the adept
leadership of Marty Raphael, to the development of the
President's Northwest Forest Plan.
The Northwest Forest Plan is not just a plan for ensuring
the viability of northern spotted owl. It provides significant
protection for streams, riparian areas, water quality, and
fish, fortunate that we did so given the current status of
listings or potential listings for cut-throat and coho trout as
well as bull trout over to the interior.
The Northwest Forest Plan provides a system of old-growth
and late-successional reserves, with a multitude of benefits to
species that depend on old-growth forests. And, through the
northwest economic adjustment initiative, the plan also
provided help to communities who were suffering through the
transition that was occurring in that region of the country.
Two months after the plan's release, the court injunctions
were lifted, clearing the way for agencies to offer new timber
sales and for other management actions to take place for the
first time, really, in 3 years. It was the acceptance of the
President's Northwest Forest Plan by Judge Dwyer that really
was the key to opening up new opportunities for management and
fiber production in the Pacific northwest.
Now, as you know, the plan applies only to Federal lands
managed by the Forest Service and the BLM in the range of the
northern spotted owl. It doesn't apply to state, private, or
tribal lands. However, I should note that the plan has a
significant effect on those lands in that, in assuming
responsibility for protecting critical habitat--or I should say
key habitats; critical habitat is a specific definition. Key
habitat's for owl, murrelet, and other species, protecting
critical watersheds. We then allowed private land owners,
working with Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Fisheries Service to go about the business of developing
habitat conservation plans, which have been extremely important
for providing certainty for private land owners with regard to
the future management of their lands. Plum Creek Timber
Warehouse and other companies, including the State of
Washington, have successfully completed habitat conservation
plans, which will provide them greater certainty for the
management of their lands and for the production of timber,
both for their stock holders and, in the State of Washington,
for the benefit of the beneficiaries of those lands.
The Committee asked us to provide information on the costs
incurred by local governments or private entities to comply
with Fed-
eral requirements--I'll finish in one minute, Madam Chairman--I
should point out, of course, the Northwest Forest Plan doesn't
impose any additional requirements on local governments or
private entities, which directly cause them to pay any cost. To
the contrary, I would suggest that if there were no Forest
Plan, if we were facing the gridlock that was faced a decade
ago, there would only be negatives for the communities. The
benefits of the Northwest Forest Plan were the clearing away of
the gridlock that existed, the ability to move forward with
Federal timber sales, and also, the benefits that I just
mentioned that accrue to private land owners who could build
HCP's tiered to the protection strategies that were
incorporated in the President's Forest Plan for Federal lands.
I want to emphasize two points, in closing, that I think
are critically important, Madam Chairman. That is, this issue
of owls and old growth is much larger than a focus on single
species. That's the reason the President's Forest Plan dealt
with a multitude of species. That's the reason that we used an
ecosystem approach in trying to devise strategies to deal with
the conundrum we faced in managing those resources for the
long-term benefits of all Americans in the communities
impacted. The Forest Plan was more than an owl plan. It was a
plan for salmon, for watershed restoration, and for the
economic assistance of communities that were in transition.
The Administration, I believe, has lived up to its
commitments on all aspects of the Forest Plan, meeting the
probable sale quantities that were called for in the plan in
terms of fiber production from Federal lands, providing
economic assistance to the impacted communities, and providing
other support to the counties that were necessary.
I think the testimony that was presented in the previous
panel highlighted the need for peer review and monitoring of
science and the effects of management strategies. To get a good
picture with regard to success of the President's Forest Plan,
as well as long-term demographic trends for owls, peer review
is critical, given the differences of opinion that might exist
within the scientific community. And, that's why we went
through a peer review process with the President's Forest Plan.
And, obviously, monitoring is critical as well. However, to
this point in time, our monitoring is inadequate to give us a
sense of whether or not the owl is improving in its status or
not, and more information is going to be needed. We do
subscribe to adaptive----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Lyons, I'm sorry there was a sentence I
didn't hear very clearly. Right now your monitoring is
inadequate to give what?
Mr. Lyons. The information we glean from monitoring is
inadequate to make a judgment with regard to whether or not the
owl is improving in its status and whether or not changes in
the President's Forest Plan could be made in response to the
needs of the owl and other species. I'd suggest to the
contrary, the concerns raised about salmonettes amplify the
need for aquatic strategy that is part of the President's
Forest Plan and the watershed restoration activities it calls
for.
We do believe in adaptive management, Madam Chairman. I
think that was one of the basic tenets of Jack Ward Thomas'
ten-
ure, and I think one of the legacies he that leaves. A focus on
scientifically based approaches to resource stewardship. And,
we should change management as we have new scientific
information and as monitoring gives us some sense of where
we're doing well and where we're not. Unfortunately, as I just
mentioned, I don't think the data provided are adequate, thus
far, to make those judgments, and so I would suggest that what
we need to do is stay the course until we have the information
necessary to make changes in management strategies as the
science would dictate.
I appreciate, again, this opportunity to appear before you
this afternoon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I know the President's plan is not just for
the owl, it's for many other things, but the northern spotted
owl is a listed species and in large part, because of the
President's plan, we need to determine whether the assumptions
and decisions made in that plan are producing the desired or
expected results for the owl and, if not, why not.
Are they, is the President's plan producing for the goal
that we had with regards to restoring the viability of the
population of the owl?
Mr. Lyons. The honest answer to that, Madam Chairman, is
time will tell. And I think that both representatives of the
Fish and Wildlife Service and Dr. Raphael, can speak more
clearly to that. The Northwest Forest Plan included, for the
first time, a rather detailed and descriptive monitoring
program to in fact address those questions.
And we are implementing that monitoring program, but given
the long lived nature of the owl and the slow change that
occurs in the ecosystems of that region, we frankly need more
information and more time to know whether or not we are
achieving our goals with regard to the owl.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So the assumptions and decisions made for
that plan, we don't know if they are producing the desired
results and so we are still stuck in the process. Right?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I would characterize it as monitoring
change. Over time that information will tell us whether or not
we are achieving the success that we sought.
We obviously believe that we are and that is why we are
implementing the plan as prescribed.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You mentioned the Northwest Economic
Adjustment Initiative in your statement. What has happened to
those communities most impacted by the owl litigation and the
President's plan. Do you know?
Mr. Lyons. On a community by community basis, I'd have to
provide you more information. Information would indicate that
the process that was set up in the CERT, the Community Economic
Revitalization Team, that operates in the region has been quite
successful in helping communities diversify their economies,
helping them find resources to invest in infrastructure
improvements, and in helping mill workers and others associated
with the timber industry who were impacted retrain for other
jobs or engage in other activities that may not be directly
related to timber extraction but certainly are related to
forest management.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Secretary Lyons, you were here when
Congressman Herger testified and he testified to the fact that
they have had an enormous increase in welfare recipients and as
high as 20 percent unemployment. Do you think that that really
is something that we can point to as a success in the affected
communities? The human habitat.
Mr. Lyons. I guess my point, Madam Chairman, is that any
job loss is a terrible loss. However, many things, many changes
affecting that region are part of the dynamic that affects
employment in the area. Mill closures can be a function of
Federal timber supplies but also can be a function of changes
in competition, changes in markets, and changes in other
circumstances, and we've seen that throughout the region.
I would not try and draw a correlation between the owl
plan, if you will, the President's Forest Plan, and the segment
that affects owls and employment levels because I think it has
just been illustrated by the economic analysis that was done
for the plan that was extremely detailed that it's difficult to
draw those correlations.
Overall, and this is obviously a general statement, but
overall the economy in that region of the country is quite
strong. What's driving it, though, is not the industries that
have traditionally been critical to that region but other
industries, communications, recreation, tourism. Growth in that
region is tremendous.
And so, one need to look at the entire picture to
understand what impacts the Forest Plan has had on the region.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Have the agencies been keeping track and
also assessing the quality of the forest health?
Mr. Lyons. I'd like Mr. Williams when he comes up to talk--
--
Mrs. Chenoweth. Within the adoptive management plans?
Mr. Lyons. [continuing] for him to talk about the specific
methods that are being used to assess the changes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Secretary Lyons, let me ask you this, and
then I know you have another meeting and I will be presenting
more questions to you in writing.
But we tend to, with these subjects that tend to get
frustrating, we tend to deal with processes. And indeed you can
imagine we are a bit frustrated because at the beginning of
this whole process we heard a quote from a gentleman by Andy
Stahl who said something like, and I will paraphrase the quote,
something like if we did not have the owl, we would have had to
have found another species to accomplish our goal.
Knowing that, it makes us wonder if we can ever reach the
goal of owl recovery. We have heard testimony that the
population of the owl is indeed three times what it was first
determined it should be, to establish a viable population.
So, can you give us, Secretary Lyons, hard goals that we
can adopt, not only management plans and so forth, but until we
have those goals, the process just takes a life of its own and
we never really reach, finish the job.
Can you help us there?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I'll try and address that question and I
think you and I are strongly agree it's product, not process,
that matters in the end, that matters in the lives of the
people that we serve.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right. Well said.
Mr. Lyons. That's what's critical. I can't speak to Mr.
Stahl's motives or his comments, that is not my desire nor my
aim.
Our goal is to ensure the sustainability of all the
resources, all the goods and services that come from the
National forests so as to ensure that the communities that are
dependent upon those National forests can in fact themselves be
sustainable, can be diverse, and can be resilient as they move
into the next century.
Our goal is good solid land stewardship based on the best
science available. As I indicated in my statement, the reason
there is a need for peer review of studies, such as the
demographic studies that were mentioned earlier is because
there is disagreement about the adequacy of the data, the
sufficiency of the data, and the findings.
I think that is the way we need to get at these issues and
we have discussed the role of science and policy many times in
this room, you and I, and I think that's probably the best
foundation we have to work from.
I would suggest that that is the way to chart a course,
recognizing every step of the way that the decisions we make
with regard to the management of the National forests impact
people's lives as well.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But I would like to know what are the hard
goals. I mean is it two times viable population? Three times?
Does it mean certain types of patterns of growth in certain
areas that we need to--what are the hard goals?
Mr. Lyons. Well, those need to be set by the people who
have expertise in the demographics of spotted owls and I don't
so I have to subscribe to the recommendations that come out of
that expertise based upon peer review, and that's what we are
going to stand by.
By statute, the Fish and Wildlife Service has the
responsibility and the authority to help judge what is required
to ensure that species are not listed as threatened or
endangered and by law the Forest Service has the responsibility
to maintain the viability of those species.
So I think our scientific experts have a responsibility to
work jointly to determine that.
We obviously set some goals for a wide range of outputs and
concerns with regard to the Forest Plan and believe that we set
some goals for fiber production that were consistent with our
legal requirements to maintain viability.
We have lived by those fiber production goals, as well as
the goals we set for the work we would do with other
communities.
I think that is the best answer I can give you given my
limited expertise and I would suggest that perhaps other
panelists might be able to address that question more directly.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to say that as a net result of
the listing of the spotted owl as a threatened species, we've
seen a shift in production to meet the market demand for wood
products from the west to the east, and that has been a very
interesting major shift. We have seen it decline in the west,
we've seen small businesses who actually go in and compete in
these timber sales, and they can compete to help keep prices
down, and they are the small businesses that by and large
cannot always afford to establish HCP's or don't even have the
means to do so, and so they are not looked on favorably by the
agencies.
I think you, and us too, need to look at the overall
picture of whether we are keeping the entire nation open? Are
we establishing the goals that we both have for the national
health of the forest? And are we, actually, helping the bigs
get bigger and crushing the competitive nature that has always
existed in the woods product industry.
I think it is an interesting challenge that those of us who
work in setting public policy need to deal with and I have
never publicly or even privately addressed this with you as
directly as I am today.
But I feel very strongly about it. Do you have a comment?
