2 EVERGREEN

In This Issue

In this issue we tell “TheTruth about America’sforests.”

In the 12 years since thefirst printing of “The Truth”rolled off the press, morethan 700,000 of you haveordered copies. From yourthousands of letters we knowthat you use this referencebook frequently. You cite itin Letters to the Editor andin speeches to local civic groups yousupport. Your school kids use it too,though they are more inclined to seekus out on our website.

We also know you trust this bookletimplicitly because it is assembled frompublicly funded databases and becausethe information we present is footnotedas to its source. We continue thistradition in this, our eighth printing.

We are often asked how so muchdetailed information could beaccurately gathered on such a largescale. To do its work the Forest Servicemaintains 3,112,000 aerial photographypoints, plus 124,463 inventory plots and7,861 forest health plots. Although theagency’s monitoring program is farmore advanced than it was when it wasestablished in 1930 its accuracy stillrests on a physical examination ofpublic and privately owned forests thatlie within selected plots from coast tocoast [one plot per 6,000 acres offorestland]. Among the qualitative andquantitative measures taken on each of124,463 inventory plots: tree diameter,tree quality, forest regeneration, sitequality, forest type, stand age andevidence of natural or humandisturbance.

Designated forest health plotsundergo an even more rigorousexamination. Tree crowns are inspectedfor signs of stress; soil chemicalproperties are measured for fertility;vegetation structure and compositionare measured to evaluate habitatsuitability, fuel loading, plant diversityand carbon cycling; lichen com-

munities are examined for richness andabundance—indicators of climatechange, air quality and biologicaldiversity; down woody debris isevaluated to estimate carbon storage,wildfire risk and habitat characteristics;and ozone sensitive plant species areevaluated for the presence of latesummer ozone injury.

Of course, the nation’s forests holdintrinsic values that are impossible tomeasure. How do you quantify beautyor solitude? What price does one put ona threatened or endangered species, orbiological diversity? To add meaningand context to Forest Service statisticswe asked several experts we respect tobackground you on issues that arecurrently driving the nation’s forestpolicy discussion. Among the issues:wildfire and forest health, habitat loss,third-party forest certification and theappropriateness of wood use in anenvironmentally conscious world.

Doug MacCleery sets the stage foryou in “A Brief History of U.S. Forests:Does the Past Provide Lessons for theFuture?” The ever-thoughtful Mr.MacCleery is the Forest Service’sFederal Forest and RangelandManagement Senior Policy Analyst anda frequent Evergreen contributor.

Two companion pieces accompanyMr. MacCleery’s reprise. “SoftwoodResource Conditions and ManagementImplications” is a meticulouslyresearched paper written by JayO’Laughlin. Dr. O’Laughlin is directorof the Policy Analysis Group at theUniversity of Idaho, and has written

widely on the decliningcondition of western federalforests. His well-documentedassessment of the underlyingcauses of the West’sincreasingly deadly wildfirecrisis is affirmed in “Uncharac-teristic Wildfire Risk and FishConservation in Oregon,” apeer-reviewed paper by SteveMealey and Jack Ward Thomas.Their paper was presented at an

October 2002 wildland fire seminar co-sponsored by the Oregon State UniversityCollege of Forestry and the Oregon ForestResources Institute and is reprinted in itsentirety with permission of the sponsors.

Several pages of charts—and twoextensive bibliographies—accompany theO’Laughlin and Mealey-Thomas papers.They reaffirm what many fire ecologistshave been saying for years: our nationalforests are in serious decline. Minus amajor change in forest policy—somethingonly Congress can divine—much of theprogress in conservation Mr. MacCleerydetails will eventually be lost.

President Bush is quite right to beworried about the West’s nationalforests—and right on the mark with hisHealthy Forests Initiative, outlined lastAugust during his tour of fire lines insouthern Oregon. There is a virtualmountain of scientific evidencesupporting the need to modernizeenvironmental laws that no longerserve their original purposes. Untilthese laws are updated wildfires willcontinue their deadly work in theWest’s national forests.

Opinion polls conducted over thelast three years confirm that mostwesterners, including most living inurban centers, understand that forestdensity and subsequent disease are theunderlying causes of these fires—andthat removing some trees is the onlyrealistic long term solution. But equallyclear is the fact that the public will notsupport programs perceived to beenvironmentally harmful. Further, thereis a general distrust for the motives of

President George W. Bush outlining his Healthy Forests Initiative at apress conference in Medford, Oregon last August.

Cover photo: Stephanie Steck, Northern Lights, Bigfork, Montana

Rob

Wer

fel P

hoto

grap

hy

evergreenmagazine.com 3

Morning sun illuminatesthe Ross Cedars, a

protected grove of 600-800 year-old western

red cedars in theKootenai National

Forest about 10 milessouth of Troy, Montana Ji

m P

eter

sen

evergreenmagazine.com 3

4 EVERGREEN

sawmill owners who have sidedwith the President. But suchdistrust seems misplaced. Wedon’t know a single companythat pines for a return to “thegood old days” when nearly 20percent of the nation’s annualharvest came from westernnational forests. Mostcompanies that survived thecollapse of the old federaltimber sale program havesecured new more stablesources of wood and no longerrisk their capital on millingventures tied to federal forests.

Thus, what was once a har-vesting debate is now an en-vironmental debate with socialand cultural underpinnings.And suburban folks who’ve neverworked in the woods are now theones doing most of the out loudworrying. We share their new-found concern, but the fact is the ForestService will remain powerless to protectpublicly revered old growth forests fromcatastrophic wildfire—to say nothing ofrural and urban neighborhoods that lie inharm’s way—until failing environmentallaws are updated to reflect today’srealities. In a perfect world, the agencywould pay its own way with revenuesderived from a perpetual thinningprogram, and forests in federal care wouldbe independently certified at ten-yearintervals to make certain the public’sconservation goals were being met.

Fortunately, the nation’s privatelyowned forests don’t suffer from thebureaucratic and political ills that plaguethe public’s forests. Despite soaringdemand for lumber and paper products(most of it met by steadily increasingimports from other countries) forestgrowth on private lands in the U.S.continues to outpace harvest andmortality by wide margins. And unbe-knownst to many Americans, these samelands provide most of the forest habitatused by so-called “early succession” plantand animal species—those that thrive insunlit openings harvesting creates. Suchopenings are vital to deer, elk, squirrels,wild turkeys, ruffed grouse and manyneo-tropical songbirds.

America’s private forest landownersare testing some innovative manage-ment approaches that bridge theperceived commodity-conservation gap.For perspective read John Olson’sinsightful story [page 52] concerningPotlatch Corporation’s forest certificationand conservation reserve programs.

Mr. Olson is resource vice president forthe company. Conservation reserves arebecoming increasingly common inprivately owned forests in the U.S.,underscoring their smooth fit withadjacent timber producing areas.

We hope you’ll also take a moment toread “Think Globally, Act Locally: UseMore Wood!” We showcase the WoodPromotion Network, an educationalprogram that touts the scientificallydocumented environmental advantages ofwood use in forums frequented by buildingcontractors and their customers. WPNwas formed two years ago after it wasdiscovered that U.S. lumber manu-facturers had lost nearly $1 billion inmarket share to competitors in the steelframing and concrete industries in justthree years. Worse, television and printadvertisements sponsored by the twoindustries were hyping environmentalistclaims that forests were not beingsustainably managed. As you will learnin this issue, there is no truth to theseclaims. A nation as environmentallyengaged as ours is should be using morewood, not less.

Our WPN feature is accompaniedby a series of charts titled, “A GraphicPerspective on the U.S. Forest ProductsIndustry.” Despite the worst pulp andpaper markets in anyone’s memory—and the mergers, consolidations andlayoffs fierce global competition haswrought—the nation’s lumber and paperindustries still employ 1.5 millionAmericans in high paying jobs.

While pondering the future of highpaying jobs in America be sure to read

Bruce Vincent’s uplifting profileon “Provider Pals,” a culturalexchange program he pioneeredthat pairs junior-high agestudents with their Providers:farmers, ranchers, loggers,miners, commercial fishermenand oil field workers. As part ofthe yearlong exchange, ruralkids journey to cities, visitfactories and take in culturalevents while city kids visit farms,ranches, commercial fishingoperations, sawmills, mines andlogging jobs. The Ford MotorCompany thought so much ofthe program they provided $1.5million in startup funding.We’ve seen many fine educa-tional programs over the years,but never one that excites kidsso much. We’re pleased to haveplayed a small role in itsformation.

It’s clear we have a very long way togo in our quest to improve the public’sunderstanding of forests and forestry. Tofind out just how far go to our websitewww.evergreenmagazine.com [click on“Analysis & Perspective] and read “Factand Perception,” Dr. Jim Bowyer’stroubling report. Dr. Bowyer is Directorof the Forest Products ManagementDevelopment Institute in the College ofNatural Resources at the University ofMinnesota. Since the early 1990s he’sbeen testing students and industryemployees to see what they know aboutforests and forestry. The news is not good.You can take his test on page 40 andcheck your answers on our website. Whilethere be sure to read “Policy ConflictsRelative to Managing Fire-Adapted Forestson Federal Lands: The Case of theNorthern Spotted Owl,” by Drs. LarryIrwin and Jack Ward Thomas. It’s thecompanion to the Mealey-Thomas piecethat begins on page 41.

We want to extend a heartfelt thankyou to our many sponsors, especially theLematta Foundation, without whoseongoing support the EvergreenFoundation could not survive. Thanks alsoto Doug MacCleery, Jay O’Laughlin, JackWard Thomas, John Olson, Steve Mealeyand Bruce Vincent for their writings. Thelatter two are Evergreen Foundationboard members whose contributions toforestry education we value highly.

Onward we go,

Jim Petersen, Editor

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Forest Land by Region & Urban Influence - 1997in millions of acres

gg

Twenty-eight percent of the nation’s forests lie in counties containingurban centers with populations greater than 20,000. While theseareas are politically influential, knowledge of forests and their role inAmerican life is minimal. Source: USFS 2000 Resources Planning Act[RPA] Assessment. www.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/list.htm

evergreenmagazine.com 5

By Douglas W. MacCleery

A Brief History of U.S. Forests:Does the Past Provide Lessons for the Future?

One of the most profound changes in American society has been thetransition from a rural, agrarian society to an urban industrializednation. Although today’s society is no less dependent on naturalresources than were 18th century subsistence farmers, mostAmericans living in cities and suburbs are no longer aware of thevery direct link between their consumptive lifestyle and the nation’s.

U.S. Population Growth, Rural/Urban1790–1990

Senior Policy Analyst, Federal Forest and RangelandManagement, National Forest System. USDA/Forest Service.

Over the last two decades, public interest in America’sforests, their condition and management, has increaseddramatically. Much of this attention has focused on specificissues and controversies, such as clearcutting, thereduction in old growth forests on the Pacific Coast, thesalvage of fire-killed timberand similar issues. Mostmedia stories tend to focuson the controversies, ratherthan on the good news.

Fortunately, there is considerable good news on America’sforests and wildlife, especially when one takes a longerterm view.

A long-term view is especially appropriate when theissue is forests. The forests surrounding us today reflectdecisions and public policies dating back many decades.In order to make wise decisions for the future, we need toseek to understand how existing forests came to be whatthey are today.

Today’s interest is not the first time America’s attentionhas shifted to it’s forests. The first national conservation

movement was focusedlargely on the deterioratingforest and wildlife situationin the late 19th century.Many of the public policies

Jim

Pet

erse

n

evergreenmagazine.com 5

Swan Mountain, a mixed fir forest overlooking Bigfork, Montana gives nohint of having been clearcut by railroad loggers less than a century ago.

17

90

18

10

18

30

18

50

18

70

18

90

19

10

19

30

19

50

19

70

19

90

– – – – – – – – – – –– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Mil

lio

ns

of

pe

op

le

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Urban Population

Rural Population

6 EVERGREEN

About 46 percent of the U.S. land base was forested when Europeansettlement began. Despite nearly 400 years of use and abuse about 70percent (747 million acres) remains forested today. Credit nature’sresiliency, conservation, reforestation and advances in forestry. [USFS,Forest Resources of the United States, 1997, GTR-NCC-219-2001]Minnesota’s red pine forests are a fine example of work done byDepression-era Civilian Conservation Corps tree planters.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

0

50

100

150

200

250

400

350

300

16

30

16

50

16

70

16

90

17

10

17

30

17

50

17

70

17

90

18

10

18

30

18

50

18

70

18

90

19

07

19

38

19

63

19

87

19

97

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Mil

lio

n a

cre

s

Forestland Trends in the U.S. 1630–1997

that have shaped today’s forestshave their origins during thisperiod.

This paper will briefly discussthe history of U.S. forests, thepolicies that were put in place toaddress forest loss and degradation,and the performance of thosepolicies and other influences asreflected in the currentcondition and trends offorests and associatedwildlife.

Pre-European ForestConditions

A popular perceptiontoday is that, prior toEuropean contact,America was dominated byimpenetrable, relativelyuniform ancient foreststhat blanketed thelandscape in static, long-term balance with theenvironment. This imageis one of continuous,closed-canopy,structurally complex,“climax” forests whichnature maintained forlong periods in a steady-state, equilibrium balancewith the environment.Closely related to themyth of the forestprimeval is the “pristinemyth” or the popularperception that AmericanIndians lived in theforests and on the plainsbut never really did muchto change either.

The reality was quitedifferent. Pre-settlementforests were exceedinglydynamic—shaped by amyriad of both naturaland human-causedinfluences, disturbances,and catastrophic eventsthat had a profound effecton the age, plant species,composition, and wildlife of theforest environment (Arno 1985,Butzer 1990, Denevan 1992,Doolittle 1992, Bonnickson 2000).

Even though there is over-whelming physical, biological, aswell as anthropological, evidencethat these myths are seriouslyflawed, they still strongly shapeconservation policy developmentin the U.S. today (Cronon 1995).

The Effect of European Settlement onU.S. Forests

Of what there be little doubt is thatthe arrival of Europeans in NorthAmerica profoundly changed thenature of human impact on the land.

The America of the early 1800s wasoverwhelmingly a nation of largelyself-sufficient farms. The abundant

forests were seen as a primary sourceof energy and raw materials. Forestswere the foundation of early colonialindustries, such as shipbuilding andfurs (Cronon 1985, Williams 1989).People also cleared the land occupiedby forests for growing crops. From1600 through the early 20th century,U.S. forests were cleared for agri-culture at approximately the rate ofincrease in the nation’s humanpopulation.

The 19th century ushered in aperiod of rapid population growth.During the century the U.S.population rose over 14 times—increasing from 5.3 to 76 millionpeople, or over 25 percent per decade.During the fifty years between 1850and 1900, the U.S. population rose inabsolute numbers ten times more than

it had in the two centuriesfrom 1600 to 1800(increasing from 23 millionto 76 million). The risingpopulation began to putsignificant pressures onU.S. forests, wildlife andother natural resources.

In the sixty years from1850 to 1910, Americanfarmers cleared more forestthan the total amount thathad been cleared in theprevious 250 years ofsettlement—about 190million acres (Williams1989). The nation’sfarmers cleared forest foragriculture at an averagerate of 13.5 square milesper day every day for 60years.

Vast areas of the Mid-west, South, and PacificCoast were logged, andoften relogged. The treelimbs, tops, and otherdebris that remained afterlogging were often burnedin the belief that the loggedareas could be converted tocropland or improvedpasture. These slash firesburned more or lesscontinuously, and whenweather conditions wereright, sometimes resultedin massive wildfires,property damage, andmajor loss of human life.

The nation’s wildlifefaced many of the samepressures as its forests.

A wide variety of wildlife species,which at the time of settlement hadbeen present in huge numbers, werebeing severely depleted. The mostsignificant factors were virtually unre-stricted market hunting of all kinds ofwildlife for food, furs, and, feathers(which in the late 1800s were in greatdemand for women’s hats), as well ashabitat modification caused by farmclearing, logging, and massivewildfires (Trefethen 1975).

evergreenmagazine.com 7

Between 1850 and 1910, farmers cleared about 13.5 square miles offorestland daily to feed America’s burgeoning population. Our croplandbase finally stabilized at about 400 million acres in 1920. Credit improvedfarming methods, fertilization and tractors, which replaced draft animals.[USFS, J. Fedkiw, GTR RM-175, 1989] This yellow-poplar forest in NorthCarolina is emblematic of the change. It was once a cotton field.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

Mill

ion

s o

f p

eop

le

Mill

ion

s o

f ac

res

U.S. POPULATION

CROPLAND

Cropland vs U.S. Population, 1800–1990

Rise of a National ConservationMovement

The rapidly declining forest,wildlife, and other environmentalconditions of the late 19th centuryprovided the impetus for the firstnational conservation movement.The concern that things had gotten“out of balance” was a common themeof early conservationists,such as George PerkinsMarsh, and reflected theircon-viction as to the needto adjust the directionevents were taking.

One of the firstpriorities of this fledglingmovement was a waragainst market hunting formeat, hides, and feathers.This effort included acampaign to put in placestrong state and federalwildlife conservation lawsand the professionalagencies needed to enforcethem. Concurrent withthese efforts were actionsto reserve public lands forprotection and manage-ment, e.g., national forests,national parks, nationalwildlife refuges, etc.(Trefethen 1975). Theconservation policyframework that was putinto place included thefollowing:• To close the PublicDomain to further privateland disposal and to reserveremaining public lands forprotection and manage-ment, e.g., national forests,national parks, nationalwildlife refuges, etc.• To promote andencourage the protectionof forests and grasslands,regardless of their owner-ship, from wildfire, insectsand disease.• To improve the art and science ofnatural resource management byacquiring scientific knowledge on themanagement of forests and wildlifeand on the more efficient utilizationof raw materials.• To improve the management andproductivity of agricultural lands andforests (70 percent of the latter whichwere privately owned) throughresearch and technical and financialassistance.

• To adopt and enforce federal andstate wildlife conservation laws.

In addition to the conservationpolicies described above, a numberof fortuitous events combined in theearly 1900s to substantially reducehuman pressures on forests andwildlife. One was the spectacularincrease in agricultural productivity,

which after the 1930s, rose at a rategreater than population growth.Others were the conversion from woodto fossil fuels and the shift from draftanimals to internal combustionengines. These trends greatly reducedthe human pressures on forests andother wildlife habitats and populationsfor food and energy. As the area ofcropland stabilized, so did the area offorests. Today the U.S. has somewhatless cropland and about the same areaof forest it had in 1920.

How Have Conservation PoliciesPerformed?

The best way to assess theperformance of conservation policiesis to look at the land, air and water,and the biological communitiesassociated with them: what are theylike today, as compared to what theywere like in 1500, 1900, and 1970?

First a look at 1500:

The Conditions of 1500 vs.today

There is no question thatwhen one compares thecurrent biological diversityin the U.S. with that whichis thought to have existed in1500, there are profounddifferences. Cropland andpastureland alone accountfor 553 million acres (25percent of the U.S. landarea) that at one time wereforests, grasslands,savannas and wetlands(Langner et al 1994). Mostnative grasslands andprairies in the humid areasof the U.S. have beenconverted to agricultureand other uses. More thanone-half of Americanwetlands have been con-verted to other uses since1500. At least 300 millionacres of forestland (aboutone-third the estimatedoriginal area) have beenconverted to non-forestuses since 1500, mostlyto agricultural uses.

The majority of eco-system transformation inthe U.S. occurred duringthe settlement period,before 1900. The drivingcause of the transformationwas a rapidly growinghuman populationcombined with rather

primitive agricultural and resourceextraction and utilization technologies.Often unclear and fluctuating landtenure arrangements during thesettlement period were also a factor.

The Conditions of 1900 vs. todayWhen one compares U.S. environ-

mental conditions today with those thatexisted in 1900, there is no questionthat many significant gains have beenmade. The conservation policies andpractices put into place in the early

8 EVERGREEN

Jim

Pet

erse

n

Wildfires scorched 40–50 million acres a year during the 1930s, makingfire control a national priority. By 1960, the area burned annually had beenreduced by 90 percent. But wildfires are again gaining ground on federallands. [Source: USFS Wildland Fire Statistics] Congressional failure toattack the two primary underlying causes—disease and stand density—ismaking a bad situation worse. This 1996 Nevada fire burned to bedrockkilling everything in sight.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1930

1936

1942

1948

1954

1960

1966

1972

1978

1984

1990

1996

2000

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Mill

ion

s o

f ac

res

U.S. Wildfire Trends, Area Burned

1930–2000

decades of the 20th century, as well assome fortuitous events, have beenmajor factors in reducing the rate ofbiodiversity loss since 1900. This hasoccurred in spite of an increase in U.S.population from 76 million to morethan 260 million.

A number of wildlife species didbecome extinct due to human actionsince 1500. Examplesinclude the great auk,passenger pigeon, heathhen, Carolina parakeet,ivory billed woodpecker,Bachman’s warbler,Labrador duck, and others.A larger number of sub-species were also extirpated,including the eastern elk,Florida red wolf, easternbison, Wisconsin cougar,and others. The geneticdiversity of many otherspecies and populations haslikely been diminished, aswell. Some of the earlierlosses were due primarily tooverhunting (great auk);many to a combination ofoverhunting and habitat loss(passenger pigeon, heathhen, Carolina parakeet); andsome to habitat loss alone(Backman’s warbler).

While a number ofspecies did become extinct,given the massive assault onwildlife by market huntersand the transformation ofU.S. ecological conditionsthat had occurred by 1900,it is perhaps remarkable thatmore extinctions did notoccur. Many species thatwere severely depleted,or even on the brink ofextinction in 1900, havestaged remarkable come-backs. A large number ofspecies that would likelyhave been on an endangeredspecies list, had one existedin 1900, are today quite abundant.Examples include: wild turkey; egrets,herons, and many other wading birds;many species of shorebirds; wood ducks,and several other species of ducks;whistling swans; Rocky Mountain elk,black bears, beaver, fishers, and mostother fur-bearers, pronghorn antelope,bighorn sheep, and white-tailed deerthroughout most of its range. Manyother species, although not actuallythreatened with extinction in 1900, are

today both more abundant and morewide-spread than they were in 1900.

