Origins of the Old-growth Forest ConfUct (1971-1989): A New Model for Resource Allocation

by

Mark Shelton Wilson

A Thesis

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Completed January 7, 1994

Commencement June 1994 APPROVED:

6-. Gordon E. Matzke, Ph.D., Assocsate Professor ofeosciences

Department o Geosciences

17 -,-,------. Thomas Maresh(,Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School

Date thesis is presented January 7. 1994

Typed by Mark Shelton Wilson for Mark Shelton Wilson AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Mark Shelton Wilson for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geosciences presented on January 7, 1994. Title:Oriciins of the Old-growth Forest Conflict (1971-1989): A New Model for Resource Allocation

Abstract approved: Gordon E. Matz

The old-growth forest conflict is part of the evolving debate over how to use the federal public lands. This study documents the origins and development of the old-growth issue through

1989. The controversy began in the early 1970s when scientists initiated studies of old-growth forests and northern spotted owls, and the land stewardship policies of the U.S. Forest Service were challenged by both preservation and timber industry interests. This thesis identifies the participants in the old-growth issue along with their views concerning the physical attributes of old-growth forests, values associated with these forests, and the appropriate use of old-growth forests. The timber industry viewed old-growth as a raw material for mills while preservationists primarily valued old-growth as wildlife habitat. The conflict was complicated by the use of different parameters for definitions of old-growth, land ownership, land-use, geographic area, forest type and year of data collection. All sides in the issue tended to view the federal resource management agencies, particularly the Forest Service, as biased or incompetent. Preservation and timber industry interests, agency personnel, and federal judges felt only Congress could provide a solution to the conflict. The various views of old-growth affected behaviors that influenced policy development to advance different ideas of appropriate old-growth use.

Preservationists were very effective at using administrative appeals and lawsuits of agency decisions to create a regional timber supply crisis in 1989 and move the issue from a regional level to the national level. The increased level of intensity of the conflict forced both preservation and timber interests to form new coalitions to advance their agendas through their supporters in

Congress. Based on the interactions of old-growth issue participants within and among the four elements of competing interest groups, congressional committees and subcommittees, the federal courts, and the federal natural resource management agencies, a new model of policy development "the wobbly diamond" was designed to analyze issue participants' behaviors and the policy development process. Although there was no explicit policy shift at the end of 1989 when Congress passed legislation relevant to the conflict, the result of the overall policy process during 1989 was a dramatic decrease in the amount of federal timber sold and a situation created wherein Congress would be involved in the issue for many years to come. CCopyright by Mark Shefton Wilson March 2, 1994

All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people contributed to this research project In a wide variety of ways. Although I cannot acknowledge them all in this small space I would like each individual to know that their contribution no matter the magnitude was Important in the completion of this project.I would first like to acknowledge the support given to me by my wife Joan Tyson and my parents

Margaret and John Wilson.Dr. Gordon Matzke in the Department of Geosciences served as major professor and it was in one of his courses that I was first introduced to the field of environmental perception and behavior.I appreciate his careful and thoughtful comments, and suggestions on draft versions of the dissertation.Drs. Philip Jackson and Kieth Muckleston served as committee members from the Department of Geosciences and It was In their courses I learned about the complexities of land and water use Issues and policy development.

Dr. William Lunch from the Department of Political Science also served as a committee member and it was through his courses and counseling that I became aware of the realities and intricacies of the American public policy making process. Dr. N.S. Mansour from the

Department of Horticulture served as the Graduate School representative and provided several helpful suggestions. There were many lndMduals associated with the preservation movement and the timber industry who provided me with information. In particular I would like to thank

Dennis Hayward of the North West Timber Association, which no longer exist, for providing me access to that organizations files and newsletters and Karl Huber of the Sierra Club who encouraged me to become an active member of that and other organizations.I met many fine, hardworking, sincere people in interest groups on both sides of the Issue and it was difficuft at times to see how they could be so bitterly opposed to each other. There were many people who worked for federal and state natural resource management agencies, especially the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management who were very helpful and courteous in providing me information not directly available to the general public.I would like to note the assistance provided by John Teply of the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region Office for his assistance and the opportunity to renew the friendshipwe had growing up in a small town in Illinois. My fellow graduate students Robert Vincent, Roy Wilson and

Doug Key provided valuable moral support arid our Thursday night seminars providedan extra dimension to my development as a geographer. Any project of this magnitude requires financial support and I would like to thank the following for providing me that aid: Dr. Thomas

Maresh for securing me an out of state tuition scholarship; Tom Klrch of the Department of

Recreational Sports for hiring me as Coordinator of the Outdoor Recreation Program at

Oregon State University; the Department of General Science for providingme with a teaching assistantship in biology; Dr. George Keller, Vice President of Graduate Studies and Research, and the staff at the Research Office at Oregon State University for providing me with an asslstantshlp through which I was afforded the invaluable opportunity to work with other graduate students in securing funding for their research projects; and The Department of

Geography at Humbokft State University for providing me an opportunity to develop my teaching skills and the use of their equipment in the production of this dissertation. TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH PROBLEM AND DIRECTION 1

Introduction 1 Problem Statement 3 Objectives 5 Background Uterature 6 Procedure 10 Research and Paper OrganizatIon 13

CHAPTER 2: EVOLUTION OF THE OLD-GROWTH ISSUE 14 Eatiy Old-growth Conflicts (1891-1941) 14 Harvest and Preservation Conflicts (1942-1970) 16 The Contemporary Conflict Emerges (1971-1979) 19 Old-growth and Owls Go PublIc (1980-1983) 24 Uncertainty Develops in Federal Land-use Allocation (1984-1988) 27 The Old-growth Issue Is Nationalized (1989) 38

CHAPTER 3: PERCEPTIONS OF THE OLD-GROWTH RESOURCE 56 Introduction 56 Preservationists' Views 56 Timber Industry's Views 69 Scientists' Views 79 Views by Members of Local and State Governments 92 Federal Natural Resource Agencies' Views of Old-growth 101 Views by Members of Congress 115 Views by Federal Judges 120 Public Opinion Survey Results 122 Variation in Parameters for Estimating How Much Old-growth Existed 125 Summary 140

CHAPTER 4: VIEWS ISSUE PARTICIPANTS HAD OF EACH OTHER 142 Introduction 142 Preservationists' Views of Other Participants 142 Timber Industrys Views of Other Participants 149 Scientists' Views of Other Participants 152 Views by the Forest Service of Other PartIcipants 152 Views by Members of Congress of Other Participants 153 Federal Judges' Views of Other PartIcipants 156 Public's Views of Other Participants 157 Summary 158

CHAPTER 5: SOCIO-POUTICAL BEHAVIORS AND INTERACTIONS 159 Introduction 159 Interactions Within Elements 159 Interaction Among Elements 168 Individual Participant Dynamics 176 Summary 176 CHAPTER 6: THE FEDERAL PUBUC LANDS POUCY PROCESS 178 Current Environmental Policy Models 178 Wobbly Diamond Old-growth Issue Network Model 180 Wobbly Diamond Model as a General Model 186 Summary 190

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 192 Introduction 192 Materialism 194 Social Change and the Policy Process 201 Defining the Public's Interests 206 Conclusions 214

NOTES 219

UTERATURE CITED 223

APPENDICES 268 APPENDIX A: Chronological Summary of Major Events In the Evolution of the Old-growth Issue by Participant Type 268 APPENDIX B: Ust of the Principal Interest Groups, Organizations, Government Agencies and Institutions, and Associated Old-growth Issue Leaders and ActMsts by Participant Type 273 APPENDIX C: Movement of Selected Old-growth Issue Participants Within the Issue Network 283 APPENDIX D: Federal Lands of Western Washington 284 LiST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Federal public lands In the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and Washington. 2

Percentage of county Iandbase managed by the U.S. Forest Service and 4 BLM in the counties of western Oregon.

Estimated annual harvest of sawtimber in the Douglas-fir region of western 17 Washington, western Oregon, and northwest California from national forests and all ownerships from 1870 through 1950.

Frequency of major articles on old-growth forests and/or spotted owls, 57 and frequency of articles that mention old-growth forests and/or spotted owls in the Northwest regional newsletters (Northwest Conifer and Oregon Conifer) of the Sierra Club from 1957 through 1989.

Frequency of major articles on old-growth forests and/or spotted owls, 58 and articles that mention old-growth forests and/or spotted owls In the newsletter (WM Oregon) of the Oregon Natural Resources Council from 1975 through 1989.

Frequency of artides on old-growth forests and spotted owls in the 59 periodicals of four national environmental organizations (Sierra Club, Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness Society) listed In the Readers' Guide Periodical Literature from 1970 through 1989.

increase In concern about the spotted owl as reflected by the number of 70 newsletters (NTWA Bulletin) of the North West Timber Association In which the spotted owl was mentioned.

Volume of wood harvested on national forest lands and all land 74 ownerships In the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and Washington from 1950 through 1989.

Frequency of articles by scientists on old-growth forest lands in the 80 Douglas-fir region and the United States from 1959 through 1989.

The composition and function of old-growth Douglas-fir forests as related 83 to the three structural components of large live trees, large standing dead trees (snags), and large down dead trees (logs) on land and in streams.

Forest areas of the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and Washington which correspond to the Interim definitions for old-growth forests (PNW-447) as proposed by Old-growth Definition Task Group 1986.

Frequency of scientific artides on the northern spotted owl from 1970 90 through 1990. Database compiled from titles listed in Wildlife Review, USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service, 1970-1990. Figure Paae

Percent of county revenue derived from federal lands in western Oregon 97 for fiscal years 1988.

Payments to Lane County, Oregon by the Forest Service and Bureau of 98 Land Management (BLM) and total county revenue from all sources from 1982 through 1988.

Changes in the minimum age of old-growth used by the U.S. Forest Service 103 in the Douglas-fir region from 1903 through 1988.

Changes in the minimum diameter of old-growth used by the U.S. Forest 104 Service In the Douglas-fir region from 1903 through 1986.

Number of live trees by age class distribution (a) and number of live trees, 131 snags and logs by diameter class distribution (b) from Mature and Over Mature (MOM) inventory plot 5366, point 1, Willamette National Forest.

Variation in estimates of the amount of old-growth remaining on six national 134 forests in the Douglas-fir region as determined by The Wilderness Society In 1988.

TImber industry trade associations and administrative executives who were 160 members of the Northwest Forest Resource Council In 1988.

CongressIonal allocation of money to the Forest Service for spotted owl 173 research between 1986 and 1990.

Two models of the resource allocation process. 179

Old-growth forest Issue network based on the wobbly diamond model of 181 federal land-use policy development.

Model of organization, affiliation and interaction of selected groups and 183 individuals In the old-growth forest issue network interest groups element of the wobbly diamond In late 1989.

The major interactions and relative amount of influence among and within 185 the four elements of the wobbly diamond old-growth forest issue network during 1989.

Policy change through the wobbly diamond model relative to the harvest of 187 old-growth durIng 1989 was a three stage process along a continuum of harvest levels.

Hypothetical models that reflect the importance of federal public land Issues 188 of land-use allocation In 1979 and 1989.

General model of interaction for issues involving the federal government. 191 Figure Pag

Three conflict types representing competition between interestgroups for 193 shifts in government policy related to the redistribution of material wealth (materialism).

Distribution of perceptions of environmental and business leaders on 196 preserving nature for its intrinsic value and using nature to produce goods.

Variations in predicted job losses in Oregon due to court injunctions 200 withholding Forest Service and BLM timber sales and potential listing of the spotted owl as an endangered species.

Distribution of even-aged forest acres in Oregon by ownership and age 205 class.

Changes in land-use allocation on the Willamette National Forest under 207 management plans adopted or proposed for three different periods. UST OF TABLES

Lawsuits active in the first quarter of 1989 against federal natural 41 resource management agencies.

Pnncipal components of the three major proposals put forth to solve the 49 old-growth forest crisis in Oregon and Washington during the early summer of 1989.

Minimum and maximum ages used for old-growth in articles published 61 in Wild Oregon and Oregon Conifer from 1978 through 1989.

Rank of values associated with the perception of old-growth forests for two 65 Northwest preservation groups.

Timber sale levels supported by different preservation groups for the Pacific 67 Northwest Region (Region-6) national forests during the late 1980$.

importance of economic issues associated with old-growth forests by the 76 North West Timber Association.

Chronosequence of changes In minimum values for selected physIcal 82 attributes of old-growth forests In the Douglas-fir region as determined by scientists.

Chronosequence in changes in minimum requirements for maintenance of 91 viable populations of northern spotted owls as proposed by scientists.

Amount of land (acres) managed by the U.S. Forest Service (F.S.) and the 93 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the 18 counties of the Douglas-fir region of Oregon.

Number of acres managed and rates of payment by the U.S. Forest 95 Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to counties In the Douglas-fir region of Oregon for different classes of lands in 1988.

Concerns about the old-growth/spotted owl issue by local government 100 elected officials, boards and agencies, and members of the state legislatures of Oregon and Washington.

Minimum old-growth Douglas-fir/western hemlock forest characteristics 105 used by three national forests to develop land and resource management plans in the 1 980s.

Chronosequence of parameters proposed by the Forest Service to maIntain 110 viable populations of the northern spotted owl. Table Paae

Changing management policy for old-growth habitat of northern 114 spotted owls by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from 1973 through 1987.

PrIncipal federal laws used in lawsuits and management actIvities 117 related to the old-growth issue.

Different legislative proposals concerning the definition, anduse of the 121 old-growth resource by members of Congress and Congressas an institution during 1989.

Opinions by the general public of federal land-use Issues thatwere 123 related to the old-growth/spotted owl Issue.

Parameters associated with estimating the number of acres of old- 126 growth forests.

Chronosequence of changes in the size of area needed for northern 128 spotted owl habitat proposed by different organizations.

Selected estimates of the number of acres of old-growth forests at 135 different times in Oregon and Washington.

Variation in estimates of old-growth forest acres on the Wlllamette 137 National Forest

Present and future acres of old-growth forests on three national forests 139 in the Douglas-fir region of Oregon.

Perceptions by the North West Timber Association (NWTA) and the 143 Oregon Natural Resources CouncU (ONRC) of several participants in the old-growth forest issue.

Amount of Influence different members of Congress had on the old- 147 growth forest issue as expressed by three preservation groups.

Chronology of the major Judicial proceedings for the three prIncipal 166 lawsuits brought by preservation groups against three federal natural resource management agencies concerning the management of old-growth habitat for the northern spotted owl.

ftJlgnment of.members of Congress associated with the old-growth forest 174 Issue in 1989 with the goals of preservationists or the timber industry.

PolItical affiliations and appoIntment associations of federal judges who 210 presided over old-growth/spotted owl cases. ORIGINS OF THE OLD-GROWTH FOREST CONFUCT (1971-1989): A NEW MODEL FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION

CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH PROBLEM AND DIRECTION

Introduction

The land-use allocation conflict of old-growth forests on federal public lands In the

Douglas-fir forest region of the Pacific Northwest in the 1 980s was the most recent ina long

series of conflicts concerning the use of these forests.It was at the forefront of environmental

conflicts in the region, and became a national concern. The Issue was associated with the

survival of the northern spotted owl, whose geographic distribution closely coincides with the

Douglas-fir region (USDA Forest Service 1 988a). Due to a restriction in federal timber sales In

1989 the issue escalated to a crisis during 1989 (Levine and Parks 1989; The New York Times

1989).

The controversy primarily Involved lands that were managed by the U.S. Forest Service

and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains in

Oregon and Washington (Figure 1). Lands managed by these agencies contained

approximately 62 percent and nine percent, respectively, of the remaining old-growth while the

National Park Service managed 17 percent of the remaining old-growth (Society of American

Foresters 1984). During the I 980s, the allocation of old-growth was a controversial element in the development of land and resource management plans for the region's national forests and

BLM lands. The plans which determined the allocation of the old-growth resource for wildlife

habitat, timber harvest, and other uses were supposed to be completed by 1985 (Goodwin

198gb), but by the end of 1989, due to delays caused by administrative appeals of the

proposed plans for old-growth habitat for northern spotted owls, only the Slskiyou plan was finished (Teply 1989). SISKIYOU

Figure 1.Federal public lands in the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and Washington. 3

The level of concern in the region over old-growth forest land-use allocationoriginates

partly from the high percentage of land owned by the federalgovernment. The Forest Service

arid BLM manage 27 and 12 percent, respectively, of the land In the 18 countIes ofwestern

Oregon (Figure 2), and the Forest Service and National Park Servicemanage 28 and 11

percent, respectively, of the land In the 19 countIes of western Washington (USDA Forest

Service 1988i; USD1 National Park Service 1993a,b,c). The BLM holds title to only about2,000 acres in western Washington (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1989). Due to the high concentration of federal forest lands in the region, and because most trees harvested from these lands are over 100 years old (Howard and Ward 1991), forest land-use allocation decisions have important economic, social and cultural consequences.

Problem Statement

The idea for this research came from the protests, administrative appeals, and lawsuits in the mid-i 9805 which were associated with old-growth and spotted owl habitat The goal Is to gain a better understanding of natural resource perceptions and soclo-poiltical behaviors of the different participants involved in the land-use allocation process for the federal public lands.

Perceptions of natural resources and associated soclo-political behaviors are significant forces in the development of natural resource allocation policies. There werea variety of private and governmental participants Involved in the old-growth Issue with conflicting views of the resource, which lead to confusion In defining the old-growth for land-use allocation. The issue participants also had a variety of beliefs about each other and the federal land-use allocation process. In part different perceptions of the resource and of other participants generated a variety of behaviors which influenced the resource allocation process. Analysis of Issue participants' perceptions of resources, competing participants, and government Institutions Is vital for understanding public land-use allocation controversies. Percent of Federal Land D0.00 to 11.00 EJ11.00 to 24.00 J 24.00 to 41.50 41.50 to 56.50 56.50 to 59.00

Figure 2. Approximate combined percentage of federal land in each county ofwestern Oregon managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Source: Constructed from databases in USDA Forest Service 1 988i and Oregon Office of the Secretary of State 1990. 5

The conflict over the land-use allocation of old-growth forests in the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and Washington served as a case study to evaluate the federal land-use allocation process. The old-growth conflict burst onto the national environmental scene In 1989 but Its incubation began 20 years earlier. This research chronicles the complexity associated with the evolution of this conflict from the early 1 970s to 1989 when it was a major environmental issue.

Current models of policy development for federal public land-use allocation do not fit the old- growth issue because in part they omit the judicial element. Due to the complexity of the behaviors of the great number of participants and multiple points od access to the policy process a new model of the federal public land-use allocation process Is proposed in order that this and similar Issues may be realistically structured for analysis.

Objectives

This study investigates the perceptions and behaviors of participants involved In the old-growth issue to gain an understanding of the resource allocation process associated with old-growth forests. The specific objectives of this study were to:

Document the historical evolution of the old-growth controversy up to 1990.

Identify private interest groups and individuals, and government institutions and their

representatives involved with the issue.

Determine the biological, physical, and land-use views of the old-growth resource by

the various private and government participants.

Ascertain the perceptions issue participants had of each other.

Identify the soclo-political behaviors of the Issue participants and analyze the influence

these behaviors had on the policy process.

Develop a descriptive policy model for the allocation of federal public land natural

resources in the United States based on the behaviors of the old-growth issue

participants. 6

Background Literature

The following review of natural resource literature relates to the problem of how

resources in general and old-growth in specific are perceived and allocated. The review is

divided into the following three areas which pertain to the objectives of this study:resource

perception, perception of other participants, and behaviors related to policy development.

These three areas form the basis of data collection and evaluation.

Resource Perception

Studies in natural resource perception evolved from the literature of human

geographers such as Carl Sauer (1947, 1956) and John Wright (1947). Gilbert White (1942,

1961, 1963, 1966; White et al. 1958) pioneered initial Investigations In environmental perception

of natural hazards. These studies led the way for perception investigations of other natural

hazards (Kates 1962; Burton 1962; Burton and Kates 1964; Saannen 1966, 1969; Burton et at.

1968a,b, 1978; Heathcote 1969; Jackson 1974; Rydant 1979).

Natural hazards research in turn fostered studies of perception In the use and

management of the environment in general (Baumann 1969; Aullclems and Burton 1971;

Barker 1971; Wong 1972; Maclver 1970; Milbrath 1984). A body of literature evolved which

analyzed public and professional perceptions about natural resources and policies regarding their allocation (Craik 1968; Arnstein 1969; Hendee and Hams 1970; Swanson 1971; Sewell

1974; Clawson 1975; Clark and Stankey 1976; ORlordan 1976; Sewell and O'Riordan 1976;

Mitchell 1979; Culhane 1981; Davis and Davis 1987; Leuschner et al. 1989).

Several authors documented the changes in the perceptions of wild landscapes by

Americans in the 19th and early 20th centuries as the nation shifted from a rural society to an

urban society (Huth 1957; Richards 1974; Nash 1982). StudIes Indicated that different groups perceive the same landscape in contrasting ways (Bultena and Taves 1961; Fonaroff I 963;

Hendee et al. 1968; Craik 1970; Hendee and Hams 1970; Moeller et al. 1974; Willhite and Sise 7

1974; Zube 1974; Anderson and Brown 1984). Milbrath (1984) found that environmental and

business leaders had different perceptions concerning the value and use of nature. Sauer

(1925) referred to these perspectives as the cultural landscape, and Mitchell (1979) argued that

an individual's perception was in part governed by past experiences within a specific set of

social circumstances. Levine and Langinau (1979) found perceptions and attitudes of various

groups using wildlands varied depending on the user's type of activity. Leuscher et al. (1989) found resource wildlife managers in Virginia strongly favored hunting and timber harvest for wildlife management while hunters and birders were neutral to these techniques, and environmentalists were slightly opposed to these practices. Sewell (1971) discovered that professionals working in different fields also differ in their perceptions of the resource. A landmark study by Robert Lucas (1964) in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area found various user groups and managers had different perceptions of the resource. Lucas (1964) conduded that "all resources are defined by human perception." One of the most persistent Issues of federal land-use allocation involves different perceptions of what defines wilderness (Forman

1978a,b).

Evaluation of the quality of the landscape adds to or detracts from the visual experience (Lowenthal 1968; Litton 1972, 1974). Attitudes develop based on the perception of what constitutes an acceptable amount of landscape manipulation (Lowenthal and Prince 1964,

1965; Lowenthal 1968; Sell et al. 1984). Perelman (1980) described urban dwellers as extremely sensitive to anything that damaged the rural landscape, including modem agricultural techniques. Graber (1976) documented that wilderness landscapes were perceived by some users as a place of spirituality. 8 Perceptions of Other Issue Participants

Behaviors are also affected by perceptions of competing resource users (Burton 1971;

Stankey 1973; Shelby 1976). Some user types disliked other user types, but the dislikewas often not reciprocal (Lucas 1964).In other cases competing user types felt their own activity was more valuable than others (Moeller et al. 1974). Due to interaction with a few activists, forest managers perceived many more wilderness users were advocates of the purist concepts of preservation groups than was the actual number (Hendee et al. 1968; Hendee and Harris

1970). A study of Forest Service foresters in the Pacific Northwest found that many believed that conservation groups' views on timber cutting and preservation of old-growth were illegitimate (Bultena and Hendee 1972).

Resource users often perceive managers as supportIng policies that favor competing users (Lowery et al. 1983). For example Culhane (1981), and Davis and Davis (1987) found that both commodity and environmental Interest group leaders perceived the Forest Service and BLM to be single-mindedly pursuing policies favored by their opponents. Two studies confirmed that Forest Service policies favored the timber industry (Bultena and Hendee 1972;

Twight and Lyden 1989). Mitchell (1979) found environmental advocates believed that experts

(managers) were not the best judges of what is desirable or necessary, and Milbrath (1984) found that environmentalists perceived the use of technology as an inappropriate way to solve environmental problems. Several studies indicated people's perceptions were often not reflect their behavior (LaPiere 1934; Tuan 1968, 1973; Clark et al. 1971; Stankey 1973; Shelby 1976;

Thornburgh 1978; Heberlein and Dunwiddie 1979).

Behavior and Policy Formation

Some research demonstrated resource managers and researchers imposed their perceptions through policy direction (Clark et al. 1971; Hollender 1977; Lee 1977; Burch 1981;

Roggenbuck and Berrier 1982; Vaske et al. 1983; Becker et al. 1984; Gramann and Burdge 9

1984). For example, managers of Grand Canyon National Park define thetype of wilderness experience visitors should have while running the Colorado River by restrictingthe number of river runners and eliminating motorized rafts (Shelby 1981). But, Shelbyand Nielson (1975) found no evidence that various levels of crowdingwere related to satisfaction of the float trip.