Mr. Lyons. I do, Madam Chairman. I believe it is critical
that we look at the entire set of industries that are affected
by the National forest system, not only the wood products
industry but other industries that are impacted.
I believe we need to look at trying to sustain a vibrant
wood products industry, big and small, and being a good
Democrat, I tend to focus on the small guys first, but that
doesn't bias my decisions, I would assure you.
But I believe it is critical that we recognize the role
that we play in maintaining fiber for many communities and for
many mills and do our best to address those.
Secretary Glickman and I testified this morning before
Chairman Regula of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on
matters related to this subject and Secretary Glickman
indicated that the resources, the full resources, of the
Department of Agriculture, including not only those in Forest
Service, but in Extension and the rural development agencies
are working toward trying to assist communities in dealing with
not only change but in sustaining their economies and their
communities and that is a concern obviously not just in the
Northwest but, as you know, in the Columbia River basin as
well.
I would join you in efforts to trying to ensure that that
occurs and commit to work with you to achieve that goal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And I hope you make your appointment in
time. Thank you.
Mr. Lyons. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes the next panel,
although I guess we'll hear simply, not simply, but only from
Gerry Jackson, Assistant Director, Ecological Services, of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
With Mr. Jackson is Bob Williams, who is from my neck of
the woods, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest
Service, USDA in Portland, OR; Martin Raphael, Ph.D., Chief
Research Biologist, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Services,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Olympia, WA; and David Wesley,
Assistant Re-
gional Director, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Portland, OR.
Gentlemen, I wonder if you might rise and raise your hand
to the square. Your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Jackson.
STATEMENT OF GERRY JACKSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ECOLOGICAL
SERVICES, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID WESLEY,
ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, PORTLAND,
OREGON; BOB WILLIAMS, REGIONAL FORESTER, PACIFIC NORTHWEST
REGION, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
PORTLAND, OREGON; AND MARTIN RAPHAEL, PH.D., CHIEF RESEARCH
BIOLOGIST, PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION, FOREST SERVICES, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the status of the northern spotted owl
and the President's Northwest Forest Plan.
I have submitted my written statement for the record.
Therefore, today I would just like to highlight the success
story that we believe is evolving in the Pacific Northwest as
it relates to the northern spotted owl.
Let me tell you why I consider this an evolving success
story.
When the spotted owl was listed as a threatened species,
there was a great uproar, there were charges that unemployment
would skyrocket, and the timber industry would be destroyed.
Gridlock soon ensued and tensions were high.
As you now, President Clinton convened a summit in
Portland, OR, in April 1993, to discuss this problem. He
subsequently asked the Federal agencies to develop a plan that
would be scientifically based, protect the environment, and
support a sustainable timber economy.
One year later, a plan was produced, a record of decision
was issued and implementation commenced. Because of this
thoughtful planning process the predicted crisis did not occur
and today, for example, Oregon is still the nation's top timber
producer, the jobless rate is less than 5 percent, new high-
tech industries are drawn to the region, and the robust economy
is moving away from one dependent upon resource extraction to
one that is more diverse and healthy.
In a New York Times article published in 1994, Mayor Bill
Morrisette of Springfield, OR, was quoted as saying, and I
quote, Owls versus jobs was just plain false. What we've got
here is quality of life.
Mr. Mike Burrell, a timber mill owner in Medford, OR, who
charged that the listing of the owl would create another
Appalachia said, we had an awful lot of new industry and that
surprised me.
He said people moving to the area are bringing jobs with
them.
These things did not happen by accident. This
administration took a long, hard look at what needed to be done
to help the region through these changes.
Many of the reforms we in the Fish and Wildlife Service
have made to the Endangered Species Act, such as streamlining
of the consultation process of the Federal agencies, and the
development of habitat conservation plans, with no surprises
and safe harbor agreements for States and private property
owners have been very instrumental in helping communities cope
with the impact of the listing of the owl.
With the help of these reforms, landowners of all sizes are
now managing their lands with the conservation of species in
mind. For example, Plum Creek Timber Co. is managing their
lands to compliment the Forest Plan and enhancing their land
for a variety of species, including the spotted owl, the
grizzly bear, and the marbled murrelet. Their HCP maintains
current levels of old-growth forest and ensures that all
species have adequate habitat.
In exchange, Plum Creek continues to manage their land for
timber production with assurances from us that no additional
regulatory restrictions will be placed upon them for the
species covered by that agreement.
Rick Holly, president of Plum Creek, said, again, I quote,
this plan will serve as an example of how to protect the
diversity and the health of ecosystems while giving businesses
that rely on natural resources the predictability that they
need to serve the important interests of their employees,
communities, customers, and shareholders.
Today there are 13 HCP's that cover 3.3 million acres in
the range of the spotted owl. We are also in the process of
developing a rule under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species
Act that will provide relief for take of northern spotted owls
for thousands of private landowners. And we expect to finalize
the 4(d) rule this summer.
We have made great strides in the way the Federal and the
State government agencies have worked with each other over the
years to achieve the goals of ecological and economic health.
A strategy has been implemented to protect the owl and its
habitat as well as continue to support the timber programs of
the Federal and the State agencies and private landowners.
Working together, we have reduced resource conflicts and,
in many instances, we have avoided most problems by working
collaboratively.
We have cut the consultation time line, for example, under
the Endangered Species Act by more than half.
The Forest Plan provides a sound framework for the recovery
of the northern spotted owl. But it will take time. Without the
Forest Plan, the decline in old-growth habitat would have
continued until the owl disappeared as well as many timber-
related jobs.
The spotted owl did not become threatened with endangerment
overnight.
And it will not recover overnight.
Based on the best available science at this time, the owl
population, throughout its range, continues to decline due to
loss of habitat. But, over the next 50 years, the spotted owl
habitat har-
vested under the Forest Plan is expected to be replaced by
habitat regenerating within protected reserves.
As habitat inside the reserves improves, the amount of
habitat rangewide, and therefore owl populations, will
stabilize and eventually increase.
Thus, Madam Chairman, the success story is in the making,
proving that when we join together to create a long-term plan
that will protect threatened species and the economy in the
region, we have a situation where everyone wins.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to present my
testimony and we would be pleased to answer any questions you
or any other members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson, and I
want to thank all of the gentlemen for joining Mr. Jackson at
the witness table.
I have several questions that I do want to ask you.
Based on Mr. Herger's testimony, you heard his testimony
that unemployment has reached as high as 20 percent, and more
people are having to rely on welfare, and it's put an undue
burden on the school systems with regards to having to expend
more money to provide meals for children and so forth.
Don't you feel that that is pretty clear demonstration that
this program has, indeed, been hard on communities that, while
it may not have created Appalachia, in Medford, OR, but it has
created some real hardship on some counties.
Mr. Jackson Madam Chairman, I'd agree with that assessment.
I think the facts do speak to that. I think, however, that
overall I think it's a fair statement to say there is a very
robust economy in the Northwest.
There are, as was mentioned previously, Secretary Lyons in
fact mentioned that there are many activities or influences
that may attribute to that.
I guess what I would like to say is that there was a period
of time at the rate that habitat was being harvested, at the
market itself, that timber jobs were probably subject to
decline and the President's Forest Plan is an attempt to try to
stabilize not only the ecosystem within the range of the
spotted owl but also to provide for a sustainable yield of
timber and other products from our force, to find that balance
between healthy environment and healthy economy.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you know in the original studies that
led to the listing of the threatened species in June 1990, to
what degree were the studies done? By that, I mean, were the
studies conducted originally on second-growth timber? And,
second, were they conducted across the entire range of the
listing, the habitat?
I had seen some maps once that showed that studies have
been done very close to roads which would not indicate that
there was a real accurate count of the numbers of owls in those
early years.
Can anyone address that for me?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, I'll let my colleagues from the Forest
Service add to what I say, but when we listed the owl in 1990,
it was based, again, on the best available scientific
information at the time. I'm not aware that the counts that
were made at that time were made in the vicinity of roads, but
what I would like to say is that the issue was not so much
numbers of owls, and it was raised previously here.
The owl numbers that we had in 1990 are much lower than the
owl numbers that we count today, but what is important is the
aspect of population trend. And in 1990, and leading up to
that, we were seeing a rapidly declining habitat base and we
had information that was indicating that population trends of
owls were declining and in addition to that, and, again, when
we list a species it is, again, based on the best available
biological and scientific information.
And so, all of the information that was available to us at
that time indicated that indeed the species was in trouble and
needed to be protected by the Endangered Species Act.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Jackson, can you tell me if, in those
early studies, they also did the same kind of analysis on
second-growth timber? The maps that I looked at were actually
Fish and Wildlife Service maps and it did indicate sightings
that were next to, it didn't necessarily mean freeways or State
highways, but sightings that were next to roads where they
could access the back country by vehicle.
So, were there studies done originally also in the second
growth areas?
Mr. Jackson. Madam Chairman, if you don't mind, I would
like to maybe pass that question to Dr. Raphael who, at that
time, was involved in some of those studies and maybe could
elucidate a little more.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Raphael?
Dr. Raphael. Thank you. Much of the primary information on
the demographics of the northern spotted owl that went into the
listing process was from five of these large demographic study
areas that had accumulated enough data at the time to permit a
credible analysis.
Those five were scattered in various parts of the owl's
range and almost all of them were on managed forest lands, on
lands managed by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land
Management. Because they are in these managed landscapes, there
was a mixture, probably on each of those study areas, of both
second-growth and mature forests. And because they are managed
landscapes, there certainly was a road network in each of the
study areas that would allow the extraction of the harvest that
had taken place in the past.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to say, for the record, how much
I appreciate the companies who have established HCP's. They are
also the companies that are beginning to help inform the public
in the manner that adds to the educational challenge that we
have ahead of us together to bring the American people into
this problem for, hopefully, a solution.
I believe that when we bring the American people in, pull
everybody together, pulling the same load, that we can actually
accomplish a lot more with a lot less frustration on your part
and our part too. So I do, for the record, want to express my
gratitude for companies like Plum Creek and Weyerhauser and the
larger companies who have established HCP's.
But in the Pacific Northwest there is some estimate of how
much private land will be permanently preserved for the
protection of various endangered species, including the spotted
owl. Isn't that the case?
Mr. Jackson. If I heard you correctly, you said a certain
amount of habitat would be preserved for the spotted owl and
that is true.
But let me also mention that virtually every habitat
conservation plan that we now negotiate with the companies, we
have expanded also beyond looking at just spotted owls too. We
are looking at multispecies habitat conservation plans. And so
oftentimes it is not so much as a particular amount of acreage
that is sort of set aside in perpetuity. What we are trying to
do is promote management of the landscape and so in many of
these HCP's, you will actually see elements of the landscape
moving around. In other words, there will be old-growth habitat
that will be in different places at different times over
extended periods of time.
So that owls, marble murrelets, and other species can
essentially move about that landscape, thus allowing those
timber companies to harvest timber and other products.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So, actually, we can see over a period of
time the HCP's actually moving? I mean there may an HCP located
in a certain area for say 30 years and then it moves as the
landscape dynamics have changed. Is that correct?
Mr. Jackson. Well, what I was referring to is mostly within
a given habitat conservation plan, dependent upon, and each one
of these is different, and each one is case specific, but, what
I'm saying is that, maybe the habitat management within that
footprint of that land ownership is shifting over a period of
time so that that habitat remains productive and protective for
those species who depend on it, but at the same time, allowing
a certain amount of harvest to come off that land.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Off of the HCP's.
Mr. Jackson. Correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes. That's good.
In the East, there are a number of forest-dependent species
that are listed as endangered including the Indiana bat and the
Delmarva fox squirrel.
How many HCP's have you completed for those endangered
species and how much land will be set aside as habitat for
those species?
Mr. Jackson. On the Delmarva fox squirrel we are actually
still in negotiation with various land owners and, again, the
habitat conservation process is a applicant-driven process. We
promote that type of management scheme.