Many trends in U.S. forestconditions have, on balance, alsobeen largely positive since 1900. U.S.forest area has been generally stablesince 1920, when forest clearing foragriculture largely halted. In thenortheastern U.S., forestland has

actually increased substantially since1900. As millions of acres of agri-cultural lands were abandoned, forestshave increased in this, the mostpopulous region of the nation, fromless than half the land area to morethan two-thirds, an increase of morethan 40 percent, or 26 million acres(Final 1997 RPA Tables 2001).

Today forest cover encompassesabout one-third of the U.S. land areaand half the land area east of the

Mississippi River. This is about two-thirds of the forest cover that isestimated to have existed in 1500(MacCleery 1992).

American forests are, on balance,more mature than they were a halfcentury ago. Because forest growthnationally has exceeded harvest andforest mortality for at least a half

century, average forestbiomass per acre in the U.S.has increased by at least one-third since 1950. In the Eastand South, biomass per acrehas almost doubled since1950. An exception to thesegeneral trends occurs inPacific Coast forests, wherethe average biomass peracre has remained relativelystable from 1952 while thevolume of trees greater than17 inches in diameterdropped by one-third(USDA/Forest Service 2001).

The suite of tree andother woody species thattoday comprise U.S. forestsare largely the same asthose present in 1500,although the ages andrelative proportions areoften substantially changed.Introduced diseases haverelegated some former wide-spread tree species to aminor component, e.g.,American chestnut in theeastern hardwood forests. Asof 1997, plantation forestsconstitute a relatively smallproportion (about sixpercent) of U.S. forest area(Brooks 1993) (Final 1997RPA Tables 2001). Incontrast to many othercountries, virtually all U.S.forest plantations arecomprised of native species.

The U.S. of 1970 vs. todaySimilarly to the late

1800s, the 1970s were a period ofenvironmental awakening and concern.Some refer to this period as the secondnational conservation movement.Environmental concerns found focus inair and water pollution, and particularlyconcerns over how pesticide use andindustrial pollution were affectinghuman health. Federal legislationenacted during this period reflects thisconcern. In enacting the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (1970), the

evergreenmagazine.com 9

Wey

erha

euse

r C

ompa

ny

Prompt reforestation after harvest is a top priority for virtually all of thenation’s public and private forest landowners. In fact, in many states—Oregon included—reforestation is legally required. Annual reforestationpeaked at slightly more than 3 million acres in 1989. Since 1950, nearly 95million acres have been replanted. [Source: R.J. Moulton, USFS; TreePlanters Notes, 1999] More than 18 million seedlings were planted onWeyerhaeuser land following the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

– – – – – – – – – – – – –– – – – – – – – – – – – –– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –– – – – – – – – – – – – –

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Millio

ns o

f acre

s

Non-industrial Private

Forest Industry

Other Public

National Forests

Tree Planting in the U.S., 1950–1999

Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean WaterAct (1972), the Endangered Species Act(1973), the Toxic Sub-stances ControlAct (1976), and the Safe Drinking WaterAct Amendments (1977), Congress andthe Admin-istration sought to protectenviron-mental values while allowingfor continued development andeconomic expansion.

The Clean Air and CleanWater Acts of the 1970s ledto actions that resulted insubstantial environmentalgains: air quality has beensteadily improving in U.S.cities. Sulfur dioxideemissions are down over 30percent; lead emissions aredown over 95 percent since1970; and particulates aredown over 80 percent since1950 (CEQ 1989).

Most U.S. rivers and lakesare measurably cleaner thanthey were two decades ago.While perhaps justified forhuman health reasons,improved air and waterquality have benefited boththe human and non-humaninhabitants of the planet, asevidenced by the improvingpopulations of fish andaquatic wildlife in U.S. riversand lakes. Fish and wildlifehave staged significantcomebacks in many riversand lakes that were severelydegraded or even biologicallydead two decades ago. Therehave been increases in thepopulations of egrets,herons, osprey, geese,largemouth bass, and otherfish and wildlife associatedwith the improved waterquality of countless riversand lakes across the country.

Improved water quality,in combination withelimination of the wide-spread use of persistentchlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides,have led to increasing populations ofmany raptors, such as bald eagles,peregrine falcons, pelicans and osprey,which had seen major declines duringthe 1950s and 60s.

Not all trends have been positive.Trends in 406 U.S. breeding birdspecies between 1966 and 1996indicate that 27 percent areincreasing, 25 percent decreasing, andthere is no trend for the remaining 49

percent (Flather et al 1999). Many ofthe bird species that are decliningbelong to groups or “guilds”dependent upon specific habitatconditions and types, e.g., grasslandhabitats. Langner et al. (1994)reported that “(n)ative, endemicgrassland birds declined in the past 25years more consistently, and across a

broader geographic range than anyother group of birds. The substantialdecline in grassland birds is confirmedby Robinson (1997). Meadowlarks,bobolinks, Henslow’s sparrow, andupland sandpipers and other grasslandbirds have shown large and consistentdeclines. Other species which haveshown declines are those that havespecialized or niche habitats. Forexample, freshwater mussels, crayfish,amphibians, and some freshwater

fishes lead the list of U.S. species atrisk (Stein and Flack 1997). In theU.S., habitat loss and alteration anddisplacement by invasive exotics areleading causes of species endanger-ment (Stein and Flack 1997).

Neotropical migratory birds havealso been the focus of concern. Of 132neotropical migrants, 27 percent have

shown population declinessince 1966 (Flather et al1999). Habitat fragment-ation is suspected as acause for these declines.The modification of lowercanopy layers by excessivepopulations of white-taileddeer may also be contri-buting to the decline ofthose neotropical migrantsthat nest in these habitats(Robinson 1997).

More than half of thewetlands in the coter-minous U.S. have beenconverted to other usessince colonial times.Wetlands have beenreduced from an estimated11 percent to about fivepercent of the land areaof the coterminous U.S.(Dahl & Johnson 1991).Most of this loss occurredduring the settlementperiod, but relatively largelosses also occurred fromthe mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, when about 460,000acres were being lostannually. From the mid-1970s to today, the rateof wetland loss has beenprogressively reduced.Flather et al (1999)estimated the annualwetland loss between 1982and 1992 at 79,000 acresannually—a 70 percentreduction in the rate ofwetland loss observedduring the ten-year period

from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, or a 0.07 percent averageannual loss. Reductions in the rateof wetland loss can be attributed toincreased understanding of the en-vironmental value of wetlands (asexpressed in individual and federaland state regulatory action to protectwetlands). During the decade of the1990s the main cause of wetland lossshifted from agriculture to urbanexpansion.

10 EVERGREEN

Lessons of the Past Provide a CriticalFoundation for the Future

Today, the U.S. has almost fourtimes the population it had in 1900,living at a substantially higherstandard of living. Yet our forests andwildlife are, in many of their majordimensions, in generally bettercondition today than they were acentury ago.

U.S. forests and wildlifehave demonstrated a resil-ience and responsiveness tomanagement undreamed ofby early conservationists atthe turn of the century.These leaders were almostuniversally pessimistic aboutthe future. In their defense,the concerns of earlyconservationists were logicaland understandable givenwhat they saw going onaround them. Indeed, theywere projecting what theyfelt would likely occur if pasttrends continued, and noactions were taken to addressthe concerns they raised.

But action was taken.New policies were debatedand implemented. Historyhas demonstrated that pastpublic policies, coupled withthe natural resilience of theresource, have generallyserved the country well.

America’s forests werealso the beneficiaries of anumber of major tech-nological changes thatcollectively acted tosubstantially reduce thepressure being placed onthem to meet humandemands. Conversion fromwood energy to fossil fuelstook a huge burden offAmerican forests, partic-ularly as population levelscontinued to grow. Today’sfarmers, on average, growfive times more food per acre thattheir grandfathers did in the 1920’s.Because of this, the inexorable, threecentury-long conversion of U.S.forests to farmland largely halted inthe 1920s.

It is inevitable that as past issueshave been successfully addressed, newissues and problems will emerge.Frequently identified issues in theU.S. include: reduction and frag-mentation of late successional forest

habitats because of timber harvesting;loss and degradation of riparian andwetland forest habitats; loss anddeterioration of the forest andgrassland habitats that once werecreated by frequent, low intensity fire;habitat fragmentation because ofresidential subdivision and urbandevelopment; effects of air pollution

on forests in some areas; anddisplacement of native species byintroduced exotics, to name a few.Of particular concern are rare andunique ecosystem types and specieswith specialized habitat require-ments that are associated withthem.

One of the most profoundchanges in American society in the20th century has been its transitionfrom a rural, agrarian society to an

urban, industrialized nation. Thischange has been accompanied bya corresponding physical andpsychological separation of itspeople from the land that sustainsthem.

In a world of farms, forests, andsmall towns, the linkages betweenfood and fields and between forests

and home and hearthwere clear and sus-tained by personalexperience. In a worldof cities and suburbs,of offices and air con-ditioning, thoselinkages have becomemore obscure, and formany people, virtuallynon-existent. Yettoday’s urbanizedsociety is no lessdependent upon theproducts of its forestsand fields than werethe subsistence farmersof America’s past.

Yet society remainsdependent upon forestsfor a wide variety ofeconomic products.Indeed, utilization offorests for products hasnever been higher thanit is today on a woodvolume basis. Today,the U.S. consumesabout as much wood ona tonnage basis as thetotal for most otherraw materialscombined—steel,plastics, aluminum,other metals, andcements.

The debate over theuse of forests has inten-sified several trends: 1)a substantial reductionin timber outputs fromfederal and other publiclands, 2) an increasing

use of high yield plantations onprivate lands, and 3) increasedimports of forest products fromother countries, particularly fromCanada. These trends raise complexeconomic, social, environmental andeven ethical and moral issues thatwill need to be addressed by thepublic, policy-makers, andforestland managers in the early21st century as they continue toexplore the road to sustainability.

25

20

15

10

5

0

1920 1933 1952 1962 1976 1986 1996

Net Growth

Removals

Billions o

f cubic

feet per

year

U.S. Timber Growth & Removals1920 – 1996

In 1920 harvest from America’s forests was nearly twice the growth rate.But today growth exceeds harvest by a comfortable margin, and hassince the early 1960s. Credit conservation measures and steadilyincreasing forest productivity on private forestlands. [Source: ForestResources of the United States, 1997; GTR-NC-219, USFS, 2001; TIM].

Col

umbi

a H

elic

opte

rs

evergreenmagazine.com 11

100

80

60

40

20

0

1997

Mid-1800s

Per

cen

t o

f la

nd

in fo

rest

VermontNew Hampshire

Conn., Mass.,and Rhode Island Maine

New England Forest Comeback1850–1997

List of References

Arno, S.F. 1985. Ecological effects and managementimplications of Indian fires. In Proceedings:Symposium and workshop on wilderness fire.November 15-18, 1983. Missoula, MT. IntermountainForest and Range Experiment Station, GeneralTechnical Report INT-182, USDA/Forest Service.Ogden, Utah.

Bonnickson, ThomasM. 2000. America’sAncient Forests: Fromthe Ice Age to the Ageof Discovery, JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.,New York.

Brooks, D.J. 1993. U.S.forests in a globalcontext. USDA/ForestService, GeneralTechnical Report RM-228, 7/93.

Butzer, K.W. 1990. TheIndian legacy in theAmerican Landscape.In The Making of theAmerican Landscape,ed. Michael P. Conzen,pp. 27-50. Boston.Unwin Hyman.

CEQ 1989.Environmental Trends.Council ofEnvironmentalQuality, ExecutiveOffice of thePresident,Washington, DC.

Cronon, W. 1985.Changes in the land:Indians, colonists,and the ecology ofNew England. Hill andWang. New York, N.Y.

Cronon, W. (ed.). 1995.Uncommon ground: toward reinventing nature.Norton, New York.

Dahl, T.E. & C.E. Johnson 1991. Wetland status andtrends in the cotermimous U.S.: mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Washington, D.C.

Denevan, W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscapeof the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers. Vol. 82, No. 3.

Few stories more vividly underscore the nation’s progress in conservationand forestry than the much celebrated “return” of the New England forest.Land clearings for farming and livestock took a heavy toll on forests inVermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire. By the mid-1800s less thanhalf the region was still forested, but today 79 percent is forested again.[Regional Silviculture of the U.S, 1980, Forest Resources of the U.S., 1997and GTR-NC-219, 2000]

Doolittle, W.E. 1992. Agriculture in North Americaat the time of contact: A reassessment. Annalsof the Association of American Geographers.Vol. 82, No. 3.

Fedkiw, J. 1989. The evolving use andmanagement of the nation’s forests, grasslands,

croplands, and relatedresources. GeneralTechnical Report RM-175,September 1989,Washington, DC: USDA-Forest Service.

Langner L.L. & C.H.Flather 1994. Biologicaldiversity: status andtrends in the U.S. USDA/Forest Service, GeneralTechnical Report RM-244,Rocky Mountain Forestand Range ExperimentStation, Ft. Collins, CO.4/94.

MacCleery, D.W. 1992.American forests: ahistory of resiliency andrecovery. USDA/ForestService, FS-540. Incooperation with theForest History Society,Durham, North Carolina.

Robinson, S. 1997. Thecase of the missingsongbirds. ConsequencesMagazine, 6/97.

Stein, B.A. and S.R. Flack.1997. 1997 Species reportcard: the state of U.S.plants and animals. TheNature Conservancy,Arlington, Virginia.

Trefethen, J.B. 1975. AnAmerican crusade forwildlife. Winchester Press

and the Boone and Crockett Club. New York, NY.

USDA/Forest Service. 2001. Forest Resources ofthe United States, 1997. General TechnicalReport NC-219, St. Paul, Minn., North CentralExperiment Station.

Williams, M. 1989. Americans and their forests:an historical geography. Cambridge UniversityPress. New York.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

12 EVERGREEN

1900• In the early 1900s, wildfirecommonly consumed 40-50 millionacres annually, an area the size ofVirginia, West Virginia, Maryland, andDelaware combined.

• Due largely to such wildfires, therewere perhaps 80 million acres of“cutovers” which continued to remainidle and unstocked or poorly stockedwith desirable tree species.

• By 1900, many wildlife species,which formerly were abundant, wereseverely depleted or were on the brinkof extinction. Examples includedgame animals, such as white-taileddeer, wild turkey, pronghorn antelope,

Editor’s NoteIt is a measure of both the inherent

resilience of our forests, and of thesuccess of the policies that were put inplace in response to public concerns inthe early decades of this century, thatforest conditions over much of the U.S.have improved dramatically since 1900.The following is a snapshot of the forestand wildlife situation that existed in the1900s, as contrasted to 2000:

U.S. Forests, Wildlife, 1900-2000

moose, bighorn sheep, and, of coursebison. Furbearers, especially beaver,had been eliminated from sig-nificant portions of their ranges.Waterfowl were also severelyimpacted, including wood ducks,and several other species of ducks;Canada geese; all manner of plumedwading birds, such as herons, egrets,ibises, and others.

forest man-agement of any kind wasbeing practiced.

• Large quantities of wood were leftafter logging, sawmills wereinefficient, use of wood in buildingswas based on custom, rather thansound engineering, and huge volumesof wood were lost to rot anddeterioration.

• Large-scale disastrous flooding inthe east was tied to farm clearing andto logging and wildfires.

2000The area consumed by wildfire hasbeen reduced by more than 90 percent,from 40-50 million acres in the early1900s to 2-8 million acres today—evenin bad fire years.

• The cutovers or “stumplands”thatexisted in 1900 have beenreforested. Today, many of these areascontain mature forests. Others havebeen harvested a second time andregenerated to young forests.

• Wildlife has been a major con-

• The volume of timber harvested,nationally, greatly exceeded that offorest growth.

• Clearing of forests for agriculturecontinued at very high levels. In thelast decade of the Century, America’sfarmers cleared forests at the averagerate of 13.3 square miles per day. Inthe five decades ending in 1900,forest cover in many areas east of theMississippi had been reduced from60-70 percent of the land to 20percent, or even less in some areas.Many of the areas being cleared wereon steep slopes, were marginal forgrowing crops, and often were highlyerodible.

• No provision for reforestation wasbeing made. In fact, no long-term

US

FS

Jim

Pet

erse

n

Streambed jammed with logs waiting springflooding, a practice no longer tolerated.

Millions of shore birds were killed for theirfeathers, which adorned women’s hats.

Pet

er K

och

Killer wildfires decimated 40-50 million acresof virgin forestland every year.

evergreenmagazine.com 13

servation success story. While anumber of species, such as the greatauk, passenger pigeon, heath hen, andseveral others, did become extinct,many others that were severelydepleted, or even on the brink ofextinction in 1900, have stagedremarkable comebacks. Many speciesthat would likely have been on theendangered species list, had oneexisted in 1900, are today abundant.Examples include: wild turkey;beaver; egrets, herons, and manyother wading birds; many species ofshorebirds; wood ducks, and severalother species of ducks; whistlingswans; Rocky Mountain elk,pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep,black bear; even white-tailed deerthroughout most of its range.

• Nationally, forest growth rates haveexceeded harvest rates since the 1940s,with each decade generally showing agreater margin of growth over harvestthan the one preceding. By 1986, thevolume of tree growth nationallyexceeded the volume harvested by 37percent; and growth was more than3 1/2 times what it had been in 1920.

• For the last 70 years there has beenno increase in cropland area. About1920, for the first time in Americanhistory, the increase in the area ofcleared farmland abruptly stopped,

rather than continuing to rise at therate of population growth.* Whilefarm clearing of forests continued after1920 in some areas, it was offset byfarmland abandonment and reversionback to forest in others. The stabili-zation in the area of cleared farmlandhad an immensely beneficial effect onU.S. forests.

• Tree planting on all forest owner-ships has increased dramatically afterWorld War II, and was at record levelsthroughout the 1980s. Many privateforestlands are now actively beingmanaged for tree growing.

• The efficiency of wood utilization hasimproved dramatically since 1900.Much less material is being left in thewoods, many sawmills produce twiceor more the usable lumber and otherproducts per log input they did in1900, engineering standards anddesigns have reduced the volume ofwood used per square foot of buildingspace, and preservative treatmentshave substantially extended the servicelife of wood. All of these have reducedby millions of acres the area of annualharvest that otherwise would haveoccurred.

• Eastern watersheds have beenreforested. The headwaters of manyAmerican rivers are protected from

over harvesting by National Forestsand other public lands.

* The area of cropland stabilized fortwo primary reasons:

1) Rapidly increasing numbers ofmotor vehicles and farm tractors madeit unnecessary to continue to raiselarge numbers of draft animals. In1910, there were about 50 millionhorses, mules, and other draft animalsin the U.S. Fully 27 percent of allcropland was devoted to growing foodfor draft animals. By 1950, thenumbers of draft animals had droppedso dramatically, compared to 1910,that the equivalent of some 70 millionacres of cropland had been released togrow crops for human consumption,and

2) After 1935, spurred by thedevelopment of genetically improvedhybrid crops and by expanded use ofchemical fertilizers and liming, cropyields finally began to improve. Cornyields are typical—between 1800 and1935, average corn yields in the U.S.remained virtually flat at about 25bushels per acre, but they had in-creased to 35 bushels by 1945, to 40bushels by 1950, and to 120 bushels by1988. American farmers now grow asmuch corn on one acre as it took fiveacres to grow in 1920.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

The nation’s elk population has increased 10-fold since 1930.

Hi-tech wood pellets: Wood utilization isnearing 100 percent.

Bon

nevi

lle P

ower

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Forests have returned as per acre croplandproductivity has increased.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

14 EVERGREEN

A number of forest policiesemerged as national goalsand priorities in response topublic concerns. The successof those policies dependedupon effective cooperativerelationships among federal,state, and local governments,as well as private forestlandowners and other privatesector interests.

The policies and prioritiesthat had the greatest effecton the improved conditionof our forests are thefollowing:

o Focusing on firesuppression, prevention, andpublic education to protectthe forest;

o Establishing andenhancing the profession offorestry, and later of wildlifemanagement, hydrology,and other natural resourcedisciplines, throughestablishment of accreditednatural resource schools,professional societies, etc.;

o Improving the artand science of forestregeneration andmanagement, includingresearch, establishment oftree nurseries, and providingtechnical and financialassistance to forestlandowners;

o Improving the efficiencywith which wood productsare utilized in the woods, atthe mill, and in end-productapplications. Such gainsare the result of woodutilization research, itseffective application, andthe incentive created byincreasing real prices forforest products. The ForestService’s Forest ProductsLaboratory in Madison,Wisconsin, established in

Conservation Policies Improve

Trends in Reserved Forest Land by Region [USFS, ForestResources of the United States, 1997; GTC-NC-219, 2001]

Reserved Forest Land, East and West, by Forest Type and Land Class[USFS, Forest Resources of the United States, 1997]

1910, has been a significantcontributor over the yearsto expanding the technicalknowledge necessary forimproving the utilizationof wood products;

o Improving the quality offorest management on privatelands by improving economicincentives and removing taxand other disincentives;

o Establishing the ForestReserves (later the NationalForests) for watershedprotection, irrigation, andsustained timber production.

o While not established forforestry purposes, one policythat nonetheless had asignificant beneficial impacton the nation’s forestresources was the strategicdecision made in USDA in theearly decades of this centuryto emphasize agriculturalresearch aimed at increasingcrop yields. Prior to that,USDA primarily focused onstatistical reporting, soil andfarm implement testing, andrelated activities.

o An additional factor thathas had a significant positiveeffect on forest conservationhas been the increasing realprice of wood over thedecades. Between 1850 and1950, the real price of lumber,and of standing timber,increased by more than fivetimes, adjusted for inflation.This has created powerfuleconomic incentives both forgrowing and managing forestsand for reducing consumptionof wood by using it moreefficiently. The power of sucheconomic incentives forconservation and efficient useof the resource by the privatesector was largely unrecog-nized by early conservationleaders.