White (1966) concluded that conflicts arise from perceptions of what different people prefer and opinions about what people should prefer. Craik (1968), and Hendee and Harris (1970) argued that information on user perceptions would enable managers to make better decisions.

Geographers proposed and used perception studies for a variety of purposes relative to policy development and analysis (Burton 1971; O'Riordan 1971; White 1974; Sewell and

O'Riordan 1976; Gares 1989). They placed most of their effort into the development of descriptive models, which focused on redistributive policies that Involvegroup interests and conflict; to explain natural resource policy formation. White (1961, 1963) providedthe basic framework that influenced most subsequent investigations. Descriptive modelsassume a pluralist society In which groups actively compete for power over the allocation of scarce resources (Bently 1908; Truman 1951; Latham 1952; Freeman 1955; DahI 1967; Wilson 1973).

Several authors believed that Npublic interests are best defined by the activities of groups concerned with particular issues (Bently 1908; Truman 1951; Wilson 1973, 1989; Heclo 1978;

Lunch 1987; Berry 1989). Bently (1908) argued that interest groups were the key to the entire

American political process. Berry (1989) countered that pluralism was no longer considered to be an accurate theory of American politics because many groups have been excluded from participation, yet concluded the pluralist legacy remains because no new theory has emerged.

Conflict over the use of natural resources, especially forests, Is not new to the

American federal public land-use allocation process (Pinchot 1947; Greely 1951; Coyle 1957;

Frome 1962, 1984; Robinson 1975; Steen 1976). Several authors concluded that conflicts among groups over natural resource allocation fit the pluralist model, and that government was the arena for the management of these conflicts (Wengert 1955, 1980; Kasperson and Minghi

1969; Young 1981). Kasperson (1969a,b) developed a descriptive model of policy formation 10 based on environmental stress. Using Kasperson's concepts, O'Riordan (1971) proposeda model whose dynamics were initiated from an interest group's perception of environmental degradation. Truman (1951) proposed a model of government functioning througha three part

"subsystem" of interacting interest groups, semi-autonomous congressional committees, and semi-autonomous bureaucracies. These subsystems consisted of a small circle of stable participants who controlled narrow public programs which were in the direct economic Interest of the alliance, and were referred to as "Iron Triangles" or policy "subgovemments" (Heclo

1978). The iron triangle has been adopted by a variety of resource policy authors (Cuihane

1981; Davis and Davis 1987; Buch 1991; Forest Watch 1992). Lowi (1964) referred to the relationship between an interest group and the regulating agency as cllentelism, and considered it to be undemocratic and unconstitutional, based on the faulty philosophy of pluralism. A mixed view of dientelism was put forward by Redford (1969), who argued that clientele politics was efficient, and responsive to legitimate public preferences at the national level, but not at the local level. Burton (1971) suggested that perception studies should be linked to power sharing among interest groups. Wilson (1989) proposed that It Is the perception of cost and benefits by competing groups that affects the political process, which is a struggle to alter perceptions and beliefs.

In summary there studies reflect a tradition of research which seeks to understand the relation of environmental perception and the natural resource allocation process. This research project focuses on the perceptions of the old-growth forest resource and their role in the conflict over allocation of old-growth forests.

Procedure

This study was geographically restricted to the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and

Washington which was defined as the area in the two states that lies to the west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains. The study emphasized the issue In Oregon because that was where 11 the issue originated and was most intense. Detailed analysis of the issue as it pertained to the

Willamette, Mt. Hood and Siuslaw National Forests was conducted. An embedded single case study design (Yin 1984) was used to develop a hierarchical format for data collection and analysis based on the four elements associated with the policy process:(1) citizen interest groups and their affiliated supporters, (2) federal natural resource management agencies, (3) the U.S. Congress, and (4) the federal courts.

For the purpose of this research, perception of the old-growth resource was considered to be a cognitive process based on sensory input of physical and cultural stimuli which formed a mental image of the resource.It is assumed the perceptions by the different participants of the old-growth resource, other participants and the policy process were expressed as statements concerning resource attributes and beliefs. Perceptions of the old- growth resource, other participants and policy process were interpreted from analysis of the views expressed by the participants.

Data collection followed the advise of White (1966) and Mitchell (1979), who suggested using a variety of information sources such as speeches, newspapers, and other print media to assess perceptions and to serve as check on one another. The investigator became an active member of several interest groups which provided access to information not available to the general public. Other data were collected from the writings and statements of the issue participants, periodicals, journals and documents produced by the participants, and testimony and comments at congressional hearings. From the resource preservation perspective, the periodicals Wild Oregon (1974-1990) of the Oregon Wilderness Council and Oregon Natural

Resources Council, and Northwest Conifer (1 958-1 978) and Oregon Conifer (1978-1990) of the

Northwest and Oregon Chapters of the Sierra Club respectively were analyzed in detail.

Articles in the periodicals of four major national conservation organizations, Sierra (Sierra

Club), Wilderness (The Wilderness Society), National Wildlife (National Wildlife Federation), and

Audubon (National Audubon Society), were used to evaluate the issue at the national level.

Reports and other information on the issue published by these organizations were evaluated. 12

The North West Timber Association (NWTA), a trade association made up of small forest products companies (<500 employees) which relied primarily on timber from federal lands, granted the investigator permission to review its newsletter, NWA Bulletin. Newsletters and reports of other trade associations and industry supporters were also analyzed. Data were obtained from International Woodworker, the newspaper of the International Wood Workers of

America, to ascertain mill workers points of view. The Northwest Conifer, Oregon Conifer

Wild Oregon, and the NWTA Bulletin were systematically evaluated for (1) old-growth perception, (2) issue concerns (subdivided Into environmental, economic and quality of life), and (3) perception of other issue participants.

A variety of sources was used to obtain information on the views and behaviors of other issue participants.Scientific and professional views were obtained from publications of the U.S. Forest Service Experiment Station, other government agency publications, and professional and scientific Journals such as Science, Journal of Forestry and Wildlife Society

Bulletin. Proceedings of scientific and professional meetings and statements made by scientists at presentations were also incorporated into the database. The Oregonian and Ib

Sunday Orecionian provided extensive coverage of the old-growth conflict, and articles from these newspapers were used to identify and evaluate the views and behaviors of the participants. Articles in some local newspapers were also used. Government agencies provided a variety of information sources reflecting their views and those of other participants.

Forest Service and BLM land-use and management plans, reports and surveys provided data reflecting the agencies' perspective on the old-growth issue. The position of local and state government officials were obtained from public statements and letters of elected officials pertaining to the issue. Data from print media were supplemented with informatIon derived from informal interviews with activist leaders of citizen Interest groups, government agency officials, and other issue network persons, and by observation. Data on the perceptions by the general public were obtained from a variety of sources to supplement and aid in interpretation of other data. These included the Willamette National Forest's analysis of public response to 13 its 1987 draft plan, unpublished surveys of Oregon federal land-use issue interestgroups' leaders (MaIm1979) and federal land users (Hams 1979), surveys by The Oreaonlan,

Defenders of Wildlife, and two national surveys (Milbrath 1984; American Forest InstItute 1985).

Research and Paper Organization

Perceptions and behaviors addressed in this research are by indMduals, usually leaders, who represent groups and government institutions. Because the actions ofgroups or institutions are reflected by its leaders, the collective use of groups and Institutions to indicate a belief or behavior is a convention used in this paper. For example, the Forest Service produced several documents used in this research project but not all Forest Service employees supported the official agency position.

The origin and evolution of the Issue from 1891 through 1990 Is presented In Chapter

2. Major issues, participants and some behaviors relative to the land-use policy process are also identified in Chapter 2. Data on the views of the old-growth resource by the Issue participants are documented in Chapter 3.Issue participants perceptions of each other are described in Chapter 4. Other sociopolitical behaviors of Issue participants relative to the allocation of old-growth are documented in Chapter 5. A model of the land-use policy process is proposed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 is a discussion of the Influence different participants had on old-growth allocation relative to their perceptions and behaviors. 14

CHAPTER 2: EVOLUTION OF THE OLD-GROWTH ISSUE

Eatly Old-growth Conflicts (1891-1941)

Introduction

The conflict over the use of the federal forests of the Douglas-fir region began in the late 1800's, and culminated in 1891 when Congress granted the President authority to withdraw

public domain lands from sale (Dana and Fairfax 1980). The first withdrawals were the

Cascade Forest Reserve in Oregon which included parts of the present day Mt. Hood,

Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue River National Forests, and the Pacific, Washington and

Olympic Forest Reserves in Washington which contained parts of the Gifford Pinchot, Mt.

Baker-Snoqualmie, and Olympic National Forests (Rakestraw1955).1 Since the initial decision

in the 1 890s to keep these forests in public ownership there has been an evolving debate over

how they should be used. The following is a brief description of the evolution of the debate

over the use of these lands as it related to old-growth forest.

Olympic Peninsula

The first major conflict over the use of old-growth forests was on the Olympic

Peninsula of Washington during the first half of the twentieth century. Concerns about the

alleged slaughter of elk lead to the introduction of a Congressional bill in 1904 to establish an

"Elk National Park" in the Olympic Forest Reserve frwight 1983). The bill failed, but it was the

vanguard of old-growth preservation efforts for the next 34 years.

When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905 the Olympic Forest Reserve was

transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agricuiture (Danaand

Fairfax 1980). The Olympic foresters followed the policy established by the first ForestService 15

Chief, Gifford Pinchot, who wanted to scientifically manage the national forests to producean even-flow of timber for local mills (Pinchot 1908).

By 1907, the Seattle Mountaineers became interested in preserving the area for recreational use (Twight 1983). This group pressed its state congressional delegation to propose the area for national park status, but a national monument was created within the

National Forest In 1909 to protect the elk breeding grounds. Although the national monument remained under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, the regional forester objected to its establishment because it was "preventing the use of other resources (Twight 1983)." In 1911 a bill was introduced to convert the national monument to a national park, but it also failed.

Over the years, various interest groups and federal agencies made efforts to influence

Congress on the Olympic National Forest land-use issue.In the end, the influence of President

Franklin Roosevelt, after his visit to the area in 1937, was brought to bear on Congress (Twight

1983). The Olympic National Park was authorized, and on June 16, 1938, the lands were transferred back to the Department of the Interior.

Early Preservation and Harvest Controversies

A powerful advocate for the preservation of virgin wild lands during the 1930s was

Robert Marshall, who advocated total preservation without any development (Nash 1982).

Marshall lobbied and worked for the Forest Service identifying potential wilderness areas (Nash

1982). One large area Marshall proposed for wilderness, the Kalmiopsis in southwest Oregon, has yet to be fully protected as he envisioned, and was part of the old-growth conflict in the

1980s (Wed Oregon 1986b; Reader 1988; Barnard 1989). In 1935 Marshall helped organize

The Wlidemess Society (Nash 1982), which played a significant role in the old-9rowth issue.

The harvest of old-growth forests, which have little or no net growth, on national forest lands, and their replacement with fast-growing young stands was an important element in

Gifford Pinchot's management policy (Pinchot 1908). In the mid 1 920s, the Forest Service 16

abandoned Pinchot's policy of harvest equals growth, and adopted the Hanzlick method of

calculating the timber harvest so that old-growth could be harvestedmore rapidly (Wilkinson

and Anderson 1987). However, in the 1920s and 1930s there was an abundance of timberon

private lands in the region, and the timber industry successfully pressured the Forest Service to

adopt a policy of withholding public timber from sale In order to keep prices from falling

(Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).Prior to 1941 almost all of the timber cut in the Douglas-fir

region was on private land, Figure 3 (USDA Forest Service 1969).

Harvest and Preservation Conflicts (1942-1970)

After the United States entered World War lithe demand for timber increased and the federal forests of the Douglas-fir region began to move from an era of few harvests to an era of

ever increasing harvests (Figure3)2In the years immediately after World War lIthe Forest

Service's primary concern with region's old-growth was to harvest the trees to supply the

expanding demand for wood products, and replace it with fast growing young stands (USDA

Forest Service 1946). An Influential 1946 Forest Service report said the private timber in the

Northwest was playing out and public forests needed to assume a more important role in timber supply (USDA Forest Service 1946). The Oregon and California (O&C) railway, and

Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) forest lands in western Oregon were placed under the administration of the BLM which was created by executive consolidation of the Government

Land Office and the Grazing Service in 1946 (Culhane 1981).

A 1946 Industry report recommended that public and private mature stands

(old-growth and large second-growth) be worked over rapidly (i.e. harvested) to take out the

"over-ripe timber and keep the stands in a net growing condition (Kirkland 1 946a)." The overall goal in the report was to obtain an "assured supply of raw material" Increased timber demand prompted the industry to renew attempts through Congress, in 1946 and 1947, to have the 17

I- w w U- ALL OWNERSHIPS z 0 -j -J

'VI

NATIONAL FORESTS

I I I 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 YEAR

Figure 3. Estimated annual harvest of sawtimber in the Douglas-fir region of western Washington, western Oregon, and northwest California form national forests and all ownerships from 1870 through 1950. Adapted from USDA Forest Service 1969. 18 old-growth forests in the western valleys of Olympic National Park transferred back to the

Olympic National Forest, but the effort failed (Clark 1947).

The increased demand for timber In the 1950s vindicated the Forest Service's predictions of eternally increasing demand for wood (Clary 1986). Future Chief of the Forest

Service, Edward P. Cliff, said in 1956, "the overall timber policy of the Forest Service is to build up the annual cut to the full [amount] allowable under sustained yield management (Clary

1986)? The Forest Service's strong momentum toward achieving maximum sustained yield meant the old-growth needed to be harvested as fast as possible, but in a planned rational manner that maintained the agency's philosophy of even-flow (Ctary 1986; Wilkinson and

Anderson 1987). Behind this momentum was the notion that old-growth was an obstacle to the scientific management of forest because the stands had no net growth.

Momentum also began to reappear in the forest preservation movement after the

Second World War. The lands created by the Forest Service as wilderness or primitive areas prior to the war were administrative; therefore, they could be placed back into the timber base for harvest (Robinson 1975). One of the early preservation struggles concerned the removal of the Horse Creek and French Pete Valley areas from the Three Sisters Primitive Area on the

Willamette National Forest In Oregon. In 1957 the Forest Service withdrew the French Pete

Valley from primitive area status In order to offer the timber for sale (Northwest Conifer 1 968a).

The focus of this renewed preservation advocacy during the 1 950s and early 1 960s was pressure from preservation organizations on Congress for legislation that would permanently protect virgin national forest lands (Fox 1981). After eight years of work with the Congress, these efforts bore fruit in 1964 with the passage of the Wilderness Act (Dana and Fairfax 1980).

But, the controversy over the French Pete Valley continued for another 14 years (Monteith

1 978a).

The 1969 Douglas-fir Suoply Study indicated that at the annual harvest rate of the

1960s, 2.9 billion board feet (bbt) (mostly old-growth), on federal lands of western Washington,

Oregon and northwest California, the yield would decline by about 45 percent in 100 years 19

(USDA Forest Service 1969). The conclusion of the study was a bit of a shock to the Forest

Service because the agency was operating on the premise that the harvest levels of the 1 960s could be sustained indefinitely (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). The agency began to reevaluate its sustained yield policies and harvest rates of old-growth on the region's forests.

The Contemporary Conflict Emerges (1971-1979)

Conflicts Over Harvest Rates and Wilderness

The 1 970s brought new scientific information, intense conflict, and new directions relative to the management of the federal forests in the Douglas-fir region, and became the decade of incubation of the old-growth issue. The post-war struggles for wilderness allocation brought a measure of unity to preservation advocates, while the industry and federal land management agencies struggled to contend with a variety of established and new interest groups. Many areas containing old-growth were proposed as wilderness by preservatlonists during this period (Monteith 1 978b; Wild Oregon 1 983a).

The initial conflict in the contemporary old-growth Issue had nothing to do with wilderness or spotted owls. In 1972, a BLM employee informed the Oregon Student Public

Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) about some very large, old trees (possibly Oregon's oldest) in Crabtree Valley (Kerr 1982). The land on which the 800-900-year old trees were located was owned by Willamette Industries.In order to preserve the trees in public ownership, OSPIRG tried to facilitate a land exchange between the company and the BLM, which had land in the area. Willamette Industries was amiable to the idea but the BLM did not show much interest.

The struggle to preserve the Crabtree Valley old-growth extended over the next 13 years Cii

Oregon 1978b, 1985).

The projections of the Doualas-fir Supply Study of 1969 prompted the Forest Service to change its harvest calculation In 1973 from the Hanzlick method to a policy of nondeclining 20

even-flow (NDEF) (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). Nondeclining even-flow is basedon the

concept that the harvest level should not decline after the old-growth is cut.In order to

achieve this goal and calculate the annual allowable sale quantity (ASQ), foresters do not

consider the current volume of old-growth, as with the Hanzlick method, but rather what the

land is expected to yield in future second-growth stands (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).

Because the allowable sale quantity is determined by future timber volumes, there isa slow transition to second-growth forests.

The timber industry strongly objected to the NDEF policy, believing it wasteful of old-growth (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). This led to concern about reduced timber supplies, and the Industry lobbied for the National Timber Supply Act in 1969 to guarantee a timber supply (Frome 1984; Clary 1986). The bill was opposed by the Forest Service and preservationists, and failed. Under pressure from the timber industry, President Nixon created the AdvIsory Panel on Timber and the Environment (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). The

Advisory Panel's 1973 report recommended a departure from even-flow in the Douglas-fir region by accelerating the harvest of old-growth (Seaton et al. 1973). Former director of the

BLM and Advisory Panel member Marion Clawson (1975) pointed out that the accelerated cut of old-growth made economic sense, but noted that there would be a serious problem with cultural acceptability. Despite the recommendations of the Advisory Panel, the Forest Service did not alter its newly adopted NDEF policy.

In addition to pressure from industry, the Forest Service was criticized by preservatlonists and their supporters In Congress and the administration about its practice of clearcutting (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). This resulted In three investigations of Forest

Service policies. The 1971-1972 investigation of Senator Frank Church laid the foundation for the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). In order to prevent rapid liquidation of old-growth at the expense of other resources, the Senate

Agriculture Committee's NFMA bill said there could be no departure from NDEF (Wilkinson and

Anderson 1987). The timber industry again strongly objected to the NDEF concept (Wilkinson 21 and Anderson 1987), but the legislation passed and debate over the rate old-growth harvest seemed over.3

Scientists Begin to Study Old-growth Ecosystems

By 1970 foresters and many forest scientists felt that the old-growth forests of the

Pacific Northwest were well enough understood, and most of the U.S. Forest Service's research budget was dedicated to projects in second-growth, managed stands (Franklin and

Waring 1980; Franklin 1 989b). Studies of old-growth were limited to evaluating tree reproduction, and early successional plant and animal communities after timber harvest

(Gashwiler 1970; Dyrness 1973). Another reason for not investing money in the study of older forests was that forest plans for the 1 970s called for the harvest and conversion of most of the remaining nonwildemess forests to managed second-growth stands (USDA Forest Service

1965b, 1976; Juday 1978).

When the Coniferous Forest Blome Project of the U.S. International Biological Program was formulating areas of interest for Investigation in 1970, It was debated whether to Include older unmanaged stands in the studies (Franklin and Waring 1980). Fortunately, old-growth was included these studies, and It was from these Initial investigations that the wellspring of information we have today concerning old-growth ecosystems originated. The most salient studies of old-growth ecosystems conducted during the 1 970s were summarized at the end of the decade in the U.S. Forest Service report, Ecological Characteristics of Old-Growth

Douglas-Fir Forests (FranklIn et al. 1981). The studies revealed it was the structural diversity of old-growth Douglas-fir forests that produced some of their distinctive compositional and functional characteristics (Franklin et al. 1981). 22

Early Efforts to Manage Spotted Owl Habitat

During the early 1 970s, research by Oregon State University graduate student Eric

Forsman (1976) on the spotted owl in Oregon raised concern among professional wildlife biologists about the habitat needs of this uncommon bird (Heinrichs 1983; USDA Forest

Service 1 988b).In 1973 the Oregon Endangered Species Task Force, consisting of representatives from the Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Game

Commission, and Oregon State University, was organized to determine the number, distribution, and habitat needs of spotted owls, and develop guidelines for their management

(Lee 1985; Craig 1986; USDA Forest Service 1988a).Initial guidelines recommended 300 acres of old-growth be retained around every known spotted owl nest (Carleson and Haight 1985), but the Forest Service and BLM declined to implement the recommendations until more was known about the owl's habitat needs (Lee 1985).

In December of 1973, Congress passed a new Endangered Species Act (ESA). This legislation extended protection to species listed by the Secretary of the Interior, but the spotted owl was not placed on the list. The following year Congress passed the Sikes Act which complemented the ESA by requiring federal protection of a species If a state agency considered the species to be threatened, rare, or endangered (Carleson and Haight 1985). In

1975 the Oregon Game Commission established a list of endangered wildlife, and placed the northern spotted owl on Its list of threatened vertebrates (Catleson and Haight 1 985).

With regard to wildlife, the NFMA provided considerably more direction to the Forest

Service than the 1960 MultIple Use and Sustained Yield Act.5 The NFMA required that viable populations of vertebrate animals be maintained and Its Intent was interpreted by some people to bring timber production into balance with wildlife and ecological values (Wilkinson and

Anderson 1987). After several years of criticism and policy direction imposed from outside the agency, the Forest Service by 1976 seemed more sensitive to forest uses other than timber production. During 1976, the Oregon Endangered Species Task Force set a long range goal 23

of maintaining 400 pairs of owls on public lands in Oregon (Lee 1985). This time the Forest

Service went along with the recommendations, and all spotted owl nesting sites on national forests were protected in Oregon until Biological Unit Management Plans were developed (Lee

1985).

Under the guidance of the Resource Planning Act of 1974 and the NFMA, the Forest

Service began to develop indMdual forest management plans in the mid 1 970s for the next

10-15 year period. Old-growth allocation was a concern raised by several interests advocating

either preservation or harvest (USDA Forest Service 1 975b; Sluslaw National Forest 1977). The

Service responded by setting aside some groves of old-growth and planned long harvest

rotations for some stands (USDA Forest Service 1977; Franklin et al. 1981).

Preservation Groups Begin to Focus on Old-growth

Preservationists lobbied Congress to pass the Endangered American Wilderness Act in

1978 which created 275,000 acres of wilderness on national forests in Oregon (Monteith

1 978a). Many of the lands recommended for preservation by Oregon preservation groups, but

not included in the 1978 wUderness legislation, were old-growth (La Follette 1978). One such area was the 24,500 acre Middle Santiam roadless area which contained a high percentage of low elevation Douglas-fir/western hemlock old-growth forest (Alaback and Alaback 1981), and was described as the best representation of the once vast old-growth typical of the western

Cascades (Potter 1980). Although not old-growth (Jones 1968), the French Pete Valley was

returned to wilderness status as part of this legislation (Northwest Conifer 1 978b).

The preservationists increased interest in old-growth, in part, coincided with the growth of scientific work on these ecosystems in the 1970s. The first major scientific publications on old-growth forests (Grier and Logan 1977) and on the relationship of northern spotted owls to old-growth (Forsman et al. 1977) appeared in 1977. The first major preservationists' article on old-growth was published In May of 1978 as the lead story in the Northwest Conifer (Alaback 24 and Juday 1978), and it was followed in June 1978 by a feature article on old-growth in Wild

Oregon (La Follette 1978). The timber industry was also watching the development of old-growth/spotted owl management policies. During 1977 the National Forest Products

Association conducted a census of spotted owls in northwest Washington (Postovit 1977). In

January of 1979 the Douglas Timber Operators filed an administrative appeal of the Regional

Forester's decision to accept the Oregon-Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee's spotted owl management recommendations (Craig 1986) 6 The Chief of the Forest Service denied the appeal, but directed the Regional Forester to include management options for viable spotted owl populations in regional planning guidelines for the preparation of land and resource management plans during the early 1980s.

Economic factors heightened preservationists' concern about old-growth in the late

1 970s (Wild Oregon 1 978a, 1979). The U.S. economy began to weaken, and in an effort to fight rising inflation and contain housing costs, President Carter announced plans to expand federal timber sales which would accelerate the logging of old-growth in the Northwest (Nelson

1985; Keller 1978). The Forest Service and the CouncU on Environmental Quality resisted the pressure (Nelson 1985), and the policy was not implemented due to a deepening recession which resulted in low prices for wood products but no buyers (Business Week 1982).