On the Indiana bat, a similar situation. I can't tell you
exactly how many. We don't have any that I am aware of for
those species at this time.
Some landowners have indicated that they are interested in
developing a habitat conservation plan and oftentimes this is
the normal process where we will engage in a certain amount of
dialog educating the landowners, property owners, as to what is
a habitat conservation plan and what will be the expectations
and so on and so there is a certain amount of time that goes on
before they actually apply for a permit and at that time, and
the big difference, for example, in how we're doing business
now versus 5 years ago, is that we are much more proactive now
in working with landowners.
Five years ago, if you looked nationwide at the number of
habitat conservation plans that we had, we probably had about a
dozen nationwide and that was since 1983.
Just in the last 5 years, we have completed well over 200
habitat conservation plans nationwide, in fact the last number
I saw was 225 completed habitat conservation plans.
We're actively involved in negotiating on somewhere in the
neighborhood of 150-200 plans now, at this point in time.
It is a huge success story. You've probably heard from many
of the private landowners. We have very recently published a
no-surprises rule which basically says a deal is a deal, that
we are not coming back for another bite of the apple.
We have instituted what we call a safe harbor program which
is very applicable in the Northwest so that landowners do not
have to be fearful of owls or other species moving onto their
habitat. And a great example of that is in the Northwest where
many private landowners were concerned that at some point in
time they were going to wake up and an owl was going to be on
their property and they were terrified that that then would in
some way impede their ability to manage that land and so, while
it was happening, and I spent a lot of time in the Northwest
meeting with landowners, a lot of small landowners, and they
will tell you that they were harvesting timber at 45 years
because they were afraid to wait any further.
While obviously that wasn't doing the species any good so
we really had to get creative in terms of finding ways to
provide those landowners with those types of incentives.
For example now, if the landowner voluntarily agrees to
engage in a conservation plan with us, now landowner may allow
his trees to grow, 55, 65, 75, 80 years, whatever they want. If
an endangered species moves in on them, there are no additional
restrictions. All we're asking that they maintain that certain
baseline.
We're seeing a lot of this in the East. The Delmarva fox
squirrel habitat, the Indiana bat habitat has tremendous
potential for that, tremendous success stories in the Southeast
with the red cockaded woodpecker. In fact that is where we
really started applying these safe harbor type concepts and
some of these now innovative reforms.
And so, I understand there is a lot of concern, maybe
confusion over why we don't see a lot of habitat conservation
plans in the East versus the West, and quite frankly we are
trying to promote more of those in the East but, again, it is
an applicant-driven process. We're working with Champion, we're
working with Georgia-Pacific, we're working with a lot of the
developers in Florida, for example, sea turtles, other species,
to do that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me ask you, Mr. Jackson, the criteria
that you have established in your contracts with private
ownership in HCP's, can we logically apply those same criteria
to the public lands?
Mr. Jackson. To the public?
Mrs. Chenoweth. To the public lands. Have a major HCP on
the public lands.
Mr. Jackson. Well, habitat conservation plans, by law, are
geared toward private lands. And the equivalent to that with
Federal lands is through the section 7 consultation process.
And in many ways, not in a technical sense, you could look at
the Northwest Forest Plan as, and I have to be careful here,
like a small HCP, a small Habitat Conservation Plan for the
Federal lands. Because it has many of the same types of
elements in it.
But the straight answer to your question is that habitat
conservation plans are geared toward the private landowners.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What I'm driving at, again, are hard
targets. I mean when is enough, enough. What would you say,
with regards to the population of the owl, when is that enough?
I mean we've heard testimony today that the owl population has
reached three to four times the amount needed to establish a
viable population base.
In terms of landscape patterns, old growth versus open
areas for prey-based habitat. When is, what are the hard
targets? What are we working for specifically? And don't,
please try not to answer me with just a process.
Mr. Jackson. Well, I'm going to try to give you a real
straight answer because this would apply to many of our
species. What we are trying to achieve, basically, are well-
distributed populations throughout the range of a species. And
we're trying to establish a stable or increasing population.
For a period of time where we feel that then we can withdraw
the protections that are in place because of the listing, we
would then put into place a monitoring program that then would
keep a finger on the pulse of those population trends over a
period of time to make sure that we didn't, for some reason,
take a backslide.
The demographic, or population trend data, is critical to
that process. We have a draft recovery plan. It was mentioned
earlier as to why we don't have a final recovery plan. A
recovery plan is optional. If the Secretary determines that
there are other plans in place, and essentially we have made
the decision at least at this point that with the President's
Forest Plan, habitat conservation plans, 4(d) rule data that
will come to us from these population trend studies, that
package should tell us when we've achieved success.
As I understand it, there is an interagency effort ongoing
right now to assess population trend data. They will be meeting
sometime at the end of this year and probably reporting out at
the beginning of next year. I also believe it is an open
process to industry. I know industry biologists have
participated in the past.
And I'll just use this as an opportunity to say that we
welcome, we welcome scientific information and we encourage
industry to come forward and the universities, and anybody who
has good solid scientific peer review information for us to use
because we have an open-door policy when it comes to using the
best available science and we welcome it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Jackson, you've also heard it testified
to that the agency models do not reflect the cyclical changes
in the population of the owl due to natural conditions such as
wet springs.
Do you, in your opinion, feel that the model is flexible
enough to reflect those things or are you looking to continue
to improve that?
Mr. Jackson. Madam Chairman, I am going to defer again to
Dr. Raphael on that question, if you don't mind.
Dr. Raphael. The models that we're using to project the
past population trends of the owl rely on data on the
productivity of the owl which is accumulating numbers of young
that are produced every year in all of the sites that are being
monitored and this is thousands of sites.
So it does take into account this year-to-year variation
which is a fact of the owl's life. Reproduction does vary with
things like climate.
Those models take into account not only the year-to-year
variation in the numbers of young produced, but also, more
importantly, year-to-year variation in the survival rates of
the adults and it's the survival rates of the adults that
really determines with far more importance how well that
population is doing at the time.
But the models do take into account the kind of variation
that the previous panel mentioned.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me ask you, Dr. Raphael, or Mr.
Jackson, if in the best of all worlds, we could show that
throughout the landscape of where the owl is, the impact of the
spotted owl is applied, if we could show that there has been an
increase in the population, if we could show that there is a
pattern of landscape that is conducive to the stable viability
of the population of the owl, should that not be sufficient to
delist the owl as threatened?
Mr. Jackson. I'll answer that question. If we can achieve a
stable population or an increasing population over time, and
the habitat conditions are such and the regulatory situation is
such that we can begin to recover that owl and delist that owl,
for sure.
That is our goal, the goal of the Endangered Species Act is
to recover species and that is foremost in our thoughts and you
are exactly right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Since the owl has been originally listed,
we thought the owl could only survive in old-growth forests and
now the habitat has spread, so we know that the pattern of
landscape lends itself to a continuing population of the
spotted owl, is that not true?
Mr. Jackson. I think the science is still solid in saying
that an owl is an old-growth dependent species. But, for sure,
owls do use second-growth habitat. They don't necessarily use
it for nesting, however they may use it for dispersal. They may
use it for feeding. They may use it for other aspects of their
life cycle. And we're learning a lot. We also know that owl
populations in Northern California, for example, and the
habitat use is different than those in Oregon and those in
Washington.
That I agree, that is true.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And is it not true with regards to the
impact of fire in the landscape, that there is likely to be
more fire in the old-growth timber that is not managed, than in
the second-growth timber that is managed. So aren't we putting
at more risk the nesting habitat of the spotted owl by not
managing?
Mr. Jackson. Well, in a minute, I'll defer over to my
Forest Service colleagues, but----
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. He's gotten off awful easy over
there.
Mr. Jackson. Really. Suffice it to say, I guess, that, you
know, we work very collaboratively with the Forest Service and
with the Bureau of Land Management and, dependent upon the type
of activity, it is not something that, we're not opposed to it
for sure. Obviously we want to maintain the right forest
conditions, whatever they are. And that is something that from
a forest management standpoint, I think maybe the Forest
Service might want to add to that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. A large portion of the spotted owl habitat is
on what we call the west side and we don't have severe fire
situations there so in the bulk of the area that we're talking
about we're not faced with the problem you've mentioned.
However we do have some spotted owl habitat on the east side of
the Cascades, but traditionally we're having more problems
there because of the past exclusion of fire and thickening of
stands, which can be either old growth or young stands. We get
a lot of ingrowth of species that normally would have burned
had we just let fire run its course.
So we do know we have an increasing fire problem but it is
not directly related to whether it's old growth or a second-
growth stand.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I see.
Dr. Raphael. May I add to something to that?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Dr. Raphael. One of the features of the Northwest Forest
Plan is a recognition that there are higher risks for fire on
those east side forests that Mr. Williams just mentioned. And
so there are provisions in the plan to allow for management
within those stands to reduce the risk for fire by managing
fuel loads or managing forest structures in other ways to try
to lower the risk of those catastrophic fires.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Williams, let me ask you. We were told
on numerous occasions that the Clinton Forest Plan for the
Northwest had a built-in mechanism through study and experiment
with new forest management techniques. How many of what are
called adaptive management plans have been undertaken? And how
many have been submitted to Fish and Wildlife Service for their
approval? And how long has the approval process taken?
Mr. Williams. The plans for the 10 adaptive management
areas, we've completed plans for eight of those. The plans go
through an interagency review; it's not strictly a Fish and
Wildlife Service review, but the Regional Ecosystem Office
reviews the plans with an interagency team of people.
I don't have the figures here on whether all eight of those
have, in fact, been approved, but I believe they have. At least
eight of them have been done. We have over 300 research and
monitoring projects under way within those adaptive management
areas, and we are in the process of planning additional actual
manipulation of habitat within those areas.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Williams, from the outside looking in,
it seems that the President's Forest Plan is not meeting all of
its goals.
It hasn't come close to producing a billion board feet of
timber and it has not used the adaptive management process as
was intended.
It has, for all practical purposes, quit the monitoring of
the owl, and the Forest Service continues to manage by legal
threat from the environmental community. How can we get some
common sense back into this process so we can together reach
these goals?
Mr. Williams. I'm not sure that I can respond to all of
those points. As far as the timber program----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me, let me say that I think you
probably should if you can.
Mr. Williams. I will do the best that I can. As far as the
timber program, we've reported in testimony before that it
would take a period of time to increase our production because
we were starting from essentially a standstill position. We
have done that and in 1997 the Forest Service offering of
timber sales, was the amount that we had established as our
probable sale quantity.
We had 694 or 696 million board feet, I believe was the
Probable Sale Qualty and we produced 705 million borad feet. We
did that in the face of having to deal with the recision bill,
salvage bill riders, that we had 2 years ago which actually
absorbed some of the material, some of the sales that we had
prepared for use in meeting the targets of the Northwest plan.
That was a considerable setback for us, but we did overcome
that as we went forward.
As far as the adaptive management areas, as I pointed out
we have eight of the 10 plans done. We put our priority on
trying to meet the timber sale program. That was clearly the
message that we were being given as far as the things that were
most important to the public. We first went out trying to get
on top of meeting the goals, which included doing watershed
assessment and we've been able to do the watershed assessments
and move up to the point now where we're at a stable level of
flow of timber sales. So I think from a priority standpoint we
did the important things first and now we're moving into the
adaptive management areas.
I will, in addition, point out that in some of the late
successional reserves, we have established projects on those
areas where it appeared that thinning or other kinds of
treatments would actually help enhance and move us toward an
old-growth condition that would benefit the old-growth
dependent species.
So I feel that we have moved forward and are doing a good
job of implementing the intent of the Northwest Forest Plan.
I hope that answers all of the points that you made, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It didn't, but I will ask some questions in
writing.
Mr. Williams. I'll be glad to try again.