❑

❑

❑

❑

❑

❑

❑

❑

evergreenmagazine.com 15

Forests and Wildlife Conditions

Trends in Wild Turkey Populations, 1900-1990 [Wild TurkeyFederation]

Trends in Elk Populations, 1930-1990 [USFS, A.Christensen, Elk in North America]

Trends in Whitetail Deer Populations, 1930-1990 [AmericanForestry Association, Chapter 8, Jack Ward Thomas]

A significant factor in the con-servation of the nation’s wildlifewas the establishment andproliferation in the late 1800s ofpolitically active sportsmen’sorganizations. These groupswaged a protracted, andultimately successful, war againstmarket hunting. They alsovigorously supported the en-forcement of game laws, self-taxation to support state gamemanagement, and acquisition ofhabitat reserves and manage-ment areas.

The policies and other factorsthat had the greatest effect on theimproved condition of U.S.wildlife are the following:

o Adoption of a variety of strongstate and federal wildlife conser-vation laws, and the establish-ment of the agencies effectivelyto enforce them. This game lawframework includes thefollowing:• Halting market hunting ofwildlife for meat and most otherproducts, including feathers(market hunting of furbearershas continued under stateregulation);• Eliminating spring shooting ofwaterfowl and other game birds;• State regulation of residentgame and non-game species;• Prohibition under federal lawof: a) hunting of song birds,plume birds, and othermigratory non-game birds, andb) interstate commerce inwildlife products taken inviolation of state law;• Federal regulation of sporthunting of waterfowl and othermigratory game birds;• Federal protection ofendangered and threatenedspecies after 1966.

o Improving the art andscience of wildlife management.

o Establishing professionalstate fish and game depart-ments devoted to scientificwildlife management and gamelaw enforcement.

Improving habitat conditions,especially in the East and South,where millions of acres of agri-cultural land have reverted backto forest.

Reintroductions of species intoformerly occupied range.

Establishing about 90 millionacres of National Wildlife Refugesand 4 million acres of state wildlifereserves. Wildlife refuges andreserves in the contiguous 48states were financed largely byhunting license fees and taxes onsporting arms, ammunition, andequipment.

Establishing the NationalForests, National Parks and otherfederal and state lands forconservation objectives:• In the West, National Forestsand Parks acted as wildlife reservesby providing protection forbeleaguered populations of manywildlife species, especially largegame, until state and federalwildlife programs and enforce-ment was put in place in the 1930sand beyond. The NationalForests were the source ofanimals for a number of laterreintroductions into formerlyoccupied habitat elsewhere.• East of the Mississippi, millionsof acres of abandoned and depletedfarm and forest lands becameNational Forest lands after 1920.After acquisition, feral cattle, dogs,and goats were eliminated and theland rehabilitated. Today, theseareas provide superb habitatsupporting rich populations ofmany wildlife species, some ofwhich had not existed on theselands since before the AmericanRevolution.• The multiple use mandate of the191-million acre National ForestSystem lands provides for fullconsideration of wildlife valuesand objectives in land manage-ment decisions. It has alsoencouraged the development ofhighly constructive joint effortswith state wildlife agencies in themanagement of wildlife habitatsand populations.

❑

❑

❑

❑

❑

❑

❑

16 EVERGREEN

A Graphic Perspective on Public and

[1] All of the charts on these two pages are from Forest Resources of the United States; 1997, a USFS report by W. Brad Smith, John S. Vissage,David R. Darr and Raymond M. Sheffield; and GTR-NC-219, 2001

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,0000

Land Area in the U.S. - 1997by major class & region - in thousands of acres

Who Owns the Most Timber?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pacific Coast

RockyMountain

South

North

Timberland Reserved Forest Other Forest Other Land

Non-IndustrialPrivate Forest

OtherPublic

NationalForest

ForestIndustry

46%

11%

12%31%

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,0000 250,000

Forest Land Area in the U.S. - 1997by productivity class & region - in thousands of acres

120+ cu. ft. 85-119 cu. ft. 50-84 cu. ft. 20-49 cu. ft. 0-19 cu. ft.

50 100 150 2000

Timberland in the U.S. - 1997by owner group & region - in millions of acres

Pacific Coast

RockyMountain

South

North

National Forest Other Public Forest Ind. Non-Industrial Private

Pacific Coast

RockyMountain

South

North

Forest Growth Per Acre - 1952 to 1996by owner group - in cubic feet/acre/year

1952 1962 1976 1986 1996

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Average Standing Timber Volume - 1953 to 1997all owners by region - in cubic feet per acre

1953 1963 1977 1987 1997

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

evergreenmagazine.com 17

d Privately-owned Forests in the U.S.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Average Growing-Stock Volume - 1953 to 1997by region - in cubic feet per acre

1953 1963 1977 1987 1997

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Average Growing-Stock Volume - 1953 to 1997by owner group - in cubic feet per acre

1953 1963 1977 1987 1997

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total Softwood Growing-Stock - 1953 to 1997by region - in billions of cubic feet

1953 1963 1977 1987 1997

0

50

100

150

200

Total Hardwood Growing-Stock - 1953 to 1997by region - in billions of cubic feet

1953 1963 1977 1987 1997

0

50

100

150

200

250

Total Softwood Growing-Stock - 1953 to 1997by owner group - in billions of cubic feet

1953 1963 1977 1987 1997

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total Hardwood Growing-Stock - 1953 to 1997by owner group - in billions of cubic feet

1953 1963 1977 1987 1997

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

[1]

18 EVERGREEN

Western National Forests:SOFTWOOD RESOURCE CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

National forests are assets of immensevalue, including almost half of the nation’ssoftwood timber resources. Widespread andsevere wildfires put a range of ecological,

environmental, economic and socialvalues at risk, and raise questionsabout the health andsustainability of nationalforests. The softwoodresource is analyzedbecause western forests are

mostly (90%) softwoods,and most of the national

forests (82%) are in 12western states.

By Dr. Jay O’Laughlin, Director,Policy Analysis Group, Universityof Idaho

• Objective. The main purpose of thisreport is to provide an objective statisticalinformation base about western nationalforest conditions. Recent USDA ForestService publications provide data from 1952

to 2002. These data have implications formanagement policy decisions, whichare identified anddiscussed primarilyby citing various publications.

• Background. More than a centuryago political leaders had theforesight and courage to carve outof the public domain a system ofnational forest reserves “to improveand protect the forest within theboundaries, or for the purpose ofsecuring favorable conditions ofwater flows and to furnish a con-tinuous supply of timber for theuse and necessities of thecitizens of the UnitedStates.”1 During the

Jim

Pet

erse

n

Aftermath of the stand-replacing ViveashFire in New Mexico’s Santa Fe NationalForest

administration of President TheodoreRoosevelt the system was expanded,renamed the national forests, and placedunder the stewardship of the newly createdForest Service in the U.S. Department ofAgriculture. National forests are to providesustained flows of various values, products,and services “in the combination that willbest meet the needs of the Americanpeople.”2 Many people enjoy the cleanwater, wildlife, and recreation opportunitiesthe national forests provide, and manybenefit from the timber, minerals, andlivestock forage. The National ForestSystem consists of 191.6 million acres, or8.5% of America’s lands. Forests cover 77%of the system lands, located in 44 states.Seven states each have more than tenmillion acres of national forests. Another 17have more than one million acres each, and16 other states have at least 100,000 acres.

• Methods. President Roosevelt believedthe national forests were a goodinvestment for the nation, and thattheir usefulness could be increased by“thoroughly businesslike manage-ment.”3 An inventory of assets is anessential part of any business plan.Fifty years ago the Forest Servicebegan assembling periodic forestinventory data for all forest ownerships,

18 EVERGREEN

evergreenmagazine.com 19

from which regional and ownership trendsfor softwood and hardwood resources canbe developed. National Inventory Data4

are used to identify trends in softwoodresource conditions on western nationalforest timberlands over the past 50 years.As there are no standards against which tocompare data, comparisons with otherownerships and regions provides contextfor the analysis. Measuring Forest Healthprovides objective statistics derived frominventory data.5 Forest health conditionsare compared across ownerships andregions using three statistics derivedfrom inventory data:

• Forest density, measured as totalgrowing stock volume (all softwood andhardwood trees > 5" diameter) per acreof timberland;• Softwood mortality rate, a foresthealth indicator when mortality isexpressed as a percentage of growth;and• Softwood growth/removal ratio, anestimate of the physical sustainabilityof timber harvests. Western NationalForest Conditions are examined indepth by comparisons across owner-ships in the Pacific Coast and InteriorWest regions. Statistics are then relatedto Forest Health Problems andManagement Implications as currentlydiscussed in various publications. Themain points from the analysis are listedas Conclusions. Appropriate referencesare cited with Endnotes.

National Inventory DataThe Forest Service collects data on thenation’s forests and timberlands andreports it by ownership and region.Timberland is a subcategory of forestland where it is physically and adminis-tratively possible to grow continuouscrops of industrial timber. Timberlandinventory data include numbers ofacres and volume of softwood andhardwood growing stock. Inventorychange factors in the data base are treegrowth, mortality (from fire, insects,diseases and other non-human causes),and removals, mostly from timberharvesting. Half of all National ForestSystem lands are classified as timberlands.Resource managers cannot harvest timberon the other half. National forest timber-lands do not include any of the 52 millionacres of federal forests reserved fromtimber harvesting, most of them in theNational Wilderness Preservation Systemestablished in 1964. Also excluded are 105million acres of low productivity borealforests in Alaska and 42 million acres ofwestern pinyon/juniper woodlands.

• Softwood Trends by Ownership. Nationalforests have 20% of the nation’s forestlands, and 19% of the timberlands (Figure1). Statistics from here on are only fortimberlands. Softwood timber comprises56% of the nation’s inventory across allcategories of ownership; the remainder ishardwood (Figure 2). Timber resources—bydefinition, a resource is something humansuse—provide raw materials for an industryemploying 1.8 million Americans.6 Soft-woods comprise 61% of removals, or timberharvests (Figure 2). National foresttimberlands hold 46% of the nation’s

softwood timber resources and provide6% of the harvest (Figure 3). For thepast 50 years national forests havemaintained approximately the sameproportion of the nation’s softwoodinventory (Figure 4). Since 1986 theannual softwood timber harvest fromnational forests has diminished by 70%(Figure 5). The Forest Service attributesthe reduction to conservation of habitatfor species imperiled with extinction andprotected by the Endangered Species Actof 1973.7 The ESA gives regulatoryagencies decision authority over mostForest Service land managementactivities in the West, and provides away for people to seek judicial reviewof Forest Service projects.

• Softwood Trends by Region. The Westhas the top seven states in softwood in-ventory, led by Oregon, Washington, andCalifornia (Figure 6). Fourth and fifth areIdaho and Montana, which in combinationhave as much softwood as Oregon. Sixthand seventh are Alaska and Colorado. Thenext three leading softwood states are in theSouth (Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina).Added together, the top three southernstates have a quantity of softwood equiva-lent to either Idaho or Montana. Maine topsthe North and ranks eleventh nationally.The top 12 national forest states are in the

West, with the northwestern states ofAlaska, California, Idaho, Montana, andOregon leading in acreage (Figure 6).In the West, 34% of all forest lands, and54% of all timberlands, are nationalforests. The two western regions holdtwo-thirds (68%) of the nation’ssoftwood inventory from which comesless than one-third (28%) of thesoftwood timber harvest (Figure 7).The South can claim to be the dominantsoftwood resource region because with22% of the nation’s softwood inventoryin it’s mixed softwood/hardwood forests,the South provides 65% of the softwoodtimber harvest. The inventory/removalsdisparity in the West is related to thelarge proportion of national forestownership. Softwood inventories areincreasing in all regions except thePacific Coast (Figure 8). The PacificCoast states have 43% of the nation’ssoftwood inventory, down from 59% in1953. Except for Alaska, states in thisregion—California, Oregon, Washing-ton—have the most productive timber-lands in the northern hemisphere. Idahoand Montana have the most extensiveand productive forests in the InteriorWest, with 51% of the timberland areaand 61% of the softwood inventory.

Measuring Forest HealthNational forest timberlands are notmanaged primarily for timber production.In response to environmental laws, theForest Service now “focuses on the long-term health of the land.”8 Are nationalforests “healthy”? First one must under-stand what “forest health” is, and how it canbe measured. Then one can make informedpronouncements about forest conditions,forest health problems, and managementimplications. Forest health is an impreciseterm conveying various concerns peoplehave about a forest’s ability to provide twogeneral types of values: first, values a forestprovides through its conditions and func-tions, and second, values that are direct andtangible contributions of a forest to the

Jim

Pet

erse

n

Mortality is nearing 100 percent in this Nez PerceNational Forest lodgepole pine beetle infestation nearElk City, Idaho.

20 EVERGREEN

quality of human life.9 Forest health is aperceived condition derived from concernsabout forest age, structure, composition,function, vigor, presence of unusual levelsof insects and disease, and resilience todisturbance. Perceptions and interpreta-tions of forest health are influenced byindividual and cultural viewpoints, landmanagement objectives, spatial andtemporal scales, stand conditions, and theappearance of a forest at a point in time.10

Forest health indicators can be developedfrom forest inventory data. Three are usedhere: 1) forest density, 2) the relationship offorest growth and mortality,11 and 3) therelationship of forest growth and removals,a coarse-filter measure that approximatesthe idea of sustainable production.12

Growing stock volume and three factorsthat change inventory volume—annualgrowth increment, mortality, and remov-als—are collected as part of the periodicforest inventory conducted by the ForestService. Averaged across all ownerships andregions, softwood growing stock volumeincreased 14% in the past 50 years. Annualgrowth of softwood (net of mortality) in2002 was 77% higher than in 1953, annualsoftwood mortality was 35% higher than 50years ago, and annual softwood removalsincreased 30% between 1952 and 2001.13

Relationships and trends in these data canbe used to objectively describe thecondition of forest growing stock byownership and region.

• Forest Density Trends. The densityof forests affects productivity.14 Treescompete for moisture, nutrients, growingspace, and light. Too much growing stockmeans tree vigor will be less than optimal aslimited resources for each tree are reduced,affecting growth and mortality processes.Growing stock volume per acre is ameasure of density that can be deriveddirectly from forest inventory data providedin widely distributed Forest Service reports.Hardwoods and softwoods on the same sitecompete for the same resources, making itnecessary to use total growing stockvolume, not just softwoods. Forest densityaveraged across all ownerships and regionshas increased 40% during the past 50 years.By ownership, national forests are at least50% denser than any other ownership(Figure 9). By region, Pacific Coast forestsare 79% denser than Interior West forests,which are at least 36% denser than forestsin the North or South (Figure 10).

• Softwood Mortality/Growth Trends.Along with removals, mortality and growthare the major forest change factors.Statistical analysis of inventory data showsmortality rates correlated with forest

density (significant at the 0.01 level); i.e.,denser forests have higher mortality rates.By ownership, national forests have hadhigher mortality rates than other owner-ships in every periodic inventory since 1953,and the rate is now 61% higher than anyother ownership (Figure 11). Althoughmortality rates increased on all ownershipssince 1987, the rate of increase on nationalforests is the highest. By region, in the past15 years softwood mortality rates haveincreased in the Interior West and North,whereas rates decreased in Pacific Coastforests (Figure 12). Because the North has a

relatively small amount of national forests,that story, featuring air pollution and exoticinsects,15 is best told elsewhere. Forests inthe South have not exhibited increasedmortality rates at this scale of analysis.

• Softwood Growth/Removal Trends.The idea of sustained-yield forestry is thattimber harvests in a given year generallyshould not exceed annual forest growth.This traditional sus-tainability measure isexpressed as a ratio of net annual growth(i.e., net of annual mortality) to annualremovals. Removals consist almost entirelyof timber harvests plus associated loggingresidue or slash. By ownership, nationalforests broke from the pack in 1987,reaching a ratio of 5.4 in 1997 and 2002,more than double the next highest ratio of2.2 (Figure 13). By region, trends show theSouth right at the brink of sustainability, at

1.0 in 2002 (Figure 14). Trends also revealthe change from an unsustainable tosustainable condition in the Pacific Coastregion in 1987, as slower-growing oldertrees on public and forest industry landswere harvested during preceding periods.The growth/removal ratio in 1987 rangedbetween 0.8 and 2.3 across all ownershipsand regions (Figures 13 and 14). Thereduction of national forest timber harvestsduring the 1990s increased the Pacific Coastregional ratio from 1.1 to 1.8, while theratio in the Interior West region increasedfrom 2.3 to 3.7 (Figure 14). The level oftimber harvests on western national forestsin 1987 was such that growth exceededremovals, with Pacific Coast national forestsat 1.2 and Interior West at 2.8 (Figure 15).National forest ratios are now extraordinar-ily high in the Pacific Coast (6.7) andInterior West (9.0) (Figure 15). Additionalanalysis of these conditions is warranted.

Western National Forest Conditions• Pacific Coast Region. National forests areat least 40% denser than any other owner-ship in the Pacific Coast (Figure 16).National forests hold the majority ofsoftwood inventory (58% in 2002) andbegan adding to that inventory in 1987 afterreductions in previous periods (Figure 17).Removal trends indicate that the ForestService, other public agencies, and forestindustry firms drew down their softwoodinventories until 1986 (Figure 18). Remov-als increased from 1952 to 1986, thendiminished on national forests by 78%between 1986 and 1996, with furtherreductions to 2001 (Figure 18). Mortalityrates decreased on all ownerships over thepast 50 years (Figure 19). This is likely theresult of harvesting older, larger, slower-growing trees. The mortality rate onnational forests remains above the averagefor all ownerships because the older trees innational forests grow more slowly and treemortality is often high in older stands. Insummary, national forests are 47% denserand have a mortality rate 50% higher thanother ownerships (Figure 20).

• Interior West Region. National forests areat least 33% denser than any other owner-ship in the Interior West (Figure 21). Thisregion has about half of the amount ofsoftwood inventory as the Pacific Coastregion, but a larger proportion of it (75% in2002) is in the national forests (Figure 22,which for comparison is drawn to the samescale as Figure 17). Inventory has beenincreasing for the past 50 years in thenational forests, and at an increasing ratesince 1987 (Figure 22). The reductioninnational forest timber harvests between

The Moose Creek Fire in Montana’s FlatheadNational Forest destroyed more timber than allof the timber that has ever been harvested onthis forest.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

evergreenmagazine.com 21

1986 and 1996 (72%) is similar to thePacific Coast region, and has also continuedto diminish (Figure 23). Accompanying thereduction in harvests and buildup of inven-tory is an increase in mortality. Althoughmortality rates increased on all ownershipssince 1986, the national forests increasedat a substantially higher rate (Figure 24).In 2002 mortality in the region was thehighest rate in the nation (Figure 12)because of the national forests, which hadthe highest mortality rate (42%) of anyregion and ownership reported since 1962(52%, Pacific Coast national forests, Figure19). In summary, national forests in theInterior West are 63% denser and have amortality rate 80% higher than otherownerships (Figure 25).

Forest Health Problems and Manage-ment ImplicationsAre western national forests “healthy”?Maybe not. Forest density, mortality/growthrates, and growth/removal ratios are higherthan in other regions and also higher thanother ownerships within the region. Thiscould be a problem if national forest landsare expected to provide a variety of values,products, and services for people. At least50.4 million acres of national forests are athigh risk of severe forest fire, with 80% ofthat acreage in the West.16 In parts of theWest national forests have become moresusceptible to outbreaks of insects anddiseases as well as severe fire.17 To a largedegree, these forest health problemscontributed to the severity of some of thewildfires in 2000, which were some of theworst in the last 50 years.18 Such fires notonly pose danger to people, but severe,long-lasting damage is likely to result towildlife and watersheds when a fire burns,particularly in drought years.19 Foresthealth directly affects watershed conditions,including water quality, by regulating theamount, timing, and sedimentation ofrunoff.20 Severe fires put ecological valuesat risk, including water quality and speciesrecovery, as well as homes in rural areas.21

The most extensive and serious problemwith the health of national forests in theInterior West is the over-accumulation ofvegetation, which has caused an increasingnumber of large, intense, uncontrollable,and catastrophically destructive wildfires.22

According to the Forest Service, forestshave accumulated an “unnatural build-up”of fuels, setting “conditions for unnaturallyintense fires that threaten communities, air,soil, water quality, and plant and animalspecies.” 23 Forest Service scientistshave been warning of the fuel buildup for atleast 30 years. 24 The Forest Service expectsremovals from national forests to remain

near today’s levels during the next 50 years,with increases in annual growth incrementsand mortality. 25 This means denser foreststhan today, with more dead wood in them.Many western forests are already too dense,with more trees than the site can support. 26

For example, reducing overly dense pon-derosa pine stands is a pervasive forestrestoration problem.27 Inaction or passivemanagement will allow some forest healthproblems to worsen. 28 Scientists anticipateincreased fuel accumulations, lengthenedfire seasons, and intensified burningconditions, all contributing to larger and

more catastrophic wildfires. 29 The potentialfor severe fire can be reduced by active landmanagement, with the objective of main-taining forest cover and structure within arange consistent with long-term distur-bance processes.30 Many scientists believecutting and removing trees—i.e., thinningand timber harvesting—are necessary partsof forest restoration strategies.31 ForestService scientists concluded that “activemanagement appears to have the greatestchance of producing the mix of goods andservices that people want from ecosystems,as well as maintaining or enhancing long-term ecological integrity.”32 The conse-quences of inaction far exceed those ofaction.33

Western forest landscapes and humancommunities have been ravaged bypreventable catastrophic fires.34 In responseto the wildfires of 2000, the National FirePlan identified reducing hazardous fuel

accumulations and restoring the health offorest ecosystems as ways for reducingwildfire risk to communities and theenvironment, as well as the appropriateemphases for forest policy.35 The 10-YearComprehensive Strategy for implement-ing the plan is a collaborative approachby federal, state, and tribal governmentsand was developed in consultation withmany affected interest groups. Two ofthe Strategy’s four goals are reducinghazardous fuels and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.36

The conventional wisdom in theNational Fire Plan seems to be that fueltreatments are expensive. They need not be.Research at western land grant universitieshas demonstrated that meeting ecologicalrestoration objectives in fire-adapted foreststhroughout the West can often produceenough revenue from timber by-products topay for the project activities, and sometimessubstantially more.37

National forest managers know how toreduce hazardous fuels and restore eco-systems. However, the Forest Serviceoperates within a decision-makingframework it says “has kept the agencyfrom effectively addressing rapid declinesin forest health. This same frameworkimpedes nearly every other aspect ofmultiple-use management as well.”38 ChiefDale Bosworth calls the situation “analysisparalysis.”39 Others call it gridlock.Whatever name one chooses, it must besomething other than “thoroughlybusinesslike management.” Although theneed for national forest reform is widelyrecognized, there is no agreement on whatshape it should take.40 Policy-makers couldinitiate reform by giving Forest Servicemanagers the authority to expeditiouslyunder-take projects that would reduce tosustainable levels the accumulation ofvegetation on national forest timberlands.National forests are public lands, and someform of public consent is necessary. Toobtain consent directly from the people, theForest Service will likely need additionalresources to undertake effective collabora-tive learning among affected interests.41

An alternative is to categoricallyexclude fuel reduction and ecologicalrestoration projects from environmentalanalysis under the premise that creatingsustainable conditions per se has benefitsthat outweigh costs. On a project byproject basis the goals of consent are notonly to define sustainable forest condi-tions but to provide measurable manage-ment objectives. If fuel treatment andforest restoration work is done effectively,the level of public trust and confidence inthe agency could also be restored.