Old-growth and Owls Go Public (1980-1983)

National Forest Planning

In the early 1980s the national forests of the Pacific Northwest began developing new management plans to replace their current plans which expired in 1985 (Wilkinson and

Anderson 1987). The new plans would provide the basis of land use allocation and timber sale levels until 1995-2000. Both preservationists and the timber industry were concerned the new plans would not meet their objectives. 25

During the early 1 980s, preservation groups in Oregon focused most of their energies on securing statutory protection for old-growth In wilderness areas by filing administrative appeals to stop logging (Wild Oregon 1980a). The first major administrative appeal involving old-growth habitat for the spotted owl was filed by the Oregon Wilderness Coalition and others

In 1980. Their request for an EIS on owl habitat to accompany the Draft Pacific Northwest

Region Plan was denied by the Chief of the Forest Service.7 The Oregon-Washington

Interagency Wildlife Committee revised its owl habitat recommendations in February 1981 to

Include 1,000 acres of old-growth for each nest, and these new guidelines were incorporated

into the regional plan (USDA Forest Service 1 984a, 1 988a).

The timber industry recognized old-growth and spotted owls as Issues which threatened to reduce the timber supply. In 1981 Dennis Hayward, executive vice-president of the North West Timber Association (NWTA), wrote the first major analysis on the impacts of spotted owl management on the Industry. Hayward (1981) estimated the proposed guidelines would result in a loss of 0.6-1.5 million acres of commercial timber land which translated into an estimated loss of 3,192 industry jobs.

The Public Becomes Aware of the Issue

The Oregonian, Oregon's largest newspaper, brought the old-growth issue before the state's general public in June of 1980 and again in November of 1980 when it ran a seven part series on the developing issue. One article prophetically stated that several people involved in the issue foresaw a long battle before the last decision on old-growth was to be made (Kadera

1980).

During 1980-1981, the idea for a public conference on old-growth grew out of forest

planning sessions the Willamette National Forest conducted with various interests groups

(Powers 1 989).8 The conference, held in Eugene during February of 1982, featured scientists and top agency officials (Tollenaar 1982). James Monteith (1 982a), Executive Director of the 26

Oregon Wilderness Council, said the conference was a landmark event because it legitimized the existence of old-growth ecosystems for values other than timber.

Old-growth and Owl Information Needs Grow

More attention was given to the study of old-growth ecosystems by the scientific

community as the issue escalated. The Old-growth Wildlife Habitat Research and Development

Program was established in 1981 as a five-year cooperative venture by the Forest Service,

BLM, state wildlife agencies, and universities to learn more about spotted owl management

(USDA Forest Service 1 982b, 1 988a). Information was lacking on how much old-growth still existed, and the Old-growth Wildlife Habitat Research and Development Program assigned a high priority to taking an inventory (USDA Forest Service

1 988e). However, lack of funding and appropriate technical tools prevented immediate implementation.

In 1982-1983, the BLM changed its previous commitment to follow the

Oregon-Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee's revised spotted owl habitat guidelines, and reduced the number of owl pairs and the amount of old-growth allocation per nest

(Carleson and Haight 1985; Craig 1986). The Bureau's revised position was the result of new management directives for the O&C lands sent by Director Robert Burlord (Heinrichs 1983).

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission immediately challenged the BLM's plans based in part on claims the plans violated the Sikes Act and Oregon's wildlife policy. After a series of negotiations, the BLM and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife reached agreement in

October of 1983, on a plan for owl management (Carleson and Haight 1 985).The agreement did not appease preservationists, who wanted a statewide EIS, so the Lane County Audubon

Society et al. appealed the agreement to the Department of Interior Board of Land Appeals in

November, 1983. This appeal was denied in February 1985 due in part to a ruling that individual BLM district environmental impact statements (EIS) were adequate (Grant 1985). 27

Uncertainty Develops In Federal Land-use Allocation (1984-1988)

Preservationists' Appeals Slow Logging

The year 1984 was a turning point in the old-growth conflict. The wilderness issue in

Oregon subsided in the spring of 1984 when the Omnibus Oregon Wilderness Act set aside

849,300 acres (Eber 1984). This brought Oregon's total national forest wilderness area to 2.2 million acres (Brown and Kerr 1989), but preservationists estimated only 200,000 acres of old-growth existed in Oregon wilderness areas (Montelth 1986).

After the 1984 Oregon wilderness legislation passed, some people thought the preservation battles were over. Randy Dunbar (1989), the Ranger of the Mckenzie District on the Willamette National Forest, said he believed the preservation issue was settled. The timber industry thought the wilderness bills were supposed to resolve the debate over land-use allocations for preservation (Hayward 1 989a; Northwest Forest Resource Council 1 989b).

Oregon State Representative Walt Schroeder (1986) agreed, and Oregon U.S. Senator Mark

Hatfield (1984) (R), declared that while he was Senator there would be no more wilderness set-asides in Oregon. To the people in the wildland preservation movement, agitation for more wilderness was considered to be a political liability; so, additional old-growth set asides could not be presented as a wilderness issue (Versteeg 1988; Hinton 1988).

Preservation groups turned their attention to new strategies for setting aside the lands they felt should have been induded as wilderness and other noncommodity uses. The dependence of the northern spotted owl on old-growth habitat became the new theme for forest preservation. Preservationists began to use the forest planning process to address the issues of maintaining wildlife habitat and reducing timber harvest (Wild Oregon 1984). For example, the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) submitted a plan to the Willamette

National Forest which allowed timber harvest on only 24 percent of the land base (USDA

Forest Service 1 987b).1° 28

In 1980 The Forest Service told Congress It expected the national forests planning process to be completed in 1985, and said the draft plan for the Mt. Hood National Forest was accelerated and would be ready by December 1980 (USDA Forest Service 1980). By the mid-

1980s the planning process was behind schedule (Hunt 1986) due to delays caused by preservationists' administrative appeals, and the Mt. Hood draft plan was finally released in early 1988. The Reaional Guide for the Pacific Northwest Region (Regional Guide), containing guidelines for planning some old-growth retention, and spotted owl habitat, was not published until May of 1984 (USDA Forest Service 1 984a,b). The Chief Forester approved the Regional

Guide In June 1984 (USDA Forest Service 1988b).

In October 1984 four preservation groups filed an administrative appeal of the Chief

Forester's approval of the Regional Guide (National Wildlife Federation et al. 1984).In part, the appeal contended the Forest Service did not comply with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) concerning the habitat needs of the northern spotted owl (National Wildlife

Federation et al. 1984), and it requested an EIS be prepared to address this concern.

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Douglas MacCleery, agreed with the appellants, and in 1985, he instructed the Regional Forester to prepare a supplemental EIS (SEIS) (MacCleery 1985), but did not halt logging. After 18 months, the draft SEIS was released for public comment on

August 8, 1986.

Scientific Information on Old-growth Systems Increases

The northern spotted owl riveted scientists' attention on old-growth forests.

Information from scientific studies conducted during the early 1980s was presented at a symposium, Ecoloav and Management of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest (Gutierrez and Cary 1985), during June of 1984. One of the first national environmental groups to show concern in the old-growth issue was the National Audubon Society which commissioned an evaluation of the spotted owl in 1985 (Dawson et al. 1987). The Society's review panel, 29 consisting of several distinguished scientists, released its report in May of 1986, and recommend an absolute minimum of 1,500 northern spotted owl pairs be maintained throughout its range (Dawson et al. 1987).

The Society of American Foresters (1984) recognized harvesting old-growth in the

Northwest was a controversial issue that would have to be addressed in national forest plans.

Early in 1982 the Society appointed an eleven-man task force to develop a policy position on scheduling the harvest of old-growth. The Society's report, released in 1984, recommended the Forest Service and the BLM abandon nondeclining yield (even-flow), and adopt an economic yield policy. The economic yield approach was to take into consideration social and environmental factors.

To facilitate an inventory of old-growth, the Old-growth Wildlife Habitat Research and

Development Program formed the Old-growth Definition Task Group in 1984 (Old-growth

Definition Task Group 1986; USDA Forest Service 1 988b). The Task Group published its work,

Interim Definitions for Old-growth Doqglas-Fir and Mixed-Conifer Forests in the Pacific

Northwest and California (also referred to as PNW-447) in June 1986.11

Conflicts Over Specific Old-growth Stands

After 13 years of confrontation and bargaining, the Crabtree Valley old-growth conflict came to a conclusion in February 1985. The 640 acre section was exchanged by Willamette

Industries to the BLM for comparable forest land elsewhere (Wild Oregon 1985).

But in the summer of 1985 a major confrontation concerning the Squaw Three Timber

Sale on the Willamette National Forest developed (Wild Oreqon 1 986a; Corvallis Gazette-Times

1986b). The sale site, purchased by Willamette Industries, had a long history of efforts to preserve it (Corvallis Gazette-Times I 986a; Loveland 1989). Tree ring counts on fresh stumps indicated the area may contain trees older than those in Crabtree Valley and preservationists christened the site the "Millennium Grove" (Wild Oreaon 1986a). Protesters from the Cathedral 30

Forest Action Group and Earth First! occupied the site and shut down logging (Wild Oreaon

1 986a; Corvallis Gazette-TImes 1 986b). Winter arrived, and Willamette Industries pulled out of the area with the 56-acre forest stand still somewhat intact. A citizens' task force was created by the Willamette National Forest during the winter to devise a plan to protect the ancient trees in the sale area (Wild Oregon 1 986a). The task force decided to offer Willamette Industries a different timber stand of comparable worth in exchange for the Millennium Grove (Schier

1986)." The company opposed a land exchange this time, and negotiations between the

Forest Service and the company broke down on March 27 1986; logging started the next day

(Corvallis Gazette-Times 1986a; Schier 1986). Ironically, BLM wildlife biologist and old-growth preservation advocate Chris Maser visited the site just after the logging, and said while the site contained some very old scattered trees, the site was not old-growth (Maser 1988).

Another intense confrontation occurred on the Willamette National Forest over the

North Roaring Devil Timber Sale. After several intense protests at the site and administrative appeals, a lawsuit was filed in October 1986 by ONRC et at. (Burns 1988; Painter 1989c;

Durbin 1 989e). The suit claimed citizens had the right, based on new information (old-growth spotted owl habitat), to administratively challenge sales which were resales of timber returned to the Forest Service under the Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act of 1984

(Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service 1987; Wild Oregon 1988a).

The Forest Service contended that such resales had already gone through the proper evaluation procedures when they were first sold. Judge James Burns (1988) denied the suit on March 31, 1987, so preservationists appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San

Francisco.

The fight to prevent the logging of an old-growth stand on BLM land in the Mohawk

Valley east of Eugene, Oregon resulted in the first national television exposure of the issue. A

10 minute story titled "The Battle of Bunker Hill" was featured on the CBS television program

Sunday Morning on February 22, 1987 (Wild Oregon 1987a). 31

Petitions to Ust the Owl as Endangered

One of the first suggestions to list the northern spotted owl as an endangered species in order to preserve old-growth came from the Oregon Wilderness Council in 1982 (Wild

Oregon 1982), but it was four more years before a request was made. The Fish and Wildlife

Service received a letter from Green World, an environmental organization based in

Cambridge, Massachusetts, requesting the northern spotted owl be listed as an endangered species (Green World 1 986a). The agency did not act on the request because the letter did not explicitly say it was a "petition" (U.S. General Accounting Office 1989). A second letter, dated November 28, 1986, was sent by Green World with the correct wording, and the Fish and Wildlife Service began the formal review process on January 28, 1987 (Green World

1 986b; U.S. General Accounting Office 1989). A second petition was filed by 29 environmental organizations on August 3, 1987 (Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 1987). The new petitioners requested their petition be combined with that of Green World's to force the agency to make a determination by January 28, 1988.

As spotted owls became more of a concern, the Forest Service organized a five year regional research project, the Spotted Owl Research, Development, and Application Program, during 1987. In February of 1987 the BLM completed an Environmental Assessment of spotted owl habitat management (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1987a; USDA Forest Service

1988a). Preservationists wanted an EIS, but in April the Bureau said a supplemental EIS like that being produced by the Forest Service was not needed to address new information on spotted owls (USDA Forest Service 198gb). This decision was appealed by the Portland

Audubon Society to the Interior Board of Appeals which denied the request in July of 1987

(Frye 1988).

The Wilderness Society hosted the quarterly meeting of ten major national environmental organizations in Seattle during the spring of 1987 in order to generate national interest in the old-growth issue (Monteith 1987). Also in the spring preservationists, lead by the 32

National Audubon Society, approached the U.S. Congress with a request to halt 55 old-growth timber sales on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest (Evans 1987). The proposal was rebuffed by members of the Northwest delegation.In late summer the House Agriculture

Subcommittee on Forest, Family Farms, and Energy held a hearing in Medford, Oregon on national forests management in the Northwest and old-growth was a major topic.

Spotted Owl Habitat Issue Goes to Court

Dissatisfied with the Interior Board of Appeal's July 1987 decision that the BLM did not have to write an EIS for spotted owl management, the Portland Audubon Society, in conjunction with 10 other environmental groups, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Oregon on October 19, 1987 (Portland Audubon Society et al., v. Hodel 1987; USDA Forest Service

1 988a)12In part, the suit claimed the BLM did not consider new information concerning the effects of logging on the northern spotted owl and requested an injunction against logging old-growth trees within a 2.1-mile radius of any known spotted owl site until the BLM prepared a supplementary EIS (Portland Audubon Society et al., v. Hodel 1987).

Nineteen eighty-eight started with actions favorable to preservationists' interests. The

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in January 1988, that citizens did have the right to administratively appeal resales of timber returned to the Forest Service through the Federal

Timber Contract Payment Modification Act of 1984 (Plumb Une 1988b; Wild Oregon 1988a).

The court's ruling resulted in the Forest Service temporarily halting sales totaling 2 bbf, about

45 percent of the sale volume in Oregon and Washington (Plumb Line 1988b). Following up on its court victory, the ONRC filed administrative appeals for 228 timber sales on four Oregon west-side national forests; 71 percent of the sales were on the Willamette (Wild Oregon 1 988a;

Wyant 1988). The large number of appeals angered the Oregon congressional delegation and enraged the timber industry (Wild Oregon 1 988a; Wyant 1988). The mass appeals initiated negotiations between the Forest Service and the ONRC which resulted in a rule change in the 33 appeals process and the dropping of most of the appeals (Wild Oregon 1988a). The ONRC described the court ruling and administrative rule change as "an important skirmish in the battle for primeval old growth forests (Wild Oregon 1988a)." Responding to criticism about the excessive numbers of appeals, the ONRC said that in 1988 only about 400 Forest Service and

BLM sales out of a total of 2,400 in the Northwest were challenged (Wild Oregon 1988d). But,

Forest Industries (1988) reported that the February ONRC mass appeals, mostly resales, made up 40 percent of the 4.5 bbf of timber scheduled for sale during 1988 in Region 6 (the administrative designation for all national forests in Oregon and Washington).

After reviewing the Portland Audubon Society et al. case against the BLM, Judge Helen

Frye dismissed the suit on April 20, 1988. The dismissal was based on Section 314 of the

Federal Appropriations Act of 1987 for the Department of Interior, which limited judicial review of existing federal forest plans based on new information (Frye 1988; USDA Forest Service

1989b). The decision was immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which in

May issued an injunction against BLM logging in spotted owl areas (Frye 1989). This injunction reduced the BLM timber sale program in western Oregon for fiscal year 1988 from

1.2 bbf to 0.8 bbf. (Kadera 1 988b; Wild Oregon 1 989d).

Agency Plans Increase Tension

The anxiety level in the timber industry was further heightened after several national forests released their draft land and resource management plans, which advocated decreases in timber sale volumes and increases in set asides for noncommodity uses (Northwest Forest

Resource Council 1986, 1988). The Western Wood Products Association pointed out that the

Willamette National Forest, the nation's highest volume timber producer, planned to reduce its harvest by 29 percent and reallocate 436,000 acres of commercial timber land to noncommodity production (Plumb Line 1 988a). Much of the proposed Willamette reallocation was old-growth or stands that would reach that status within two decades (USDA Forest 34

Service 1987b). The combined national forest draft plans for Oregon and Washington called for 1.2 million acres (half of which was suitable for timber production) to be set aside for spotted owl habitat, and the concern was if the owl was listed as endangered as much as five times that amount would be reserved (Plumb Line 1 987a,b).

Preservationists Push the Issue

On December 18, 1987 the Fish and Wildlife Service said the northern spotted owl, although declining in number, did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at that time

(USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service 1987; U.S. General Accounting Office 1989). Part of the reason cited for not listing the owl was an interagency agreement between the Forest Service and the

Fish and Wildlife Service to work together to manage and monitor the owl so that it would not require endangered or threatened status (USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service 1987; USDA Forest

Service 1988a, 1989b). Dissatisfied with the agency's decIsion, 25 regional and national environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington on

May 5, 1988, on behalf of the spotted owl (Northern Spotted Owl et al., v. Hodel).13

The National Audubon Society became more involved in the conflict through several new projects.Its adopt-a-forest program, headed by spotted owl biologist Chuck Sisco, monitored Forest Service activities and worked with the agency to develop plans to protect old-growth and roadless areas (Sisco 1988). The July/August 1988 issue of the new publication Audubon Activist contained a supplement on the old-growth forest controversy In the Northwest. In addition, the Society began filming a program about the Northwest old-growth conflict for use in its Wotid of Audubon television series (Atiyeh 1988; Wild Oregon

1 989b).

During 1988 the Sierra Club conducted a poll of Club chapters to determine national priorities. The Oregon chapter pushed the old-growth issue, but the national vote assigned the issue a low priority (Hinton 1989). Nevertheless, the issue remained the top concern for the 35

Oregon Chapter, which formed an old-growth committee during the summer of 1988 (Hinton

1989). At the November 1988 chapter meeting, several national forest areas considered to be old-growth were selected for their preservation potential. The Club planned to lobby Congress to exclude funding for road building or logging in these areas. Most of the areas were previously proposed for wilderness status by the Club or other organizations in 1984 (Sierra

Club 1988).

The Wilderness Society featured the old-growth controversy in its spring 1988 issue of

Wilderness. This was followed in June of 1988 with the publication End of the Ancient Forests:

Special Reoort on National Forest Plans in the Pacific Northwest, which concluded the Forest

Service over-estimated the amount of remaining old-growth (The Wilderness Society 1988).

The Society published a more refined report, Old Growth in the Pacific Northwest: A Status

Report, with similar conclusions in November, 1988 (Morrison 1988).

The old-growth issue entered the presidential campaign in late summer 1988 when it was alleged that Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis advocated a ban on the harvest of

Northwest old-growth (Mapes 1988). Dukakis' support of old-growth preservation was outlined in an environmental position paper developed by The League of Conservation Voters for the

Dukakis campaign. Oregon's Democratic politicians told Dukakis that such a ban might cost the jobs of thousands of workers who historically support Democrats. In response, the

Democratic Party of Oregon issued a statement on September 14th saying, "Governor Dukakis does not and never has supported a ban on the harvesting of old growth timber (Democratic

Party of Oregon Campaign 88...Dukakis/Bensten 1988)."

Spotted Owl Plan Causes More Controversy

In August of 1988, after three and one-half years of preparation, the Forest Service released the final SEIS which outlined its strategy to manage the spotted owl (USDA Forest

Service 1988a). The plan threw another scare into the timber industry because it 36

recommended that 348,000 acres of national forests in Oregon and Washington be withdrawn from the timber base (USDA Forest Service 1988a). The timber industry predicted this action would result in a reduction of annual timber offered for sale by 163 million board feet and the

loss of between 455 and 910 jobs (Plumb Line 1988c). The estimated number of lost jobs was later increased to 3,300 by the Northwest Forestry Association (Plumb Line 1988d). Also in

August of 1988 the Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park

Service signed a new interagency agreement on spotted owl management (Interagency

Scientific Committee... 1990). The four federal agencies consented to work together toward the common goal of insuring the viability of the spotted owl.

By late summer of 1988 people at the grassroots level of the timber industry believed they were being left out of the decision-making process and began to mobilize. One of their first and most impressive demonstrations was a massive 1,100 log truck rally which rolled into

Grants Pass, Oregon with yellow ribbons flying on August 27, 1988 (Levine 1989). The demonstration supported the logging salvage of fire-damaged timber from the Silver Fire of the previous summer. Part of the burned area was in a roadless area which preservationists claimed to contain old-growth and wanted protected (Bortz 1989).

Preservationists Use New Strategies

In 1987-1 988 preservationists tried using the Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts of the State of Oregon and federal government to preserve old-growth. Senator Hatfield had introduced a bill to protect large segments of Oregon's rivers (Wild Oregon 1 988b). The measure passed in late September 1988 and added 1,429 miles to the Wild and Scenic River system in Oregon

(Wild Oreaon 1988b).14

On September 24, 1988 over 200 national, regional, and local preservation leaders gathered in Portland for the "First Annual Conference of Old Growth Forest Activists". Brock

Evans (1988), vice-president for national issues of the National Audubon Society, said, "Making 37 this question [old-growth] a national concern...is the absolute first order of business before we can hope to save anything." Specific long-term objectives were to achieve legislative protection of old-growth, and to shift public land policies from timber management to management for wildlife, clean water, clean air, and soil (Anonymous 1 988a). This meeting brought commitments from the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, The Wilderness

Society, and the National Wildlife Federation to work together.

Judge Thomas Zilly ruled on November 17, 1988 that the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision in December of 1987 not to consider the spotted owl as threatened or endangered was "arbitrary and capricious" (Ellis 1 988 Wilderness 1988; USDA Forest Service 1 989b). He gave the agency 90 days to explain its decision in light of the fact that expert opinion indicated the owl faced extinction. The Service requested more time, and was given until May 1, 1989 to reevaluate its information (Ellis 1988; USDA Forest Service 1 989b).

Based on the SEIS, Forest Service Chief Robertson (1988), In his December 8, 1988

Record of Decision on a management plan for the northern spotted owl, stated 374,000 acres of spotted owl habitat on national forest lands in Oregon and Washington would be protected.

Robertson's decision was appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture by three preservation groups and five timber industry groups (USDA Forest Service 1989b).

Following-up on the goals of the September 1988 Old Growth Forest Activists

Conference, Oregon environmental group leaders met in Eugene on December 10, 1988 and formally created the Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance (OAFA), and scheduled a large state-wide meeting for January (Durbln 1989a; Hermach 1989a). In Washington D.C. leaders from The

Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, and National Wildlife Federation formally established the Ancient Forest Alliance on December 16, 1988 (Durbin 1 989a). This was the first time these four organizations had a formal working agreement on any issue

(Hermach 1 989a). 38

The Old-growth Issue Is Nationalized (1989)

Lawsuits Accelerate the Issue

Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance actMsts met in Eugene in mid-January to organize and educate grassroots environmentalists, and to develop strategies to press the old-growth issue forward. Evans (1 989a) said they must draw lines around the places they wanted to protect, and the issue must be nationalized by finding sympathetic members of Congress outside the

Oregon delegation. Also in mid-January, the Northwest Forest Resource Counc (NFRC), the

Association of O&C Counties and Oregon Governor Neil Goldschmidt (0) asked the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals to remove its temporary injunction of May 1988, which banned old-growth sales within 2.1 miles of any spotted owl nest In BLM forests (Kadera 1 989a). On

January 24 the Court of Appeals lifted its injunction, and sent the case back to the District

Court of Judge Frye where preservatlonists were told they could request bans on individual sales (Goodwin 1989a; Kadera 198gb).

Eatly February 1989 was a time of intense legal activity by both preservation ists and the timber industry. Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter ruled on February 6th, that the eight different appeals of Chief Robertson's December 16, 1988 decision on a spotted owl management plan did not warrant review (Ulrich 1989; USDA Forest Service 1 989a). The

Seattle Audubon Society, along with nine regional and national groups, responded by filing a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of Western Washington on February 8 challenging the adequacy of the Robertson's decision, and requesting a preliminary injunction on timber sales

In all spotted owl habitat larger than 40 acres (Seattle Audubon Society et al., v. Robertson

1989). The Forest Service testified that if such an injunction was imposed, it would affect 421 sales constituting 2.5 bbf of timber, a little over one-half the total timber scheduled for sale in

1989 (USDA Forest Service 1989b). Judge William Dwyer ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and asked the Forest Service not to offer any timber for sale in old-growth Douglas-fir forests 39

pending review on March 1 (Koberstein 1 989b). The moratorium was extended to March 15

(Kobersteln 198gb).