Dr. Raphael. Could I add one more point to that?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Dr. Raphael. I think the items you mentioned had to do with
monitoring.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Dr. Raphael. The fact is we have established a very
comprehensive monitoring plan. That's gone forward over the
last couple of years in the planning effort and now it is ready
for implementation. It's a very strong plan dedicated to the
spotted owl but also to some of the other species that are of
concern, the marbled murrelet, late successional, old-growth
forest systems.
That plan is under way and it is being very strongly
supported and it should produce results over the next years.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
I wanted also to ask Mr. Williams what percentage of saw
timber did the plan say it would provide?
Mr. Williams. The plan predicted a given amount of PSQ,
probable sale quantity, which was recognized as an estimate
that would have to be adjusted as Forest Plans were adjusted,
and then it estimated there could be as much as 10 percent
other material in addition to the saw timber, so the initial
estimates were saw timber estimates with simply an estimate
that it could be as much as 10 percent in addition.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How much of the timber volume offered out
of that plan was saw timber?
Mr. Williams. I don't have that figure, I believe it was in
the neighborhood of about 85 percent.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Mr. Williams. We can supply that for the Committee.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you?
Mr. Williams. Yes, we can.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right.
Mr. Wesley. Do you have anything you'd like to add for the
record?
Mr. Wesley. No, not at this time, thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to ask you, Mr. Jackson, what will
the monitoring plan that we've been talking about actually
measure, and let me ask you my second question so it will frame
it better. Will it look at the relationship between the owl
populations and management activities?
Mr. Jackson. I'd say the answer is a simple yes. It's
intended, I guess what I'll say about monitoring in general. If
you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there
and it's one of the lessons that we, for example, in the Fish
and Wildlife Service, one of the lessons that we have learned
is that monitoring is fundamental to making good decisions and
one of the goals of monitoring for the Forest Plan is to one
day be able to develop those correlations between habitat and
species' health in terms of population trends, so that we're
not having to count every species or to measure their
population trends over time so the monitoring is basically an
attempt to kind of check the pulse of the health of that system
and it is, absolutely, critical to not only the implementation
of the plan, but also the effectiveness of the plan.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. Gentlemen, Mr. Williams, do you have
anything you would like to add for the record?
Mr. Williams If I could add on the monitoring point, there
are essentially three kinds of monitoring. We're focusing on
two of them at the front end. The first one is implementation
monitoring. I'll just offer a brief comment on that and then
suggest that Dr. Raphael could comment on the effectiveness
monitoring.
Implementation is a rather simple straightforward check to
see if we're doing what the plan says we should do. We
initiated that in 1996, again did it in 1997, and are planning
to continue it on into 1998.
We did a statistical sample, looked at 40 timber sales in
1996, in 1997 we looked at 40 more timber sales. We also looked
at several road projects and several rehabilitation projects to
ask the question have we done what the standards and guidelines
in the plan say we should do.
In each of those cases we have found anywhere from 96 to
100 percent completion of those standards and guidelines. In
the few cases where we did not, usually it was missing it by a
few feet. Where we were to have a buffer of 150 feet, we maybe
had 130 because of some reason that needed to change it.
So essentially we're very close to 100 percent which we
think is, for all practical purposes, full implementation of
the standards and guidelines and we're very pleased with it.
Perhaps Dr. Raphael could add a little bit on the
effectiveness monitoring.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Raphael.
Dr. Raphael. Effectiveness monitoring really is a test to
see if the plan is having a desired effect. And the desired
effect, in this case, in relation to the spotted owl, is
whether the owl is achieving a stable or perhaps increasing
population.
For the monitoring, effective monitoring for the spotted
owl, there are two major components. One is to continue these
demographic studies so we can look at population trends in the
owl by marking individuals on these large study areas,
evaluating their survival from year to year, and looking at
numbers of young produced and then that data, using some
models, to determine whether the population is stable.
The other component is tracking the amount and the
distribution of habitat for the owl. That one will be based in
part on large-scale satellite-based images, but we'll need to
do a lot of work to determine which components of those
satellite images really define suitable spotted owl habitat.
Collecting that information, we'll be looking for all
sources of data and studies that can contribute to our
understanding of spotted owl habitat which you know has changed
over the past several years as Larry Irwin and others have
noted earlier.
So, we'll look at the habitat data and we'll try to link
the habitat data to the survival and productivity of the owls.
It turns out we can predict survival and productivity from
measurements of the distribution and abundance of habitat, then
we'll shift to a reliance on periodic assessment of habitat
conditions and ease off on the necessity to band and mark owls
every----
If models don't work, then we'll continue with the
demographic studies and use those as the backbone of the
monitoring process.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Interesting.
Mr. Jackson, to you have anything to add to the record?
Mr. Jackson. I would just say again, just reiterating that
going back to the earlier question of when will we have
achieved success in the recovery of the owl. I think that is
just a great example of how we will use that monitoring data to
help us get to that point.
Otherwise, we'll never know and we have to look at it in
terms of both habitat and the population trend and if we're
successful in developing our models, we'll get to a point in
time, hopefully sooner rather than later, where we can then
just start looking at habitat correlations to make those types
of determinations which will be a much more cost-effective,
cost-efficient process.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wesley, do you have anything to add to
the record?
Mr. Wesley. No. I think Gerry covered it, thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are the most reluctant witness we have
had in a long time.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. But I want to thank you gentlemen very much
for your time and the effort that you have made to be here and
to add the valuable information that you have to the record.
We will have additional questions we will be submitting in
writing and the record will remain open for 10 days, so if you
wish to supplement your testimony, you are welcome to do so.
With that, I want to say you're dismissed and I thank you,
again, very much.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
I would like to call back our second panel, Dr. Mark Boyce,
Dr. Robert Taylor, Dr. Larry Irwin, and Sean Cosgrove.
Gentlemen, as you know, you are still under oath and I
appreciate your waiting.
I have a question first for Dr. Irwin.
I have a photo here from an area within the Columbia River
Basin that was provided to us by CH2M HILL in some previous
testimony and it shows the extent of riparian corridors and how
little of the ridge top is actually outside of the corridors.
So under the Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management plan,
as you can see, the areas that are tied together by the white
marks between the red dotted lines are the areas that fall
under riparian zones and are considered the riparian corridors.
Are there similar conditions in the areas that you have
studied, Dr. Irwin?
Dr. Irwin. It's very interesting that you present that
picture there. It looks very much like some of the study areas
that we have on the eastern slope of the Cascades in central
Washington for our spotted owl work. And we find in general, in
pictures like that, we see evidence of previous fires, we see
evidence of some of the forest health problems associated with
insect pests and forest diseases, which I can see in that
picture from here. We can also see evidence of previous timber
harvesting. It looks like, perhaps, some selective harvesting
has occurred.
Where we find owls in a landscape like that is right within
those riparian corridors that you describe. Particularly where
they put their nests, toward the lower end of the slopes and
when they are traveling at night to search for prey they spend
a great deal of time in those riparian zones for foraging as
well.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Basically the owls prey base is primarily
what?
Dr. Irwin. Like all of us, I suppose to make a living.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It's what?
Dr. Irwin. To make a living, I suppose.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What does it usually prey on? Rodents?
Dr. Irwin. In those landscapes, it feeds on northern flying
squirrels, primarily, and sometimes a wood rat that lives on
the ground or part of the time in trees.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Taylor, have you had a chance to look
at this?
Dr. Taylor. Yes, I have.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you have any comment to make?
Dr. Taylor. I don't really think it has much to say about
owls, to be honest.
It seems to me that owls, like all predators, are highly
tuned in to where their prey live. This is a forest owl and it
needs forest and I don't think there's any denying that.
But having said that, the key element of the natural
history is where are its prey. And that is going to depend upon
where you are.
Northern flying squirrels are very important up in the
areas where Dr. Irwin works. In the areas where I work,
overwhelming prey is the dusky footed wood rat. The dusky
footed wooded rat does not like old growth forests.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Boyce? Would you like to comment on
what this photo shows?
Dr. Boyce. I don't really don't have any comment about that
photo.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Mr. Cosgrove? Do you have any
comment?
Mr. Cosgrove. No, thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. Dr. Irwin, would you distinguish the
comments Dr. Taylor made from your comments, primarily by you
were addressing one type of prey while Dr. Taylor obviously was
addressing another.
Dr. Irwin. Definitely, that does seem to be the case. As we
grade from Washington on into California, and particularly in
mixed coniferous forests we see a much more preponderance of
the wood rat in the prey base for the spotted owl.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I see. Thank you very much.
Dr. Taylor, to what extent does fire threaten the future of
the northern spotted owl in California, and does fire pose a
greater or lesser threat to owl habitat than logging?
Dr. Taylor. Fire, as it historically has affected these
forests, has been a frequently appearing phenomenon that came
in and cleared out underbrush; maybe, every once in a while,
flared up into the canopy and opened a, cleared out a patch of
larger trees. And then went on.
That kind of fire, I think, would be good for the owl, I
think in general. It would provide, in California it would
provide openings, it would allow some regeneration of hardwoods
in temporary clearings that would provide food for prey
species.
Unfortunately the situation we're in in much of California
now is that we've protected these forests from fires for so
many years that they are choked with fuels and fires that start
now all too frequently get into the canopy and cause fire
storms, complete destruction of the forest, and these
holocaust-type fires remove all of the elements of habitat that
spotted owls need.
I don't think there's any question but that the kinds of
fires that have been typical in California in the last 20 years
have been harmful for spotted owls rather than helpful.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Cosgrove, I see that you have a number
of concerns with the Northwest Forest Plan. With regard to the
northern spotted owl, how do you think the plan should be
changed to provide for just this one species, just this spotted
owl.
Mr. Cosgrove. Well, the interesting thing about the
Northwest Forest Plan is it was developed not just for one
species. Across a three-state region, it is a little hard to
justify having one plan that size for one species.
It is my understanding that the spotted owl will still do
quite well in old-growth habitat. We, of course, would like to
see that protected for a wide range of varieties. If there is
one general issue that we could address to improve owls
population, owl habitat, and the species, I think we would have
to look at that in the context of a greater plan overall.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Tell me, in your opinion, what kind of
monitoring do you think is necessary?
Mr. Cosgrove. As far as management in the Northwest Forest
Plan for timber activities, I think it is very important to
monitor across the landscape, and say across the region,
individual forests, and, of course, in a selected area for any
type of timber harvesting activity or other development takes
place.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you believe, can you give me your
personal opinion about what kind of timber sales do you think
should be executed off of the public lands in the Northwest?
Mr. Cosgrove. Yes, my organization supports the protection
of old-growth forests, ancient forests, supports the protection
of forested watersheds, municipal watersheds, the restoration
of damaged watersheds. We do not support the continued timber
harvesting in roadless areas.
There is pretty large amount of managed forest out there.
Some of it does need to be addressed as far as thinning. As I
believe it was Mr. Williams said they are looking at some
pretty innovative ways of habitat and other habitat
development. Specifically some things I've heard about the
Olympic National Forest.
We do support those kind of things.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You don't like clear cutting, though, do
you?
Mr. Cosgrove. Generally, no.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right. Tell me, what would you recommend in
the case of certain diseases such as root rot that we find in
some of the species?
Mr. Cosgrove. One of the problems that we have in the
Pacific Northwest is root rot with the port orford cedar, which
is, as I understand it, caused by a fungus that is spread by,
in a large amount by logging activity and on the wheels of
motorized vehicles and these kind of things.
In that particular instance, I think it would be a good
idea to do what we can to not spread that fungus.
Mrs. Chenoweth. To do what? I'm sorry.
Mr. Cosgrove. To do whatever we can to not spread that root
rot fungus. That would probably curtail, that would probably
mean curtailing logging activity, motorized traffic, and what
have you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Cosgrove.
Dr. Boyce, could you explain what you meant by
institutional barriers?