Disease and inevitable wildfire killed this oncebeautiful stand of timber in the Tahoe NationalForest near Incline Village and Lake Tahoe.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

22 EVERGREEN

ConclusionsThe condition of western national foresttimberlands puts a variety of values at greaterrisk than need be. Active management canimprove the situation.• National forests, with 19% of the nation’stimberlands, have a disproportionately largeportion (46%) of the softwood resource fromwhich comes a disproportionately small (6%)amount of the softwood timber harvest.• More than 40 million acres of westernnational forests are subjectto severe catastrophic fires.• Fuel accumulation is widely recognized asa serious forest health problem. Thecurrent forest density, growth, mortality,and removals situation on westernnational forests portends continuedaccumulations of fuel, as inventory hasbeen building since 1987.• Western national forests are denser thanforest in other ownerships: 47% denser inthe Pacific Coast region and 63% in theInterior West.• Western national forests have highermortality rates than forests in other owner-ships: 50% higher in the Pacific Coastregion and 80% higher in the Interior West.• Western national forests have extraordi-narily high growth/removal ratios: 6.7 inthe Pacific Coast region and 9.0 in theInterior West.• National forest timber inventories couldphysically sustain three times the currentlevel of softwood removals, or the timberharvest levels of the 1980s.• Active management strategies thatinclude cutting trees and removing themfrom the site can help restore more sus-tainable conditions on national foresttimberlands.• Treatment costs can be reduced bycombining ecological restoration objectiveswith hazardous fuel reduction objectives.• The alternative to active management isreduced productivity, many dead trees, andfuel conditions favorable to severe andpotentially destructive wildfires.42

• Two obstacles to active management arepublic policy and public trust. The ForestService cannot effectively treat forest healthproblems because of the “Process Predica-ment,” or decision gridlock.

Smokey is often blamed for the West’s foresthealth problems, but the public’s long agodecision to fight forest fires still makes sense.What’s needed now is a perpetual thinningprogram that imitates natural fire patterns.

1. National Forest Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 475).

2. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 531).

3. Pinchot, Gifford (1947), Breaking New Ground, Harcourt, Brace, New York, p. 190.

4. USDA Forest Service reports used as data sources:• Forest Resources of the United States, 2002, draft tables, Washington, DC

(April 2002) [online]: <http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801/FIADB/rpa_tabler/Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resouce_Tables.pdf > [sic];

• Forest Resources of the United States, 1997, General Technical Report GTR-NC-219, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN (W.B. Smith, J.S. Vissage,D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield, August 2001) [online]: <http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/searchtools/viewpub.asp?key=845>;

• Forest Statistics of the United States, 1987, Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-168,Portland, OR (K.L. Waddell, D.D. Oswald, and D.S. Powell, 1989); and

• An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States, 1952-2030, ForestResource Report No. 23,Washington, DC (1982).

Endnotes

5. O’Laughlin, J. (1996), “Forest ecosystem health assessment: definition,measurement and management implications,” Ecosystem Health 2(1):19-39;O’Laughlin, J., R.L. Livingston, R. Thier, J. Thornton, D.E. Toweill, and L. Morelan(1994), “Defining and measuring forest health,” Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2:65-85.

6. USDA Forest Service (R.W. Haynes, tech. coord., April 2002), An Analysis of theTimber Situation in the United States: 1952-2050, final pre-publication draft [online]:<http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sev/rpa/rpawebfiles/summary.pdf>.

7. Ibid.

8. USDA Forest Service (2002), The Process Predicament: How Statutory,Regulatory, and Administrative Factors Affect National Forest Management,Washington, DC [online]: <http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/documents/Gridrev5.2.pdf>.

9. Oliver, C., D. Adams, T. Bonnicksen, J. Bowyer, F. Cubbage, N. Sampson, S.Schlarbaum, R. Whaley, and H. Wiant (1997), Report on Forest Health of the UnitedStates by the Forest Health Science Panel, a panel chartered by Charles Taylor,member, U.S. Congress [online]: <http://www.house.gov/resources/105cong/fullcomm/apr09.97/taylor.rpt/taylor.htm>.

10. Society of American Foresters (J.A. Helms, ed., 1998), The Dictionary ofForestry, Bethesda, MD.

11. Society of American Foresters (L.A. Norris, H. Cortner, M.R. Cutler, S.G. Haines,J.E. Hubbard, M.A. Kerrick, W.B. Kessler, J.C. Nelson, R. Stone, and J.M. Sweeney,1993), Sustaining Long-Term Forest Health and Productivity, Task Force Report,Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.

12. USDA Forest Service (2001), Forest Resources of the United States, 1997 (citedat note 4 above).

13. USDA Forest Service (2002), Forest Resources of the United States, 2002, drafttables; with 1952 removals from An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the UnitedStates, 1952-2030 (both cited at note 4 above).

14. Smith, D.M. (1997), The Practice of Silviculture: Applied Forest Ecology, 9th ed.,J. Wiley & Sons, New York.

15. USDA Forest Service (1999), America’s Forests: 1999 Forest Health Update,Washington, DC [online]: <http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/fh_update/update99/index.html>.

16. USDA Forest Service (2001), Historical Fire Regimes by Current ConditionClasses, Data Summary Tables (Table 3b, p. 8), Rocky Mountain Research Station,Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT [online]: <http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman/data_summary_tables.pdf>.

17. USDA Forest Service (T.M. Quigley, R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham, tech. eds.,1996), Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the InteriorColumbia Basin, General Technical Report PNWGTR-382, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station, Portland, OR.

18. U.S. General Accounting Office (2002), Wildland Fire Management: Reducingthe Threat of Wildland Fires Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort, GAO-02-843T, Washington, DC [online]:<http://www.gao.gov/>.

19. USDA Forest Service (2000), Protecting People and Sustaining Resources inFire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy, Washington, DC [online]: <http://www.fireplan.gov/cohesive.cfm> p. 26.

20. USDA Forest Service (P. Rogers, D. Atkins, M. Frank, and D. Parker, 2001),Forest Health Monitoring in the Interior West: A Baseline Summary of Forest Issues,1996-1999, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-75, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation, Fort Collins, CO.

21. USDA Forest Service (T.M. Quigley and H.B. Cole, 1997), Highlighted ScientificFindings of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, GeneralTechnical Report PNW-GTR-404, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,OR.

22. U.S. General Accounting Office (1999), Western National Forests: A CohesiveStrategy is Necessary to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats, GAO/RCD-99-65,Washington, DC [online]: <http://www.gao.gov/>.

23. USDA Forest Service (2000), Protecting People and Sustaining Resources inFire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy (cited at note 19 above) pp. 11, 13.

24. Wilson, C.C., and J.D. Dell (1971), “The fuels buildup in American forests: a planof action and research,” Journal of Forestry 69(8):471-475.

25. USDA Forest Service (G. Boyack and others, 2000), Inventory Projections for[15] Selected National Forests: Response to FY 2000 Senate Appropriations ActRequest, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.

26. Covington, W.W. (2000), Perspective: “Prescribed fire is not the issue,” Journal ofForestry 98(8):48.

27. Long, J.N., and F.W. Smith (2000), “Restructuring the forest: goshawks and therestoration of southwestern ponderosa pine,” Journal of Forestry 98(8):25-30.

28. USDA Forest Service (D. Atkins, J. Byler, L. Livingston, P. Rogers, and D.Bennett, 1999), Health of Idaho’s Forests: A Summary of Conditions, Issues andImplications, Northern Region, Forest Health Protection Report No. 99-4, Missoula,MT; citing T.M. Quigley, R.W. Haynes, W.J. Hann, D.C. Lee, R.S. Holthausen, andR.A. Gravenmeier (1998), “Using an ecoregion assessment for integrated policyanalysis,” Journal of Forestry 96(10):33-38.

29. Covington, W.W., R.L. Everett, R. Steele, L.L. Irwin, T.A. Daer, and A.N.D. Auclair(1994), “Historical and anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the Inland Westof the United States,” Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2:13-63.

30. USDA Forest Service (1996), Integrated Scientific Assessment (cited at note 17above).

31. Scientists writing about the need for thinning and timber harvesting for fuelreduction and/or ecological restoration during the 2000 fire season includeduniversity professors Wallace Covington (Northern Arizona University), Carl Fiedlerand Charles Keegan (University of Montana), James Long (Utah State University),Frederick Smith and Dennis Lynch (Colorado State University), William McKillop andScott Stephens (University of California – Berkeley), Penelope Morgan and LeonNeuenschwander (University of Idaho),Thomas Swetnam (University of Arizona),Robert Nelson (University of Maryland), and David Smith (Virginia Tech). See reviewby O’Laughlin, J. (2000), Federal Land Policy: Programs to Reduce Wildfire Risk andImprove Forest Ecosystem Health Must Overcome Barriers to Active Management,Contribution No. 913, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station,University of Idaho, Moscow [online]: <http://www.uidaho.edu/cfwr/pag/pdfs/contrib913.pdf>.

32. Ibid.

33. Covington et al. (1994), “Historical and anticipated changes in forestecosystems” (cited at note 29 above).

34. Covington (2000), “Prescribed fire is not the issue” (cited at note 26 above).Western National Forests: Softwood Resource Conditions and ManagementImplications 34.

35. USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior (2000), Managing theImpact of Wildfires on the Communities and the Environment: A Report to thePresident In Response to the Wildfires of 2000, Washington, DC [online]: <http://www.fireplan.gov/president.cfm>

36. USDA Forest Service, Department of the Interior, Western GovernorsAssociation, and others (2002), A Collaborative Approach for Reducing WildlandFire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive StrategyImplementation Plan [online]: <http://www.fireplan.gov/10yrIPfinal.pdf>.

37. Johnson, K.N., J.A. Agee, R. Beschta, J. Beuter, S. Gregory, L. Kellogg, W.McComb, J. Sedell, T. Schowalter, and S. Tesch (1995), Forest Health and TimberHarvest on National Forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, Report to GovernorKitzhaber, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; Lynch,D.L., W.H. Romme, and M.L. Floyd (2000), “Forest restoration in southwesternponderosa pine,” Journal of Forestry 98(8):17-24; Fiedler, C.E., C.E. Keegan III, C.W.Woodall, T.A. Morgan, S.H. Robertson, and J.T. Chmelik (2001), A StrategicAssessment of Fire Hazard in Montana, University of Montana, Missoula [online]:<http://www.bber.umt.edu/forestproducts/fireReports.asp>; Fiedler, C.E., C.E.Keegan III, S.H. Robertson, T.A. Morgan, C.W. Woodall, and J.T. Chmelik (2002),A Strategic Assessment of Fire Hazard in New Mexico, University of Montana,Missoula [online]: <http://www.bber.umt.edu/forestproducts/fireReports.asp>.Summaries of these projects are provided in O’Laughlin, J. (2002), ReducingHazardous Fuels: Comprehensive Silviculture and Sustainable Forestry,Contribution No. 957, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station,University of Idaho, Moscow [online]: <http://www. uidaho.edu/cfwr/pag/pdfs/contrib957.pdf>; and O’Laughlin, J. (2000), Federal Land Policy (cited at note 31above).

38. USDA Forest Service (2002), The Process Predicament (cited at note 8 above).

39. USDA Forest Service (2002), Statement of Chief Dale Bosworth to theSubcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, U.S. Houseof Representatives, June 12, 2002, Washington, DC [online]: <http://www.fs.fed.us/congress/2002_Testimony/6.12.02_bosworth_on_complex_laws.htm>.

40. Clawson, M. (1984), “Major alternatives for the future management of thefederal lands,” pp. 195-234, in, Rethinking the Federal Lands, S. Brubaker, ed.,Resources for the Future, Washington, DC; O’Toole, R. (1988), Reforming theForest Service, Island Press, Washington, DC; O’Laughlin, J., W.R. Hundrup, andP.S. Cook (1998), History and Analysis of Federally Administered Lands in Idaho,Report No. 16, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, Universityof Idaho, Moscow [Executive Summary online]: <http://www.uidaho.edu/cfwr/pag/pag16es.html>; Quincy Library Group (1998), “Fuelbreak” legislation for threenorthern California national forests [online]: <http://www.qlg.org/>; Forest OptionsGroup (1999), 2nd Century Options for the Forest Service, Thoreau Institute,Bandon, OR [online]: <http://www.ti.org/2c.html>; Floyd, D.W., et al. (1999), Forestof Discord, Task Force Report, Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD;Committee of Scientists (1999), Sustaining the People’s Lands, USDA ForestService [online]: <http://www.fs.fed.us/news/science/>; Idaho Federal Lands TaskForce (2000), Breaking the Gridlock: Federal Land Pilot Projects in Idaho [online]:<http://www2.state.id.us/lands/LandBoard/fltf.htm>; Pinchot Institute (2000),USDA Forest Service Stewardship Contracting Pilots [online]: <http://www.pinchot.org/pic/cbf/pilots.html>; Nelson, R.H. (2000), A Burning Issue: ACase for Abolishing the U.S. Forest Service, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD;Kemmis, D. (2001), This Sovereign Land: A New Vision for Governing the West,Island Press, Washington, DC; O’Toole, R. (2002), Reforming the Fire Service: AnAnalysis of Federal Fire Budgets and Incentives, Thoreau Institute, Bandon, OR[online]: <http://www.ti.org/fire.html>; Society of American Foresters (2002),“National Forest reform,” Position Statement [online]: <http://www.safnet.org/policy/psst/FSreform_62102.htm>.

41. Daniels, S.E., and G.B. Walker (2001), Working Through EnvironmentalConflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach, Praeger, Westport, CT.

42. O’Laughlin, J., J.G. MacCracken, D.L. Adams, S.C. Bunting, K.A. Blatner, andC.E. Keegan III (1993), Forest Health Conditions in Idaho, Report No. 11, IdahoForest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow[Executive Summary online]: <http://www.uidaho.edu/cfwr/pag/reports.html#no11>; O’Laughlin, J. (2002), Idaho Forest Health Conditions – 2002 Update,Contribution No. 958, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station,University of Idaho, Moscow [online]: <http://www.uidaho.edu/ cfwr/pag/pdfs/contrib958-rev.PDF>.

evergreenmagazine.com 23

Western National Forests: Softwood Resource Conditions and Management Implications

Dr. Jay O’Laughlin, Director, Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, and Philip S. Cook, PAG Research Associate constructed these charts frominformation available from various U.S. Forest Service Sources including Forest Resources of the United States, 1997, and subsequent updates. Dr.Con Schallau, a forest economist and member of the Evergreen Foundation Board of Directors, constructed the Page 27 “Forecasts for Growth,Harvest and Mortality” for five western national forests using USFS data.

Forest Land &Timberland - 2002by ownership

Forest IndustryOther PublicNational Forest

Other Private

10%

13%

19%20%

9%

25%

46%6%

58%8%

Softwood Inventory & Removals - 2001/02by ownership

yy

Forest IndustryOther PublicNational Forest

Other Private

Timberland Inventory & Removals - 2001/02by softwood & hardwood inventories

yy

SoftwoodHardwood

39%44%4%

56%6% 61%

6%

37%7%

5%

30%

13%%

11%

46%6%52%2%

0

100

200

300

400

600

500

Softwood Inventory Volume - 1952 to 2002by ownership of growing stock - in billions of cubic feet

yy

a

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Softwood Removals - 1952 to 2001by ownership - in billions of cubic feet

National Forest Acreage & Softwood Inventory - 2002Top 20 States on all Ownerships

g

22

2023

411445

NVNUTT

WAW

National Forest AcreageSoftwood Growing Stock VolumeSoftwood Growing Stock Volume

00

RANKINGS = Pacific Coast NorthI i W S h

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

24 EVERGREEN

Western National Forests: Softwood ResourceSoftwood Inventory & Removals - 2001/02

by regionyy

Interior WestNorthPacific Coast

South

0

100

200

300

400

600

500

Softwood Inventory Volume - 1953 to 2002y

a

7%7%

65%

5%10%

22%2%

25%

43% 23%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

3,000

2,500

Forest Density by Ownership - 1953 to 2002hardwood & softwood growing stock per acre - in cubic feet

y y py y p

Note: yearly intervals not to scale.

y s

Softwood Mortality by Ownership - 1953 to 2002y y p

e: l

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

3,000

2,500

Forest Density by Region - 1953 to 2002hardwood & softwood growing stock per acre - in cubic feet

y y gy y g

y s

3,500

0

10

20

30

40

50

e: l0

10

20

30

40

50

Softwood Mortality by Region - 1953 to 2002mortality as a percent of gross annual growth

y y gy y g

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

evergreenmagazine.com 25

ce Conditions and Management Implications

0

50

100

150

200

300

250

Pacific Coast Softwood Inventory - 1953 to 2002yGrowth/Removal Ratio by Region - 1953 to 2002/ y g

e: l0

1

2

3

4

Growth/Removal Ratio by Ownership - 1953 to 2002softwood net annual growth/annual removals

/ y p/ y p

e: l0

1

2

3

4

5

6

e: l0

2

4

6

8

10

N.F. Growth/Removal Ratio by Region - 1953 to 2002National Forest softwood net annual growth/annual removals

/ y g/ y g

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

5,000

4,000

Pacific Coast Forest Density by Ownership - 1953 to 2002hardwood & softwood growing stock per acre - in cubic feet

y y py y p

y s

Note: yearly intervals not to scale.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Pacific Coast Softwood Removals - 1952 to 2001by ownership - in billions of cubic feet

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 13

FIGURE 14

FIGURE 15

FIGURE 16

FIGURE 17

26 EVERGREEN

Western National Forests: Softwood ResourcePacific Coast Mortality by Ownership - 1953 to 2002

softwood mortality as a percent of gross annual growthy y py y p

e: l0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Interior West Mortality by Ownership - 1953 to 2002softwood mortality as a percent of gross annual growth

y y py y p

0

50

100

150

200

250

Pacific Coast Softwood Inventory - 1953 to 2002by ownership of growing stock - in billions of cubic feet

yy

l

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Interior West Softwood Removals - 1952 to 2001Pacific Coast National Forest Comparison - 1953 to 2002compared to other ownerships combined

pp

Interior West Forest Density by Ownership - 1953 to 2002hardwood & softwood growing stock per acre - in cubic feet

y y py y p

e: l0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

3,000

2,500

y s

3,500

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0

5

0

5

0

5

0

5

0

5

0

5

766 % %%% 511%755% % 1033% 1500% % 500%666

FIGURE 18

FIGURE 19

FIGURE 20

FIGURE 21

FIGURE 22

FIGURE 23

evergreenmagazine.com 27

ce Conditions and Management ImplicationsInterior West National Forest Comparison - 1953 to 2002

compared to other ownerships combinedpp

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

5

0

5

0

5

0

5

0

5

133% % 633%311% 5669%% 222%2% ––244 % 788% 800%144%

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,0000 1,000,000 1,200,000

Siskiyou National ForestForecast of Harvest, Growth & Mortality

yy

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,0000

Siuslaw National Forest

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,0000 500,000 600,000 700,000

Mt. Hood National ForestForecast of Harvest, Growth & Mortality

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,0000 500,000

Colville National ForestForecast of Harvest, Growth & Mortality

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,0000

Flathead National Forest

FIGURE 24

FIGURE 25

FIGURE 26

FIGURE 28

FIGURE 29

FIGURE 30

28 EVERGREEN

Forests and Wildfire Ri

Some 747 million U.S. acres—33 percent ofthe nation’s 2.24 billion acre land area—isstill forested. Since European settlementbegan in the early 1600s about 400 millionacres of forestland have been converted toother uses, principally agriculture. About 58percent of the nation’s forestland base isprivately owned—most of it by individuals.The remaining 42 percent is publiclyowned—the lion’s share by the federalgovernment. [For a detailed discussionof U.S. land use through time, turn to page 5and read “A Brief History of U.S. Forests,” byDoug MacCleery.]

About two-thirdsof the nation’s forests—some504 million acres—are classifiedas timberland, meaning theseacres are [1] capable of producing20 cubic feet of industrial wood peracre per year and [2] not legally reservedfrom timber harvest. Another 191 million acres are notcapable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre annually butserve as municipal watersheds, livestock grazing landsand recreation areas. Another 52 million acres are legallyreserved for non-timber use, principally in public ownedparks and wilderness areas.[Source: USFS, Forest Resources of the United States, 1997]

evergreenmagazine.com 29

Risks in the United States

Condition Class 1: Risk of losing one or morecomponents that define ecosystem is low

Condition Class 2: Risk of losing one or morecomponents that define ecosystem is moderate

Condition Class 3: Risk of losing one or morecomponents that define ecosystem is high

Water

Agriculture & Non-vegetated Areas

Map Color Key: Fire RegimeCurrent Condition Classes

This map was developed by the FireModeling Institute and the U.S.Forest Service Fire SciencesLaboratory Missoula, Montana, incollaboration with USFS Fire andAviation Management.www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman/curcond2000/maps/cc2000.pdf

To learn more about the FireRegime Condition Classes and thecondition of federal forest lands inthe West read “Western NationalForests: Softwood ResourceConditions and ManagementImplications,” beginning on page 18and “Uncharacteristic Wildfire Riskand Fish Conservation in Oregon,”beginning on page 41.