Other legal activity in February 1989 included a lawsuit by the Western Washington

Commercial Forest Action Committee (WWCFAC) against the Forest Service owl plan claiming the plan was inadequate and reduced the timber harvest too much (USDA Forest Service

1 989b). The Forest Service was also sued by the NFRC on February 13 (Northwest Forest

Resource Council, v. Robertson 1989). The NFRC suit requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of the spotted owl plan, claiming it violated the NEPA and the

Council of Environmental Quality regulations (Northwest Forest Resource Council, v. Robertson

1989).

Representative Gerry E. Studds (0) of Massachusetts, chairman of the House

Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, released a General

Accounting Office (GAO) Investigation of the owl listing issue on February 21 (Koberstein and

Hayakawa 1 989).15 The GAO report said there were 'serious questions about whether FWS

[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] maintained its scientific objectivity during the spotted owl petition process (U.S. General Accounting Office 1 989)N

Preservationists tried a new tactic by proposing the Opal Creek area, on the Willamette

National Forest, as a state park (Wild Oregon 1 989h). A bill, introduced to the Oregon

Legislature on February 10, directed the Oregon Parks Division to negotiate with the Forest

Service for a long-term, free lease on 31,000 acres in the Opal Creek area (Durbin 198gb).

Rob Freres, Vice-president of Freres Lumber Company In Lyons, Oregon organized a demonstration of five hundred mill workers, loggers, and their families against the bill at the state capitol on February 21 (Durbin 1 989d,g). The State Senate Agriculture and Natural

Resources Committee voted 4-3 to table the bill (Durbin 1989g; Wild Oregon 1989g).16

The timber industry began the legal maneuvers again on March 2 when the

Washington Contract Loggers Association filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service in the U.S.

District Court of Western Washington.It claimed the Forest Service owl plan was based on 40 unreliable scientific methods (USDA Forest Service I 989b). Due to the relatedness of the issues in this suit and the Seattle Audubon Society et al. suit against the Forest Service, Judge

Dwyer consolidated the two suits (USDA Forest Service 1989b). Seattle Audubon Society et al. requested a temporary restraining order against the Forest Service to stop all old-growth logging (Koberstein 1989c). This was denied on March 15, but Judge Dwyer said they could seek injunctions against indMdual sales as they came up. Two days later, preservationists got a temporary restraining order on 135 timber sales containing a volume slightly under one billion board feet (USDA Forest Service 198gb). Other sales were added through April (USDA

Forest Service 1 989b).

By the end of March there was considerable political pressure to find a solution to the situation created by the lawsuits against the three federal agencies (Table 1). Oregon U.S.

Representative Les AuCoin (D) indicated this may be the worst natural resource calamity to hit the Northwest, with the potential to put thousands of timber workers out of jobs, but said there were no legislative solutions in sight (Blumenthal 1989).

Another bitter confrontation erupted on March 24 over the logging of the North

Roaring Devil Timber Sale. While preservationists petitioned the court for help (The Oregonian

1 989a), the cutting continued amidst intense protest, with several arrests (Painter 1 989a). On

March 30 Judge Burns ruled the logging could proceed; so, the plaintiffs immediately appealed his decision to the Ninth Circuit Court (Painter 1 989c). After a hearing conducted by telephone the same day, the request for an emergency injunction was denied (Manzano 1989).

Legal maneuvers on another front began on March 29 when Harbor Against Land

Takeover (HALT, a timber industry group), filed a lawsuit claiming the temporary restraining order Issued by Judge Dwyer violated the Federal Sustained Yield Act (USDA Forest Service

1989b). Also on March 29 Judge Frye reinstated the injunction prohibiting logging within 2.1 miles of spotted owl nests on BLM lands (Painter 1989b; USDA Forest Service 198gb). Amid all the court actions and protests at the end of March, the Forest Service sponsored the

Old-Growth Doualas-fir Forests: Wildlife Communities and Habitat Relationships symposium in generatedTable 1. Lawsuits the old-growth active in crisis the first in thequarter spnng of of1989 1989). against federal natural resource management agencies (Italic type indicates critical lawsuit that Oregon Natural Resources Council Lawsu Oct. 12, 1986 Date Filed Plaintiff Typepreservation old-growth timber sale Reason Forest Service Defendant Agency Portland/BurnsCourt/Judge etPortlandetal. al. vs. vs. U.S. AudubonHodel Forest ServiceSociety (PAS) Oct. 19, 1987 preservation spotted owl habitat Bureau of Land Management Portland/Frye SeattleNorthernvs. Hodel Audubon spotted Society owl et al.(SAS) Feb.May 8,5, 1989 preservation spotted owl habitatextinction ForestFish and Service Wildlife Service Seattle/DwyerSeatrie/Zilly Westernet al. vs. Washington Robertson Commercial Feb. 8, 1989 preservationtimber timber reduction Forest Service Portland/Frye NorthwestLoggers vs. Forest Robertson Resource Council Feb. 13, 1989 timber timber reduction Forest Service Portland/Frye vs.Washington Robertson Contract Loggers Mar. 2, 1989 timber timber reduction Forest Service Seattle/Dwyer vs.Harbor Robertson Against Land Takeover Mar. 1989 timber timber reduction Forest Service Tacoma/Tanner A-s 42

Portland (Booth 1989). In April Forest Service Chief Robertson told the Senate Appropriations

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies that due to the uncertainty associated with

lawsuits, the national forests in Oregon and Washington had only about 48 percent of the 1989

sales prepared for bidding (Hayakawa I 989b).

Frustrated with the disintegrating situation, people at all levels of the timber industry

began to organize. One of the first groups to form was the Yellow Ribbon Coalition.17

Communities for a Great Oregon was formed in the spring of 1989 to organize the people

living In small timber-dependent communities.18 The Association of O&C Counties asked the

Western States Public Lands Coalition to help organize a broad based organization of public

land users, and the Oregon Project was born (Federal Lands 1989; The Oregon Project 1989).

Senator Hatfield played a major role in the formation of the organization (Sands 1989; .WIM

Oregon 1 989d). Industry trade associations formed The American Forest Resources Alliance in

April as a national all-industry response to what was seen as becoming an Nawesome

environmental war (Plumb Line 1 989b Random Lengths 1 989a). A spokesman for the

organization said the timber industry has come together on this issue as never before by

putting aside regional and other differences (Random Lengths 1 989e).

Threatened Species Status for Owl Directly Involves Politicians

On April 26, 1989 the Fish and Wildlife Service reported to Judge Zilly that its reevaluation of the northern spotted owl Indicated It did warrant consideration of federal protection as a "threatenecr species due to significant loss of old-growth and mature forest habitat (Dowhan 1989). The announcement brought mixed opinions from within the timber industry. Joseph McKrakin of the Western Forest Products Industry Council said he believed the listing was inevitable (Durbin 1989f), and some people thought the listing may be a necessary step toward resolving the issue by forcing the ESA to be rewritten (Plumb Line

1989a). Preservationists were ecstatic (Hayakawa and Durbin 1989a). Representative AuCoin 43

said the owl listing decision was "the worst nightmare of the people of those communities'

dependent on federal timber (Hayakawa and Durbin 1 989a).

At this point Oregon's political leadership was forced to step in because the potential for job loss was large. Governor Goldschmidt, Senator Hatheld, and Representative AuCoin

met on April 27 and decided to convene a "forest summit" with old-growth issue participants in

June (Hayakawa and Ames 1989; Durbin 1989h; Goetze 1989). That same day Governor

Goldschmidt addressed the Northwest Forestry Association's annual meeting calling the

old-growth Issue a "legitimate Issue for public debate (Goetze 1989).' John Mitchell, economist and senior vice-president at U.S. Bankcorp, told the same group that "decisions will be made

by Congress and the courts (Durbin 1989k)."

Timber industry groups held simultaneous news conferences in Portland, Seattle,

Sacramento, and Washington, D.C. on April 28 and predicted the loss of 80,000 jobs in Oregon and Washington by the end of the year If the injunctions remained (Hayakawa and Durbin

1 989b). Demonstrations protesting the proposed listing of the spotted owl were staged in

Hood River, Sweet Home, and Lebanon (Senior 1989; Durbln 1989i). Another new pro-industry group, the Oregon Wise Use Movement, held a meeting in Salem on May 20 at which Senator

Bob Packwood (R-OR) was the keynote speaker (Plumb Une 1989c). The next day Packwood, along with U.S. Representatives Bob Smith (R-OR) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) addressed a rally of 1,000 Industry supporters at the State Capitol Building (Danks 1989).

Senator Hatfield's office announced the forest summit was set for June 24 (Hayakawa

1 989c).In preparation, the Oregon congressional delegation requested that the timber industry and preservationists each nominate five spokespersons from which the delegation would pick three to represent each group (Hayakawa 1 989f)19 There was dissatisfaction among the industry's grassroots people and organized labor because they felt they had not been included (Painter 1989d).

Old-growth timber prices rose from $160 per thousand board feet (mbf) in the second quarter of 1988 to $375 per mbf in the second quarter of 1989 (Levine 1989). Western Wood 44

Products Association staffers who introduced the old-growth timber supply issue to groups of

Nfriendlyu audiences were finding them unsympathetic (Plumb Line 198gb). Many retailers and wholesalers across the country thought the spotted owl habitat issue might be a ploy by the

Industry to raise prices, and some seemed sympathetic to preservation views (Richards 1989).

The Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Park Service began work on an interim spotted owl plan on May 9 (USDA Forest Service 1 989b). Members of the Oregon and Washington congressional delegations pushed the agencies to develop a plan that would allow some sales to resume (Hayakawa 1 989e). Options proposed induded amending the

ESA or legislating a specific spotted owl management plan as meeting the requirements of the

ESA (Hayakawa 1989e).

Then, on May 18, Judge Frye (1989) ruled that Section 314 of the 1987 Appropriations

Act prohibited the courts from reviewing blanket suits involving existing timber management plans. The ruling lifted the ban on the sale of about 0.5 bbf of BLM timber (Random Lengths

1 989b). Preservationists immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court claiming limitations on Judicial review were unconstitutional because they restricted citizens access to the courts

(Wild Oregon 1988d; The Oregonian 1989c). On June 7 the Ninth Circuit Court reinstated the order banning old-growth sales in BLM forests, and extended the ban to include any newly discovered spotted owl sites until a hearing scheduled for August 17 (Durbin and Painter

1989). Senator Hatfield said the decision could disrupt the forest summit and a federal interagency agreement on old-growth sales (Durbin and Painter 1989).

By mid-May the net effect of court decisions and administrative appeals was to reduce the annual timber volume proposed for sale on BLM forests by one-half, and the Forest Service sale volume by one-fourth (Plumb Line 1989d). On May 26 Judge Dwyer ordered the Forest

Service not to take any irreparable action concerning spotted owl habitat (i.e., offer timber for sale) without approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service (Byrnes 1 989b; Durbin 1 989u). Dwyer said that under the circumstances the proposed listing might force the Forest Service to 45 rewrite its spotted owl management plan of December 8, 1988, SO it would be a waste of money to go forward with a trial at that time (Durbin 1 989u).

By late May some mills In Oregon and Washington had closed while others had given employees 60-day notices for layoffs (Random Lengths 1 989c).Mill closures were occurring despite what the Industry said was high demand for wood products. The gloomy outlook inspired seven pro-timber rallies over the June 2-4 weekend In the western states. Parades of a thousand or more log trucks occurred in Salem and Eugene (Martins 1989; urns 1989).

In the days just prior to the forest summit different groups maneuvered to gain the advantage at the summit table. The NFRC released a portion of a study on June 20 which estimated that more than 20,000 industry jobs would be lost by 1991 If the court orders blocking old-growth sales were not lifted (Durbin 1989m). In Washington D.C., Minnesota

Representative Bruce Vento (D), a strong supporter of environmental causes (Barone and

Ujifusa 1989), and Chairman of the House Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Public

Lands, held a joint hearing with the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Forests, Family

Farms, and Energy on June 21 and 22, 1989 to hear testimony concerning the Northwest old-growth issue (Church 1 989a; Byrnes 1 989a). Preservation organizations saw this as the initiation of the process to legIslatively protect old-growth (Evans 1 989a), and Vento said he wanted to make old-growth a national issue (Church 1 989a). In addition the Subcommittee on

Conservation and Forestry of the Senate Agriculture Committee held a related hearing on June

21, 1989 (U.S. Congress 1989a).

At the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior meeting on June 20,

Subcommittee chair Sidney Yates (D-IL), another strong supporter of environmental causes

(Barone and Ujifusa 1989), proposed an amendment to reduce logging of old-growth by limiting stand fragmentation (Church 1 989b). Yates withdrew his amendment, but said he would bring it up again before the full committee because he believed this was a national

Issue. Oregon Representatives AuCoin and DeFazio conceded that the controversy was now a national issue (Church 1 989b; Hayakawa 1 989a). 46 Timber Summit Compromise

Timber summit day, June 24, was an historic event because it was the first time in

many years the entire Oregon congressional delegation met Jointly on an issue. During the

day-long meeting In the Salem City Hall, approximately 2,000 industry supporters helda rally

on the grounds of the state capitol building (Painter 1989d).

At the end of the day the politicians offered a short-term Ncompromiseu solution to the

industry and preservationists. The compromise set the timber harvest from Forest Service and

BLM lands at 10 bbf over two years, accepted the PNW-447 definition of old-growth, protected

Nslgniflcanr old-growth stands from fragmentation, required preservationiststo lift or modify

some injunctions to allow some old-growth sales to proceed, and contained language to

protect the compromise from court challenges (Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter 1989; Hayakawa

and Koberstein 1989a; OreQon Ancient Forest News 1989a; Wild Orecon 1990d). Senator

Hatfield said both sides had to accept the compromise by June 27 so it could be incorporated

as part of the bill being considered by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior

(Hayakawa and Koberstein I 989a, b; Slaughter 1989).

There were differences of opinions within both the industry and preservation coalitions

as to the acceptability of the summit compromise (Hayakawa 1 989g).20 Industry

representatives agreed to accept the summit compromise in good faith, but did not consider it a new bargaining position (Hayakawa and Kobersteln 1 989b; Random Lengths 1 989e). The

Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance said it could not accept the summit compromise because it was too vague, but said It would put forth its own proposal later (Hayakawa and Koberstein

1 989b).21

Counter Proposals

During the early summer congressional recess Senator Hatfield said when the Senate reconvened on July 9 he planned to resume efforts to reach a compromise between the 47 industry and preservatlonists (The Oreaonian 198gb). The industry fearedthat any bill would be delayed until fall, which would be too late for some mills to obtain enough logsto sustain them through the winter (Random Lenaths I 989d). After Congress reconvened, the full House approved the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscalyear 1990, H.R. 2788, on July 12 without any language concerning the old-growth timber supply crisis (US Congress

1989c). But the bill did include $22 million for various old-growth and spotted owl research projects (Hayakawa 1 989h).

The Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance held a press conferenceon July 14 to announce its counter proposal to the timber summit compromise. The Alliance would accepta two year timber sale level of 9.6 bbf from Region 6 national forests and BLM lands for combined fiscal years 1989 and 1990, and full protection of all suitable spotted owl habitat and old-growth forests larger than 300 acres with special consideration for ecological valueson old-growth areas of 80-300 acres (The Wilderness Society 1 989b; Oreaon Ancient Forest News 1 989a).

Hatfield and AuCoin organized meetings between the Forest Service, industry, and preservationists to work on a new compromise (Hayakawa 19891). Analysts from the

Congressional Research Service, who were mediating the talks, indicatedprogress was being made but the question of limiting Judicial review remained an obstacle (Hayakawa 1 989n). The biggest fear of the environmental community was that Senator Hatfield would insert language in the bill to exclude Judicial review of timber sales (Wild Oregon 1 990f). Mark Rey, vice-president of the National Forest Products Association, told Congressional Research Office staff the preservationlsts' counter proposal and the summit compromise were not two end-points from which a new compromise was to be found in the middle (Hayakawa 19891).

But Washington Senator Brock Adams (D) said the Northwest congressional delegation generally agreed that the timber sale level should be 9.8 bbf (Hayakawa 1 989j).

Hatfield and Adams added an amendment, Section 318, to the Senate Appropriations

Bill H.R. 2788 on July 25 (Hayakawa 19891). The amendment provided fora total two year sate level of 9.8 bbf from federal land in the two states and gave preservationists until October 1, 48 1989 to release 1 bbf of Forest Service timber and 0.25 bbf of BLM timber from injunctions

(U.S. Congress 1989c; Hayakawa and Durbin 1989c).If the preservationists did not make their

selections by the deadline, the injunctions against Forest Service and BLM timber sales would

be removed automatically. Hatfield had overwhelming support from other Senators,and on

July 26 the full Senate approved the Appropriations Bill, without changing Section318, which

contained limits on judicial review (Kerr 1 989a; Wild Oreaon 1 990g). Preservationists called

Section 318 the "rider from Hell (Kerr 1989a; Oreoon Ancient Forest News 1989b). Thethree

major proposals put forth as solutions to the old-growth crisis by the end of July differed

slightly in age definitions, and timber harvest levels varied by 0.4 bbfper year (Table 2).

Senators Hatheld and Adams said they considered the wording of Section 318open for revision (The Oregonian 1 989j). The first opportunity to change the amendmentcame during the House-Senate Appropriations Interior Conference Committee meeting, whichwas delayed until after the late summer recess because an acceptable solution to the old-growth

issue was not ready (Random Lengths 1 989f; Hayakawa 1989p). The Wilderness Society president George Frampton (1 989b) sent a letter on July 28 to all members of the House urging them to reject Section 318 (Frampton 1 989b; Hayakawa 1 989s). Representative AuCoin was furious, and responded with a letter to Frampton, and sent copies to all House members.

He accused The Wilderness Society of creating "an enormous problem that, if itgoes unrepaired, will not reflect well on The Wilderness Society or the environmental movement in the weeks, months, and years to come (AuCoin 1989a; Hayakawa 1989s)." Another preservationist's letter was sent on August 4th to all the Appropriations Interior Conference

Committee members, requesting the two year timber sale level for Region 6 national forests be set at 7.6 bIllion board feet and all limitations on judicial review be removed (Evans et al. 1989).

In an effort to speed-up the timber sale appeals process on federal forest lands,

Senator Packwood introduced the Land Management Review Act of 1989on July 31 (News from Bob Packwood 1989). This legislation directed lawsuits challenging federal agencies' periodic management plans to bypass Federal District Courts and be heard in the Federal 49

Table 2. Principal components of the three major proposals put forth to solve the old- growth forest crisis in Oregon and Washington during the early summer of 1989.

Proposals

Summit Compromise 1 OAFA Proposal2 Hatfield-Adams 3 Issue June 24 July14 July26

Definition PNW-447 PNW-447 age 200 yrs. 200 yrs. 300 yrs. diameter 32 in. 32 in. 40 in. #live/acre 8 8 8 snags 4-14-20" 4-15'-20" 4-15-24" togs 4-50-24" 4-50-24" 4-50'-24"

Timber Supply 1989 1990total 1989 1990total 2 year total (billion board feet) FS 3.8 4.2 8 FS 3.42 4.047.46 FS 8 (6 west-side) BLM 1.0 1.0 2 BLM1.22 0.922.14 BLM 2

total 4.8 5.2 10 total 4.7 4.9 9.6 total 10

Fragmentation PNW-447 No sales in stands over 300 Minimize potentially acres significant Significant old-growth 80-299 aore stands Start with smallest Start with smallest Avoid stands >40 acres to largest below 2,500 ft. elev.

Judicial Review No judicial review Release some sales from "No restraining order, and Courts injunctions and not challenge injunction, or void of sale Lift or modify current them. Will not challenge shalt be issued by any injunctions other sales on basis of owls court..." or old-growth May have a trial, lift injunction in FS suit

Administrative None allowed No language One level Appeals

Spotted Owl No language No language No language

1. Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter 1989; 2. The Wilderness Society 1988b; 3. u.s. Congress 1989c. 50

Court of Appeals. In addition, the time limit for a suit to be filed would be reducedto 120 days

after a plan was completed.

Late Summer Maneuvers

During the late summer congressional recess preservationists regrouped, and with sympathetic members of Congress renewed the negotiations to revise Section 318 during the

Conference Committee meeting (Oreaon Ancient Forest News 1 989d). Massachusetts

Representative Chet Atkins (D), a member of the House Appropriations Subcommitteeon

Interior, and Kathy Johnson, a Subcommittee staff assistant, visited Oregon in mid-August fora briefing by the agencies, preservationists, and the industry on the crisis (Orecon Ancient Forest

News 1 989c; Forestry Forum 1 989a). Indiana Representative Jim Jontz, a member of the

Agriculture Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy, was a featured speaker at a late August conference in Oregon, sponsored by Cascade Holistic

Economic Consultants.

By mid-August, several Northwest forest products Industry labor unions formed an organization called the Timber Labor Coalition (Durbin 1989t; The Woodworker 1989a).

Michael Draper, executive secretary of the Western Council of Industrial Workers, said the coalition would use the courts to fight ueremistsu who Jeopardize workers' jobs by tying up timber sales in court (Durbln 1 989x). Another pro-industry organization, the Oregon Lands

Coalition, formed during the summer and coordinated the various grassroots groups (Durbin

1989x). A confrontation was developing over the 'World of Audubon' television program

Anclent Forest: Rage Over Trees (Durbin 1 989x).M Industry grassroots groups organized an effort to get advertisers to pull their support of the program in hopes that it would not be shown (Hirons 1989). Strohs Brewery Company and the Ford Motor Company backed out, but the program was televised at the expense of the Turner Broadcasting Network on 51

September 24 during the Conference Committee negotiations on old-growth legislation (Durbin

1989x).

Four public hearings to gather information regarding the proposed listing of the northern spotted owl as a threatened species were held in late August (Mapes 1989; Francis

1989b). At the second hearing in Redding, California on August 17,a pro-industry rally of four to five thousand people greeted the Fish and Wildlife Service (Francis 1 989a). At the Redding and Olympia hearings the industry presented data from spotted owl surveys on privately owned lands in northwest California that indicated owls were "everywhere" induding second-growth (Durbin 1989r; Irwin et al. 1989). Barry Mulder, spotted owl project coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the information from northern Californiawas new, and

"we're really excited about it (Durbin 1 989r)." At the Eugene hearing Willamette National Forest

Supervisor Mike Kerrlck (1989) said increased searches for owls indicated there were more owls found than in previous years.

Court rulings continued to affect the timber supply crisis. On September 6 the Ninth

Court of Appeals voted 3-0 to lift its June 7 injunction on BLM timber sales In spotted owl habitat (Goodwin 1989b). During early September, the Forest Service requested Judge Dwyer release 22 timber sales (0.12 bbf) which the Fish and WUdlife Service said would not jeopardize the spotted owl (Durbln 1 989u). Preservationlsts countered on September 12 with a request to begin a trial which had been on hold since May 26 (Durbin 1989u). Dwyer consented and ordered the two parties to agree on a trial date; November 13 was selected (Hayakawa 1989x).

Attorneys for Seattle Audubon Society et al. argued that since a trial would be held, Section

318 would not be necessary (Durbin 1989u).

Congress Reaches an Agreement

When Congress reconvened in September, lobbying by preservationists and the timber industry was intense (Random Lengths 1 989g). Several environmental leaders from the 52 Northwest traveled to Washington D.C. to help national environmental organizations and preservatlonists from other states lobby Congress (Oreaon Ancient Forest News 1 989d). A massive letter and telephone campaign was launched to let key members of Congress know preservationists' views. The industry advertised in selected magazines, had television ads broadcast in the Washington D.C. area, and sent letters to all House members urging support of Section 318 (Plumb Line 1989f). A rally of 1,500 wood products workers was sponsored by the Timber Labor Coalition in Salem on September 8 (Durbin 1989t). Senator Packwood addressed 150 tImber Industry trade association and grassroots supporters at a rally on the

U.S. Capitol steps on September ii (Hayakawa 1 989q, 1 989r). Representatives Jontz and

Vento sponsored a collegial letter promoting the preservationists' position, with the Ancient

Forest Alliance doing the work of talking to representatives and gathering signatures

(Hayakawa 1 989t; Byrnes 1 989c). The letter, signed by 101 House members, was given to

Chairman Yates on September 22 (1iontz et al. 1989; Oregon Ancient Forest News 1 989e).