Dr. Boyce. Institutional barriers are complex and diverse.
For example, if a person's job depends on the government
operating under status quo, that person will be very resistant
to change. Likewise, if a bureaucracy exists, to perform a
particular function, it will resist any activity that threatens
its future existence. The established bureaucracy for dealing
with the northern spotted owl has exactly this sort of inertia
that makes it difficult to find new and creative ways to manage
spotted owls differently.
And I would just refer you specifically to the streamlining
documents that were submitted as part of the government's
collection of papers to go with the written testimony from the
government scientists.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'm not through with you yet.
Aren't you concerned that logging in adaptive management
areas would jeopardize the future of the northern spotted owl?
Dr. Boyce. My concern is that the long-term future of the
northern spotted owl will be jeopardized if we do not perform
the management experiments that have been suggested for the
adaptive management areas. We should not continue to manage
under ignorance. I'm absolutely confident that will do a better
job of management if we have better and more complete data. A
better understanding of how these systems work.
And that is the express purpose of the adaptive management
areas.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, gentlemen, I've kept you for quite a
while. I want to thank you very much and ask if any of you have
anything you would like to add for the record.
Yes, Dr. Taylor.
Dr. Taylor. A great deal of talk has centered on these
large study areas where the demographic models that are
supposed to allow us to detect trends in the population. Last
fall I gave a paper at the wildlife society annual meeting on a
topic that I think has gotten very little attention but is
increasingly bothering me about these demographic models.
The quality of the estimate of the population trend depends
on the quality of the model. I've built a lot of models as a
professional. I think modeling is important and it is a
powerful tool, but models scare me somewhat because they can be
wrong, really dramatically wrong sometimes. And scientists, and
particularly managers, ought to be very sensitive to the need
to find out how good a model is before you put a whole lot of
reliance on the kind of predictions it makes.
There is a general kind of principal in science that says
the simplicity of a model has to do with how easy it is to show
that it's wrong. The paper I gave last fall was, I tried to
examine the simplicity by that sense. That is, the ease of
falsifiability of the various models of spotted owls.
The conclusion I reached is that the demographic model,
while it is structurally very simple, is nearly impossible to
falsify. It is nearly impossible to prove it wrong in
principal. And if that's the case, it suggests that we are
going to be basing for a long time into the future our
assessment of the status of the spotted owl on a model whose
reliability, the reliability of which we do not understand.
And it seems to me that this is a very dangerous kind of
thing to do. I don't see any effort or interest on the part of
those who fiddle with this model, and those who develop it, in
assessing whether it is right or wrong.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That's very interesting. I would like to
pursue this further with you.
Mr. Cosgrove, do you have anything you would like to add to
the record?
Mr. Cosgrove. I would just like to thank you for, commend
you for your interest in the data of the spotted owl and the
management of our forests in the Pacific Northwest. I hope that
you can extend this and look into the Northwest Forest Plan and
how it deals with a number of issues, particularly salmon,
drinking water supplies, recreational opportunities, and these
kinds of things.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Cosgrove. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Irwin?
Dr. Irwin. Thank you Madam Chairman. I do have one final
comment. It relates to the question of adaptive management and
perhaps adds to the comments that Bob Taylor just made. That, I
heartily recommend approval and support of the effectiveness
monitoring plan that Dr. Raphael mentioned earlier.
However, it is not clear at all if the monitoring plan as
approved continues, that if the owl population is demonstrated
to continue to be declining, we will not know for sure whether
it was the plan, the Northwest plan that caused that, or
something else. And the same thing is true, really, that even
if the population shows up to be stable, we won't know for sure
if it's the plan that did that.
I think there needs to be some more discussion of the
monitoring plan in terms of adaptive management because, let's
say, for example, the strategy turns out to be incorrect. What
do we adapt to? Where do we go from here? And the way we're
headed now, the only thing that could happen would be increased
restrictions on forest management.
If we develop a process for thinking about the system in
terms of multiple operating hypotheses, using adaptive
management areas, we could test simultaneously more than one of
these, so that if the current strategy proves not to be the
optimal one we would have some other options to go toward.
I appreciate your comment. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting. Thank you very much.
Dr. Boyce, do you have anything you'd like to add?
Dr. Boyce. Yes, thank you. I think that it is very
difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of landscape scale
management. I don't believe that the adaptive management areas
by themselves are probably adequate in size to do that very
effectively or efficiently.
And, in general, designing schemes to evaluate the
effectiveness of landscape scale management is a very difficult
challenge, but I believe it needs to be tackled. I think there
are some opportunities by using data from the new HCP's that
are being implemented and hopefully we can see enough variation
across the landscape in dif-
ferent management schemes to know how well they are working in
the future.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Boyce. Again, gentlemen, I
want to thank you for your time.
And, as I have said earlier, the record will remain open
for 10 days, should you wish to supplement or change your
testimony. Work with my staff, Ann Heissenbuttel, and with
that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Bill Pauli, President, California Farm Bureau Federation
The California Farm Bureau Federation represents more than
75,000 member families, many of whom are timber families
directly impacted by the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl.
This listing has had a serious impact on our economies while
doing little to actually restore and preserve the species.
In 1990, when the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to list
the species, the agency contended that the bird was being
driven to the brink of extinction due to the harvesting of old-
growth timber, which the owl is purported to depend on for
survival. Total numbers of owls in the three-state region were
speculated to be at 3000-4000 pairs, with fewer than 600 pairs
actually counted in the Northern California Region. As of 1996,
the California Forestry Association's coordinated research with
the California Department of Fish & Game found 2262 known owl
sites in California with an estimated 1,800 breeding pairs of
spotted owls from surveys of 50-60 percent of the region. The
projected total population of northern spotted owls in
California, based on this research, is a range of 4450 to 8500.
Studies show that the survival of the owl is not linked
directly to old-growth forests. Northern Spotted Owls are known
to thrive in many kinds of second-growth, ``managed'' forests
where trees average as small as 15" in diameter. One of the
largest habitat conservation areas in the President's Northwest
Forest Plan is located in Indian Valley near Hayfork,
California. It is considered ``one of the very best places''
for owls to live. Indian Valley is also one of the most
intensely managed lands in Northern California having been
logged for over three generations.
Furthermore, in lowland forests along California's northern
coast, the presence of old growth trees is considered far less
important than the presence of wood rats, a primary source of
food. Where wood rats are abundant, owls are abundant even when
other habitat features are considered marginal. Conversely,
where habitat is considered prime, old-growth forests, but wood
rats are not present, owls are rarely found.
Using this scientific evidence, the California Forestry
Association petitioned the Secretary of the Interior, in
October 1993, to de-list the northern spotted owl in
California. In August 1994, this petition to de-list was
denied.
Today, we are still living with the impacts of the Northern
Spotted Owl listing. Our national forests are poorly managed,
with one in every six trees dead or dying. Last year, only
12.66 percent of the total timber harvested in California came
from public lands. Under current conditions, approximately 177
million board feet of merchantable timber will be left to rot
and or burn each year. Federal timber sales in the Klamath
Province have been at the lowest level since 1953. In the last
2 years for which we have data harvest declined from 181.6
million board feet in 1953 to 145.4 million board feet in 1993
and 113 million board feet in 1994. Timber sales in the
California portion of the Klamath Province from 1983-1988
totaled 3,709.6 million board feet. From 1989, the year the owl
debate heated up, to 1994, sales have totaled 1,307.5 million
board feet--a 35 percent decrease, and the threat of a
catastrophic forest fire has never been greater.
Communities whose culture is intertwined with timber
management are being replaced with ghost towns. Families
continue to suffer because parents aren't working. Perpetuating
the injunctions and bans on timber harvests will not save the
owl or the environment, it will only compound the pain being
inflicted on the working class and continue the demise of rural
communities in California, Oregon, and Washington.
In 1988, more than 110 mills were operating in California.
From 1988 to 1994, 4,745 mill jobs were lost. In 1990, 1 year
after the owl was officially listed, 13 mills closed, leaving
1,208 people unemployed. Today, 61 mills remain in operation.
In the California portion of the Klamath Province, more than 31
mills have closed leaving more than 3,000 people unemployed. In
1990 alone, 9 mills in the California portion of the Klamath
Province closed, leaving 821 people unemployed. While
unemployment rates nationwide continue to decline, in northern
California, they steadily increase. Many Trinity County school
districts have more than 96 percent of their students living at
or below the poverty level.
Forests can be protected and sustained in a manner which
preserves species, restores timber jobs and restores the dreams
and heritage of these suffering communities. The scientific
data concerning spotted owls must be acknowledged and utilized.
When protective measures are advanced, local economics must be
considered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must seriously
consider the new findings concerning spotted owl numbers and
habitat requirements and make appropriate adjustments. The
Northwest Forest Plan must be amended to promote the kind of
habitat the owl truly needs--second-growth, managed forest
ecosystems. The damage currently being inflicted on the timber
industry, rural communities and the owl itself is unacceptable.
Corrective actions, based on sound science, must be taken
immediately.
------
Statement of Dr. Mark S. Boyce, Vallier Chair of Ecology and Wisconsin
Distinguished Professor, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I am honored
to have the opportunity to present my thoughts on the
importance of recent research on the northern spotted owl for
the management of forests in the Pacific Northwest. My name is
Mark S. Boyce. I received Masters and Ph.D. degrees from Yale
University and had a NATO postdoctoral fellowship at Oxford
University. I currently hold the position of Vallier Chair of
Ecology and Wisconsin Distinguished Professor in the College of
Natural Resources at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
in the largest undergraduate natural resources program in the
United States. I have recently completed a 3-year tenure as
editor-in-chief for the Journal of Wildlife Management which is
The Wildlife Society's research periodical. I serve as
President of the Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society, and
Vice President for Sciences of the Wisconsin Academy of
Sciences, Arts and Letters.
I have published about 150 scientific papers and six books
including Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable
Forest and Wildlife Resources (1997, Yale University Press;
with Alan Haney), The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining
America's Wilderness Heritage (1991, Yale University Press;
with Robert B. Keiter), and The Jackson Elk Herd: Intensive
Wildlife Management in North America (1989, Cambridge
University Press). I have conducted research on spotted owls
since 1987, when I was asked by the National Council for Air
and Stream Improvement (NCASI) to review the USDA Forest
Service's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on
the northern spotted owl. Subsequently I have studied spotted
owls in Oregon and Washington with research funded primarily by
the USDI Bureau of Land Management and NCASI. I am coauthor
with Joseph S. Meyer and Larry L. Irwin on a peer-reviewed
monograph on spotted owl habitat ecology that recently has been
accepted for publication in Wildlife Monographs, and will
appear in print this summer.
I wish to speak about some highlights of our research on
spotted owls, and the ramifications of this research for
management of forests in the Pacific Northwest. Despite the
fact that our research speaks to important aspects of spotted
owl habitats, I am concerned that our research will see little
application because there exists so much inertia in the current
forest management plan. Thus, a general issue that I wish to
address is the importance of accommodating science in
management, and how government must have the flexibility to
change when new scientific information becomes available.
As a population ecologist, I believe that I am well
qualified to speak to the issue of management of the northern
spotted owl because it was a population model for spotted owls
that structured the design for management of the Pacific
Northwest forests. The principles for this model were outlined
initially by Russell Lande in 1987, and subsequently were
expanded into computer simulation models used by the
Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) as well as President
Clinton's Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT;
see Lamberson et al. 1992. Conservation Biology 6:505-512; Noon
& McKelvey 1996. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics
27:135-162). These models predicted that isolated patches of
habitat would be less likely to be occupied, and they predicted
that forest edge had deleterious consequences for the owls. We
designed our research to evaluate the underlying premise that
dispersal by owls was key to determining the location of owl
territories and how frequently these territories were actually
occupied by owls. In addition, we designed research to evaluate
the hypothesis that the location and juxtaposition of timber
harvests resulting in forest fragmentation were shaping the
distribution and habitat occupancy by spotted owls. Likewise,
we studied how the extent of forest edges in an area influenced
territory locations and site occupancy. But we found no
evidence that isolation, edge, or fragmentation influence owl
occupancy and distribution. Instead, our results indicated that
the distribution and site use by spotted owls could be
attributed entirely to habitat losses, primarily loss of old
growth forests. And given the documented declines in old growth
habitats, declines in the owl population could be attributed
solely to loss of these habitats.