68–90 percent

50–67 percent

33–49 percent

10–32 percent

less than 10%

Percent of land area in forest by State

At 90 percent, Maine is the most heavily forested state, and at one percent North Dakota is themost sparsely forested state [Source: USFS, Forest Resources of the United States, 1997]

30 EVERGREEN

It may seem like heresy—thisPatrick Moore notion that that theworld should be consuming more wood,not less—but his latest dissent fromconventional environmental wisdom isshared by many eminent forestscientists who see increasing wood useas a big step forward in the quest toreduce global atmospheric carbondioxide pollution.

We’ll have more to say about carbondioxide emissions in a few moments.But first meet the irrepressible Dr.Moore: Ph.D. forest ecologist,Greenpeace co-founder, legendary boatrocker and fearless promoter of reallybig ideas. Who would have ever thoughtto marry citizen unrest over the war inVietnam to a growing uneasiness aboutthe state of the planet? Well, Patrick did.

With the help of Greenpeacecolleagues who shared his vision for ahealthier more peaceful planet, he helda mirror up in front of the world.Millions of us peered into it and did notlike what we saw. By the mid-eightiesmainstream society had embraced manyenvironmental ideas previouslyconsidered radical. Canada stoppedhunting baby seals, dumping nuclearwaste in the North Atlantic wasoutlawed, whaling in the North Pacificended too, and moratoriums weredeclared on hydrogen bomb testing.

Now Patrick has moved on—somewould say gone home—to defend hisheritage [he is the son and grandsonof British Columbia loggers] and hisscience against what he says areunwarranted attacks by leftists whohighjacked the green movement afterthe Berlin Wall fell, exposing bothsocialism’s failures and capitalism’s

Think Globally. Act Loc

global possibilities. And he is againholding up his mirror in the hope thatwe will see the error of our ways.

“I left Greenpeace believing we hadaccomplished what we set out to do,” hesaid in a recent Evergreen interview.“We had rung the ecological fire alarmawakening much of the developed worldto our global predicament. But whileGreenpeace could define problems it didnot necessarily have the solutions, norwas it equipped to implement them.That requires the combined efforts ofgovernments, corporations, publicinstitutions and environmental groups.Today I work in all these arenas.”

Because Dr. Moore helped found thefirst global environmental organization

the press has for years assumed he quitenaturally opposed timber harvestingand forestry itself. He never has. In fact,since leaving Greenpeace in 1986 he haswritten a fine book, Pacific Spirit,penned an update [Green Spirit: TreesAre The Answer] and produced abeautiful video, Trees Are The Answer.In all three works he uses naturalforest renewal to make the case forforestry’s contributions to theenvironment. More recently he haslent his considerable credibility andcreativity to the Wood PromotionNetwork, a forest industry coalitionformed two years ago to advancewood’s dominant position in NorthAmerican building material—and todefend the industry against claims thatwood consumption destroys forests.

“The claim that using woodsomehow leads to forest loss isbackwards and silly,” Dr. Moore says.“Every time we use wood—every timewe buy a two-by-four at a lumberyard ora ream of paper at an office supply store—we are in fact ordering up new treesfor planting in forests.”

How’s that again?“Forget trees,” Patrick explains.

“Let’s talk about tomatoes. If peopledidn’t buy them, growers would notplant them. Pretty soon there wouldn’tbe any. On the other hand, if tomatoessold out in two weeks, growers wouldplant more next year. It’s the same withtrees. Eighty-five percent of the timberconsumed in the United States grows onprivate land. Growers are planting morethan ever before because wood is verypopular. But if for some reasonconsumers stopped buying woodgrowers would stop planting trees and

Patrick Moore

“The claim that using wood somehow leads toforest loss is backwards and silly. Every time weuse wood—every time we buy a two-by-four at a

Patrick Moore, Ph.D. forest ecologist and Greenpeace co-founder,from an Evergreen interview at the Boise Basin Experimental Forestnear Idaho City, Idaho, September 2002

lumberyard or a ream of paper at an office supplystore—we are in fact ordering up new trees forplanting in forests.”

30 EVERGREEN

Jim

Pet

erse

n

evergreenmagazine.com 31

ocally. Use more wood!start planting what consumerswanted. Millions of acres of forestlandwould be converted to some otherpurpose to the considerable detrimentof our environment. It is preciselybecause we use so much wood that wehave so much forest.”

Dr. Moore’s commitment to forestryand his efforts to help the forestindustry craft a story that will win overan often skeptical public have enraged

several of his former colleagues. Hisname appears in the Greenpeace “Guideto Anti-Environmental Organizations”[so does Evergreen] and fellow co-founder, Bob Hunter, calls him the“eco-Judas.” But Patrick is nonplused.

“The forest industry has anincredibly positive story to tell,” heobserves. “It produces our mostrenewable material resource, maintainshabitat for thousands of species,

removes carbon from the atmosphereand provides a wide range of consumerproducts without which life as we knowit would be impossible. The WoodPromotion Network provides a counterto steel, plastic and concrete claims ofenvironmental superiority, giving thepublic a more balanced view of thechoices they make. Hopefully it willgrow into programs that can effectivelycounter the ‘use less wood’ policy of the

Jim

Pet

erse

n

Looking southwest over intermixed federal, state, privateforests near Bitterroot Lake in northwest Montana

evergreenmagazine.com 31

32 EVERGREEN

major environmental lobbies. Woodis not only good, it is the best.”

No wonder the highly touted WoodPromotion Network wanted to team upwith Dr. Moore when it launched its “BeConstructive” campaign. “He has been apowerful advocate and a tremendoushelp,” says WPN president KellyMcCloskey, a long-time Canadian friend.“His message is heard and accepted inplaces where we would not be crediblewithout him.”

In a decade where successes havebeen few and far between, WPN looksto be a victory for a forest productsindustry that has in recent years hadgreat difficulty finding its public voice.Poor markets get most of the blamefor under-funded forestry educationprograms, but the fact is distrust runsrampant among publicly tradedcompanies and their smaller, privatelyheld brethren. Turf battles betweenassociations competing for membershipamid the collapse of the federal timbersale program—a collapse made even

more painful by consolidation in thedebt laden pulp and paper industry—have only made matters worse. As aresult, it has been more than 20 yearssince U.S. forest products manu-facturers last put their shoulders tothe same wheel. WPN is that wheel.

“It’s wonderful to see our industryworking toward a commonly sharedgoal,” says Mr. McCloskey. “Ours is afragmented industry but the birth ofWPN and its early successes make itclear that we can still be very effectivecommunicators when we work togetherrather than at cross purposes.”

What caused the industry to cometogether again after so many years ofacrimony? The dumbfoundingrevelation that between 1997 and 2000U.S. lumber manufacturers lost nearly$1 billion in market share to the steelframing and concrete industries. Addinginsult to injury, television and printadvertisements sponsored by the twoindustries hyped environmentalistclaims that forests were not being

sustainably managed. Worse yet, Ninjalook-alikes were unfurling banners fromHome Depot and Lowes rooftopsaccusing the nation’s two largestlumber retailers of profiting from thedestruction of old growth forests.

“It was a real wakeup call,” recallsMr. McCloskey. “Many had assumed thewood industry’s dominance of thehomebuilder market was unassailable.The discovery that two competingindustry had taken nearly $1 billionin just three years got everyone’sattention. In less than 12 months weput together a coalition of the largestwood producers in the U.S. and Canada,raised the startup capital we needed andwent to work.”

The WPN strategy is both straight-forward and unique: unique for its upfront commitment to coalition building,a hard-to-quantify art form many costconscious CEO’s have resisted for years;and straightforward in its quest toreverse market share losses by restoringbuilder and consumer confidence in

GREEN BY DESIGNLife cycle assessment softwaredeveloped by the non-profit ATHENASustainable Materials Institutequantifies the environmental footprintsleft by three 50,000 square footbuildings—one constructed from woodand the others from steel or concrete.As these charts illustrate, wood is byfar the most environ-mentally friendlybuilding material. Steel buildings useabout 2.4 times as much energy aswood during their life cycle.Greenhouse gas emissions are 1.81times higher for concrete buildings thanthey are for same-size wood structures. Wood’s air and water pollution and solid waste indices arealso more favorable than those for steel or concrete. And when compared to steel or concrete, wooddesigns also have the lowest ecological resource index. [“Green by Design,” Canadian Wood Council,www.cwc.ca, “Environmental Building News,” www.buildinggreen.com and LEED (Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design), Green Building Rating System, www.leedbuilding.org]

Cougar Crest Lodge near Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

Jim

Pet

erse

n

evergreenmagazine.com 33

Office Building Life Cycle Comparison - 1996based on ATHENA™ software life cycle assessment

800

15012

150

both wood products and forestry.Mr. McCloskey and his coalition

partners face a daunting task. Many ofthe timber industry’s most experiencedpublic relations people were let goduring the late 1970s recession andnever replaced. In fact, in the decadebefore the American Forest & PaperAssociation launched its SustainableForestry Initiative in 1994 the nation’sbig timberland owners did little as agroup to refute criticism of its forestmanagement practices. From thisperspective, WPN’s early successes areindeed stunning. In less than two yearsMr. McCloskey has signed up animpressive array of partners: 320companies, more than 120 customergroups and nearly 100 associationsacross the U.S. and Canada. The fetebecomes even more remarkable in lightof the fact that most of his members are—first and foremost—fierce competitorswith no great love for one another.

“We found common ground in aclearly articulated message that

everyone could rally around,” Mr.McCloskey explains. “The message isthat wood is a superior product andforests are abundant and growing. Weare not running out of forests or treesfor harvest as some environmentalistsallege. Wood producing forests in theU.S. and Canada are well regulated andwell managed. The fact is that NorthAmerican forests have about the sameamount of forest cover today as theyhad 100 years ago.”

Apart from WPN’s coalitionbuilding success—or perhaps becauseof it—the organization has scoredsome laudable publicity successessince it unveiled its “Be Constructive”advertising and public relationscampaign at the 2001 InternationalBuilders Show in Atlanta, Georgia.Most recently Bob Vila, the nation’sbest-known handyman, spent a daywith Patrick Moore touring a workingforest in Maine. The tour was filmedfor airing in early 2003 on Mr. Vila’ssyndicated “Home Again” show.

WPN has also teamed with Lou“Mister-Fix-It” Manfredini, builder,author and “Today Show” corres-pondent to promote wood use. But itmay be that the coalition’s greatestsuccess to date has come in itsrelationship with the Ford MotorCompany, which got itself into bigtrouble last year with the nation’sresource providers: loggers, farmers,ranchers and commercial fishermenwho have been the company’s breadand butter customers for generations.At issue, in what became a publicrelations nightmare for Ford, was thedisclosure that the company wascontributing about $5 million a yearto radical environmental groups. Thencame a series of Ford-sponsored anti-wood, anti-forestry advertisements inNational Geographic and FamilyHandyman. Then came the eruption.

“If there is a single shining exampleof the power of coalitions the Fordstory is it,” observes Mr. McCloskey.“We got involved several years after the

34 EVERGREEN

first shots were fired, so the companywas already well aware of industryconcerns with their funding ofenvironmental groups. They justhadn’t acted on it in any significantway. The anti-wood advertisementbrought WPN to the table and addedcountless thousands of people andcompanies to those already bom-barding Ford with the same message:stop what you’re doing or you will loseour business.”

The Ford story is indeed remarkable.Under pressure from the nation’slargely rural natural resourcecustomer base, the companyrevised its corporate grantmaking guidelines, established aFord Country Scholarsscholarship program that targetsjuniors and seniors in rural highschools and formed a $1 millionbusiness-to-business partnershipwith WPN to promote wood andFord to their common customerbase: the builder community.

Perhaps most notably, Fordmade a three-year $1.5 millionfunding commitment toProvider Pals™ [see pages 53-54],a cultural exchange programthat targets junior high-agestudents interested in learningmore about the nation’sresource culture: its loggers,farmers, ranchers, miners andcommercial fishermen. Theprogram, designed by EvergreenFoundation board memberBruce Vincent, is already upand running in eight schoolsacross the nation. [Separately,Montana’s Ford dealerscontributed a new 2001 FordF-250 pickup to the EvergreenFoundation.]

Of course, WPN could not dowhat it does were it not for thepresence of a significant and growingbody of science that is being used toreverse consumer and builder attitudesconcerning wood’s environmentaladvantages and structural integrity.

Among the earliest works: thelandmark CORRIM Report, a 1976 study[now being updated] that analyzed theamounts of energy required to harvest,transport and convert wood, steel, brickand concrete into finished products.

The study, conducted under theauspices of the National ScienceFoundation by the Committee onRenewable Resources for IndustrialRaw Materials [CORRIM], laid the

groundwork for several subsequentstudies—the latest a Canadian systemsmodel that provides architects andbuilders with an objective and reliablemethod for comparing the environ-mental effects of steel, wood orconcrete building systems. The model,developed by the non-profit ATHENASustainable Materials Institute buildson earlier work by Forintek CanadaCorporation, a public/private researchpartnership that compared theenvironmental footprints of various

building materials using a processcalled “life cycle assessment.” LCA, anow internationally recognized assess-ment tool, tracks energy and materialusage, emissions to air and water andwaste generated at each stage of abuilding product’s life cycle: extraction,manufacturing, transportation, install-ation and eventual disposal.

Although Forintek went to greatlengths not to anoint a winner in whatto some appeared to be a contestbetween competing building materials,the model did in fact produce a clearwinner in tests comparing the rawmaterial, air, water, and energy impacts

associated with the construction of twoten-foot by 100-foot walls: onefabricated from wood studs, the otherfrom steel studs. Canadian economistJamie Meil, who was then a consultantto FORINTEK, laid out the group’spreliminary wall findings in a 1994issue of Evergreen [“Wood and theEnviron-ment: EnvironmentalConsiderations in Choosing BuildingMaterials].

“Constructing our ten-foot by 100-foot wall from wood requires 25 percent

less raw material than isrequired when the wall is con-structed from steel,” Mr. Meilwrote. “In terms of embodiedenergy—energy consumed in theextraction, manufacturing andconstruction stages—the steelwall requires three times asmuch energy as the wood wall.And carbon dioxide emissions,which contribute to globalwarming, are three times asgreat for the steel wall as theyare for the wood assembly.”The more sophisticated ATHENAmodel recorded similar results inrecent tests that measured theenvironmental footprints of50,000-square foot buildingsconstructed from steel, concreteand wood. The concrete buildingrequired 1.7 times more energythan the wood building, whilethe steel assembly consumed 2.4times more energy.

There is, of course, a reasonwhy so much energy is requiredto make steel and so little isneeded to make lumber. Steel,made from iron ore, is forged inblast furnaces heated by fossilfuels that release enormousquantities of carbon dioxide andother air polluting gases as theyburn. By contrast, tree growth is

driven by the free non-polluting energyof the sun. Better still, as they growtrees absorb carbon dioxide and releaseoxygen into the atmosphere.

New Zealand botanist Dr. WinkSutton called it “a miracle process” in arecent Evergreen interview. [see pages48–49] “Here is a natural processpowered by the sun that converts waterfrom the soil and carbon dioxide fromthe atmosphere into glucose andoxygen. The result is wood, civiliz-ation’s most versatile raw material—amaterial with a very high strength toweight ratio that is environmentallybenign, renewable, recyclable and

Boise Cascade Corporation southern pine plantation nearAlexandria, Louisiana. Industrial landowners like Boise ownabout 13 percent of the U.S. timberland base and provide about30 percent of the annual harvest.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

evergreenmagazine.com 35

biodegradable. I know of no otherearthly process that uses so littleenergy to create so many life-givingbenefits.”

Wood’s versatility—and worriesabout global consumption—drew morethan a thousand scientists and observersto Vancouver, British Columbia in 1992for a high level conference called toconsider options for meeting the rawmaterial needs of a planet expected tohave eight billion inhabitants by theyear 2020.

“In the next century, therewill be unprecedented demandfor earth’s natural resources,”predicted conference chairman,Dr. Jim Bowyer, a frequentEvergreen contributor [see“What’s Your Environmental IQ?”pages 50-52] “The resources willcome from somewhere, and nomatter where they come from,there will be environmentalimpacts. This is why we need toreplace the kind of single issueenvironmental thinkingoccurring in America with amore systematic, global approachbased on realistic assumptions.”

Since chairing the Vancouverconference, Dr. Bowyer, whonow heads the University ofMinnesota’s Forest ProductsManagement DevelopmentInstitute, has championed woodindependence for the indus-trialized world with a messagequite similar to Patrick Moore’s.

“Nations that consume morethan they produce are exportingtheir environmental impacts toother countries that providewhat is consumed,” heexplained in a 1993 Evergreeninterview. “It is like shippingyour garbage to another townthat needs the money and iswilling to put up with the stench.”

At the core of Dr. Bowyer’s argumentfor self-sufficiency is this: the UnitedStates annually consumes far more ofearth’s natural resources than do all ofthe world’s lesser developed countries.We also possess the wealth andtechnological know-how needed tominimize the environmental impactsassociated with raw material extraction.

Yet we insist on limiting resourcedevelopment on U.S. soil, importingmore and more of what we consumefrom poor nations with none of theenvironmental regulations—orpollution abatement and monitoring

systems—that exist here. Out of sightout of mind.

“U.S. consumption of wood fiberis by weight roughly equal to the byweight consumption of all metals,plastics and cements combined,” Dr.Bowyer says. “Replacing this volume ofwood with non-renewable substituteswould unleash unintended globalenvironmental impacts on a scale notseen before. Given this, why wouldanyone concerned about energyconsumption, fossil fuel emissions, or

global warming want consumers andbuilders to switch from renewable woodto non-renewable substitutes? We needto start thinking globally and actinglocally, just as environmentalists wiselysuggested decades ago. We should beusing more wood, not less, and we needto add to our scientific understanding ofwhat constitutes sustainable forestry.”

For Patrick Moore, Kelly McCloskeyand WPN’s growing list of partners,the task ahead involves stringingtogether as many coalition partners aspossible, building on public/privatefunding alliances that have been at theforefront in wood technology research

for more than 50 years. Though WPNhas produced some impressivetelevision commercials, airtime isexpensive. So a series of less expensiveprint advertisements has beenintroduced, but even these have notappeared as often as Mr. McCloskeyhad hoped they would. But down inthe trenches where the real work getsdone—at home shows, builderexpositions and symposiums wherescientists and other big picturethinkers gather—the “wood is good”

message is resonating. Andthere is clear evidence thepublic is tired of environ-mentalism’s Armageddon’sdrumbeat and is searching formore hopeful real worldsolutions to earth’s environ-mental problems.

“Forging new coalitions—public and private-sectoralliances that work from acommon understanding of therole sustainable forestry andwood use play in our lives andin the environment—is wherethe action is now,” Dr. Mooreobserves. “The work isrewarding, though I have totell you I think our industryneeds to wise up and put someserious money behind thisprogram. Home Depot isn’tgoing to do it for us. We aren’tdoing anything to convince theaverage person on the streetthat loggers aren’t villains.Where’s Steven Spielberg whenwe need him? Where is the rapmusic and where are the out-of-this-world special effects?Ours is a fabulous good newsenvironmental story but untilthe MTV generation is con-vinced wood is good the nextcycle of voters will always

vote against us.”

Tom Wynne’s Douglas-fir Tree Farm west of Olympia,Washington. Private landowners like Mr. Wynne own about 58percent of the U.S. timberland base and provide about 60percent of the annual harvest.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

Editor’s note: to learn more aboutWood Promotion Network log on totheir website atwww.beconstructive.com orwww.forestinformation.com. For“Green By Design” information log onto www.cwc.ca/sitemap.php and go totheir environmental section; for PatrickMoore, www.greenspirit.com andwww.treesaretheanswer.com; for theEvergreen Foundation,www.evergreenmagazine.com; forProvider Pals, www.providerpals.com.

36 EVERGREEN

Lou Manfredini: Singing Wood’s PraisesWPN’s early success can be found in survey data tracking “before and after” answers to a series ofstatements concerning forest abundance and wood as a building material. Reflecting on the campaign,“Today Show” correspondent Lou Manfredini said, “As a contractor and correspondent, I have beensinging wood’s praises for many years. With creation of the Wood Promotion Network and the “BeConstructive” campaign, I am finally able to provide my viewers and customers with hard facts aboutthe benefits of the wood that frames their homes.”

This home under construction in Bigfork, Montana features a wide variety of engineered wood products: floor joists, rafters and roof, flooring and wallpanels. Engineered wood is rapidly replacing traditional dimension lumber in many building applications because of its higher performance standards,structural superiority and ease of assembly. There are four families of engineered wood: structural wood panels including oriented strand board,structural composite panels and plywood; glued laminated timbers, often called glulam; structural composite lumber, including laminated veneerlumber, parallel strand lumber and oriented strand lumber; and prefabricated wood I-joists or I-beams.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

Wood Is a GoodEnvironmental ChoiceE

C O N S U M E R R E S E A R C H

B U I L D E R S R E S E A R C H R

Wood Is an All-around Better Building Is aMaterial Than Steel or Concreteater

Reasonable Priceable A

Easy to GeetB •• DurableC

0

20

40

60

0

20

40

0

75

50

25

0

20

40

60

0

20

40

7362

42 46 3043

33

7

60 60

0

15 0

43

Benchmark (BM)Tracking Measure (TM)

evergreenmagazine.com 37

WOOD.�

THE ONLY BUILDING�

MATERIAL THAT REALLY�

DOES GROW ON TREES.�

© 2

00

2 W

oo

d P

rom

otio

n N

etw

ork

Be

Co

nst

ruct

ive

™

NORTH AMERICA’S TREES ARE ABUNDANT AND OUR FORESTS ARE GROWING. Thanks in

large measure to steady regeneration, North American forests have grown 20 percent since 1970 and

are about the same size as they were 100 years ago. And, sustainable forests producing abundant

supplies of affordable, renewable wood help to insure that your business continues to thrive well into

the future. To find out more about what makes wood the world’s favorite and most environmentally

sound building material, visit our websites at www.beconstructive.com and www.forestinformation.com.