AuCoin and Hatfield waited for preservationists' House supporters, led by Yates, to make a counter-proposal (Hayakawa I 989t), but none came, so AuCoin, Dicks, and Hatfield's staff put together a new old-growth proposal. This plan would have reduced the Forest

Service timber sale level for the 1989-1990 period from 8.0 bbf to 7.8 bbf and expanded spotted owl habitat areas by 20-25 percent (Hayakawa 1 989u; U.S. Congress 1 989d). Yates rejected it, and a series of intense negotiations followed until a compromise was reached.

The Conference Committee met September 29 to approve the compromise old-growth plan, but Hatheld withheld immediate approval (Hayakawa 1989x). AuCoin and Dicks told

Hatheld they were out of time; it was this deal or nothing; he consented (Hayakawa 1 989x).

The bill was approved by the House on October 3 and by the Senate on October 7 (Durbin

1 989aa). President Bush signed it on October 23 (Oregon Ancient Forest News 1 989f) as

Public Law 101-121 (Interagency Scientific Committee... 1990). The legislation provided an allowable two-year sale quantity of 7.7 bbf for the Forest Service and 1.9 bbf for the BLM, and released 1.1 bbf of enjoined old-growth to be chosen by preservationists (U.S. Congress 53

1989e,f). Representative AuCoin believed the SectIon 318 plan would provide enough

protection for the owl so it would be much less likely that the Fish and Wildlife Servicewould

list the owl as threatened (Hayakawa 1 989x). The industry representatives felt the plan asked

them to trust preservationists not to continue efforts to block old-growth sales through appeals

and lawsuits.

The Conflict Continues After Section 318

During late August and September the Forest Service, along with the BLM and Fish

and Wildlife Service, organized the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the

Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl (The Oregonian 1989k; Interagency Scientific

Committee... 1990). The Committee was also given authorization by Congress in Section

318 with the mission of devising a plan to protect the owl so it would not need to be listedas

threatened. A new management policy for old-growth was announced in October by Chief

Robertson who indicated the Forest Service planned to preserve a significant share of

old-growth (USDA Forest Service 1989d,e).

Preservatlonists kept the pressure on the situation In a variety of ways. Sympathetic

chairmen of two Senate committees held a joint hearing on October 25 concerning national forests management (U.S. Congress 1 989g). Neither preservatlonists nor industry interests were happy about the advisory boards set up under Section 318 to select sales to be released from injunctions (Durbln 198911). Seattle Audubon Society et al. challenged the constitutionality of SectIon 318, but Judge Dwyer disagreed and told them to proceed with selecting sales to be released from Injunction (The Oregonian 19891; Durbin 1989cc,dd). The ONRC appealed four of five released BLM sales (Durbin 1989jj). Portland Audubon Society et al. took their suit against the BLM to the Supreme Court on December 4 claimIng the judicial review exemptions of Section 318 did not apply to the BLM (Durbin 1989ff). Arguing Section 318 did apply to the 54

BLM, the agency petitioned Judge Frye to dismiss the Portland Audubon Society et al. suit

(Laatz 1989) which she dismissed on December 21 (Painter 1989e).

In Oregon, record prices were bid in mid-December for Forest Service timber sales

(The Sunday Oreaonian 1989). One sale on the Willamette National Forest sold for $1,344 per mbf (The Sunday Oreaonian 1989). The average price for Douglas-fir timber in the region in

1989 was $390 per mbf compared to $134 per mbf in 1988 (Warren 1992).In New York City, at the winter solstice concert at the Cathedral of Saint John the DMne, representatives of Save

America's Forests were passing out literature on the old-growth forest conflict in the Douglas-fir region.

Summary

In the Douglas-fir region of the Pacific Northwest the conflict over the land-use allocation of old-growth Douglas-fir forest on federal public lands was associated with the general movement initiated in the late 1 800s to preserve virgin areas from logging. During the early 1 970s new information on old-growth ecosystems and the related habitat requirements of northern spotted owls emerged. By the late 1 970s preservation groups and some scientists advocated preservation of more old-growth forests.

The initiation of the national forests planning process in the early 1 980s offered preservationists and the timber industry the opportunity to influence old-growth land-use allocation. The Issue of the old-growth habitat needs of the spotted owl became the source of numerous administrative appeals of Forest Service and BLM decisions during this period. By the mId 1 980s some national environmental groups joined the conflict and lawsuits began to be used to block administrative decisions concerning federal forest plans and protect spotted owl habitat.

The issue was nationalized when the conflict reached a crisis point in the spring of

1989. Half the Douglas-fir region's federal timber sales were under court order not to be sold 55 and the northern spotted owl was proposed for federal threatened speciesstatus. During the summer of 1989 preservation groups and timber industry groups worked with their allies in

Congress to develop a legislative plan fora short term solution to the conflict. The old-growth plan that emerged from the intense policy process interactions during thesummer reduced the volume of federal timber available for sale in Oregon and Washington from the1988 level of

7.8 bbf to 7.2 bbf.But, the net effect of the conflict was that during 1989 only one-half the federal timber intended for sale was actually sold. 56

CHAPTER 3: VIEWS OF THE OLD-GROWTH RESOURCE

Introduction

The evolution of the old-growth issue was in part shaped by the perceptions different participants had of the resource. These perceptions spanneda broad continuum from total utilization for commodity consumption to total preservation for spiritual renewal. The distribution of perceptions of the old-growth resource along the continuumwas important in determining what strategies different groups would use in advancing their view of allocating the resource. Participants typically used different Information to promote its their views. The following sections provides a categorization of views of participants divided into the following four broad elements: (1) citizen interest groups and their affiliated supporters, (2) federal natural resource management agencies, (3) U.S. Congress, and (4) the federal courts. The participants' views and beliefs concerning the physical and biological attributes of old-growth, and its desired land-use are identified.

Preservationists' Views

Old-growth as an Issue

Tepfer (1958) wrote in 1958 of the need for wUdemess in the "less spectacular areas" of low elevation forests (i.e. old-growth). Evans (1967) noted that a serious crisis was developing with the demise of "virgin lowland forest" The Cathedral Forest Action Group

(1984) perceived the earth was dying. The development of old-growth as an Issue is reflected in the number of articles published on the topic in two regional environmental periodicals

(Figures 4 and 5) and four national environmental periodicals (Figure 6). The issue first developed at the regional level in 1978, and at the national level in 1985. After 1985 articles on the issue increased rapidly in both regional and national environmental periodicals. 57

16

14 -

U major article mentioned in article 12 -

C) 10- a,

8- E z 6-

4-

2

0 57 58596061 6263 64656667686970 71 72737475767778 798081 8283848586 87 8889 Year

Figure 4.Frequency of major articles on old-growth forests and/or spotted owls and frequency of articles that mention old-growth forests and/or spotted owls in the Northwest regional newsletters (Northwest Conifer and Oreao Conifer) of the Sierra Club from 1957 through 1989. 34

32

30

28 major article 26 mentioned in article

24

22

.2 20

< 18 I- a 16

0 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Year

Figure 5.Frequency of major articles on old-growth forests and/or spotted owls, and frequency of articles that mention old-growth forests and/or spotted owls in the newsletter (Wild Oregon) of the Oregon Wilderness Council and the Oregon Natural Resources Council from1975 through 1989. The WildernessSociety)listedintheReaders'Guide national environmentalorganizations(SierraClub,AudubonSociety,NationalWildlifeFederation, 1989. Figure 6. Number of Articles 70 71727374757677787980818283848586878889 Frequency ofartidesonold-growthforestsandspottedowlsintheperiodicalsfour Year Periodical Literaturefrom1970through 59 Physical Attributes

The first artIcle in the Northwest Conifer used a lower age limit of 200years and classified trees greater than 400 years old as "super old-growth" (Alaback and Juday 1978).

The Importance of structural complexity created by dead trees was also mentioned. The first article In Wild Oregon also used a lower age limit of 200 years for old-growth (La Follette

1978). Between 1978 and 1989 the lower age limit of trees considered to be old-growth varied from 175 to 250 years (Table 3). The French Pete Valley contained a second-growth forest approximately 120 years old In 1968 (Jones 1968) but by the mid-i 980s the Cathedral Forest

Action Group (1984) saId it as one of the few large old-growth forests remaining in Oregon.

Although determination of lower age limits were critical to the debate over how much old-growth existed, it was the upper age limits that people visualized. Preservationists tried to create a perception of the great age of old-growth forests. Between 1978 and 1989 maximum ages used varied from 800 years old to 1,200 years old (Table 3). Sierra Club actMst Joe

Hlnton (1985, 1986) pointed out that Douglas-fir trees could live between 800 and 1,200 years of age, but conceded that Northwest forests with trees over 750 years were rare. George

Atiyeh (1989) head of the Save Opal Creek Council, wrote that the trees around Opal Creek ranged between 450 to 1,000 years in age. The Wilderness Society (1 989a) stated, 'old-growth reach 1,000 years of age or more."

In June of 1986 the Sierra Club adopted the definition of old-growth Douglas-fir forests used in the Forest Service publication, Ecological Characteristics of Old-growth Doualas-fir

Forests. The publication covered broad concepts, such as the presence of structural complexity, and indicated the old-growth stage In Douglas-fir forests' development began to appear between 175 and 250 years of age (Franklin et al. 1981).In 1988 preservationists adopted the PNW-447 definitions as modified by The Wilderness Society (1988; Morrison

1988). The Wilderness Society also proposed the following three categories of old-growth: (1)

"early old-growth"--between 200 and 300 years old, and 32 and 40 inches diameter breast high 61

Table 3. Minimum and maximumages used for old-growth in articles published in Wild Oregon and Oregon Conifer from 1978 through 1989.

Wid Oregon Oregon Conker

Year minimum maximum minimum maximum

1978 200 800 200

1979 250 - 250

1982 - - 175 - 1983 250 - - -

1985 - - - 1,200

1986 200 900 200 800 200 1,000

1988 250 -

1989 - 1,000 200 1,000 62

(dbh), (2) "classIc old-growth"--between 300 and 700 years old, and 40 and 72 inchesdbh, and

(3) "super old growth"over 700 years old and 72 inches dbh (Morrison 1988).

Old-growth as Cathedral, Virgin, and Ancient

Although quantitative descriptions such as tree age and diameterare important attributes for identifying old-growth, Hinton (1985) succinctly noted that "wordscan control attitudes." Advocates for the preservation of French Pete Valley said it consisted of "primeval growth" (Northwest Conifer 1966), and "cathedral groves" (Northwest Conifer 1 978b). In 1985,

Hinton wrote that "we used to call these places virgin forests or primeval groves." "Cathedral forests" was the term used by some preservationists (Cathedral Forest Action Group 1984) to reflect the spirituality and sacredness of these forests.

The first use of the phrase "ancient forests" in Wild Oregon or the Oregon Conifer was in a description written by Hinton In 1985, but he indicated he preferred "cathedral." In 1988 the phrase "ancient forests" was adopted by preservatlonists to replace "old-growth."

According to Kerr (1988), the new phrase was adopted In an attempt to change the Image of the resource and the nature of the debate because "ancient forests" was an easier name to understand (Durbin 1 989a). He called the term "old-growth" foresters' jargon that identified trees as decadent and overmature which implied they needed to be cut. Sierra Club activist

Philip Hayes (1989) noted that "old-growth is a logger's term that describes the economically valuable part of our native forests", whereas the "ancient forest" designation gave preservatlonists a different name for a resource that had values other than economic.

The new phrase was criticized by Wagner (1989), Associate Professor of Biology at the

University of Oregon, because he felt It created confusion at a time when the old-growth issue was finally attracting public attention. O'Toole (1989) responded that "ancient forests" was more self-descriptive and more marketable in nationalizing the issue than "old" and "growth," terms which did not convey the "proper image." He also argued that old-growth was "more 63 forester jargon than a scientific term." During 1989 the term old-growthwas still commonly used by preservationists and often interchanged with "ancient forests' in thesame article

(Wood 1988; Monteith 198gb). Another phrase "native forests" was advocated in 1989 by

Sierra Club activist Tim Hermach (1 989b), who preferred to createa concern with pictures of clearcut old-growth rather than words.

The key concept for many preservationists related to the word "virgin (Northwest

Conifer 1968)." Sierra Club activists Evans (1967), Alaback and Juday (1978), and Hinton

(1989) equated old-growth with virgin forests. Roads werea key element In evaluating the quality of a site relative to its preservation value; an area was not considered to be virgin if it had a road. The Wilderness Society (1988) defined old-growth stands within 400 feet ofa road as not ecologically significant. Discussion of roadless areas constituted a major portion of The

Wddemess SocIety (1988) report, End of the Ancient Forests.

Noncommodity Values Associated with Old-growth

The Northwest preservation movement Identified with the ideas of John Muir (Fox

1981). Nash (1982) pointed out that Muir's Ideas on the preservation of nature were variations on the transcendental theme that natural objects were "the terrestrial manifestation of God."

Muir liked trees above all of nature's creations and felt that when humans clear-cutan ancient forest, it was an example of how modem civilization had gone wrong (Fox 1981). Muir's ideas were passed along to those who followed his path as members of the Sierra Club and many other groups dedicated to the preservation of wlid landscapes. His legacy lives on in leaders like Joe Hlnton (1986) who described the Northwest old-growth forests as "a spiritual link with nature" and David Brower, who said a rotting log in an old-growth forest was serving a much better purpose In the forest than in a mill (McPhee 1971).

The Sierra Club (1986) identified the following nontimber values associated with old- growth areas: wildlife, fish, water, gene pool, scenic, recreation, cultural and scientific. Articles 64 on old-growth forests in ONRC and Sierra Club periodicals indicated a similar set of values

(Table 4) with wildlife the most frequently mentioned value. The "spotted owr and "other wildlife" subcategories were the two most frequently mentions values associated with old- growth in both periodicals. A separate analysis of 14 articles in ONRC and Sierra Club periodicals, from 1978 through 1989 indicated a very strong link between old-growth preservation and spotted owl survival (Wild Oregon 1983b). The concepts of 'dependency on old-growth" (>200 years) and "extinction" were used to identify concerns about the owl in 10 of the 14 articles. The concepts of "strongly prefers old-growth" and "representative of old-growth" ranked a distant second. This concern for wildlife was also reflected in MaIm's

(1979) study, which found 60 percent of the preservation leaders felt the amount of land set aside as wildlife habitat on federal lands would have to be increased.

"Wilderness" and "other preservation" were commonly mentioned in the periodicals of the two groups (Table 4). Smith (1983) and others contended that part of the old-growth controversy was associated with wilderness allocation because most existing wilderness was only "rock and ice" (Bortz 1988; Wild Oregon 1990a; Evans 1988). Preservation advocates felt the 1983 Oregon Wilderness Bill was the last chance to reserve substantial areas of old-growth

(Smith 1983).

For some environmentalists forest set asides meant not Just preservation of wildiands, but also a means of maximizing social welfare (Mikesell 1988). This sector of the preservation movement believed old-growth forests were part of an ongoing economic struggle between capitalism (exploitatIon to maximize profit) and social welfare. At the opposite extreme,

O'Toole (1988a, 1988b) suggested that the mechanisms of a market economy could preserve noncommodity old-growth values. These two beliefs clashed at a preservationists' conference where O'Toole (1988b), argued that noncommodity users should pay for using the forest, and a person in the audience responded "it sounds like capitalIsm to me (Anonymous 1 988b)." 65

Table 4. Rank of values associated with the perception of old-growthforests for two Northwest preservation groups. Compiled from content analysis of the periodicalsof the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC), Wild Oregon (44 issues, 1974-1989),and the Northwest and Oregon Chapters of the Sierra Club, Northwest Conifer and Oregon Conifer (17 issues, 1970-1989).

Sierra Club ONAC

Facor Rank (times mentioned) Rank (times mentioned)

Spotted owl 1 (11) 1 (17)

Otherwildlife 1 (11) 2 (15)

Aquatic habitat 2 (5) 6 (2)

Wilderness 2 (5) 4 (6)

Biodiversity 3 (4) 6 (2)

Clean water 4 (3) 5 (3)

Gene pool 4 (3) 5 (3)

Other preservation 3 (11) 66 Timber Supply

Preservationists had varying opinions on the issue of timber supply.In 1895 John Muir

stated, the forest must be, and will be, not only preserved, but used; and...like perennial fountains...be made to yield a sure harvest of timber; he later tempered his view of harvesting forests (Nash 1982). A 1979 opinion survey of preservation leaders in Oregon indIcated 30 percent felt there would need to be an increase In federal land allocation for timber production (MaIm1979). But, George Frampton (1989a), president of The Wilderness

Society, testified at a congressional hearing that the timber supply crisis of 1989 wasa myth.

Harvest Levels Timber harvest levels proposed by preservationists for the national forests of Region 6 in the late 1 980s (Table 5) were below that in effect at the time, 5.2 bbf, and below that proposed in the combined draft forest plans, 4.4 bbf. Lower harvest levels were based on a reduced amount of land allocated to timber production. For example, the

ONRC land-use allocation plan for the Willamette National Forest in 1986 advocateda 66 percent decrease in its timber harvest volume (USDA Forest Service 1987b). Some preservationists believed all timber harvesting on federal lands should stop (Hermach 1988;

Friemark 1989; Tuttle 1989).

Management of Old-growth The harvest of some old-growth was supported by a few preservatlonists. Harvest rotations of 300 years (Alaback and Juday 1978; Corkran 1982;

Lonsdale 1989) and 200 years for old-growth were advocated (Ryals 1988). Former Forest

Service planner, Jeff DeBonis (1989), maintained that 200 year rotations were not feasible (no explanation given), but another former Forest Service forester, Mark Wigg (1988), proposed using long rotations as a way of growing high quality, high value wood and maintaining old-9rowth forests. Marc Uverman (1989), conservation director of the Portland Audubon

Society, pointed out that environmentalists have long advocated silvicultural alternatives, like 67

Table 5.Timber sale levels supported by different preservationgroups for the Pacific Northwest Region (Region-6) national forests during the Late 1 980s.

Year Sale Level (bbt) Group

1987 3.0 Oregon natural Resources Council 1 4.0 Sierra Club 2 3.64 National Wildlife Federation 3

1988 4.1 Oregon Natural Resources Council 4

1989 3.9 The Wilderness Society 5 3.9 Preservationists testimony 6 2.94-2.26 The Wilderness Society 7 4.0 is too high Sierra Club 8

* numbers were calculated from data in source document

Sources: 1. Wild Oregoq 1987c; 2. LaGate 1987; 3. Brown 1987; 4. Wild Oregon 1988d; 5. Olson and Hoppe 1989; 6. Hayakawa 1989x; 7. The Wilderness Society 1989a;8. Arthur and Hinton 1989 68

selective harvesting to replace clearcutting, which could be used to retainold-growth

characteristics needed by wildlife.

Although some articles in Sierra club periodicals advocated long rotations,the Club

eventually opposed managed old-growth because itwas an "unproven, speculative...theory which if tried might prove wrong with irreversible effects (Sierra Club 1986). Clubactivist

George Hermach (1990) warned other preservationists not to fall into thetrap of accepting minimum definitions for old-growth because they would lead to managed old-growth,and preservationists needed to protect virgin forests not managed old-growth. Kerr (1 990c)replied that most preservationists did not want any more virgin forests cut, but thatwas not yet politically possible. Concerning the techniques of new forestry and landscapemanagement advocated by old-growth scientist Jerry Franklin, ONRC Judged them fine for tree farms, but not old-growth (Wild Oregon 19901). Milbrath (1984) also discovered environmental leaders were not interested In scientific solutions, because they believed science was part of the problem as It fostered environmental abuse. Sandbach (1980) argued environmentalists considered technology a form of social control.

Log Exports By the late 1 980s preservatlonists were of the conviction that log exports were a major part of the Northwest timber supply problem (Ervin 1 988a; Raines 1989;

Frampton 1989a; Wild Oregon 19901). The Oregon Natural Resources Council (1989b) claimed that 5 billion board feet of raw logs were exported yearly from the Northwest,an amount equivalent to the Forest Service's annual harvest level in RegIon 6 for the I 980s.It sought to ban log exports from private lands, the source of most exported logs, andremove loopholes in the ban on export of logs from federal lands. For example, the Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance counter proposal of July 14, 1989 proposed a complete ban on the export of logs from federal lands (The Wilderness Society 1989b; Wild Oregon 1990e). 69

Other Log Sources Preservatlonists believed another source of logs was the private nonindustrial forest lands (Ervin 1988a; Frampton 1989a; Ralnes 1989; Oregon Natural

Resources Council 1 989b; Wild Oregon 19901).If owners were given the proper Incentives such as tax breaks and technical assistance the logs would become available.

Timber Industry's Views

Old-growth as an Issue

Timber companies' views of old-growth were related to the threat of reduced timber supplies, but this concern varied depending upon an individual company's access to timber.

Many large companies such as Weyerhaeuser owned extensive timber lands (Kadera 1 988a) while other companies like those belonging to the NWTA relied on timber from federal lands

(Hayward 1988a).In 1988, the 18 mills which made up the NWTA processed 1.5 bbf of timber

(North West Timber AssocIation 1 989a), equivalent to 31 percent of the timber harvested from federal forest lands in Oregon that year. Analysis of data from Howard and Ward (1991) indicated that timber from federal lands in western Oregon accounted for 61 percent of the volume processed in the sawmills (4.1 bbt) and 67 percent of the volume processed in veneer and plywood mills (2.3 bbf) of western Oregon during 1988.

Old-growth spotted owl habitat was first discussed in a May 1978 newsletter of the

NWTA (NWTA Bulletin 1 978b) (Figure 7).In 1981 there was a newsletter supplement on the potential Impacts old-growth spotted owl habitat set asides would have on timber supply, and the subject reemerged as a common topic from 1983 through 1989. The Increased concern In

1987 was In part associated with the release of the proposed land and resource management plan for the Willamette National Forest. 70

'I) a, za, 0 a, .0 E z

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Year

Figure 7.Increase in concern about the spotted owl as reflected by the number of newsletters (NTWA Bulletin) of The North West Timber Association in which the spotted owl was mentioned. 71 Physical Attributes

Concern over a quantitative definition for old-growth forests came late for the timber

Industry.In 1988, the National Forest Products Association and the American Forest Council

(1988) issued a position paper which stated there was no universal agreement on the size and age of old-growth. However, the paper did give a lower age limit of 200 years and quoted a broad Forest Service definition of old-growth which stated there were mature and over mature trees in the overstory, multiple canopies, snags, and down logs. The position paper noted that large sawtimber (>21 inches dbh), often mistaken for old-growth by the public, was not always old-growth. The Timber Framers Guild of North America (1988) defined old-growth as trees with a minimum age of 160 years.

The first major concern over a specific definition of old-growth was in February 1989 when the Northwest Forestry Association (1989) wrote a review of the Wilderness Society's

November 1988 publication Old-growth In the Pacific Northwest. The Association said there was no agreed upon definition relative to 1how big Is large or how old is old, and there was no consensus on a definition for old-growth. The review did acknowledge that large, old trees, a multilayered canopy, snags, and down logs were agreed upon components (Northwest

Forestry Association 1989).

A May 1989 NFRC report criticized preservationists' definition as too narrow because a

300 year old stand might not have the minimum number of snags or down logs (Mickey et al.

1989). The Industry suggested there was a difference between old-growth and old forests.In

June 1989 the Northwest Forest Resource Council (1989b) defined old-growth as a forest stand containing trees which were generally 121 Inches or greater in diameter1 with the caveat that the definition of old-growth depended on the objective. For example, the determination of suitable spotted owl habitat might require a different definitIon.

After the June 1989 timber summit, the industry began to take the definition of old-growth quite seriously, but according to a July 7, 1989 memo it did not see any single 72 definition emerging (North West Timber Association 1 989b). The memo characterized the definition adopted by The Wilderness Society as the most restrictive in attributes. A July issue of the NWTA Bulletin (1 989b) claimed the Industry used the Forest Service definition of old-growth, but there were several Forest Service definitions, and it was not clear whichwas used. In September the Northwest Forest Resource Council (1 989c) sent out an appeal to its members urging support for the Senate version of Section 318 that used a minimumage of

300 years which was the definition of classic old-growth proposed by The Wilderness Society

(MorrIson 1988).