Our results are specific to southwestern Oregon where
essentially the owl habitat has not been fragmented
sufficiently for there to be any effect of landscape patterns
on owl distribution and occupancy. If the landscape were
substantially more fragmented and habitat patches were much
more isolated than is presently the case, we cannot rule out
the possibility that fragmentation might be a significant
contributor to patterns of spotted owl distribution and site
occupancy.
Another important result from our research is that in
southwestern Oregon, some of the best spotted-owl habitat
occurs when old growth is adjacent to young pole-timber stands.
Research by Sakai and Noon (1993, Journal of Wildlife
Management 57:373-382) indicates that our observation is
attributable to the importance of dusky-footed woodrats that
are produced at a higher frequency in young-aged stands. This
would argue for the importance of having logging dispersed
amongst owl habitat areas, in contrast with the large old-
growth reserve concept, but so far this has not been found to
be the case.
We developed new models focused on owl habitat called
resource selection functions. These habitat-based models do an
excellent job of predicting the observed distribution of owls
and we believe that habitat models like ours should be used in
evaluating what constitutes owl habitat in the Pacific
Northwest. Furthermore, we believe that our habitat-based
models could be used effectively to evaluate forest management
alternatives.
Our results have vast implications for the management of
the Pacific Northwest forests for spotted owls and timber
production. First, the ability of the owls to disperse appears
sufficient to ensure colonization of habitat patches given the
scale at which the landscape is currently fragmented in
southwestern Oregon. Therefore, our results lead us to question
the justification for the strategy of managing for large blocks
of old growth in Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs). Indeed, our
results lead to the hypothesis that a greater total population
of spotted owls could be maintained on the landscape if smaller
blocks (on the order of 1-2 square miles) of old growth were
more widely dispersed across the landscape. This way we could
maintain owls more broadly across the landscape supported by
rodents emerging from shrublands and pole timber stands.
Perhaps the FEMAT approach to managing Pacific Northwest
forests is optimal. But we do not know this, and we will never
know if we do not evaluate it when presented with new
information.
On the Olympic Peninsula, woodrats are not as important a
component of the diet as in Oregon. Yet research on habitats of
spotted owls from the Olympic Peninsula indicated that the
habitat model that we derived for SW Oregon was about equally
effective for Olympic Peninsula owls. Larry Irwin has found
similar results on Plumb Creek lands on the east slope of the
Cascades of Washington. Our habitat models for the northern
spotted owl appear to have widespread application, i.e., they
apply under a variety of habitat situations.
Our results are typical of science in general, i.e., we
test hypotheses about how nature works. Research is designed to
test hypotheses. When we reject the hypotheses we must revisit
the hypotheses and develop new ones. This ponderous slow
process by which science works ensures that we have reliable
knowledge. But when science is applied to the management of
natural resources, it also requires that we have the
flexibility to alter management to take advantage of new
information. This interface between science and management is
called adaptive management. Scientists first develop a
hypothesis about how we think the system works, often framed in
a mathematical or computer model. Then we design management
experiments that can test this hypothesis.
For example, we might hypothesize that selective cutting
regimes could hasten the recovery of old growth
characteristics. To evaluate such a hypothesis, we need to
design selective harvesting experiments in areas where the
consequences to spotted owls can be monitored and the result of
the experiment evaluated.
This raises my primary concern about current forest
management in the Pacific Northwest. Now that the plan
developed by President Clinton's Forest Ecosystem Management
Assessment Team (FEMAT) is largely in place, we seem to have
little opportunity for changing the management plan.
Furthermore, even though the FEMAT plan and the previous
Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) plan called for adaptive
management, implementation of adaptive management has been slow
in coming. In some instances the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has not granted permission to perform experimental management
on areas that were established for the express purpose of
conducting adaptive management, i.e., Adaptive Management Areas
(AMAs). Certainly we can never evaluate the consequences of
forest management if we do not continue to monitor spotted owl
populations.
Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I urge you to do
what is necessary to ensure that the USDA Forest Service and
the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service work together to ensure that
adaptive management protocols are implemented on each and every
adaptive management area that was set aside by FEMAT. Carefully
planned logging on these sites cannot threaten the persistence
of the northern spotted owl on the short term. And on the long
term, these experimental management exercises can only work to
ensure the long-term viability of the owl. Without adher-
ence to adaptive management protocols, we will never find
creative solutions to the difficult forest management situation
in the Pacific Northwest. Only through experimental management
on AMAs and careful monitoring of owl populations can we expect
to move out of the current management gridlock. I am convinced
that scientific management can provide solutions so that we can
have owls, old grown forests, logging, anadromous fisheries,
and people in the forests of the Pacific Northwest.
Our current government contains institutional barriers to
the implementation of adaptive management. I believe that we
can do a better job of scientific management. But overcoming
these institutional barriers is an enormously complex task.
Therefore I would like to encourage Congress to enlist the
support of the National Research Council to design
institutional mechanisms that would facilitate adaptive
management.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
INFLUENCE OF HABITAT ABUNDANCE AND FRAGMENTATION ON NORTHERN
SPOTTED OWLS IN WESTERN OREGON
Joseph S. Meyer, Department of Zoology and Physiology,
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
Larry L. Irwin, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement, Stevensville, Montana
Mark S. Boyce, College of Natural Resources, University of
Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Wisconsin
Abstract: Current management for the northern spotted owl
(Strix occidentalis caurina) is largely driven by
metapopulation models or individually-based models that assume
the success of juvenile dispersal in a fragmented landscape is
a primary factor determining the future existence of spotted
owls in the Pacific Northwest. We tested hypotheses about
fragmentation by comparing sites known to be occupied by
spotted owls with random sites to determine if relationships
existed between landscape indices and spotted owl presence and
productivity in western Oregon.
From a total of 445 known spotted owl sites within the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) checkerboard patterned lands
in western Oregon, we randomly selected (1) 50 long-term data
sites to determine if landscape characteristics influenced site
occupancy or reproduction, (2) 50 random owl sites to evaluate
possible biases in the long-term data sites, and (3) 50 random
landscape locations for comparison with the 50 random owl
sites.
BLM staff classified from aerial photographs the mosaic of
forest successional stages within a 3.4-km-radius circle
surrounding each of the 150 sites. From these mosaics, we
calculated several indices of landscape characteristics and
forest fragmentation for 0.8-, 1.6-, 2.4-, and 3.4-km-radius
circles. Results were combined with data on occupancy and
reproduction to test the null hypotheses that landscape
characteristics did not affect site location, site occupancy,
or reproductive success of spotted owls.
Landscape indices did not differ between long-term owl
sites and randomly selected owl sites, indicating little bias
in our sample of long-term data sites. Landscape
characteristics at random owl sites differed significantly from
those at random landscape locations. Differences were greatest
for 0.8-km-radius circles surrounding the study sites,
suggesting that site selection by spotted owls may be most
strongly affected by landscape characteristics within a 0.8-km-
radius circle (> 200 ha). Statistically significant differences
also were found for radii up to 3.4 km, but most of those
differences did not contribute significant new information
beyond the differences existing in the core area of the
circles.
Random owl sites contained more old-growth forest, larger
average size of old-growth patches, and larger maximum size of
old-growth patches than occurred in random landscape locations,
for all circle radii (P < 0.01). Additionally, random owl sites
contained less young-age forest within 0.8-km-radius circles
than did random landscape locations. However, amount of
clearcut forest did not differ between random owl sites and
random landscape locations.
None of the forest fragmentation indices except size of
old-growth patches was strongly related to site selection, none
was strongly related to frequency of occupation of sites, and
only fractal dimension was moderately related to reproduction.
Instead, the major influences of landscape pattern were related
to amount of habitat. Amount of habitat dominated in resource
selection probability functions (RSPF) for western Oregon, and
these RSPF's can be used to predict the probability that a
given landscape mosaic will be a suitable spotted owl site.
------
Statement of Dr. Robert J. Taylor, Consulting Wildlife Ecologist
The purpose of this hearing is to assess the status of the
northern spotted owl, the impact of national forest management
activities on owl populations since enactment of the
President's Forest Plan, and the impact of the owl on
management activities within the area of the President's Forest
Plan. My remarks will be limited to California, since that is
the primary locus of my expertise.
The status of the northern spotted owl
The answer to this question is best addressed by describing
the evolution of knowledge about this species over the last
decade. Well before the spotted owl was proposed for listing,
the California Department of Fish and Game had established a
data base for owl observations. By the mid 1980's all Federal
and state agencies had accepted this data base as the
repository for their survey information. The CDF&G accepted the
responsibility for establishing the accuracy of these data and
inferring from them the spatial pattern of spotted owl
territories. All researchers involved with spotted owls now
agree that this is the single most reliable source of
population-wide data in California.
At the time of the spotted owl status review in 1989, the
state data base contained information on about 500 pairs of
owls. These were thought to constitute the majority of the
total population. Owl observations were heavily clustered on
national forests, with a light scattering on private lands.
Scientists thought the owl population was becoming increasingly
patchy as its required old-growth habitat slowly disappeared.
The few owls known to occupy second-growth forests on public or
private lands were considered to be outcasts from good habitat,
living in population sinks where survival and reproduction were
low. An abortive attempt by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection to craft a statewide habitat
conservation plan in 1992 reflected this kind of thinking. That
plan assumed that owl habitat was very patchy and that survival
of this species required an elaborately designed system of
habitat refuges on both public and private lands.
We know now that these initial impressions of the size and
extent of the spotted owl population did not reflect the
ecology of the spotted owl so much as they reflected incomplete
and biased survey data. Data on private lands were largely
absent at the time the listing decision was made. Intensive
surveys of private industrial forests began in 1989, have
continued to the present, and now represent some of the better
information in the state's data base.
The number of breeding pairs in California can be arrived
at by consideration of the following information. About half
the forested land in the owl's range is in national forests;
the remaining half is divided among private industrial forests,
small private holdings, a state demonstration forest, and
various state and national parks and BLM holdings. Not all of
these lands have been surveyed for owls. The percentages
surveyed are as low as 40 percent for nonindustrial private
lands and as high as 90 percent for some private industrial
forests. The percentage of suitable national forest lands
surveyed is approximately 50 percent.
As of the 1996 field season, approximately 2,500 spotted
owl territories had been identified in California. About half
of these lie in the national forests, and half lie in the other
public and private holdings. Not all sites are occupied every
year; estimates of occupancy range from 78 percent to 95
percent, depending on location. The percentage of occupied
sites held by breeding pairs (some territories are held by a
solitary male) appears to vary between 40 percent and 90
percent. I have combined these statistics to estimate the
number of breeding pairs in California at approximately 1,800.
The cumulative error is such that the number could be as low as
1,500 and as high as 4,000. In addition there should be as many
juveniles and unpaired adults as breeding pairs.
The spatial pattern of these territories shows complete
coverage of the surveyed forested portion of northwest
California. Spotted owls are found breeding in habitats ranging
from redwood forests to east-side pine forests in the north. At
the southern end of their range in Marin, Napa, and Sonoma
counties they commonly nest in hardwood dominated stands. Since
clear-cutting has not been a common method of logging in
California, patch cutting and individual-tree selection have
produced an enormous variety of managed forest types in the
spotted owl's range. All of these appear to be occupied by
owls. Although various habitat studies suggest that owls prefer
dense stands of large trees, banding studies have not shown any
difference in survival and reproduction between owls living in
relatively undisturbed old growth and in managed second growth.