WHO ARE WE? We’re the Wood Promotion Network: Supporting professionals across North America

who build with wood, nature’s reliable and renewable construction material. We also promote the

responsible management of our growing and abundant forests, so the materials you construct with today

will let you be constructive for years to come. To learn more about the Wood Promotion Network call (866)

ASK-WOOD or visit our websites: www.beconstructive.com and www.forestinformation.com.

WOOD.�

THE ONLY BUILDING�

MATERIAL THAT REALLY�

DOES GROW ON TREES.�

WOOD.�

THE ONLY BUILDING�

MATERIAL THAT REALLY�

DOES GROW ON TREES.�

This is one of six product reassurance advertisements with environmental themes the Wood Promotion Networkdeveloped for magazines and television. Two more campaigns [“Wood Has Life” and “Wood Wise”] encourage designers,builders and consumers to specify or use wood.

38 EVERGREEN

A Graphic Perspective on the U

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

evergreenmagazine.com 39

U.S. Forest Products Industry

Selected Forest Industry Economic Stats. - 1997

5 10 15 200 25 30 35

Lumber & Wood Products - 1997annual production - in billions of board feet

5 10 150

Value of Shipments for Top 8 States - 1998in billions of dollarsp pp

HardwoodLumber

SoftwoodLumber

Washington

Pennsylvania

Texas

Alabama

Oregon

Gerogia

California

Wisconsin

5 10 150

Energy Use in the Forest Products Industry - 1994by sector - in trillions of BTUs

Imports & Exports of Forest Products - 1999 & 2000

Employment & Earnings in the Forest Products Industry - 1998

p d

R iW o

fte y

mg

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 12

40 EVERGREEN

1. The population of the world iscurrently about:

a. 3.4 billion b. 6.2 billionc. 8.7 billion d. 9.1 billione. 11.5 billion

2. The population of the world iscurrently increasing at a rate of about9,043 people per _______.

a. month b. weekc. day d. houre. minute f. second

3. The estimated world population inthe year 2050 is about:

a. 3.4 billion b. 6.2 billionc. 8.7 billion d. 9.1 billione. 11.5 billion

4. True (T) or False (F). United Statespopulation growth is near zero, with thepopulation expected to stabilize byabout 2025.

5. Over the past decade, the UnitedStates population has grown at an annualrate of about 1%. Some have suggestedthat this growth rate is too high, and aproblem if maintained over the longterm, while others note that 1% is asmall number and nothing to beconcerned about. The annual long-termgrowth rate that you view as acceptablefor the United States is ______.

a. 10% or less b. 5% or lessc. 3% or less d. 2% or lesse. 1% or less f. 0.5 % or lessg. 0%

6. True (T) or False (F). The UnitedStates is a net exporter of most rawmaterials used by industry today.

7. True (T) or False (F). The rawmaterial that is used in the greatestquantity in the United States today, andwhich accounts for almost one-third (byweight) of the total raw materials usedannually, is steel.

8. True (T) or False (F). The world israpidly running out of many importantminerals.

9. The number one cause of tropicaldeforestation worldwide is:

a. commercial logging.b. wildfire.c. clearing of lands for agricultural use.d. gathering of firewood.e. building of roads and cities.

10. The area covered by forests in theU.S. today is approximately ____of theforested area that existed in 1600.

a. 70 percent b. 50 percentc. 33 percent d. 25 percente. 17 percent

11. True (T) or False (F). The geographicarea that encompasses the United Statestoday has a greater extent of forestcoverage than the same geographic areadid in 1920.

12. Which of the following statementsmost accurately describes United Statesforests over the past several decades:

a. forest harvest exceeds net growth by8 percent.

b. forest harvest has exceeds netgrowth by 3 percent.

c. forest harvest roughly equals netgrowth.

d. net forest growth exceeds harvest by19 percent.

e. net forest growth exceeds harvest by48 percent.

13. True (T) or False (F). As originallyestablished, it was never intended thatthe National Forests of the UnitedStates would be periodically harvestedto obtain timber that would be used inmeeting the nation’s need for wood.

14. True (T) or False (F). At currentrates of deforestation, 40 percent ofcurrent forests in the United States willbe lost by the middle of the next century.

15. True (T) or False (F). In the U.S.and globally, more species of plants andanimals have been driven to extinctionby logging activity than any otheractivity of mankind.

16. True (T) or False (F). Undercurrent United States law, forestharvesting is allowed within federallydesignated wilderness areas.

17. True (T) or False (F). Populationsof elk, pronghorn antelope, and wildturkey have declined significantly in theUnited States over the past 60 years.

18. True (T) or False (F). Consideringthe total annual harvest of forests in theUnited States and the total consumptionof wood and wood fiber products withinour country, the U.S. is a net importerof wood and wood products.

19. The use of forest products in theUnited States:

a. has declined significantly since 1960.b. has remained at about the same level

for the past 50 years.c. is growing slowly as the population

increases.d. has increased on a per capita basis by

over 25 percent since 1970.

20. As a percentage of all the paperused in the United States in 2001, ____was recovered for reuse.

a. 2.9 percent b. 6.5 percentc. 14.7 percent d. 29.3 percente. 48.3 percent f. 60.1 percent

21. Recovered paper provided ____ ofthe U.S. paper industry’s fiber in 2001.

a. 2.0 percent b. 6.1 percentc. 12.9 percent d. 19.8 percente. 24.3 percent f. 38.4 percent

22. True (T) or False (F). Moreextensive recycling of paper couldreduce harvesting of forests in the U.S.by 60 percent or more.

23. The building material that can beproduced with the least impact on theenvironment is:

a. brick b. concretec. aluminum d. virgin steele. recycled steel f. woodg. plastic

What’s YourEnvironmental

I.Q.For the answers to these questions go to ourwebsite www.evergreenmagazine.com, clickon“Magazine Issues,” scroll to the bottom of thepage and click on“What’s Your Environmental IQ?”

evergreenmagazine.com 41

23%Low risk

42%Moderate risk

35%High risk

Foward by Jim Petersen

“Uncharacteristic Wildfire Riskand Fish Conservation in Oregon”is one of the most important peerreviewed papers we’ve ever read.Its co-authors are Steve Mealey, aForest Service veteran and nowBoise Cascade Corporation Managerof Wildlife, Watersheds and AquaticEcology and Dr. Jack Ward Thomas,chief emeritus of the Forest Serviceand now Boone & CrockettProfessor of Wildlife Conservationin the School of Forestry at theUniversity of Montana.

Normally we translate suchweighty papers into less scientificterms, but we decided to reprint thiswork verbatim because it makes sucha compelling case for assessing theeffects of management inaction inareas where the risk of uncharac-teristic (unusually destructive)wildfire is considered significant.

Wild fish habitat in Oregon is thefocal point of this paper, but theregulatory quagmire it exposes nowthreatens most of the West’s forests,including privately owned plant-ations adjacent to neglected federalforests. Last summer in southernOregon private landowners lost12,000 acres in the 27,000-acreTimbered Rock Fire, a lightningcaused blaze that began on federalland. Counting reforestation costs,private losses were nearly $10million. Taxpayers spent another $12million fighting the blaze.

Uncharacteristic wildfires nowpose a high or moderate risk onabout 24.7 million acres (77 percent)of Oregon’s 32 million acre forestlandbase. Eighty-six percent of all

national forest acres in the state (13.7of 16 million acres) are in ConditionClass 2 (moderate risk, 7 millionacres) or Condition Class 3 (high risk,6.7 million acres).

Although most wild fish specieslisted as threatened or endangeredspawn in watersheds in Oregon’s at-risk forests, biologists with the U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service and theNational Marine Fisheries Servicecontinue to oppose thinning because[in their view] the presumed short-term impacts associated with thinningoutweigh the long-term impacts ofuncharacteristic wildfire. There is nopeer-reviewed science supportinginaction, but there are also no widelyaccepted analytical tools that supportaction. Worse, the Endangered

Species Act makes no provision forthe kind of risk assessment workneeded to justify acting beforewildfire strikes. Defying commonsense, state and federal agenciesare thus saddled with theexpensive and dubious task of

picking up the pieces afterwildfires strike. Uncharacteristic wildfires are

devastating fish and wildlifehabitat—to say nothing of otherintrinsic qualities the publiccherishes. Consider the 500,000-acre($150 million) Biscuit Fire thatburned mostly in Oregon’s SiskiyouNational Forest last summer.Excluding acres inside theKalmiopsis Wilderness, 67,500 acresof spotted owl critical habitat and96,700 acres of marbled murreletcritical habitat were burned, 33percent at high or moderate severity.159,500 acres held in protected latesuccessional reserves (old growth)also burned, 38 percent at high ormoderate severity. But shouldhabitat losses affecting federallyprotected species be acceptedwithout first assessing theenvironmental risks associated withmanagement inaction? And shouldprivate property suffer the same fate?

Risk assessment is a top priorityfor the Bush Administration vis-à-vis the President’s Healthy ForestsInitiative.

A conference focusing on assess-ment tools and their application indecision-making is planned forPortland, Oregon in October.Intuitively, inaction in the face ofinevitable wildfire seems senseless.

Uncharacteristic Wildfire Riskand Fish Conservation in Oregon

Stephen P. Mealey and Jack Ward Thomas

Oregon Forests at Risk77 percent of Oregon’s forests—some 24.7million acres—are at moderate or high risk ofuncharacteristic wildfire. [USFS Fire SciencesLaboratory, Missoula, Montana]

42 EVERGREEN

In Oregon’s forests, changes inthe structures of both fuels andforests have resulted in a changein fire regime from low-severity tohigh-severity wildfire (see Chapter8). The primary vegetation types inwhich these changes have occurredare the drier, lower-elevation typeseast of the Cascades and insouthwestern Oregon. In responseto these changes, Colin Hardy of theUSDA Forest Service (USFS) andothers (Schmidt and others 2002)have developed coarse-scale maps(Figure 9-1) that project fire hazardsand related ecosystem risks in termsof condition classes (Table 9-1).

The status and distribution ofwild fish in Oregon are summarizedin the 1995 Biennial Report on theStatus of Wild Fish in Oregon(ODFW 1995). Thirteen species arelisted as threatened or endangeredunder the Endangered Species Act(Table 9-2). In this chapter we explorethe relationship between uncharac-teristic wildfire (larger, more severe,more intense, and less frequent thannormal) and its associated risks toecosystem function and wild fish, withspecial focus on steelhead (Onco-rhynchus mykiss), Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), cohosalmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), andbull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),which are listed under the Endan-gered Species Act as threatened.We also discuss managementimplications, including an optionfor improved decisions.

Fire-Fish RelationshipsThe condition class map of Oregon(Figure 9-1) shows high and moderaterisks to Oregon’s forest ecosystemsassociated with uncharacteristicwildfire. Fire frequencies have departedfrom historical frequencies by multiplereturn intervals. This causes moderateor dramatic changes to one or more ofthe following: fire size, frequency,intensity, severity, and patterns in thelandscape, resulting in uncharacteristicfires (Table 9-1).

By Stephen P. Mealeyand Jack Ward Thomas

Commenting on results of thebroader assessment that included thisinformation for Oregon, Laverty andWilliams (2000) and Laverty and others(2000), writing in the strategy docu-ment on which the National Fire Plan(USDA and USDI 2000) is based, stated,“Wildfires occurring in the shorterinterval fire-adapted ecosystems wherefuels have accumulated over severalmissed fire cycles, often burn beyondthe natural range of variability.

“Consequently, habitats, soils, andwatersheds are burned beyond theiradaptive limits. The severity of thesefires poses threats to speciespersistence and watershed integrity.The damage from these fires is oftenlong lasting and, within some eco-systems, may be irretrievable.” Theyalso stated, “...the extent and severityof fire could eventually push declining[fish] populations beyond recovery,especially in the West.”

While this conclusion may not beuniversally accepted by fisheriesexperts, we believe most would agreethat the likelihood of uncharacteristicwildfire is increasing and negatively

affecting depressed, fragmented fishpopulations, because the larger thefire in size and intensity, the morelikely it is that it will have a negativeimpact on fish and their habitat.

Review and analysis of the statusand distribution of wild fish inOregon have been extensive anddetailed. Periodically, the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW) publishes a statewideassessment of the status anddistribution of wild fish (ODFW1995). McIntosh and others (1994)assessed changes in fish habitat for“eastside ecosystems,” includingeastern Oregon, for the 50-yearperiod ending in 1992. Evenson andHall (1998) prepared an assessmentof southern Cascades late-succes-sional reserves, or LSRs [large areasdesignated for management topreserve and produce late-successional forests under the

Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI1994)] that contained a life history andstock status of wild fish in southwesternOregon. Anadromous fish stocks inOregon, Washington, Idaho, andCalifornia were reviewed by Nehlsonand others (1991). Williams and others(1989) published an assessment ofendangered, threatened, and special-concern fishes of North America thatincluded discussion of species inOregon. All of these authors notedsignificant declines in many fishspecies, especially anadromous species,and all attributed declines in ana-dromous fish populations to habitat lossand degradation related to dams, waterdiversions, timber harvest, livestockgrazing, and mining. Overfishing andintroduction of non-native fish and/orhatchery fish also were mentioned asreasons for declining populations/stocks. McIntosh and others (1994)noted a general trend toward loss ofanadromous fish habitat on managedlands and stable or improvingconditions on unmanaged lands.However, none of these assessments andreviewed literature noted past, present,or potential risks to fish and their

U.S

. For

est

Ser

vice

The July, 1989 Tanner Gulch Fire wiped out the entirespring Chinook run in the upper Grande Ronde River ineastern Oregon’s Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.Most of the steelhead smolt production for the year wasalso lost. This tributary stream was stripped to bedrock.

UncharacteristicWildfire Risk...

evergreenmagazine.com 43

Oregon Forests At High Or ModerateFire Risk

About 77% of Oregon’s 32 million acres of forestlandare at high [35%] or moderate [42%] risk of uncharac-teristic wildfire. By definition, the historic range ofecological conditions identified in these forests hasbeen moderately or significantly altered over time.Key ecosystem components could be lost in a wildfire.[USFS Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, Montana,http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman]

High-Moderate Fire Risk andConcurrent Distribution of Steelhead,Chinook salmon and Bull Trout

Oregon forests at high to moderate risk ofuncharacteristic wildfire also provide significantspawning and rearing habitat for several protected fishspecies—salmon, steelhead and bull trout. Thequestion many wildlife and fisheries biologists areasking is, “Should habitat losses affecting federallyprotected species be accepted without first assessingthe environmental risks associated with management?”[USFS Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, Montana,http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman and OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/data.html]

High-Moderate Fire Fish & Oregon PlanCore Areas

Oregon Core Plan Areas represent reaches orwatersheds within individual coastal basins that arejudged to be of critical importance to the sustenance ofsalmon populations that inhabit those basins. Cohosalmon are a prime concern in forested areas of high ormoderate wildfire risk in southwest Oregon—scene oflast summer’s 500,000-acre Biscuit Fire. [USFS FireSciences Laboratory, Missoula, Montana, http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman and Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/data.html]

Figure 9-1

Figure 9-2

Figure 9-3

44 EVERGREEN

habitat from uncharacteristic wildfire.In southwestern and eastern Oregon,

most habitat for anadromous fishesoccurs in forests at high risk (Figure 9-2). While less habitat occurs in forestsat moderate risk, these forests stillpresent a concern because moderaterisk can shift or evolve to high risk asfire frequencies depart from historicallevels by multiple return intervals(Table 9-1). Several core areasdesignated by the Oregon Plan(Kitzhaber 1997) in southwesternOregon occur in forested areas at highor moderate wildfire risk (Figure 9-3).The Oregon Plan’s goal is to restoresalmon and steelhead and associatedaquatic systems to a productive andsustainable state, providing enhancedenvironmental, cultural, and economicbenefits.

DiscussionSeveral experts have recentlycommented on the increase inuncharacteristic wildfire in the westernUnited States and Canada. For example,Tom Quigley, USFS scientist with thePacific Northwest Station and leader ofthe Science Assessment Team for the

Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project (which coveredan area of more than 145 million acresmostly in eastern Oregon andWashington, Idaho and westernMontana), noted in 1997 that the areaaffected by “lethal fire regimes” haddoubled in recent times. This producedan increasing threat to homes andecological integrity, including waterquality and recovery of anadromous fishspecies (Quigley and Cole 1997).

Barry T. Hill, Director, NaturalResources and Environment, U.S.General Accounting Office, has soundedseveral warnings to Congress about theincreased risk posed by uncharacteristicfire regimes. He noted in an April 1999report that experts consulted, includingUSFS personnel, expressed concern thatuncharacteristic fire regimes wouldprevent achievement of USFS multiple-use mandates because of permanent,long-term damage to watersheds, soils,and fish and wildlife habitat (Hill 1999).

In a 2001 report, he asserted thatsusceptibility to uncharacteristic fire on211 million acres (nearly one-third ofall federal lands, including those inOregon) had increased and coveredmore acres, increasing probabilities oflarge, intense wildland fires “beyondany scale yet witnessed.” That, in turn,was anticipated to dramatically increaserisks to watersheds, ecosystems, andassociated fish and wildlife species, andhuman communities (Hill 2001).

These warnings seem wellsupported. Acute environmentalimpacts immediately after uncharac-teristic wildfires have been documentedto cause direct mortality to bothanadromous and resident fish (Boehneand Gill 1990, Burton 2000). Forexample, Boehne and Gill (1990)reported the effects on salmonids fromthe high-intensity burn in the TannerGulch Fire, which occurred on theupper Grande Ronde River watershed ofthe Wallowa-Whitman National Forestfrom July 26 to August 8, 1989. Thatfire event was judged to have killed allof the 1989 adult spring Chinooksalmon in the upper Grande RondeRiver (41 adults were found dead along20 miles of river). It was estimated thatthe event also eliminated much of thesteelhead smolt production, with lowdissolved oxygen and high turbidity

named as main causes of mortality. Tenyears after the fire/flood event, thisdegraded stream reach finally started torecover (Boehne, personal communi-cation, USDA Forest Service 2001).

Burton (2000) reviewed the effects ofuncharacteristic wildfires on native fishon the Boise National Forest in Idaho,where over 525,000 acres burned from1986 to 1994. About 50% of theponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)forests burned within areas ofhistorically high frequency/lowintensity fire. He found that directmortality resulted when fire occurredat high intensity adjacent to streamsoccupied by salmonids. The FoothillsFire of 1992 produced localized fishmortality in Sheep Creek andRattlesnake Creek and resulted in theelimination of fish from some streamreaches; these were interspersed withshort stream segments containing somefish. These streams and others in theburned area were also impacted bylandslides and floods, which resulted inlosses of large woody debris, a decline inbank stability, increased fine sediment,and reduced pool frequency (see alsoChapter 5). Burton (2000) found thatwhile populations can be depressed andlocally decimated, habitat and troutpopulations could rebound significantly,sometimes within as little as five yearsafter the fire or flooding event.

Mik

e M

cMur

rayFirefighting helicopter dwarfed by smoke

plume in central Washington

44 EVERGREEN

evergreenmagazine.com 45

Condition Class 1:Low Risk

The risk of uncharacteristic wildfireis low in Condition Class 1 forests.Prescribed fire and mechanicalthinning are good tools for maintainingkey ecosystem components. TheBoise Basin Experimental Forestsnear Idaho City, Idaho is one of theWest’s finest examples of thecombined benefits of prescribed fireand periodic thinning.

Condition Class 2:Moderate Risk

Condition Class 2 forests showevidence of moderate alteration ofhistoric fire regimes. Fire frequencyhas increased or decreased from itshistoric occurrence by more than onereturn interval, resulting in moderatechanges in one or more of thefollowing conditions: fire size,frequency, intensity, severity orlandscape pattern. Historic vegetationpatterns are also changing. Hand ormechanical treatment may be neededbefore prescribed fire can bereintroduced. The trail to HemlockFalls in southwest Oregon’s UmpquaNational Forest is one such area.

Condition Class 3:High Risk

Condition Class 3 forests showevidence of significantly alteredhistoric fire regimes. Fire frequencieshave departed from their historicrange by multiple return intervals,resulting in dramatic changes in oneor more of the following conditions:fire size, frequency, intensity, severityor landscape/vegetation patterns. Keyecosystem components will be lost ininevitable wildfire. This over-stockedand diseased stand in the Fort Valleyarea west of Flagstaff, Arizona is anexcellent Condition Class 3 example.

Jim

Pet

erse

nJi

m P

eter

sen

Jim

Pet

erse

n

46 EVERGREEN

Permanent downstreambarriers to migration, suchas logjams, and potentialexposure to increased solarradiation resulting in higherwater temperatures, werebelieved to represent thegreatest risks to bull troutafter uncharacteristicwildfires (Burton 2000).

McMahon and deCalesta(1990), Rieman and others(1997), Gresswell (1999), andRieman and others (2000)also have discussed therelationships between wildfireand fish. McMahon anddeCalesta (1990) found thatthe longest-lasting and mostdramatic negative impactsfrom fire were associated withthe loss of forest cover alongstreams. The senior author ofthis chapter has recentlyobserved severely degradedhabitat for coho salmon inFlat Creek, a tributary of ElkCreek and the Rogue Riverand an Oregon Plan Core Area(Figure 9-3). This degradationresulted from the mid-July toearly August (2002) TimberedRock fire, in which manyareas, including riparianbuffers, burned uncharac-teristically in forests withhigh or moderate wildfirerisk. Rieman and others(1997) noted that uncharac-teristic wildfires sometimesproduced localized extinctionsof fish populations, particularly thosethat were of small size and/or isolated.