Old-growth as Decaying Surplus

KIrkland (1 946a) estimated there was an annual loss of 3 bbf due to rot in the region's

9.3 million acres of old-growth forests. John Himman (1963), honorary chairman of the board of International Paper Company, referred to old-growth as huge, decaying museums.N A position advanced in the 1973 Report of the President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the

Environment was that old-growth forests were decadenr and susceptible to losses from wildfires, insects, and diseases (Seaton et al. 1973). When the Forest Service adopted the nondeclining-even-fiow harvest policy in 1973, the Industry argued It was wasteful of old-growth, inefficient, and unproductive (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). The NWTA considered old-growth as Nsurplus inventory (NWTA Bulletin 1976a).

Spotted Owls and Other Values

In 1979 half of the commodity leaders sampled by MaIm(1979) said more wildlife habitat would be needed on federal lands, while the other half said the present amount would suffice. Analysis of environmental concerns related to old-growth in the NWTA newsletters indicated that the spotted owl was the highest concern. The concern with the owl's habitat requirements was highest in 1987 (Figure 7) when the Willamette National Forest's draft plan 73 was released and the Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewing the status of the owl inresponse to petitions to list It as an endangered species. Concern about needs of other wildliferanked a distant second. Hayward (1981) estimated habitat set asides proposed by the Forest Service in 1981 would reduce annual harvests by 0.5 to 1.4 bbf.

Several NWTA newsletters from 1985 through 1989 claimed the owlwas neither old-growth dependent nor an endangered species. For example, a 1986 article stated that the

BLM found owls on managed land with little old-growth (NWTA Bulletin 1986b). The industry also contended that owls existed In fragmented old-growth and second-growth (Mickey et al.

1989; Rutzick 1989). A 1987 NFRC report claimed the owl was better off in 1987 than in 1982, when the Fish and Wildlife Service first reviewed its status and rejected it for considerationas threatened or endangered (NWTA Bulletin 1987). The timber industry conducted studieson second-growth industry lands in northwest California In 1989 to support its claims (Irwin et al.

1989). Relying on Forest Service estimates, the industry said in 1989 that there were 6.1 million acres of owl habitat in the national forests of Oregon and Washington (Mickey et al.

1989).

Timber Supply

Harvest Levels After World War II rapid economic expansion and population growth created an unprecedented demand for housing. A 1946 industry study estimated federal agencies managed 53 percent of the available timber volume in the Douglas-fir region (Kirkland

1 946a). Wood products companies owning cut-over land or no land looked to the federal lands for their timber supply (Clary 1986).

The increased amount of timber harvested from national forest In the Douglas-fir region

Increased from 1950 through 1965, then leveled (Figure 8). After 1965 the amount of timber harvested on national forests followed a pattern similar to that on lands of all ownerships.

Analysis of data from Waddell et al. (1989) indicated 60 percent of the region's 1986 harvest 74

16-

14- afi ownerships

12

10

8-

6

4 ....

e A / .. national forests /\J '. ' (S 2 S..SflhIfl....,/ .I 0

0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Year

Figure 8.Volume of wood harvested on national forests and all land ownerships in the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and Washington from 1950 through 1989. Source: Database compiled from USDA Forest Service 1989g. 75 came from private lands and 23 percent came from national forests.In 1986 the national forests of the region supplied 3.5 percent of the 16.5 billion cubic feet of timber harvestedin

America.

In the 1 950s the industry followed a pattern, began in 1 890s when the first forest reserves were established, of opposing uses other than timber management on federal forests.

The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 was strongly opposed by the industry (Clary

1986). During the late 1950s and early 19605 the industry opposed many legislative removals of land from the commercial timber base for the creation of a national wilderness system.

French Pete Valley was the focus of one such conflict (Ewing 1972 NWTA Bulletin 1968, 1969,

1973).In 1968 Arnold Ewing (1968), executive vice-president of NWTA, told a conference, "The

Forest Service, BLM and State Forest are a public tree farm and the major source of raw material available for the Independent operators." Prior to passage of NFMA, a principal concern of the Industry was the slow rate of old-growth harvest (NWTA Bulletin, 1976b). During the 1976 congressional hearings on the NFMA, the National Forest Products Association complained that the Forest Service land-use planners classified large blocks of land into zones

(wildlife habitat and scenic) which severely limited timber management (Wilkinson and

Anderson 1987), and that this was done without any real evidence that harvest activities were incompatible with other management objectives. After the 1978 American Endangered

Wilderness Act became law, organized labor opposed any additional loss of productive lands to wilderness, parks, or preserves (International Woodworker 1 979a).In 1979 federal land commodity use leaders in Oregon unanimously said no more wilderness was needed and 66 percent said It should decrease (Maim1979).

Growing concern over timber supply and old-growth was reflected by the Increasing number of artIcles on the topic In the NWTA newsletter from 1985 through 1989, when it was a major portion of every newsletter (Table 6).In the mid-i 980s, the NFRC expressed concern that harvest levels on Oregon and Washington national forests would be reduced by 20-25 percent due to proposed national forests land-use reallocations (Northwest Forest Resource 76

Table 6. Importance of economic issues associated with old-growth forests by the North West Timber Association. Values based on the number of articles in the newsletter of the North West Timber Association (NWTA Bulletin) mentioning an issue from 1985 through 1989.

Issue 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Total

Timber supply 3 4 6 11 26 from public lands

Log exports 6 6

Jobs 1 1 1 3

General 1 2 3

Buyback* 1

* Timber bought-backby the Forest Service and BLM from timber purchasers through the Federal Timber Purchasers Contract Modification Act of 1984. 77

Council 1986, 1987; CH2M Hill and Ron Chastain Economic Consultants 1988). Theindustry also pointed out that under the current national forest plans 56 percent (3 million acres)of the old-growth forests on Region 6 national forests was permanently preserved (Northwest Forest

Resource Council 1 989b). The industry supported the preservation of the old-growth currently set aside, but opposed additional withdrawals (Hill 1989; North West Timber Association

1 989b).

Organized labor first expressed concern over the old-growth issue in 1986 dueto the proposed set aside of 1.2 million acres of old-growth for spotted owl habitat, which it estimated would cost 4,500 jobs (Spohn 1986). During 1989 seven out of 12 issues of The Woodworker had at least one article on the old-growth controversy with five artideson the front page.

Reduced harvest levels from federal lands and log exports were each mentioned in six articles.

Protests over timber supplies were primarily aimed at preservationists efforts to stop timber sales, but one article stated the overcuttlng of private timber lands was part of the timber supply problem (The Woodworker 1989b).

The Industry valued old-growth as a raw material and did its calculations in board feet.

Hayward (1981) described old-growth In potential losses of board feet, jobs, and local government revenues. Mark Fleming (1988), chairman of the Willamette Forestry Council, referred to the amount of old-growth on the Willamette National Forest in terms of the volume

(52 percent) it represented on lands available for harvest. In 1989 the industry noted that old-growth makes up the vast majority of the annual harvesr and 'talternative raw materials could be substituted (Mickey et al. 1989)?

Manaaement of Old-growth In order to get all the region's forests into a sustained yield management program, Kirkland (1946a) recommended increasing the cut of old-growth and replacing it with young forests of positive net growth. In an independent article Kirkland

(1 946b) also advocated growing some timber of high quality on 200 year or more rotations. 78

Until the passage of NFMA, the industry's management objectivewas to accelerate the harvest of old-growth (NWTA Bulletin 1976b).

John Himman (1963) said that most of the objectives of people who advocated preservation could be met in an "economically strong, well managed forest." But the industry was relative silent on the topic of managing stands and landscapes to harvest timber while maintaining the structural characteristics of old-growth untM the late 19805. The Timber

Framers Guild of North America (1988) foresaw a shortage of quality large timber in thenear future, and advocated long rotation, uneven-age management. The Industry did acknowledge that old-growth conditions could be produced through silvicultural techniques (North West

Forest Resource Council 198gb). Research on intensively managed second-growth forests in northwest California (Irwin et al. 1989) lead the industry to believe old-growth management strategies were not needed to maintain spotted owl habitat (Hayward 1989a).

Log Exoorts Analysis of NWTA newsletters indicated restricting log exports was a common topic since the organization's founding In the late 1 960s, but it was not directly tied to the old-growth issue until 1989 when it was the second most frequently mentioned economic topic (Table 6). Log exports were related to the timber supply issue, but industry opinion varied on this issue (Hayward 1 989c). Companies who owned timber land could export the raw logs for more money than they could sell them to domestic mills or process them in their own mills.Mills belonging to the NWTA were In agreement with preservatlonists on the need for log export restrictions (Hayward 1989c). Companies and Individuals with private lands considered any restriction on their ability to trade as an Infringement on the free market system

(NWTA Bulletin 1981; Anonymous 1989a). Organized labor had a persistent worry about log exports. For example, a 1978 artIcle voiced concerns about the impact log exports were having on timber supplies and jobs (International Woodworker 1978, 1979a,b). 79

Scientists' Views

Introduction

Prior to 1969 most studies involving old-growth concentrated on what happened to the site after the forest was harvested (Munger 1930; Issac 1940; Morris 1958; West and Chilcote

1968; Dymess 1973). Studies of old-growth forests began in 1969 (Franklin and Waring 1980), and the first major publication was in 1976. Investigations of old-growth ecosystems in the

Douglas-fir region grew rapidly in the late 1 980s (Figure 9).During this period 61 percent of all studies on old-growth in the United States involved forests outside the Douglas-fir region, but old-growth research in the region gained the most attention.

Physical Attributes

gQ The term Nold.growthl Implies an age based criterion for classification of forests. Writing In a 1930 issue of Science, Forest Service scientist Thornton Munger (1930) used a minimum age of 150 years to describe the older Douglas-fir forests prior to European settlement. During the middle part of the 20th century, scientists studying the forests of the region had a general concept of old-growth as forests with some large trees over 300 years old. For example, Dyrness (1973), in a study of forest recovery after logging, described the three 300-500 year old study sites as old-growth.

Franklin at al. (1981) and Spies et al. (1988) stated It was difficult to define a lower age limit for old-growth, but noted that forests in the Douglas-fir region began to exhibit old-growth characteristics between 175 and 250 years. The age spread was the result of variation In environmental conditions including quality of growing site. At the Society of

American Foresters' 1983 convention, Franklin and Spies (1984) suggested a lower age limit of

150 years (200 + /- 50 years), but pointed out that age alone was not a good criterion because, on the best growing sites, trees may reach the minimum diameter they proposed (40 80

14

12

Pacific Northwest o 10-

6

4

2

II 0 -, I . .iii1 niiiiiFill II 596061 62636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586878889ji,IJ Year

Figure 9.Frequency of articles by scientists on old-growth forests in the Douglas-fir region and the United States. Sources: Database derived from articles listed under key words "old" and "old- growth" in Biological Abstracts from 1959 through 1989. 81

Inches) in 100 years. But an age of 200 years was the most common used to describethe

minimum age for old-growth Douglas-fir forests (Table 7). By 1988, Spies and Franklin (1988)

reevaluated the age criterion, and decided age may be the best single indicator of old-growth

because of its simplicity and because other attributes were to some degree correlated with

age. Revised methodologies for identifying old-growth developed by Franklin and Spies (1989)

used a minimum age of 200 years as a base line by which to evaluate other forest attributes to

determine if it was old-growth.

Estimates of the age range of the existing old-growth varied.In 1973 Franklin and

Dymess estimated that most old-growth in the Douglas-fir region was 400 to 600years old. By

1981, Franklin et al. said most old-growth stands were 350 to 750 years of age. Franklin and

Spies (1984) estimated that stands between 400 to 500 years of age were the most common in

the Oregon Cascades.

Other Physical Characteristics Spies and Franklin (1988) noted that age indicated

nothing about structure of a forest stand, which Is in part dependent on site conditions and

history of disturbance (i.e. the effects of wind, fire, logging, insects, etc.). Munger (1940)

observed that older forests consisted of "many dead standing and fallen Douglas fir giants."

Franklin et al. (1981) pointed out there was a transition period between 100-200 years when

Douglas-fir forests begin to acquire some of the structural components of old-growth. By 1980

scientists described old-growth in terms of ecological concepts; incorporating species composition, stand structure, and function (Figure 10) (Franklin and Waring 1980; Franklin et al. 1981). The structural components consisted of lMng trees of varying sizes and condition

mixed with standing dead trees (snags) and fallen dead trees (logs). One significant aspect of the structure of older forests was the accumulation of dead trees because they provided

habitat for a variety of plants and animals, and influenced nutrient cyding (Franklin et al. 1981;

Harmon et al. 1986; Spies et al. 1988). 82

Table 7. Chronosequence of changes in minimum values for selected physical attributes of old- growth forests in the Douglas-fir region as determined by scientists.

Live trees Snags Logs Understoy Source Date Age DiaJNo./Sp. Ht./Oia./No. Ln./Dia.,No. Dia/No.

Munger 1930 150

Munger 1940 Ir. >42 sm. 22-40

Franklin & 1980 200 present present Waring

Franklin et al. 1981 175 present present

Society of 1984 200 40/1 OlD-f 50/25/4 50/25/4 multi- American 20/-/10 20 tons/ac. layered Foresters

Franklin & 1984 200 30/1 OlD-f 50/24/4 multi- Spies layered

Old-growth 1986 200 32/8/0-f 15/20/4 50/24/4 16/12 Definition 15 tons/ac. Task Group

Haynes 1986 250

Spies et al. 1988 200

Spies& 1988 150 Franklin

Franklin & 1989 200 40/4/all 15/20/2 13 tons/ac. 14/4 Spies

Diameter (Dia.) in inches; Height (Ht.) and Length (Ln.) in feet No. is number of the attribute Sp. is species and 0-f is Douglas-fir 83

Structural components

COMPOSITIONAL ROLE FUNCTIONAL ROLE Individual, large old-growth trees

Distinctive epiphytes Site of N-fixation Distinctive vertebrates Ionic storage Distinctive invertebrates Interception of H20 nutrients, light Large standing trees

Used by cavity Source of energy dwellers and other and nutrients vertebrates

Large down, dead trees on land

Distinctive animal Site of N-fixation communities Source of energy Seedbed or nursery and nutrients or seedlings Large down, dead trees in streams

Distinctive animal Site of N-fixation communities Source of energy and Create habitat nutrients diversity Maintain physical stability of stream Retain high quality energy materials for processing

Figure 10. The composition and function of old-growth Douglas-fir forests as related to the three structural components of large live trees, large standing dead trees (snags), and large down dead trees (logs) on land and in streams. Source: Adapted from Franklin et al. 1981. 84

Size of trees in an old-growth forest is the most observable and alluring attribute.In

1940 Munger adopted diameter definitions from the 1933 Forest Service timber inventory of the

region (Andrews and Cowlin 1940). During the 19805 minimum diameters of 32 and 40 inches dbh were suggested as part of the criteria to define old-growth Douglas-fir (Table 7).Franklin and Spies (1984) proposed that stands with trees over 40 Inches dbh couldover ride a minimum age criterion.

The first attempt at a quantitative description for old-growth Douglas-firwas by Franklin and Spies (1984) at the 1983 Society of American Foresters' Convention. They proposeda minimum of 10 live Douglas-firs at least 40 inches dbh, and quantified the size and amount of snags and logs (Table 7). The Society of American Foresters' (1984) definition of old-growth was very similar to that given by Franklin and Spies (1984).24 The Society also indicated that everything that was old was not necessarily old-growth.

By the mId 1 980s, the various natural resource management agencies needed specific quantitative criteria to answer increasing numbers of questions about old-growth wildlife habitat and inventory (Teply 1989). Three definitions (PNW-447), based on the three major forest types of western Oregon and Washington (Figure 11) were developed (Old-growth Definition

Task Group 1986). Compared to eatller definitions, the task group's definition for the

Douglas-fir/western hemlock forest type reduced the number of large live trees, the minimum diameter, and the size of snags, especially their length (Table 7). The other two forest types, of which Douglas-fir is a major component, had minimum criteria less than those established for Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests except for a minimum age of 200 years which was used for all forest types.

It was believed the PNW-447 definitions fell well below Ncharacteristicn old-growth stands, but at a March 1989 symposium Franklin and Spies (1989) noted that no data had been collected and analyzed to test the validity of the definitions when they were proposed.

Franklin and Spies (1989) found that only 70 percent of 24 Douglas-fir stands on western hemlock sites stands over 200 years old in the Washington Cascades met all the minimum Douglas-fir! western hemlock

Mosaic of Douglas-fir! mixed conifer and Douglas-fir / mixed evergreen

Figure 11. Forest areas in the Douglas-fir region of Oregon and Washington which correspond to the interm definitions for old-growth forests (PNW-447) as proposed by Old-growth Definition Task Group 1986. Adapted from Franklin and Dyrness 1973. 86 criteria of the PNW447 definition while only 56 percent of the stands in the Oregon Cascades met the minimum criteria. On the other hand, 30 percent of stands between 80-190 years old in the Oregon Coast Range met all the minimum criteria for old-growth (Franklin and Spies

1989).

Due to the less than perfect predictability of the PNW-447 definitions, Franklin and

SpIes (1989) suggested a new definition, which considered all species of large trees ina stand rather than Just Douglas-fir and a larger minimum diameter (Table 7). Compared to the

PNW-447 definition, this refined definition Increased scientists' ability to Identify forestsover

200 years old by 12 percent. The authors recommended site specific definitions, based on geographic location and variability, should be developed.

The use of structural diversity indices was first proposed by Spies and Franklin in 1988 as an alternative to the relatively Imprecise definition in PNW-447. Such an Index could be used to assess the Uold growthness of forest stands at any age of development, whether managed or unmanaged. Franklin and Spies (1989) advanced their old-growth index concept by using attributes of forest composition and structure.In their view old-growth forests were always structurally distinctive from forests in earlier successional stages of development.

Franklin and Spies (1989) pointed out that the structural complexity of a young natural forest may be high due to the carry over of large snags, down logs and some large live trees from the previous forest.

The third approach to identifying old-growth stands was through the use of the statistical procedure of discriminant analysis. Spies and Franklin (1991) used 84 variables, and found the following four variables: (1) the standard deviation of the dIameter, (2) the density of

Douglas-fir over 40 Inches in diameter, (3) the mean diameter, and (4) the total tree density, were able to identIfy 94 percent of the stands over 195 years. The authors believed this was the most accurate method of identifying old-growth Douglas-fir (Franklin and Spies 1989).

Thomas et al. (1988) concluded that old-growth was best conceptualized as a stage of forest development, and no single all-inclusive definition of old-growth was feasible for the 87 many types of forests in North America. For scientists studying forests outside the Douglas-fir region, old-growth may be considered analogous to a temperate climax forest due to the persistence of long lived trees in the climax stage of most north temperate ecosystems

(Borman and Ukens 1979; Braun 1950). But In the Douglas-fir region the trees that live the longest are usually preciimax forest species (Munger 1940; WarIng and Franklin 1979). Hunter

(1989) suggested using a broad based approach to defining old-growth for temperate forest ecosystems based on disturbance and the age when net annual growth was close to zero.

Hunter (1989) stated old-growth forests are relatively old.After the appropriate disturbance and age criteria were determined, more specific criteria, including forest structure, composition and development, could be developed for specific forest types.

Verbal Descriptions

Munger (1930) referred to the stands of long lived Douglas-firs as old forests.in

1940 he described old forests as old-growth, and he used the terms over mature and vlrgin to describe old-growth (Munger 1940). Franklin and WarIng (1980) classIfied dead trees (logs and snags) as decadenr and Ncoa woody debris.Franklin and Forman (1987) viewed old-growth as primeval forest.Franklin and Spies (1989) suggested that due to the great variability in these forest they had varying degrees of old-growthness.The major literature on old-growth Douglas-fir forests published in the 19808 contained no references by scientists to old-growth as overmature.' Although preservatlonists claimed old-growth" was not a scientific term Oregon 1989e), it was used In all the publications by scientists reviewed for this paper.

Old-growth Management

Franklin and Spies (1989) said old-growth forests could theoretically originate following either human or natural dlsturbance.Franklin and Forman (1987) advocated ureservationu of large blocks of primeval foresr where dearcutting shouldgenerally be avoided. Some prominent wildlife biologists wanted all existing old-growth preserved and more created (Thomas et al. 1988). Franklin, Spies and others advocated preserving the existing old-growth, but argued preservation of old-growth forest was not the only strategy to adopt to maintain and enhance wildlife and other noncommodity values such as ecological diversity (Franklin 1 989a,c; DeBeli and FranklIn 1987; Wyant 1989; Franklin and SpIes 1991;

Spies and Franklin 1991). Franklin and others argued that old-growth could be managed with the evolving techniques of landscape management and new forestry by creating the structural attributes In less than 200 years (Franklin and Spies 1984, 1991; Newton and Cole 1987).

Landscape management strategies suggested for old-growth to produce timber and other values induded long rotations (Juday 1978; Franklin et al. 1981; Hanls et al. 1982;

Franklin and Spies 1991), snag and log management (Franklin and Waring 1980), partial cutting (Newton and Cole 1987; Franklin and Spies 1991), fragmentation reduction (Harris et al.

1982; FranklIn and Forman 1987) and strategic placement (Harris 1984). Based on his study of the Wilamette National Forest, Harris (1984) proposed a plan to integrate old-growth management with timber production, wildlife habitat, and other values by establishing several linked long rotation forest Islands. Each forest island would have a preserved core of old-growth with several radiating sectors on long rotations, so that at any one time one-third of the Island area was over 240 years old. Newton and Cole (1987) suggested a strategy of 200 year rotations where one-third of the landscape would be In actively managed old-growth condition. But Thomas et al. (1988) expressed doubt that old-growth could be created through

SIMCUItUIaI manipulations.

Wildlife Habitat

Harris et al. (1982) noted that the harvest of old-growth timber was not widely considered to be detrimental to wildlife until the late 1 960s and early 1 970s. The scientific 89

work on old-growth forests was related to some degree to the researchon habitat for northern

spotted owls and other animals (Meslow 1978; Mannan et al. 1980). Contemporary

publications on the northern spotted owl began In 1974 witha publication by the BLM (Zarn

1974) and Increased rapidly after 1986 (FIgure 12). The unusually highnumber of publications

in 1985 was the result of two conferences sponsored by the ForestService.

Research on northern spotted owls' and other animals' relationship to old-growthwas

the result of their presumed dependency on old-growth forests. This dependency was of

some debate in the scientific community. For example, SoIls (1983) maintained that not all

old-growth was suitable spotted owl habitat; others indicated spotted owls lived and

reproduced In forests younger than 200 years of age (Forsman et al. 1984; Irwinat al. 1989).

At a March 1989 symposium on wUdlife and old-growth, Forest Service wdIife biologist

Leonard Ruggiero said, in general there are fewer species dependent on old growth than

conventional wisdom suggested (Booth 1989).

From the stand point of owls and other old-growth dependent wildlife, initial habitat criteria were based on the required area of old-growth habitat. Between 1973-1987 the amount of habitat considered to be needed by a pair of spotted owls varied from 300 to 4,500acres and differed with subregion (Table 8).

Scientists argued more work was needed to understand old-growth forests and spotted owls (Franklin and Spies 1989; Helnrlchs 1983; Gutlerrez 1985; Dawson et al. 1987).

But Franklin and Spies (1989) expressed concern thata consIderable amount of money was going to study owls, while comparatively little went to study old-growth forestsas ecosystems. D Published prior to 1990

0 Published in 1990

0C

. 0

E z

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Year

Figure 12.Frequency of scientific articles on the northern spotted owl from 1970 through 1990. Source: Database compiled from titles listed in Wildlife Review, USD1 FISh and Wildlife Service, 1970-1990. One half of the 1990 listings were published in 1989. 91

Table 8. Chronosequence in changes in minimum requirements for maintenanceof viable populations of northern spotted owls as proposed by scientists. Several scientistswere members of the interagency task forces listed in the below.

Scientists or $ GeographicOld-growth Organization Date Pairs Location Aaes Habitat

USD1 Fish and 1973 300-600 old-growth Wildlife Service

Oregon Endangered 1973 all known 3X) Species Task Force I

Oregon Endangered 1976 400 Species Task Forcel

Forsman et aI. 1977 >80 yrs.

Oregon Endangered 1979 400 300 >200 yrs Species Task Force' 8-10 trees/ac. 4 ac minimum

OR-WA Interagency 1981 300 250 yrs core Wildlife Committee 1 1,000 1.5 mi. radius

Forsman et al. 1964 old-growth >200 yrs mix of mature (100-200) old-growth 90% of sightings in >200yrs

Shaffer 1965 1000

Cary 1985 1,000 2,000-2,500 230 yrs. >39 inches dbh

Meslow 1966 old-growth/mature

Dawson et al. 1967 1,500 ORWA, 2,500-4,500 W1CA

1. In: Lee 1985 92

Views by Members of Local and State Governments

Introduction

in the Douglas-fir region of Oregon, the Forest Service and BLM retain title to approximately 39 percent of the land base. The combined percentage of land retained by the two agencies varies from none in Clatsop county to 59 percent in Curry county (Table 9).