Assessment of the trend in this population is difficult.
One of two adjacent demographic study areas in Humboldt County
shows a slight decline. The other shows constancy. Modeling of
the entire California population is in an early stage. The one
model that has been applied shows stability of the population
for plausible values of unmeasured parameters.
To summarize, the scientific theory that dominated the
President's Forest Plan, that the spotted owl population was
headed toward a precarious existence in a limited number of
refuges, has not proved robust to new information gathered on
private forest lands. The spotted owl appears to be more
flexible in its use of forest habitats and its population more
robust than originally thought.
The impact of national forest management activities on owl
populations since enactment of the President's Forest Plan
The primary management impact of the President's Forest
Plan has been to stop nearly all logging in the four national
forests within the northern spotted owl's range in California.
What effect this has had on the component of the owl population
living on the national forests is difficult to assess since the
President's Plan was implemented shortly after the Forest
Service put a nearly complete stop to monitoring activities. At
its best Forest Service monitoring was never particularly good.
The use of inexperienced crews and the frequent failure to
follow standard survey protocols placed the reliability of
government data below that of industry-gathered data. Even
those data ceased to come in after the 1992 field season. Once
the owl was listed and the President's Forest Plan was in
place, the research branch of the Forest Service seemed to
direct the bulk of its attention to the California spotted owl,
a subspecies not yet listed under the Endangered Species Act.
One can only speculate about the effects of an aging and
increasingly homogeneous forest on owl populations. My own
speculation is that the trend will be worse for the owl, as its
preferred prey in more open forests, the dusky-footed woodrat,
is replaced by the smaller and less-common flying squirrel. If
fire were allowed to regain its historical frequency in the
national forests, then it might provide habitat for woodrats to
compensate for the absence of man-made openings.
The impact of the owl on management activities within the area
of the President's Forest Plan
The change in management of public land is clear; logging
is a small fraction of what it was 10 years ago. How much of
this can be attributed to concern for spotted owls is difficult
to know. While the owl served as the poster child for the
President's Forest Plan, the FEMAT team generalized the issue
far beyond this one species.
The change in the management of private land has been more
complicated. Because of the decline in timber harvest on the
national forests, the value of the remaining mature timber on
private lands has increased. The combination of increased value
and the looming threat of greater regulatory control has tended
to accelerate cutting on many private land holdings. Timber
owners that formerly maintained owl habitat in excess of that
demanded by the state are increasingly pushing the limit.
The other major impact on private land is a concentration
of the forest industry into fewer larger land owners. A total
of 64 lumber mills have closed in northern California in the
last 10 years, a number of these small, family-owned
operations. The large companies that survived this revolution
in the industry have more resources to put into regulatory
issues, are less dependent on public timber, and have seen the
values of their lands soar. How this shift will play out on
forest management is not yet clear. Optimists think that
private forest management will fall increasingly into
professional hands. Pessimists believe that return on
investment will increasingly win out over good forest
stewardship.
Conclusion
Given the dramatic shift in what scientists know about
spotted owls, one would think that the original regulatory
standards for habitat could be modified somewhat on both public
and private lands. But nobody on the Federal or state level is
prepared to move on this issue without an indication from the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that such a move is acceptable.
The Service, in turn, seems unable or unwilling to do anything
on a programmatic level. Six years after the publication of a
draft recovery plan, no final plan has appeared. Four years
after the Service initiated Section 4(d) rules for private
lands, no rule has been published.
To be fair to the Fish and Wildlife Service, there is some
residual disagreement among scientists as to what all this new
information means. The lack of a unanimous voice on such a
contentious issue may be one factor in the Service's timidity.
If any action one takes can be assaulted in a courtroom by an
articulate spokesman for an alternative, the bureaucratic mind
is tempted to take no action. Unfortunately no institutional
mechanism exists by which scientists can be forced to reconcile
their differences, short perhaps of a government-sponsored
review.
------
Statement of Dr. Larry Irwin, Senior Scientist from NCASI, Inc.
I am a Principal Research Scientist with the National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement,
or NCASI, which is a non-advocate, non-profit research and
environmental management organization. We conduct research that
seeks to reveal cost-effective options for managers to blend
environmental values with economic goals. Most of the research
that we undertake is conducted in cooperation with scientists
from other organizations or institutions. Some 60 percent of
the research funding for the Western Wildlife Program, which I
manage, is provided by the forest products industry; the
remaining 40 percent comes from Federal, state, or private
organizations.
I was educated at the University of Montana, University of
Minnesota, and University of Idaho, completing my PhD degree in
1978. Before coming to NCASI, I was a professor at the
University of Wyoming for 8 years, and I currently hold faculty
affliate appointments at Oregon State University and the
University of Montana. My professional experience involves 24
years of scientific inquiry on the topic of interactions
between wildlife populations and habitats. That experience has
involved research on habitat dynamics and populations of large
mammals as well as songbirds and predatory birds. I began field
investigations on Spotted Owls in 1986, and currently supervise
owl research projects in Washington, Oregon and California. I
have written or co-authored about 85 scientific publications,
including journal articles, several book chapters and 3 book-
length monographs. About 15 publications involved Spotted Owls.
From October 1989 through spring 1990 I served as a
technical advisor/observer to the Interagency Scientific
Committee, or ISC (also known as the Thomas Committee) to
Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. My
purpose today is to discuss four topics relative to scientific
information that has been gathered since the owl was listed as
a threatened species:
A. Spotted Owl population trends;
B. Linking owl population trends with habitat conditions;
C. Risks of large-scale wildfires; and
D. The value of manipulative, adaptive management experiments.
Spotted Owl Population Trends--. There is new information about
trends in Spotted Owl populations, especially as those trends may
relate to habitat conditions. wildlife scientists combine estimates of
annual survival rate with data on reproduction to arrive at population
trends. Survival rates cannot be accurately measured, so they are
estimated indirectly by computer-based analytical models. The models
translate data from repeated observations of individually identifiable,
leg-banded owls. Model output from combined data from several studies
has been interpreted to mean that annual adult female owl survival may
be declining, and that it may be declining at an accelerating rate. If
the declining survival-rate estimates can be accepted, and if they were
linked statistically with measures of habitat conditions, they would
certainly be cause for concern.
On the other hand, re-observations of owls at their nest sites do
not defend the computer projections. One possible reason for the
disparity is that the models may not account well for the ways that
Spotted Owls are actually sampled in the field. It is well known that
female owls are only rarely captured and banded (i.e., sampled) unless
field crews first find their associated males. For example, a recent
study demonstrated that computer models that do not account for male-
dependent sampling of females could result in incorrect
interpretations. And another study suggested that the computer models
may be overly pessimistic because they do not account for owls that
emigrate from study areas. That study suggested that population trends
may be under-estimated by 3-13 percent.
Consequently, NCASI scientists developed a method that accounts
better for the ways that owls are sampled, and under some conditions,
also accounts for emigration. When we entered the data in the
analytical models, we found evidence that adult female owl survival
rate has been relatively stable since 1990 along the eastern slope of
the Cascade Mountains in Washington. This information, which has been
submitted for formal publication, suggests there is reason to be
optimistic about owl population trends in that area.
Linking owl population trends with habitat conditions--. We know
now that relationships between Spotted Owl populations and forest
conditions are much more complex than previously believed. Old forests
provided a reasonable starting basis for predicting where we might find
Spotted Owls, so naturally, old forests formed the backbone of the
conservation strategy. However, after the owl was listed, it soon
became apparent that there was more to the owl/forest relationship than
old forests, because many private timberlands without extensive old-
growth forests were found to contain Spotted Owls. For example, we
found 55 sites occupied by Spotted Owls in a western Oregon landscape
that contains less than 10 percent mature and old-growth forests.
That information directed our studies somewhat, and we subsequently
found that suitable Spotted Owl habitat involves multiple and
interacting environmental factors, not just age or growth stage of
forest. These additional factors include undergrowth vegetation,
standing and fallen dead trees (or snags), and attributes of the
physical environment. That old-growth, by itself, is weakly correlated
with owl reproductive success is explained below, as there are
implications for owl conservation and management.
Since 1990 I have supervised a research project that spans most of
the length of the eastern slope of the Cascades Range in Washington,
extending from the Canadian border to the Oregon border. The area
contains perhaps one-third of the Spotted owls in Washington. There,
about 25 percent of over 100 Spotted Owl nest sites that have been
sampled occur in old-growth forests. The remainder occurs in forests
that are in intermediate stages of forest growth, owing to past forest
fires and previous selective timber harvesting. The area contains
several Federal late-successional reserves (or LSRs) that were set
aside from timber harvesting to protect Spotted Owls. These late
successional reserves were initially proposed to be set aside by the
Thomas Committee in 1990. Subsequently, the reserve network was
expanded by the President's Northwest Forest Plan in 1993. It was
assumed the LSR set-asides would contain Spotted Owls that should be
doing well because the areas have the most extensive mature and old-
growth forests.
However, the assumption proved to be incorrect. In our study,
reproductive success by Spotted Owls is not statistically correlated
with amounts of old-growth forests. In fact, we found that Spotted Owls
within non-reserved areas, where there is about 50 percent less old-
growth forests, produce twice as many young owlets as owls living in
reserved forests along the Cascades crest. This seemingly contradictory
pattern has been consistent since 1990. It is related to differences in
forest types, past forestry practices and to the physical environment.
In the areas where owls produce the most young, it seems that
productive soils, less annual precipitation, and less rugged topography
probably translate into greater abundance and availability of the owl's
food base. The result is that owls in such areas are more productive
than anywhere else, despite those areas having less old-growth forests.
Therefore, more factors than age or growth stage of forest are needed
to make reliable predictions about reproductive success among Spotted
Owls.
Risks of large-scale wildfires--. After the Spotted Owl was listed
in 1990, we documented evidence of a high potential for extensive
wildfires to devastate owl habitats in the eastern Washington Cascades,
where forest health has deteriorated significantly. The same appears
true for the eastern Oregon Cascades and the Klamath Region in southern
Oregon and northern California. In 1992, scientists concluded there
also was high wildfire likelihood in many areas occupied by the
California Spotted Owl in the Sierra Nevada Range. The risks are
highest in areas where dense, undergrowth trees create ``ladder''
conditions that allow small fires to reach forest canopies and escalate
into landscape-scale wildfires. Such an event occurred in 1994, when
over 200,000 acres burned along the eastern slope of the Washington
Cascades. There, some two dozen owl sites were consumed in the fires.
Therefore, we know now that we have what scientists call a ``wicked
ecological problem'': ``How can we protect Spotted Owls in forested
areas with high probability of non-natural, large scale wildfires?''
The points discussed above have several ramifications. First,
forest planners would be well-advised to be cautious about relying only
on maps of the most extensive old forests to locate reserve areas for
long term owl conservation. Second, owls have apparently colonized
forests that have re-grown after previous timber harvests that left
standing dead and downed trees. Third, preserving a network of the
oldest forests may not be optimal in the long run for Spotted Owls in
fire-prone areas. What we might consider doing about these topics is my
fourth point, described below.
The value of manipulative, adaptive management experiments--. There
are significant opportunities for developing compatibility between
Spotted owls and forestry. For example, it should be possible to re-
condition forests in fire-prone areas and yet maintain the owls. And it
should be possible to create suitable Spotted Owl habitat more
generally in judiciously managed forests. In each case, forest managers
who choose to do so would need to account for the appropriate
vegetation structures, in relation to the physical environmental
features described above. Indeed, knowing that suitable owl habitat had
been created fortuitously, or by default, in some managed forests, the
Thomas Committee suggested that forest managers should be able to
produce it by design.