However, some individualpopulations are capable of surviving suchdisturbances. Continued maintenance ofdiversity of fish populations depends onthe existence of large, well-connectedpopulations and spatially complexhabitats. Rieman and others (1997)believed that if timber harvesting wereincreased to reduce risks of fire, it waspossible and even likely that streams andsalmonid populations would be damaged.They noted tradeoffs between reducingthe risks of intense fires through activemanagement and degrading habitat as aresult of executing such activities. Theymade it clear that the risks of uncharac-teristic fires to fish, as well as thepotential damage to fish and habitat ofreducing those risks through manage-ment, should be determined throughevaluation and study (which can be

called relative-risk assessment).Lurching to conclusions one way oranother under the force of emotional orpolitical rhetoric should be avoided.

It has been noted (Gresswell 1999)that long-term detrimental impacts onfish populations with resultant declinesin native fish populations have beenincreasingly related to human activities.Rieman and others (2000) noted thatalthough the characteristic low-intensity,more-frequent, smaller wildfires of thepast may have contributed to main-tenance of aquatic systems, isolated orsmall fish populations could suffer atleast in the short term from uncharac-teristic wildfire. Therefore, reducingrisks of uncharacteristic wildfires couldwell be important to short-term survivalof some fish populations, particularly inecosystems that have already beenfragmented. They note that while someargue that risks associated with active

man-agement may exceedrisks of uncharacteristic fire,fish habitat and populationrecovery may be unlikelywithout managementintervention where aquaticand surrounding terrestrialsystems have been signif-icantly changed. They go onto present a list of primaryelements that must beintegrated to guide successfulmanagement intervention.

Forest restorationproposals in support of theNational Fire Plan, includingsilviculture and prescribed fireto reduce hazards and risksassociated with unchar-acteristic wildfire, entailsanalyses and decision-makingprocesses required by theEndangered Species Act andthe Clean Water Act. Examplesof federal-agency approachesto such analyses give a pictureof current approaches tomanagement. In discussingtimber management andrelated road systems, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Serviceassumes that any effects of fireon bull trout habitat andpopulations in the SalmonRiver Recovery Unit in Idahoare subtle and less damagingthan timber managementactivities to reduce fire risks(USDI 2002). No objectiveanalysis was presented tosupport this assumption.

A relative-risk assessment such as thatsuggested by Rieman and others (1997),comparing the long-term risk to bulltrout from habitat degradation caused byuncharacteristic wildfire absent activeforest restoration, to the near-term riskof habitat degradation caused by foresthealth treatments, would provide somemeans of objective analysis. In bothcases, the primary factors are increasedsedimentation and debris flows in streamchannels, and heating of streams owingto removal of streamside cover.

The Draft Environmental ImpactStatement for the forest plan revisionfor the Boise, Payette, and SawtoothNational Forests (USDA 2000) presenteda short-term, risk-averse approach torestoration of forests prone to uncharac-teristic wildfire. The approach, stated asan assumption on pages 3-52, wasdeveloped to guide plan implementationand to be consistent with the minimum

Two very different pictures: Top, riparian zone on a Boise Cascadeplantation west of Monmouth, Oregon and, bottom, the aftermath of aflash flood that rushed down a small New Mexico stream after a standreplacing wildfire incinerated all of the vegetation along the streamcourse. Many federal biologists believe management (precautionarythinnings) in at risk forests poses a greater risk than wildfire. You decide.

Jim

Pet

erse

nJi

m P

eter

sen

evergreenmagazine.com 47

protection guides in the NationalMarine Fisheries Service and U.S.Fish and Wildlife ServiceBiological Opinions for salmonand trout. It also reflectsEnvironmental Protection Agencyprotocols for delisting water-quality-limited water bodies underSection 303d of the Clean WaterAct. The assumption was thatshort-term, risk-aversemanagement alternatives wouldbest respond to soil, water,riparian, and aquatic concerns.However, no relative-riskassessment was presented tosupport this assumption.

Brassfield and others (2002)prepared a position paperpresenting the views of theWestern Montana Level I BullTrout Team on saving fishthrough reduction of risks. Theyconcluded that any benefit frommanagement actions to reducelong-term fire risks throughlarge-scale thinning, fuel-breakconstruction, or salvage loggingto reduce fuel loading wereunsubstantiated. They believedthat fish populations would betterrespond to measures reducingimmediate risks (barriers tomovement, roads, exotic species,and fire suppression) than toprojects undertaken to reduce fireintensity or size. Again, no relative-riskassessment was presented to supportthat assumption.

There are other examples applicableto Oregon, including insufficient andselective implementation of the AquaticConservation Strategy in the NorthwestForest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994) thatillustrate the widespread application ofthe short-term, risk-averse policythroughout the Northwest by federalagencies. There is no evidence ofrelative-risk assessments associated withimplementation of the policy.

Without detailed analysis, theseexamples either discount or accept thelong-term effects of unmitigated risk ofuncharacteristic wildfire on wild fishpopulations/habitat and on long-termecosystem productivity. They eitherdiscount or ignore the observation ofRieman and others (1997) that “There isundoubtedly a point where the risk offire outweighs the risk of ourmanagement, but that point needs to bediscovered through careful evaluationand scientific study, not though theopposing powers of emotional or

political rhetoric.” They also illustratethe widespread occurrence of effectiveinstitutional and philosophical barriersto forest management throughsilviculture and prescribed fire to reducerisks of uncharacteristic fire.

These barriers make clear that the“precautionary principle”(Morris 2000) isbeing applied in decision-making relatedto uncharacteristic wildfire risk and fishconservation in Oregon and elsewhere inthe Northwest. The principle demandsno action unless there is certainty noharm will result. The embodiment of theprinciple is the short-term, risk-aversepolicy of federal agencies that implementthe Endangered Species Act and theClean Water Act. As applied, the principleignores, without inquiry, the potentialharm from inaction. In a real sense, suchdecisions are based on ignorance ratherthan on knowledge and experience. Anexception is the South Cascades LateSuccessional Reserve Assessment(Evenson and Hall 1998), which clearlystates criteria to be met for silviculturaltreatments to take place in LSRs. First,adverse short-term impacts to late-

successional species must bedetermined to be less significantthan the long-term benefits tothose species, and second, suchactivities must not deteriorate theshort-term function of the LSR tosustain species. Assessment procedures discussedby Harkins and others (1999),Burton and others (1999), andFarris and others (1999) couldand should be applied. It seemslikely that such assessmentswould facilitate the necessaryrelative short- and long-term riskdeterminations.

ConclusionJack Blackwell (2001) (he wasthen Regional Forester of theForest Service IntermountainRegion) noted the frustration,anxiety, and feelings ofhelplessness experienced bypersonnel in his agency workingwith current interagencyprocesses to determine impactsof management activities onthreatened and endangeredspecies. He also noted thatprojects anticipated by the USFSto have long-term benefits toecosystems and species were oftenrejected by the regulatoryagencies (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and National Marine

Fisheries Service) because of theoverriding concerns of these agenciesover short-term effects. The regulatoryagencies’ short-term, risk-averseapproach, with little attention to thelong-term consequences of no action,made it increasingly difficult formanagers to bring projects to fruition.

It is our opinion that short-termprotection for species and water qualitythat blocks forest management to reducelong-term hazards and risks fromuncharacteristic fire (Figures 9-2 and 9-3)could cause unintended, long-termdetrimental effects to those sameresources resulting from unmitigatedhazards and risks. Ironically, theprecautionary principle-driven short-term,risk-averse policy could lead to long-termdeterioration of the very resources thelaws are intended to protect (New 2001).One remedy is to develop and apply toolsdesigned to compare the relative risks ofhabitat degradation in the near termcaused by forest health treatments toreduce the likelihood of uncharacteristicwildfire, and habitat degradation in thelong term from uncharacteristic wildfire

Mechanical harvesters, like this John Deere/Timberjackmachine, are excellent tools for thinning in overstocked forests—but only if the area in which the machine is working is largeenough to yield sufficient timber to cover its operating costs.The machine (which is operating in one of Alberta’s provincialforests) cuts, debarks and cuts logs to specified lengths—allin a single motion.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

48 EVERGREEN

that would result in the absence oftreatment. Risk assessments shouldbe conducted based on currentpractices, knowledge, experience,and technology for silviculture,road construction, and firemanagement. Assessments basedon effects of dated and unusedpractices would distort conclusionsabout contempory practices.

Conservation biology deals, inpart, with protecting decliningspecies (Meffe and Carroll 1997).Experience indicates that oneof the greatest threats to suchspecies is the risk of stochasticevents such as uncharacteristicwildfire. This aspect of theimpacts of uncharacteristicwildfire in Oregon (or elsewhere)has received, with few exceptions,little attention from conservationbiologists and from agencies.Lacking needed attention,assessments of long-term risksof habitat degradation caused byuncharacteristic wildfire resultingfrom “no-action” managementare generally absent, whileassessments of near-term risksof habitat degradation fromtreatments to mitigate risks fromuncharacteristic wildfire arelargely inadequate. The real risksof both approaches must beassessed, compared, andunderstood in order to sustainfederally listed and other speciesat risk in forests vulnerable touncharacteristic wildfire. Specificmethods and tools are critically neededfor assessing the relative far-and near-term risks and benefits of managementtreatments in these forests. Primarygoals of the Oregon Plan, the OregonState Board of Forestry, and the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife are theprotection, maintenance, and restorationof native fish and of biological diversity.These goals seem elusive withoutmethods for analyzing relative risks andapplying results.

The requirements of the EndangeredSpecies Act often appear to dictatepreservation of habitat, which is likelythe easy part. The real test comes inwhat occurs as the habitat changes overtime. This consideration challenges thesuitability of near-term, risk-aversepreservation. Federal land managementdecisions liberated from the precau-tionary principle could be greatlyenhanced by comparison of risks ofcontemporary restoration treatments

with those associated with the absence ofsuch treatments. This all presents aparadox, which is perhaps the inherentAchilles heel of the Endangered SpeciesAct and other environmental laws. Thatparadox, unless faced squarely, couldultimately thwart the achievement of thenoble purpose of the Act: “…to providea means whereby the ecosystems uponwhich endangered species andthreatened species may be conserved…”A paradox is a statement that appearscontradictory or unsupported bycommon sense but is nevertheless true.The common sense underlying mostcurrent management actions related tothe Endangered Species Act is (1) thatpreserving habitat for listed species iscritical, and (2) that the best or only wayto preserve habitat is to preserve theecosystem(s) on which the speciesdepend. It may seem contradictory to saythat altering the habitat is essential toits long-term maintenance. However, it

seems that alteration may beexactly what is indicated by atleast some assessments of relativerisks. In such cases, managersmust be prepared to accept theparadox and act.

This discussion should not beinterpreted as an assault on theEndangered Species Act. Whilewe concur with its purpose, it istime, and likely far past time, toexamine what has evolved overthe three decades since itspassage, in terms of both judicialinterpretation and managerialimplementation. In particular,regulatory-agency reliance on theprecautionary principle expressedas a short-term, risk-averse policyshould be reviewed in contextwith the absence of relative riskassessments, while the long-termlikelihood of uncharacteristicwildfires and resulting harm tolisted species and to water qualityincreases.

In the spirit of adaptivemanagement, particularly inconsidering short- and long-term risks and benefits, it is timefor a new vision and an alteredapproach that provides anupdated ecological context forimplementing the EndangeredSpecies Act. More to the point, itis past time to update the eco-logical context of the Act andits implementing rules andregulations. A requirement forrelative risk assessments should

be a significant part of the update.In summary, much of Oregon’s

anadromous fish and bull trout habitatoccurs in its eastern and southwesternregions where forests are generallyat high risk from uncharacteristicwildfires. Precautionary principle-driven, short-term protection for listedspecies and water, coupled withpolicies that block forest managementdirected at reducing long-term damagefrom uncharacteristic fire, may causelong-term harm to those sameresources because of unmitigatedhazards and risks. Until relative-riskassessments are completed thatcompare the effects of forestrestoration with those of managementinaction, the prospects for survival andrecovery of a vital part of Oregon’snative fish legacy will remainunknown. Completion of suchassessments must become one of thestate’s top conservation priorities.

This beautiful stream in Oregon’s Mt. Hood National Forest lieswithin the municipal watershed that serves much of Portland.For years, scientists have warned that wildfire is inevitable if thewatershed isn’t thinned. But there is strong resistance tothinning from residents in the Portland area who fear thinningwould hurt water quality. No fire yet.

Jim

Pet

erse

n

evergreenmagazine.com 49

a E = endangered, T = threatened, P = proposed for listing, C = candidate species, S = species of special concern with conservation agreements, N = not listed, A = not applicable.b E = endangered, T = threatened, P = proposed for listing, C = candidate species, S = species of special concern with conservation agreements.

Chinook salmon Snake R., Sp/Su T T NMFS Snake R., Fa T T NMFS U. Willamette R., Sp N T NMFS L. Columbia R. N T NMFS U. Columbia R., Sp (WA) A E NMFS

Coho Salmon S. Oregon, N. California N T NMFS Oregon Coast N T NMFS L. Columbia R. E C NMFS

Sockeye salmon Snake R. A E NMFS

Chum salmon Columbia R. N T NMFS

Steelhead U. Columbia R. (WA) A E NMFS Snake R. N T NMFS L. Columbia R. N T NMFS M. Columbia R. N T NMFS U. Willamette R. N T NMFS Klamath Mt. Province — C NMFS Oregon Coast — C NMFS

Goose Lk. redband trout — N USFWS

Cutthroat Umpqua R. (sea run) N E USFWS Lahontan T T USFWS L. Columbia coastal (SW WA) A P USFWS Oregon coastal — C USFWS

Bull trout Klamath R. N T USFWS Columbia R. N T USFWS

Non-game Fish SpeciesOregon chub N E USFWSBorax L. chub E E USFWSLost R. sucker E E USFWSShortnose sucker E E USFWSHutton Spring tui chub T T USFWSWarner sucker T T USFWSFoskett speckled dace T T USFWSCatlow tui chub — S USFWSCowhead Lk. tui chub — S USFWSGoose Lk. Sucker — S USFWSGoose Lk. Lamprey — S USFWSPit roach — S USFWS

LISTED FISH SPECIES IN OREGONCommon name ODFW status Federal status Federal agencypopulation segment

Bon

nevi

lle P

ower

Adm

inis

trat

ion

A spawning salmon

evergreenmagazine.com 49

50 EVERGREEN

LITERATURE CITED

Blackwell, JA. 2001. April 30. Letter (file designation 2670) to the Chiefon ESA Consultation. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region,Ogden UT.

Boehne, PL, and R Gill. 1990. Tanner Gulch Fire RehabilitationAccomplishments Report, 1989 and 1990. USDA Forest Service, LaGrande Ranger District Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, La GrandeOR.

Brassfield, R, J Brammer, J Carlson, J Christensen, S Phillips, BRiggers, L Walch, and K Walker. 2002. Reducing Fire Risks to SaveFish—A Question of Risk. A position paper by the Western MontanaLevel I Bull Trout Team. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region,Missoula MT.

Burton, T. 2000. Effects of Uncharacteristically Large and IntenseWildfires on Native Fish: 14 Years of Observations. USDA ForestService, Boise National Forest, Boise ID.

Burton, TA, D Dether, J Erickson, J Frost, L Morelan, W Rush, JThornton, C Weiland, and L Neuenschwander. 1999. Resources at risk:a fire-based hazard/risk assessment for the Boise National Forest, inProceedings from the Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop,June 15-17, Boise ID, L Neuenschwander and L Ryan, eds. Universityof Idaho, Moscow and the International Association of Wildland Fire,Fairfield WA.

Evenson, R, and P Hall. 1998. Appendix B: fish life history and stockstatus, in South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment.USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest and USDI Bureau ofLand Management, Roseburg District. Roseburg OR.

Farris, CA, C Pezeshki, and L Neuenschwander. 1999. A comparison offire probability maps derived from GIS modeling and direct simulationtechniques, in Proceedings from the Joint Fire Science Conference andWorkshop, June 15-17, Boise ID, L Neuenschwander and L Ryan, eds.University of Idaho, Moscow and the International Association ofWildland Fire, Fairfield WA.

Gresswell, RE. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomesof North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:193-221.

Harkins, KC, P Morgan, L Neuenschwander, A Chrisman, A Zack, CJacobson, and M Grant. 1999. The Idaho Panhandle National Forest’swildfire hazard-risk assessment, in Proceedings from the Joint FireScience Conference and Workshop, June 15-17, Boise ID, LNeuenschwander and L Ryan, eds. University of Idaho, Moscow andthe International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield WA.

Hill, BT. 1999. Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy isNeeded to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. Report to theSubcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee onResources, House of Representatives. GAO/RCED-99-65. U.S.General Accounting Office, Washington DC.

Hill, BT. 2001. The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies are notOrganized to Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan. Report tothe Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee onResources, House of Representatives. GAO-01-1022T. U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, Washington DC.

Kitzhaber, J. 2001. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.Governor’s Natural Resource Office, Capitol Building, Salem.

Laverty, L, and J Williams. 2000. Protecting People and SustainingResources in Fire-adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. April 13draft response to GAO report GAO/RCED-99-65. USDA ForestService, Washington DC.

Laverty, L, J Williams, and M Dombeck. 2000. Protecting People andSustaining Resources in Fire-adapted Ecosystems: A CohesiveStrategy. October 13 final response to GAO Report GAO/RCED-99-65.USDA Forest Service, Washington DC.

McIntosh, BA, J Sedell, J Smith, R Wissmar, S Clarke, G Reeves, andL Brown. 1994. Management History of Eastside Ecosystems: Changesin Fish Habitat Over 50 Years, 1935 to 1992. General Technical ReportPNW-GTR-321. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation, Portland OR.

McMahon, TE, and D deCalesta. 1990. Effects of fire on fish andwildlife, in Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest Forests, JWalstead, S Radosvich, and D Sandberg, eds. Oregon State UniversityPress, Corvallis.

Meffe, GK, and CR Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology.Second edition. Sinaur Associates, Inc., Sunderland MA.

Morris, J. 2000. Defining the precautionary principle, in Rethinking Riskand the Precautionary Principle, J Morris, ed. Butterworth-Heinemann,Woburn MA.

Nehlson, W, JE Williams, and JA Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon atthe crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, andWashington. Fisheries 16(2): 4-21.

New, DA. 2001. Comments on the DEIS for the Boise National Forest,Payette National Forest, and Sawtooth National Forest Plan Revision.Boise Cascade Corporation, Boise ID.

ODFW. 1995. 1995 Biennial Report on the Status of Wild Fish inOregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland.

Quigley, TM, and H Bigler Cole. 1997. Highlighted Scientific Findings ofthe Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. GeneralTechnical Report PNW-GTR-404. USDA Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station and USDI Bureau of Land Management,Portland OR.

Rieman, BE, D Lee, D Myers, and G Chandler. 1997. Does wildfirethreaten extinction for salmonoids? Responses of redband trout andbull trout following recent large fires on the Boise National Forest, inProceedings of the Conference: Fire Effects on Threatened andEndangered Species and Habitats, November 13-16, Coeur d’Alene ID,J Greenlee, ed. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield WA.

Rieman, BE, D Lee, R Thurow, P Hessburg, and J Sedell. 2000. Towardan integrated classification of ecosystems: defining opportunities formanaging fish and forest health. Environmental Management 25(4):425-444.

Schmidt, KM, J Menakis, C Hardy, W Hann, and D Bunnell. 2002.Development of Coarse-scale Data for Wildland Fire and FuelManagement. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-87. USDA ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden UT.

USDA. 2000. Boise, Payette and Sawtooth National Forests DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement: Southwest Idaho Ecogroup ForestPlan Revision Project. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region,Ogden UT.

USDA and USDI. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to ForestService and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents withinthe Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service andUSDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland OR.

USDA and USDI. 2000. Managing the Impact of Wildfires onCommunities and the Environment, A Report to the President inResponse to the Wildfires of 2000. Secretaries of Agriculture and ofInterior, Washington DC.

USDI. 2002. Draft Recovery Plan for the Bull Trout in the ConterminousUnited States: Salmon River Recovery Unit, Idaho. USDI Fish andWildlife Service, Idaho State Office, Boise.

Williams, JE, J Johnson, D Hendrickson, S Contreras-Balderas, JDWilliams, M Navarro-Mendoza, D McAllister, and J Deacon. 1989.Fishes of North America, endangered, threatened, or of specialconcern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6): 2-20.

50 EVERGREEN

evergreenmagazine.com 51

In America today there is a largeand growing resource linkage problem.Our largely urbanized culture (80% ofAmericans now live in urban areas) haslost track of where their ‘stuff’ comesfrom. We’ve all laughed at society’sperceptions that ‘milk comes in acarton at Safeway’ and ‘boards just showup at Home Depot.’ However, thisdisconnection between consumptionand production is problematic for allinvolved in addressing the difficultdecisions we face in protecting thenatural environment while providingthe products society consumes. It isespecially problematic for those of uswho live in, work in, love and managethe environment.

This disconnect is hardly one sided.The realities of living in inner-citycircumstances differ substantially fromthose in rural areas and we often knowlittle about the environmental settingsof our urban counterparts and the basisfor their thinking on resource man-agement issues such as forestry.

There is a program, Provider Pals™,that is designed to address this problem.The project has one very simple goal:build a common-ground bridge ofunderstanding between the culture ofinner-city urban youth and the cultureof rural resource providing environ-mental stewards.

The program has four major areasof activity.

Adopting a ProviderUrban middle schools are selected

in which to introduce the program.At each of the schools, individualteachers in the disciplines of eitherscience or social studies have beenchosen to present Provider Pals™ totheir daily classes.

In the fall, each classroom chooses aresource providing culture (farming,ranching, logging, mining, fishing) tolearn about. Provider Pals™ pairs thisdesire with a ‘Provider’ who is intro-duced to the students via video,letters, photo albums, and theInternet. The students, in essence,‘adopt’ the Provider. The ProviderPal™ program also offers teachingtools to enable instructors to teachabout our rural cultures and themodern processes of resource man-agement that yield the every dayproducts consumed or used by society.