Some counties like Lane have a high proportion of Forest Service lands compared to BLM while others like Coos have a higher proportion of BLM lands.in the counties of western

Washington, the Forest Service manages 28 percent of the land base. Most of these lands, If they were in private ownership, would be available for generating revenue to state and local governments through their ability to tax them.

When retaining these lands in federal ownership, Congress recognized the ability of local governments to raise revenue would be diminished. In order to compensate local governments for lost revenue opportunitIes, Congress included revenue sharing provisions in various pieces of legislation so that a portion of the proceeds derived from federal lands would go to local governments. The principal revenue generating resource on the federal lands in the Douglas-fir region was timber. For example, In the mid-i 980s, approximately 99 and 90 percent of the forest revenues collected on the Wiliamette and Mt. Hood National Forests respectively were from timber receipts (USDA Forest Service 1987b, 1988c).In the mid 1980$, approximately 85 percent of the volume harvested from PacIfic Northwest national forests was from old-growth (Nelson 1985). Changes in land-use allocation and revenue generating capacity of these lands were important factors In how local and state government officials perceived old-growth forests. timberCounty.ofTable the Douglas-fir9.to There Amountmills andare ofregion otherrevenue land landsof(acres) Oregon.to focalmanaged managed governmentThe Nationalby byvarious the units. ParkU.S. federal, Sources: ServiceForest state Service Oregon and focal (F.S.) Office agencies and of thethe Secretarythat Bureau manages only a few acres of Crater Lake National Park that are in Douglas are not included in the table befow but ofmay Land contribu Managementof (BLM) State 1990;in the USDA18 counties Forest Service 1988i; te USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1989.County Total Land Forest Service % F.S. BLM %BLM Total F.S.+BLM % F.S.+BLM ColumbiaClatsopClackamasBenton 1,202,560 439,680434,560558,720 510870 16 0 42 oo4 11,08167,04757,649 43 13 306 11,08173,945 578 43 4817 30 JacksonDouglasCurryCoos 1,792,6403,245,4401,054,7201,042,560 377,530908,207559,313 57,903 212853 6 431,055654,061168,289 67,510 2016 6 1 562,268 808,585626,823226,192 485922 LinnJosephineLincolnLane 1,470,0802,956,8001 ,050,240 634,880 1322,484 466,127296,209171,622 32274528 289,482311,338 88,23620,080 301024 63 1,611,966 554,363607,547191,702 3830555845 TillamookPolkMultnomahMarion 720,000476,800297,600764,160 204,194 92,14473,697 318 252713 0 49,41541,268209664,247 931 141,559225,160 41,58677,944 2629 9 WashingtonYamhill tota 19,066,240 459,520465,280 5,082,414 25,500 0 27 60 2,326,722 32,94612,009 12 73 7,409,136 58,44612009 391320 3 Local Governments

Revenue Distribution Formulas Most national forests distribute revenues to counties

based on the Act of May 23, 1908 (Robinson 1975)as amended in 1976 (USDA Forest Service

1 988c). This law gives 25 percent of the proceedsto counties (Table 10), and specifies the

receipts be used for public schools and roads, butgave the states the authority to decide the

allocation (Steen 1976). The State of Oregon requiresmost counties to allocate 25 percent to

schools and 75 percent to roads (Hackworth and Greber 1988). InWashington, the revenues

are split 50-50 between roads and schools (Mickey et al. 1989).

In western Oregon, the BLM manages the following three categories oflands: Oregon

and California (O&C) revested raUroad grant lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road(CBWR) lands, and

public domain lands. Each category has a separaterevenue sharing formula (Table 10). The

O&C lands are the most important due to their largearea, high timber volume and generous

revenue sharing formula. The current revenue sharing formula for O&C lands is basedon the

1937 Oregon and California Sustained Yield Act, (O&C Act) which grantedcounty governments

In which the O&C lands are located 75 percent of thegross receipts from timber harvested

(Hackworth and Greber 1988; Tollenaar 1981). SInce 1953, the annualappropriation budget

for the O&C lands has included a section whereby the counties return(plow-back) 25 percent

of their gross receipts to the federal government for management of the O&C lands, but this

still left the counties with a rather generoussum (Tollenaar 1981; Doerner 1992). The O&C Act

provides that revenues derived from O&C lands go to the county general fund; hencemay be

used as the county sees fit. The 74,547acres of CBWR and 239,588 acres of public domain

lands return revenue to local governments at rates far below that for the O&C lands (Tollenaar

1981).

Some O&C lands were within the boundaries of national forests anda jurisdictional dispute ensued. in 1954 Congress assigned management responsibilities of the492,399 acres of controverted lands to the Forest Service (Tollenaar 1981). However, these former O&C 95

Table 10. Number of acres managed and rates ofpayment by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to counties in the Douglas-firregion of Oregon for different classes of lands in 1988. Adapted I rom Hackworth and Greber1988; USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1991.

Ownership/Land Class Total Acres Payment Rate

Forest Service

Non O&C lands 4,590,015 25 percent of gross receipts

O&C lands 50 percent of gross receipts Controverted 462,678 Special 29,721 BLM

O&C 2,072,000 50 percent gross receipts

Coos Bay 75,547 6.5 percent receipts Wagon Road plus local property tax rate

Public Domain 239,588 4 percent net receipts

Total 5,603,749 lands generate revenue for local governments according to the 50 percent O&Crevenue sharing formula.

Revenue Distributions Both the national forests and the O&C revenue distributions to local governments average much more per acre than property andseverance [yleldi taxes from comparable private forest lands. Analysis of tax revenues and harvest data from

Hackworth and Greber (1988) for Lane County from 1987 indIcated the county collected $13.31 per thousand board feet on timber harvested from private lands while the county collected over double that amount, $31.00 per thousand board feet, from harvests on federal lands.

The result of federal land ownershIp and land-use allocation Is that some countiesare very dependent on these federal payments while others are much less dependent (Figure 13).

Thà O&C revenues In Josephine and Curry countIeswere so great in 1977-1978 that the two counties made no property tax levies (rolienaar 1981). During the period 1982 through 1988, the percentage of the budget for Lane County obtained from federal lands varied from 46 percent to 28 percent (Figure 14) (USDA Forest Service 1987b; USD1 Bureau of Land

Management 1989).

VIews by local government officials Any withdrawals of federal lands containing old-growth and other commercial timber for wildlife habitat or other noncommodity uses reduces the timber base and potentially reduces revenues. However, Jerry Rust (1989), a Lane

County Supervisor, pointed out that revenues to the counties are based on timber value not volume. Rust went on to say that If the timber base was reduced by set asides, then the value of the remaining old-growth available for harvest would rise and counties may not experience reduced revenues. A similar conduslon was reached In an analysis done for the Northwest

Forest Resource Council (CH2M Hill and Ron Chastain Economic Consulting 1988). Most county supervisors, especially those from O&C counties, use data on payments to counties as 97

Percent Federal Revenue o 0. to 4 EJ4 to 12 12 to 23 23 to 36 36 to 66

Figure 13.Percent of county revenue derived from federal lands in western Oregon for fiscal year 1988. Constructed from database compiled from Bureau of Governmental Research and Service 1989. 98

C]BLj Forest Service O total revenue all sources

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Year

Figure 14.Payments to Lane County, Oregon by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and total county revenue from all sources from 1982 through 1988. Source: Database compiled from data on file, Bureau of Governmental Research and Service 1989. 99 a major reason not to reduce the timber base with set asides for old-growth and spotted owls

(Doemer 1992).

The major concern of local elected officials about the Forest Service's SEIS planto protect the spotted owl was loss of jobs which was associated witha belief that not enough research had been done to warrant such large set asides (rable 11). The Mayor of Seattleand the King County (Seattle), Washington Planning Department said jobs might be created from set asides while the other officials, mostly from more rural areas, felt a loss of jobs would occur. The general concern expressed by local government officials (86 percent), mostly in areas with heavy economic dependence on the timber Industry, was that too much timber land was being sacrificed for the owl.

State Governments

The only direct payment to the State of Oregon was from public domain lands managed by the BLM. In 1988, the state received about one-half millIon dollars (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1989). On the other hand, the state Is very dependenton income taxes, which are its principal form of revenue. Analysis of data in Sessions et al. (1990) and Oliveira

(1988) indIcated approximately 229,000 workers (dIrect and support) associated with the forest products industry in the Douglas-fir region of Oregon contributed approximately 24 percent to the state's total personal Income tax revenue in 1988. Corporate income tax contributions for

1985 indIcated wood products companies produced 8.7 percent of all corporate positive

Income, but paid only 2.1 percent of the net income tax due to their use of tax credits for pollution control (OliveIra 1988).

Recognizing the potential impact of national forests use on Oregon's economy to be significant, Governor Goldschmidt authorized a state analysis and response to the draft national forests land and resource management plans which proposed a 20 percent reduction in the potential volume of timber available for harvest (CH2M Hill and Ron Chastain Economic Service'sTablestate 11. legislatures draftConcerns supplemental ofabout Oregon the environmental okl-growtand Washington. h/spotted impact The owlstate Data is suement bwere fory localcompiled the spottedgovernment from owl letters management elected in USDA officials, plan Forest boards (SE Service IS). and 1 988bagencies, in respon and semembers to the Forest of the Unit (letter number Governmental Research More EndanaereiOwl Not Jobs SharinaRevenue No Timber Supply Reduction Enough Old-growth for the Owl 2,200 ac/owlIs Excessive Want Owl to Survive CommissionersCounty Board of (7) 7 2 5 3 3 3 1 6 County Agencies (7) 2 0 3 2 1 1 1 1 MayorsCity CouncIls (6) (11) 10 6 09 11 6 08 10 4 28 30 09 GovernmentOther Local (5) total 28 3 132 29 4 152 20 2 17 3 5 0 20 4 LegislaturesMembers of State(20) 17 13 19 9 4 11 13 10 101

Consulting 1988). A proportionate reduction of jobs and revenues of this magnitudewould

have a significant effect on the ability of the state to provide services.

Uke local officials, state legislators' primary concernswere the potential loss of jobs and that not enough research had been done to justify such large set asides (Fable 11). Half the legislators said the owl needed to be protected, and there was enough old-growth already set aside to achieve that goal.All the legislators, except one neutral response, perceived the

Forest Service spotted owl plan negatively in that It favored owl habitat set asidesover economic issues.It was the concern over reduced land-use allocations of old-growth for timber supply which worried officials of local and state governments.

Federal Natural Resource Agencies' Views of Old-growth

Introduction

PerceptIons of the resource by different agencies were In part based on their legislative mandates. The Forest Service has the longest history of forest management, and since 1976, the NFMA has been the principle legislative authority for national forests management The

BLM manages the Oregon and California (O&C), Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR), and public domain lands under the authority of the Oregon and California Sustained Yield Act of 1937

(Dana and FaIrfax 1980). Through the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and other federal wlldiife laws, the Fish and Wildlife Service gaIned potential influence over management practices of the Forest Service and BLM. National Park Service lands contained 17 percent of the region's old-growth, but the agency's role in the conflict was minor because almost all its old-growth forests were allocated for preservation (Society of American Foresters 1984). 102 Forest Service

Physical Attributes Between 1903 and the late 1 980s the minimum age used by the

Forest Service for old-growth Douglas-fir varied from 100 to 250years old (Figure 15). A 1933

national report indicated old-growth was two or three hundred, often several hundredyears old

(USDA Forest Service 1933).In the 19505, 1960s, and early 1970s the minimum age fell to 100

years old, which was the harvest age (USDA Forest Service 1965a, 1969). By the mid 1970s a

minimum age of 200 years was used and became the standard.

Between 1903 and 1986 minimum diameter limits fluctuated from a high of 40 inches

dbh In 1933 to a low of 20 inches dbh by the early 19805 (FIgure 16). The 20 inch dbh lower

limit Included trees much younger than 200 years old (USDA Forest ServIce 1933, 1934,

1 987c). For example, a 110 year old Douglas-fir stand had 29 trees per acre over 22 Inches

dbh (USDA Forest Service 1933), and a stand of large second-growth (150-175 years old) had

diameters up to 40 inches dbh (Andrews and Cowlin 1940). The diameter definitions of the

1930$ recognized variation in forest site quality and had categories for small old-growth (20-40

Inches dbh) and large old-growth (>40 Inches dbh).27'

By 1979 other physical attributes such as density of large trees, snags, and logs began

to be Incorporated into definitions.Different attributes and criteria were used for a variety of

old-growth definitions by the Forest Service In the 1980s (Table 12). The 1981 Draft Pacific

Northwest Region PIa(Regional Plan) stated that old-growth stands would in part contain

mature and overmature trees In the overstorf and a multlayered canopy and trees of several

age classes, a minimum of five trees per acre with diameters of at least 32 Inches dbh, two

snags, and 30 tons of down logs per acre (USDA Forest Service 1981). The Realonal Guide

for the Pacific Northwest Region (Regional Guide), issued in May of 1984, used the same

definitions the Regional Plan (USDA Forest Service 1984a).

The three national forests lIsted In Table 12 developed their own working definitions.

The national forest planners used data from inventories done in 1980-81, before the more 103

USDA Forest Service 1988d 1988 USDA Forest Service 1988a 1988 USDA Forest Service 1988c 1988 USDA Forest Service 1987b 1987 OI&growihDefinition TaskGroup 1986 1986

USDA Forest Service1 984a, b 1984 Sloan at ai. 1983 1983

1982 USDA Forest Service I9689 1980 USDA Forest Service 1979 1979 USDA Forest Service 1977 1977 USDA Foreet Service 1976 1976

USDA Forest Service1989 S 1969

USDA Forest ServiceI 985 a 1963 Andrews and Cowttn 1940 1940 USDA Forest Service 1933 1933 Dodwell and Rixon 19031 1903 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Age

Figure 15.Changes in the minimum age of old-growth used by the U.S. Forest Service in the Douglas-fir region from 1903 through 1988. Source is above the bar.

1. The 1903 data was collected by the U.S. Geological Survey. 104

Old-growthDefinition TaskGroup 1986 1986

USDAForest Service1 984.a.b 1984

Sloan et al. 1983 1983

USDA Forest Service i982e 1982 -. . J

USOA Forest Ser1ce 1981

1981 - - t_

USDA Forest SarwIce 1979 1979

,,Ge4noy 1962 1977

U SDAForest Service 1969 C.....-C 1969

Andrew. and CowlIn 1940 1940

USDA Forest Servlc. 1933 1933

Dodwell end nixon 1903 1903

0 23 40 60 Diameter (inchesbreasthit)

Figure 16.Changes in the minimum diameter of old-growth used by the U.S. Forest Service in the Douglas-fir region from 1903 through 1986. Source is above the bar.

The 1903 data was collected by the U.S. Geological Survey. The 1940 definition consisted of minimum diameters for small old-growth (22") and Large old-growth (42'). Tablemanagement 12. Minimum plans inold-growth the 1980s. Douglas-fir/western hemlock forest characteristics used by three national forests to develop land and resource Mariagemon t Large Live Trees Snags Down Logs Regional Plan 1 Level (date) e diameter 32" density/ac. 5 diameter height 2 density/ac. density/ac. diameter length tons/ac. 30 Mi Acres Regional(1981)(1984) Guide 2 32 5 2 30 10 (1986)PNW-4473 200 32" 8 20 15 4 4 24" 50 15 (1986)Siuslaw N.E. 175 large 4 10 Willamette(1987) N.E 180 21" ServiceMl.1. Hood USDA(1988) 1987b; N.F. Forest 6. USDAService Forest 1981; Service 2. USDA 1988c Forest Service 1 984a,b; 3. Old-growlh Definition Task Group 1986; 4. USDA Forest Service 1986a; 5. USDA Forest 200 present 10 106

specific ReglonaJ Plan or PNW-447 definitions were developed (USDA Forest Service1987a;

Haynes 1986). The Sluslaw National Forest useda vague definition that said old-growth was a

"vegetation community dominated by an overstory of old-growth conifer trees (USDAForest

Service 1 986b)." The Wdlamette National Forest claimed to have used the PNW-447definitions

(USDA Forest Service 1987b), but the appendices of the draft plan indicated the 1981 timber

inventory used a definition which Identified old-growthas 21 or more inches dbh, and usually

over 180 years old (USDA Forest Service 1987c). The initial definition for old-growth in the Mt.

Hood National Forest draft plan indicated a stand should contain mature andovermature trees,

a multilayered canopy, dead standing and down trees, and have negligible human activities

(USDA Forest Service 1988c). For a working definition, It appeared the Mt. Hood useda

minimum age of 200 years to identify old-growth (USDA Forest Service 1988c,d).

Responding to the Wilderness Society's criticism In 1988 of its estimates of old-growth, the Forest Service updated its definition to included stands with mature and overmature trees,

snags and logs, and a multi-layered canopy (USDA Forest Service 1988g). The Service

considered the new definition to be an Improvement over the earlier definitions basedon age and size, but the 1988 definition was almost exactly like the definition in the 1981 Draft Pacific

Northwest Reaion Plan. Recognizing there could be a variety of definitions, the Forest Service designed the mature and overmature (MOM) inventory to collect data on several attributes of older forests rather those based on a single definition (Teply and Holthausen 1989).

Verbal Descriotlons Virgin timber was synonymous with old-growth in the first few decades of the 20th century. Plnchot (1908) used the term "virgin" when describing the majority of the timber stands on the national forests as those that did not increase In net volume "since growth and decay offset each other." Future Forest Service Chief William Greely said much of the national forest timber was rotting on the stump, which wasa waste of public property (Steen 1976). In 1920 the word "virgin" was used for old forests while "second growth" was applied to forests of a young age (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1920). Forest 107

Service Chief Greely et al. (1922) discussed virgin forests and second growth forestswith the

Implication that virgin forests were the same thing as old-growth.

The first use of the phrase "old growth" was in the 1932 Reoort of the Forester (Stuart

1932). The phrase "heavy stands of mature timber" was employed In conjunction witha

description of western "old-growth areas" Implying that "heavy stand" and old-growthwere

synonymous (USDA Forest Service 1933). The forests of the western Cascades were described from a 1933 forest survey as "enormous stands of virgin timber" most of whichwas

"old growth" (USDA Forest Service 1934).

After 1945, old-growth or virgin stands began to be characterized in terms of growth rate. A 1946 Forest Service report used the term "virgin growth" sawtimber, and defined virgin growth as "mature or overmature forests that are generally characterized by the absence of growth" and as "long past their prime and in advanced stages of decadence (USDA Forest

Service 1946)." By 1958 old-growth was described as "composed of the larger slower-growing trees (USDA Forest Service 1958)." The 1963 forest survey and 1969 Doualas-flr SUDpIy Study defined old-growth trees as those which had reached or passed the age of "physiological maturity (USDA Forest Service 1965a, 1969)." PhysIological maturity is the culmination of mean annual Increment (Johnson 1985), which for west side Douglas-fir was conservatively estimated at 100 years (Robinson 1975).

The perception of old-growth as "virgin" returned In the 1980s. Several publications included definitions that Indicated evidence of human activity should not significantly after forest stand characteristics (USDA Forest Service 1981, 1984a, 1988c,g). However, the philosophy that old forests need to be harvested continued; for example, the name of the

MOM survey was based on forest growth rate. By late 1989, the Forest Service said old-growth was not necessarily "virgin" or "primeval" (USDA Forest Service 1989d).

Manaaement of Old-growth Pinchot's concept of management was based on his view that "The object of our forest policy is not to preserve the forests because they are 108

beautiful... or because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness... but the

making of prosperous homes (Hays 1 959).He later added, The transformation from a wild

[old-growth to a cultivated forest must be brought about by theax. Hence the importance of

substituting, as fast as practicable, actualuse for the mere hording of timber (Pinchot 1908)'

Several of Pinchot's successors agreed with his views (Graves 1910; Steen1976; Bruckart

1949)30 and inthe late 1 960s, most Forest Service foresters in the region said itwas important

to harvest old-growth timber to avoid waste and maximize resource utilization (Bultena and

Hendee 1972). By the late 1 960s and 1 970s there was little effort to distinguish old-growth

from other forest stands because the Forest Service planned to convert lands dedicatedto

timber production to managed second growth forests with harvest cycles basedon culmination

of mean annual increment (USDA Forest Service 1969, 1973, 1976; Franklin et al. 1981).

Land-use plans of indMdual national forests in the region during the mid to late 1 970s

began to reflect new information and thoughts about old-growth. The Willamette National

Forest plan provided for the preservation of several old-growth groves (USDA Forest Service

1977). The Siuslaw National Forest plan indicated some areas would be managedon a 300

year rotation (USDA Forest Service 1977). During the early 19808 forest planners recognized

old-growth as a major issue. The Draft Pacific Northwest Region Plan directed forest planners

to prepare several management alternatives for old-growth relative to wildlife habitat,

ecosystem diversity, and preservation (aesthetics) (USDA Forest Service 1981). But planning

direction to the forests from the regional office in 1981 and 1984 providedno guidance to

actively manage old-growth through long rotations or selective harvests (USDA Forest Service

1981, 1984a,b). The draft plans for the Siuslaw and Willamette National Forests containedno

plans to actively manage old-growth (USDA Forest Service 1986a,b, 1987a,b). The Wilamette

National Forest planned to retain a minimum of 410,000 acres of old-growth through 1995-2000 in a variety of administrative and legislative land-use categories, while the rest would be available for harvest (USDA Forest Service 1987b). But the Mt. Hood National Forest plan allocated 102,500 acres to viewshed management areas in which partial cuts were allowed at 109

250 years in foreground areas and 200 years in middleground areas (USDA Forest Service

1 988c). The Siuslaw National Forest issued a supplemental DEIS late in 1988 in which it proposed to manage 8,000 acres in 40 acre patches on 300 year rotations for bald eagle habitat (USDA Forest Service 1 988h). Most management strategies in the plans of the 1980s for existing old-growth were preservation or harvest.

One goal of Forest Service scientists was to understand old-growth ecosystems so they could develop managed strategies for a variety of commodity and noncommodity values

(Franklin et al. 1981). These strategies, called "New Forestry" by Franklin and his colleagues, were initiated on the Blue RIver Ranger District in the Willamette National Forest (Franklin

1 989b,c). By July of 1989 the Forest Service thought new forestry and "alternative silvicultural systems" might be socially acceptable means to maintain a full array of biological diversity and timber production (USDA Forest Service 1989c). Forest Service Chief Robertson (1989) announced in October 1989 a new policy toward old-growth management which would use extended harvest rotations in some stands and silvicuftural techniques to establish specific old-growth values (USDA Forest Service 1989d,e).