Note that this doesn't mean that scientists are certain about how
to provide for a viable population of Owls in managed forests over the
long term. However, there is sufficient to point us in the right
direction. Creating and maintaining Spotted Owl habitat after clearcut
timber harvesting most likely cannot be done in less than 30-40 years
in most Douglas-fir forests. Given that, the issue in such forests is
partly one of scheduling forest treatments over time and across the
landscape, which forest managers know how to do. And it is partly an
issue of how much structure to leave behind, as well as where to put
the structures. In forest types where less-intensive forestry
practices, such as partial timber harvesting, may efficiently be used
to reduce the risks of fire, it may well be that owls will continue
using the treated stands. Or perhaps there will be a short hiatus,
after which the owls re-use the treated forest stands. In fact, several
scientists have indicated that they believe that carefully-applied
partial cutting would not degrade habitats in the short term and that
such treatments may well improve habitat conditions for owls over the
long run.
Developing the potentials of either method for accommodating
Spotted Owls in managed forests requires more development. Both topics
require manipulative forest experiments designed to test several
promising options simultaneously. Such active ``adaptive managements''
requires linking research with monitoring to point out the optimal
direction for management. To our knowledge, adaptive management
activities indicated by the Thomas Committee in 1990, including
developing silvicultural programs compatible with Spotted Owls, have
yet to become operational. Indeed, Federal monitoring and research
programs for Spotted Owls have been significantly reduced.
In summary, then, there is significant information on Northern
Spotted Owls that applies at levels of forest stands to landscapes.
However, there seems to be no formal mechanism for infusing new
scientific information into decision-making processes. Therefore, I
respectfully suggest that the Subcommittee on Forestry of the House
Resources Committee consider impaneling a body of scientists, perhaps
through the National Research Council, to review the information, to
evaluate barriers that seem to impede rapid application of useful
information, and to recommend actions that could improve conservation
and management for Northern Spotted Owls.
Further, and mindful of the need for judicious budgeting, the
following specific suggestions are proposed:
1) Support increased funding for Spotted Owl research,
especially that which links monitoring of Spotted Owl
population trends with habitat conditions and environmental
attributes.
2) Encourage the research programs to emphasize rapid
development and application of silvicultural methods that are
both compatible with Spotted Owls and will reduce risks of
wildfire in fire-prone forests.
3) Enable adaptive management programs that could support a
suite of conservation strategies that protect Spotted Owls
across a landscape mosaic of managed and unmanaged forests.
Such programs should contain provisions for regularly updating
Federal agency staff to promote rapid application in
management.
______
Statement of James Lyons, Undersecretary of Agriculture, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you
for the opportunity to address the Committee to discuss the
impact and status of the northern spotted owl on National
Forests. Today I am accompanied by Robert Williams, Regional
Forester for the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Region, and
Dr. Martin Raphael, scientist with the Forest Service's Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
I am pleased to appear with representatives of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service today. Many of the concerns your
Committee raised deal with the listing, status as a threatened
species, and recovery of the northern spotted owl. These
issues, with their basis in the Endangered Species Act, are the
special responsibilities of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
That said, I hasten to add that the Forest Service works
very closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service in managing the
National Forests. This is especially so in the Pacific
Northwest where advice by the Fish and Wildlife Service, in
concert with several others, assists us in managing the
National Forests and Bureau of Land Management forests under
the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. In addition, we are working
closely with them to monitor both the compliance with, and the
effectiveness of, the Northwest Forest Plan. And, through our
Research arm, our several agencies are jointly studying the
population, habitat, and trends of the northern spotted owl.
How is the owl doing? We refer to the testimony here of our
colleagues in the Fish and Wildlife Service: It's too soon to
tell. The spotted owl is a long-lived species in a forest
environment that changes slowly. Its populations may be
affected by unique events and conditions from one year to the
next that are unrelated to forest management. Thus the data
from the first years of the Northwest Forest Plan are not now
sufficient to give us confidence in any trend. We, along with
many, are looking forward to the results of the analysis next
year that will give us our first scientifically credible look
at recent trends.
The Northwest Forest Plan is not just a plan for the
spotted owl. We tried writing plans just for the spotted owl,
and they didn't work. In 1988 and again in 1992 the Forest
Service issued guidelines for the management of habitat
specifically for the spotted owl. Both times Federal courts
ruled that our efforts were not adequate and enjoined timber
sales in spotted owl habitat. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) encountered (procedurally different but) similar
difficulty in its attempt to harvest timber on the lands it
manages in Oregon.
New timber sale offerings on Federal forests in northern
spotted owl country came to a virtual halt at the turn of the
decade. Timber workers and timber dependent communities,
already impacted by automation, alternate markets, and industry
reorganization, reeled. Congressional efforts, such as Section
318 of the 1990 Appropriations Bill, granted some short term
relief. In spite of Section 318 and other efforts ``gridlock''
had arrived in the forests and rural communities across western
Washington, western Oregon, and northwestern California.
On April 2,1993, President Clinton convened the Forest
Conference in Portland, Oregon to address the human and
ecological needs served by Federal forests of the Pacific
Northwest and northern California. Based on the Forest
Conference, the President asked his Administration and Federal
professionals to create a science-based forest management plan
built on five goals: 1) adhere to the Nation's laws, 2) protect
and enhance the environment, 3) provide a sustainable timber
economy, 4) support the region's people and communities during
economic transition, and 5) ensure that Federal agencies work
together. An interagency interdisciplinary team of expert
scientists assessed proposals for management of Federal forests
in the range of the northern spotted owl. The team produced a
report which was used as the basis to develop alternatives. A
Record of Decision was issued April l994, which amended the
planning documents of 19 National Forests and 7 Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Districts. The Record of Decision sets
standards and guidelines, including land allocations for
management of Federal lands within the range of the northern
spotted owl.
The Northwest Forest Plan is not just a plan for ensuring
the viability of the northern spotted owl. It provides
significant protections for streams, riparian areas, water
quality, and fish. It provides a system of old-growth and late-
successional reserves with a multitude of benefits to species
that depend on old forests. And, through the Northwest Economic
Adjustment Initiative, the Plan also was a foundation of help
to communities to cope with, and benefit from, economic
transition.
Two months after the Plan's release, the court injunctions
were lifted, clearing the way for the agencies to offer new
timber sales and other management actions for the first time in
3 years. Since then, Federal agencies' decisions have continued
to prevail in subsequent legal challenges, allowing the
Northwest Forest Plan to move forward.
The Plan applies only to Federal lands managed by the
Forest Service and the BLM in the range of the northern spotted
owl. The Plan does not apply to state, private, or tribal
lands. While not issued as the final owl recovery plan required
by the Endangered Species Act, the Plan does provide
comprehensive management direction for the Federal lands that
will enhance recovery efforts for the owl. It will also enhance
the recovery efforts for other listed old-growth dependent
species (such as the marbled murrelet), and for listed fish
species by managing for healthy, sustainable forest and
riparian ecosystems in the Northwest.
What does it cost to manage for the northern spotted owl?
This is an important question. We do not believe it possible to
isolate those aspects of the Northwest Forest Plan (nor aspects
of the Forest Plans which preceded it) which can be attributed
to spotted owl management alone. Because the benefits which
accrue to owl habitat and populations also accrue to many other
species and forest conditions, one can not say what it costs to
manage for the owl. Many of our management actions which
benefit the owl are done for reasons independent of the owl--to
comply with laws, to ensure a diversity of habitats, or to
ensure the sustainability of our forests for multiple use.
The Committee asked us to provide information on costs
incurred by local governments and/or private entities to comply
with Federal requirements related to the northern spotted owl.
The Northwest Forest Plan imposes no requirements on local
government or private entities which directly cause them to pay
any costs. (The Fish and Wildlife Service has authority for
programs for species recovery on non-Federal lands.)
The Committee also posed the important question of the
Federal, state, and local revenues foregone due to owl
management requirements. This is another unanswerable question,
and unanswerable for two reasons. First, the Northwest Forest
Plan requires a number of management actions which benefit a
number of species and environmental conditions--one can not say
what portion is attributable to spotted owls. Second, the
Northwest Plan enabled an increase in timber harvest activity
from the period of ``gridlock'' preceding it. We all recognize
that current timber sale levels are far below those of the mid-
and late-1980's--but they are above those of the early-1990s.
In this context, the Forest Plan has enabled revenues to be
gathered which would have been foregone without the Northwest
Forest Plan.
Research on the spotted owl and monitoring have improved
our understanding through studies on population trends
(demographics) and habitat conditions. Trends in spotted owl
populations are not easily attributed to any single factor but
are a complex interaction between changes in habitat, climate,
food sources, and abundance of competing species. Hypotheses
regarding any of these various factors can only be tested with
reliable, long-term demographic data.
In 1994, Federal District Judge Dwyer upheld the Northwest
Forest Plan approach but explicitly emphasized that it would
hold up to legal scrutiny only if the Forest Service and BLM
monitored the effects of the plan on key wildlife species. As a
result, the Forest Service and BLM have maintained and
supported a comprehensive monitoring plan for the spotted owl.
Continuation of spotted owl research (in particular, modeling
the relationship between habitat and populations) and
monitoring is a critical component in understanding the
complexities of ecosystems while we adapt management strategies
to achieve desired forest management objectives.
In 1997, an interagency Effectiveness Monitoring plan was
developed. This monitoring plan emphasizes the need for
continuing monitoring efforts underway. Owl demography studies
are summarized annually for each of the individual study areas,
but a combined range-wide analysis of all the data from the
different study areas (a ``meta-analysis'') is only done every
few years. The last such analysis was conducted in 1993. The
next interagency scientific analysis is scheduled for December
1998.
Demographic monitoring studies have proved invaluable for
determining trends of owl populations; habitat trends alone do
not yet provide this information. The northern spotted owl
populations appear to be declining in some areas, but may be
stable in others. Much remains to be learned about why owls
occupy specific sites, and how restoration and management can
help return owls to sites or maintain their occupancy. Several
studies have helped develop new forestry methods--selective
thinning to speed the growth of tree girth, creation of cavity
trees, etc.--that might speed restoring late-successional
forests as spotted owl habitat.
We have provided the Committee with a list of scientific
publications on the spotted owl from 1994 to the present. This
list of publications includes research done in cooperation with
the Forest Service, other government agencies, universities,
and cooperating research organizations.
The Forest Service allocates funds within the structure
outlined by the Congress's appropriations committees. Our
funding structure does not include an ``owl management''
category. Because of the ecosystem management approach of the
Northwest Forest Plan, we organize our work according to key
components of ecosystem management, such as watershed analysis
and riparian restoration. As such, it is not possible to
provide an exhaustive set of costs related to a single species,
such as the northern spotted owl.
Forest management for the multiple purposes prescribed in
the Northwest Forest Plan requires careful thought before
acting. The Plan calls for several types of analysis which are
closer to the ground than the large scale Plan. Between 1995
and 1997, we completed 283 watershed analyses representing 55
percent of Northwest Forest Plan watersheds. All initial
analyses will be complete in three years. These analyses set
the stage for a variety of projects including watershed
restoration, timber sales, recreation projects, and management
of roads and trails. Watershed restoration activities include
repairing or obliterating roads, stabilizing upland areas and
restoring stream channels and banks. Watershed analyses
currently cost between $90,000 and $100,000 each.
Late Successional Reserves total nearly 7.5 million acres
within the Northwest Forest Plan area; Reserves help provide a
distribution, quantity, and quality of old-growth forest
habitat sufficient to avoid the extinction of associated flora
and fauna such as the northern spotted owl. Assessments for 75
percent of the acres of Late Successional Reserves will be
finished by the summer of 1998. There are ten Adaptive
Management Areas identified in the Northwest Forest Plan; they
have over 300 research and monitoring projects underway. Eight
of the Adaptive Management Areas have completed plans.
This completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have or to provide you with any available
information on this topic.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7909.017
<all>