The exchange of informationculminates in a one-day face-to-facespringtime meeting between theProvider and his or her Pals. EachProvider will travel to their res-pective city, meet the students, andlearn about the urban culture.Providers will bring their culturalwork attire to the classroom to havethe students ‘walk in their shoes’ anda photo will be taken and presentedto each student in such attire. Toconclude the program, Providers willoffer the students a personalizedcertificate proclaiming them a‘Provider Pal™.’

Cities involved during the initialyear include Washington, D.C., Libby,Montana, New York City, Detroit,Little Rock, and Oakland, California.

Rural Students Visit the CitySelected rural schools will provide

the names of potential students toparticipate in a five-day cultural visitwith their urban peers. The programis structured to allow the rural

students time to meet with urbanstudents in a classroom setting, enjoya historical learning tour of the city,spend time visiting a manufacturingfacility, and share in urban culturalevents such as symphonies andprofessional sporting events.

Summer ProgramStudents from each of the urban

areas will be paired with rural studentsfrom northwest Montana for a week offun and learning in a rural setting. In2003, the summer program for over 120students will be held at the HistoricRaven Natural Resource LearningCenter in northwest Montana. Thelearning experience will be built aroundvisits to farms, ranches, mines, plywoodplants, sawmills and logging jobs.

The WebTo supplement and complement the

classroom and summer camp learningexperiences, the Provider Pal™ websiteprovides continually updated inform-ation pertaining to each of the resourcecultures represented by the adoptedProviders.

The Provider Pal™ program wassuccessfully test run in Montana andWashington, D.C. and gained theattention of the media. The Wall StreetJournal called it ‘the most excitingschool initiative in years.’ Ford MotorCompany agrees and has given ProviderPals™ a $1.5 million donation over threeyears to build and expand the program.With additional funding in the comingyears, new classrooms, schools andproviders can be engaged.

In a nation as large and diverse asAmerica, it is important that we havean understanding and an appreciationof our common ground and ourdifferences. In gaining this under-standing and appreciation we must havescience-based information that isprovided in understandable form inexcellent publications such as TheEvergreen Magazine. In the process ofbringing this information to the public,however, there is no substitute for apersonalized, human connection.

If you are interested in supportingProvider Pals™ with funding or withyour time, please visit our website atwww.providerpals.com; or contact usat (406)293-8822; or e-mail us atppals@libby.org.

By Bruce Vincent

PROVIDERPALS

“Being adopted and meeting the kids in class isone of the great experiences of my life”

Mike Poulson Washington State

evergreenmagazine.com 51

52 EVERGREEN

In late 2002 PotlatchCorporation completed third-party certification of thecompany’s 1.5 million acres offorestland in Idaho, Arkansasand Minnesota under both theInternational Organization forStandardization (ISO) 14001Environmental ManagementSystem (EMS) requirements andthe Sustainable ForestryInitiative (SFI SM) 2002-2004standards. Although we regardthird-party certification as alogical extension of Potlatch’scultural heritageof high

By John R. Olson, Vice PresidentResource Management DivisionPotlatch Corporation

Forestland Certification: Meeting Society’s ExpectationsWhile Expanding Shareholder Value

Tom

Tra

cy

Potlatch’s Idaho forestlands encompass popularrecreation areas like Dworshak Reservoir, a primeresidential and private recreational development. Underprovisions of the proposed conservation easement, suchareas will be protected in perpetuity from other uses thatare incompatible with forestry and public access.

52 EVERGREEN

evergreenmagazine.com 53

stewardship standards it also sup-ports our broadening perspective ofthe values our forestland representsto our shareholders and society.

Third party certification shouldconvey a clear message to societythat Potlatch is fully committedto the principles of sustainability,which we believe is also a lynchpinfor capturing potential newrevenues streams from ourvaluable timberland asset.Perhaps the best way to illustratethis connection is to outline ourrecent agreement with the TrustFor Public Land (TPL).

Just a few days after completionof the last regional audit forcertification, Potlatch joinedforces with the TPL in effort tocollaborate in the developmentof one of the nation’s largest“working forest” conservationeasements. Under this agreementwith TPL, we have committed toworking together to evaluateimportant conservation areas inNorth Idaho and, over a period ofseveral years, secure adequatefunding for implementing con-servation easements on much of thecompany’s 670,000 acres. Terms ofthese easements will assure that thelands enrolled are sustainablymanaged for timber production inperpetuity. At the same time, theeasements will secure the future ofimportant non-timber values suchas fish and wildlife habitat andrecreation by forever protecting theselands from development and con-version to incompatible land uses.

In exchange for accepting certainrestrictions on the use of our landsincluded in the easements, Potlatchwill receive compensation based onan independent, fair-market appraisalof foregone value. Funding for thepurchase of the easements will beraised through public and privatesources using TPL’s expertise in thisarea. Once completed, the easementswill be maintained as part thenational Forest Legacy Program, acongressionally created partnershipwith the states designed to protectprivate forestland from developmentthat is inconsistent with timberproduction and maintenance of keynon-timber values as well as publicaccess and recreation. This federallyfunded program is administered by

the states in cooperation with the U.S.Forest Service.

Without a structured performancecertification process and the manage-ment practices it sets in place, anagreement of this kind would havebeen much more difficult, if notimpossible, to reach.

Potlatch regards the partneringagreement with TPL as a win-win forsociety and our shareholders.

Established in 1972, TPL hasalready helped protect more than1.4 million acres nationwide byaddressing the financial interests ofprivate landowners in preservingparks, greenways, community gardensand urban playgrounds. They havebeen especially successful in bothfinding and funding workingeasements on ranches, farms andtimberlands and have completedseveral such projects in Idaho.

Supporters of TPL’s approach toprotecting forests and natural areasfrom development activity includeIdaho’s congressional delegation andits governor, all of whom view it as away of preserving local economieswhile assuring protection of forestvalues, recreation and public access.Private landowners appreciate the

fact that TPL’s approach offerscompensation for such assurances,a truly market based solution tothis social concern. TPL hasbeen instrumental in arrangingfinancing for conservation effortsthrough grants from private insti-tutions and individuals as well asgovernment programs.

The Forest Legacy Programitself provides significant fundingannually to states enrolled in thisprogram. In 2002, for example,Congress appropriated $65 millionnationally for these projects. Weexpect the Forest Legacy Programwill be a strong source for fundingof the conservation easements onPotlatch’s Idaho lands.

Certification has proveninstrumental for the initiation ofthe Potlatch-TPL project, and wealso believe it can open the door toother sources of revenue from ourforestland, sources we think offeropportunities to integrate society’sexpectations with the interests ofour shareholders.

It is in the best interest ofPotlatch’s shareholders to promote

and maintain public acceptance andtrust. Public perceptions areinstrumental in the formationof public policy, which directly andindirectly influences our ability toactively manage our lands and thusour company’s profitability. Thepublic now demands that privateforestland owners manage theirtimber resources in an environ-mentally sound and sustainableway and, increasingly, to address awidening range of non-timber values—everything from protection ofthreatened or endangered species topreservation of unique landscapes andrecreation sites. In recent years, thepublic’s demands and expectationshave been brought to bear on con-sumer choices as well. Because oftheir importance from both a marketand a public policy perspective, publicperceptions and expectations arecarefully considered in Potlatch’sbusiness planning.

For most of the 20th century,claims and counterclaims from theforest products industry and itsdetractors have resulted in a battleof words and pictures aimed atinfluencing public perceptions and,ultimately, public policy. Sadly, truth

Tom

Tra

cy

Potlatch has a long tradition of voluntarily recognizingand protecting special places like Walker Park, a statelygrove of old western red cedars in north central Idaho.The grove was reserved for the public’s enjoymentseveral decades ago. SFI’s 2002-2004 certificationstandards recognize unique areas like Walker.

54 EVERGREEN

is often the first casualty in such abattle, which has produced a publicweary of the conflicting claims byboth sides and a longing for objectivevalidation that industry practicesmeet these higher standards ofenvironmental performance,particularly on private industrialforestlands.

Third-party verification providesassurance that privateforest owners’ practicesare consistent with anaccepted, independentset of environmentalstandards, processes andrequirements, whichoffer segments of thepublic what they haveindicated they desire.While a number oforganizations havearisen in the last fewyears to provide this typeof verification throughvarious certificationschemes, there arecurrently only twoprominent players inthe United States: TheForest StewardshipCouncil (FSC) and theSustainable ForestryInitiative (SFI).

We believe that the AmericanForest & Paper Association’sSustainable Forestry Initiative hasestablished a credible certificationprogram based on accepted forestrypractices and good science. As long-time supporters of SFI, Potlatch hasbeen a participant in the program’sevolution.

Clearly, the forest productsindustry is large and diverse and, as aresult, the SFI program is a productof that diversity. This past year theSFI program earned added credibilitythrough a significant upgrade of itsperformance standard. The standard’senhanced on-the-ground perfor-mance measures include: protectingforests of exceptional conservationvalue, addressing procurement of allwood and fiber and establishing aunited stand on elimination of illegallogging. SFI’s six principles, 11objectives, 34 performance measuresand 118 core indicators assure sus-tainability and much, much more.

We believe the program nowadequately addresses the public’sperformance expectations within astructured framework that permits

Potlatch and the industry tocontinue its primary role as asupplier of wood fiber to society.

There is a perception, widelyheld by many environmental non-governmental organizations, that theForest Stewardship Council require-ments for certification are moreenvironmentally stringent thanSFI’s. That perception, for better or

worse, has translated into politicaland market pressures that have ledsome large retailers and somecustomers to openly express apreference for FSC certifiedmaterials and, in rare instances ,even demonstrate a willingness topay a premium for such products.Some argue that this may be ana emerging trend on the part oflarge retailers, although it can belegitimately argued that most rank-and-file consumers have not yetdemonstrated a willingness to paya premium for certified wood orpaper products.

From the primary producers’perspective, however, it is becomingincreasingly apparent that certif-ication will become the price foraccess to certain markets. Longer-term it may become a broaderstandard for entry to all wood andpaper markets worldwide. It justmakes good business sense for usto view such market trends asopportunities and prepare to takeadvantage of them using a certif-ication system that is most applicableto capturing that potential.

At Potlatch, since the mid-1970s,we have been developing a con-ceptual model for managing ourforest resources that recognizes theimportance of non-timber resourcessuch as soil, water and wildlifehabitat. We have employed pro-fessionals in hydrology and wildlifebiology and were among the first todevelop and integrate a Geographic

Information System(GIS) into all aspectsof land management.In the 1990s, we alsoincorporated non-timber resourceinformation into theGIS, thus allowing ourland managers toevaluate land man-agement decisionsfrom many resourceperspectives. Potlatchhas recently made animportant organi-zational change byestablishing ourresource managementprogram as a separateprofit center within thecompany, allowing ourresource managers tomake independent,long-range management

decisions using the most currentinformation about the timber andnon-timber resources involved.

This combination of businessstructure, professional skills and ouruse of emerging technology providedPotlatch with the tools needed toprogress to forest certification, andalso set the stage for a new approachto forestland management thatencompasses a growing range of newrevenue opportunities, includingmarketing certified wood products.

Though strong supporters of theSFI program, we have nonethelesskept an open mind on the applic-ability of alternative certificationapproaches and on making decisionsthat best meet our business goals.Our Boardman, Oregon hybrid poplarplantation is one example. Potlatchbegan the Boardman operation in theearly 1990s to supplement fibersupply for our Lewiston, Idaho pulpmill. This operation utilizes agri-cultural practices in an arid, non-forest environment to producehardwood fiber. When the con-traction of Northwest pulp pro-duction significantly depressed

Tom

Tra

cy

This rare and beautiful wildflower, the “Potlatch” Phlox, was discovered oncompany land in northern Idaho some years ago. In the 1990s, Potlatch workedwith the state of Idaho to assure its protection.

evergreenmagazine.com 55

residual chip prices, we identifieda promising new niche market forFSC-certified hardwood logs for usein non-structural hardwood lumberapplications such as furnitureframing. Because the SFI programis structured around forest manage-ment practices and does notincorporate agricultural approachesto fiber production, we consideredthe FSC’s plantationcertification program.It also offered Boardmana viable marketingopportunity. Boardman’seventual certification byFSC in 2001 was thatorganization’s firstcertification of anintensively managedplantation in NorthAmerica. Although weintend to also certifythe operation underthe ISO 14001 program,FSC represented agood solution to animmediate businesschallenge.

One of the primarycriticisms of SFIcontinues to be itsapparent lack ofindependence fromindustry. Those of us who haveworked with that program, however,refute that claim by noting that SFI’sgoverning board, the SustainableForestry Board, is now totallyseparated from AF&PA and consistsof such diverse interests as environ-mental and conservation groups,public officials, professional andacademic group and independentlandowners and loggers. The boardnow “owns” the SFI standard, theapplication and certification of whichrequires repeated on-the-groundexaminations of field performance.

At Potlatch we believe certifi-cation standards—regardless of theirsponsorship—can best be achievedand maintained through applicationof a rigorous EnvironmentalManagement System (EMS) thatensures ongoing self-evaluations andcontinual improvement. We madethe decision to work with theInternational Organization forStandardization (ISO) 14001 EMSprocess and to seek third-partyverification that our EMS isconsistent with those standards.

We were fortunate to already have

in place a set of demanding internalenvironmental management stan-dards that addressed such issues asstreamside zones, water quality andthreatened and endangered species.The company voluntarily initiatedthese standards of performancebecause we have had a long-standingcommitment to a strong land ethic.We would also be the first to state

that our manage-ment philosophyhas and will continue to evolve andwill be in-fluenced to some degreeby public expectations. We believethis is essential for naturalresource based companies likePotlatch.

We are convinced that ourstandards and field performancewill improve as a result of thefollow-up, auditing and the double-checking defined by the ISO 14001program. In actual practice, thishas proven to be the case as ourprofessionals have incorporatedEMS-related experience in theirresource planning and managementactivities.

Potlatch chose to certify underthe newer SFI 2002-2004 standard,which as was just noted reflectsexpansion and improvement ofvarious on-the-ground require-ments. This combination of an ISO14001 EMS and the newer SFIstandards, we believe, provides oneof the strongest certificationprograms that is available today.

The opportunity to reinforce ourbelief arose in mid-2002 when the

respected Pinchot Institute invitedPotlatch to participate, along withvarious Pacific Northwest stateand tribal forest landowners andmanagers, in a comparison of itsIdaho timberland managementunder the two primary forestcertification schemes—SFI andFSC. The invitation appealed to usbecause no other private industrial

forestland manage-ment organization inthe U.S. has undergonesuch a comparison andbecause we have hadexperience with bothSFI and FSC. We donot view the dualassessment as acompetition betweenthe certificationschemes; both haveboth real and perceivedstrengths and weak-nesses. But we doexpect that the PinchotInstitute study willprovide us with aunique opportunity tocompare not only theschemes themselves,but also the differencesin applicability andapplication of their

audit protocols and processes.Our desire is to participate as anindustrial forestland manager andoffer perspectives that should helpcontinual improvement of bothFSC and SFI. The results of thePinchot study should be publishedsometime in late 2003.

Where forestland certificationmay ultimately lead is impossibleto predict. At Potlatch we view itas an opportunity to build on ourlong-standing commitment tosound forest stewardship by em-ploying new information andtechnology in the quest forcontinuous improvement.

In doing so, we believe we canbetter meet both our shareholder’sand society’s changing expectationsfor forestland management, thusgaining the public acceptance andtrust necessary to continue tooperate in an economically viablemanner. At the same time, certifi-cation provides us yet another toolfor exploring new revenue streamsfor our shareholders by capturingpreviously unrealized resourcevalues.

Tom

Tra

cy

Potlatch’s 670,000-acre Idaho forest contains some of the region’s most productivetimberland—a result of fertile ash deposits that fell across the region following theeruption of southern Oregon’s Mount Mazama some 6,800 years ago.

www.evergreenmagazine.comwww.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/list.htmwww.fs.fed.uswww.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/scripts/ew.htmwww.nifc.gov/statswww.nifc.gov/fireinfo/nfn.htmlwww.uidaho.edu/cfwr/pagwww.ars.usda.gov/is/np/eightyyearsdoc.pdfwww.fpl.fs.fed.uswww.natlforests.org/www.FSX.orgwww.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/sect1.htmlwww.treesaretheanswer.comwww.greenspirit.comwww.beconstructive.com.index.aspwww.forestprod.orgwww.fpl.fs.fed.uswww.cwc.ca/sitemap.phpwww.afandpa.orgwww.aboutsfi.org/core.aspwww.csa-interenational.org/certification/forestry/www.fsccanada.orgwww.iso.chwww.CertificationCanada.orgwww.forestinformation.com/index.aspwww.providerpals.comwww.forestweb.comwww.afrc.ws/www.fao.org/forestry/index.jsp?lang=1www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/iab/forest_products

/page1.html

Web links to “The Truth”

Lematta FoundationCaterpillar CorporationCenter Lumber & Hardware Co.Fruit Growers Supply Co.International Forest ProductsLevanen, Inc.Morbark, Inc.New England Forestry ConsultantsNorthern Crossarm Co., Inc.Washington Contract Loggers Assn.Reforestation Services, Inc.Stratton Lumber, Inc.Timber Products CompanyWeyerhaeuser Company FoundationMadison Lumber & Hardware, Inc.Boise – International Falls, MNWisconsin Society of American ForestersArledge Logging & TimberBailey’sBailey TimberlandsBarclay Family, LLCBarkell Trucking, Inc.Curtis H. BauerKimal Lumber Co.California Forestry AssociationRon BlackwelderJudy BolingA.B. Logging, Inc.Longview Fibre Co.John BradfieldGeorge E. BradshawArch Wood ProtectionBaillie Lumber Co.Fiber Industry Consultants, Ltd.Temple-Inland FPCClifford M. BrydenF.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co.John R. CainDennis J. Caird & AssociatesTrue & Liane CarrMill River Lumber, Ltd.Smurfit Stone Container CorporationBig Walluski Tree FarmHarry ClarkWagner Forest ManagementDana H. CollinsPine River Lumber Co., Ltd.Blaine L. CornellAmerican Forest & Paper AssociationLithia MotorsDePratu FordDodson’s LoggingCharles K. Doolittle, Inc.Allen DummlerSierra Forest ProductsEgolf Forest Harvesting, Inc.Idaho Forest Products CommissionMontana Wood Products AssociationE Tree FarmsFallon Logging Co., Inc.Multiple Use AssociationBrooks Manufacturing Co.Alan C. GoudyGrau Logs & Lumber, Inc.Mountain Fir Chip CompanySteve Gress Forestry ServicesBill HallstromJohn O. HalvorsenWashington Farm Forestry AssociationH & H TransportFuture Forestry Products, Inc.Western Wood Preservers InstituteDenver Reel & Pallet Co.Clark HofmannHolce Logging Co., Inc.Michael B. HuddlestonRuss HudsonHuffman Logging, Inc.Mary Lou & J.R. HulbertBridger Forest ProductsOwens & Hurst Lumber Co.

The Evergreen Foundation

Sponsors

Tigercat Industries, Inc.Leigh JohnsonCalifornia Redwood ProductsKearney Logging & Sawmill, Inc.Kelly Logging, Inc.James KlesackBally Block CompanyMenasha Forest Products CorporationLeaman FoundationRichard & Jakie LewisA.W. Madden, Inc.Stephen F. Madden LoggingFox Hill Co., Inc.J.A. MartinWood Promotion NetworkForest Land Services, Inc.Timber Data Co.Ian McElroy TruckingRick MeyerMarks-Miller Post & Pole, Inc.Northeastern Loggers Association, Inc.Three Rivers Timber, Inc.Panel Center, Inc.Jack A. NelsonBoise – Boise, IDJim NicholsonDarb Hill Tree FarmRichard NorvellPine Marten LoggingStreamline TimberFir Acres Tree FarmMeadWestvaco CorporationRodman H. PeilSilver City Lumber, Inc.Idaho Women in TimberOregon Overseas Timber Co.Laura RankinShamrock EnterprisesPlum CreekNorthern Arizona Loggers AssociationLanse RichardsonRobbins Lumber, Inc.Roberts Timber Co., Inc.Sage Custom Logging & ExcavationJack SalterCotton-Hanlon, Inc.F. June SchaertlGarry SchmidtAndy ShaneyBrad & Laura SheehanColumbia Forest ProductsBrockway-Smith CompanyBuse Timber & SalesL.D. McFarland CompanyIFA Nurseries, Inc.Black Hills Power Equipment, Inc.Studer Management ServicesRod SwansonMaibec Industries, Inc.Weyerhaeuser Co. – Long Beach, CA.Templin Forestry, Inc.Idaho Department of LandsDakota Craft, Inc.Karamu CorporationFlorida Wood CouncilEric WagnerSnow Peak Veneer SalesBearhaven ConsultingKaiser Timber, Inc.Karl F. WengerLam-Wood Systems, Inc.Westbrook Land & Timber, LLCJim V. WhiteW.F. WiegerQuercus Forest ProductsSealaska CorporationLow Country Forest Products, Inc.California Forest Products CommissionValley of the Rogue DairyZuber, Inc.Joseph Zylinsky

The Evergreen Foundation is a non-profit501(c)(3) corporation dedicated to the advancementof science-based forestry and forest policy. Wepublish Evergreen Magazine periodically to keepFoundation members and others abreast of ourresearch. Funding comes from members and otherspublic and private sector non-profits that share ourcommitments to science and education.

You may contact us by mail, P.O. Box 1290,Bigfork, Montana, 59911; by e-mail evergreen@centurytel.net; or by telephone [406] 837-0966.

The following organizations, companies and individuals helpedunderwrite this edition of “The Truth About America’s Forests”:

We are indebted to the Ford Motor Company, theMontana Ford Dealers Advertising Association,Depratu Ford, Whitefish, Montana and TimberlineAuto Center, Libby, Montana for their ongoingsupport for our educational mission. We are alsopleased to be driving a 2001 F-250 donated to theFoundation by the aforementioned.

Ford Motor Company