Spotted Owl Habitat Wildlife was a part of the multiple use concept of national forest management for several decades, and was formalized in the 1960 Multiple Use and

Sustained Yield Act (Clary 1986), but wildlife usually meant game animals (Frome 1984). The

NFMA required the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of all vertebrates (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).31

In August of 1973 the Regional Forester declined to accept the first management recommendations (300 acres of old-growth for all known owl nests) proposed on June 30,

1973 by the Oregon Endangered Species Task Force, untO more was known about the owl's habitat needs (Carleson and Haight 1985; Lee 1985). The amount of required habitat per owl pair increased from 300 acres in 1977 to 3,000 acres in 1989, and the number of owl pairs proposed for protection increased from 290 to 1,200 (Table 13). Table 13. Chronosequence of parametersSource proposed by the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of the northern # Owl Pairs GeographicLocation # Acres/Pair Habitat Total Acres Reserved spotted owl. Total AcresAvailable InSEISLee 1985 1 19761973 all knownacresRegional of nests old-growth. forester declined to accept recommendations of Oregon Endangered Species Task Force to protect all known nest with 300 in SEIS 1 1977 290 OR 900300 30-200old-growth yrs. 348,000 Regionalin SEIS 1 Forester 1 19801978 all known 290 OR 900300 30-200old-growth yrs. 348,000 RegionalGuide3Regional Plan 2 5/1984 1981 402402 OR&WAOR & WA 1,0001000 old-growth 402,000120,600 SEISamendmentRegional 1 Guide 4 4/1984 1988 551530 pairssites 1,125 OR&WAOR & WA 1,500-2,700 old-growth/mature SalwasserRobertson 19891988 1,2001,130 OR&WA 1,000-3,000 old-growth/mature 374,000 4,145,000 thusRegional1. USDA placed ForestGuide in the wasService Table available after1988a; thein 2.May Regional USDA 1984, Forest Guide. but the Service April amendment 1981; 3. USDA replaced Forest the Service specilications 1984a,b; in 4.the The Regional amendment Guide. to Therefore, the regional the guide criteria was in thepublished amendment in were April 1984 before the more recent 0 111

The relationship of old-growth to spotted owl habitat requirementswas initially based on the spatial attributes of area size and distribution rather than on what physically constituted old-growth. By the mid-I 980s the Forest Service usually referred to spotted owlhabitat as mature (100-200 years) and old-growth (USDA Forest Service 1988a,b). Lee (1985)said a forest generally became suitable owl habitat between 140 and 170years of age. Rued iger

(1985) proposed managing 2,400 acre units undera 240 year harvest rotation to maintain

1,000 acres of the area in age classes suitable for spotted owl habitat.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Physical Attributes In 1940 the U.S. Department of the Interior used a definition of a minimum of 20 inches dbh for small old-growth and 40 Inches dbh for large old-growth. By

1976 a minimum age of 200 years was used to define old-growth (U.S. Department of the

Interior 1976). The Salem District plan used a minimum age of 196 years for its oldestage class, but a different section of the same document used a minimum age of 250 years for its oldest age class (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1981). As part of the early 1980s planning process, the Eugene District used a vague definition that stated old-growth forest contained many large trees, large snags, large down logs, and a multistorycanopy of several species (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1982). The plan went on to say old-growth characteristics begin to develop at about 200 years In western Oregon forests (USD1 Bureau of

Land Management 1982). A minimum 200 year age was also used in the mid 1980s (USD1

Bureau of Land Management 1986, 1987a).

The proposed planning guidelines for the State of Oregon In the late 1 980$ identified old-growth as forests 200 or more years in age, but also included a nonquantitative definition based on general structural characteristics (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1988). The definition also indicated old-growth would be identified for Inventorypurposes when 10 percent of the live trees were over 200 years old on a minimum of 10 acres. The BLM relied primarily 112

on minimum age based definitions of around 200 years during the I 970s and1 980s. The

agency recognized structural attributes of old-growth, but the number ofsnags and logs was

not included in any definition.

Verbal Descriptions In 1976 the word "virgin" was used in connection with

old-growth and wilderness values (U.S. Department of the InterIor 1976).The proposed State

of Oregon planning guidelines for the late 1 980s described old-growth forestsas "older

forests", "older forest ecosystems", and "older timber" (USD1 Bureau of Land Management

1981, 1988).It also indicated that man's activities should not significantly altera stand.

Management of old-growth The agency interpreted the O&C Act as a timber

production mandate (U.S. Department of the InterIor 1940, 1976; USD1 Bureau of Land

Management 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1 987a, 1 989). The O&C Act states the timber resource

must be managed on a sustained yield basis; BLM, like the Forest Service, adopted the

conservative nondeclining even-flow approach for calculating the old-growth harvest level

(Burford 1983; USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1986). Despite the conservative harvest

level, in 1976 the BLM expected to have all Its old-growth lands converted to second-growth by

1996 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1976).

During the 1980s the BLM reevaluated its old-growth harvest policy and proposed

276,691 acres on the Eugene District be managed on a 350 year harvest rotation, and 35,900

acres on the Roseburg District be managed on 250 year minimum rotations (USD1 Bureau of

Land Management 1987a). The agency did reallocate some old-growth lands toa protected

status and considered 350 year harvest rotations for some areas in developingnew plans for

the 1990s (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1983, 1987a, 1988).

Sootted Owl Habitet The Bureau recognized in 1976 that harvest of the old-growth would "have an adverse impact on northern spotted owls" whichwere described as "typical" in 113 the coastal forests, and that owls might become threatened or endangered (U.S. Department of the Interior 1976).In 1982 BLM Director Burford issued new spotted owl guidelines which indicated owls were to be provided habitat only on noncommercial timber lands (Heinrichs

1983).

The BLM's strategy of habitat management for spotted owls between 1973 and 1987 varied considerably (rable 14). On two occasions the BLM declined to accept guidelines proposed by outside experts. This led to confrontation and negotiations between theagency and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in 1983 and 1987 for a spotted owl management plan (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1987b). Habitat area per owl pair varied from 1,200 acres in 1978 down to 300 acres in 1982, then up to 3,100 acres in 1987.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Involvement of the Fish and Wildlife Service with the old-growth issue was related to its responsibility to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the ESA of 1973. In

1972 the agency added all species in the owl family Strigldae, which induded the spotted owl, as an amendment to the list of migratory birds to be protected under a 1936 treaty with Mexico which was part of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (McBride 1972). The Fish and Wildlife Service first expressed concern about old-growth spotted owl habitat In 1973 when it compiled a document on the status of vertebrates whose existence was thought to be threatened (USD1

Fish and Wildlife Service 1973). The document was Intended to be a reference for compiling an official list in antIcipation of the passage of new ESA legislation.It stated old-growth timber was considered to be the owl's requiredN habitat, and noted that preliminary data indicated

300-600 acres of old-growth were needed for each pair of owls (USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service

1973). The agency also said current forest management activities [undefined but presumed to be dearcutting old-growth] were incompatible with the preservation of the owl. 114

Table 14. Changing management policy for old-growth habitat of northern spottedowls by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from 1973 through 1987.

Nunterof Nunter Date ,c,es/Par Habitat of Sites

8/19731 Turned down Oregon Endangered Species Task Force recommendation to protect 300 acres around all known owl sites

1/1 9782 300 old-growth 90 900 30-200 yrs. Total 1,200

3/19811 Declined to accept revised plan of Oregon-Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee recommendation of 1 acres of old-growth within 1.5 miles of owl pair.

19821 300 <90 1983

9/1 983 ODFW and BLM agreement

3/19872 1,300-3,100 old-growth/mature 90 >100 yrs.

12/1 9874 2,200 old-growth/mature 90 pairs 110 sites

1. Lee 1985; 2. USD1 Bureau of Land Management 198Th; 3. USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1987a; 4. Frye 1988 115

In January of 1982 the accumulating information about the owl was reviewed by Fish and Wildlife Service personnel at the Portland office (USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service 1982).

Regional Director Richard Myshak (1982) indicated habitat for the owl was forestsover 250 years old, and there was an "apparent dependence" of the owl on old-growth. The Fish and

Wildlife Service said the owl was vulnerable to habitat modification, but it was not endangered or threatened according to the criteria set forth in the ESA (USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service

1982).

The receipt of two petitions to list the northern spotted owl as an endangered species set in motion another status review on January 28, 1987. This second review, released on

December 14, 1987, indicated that the owl was most often found in old-growth or mature forests (USD1 Fish and Wildlife ServIce 1987; Thorson 1987). Uke the 1982 review, it concluded the owl did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species (Thorson

1987). As a result of a lawsuit brought against the It In May of 1988, the agency reevaluated its

December 14, 1987 decIsion. The new evaluation Indicated the owl had a "preference" for and inhabited old-growth (greater than 200 years old) and mature (between 100 and 200 years old), and the agency recommended the owl be considered for threatened species status (Dowhan

1989).

Views by Members of Congress

Introduction

The views of old-growth forests by individual members of Congress were dependent on a wide variety of variables with a great deal of dependence on the member's constituencies.Institutionally perceptions of the old-growth resource were projected through legislation which was the product of log rolling and compromising the views of individual members representing a variety of Interest groups. Several laws used in lawsuits relating to 116

old-growth were passed before the issue developed into a significant conflict in the late19805

(Table 15).

Legislation Prior to the Old-growth Crisis

Forest Reserves In the late 1 800s Congress pushed the federal government to intervene in the fraudulent and wasteful use of public domain forests (Steen 1976).It passed the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which resulted in the retention ofsome forest lands in Oregon and Washington by federal government (Williams 1989). This act providedno management direction, and some members of Congress wanted some form of management other than preservation. The Organic Act of 1897 stated the purpose of the reserves was to secure water flows and provide a continuous supply of timber (WUllams 1989). Some members of Congress thought the forest reserves would be better managed by the Bureau of Forestry in the

Department of Agriculture than by the scandal ridden Government Land Office In the

Department of the Interior (Steen 1976). The Transfer Act of 1905 reassigned the management responsibility of 63 million acres of forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Steen 1976).

Wildlife Protection of old-growth wildlife habitat was In part due to the passage of two laws. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 resulted from the ratification by the

Senate of a 1916 treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of birds migrating between the United States and Canada (Bevans 1974). There were several genera and species of birds listed In the 1916 treaty but no owls (Bevans 1974). Similar treaties with

Mexico in 1936 and 1972 and Japan In 1972 were signed and ratified into law, and combined with the 1918 MBTA. The spotted owl came under the protection of the MBTA in 1972 when the 1936 treaty with Mexico was amended (McBride 1972). The initial purpose of eatly wildlife laws like MBTA was to protect game animals, but the ESA of 1973 and its 1966 and 1969 117

Table 15. PrincipaJ federal laws used in lawsuits and management activities relatedto the old- growth Issue.

Law Date Purpose

Migratory Bird 1918 Protect specific bird families and species that Treaty Act migrate across International boundaries from over hunting and habitat destruction.

Oregon and 1937 Provided management direction for the revested California Lands O&C Railroad lands; established a revenue sharing Act arrangement with local governments.

Administrative 1946 Established procedures for writing agency regulations Procedures Act and judicial review of agency actions.

Freedom of 1966 Provided access to agency documents used in Information Act regulation writing and decision making. Amended to Administrative Procedures Act.

National 1970 Established requirements for federal government Environmental agencies to provide the public with Information Policy Act on the environmental consequences of major federal activities.

Endangered 1973 Established a national policy to protect vascular Species Act plants and vertebrate animals from going extinct.

Sikes Act 1974 Provided a mechanism for federal agencies too have Extension cooperative agreements with states concerning wildlife, and required federal agencies to consider animals which states listed as threatened or endangered as management Indicator species.

Federal Land 1976 EstablIshed a general policy for federal land Policy management and specific policies for the Bureau of Management Act Land Management.

National Forest 1976 EstablIshed a planning policy and guidelines for Management Act developing periodic land-use and management plans. 118 predecessors were the result of changing perceptions by members ofCongress that nature, like humans, had rights (Nash 1989). Congress extended the ESAconcept to include species listed by lndMduai states in the Sikes Act of 1974.

Land Manaaement The National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA) of 1970was based on the belief that citizens have the right to know the environmentalconsequences of an agency's action (Rosenbaurn 1991).In the case of the BLM and Forest Service, this meant evaluating the impacts of land-use plans. With the exception of wildernesslegislation,

Congress intervened very little In the management of federal lands until1976. The NFMA of

1976 was conceived by members of Congress due to their perceptions that the nationalforests were becoming tree farms (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). Congress affirmed Its conviction that national forests should be places of biological diversity, and that old-growthshould not be liquidated so rapidly as to Impair other values (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).

Through the O&C Act of 1937 Congress expressed Its desire that the O&C and CBWR lands should be Nmanaged for permanent forest [timber] production, and the timberthereon shall be sold, cut and removed in conformity with the principal of sustained yield forthe purpose of providing a source of timber... contributing to the economic stability of local communities (Leavell 1 984).Congress reaffirmed its conviction of the use of the forests on the O&C and CBWR lands by puttinga provision in Federal Land Use Policy Act (FLPMA) of

1976 that gave the O&C Act precedence If It came into conflict with FLPMAover timber

(Tollenaar 1981).

Other Laws Laws not directly tied to environmental legislation, but used In lawsuits concerning old-growth wildlife habitat were the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) of 1946 and the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. These laws, in part, provide citizens the rightto have access to information concerning agencies' decisions, and that agencies make rational decisions in the publics' Interest (Buck 1991). The APA also provides for judicial review of the 119 constitutionality of an agency's decisions except when Congress forbids Judicial review (Buck

1991).

Pre-crisis Views of Old-growth

Aside from providing funding for old-growth and spotted owl research, Congress had little direct activity relative to the old-growth Issue until the spring of 1986. Oregon

Congressman Jim Weaver (D) considered the logging of the Millennium Grove to bea grave problem and held a hearing on old-growth logging (Dumlng 1986). In the spring of 1987

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior members AuCoin and Dicks viewed the old- growth issue as a regional problem to be worked out by regional participants (Evans 1987).

The old-growth Issue was a princIpal concern when the House and Senate

Subcommittees on Appropriations for Interior began deliberations In the spring of 1989

(Hayakawa 1989b). Senator Hatfield considered the Issue serious, and directed his office staff to work with preservation and Industry groups to work out a negotiated settlement (Hayakawa

198gb).

Timber Supply Crisis Precipitates Different Views

The proposed listing of the northern spotted owl as a threatened species in late April

1989 prompted the Oregon and Washington congressional delegations to work at an unprecedented level of cooperation to find a short term solution to the deepening crisis. But

Washington representative and newly elected Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D) indicated that, for a long-term solution, there were differences among the members of the two delegations (Hayakawa 1989e). Foley and Hatfield said Congress would urge the affected federal agencies to develop a plan that would protect the owl and allow timber sales to go forward (Hayakawa 1989e). Key members of the Oregon delegation wanted higher timber sale 120 levels.It appeared the members of Congress involved with the issue felt the immediate problem would not involve direct congressional action.

Senator Fowler (1 989b) considered the old-growth forests irreplaceable. During the summer of 1989 some members of Congress Involved In the Issue proposed a variety of physical attributes for old-growth and different harvest levels (Table 16).Initially the Oregon delegation proposed the use of the PNW-447 definition at the timber summit of June 24. By

July 26, the Northwest delegation's position changed and they supporteda narrower definition which used a minimum age of 300 years and a minimum diameter of 40 inches. In late

September, AuCoin and Dicks proposed a very broad definition of old-growth which included the PNW-447 criteria and the general definition used In the Regional Guide.It was this combination of definitions that became part of Public Law 101 -121, Section 318.

Views by Federal Judges

The passage of environmental laws in the 1970$ set the stage for lawsuits and judicial intervention. Paralleling the renewed concern for the environment as reflected in the new laws was a concurrent shift by members of the judiciary in their view of the role of the courts. The most important shift in legal thought relative to the old-growth issue was tied to the concept of standing. The ruling in the Mineral King case, SIerra Club v. Morton, 1972, indicated jurists were liberalizing their concept of standing so organizations and nonhuman species could bring suit (Hoban and Brooks 1987; Buck 1991).

Views of old-growth spotted owl habitat were sometimes expressed in the opinions of judges hearing cases concerning the issue. For example Judge James Burns (1987) described the old-growth area contested in ONRC v. U.S. Forest Service as "a river gorge of heart-stopping magnificenCe." Judge Helen Frye (1988) Indicated that old-growth's minimum age was 200 years, and agreed with the plaintiffs' (Portland Audubon Society et al.) argument that logging was detrimental to spotted owl survival.In the same case the judges of the Ninth Tableas an 16. institution Different duringlegislative 1989. proposals Sources: concerning Sierra Club, the Oregon definition, Chapter and use 1989, of theU.S. old-growth Congress 1989c, 1989e; Hayakawa 1989g, l989y, resource by members of Congress and Congress 1989z. Summit Compromise Hatfield-Mams Jontz Proposals AuCoin-Didcs Yates Conference Committee Definition Attribute PNW-447June24 PNW-447July 26 Sept. PNW-447 and Sepi 25 Spt. 26 PNW-447 and Sept.28 snagsdiameterlogsNo./ac.age 4/50'/24"4115'/20"832200 in. yrs 4/50'/24"4/15'124"840300 in. yrs. FS Regional Guide FS Regional Guide (bbf)Timber 2 yearssupply totalBLMFS 10 28 totalBLMFS 10 28 FS 6 FS 7.8 FS 7.4 totalBLMFS 9.67.71.9 NumbersFSFragmentation is an abbreviation separated by for slash Forest lines Service for snags and logs represent number, length (feet) and diameter (inches) respectively. significantprotect minimize retain significant 122

Circuit Court of Appeals were of the opinion that itwas no secret that the northern spotted owl disappears when its habitat is destroyed by logging (Goodwin 1 989a)." They also feltthe spotted owl was "heavily dependent on old-growth timber for its habitat (Goodwin 1989b)."In his ruling of March 15, 1989 in the Seattle Audubon Society et ai. suit, Judge William Dwyer indicated the current shortage of timber was due to raw log exports rather than the amountof old-growth preservationists wanted to save (Koberstein 1 989c).

Public Opinion Survey Results

Introduction

The general public is from time to time asked its opinion on issues of forest land-use and related matters. Although few members of the general public are active in the political process (Hennessy 1985), opinIon surveys may have some influence on the process in that advocates of a particular view may use them to bolster their view when interacting with other participants in the policy process (Northwest Conifer 1 978a; Wild Oregon 1 980b, 1 989f; Evans

1986). In addition, over a period of time surveys may show changes in attitudes.

The survey data compiled in Table 17 are from questions selected from seven sources during the period 1979-1989 which relate to the old-growth issue. Five of the surveyswere conducted using standard statistical sampling procedures while the respondents to the

Willamette National Forest survey were self selected. Although the Willamette National Forest survey Is not statistically valid, It represents the opinions of people actively engaged In the land-use allocation process; therefore, is a gauge of activism at the local level. Except in a few instances, the surveys conducted by different organizations are not directly comparable, but may show trends. Table 17. Opinions by the general public of federal land-use issues that were related to the old-growth/spotted owl issue. AFl119851985Hams 1979 Source _Qt1979 18 55%61%Ranked wantedrated habitat lstoutof8landusesmore habitatas very important Wikilde 41%wantedRanked 5th more out ember of 8 uses Tuiiber AFI 1985 19851982 18 76% rated habitat as very important 49%64%57% saidwanted we treewould farms not run out of trees (all ownerships) WildhfeDefendersDurbinl989° 1988 of 19881986 ( to96% prevent agreedOwls extinctions.ranked people distant had responsibility 2nd in 18% ranked forest tires as main problem Rogers 1988 1988 C1 2.3%perception commented of being on endangered. spotted owl habitat 25% agreed wth owl plan 59% commented on old-growth protection 63% agreed with old-growth plan 54%13% wantedother8% wanted comments more less habitat habitat 27% wanted loss old-growth 46%97% agreedcommented9% wantedwith harveston more timber levelold-growth harvest levels Moore 1989 1989 Portland Spotted owl ranked 7th in problems Log exports ranked as 1st problem of industry 37%13% wanted wanted decrease increase in inharvest harvest level level Durbin 1989n, April1989 63%shortage24% said perceived too much owl owl as habitat cause of log 56%Logshortage perceived exports rankedlog exports as 1st as cause cause of of timber log supply 198901. AFt 1989is the American Forest Institute. June OR asSpotted industry owl problem tied tor 3rdby 13%.& 4th rank problem by 33%. 124 Timber v. Preservation

In 1978, the American Forest Institute concluded from a 1977 nationalsurvey that "It is obvious that opposing wilderness or other set asides [emphasis added]on the basis of lost timber growing potential has no appeal to the public (NWTA Bulletin 1 978a)." Another industry sponsored national survey in 1985 indicated 64 percent of the respondents wanted federal lands to be used for "tree farming" (American Forest InstItute 1985).

The Willamette National Forest received the greatest number of responses concerning the timber harvest level.Forty sIx percent of those commenting agreed with the Forest Service preferred harvest level (Rogers 1988). Old-growth protection was a concern of 59 percent of all respondents, and 63 percent of them agreed with the Forest Service plan, 27 percent wanted less protection [more harvest], and nine percent desired more old-growth. However,

49 percent of those commenting on old-growth harvest wanted a decrease.

As the timber supply/old-growth crisis emerged in the spring of 1989, many people believed the timber shortage was due to log exports rather than spotted owls (Moore 1989;

Durbin 1989n). Oregonians were to vote on state ballot Initiative concerning log exports from state lands on June 27 (Durbln 1 989n). A significant minorIty, 27 percent, thought that all old-growth logging on public lands should be stopped (Durbin 1989n).

Wildlife

A common opinion In the surveys was the need for more wildlife habitat. Harris

(1979), found 61 percent of Oregonians responding to a survey said the most important use of the federal public lands in Oregon was for more wildlife habitat. A 1979 survey of Oregonians

Indicated timber ranked 4th (41%) behind wildlife, backpacking/camping, hunting and wilderness as the most important uses of federal public lands (Harris 1979). Survey respondents also ranked conflicts over timber and wilderness as the major land-use problems.

The American Forest Institute (AFI) (1985) found a large increase in the percent of people 125 between 1981 (55 percent) and 1985 (79 percent) who thought wildlife habitatwas very

Important.

These general concerns for wildlife were not so strong when Oregonians considered the spotted owl in a poll taken just before the June 1989 tImber summit. Sixty three percent of the respondents thought the owl had too much habitat (Durbin 1 989r). The previousyear, only

2.3 percent of the respondents to the Willamette National Forest Draft plan considered owl habitat as worth commenting about, and only 1.6 percent mentioned the relationship of old-growth to wildlife habitat (Rogers 1988).

The overlap In the AFI survey for more trees and habitat might be interpreted as most of the respondents considered tree farming and wildlife habitat as compatible, or these people's perception of wildlife habitat was any nonurban environment. Despite its own survey data, and that of others the Industry failed to identify wildlife habitat preservation as the issue of the 1980s.

Variation In Parameters for Estimating How Much Old-growth Existed

Introduction

In addition to different descriptions of the physical attributes of old-growth, landscape attributes relating to ecological significance complicated the perception of old-growth.

Different parameters of physical and landscape attributes led to wide variation In estimates of how much old-growth exIsted. These were potentially critical to evaluating the potential land- use allocatIon options for old-growth. Other factors such the use of different ownerships and land-use classifications complicated estimates. Different parameters associated with old-growth (Table 18) resulted In a variety of area estimates and led to confusion over how much existed. Variation within any one parameter or combinations of parameters generated different estimates of old-growth acres. 126

Table 18. Parameters associated with estimating the number ofacres of old-growth forests.

1. DEFINITION

Parameters - minimum age, minimum diameter, number of live treespe r acre, number of snags per acre, size of snags, number of logs per acre, size of logs, weight of down woody material per acre, mean density per acre, mean diameter per acre.

Ecologically significant- size of area; pattern, proximity to roads, clearcuts, wilderness and roadless areas; presence of other human activity; wildlife use (current or potential).

Potential significance as wilderness.

2. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

All of Oregon and Washington, all of Oregon, Washington and northwest California, Douglas-fir region, west slope of Oregon and Washington, northern spotted owl range.

3. LAND OWNERSHIP

All ownerships, all federal ownerships, national forests and BLM lands, national forests, BLM lands, all public.

4. LAND USE

All uses, all forests, commercial forest, noncommercial forest, wilderness, full harvest, partial harvest, special use, wildlife habitat, recreation, scenic, research natural area, watershed, national and state parks.

5. FOREST TYPE

All forest types on west side, all forest types in Oregon and Washington, Douglas-fir/western hemlock, types used by spotted owl.

6. YEAR DATA COLLECTED 127 Definitions and Ecological Significance

After quantitative definitions of old-growth were developed in the early to mid 1 980s, another perspective based on ecological significance emerged. Area of old-growth stands and their distribution were major factors in determining the ecological significance of old-growth.

Initially, the concept of ecologically significance was tied to wildlife habitat (Harris and Maser

1984).

Minimum Area Concerns for spotted owl habitat led to some of the earliest discussions of ecologically significant area. Estimates of the size of old-growth habitat needs of the owl changed over time with different organizations and geographical locations (Table

19). In 1981, scientists suggested a minimum area of 300 acres for old-growth stands, which was consistent with the amount of old-growth thought to be needed by a pair of spotted owls in the late 1970s (Franklin et al. 1981; Interagency Scientific Committee... 1990).It was felt this size would reduce edge effects, damage due to wind, and was sufficient for most plants and animals. But smaller areas of 50 to 100 acres would suffice for some animals (McCelland et al. 1979). Harris (1984) suggested a log-normal frequency distribution of old-growth islands ranging in size from 50 to 31.000 acres with a mean size of 650 acres.

The Wilderness SocIety (1 989a) and several members of the Ancient Forest Alliance argued that 80 acres was the minimum size (Brown et al. 1989). On the Wilamette National

Forest, the Society estImated 10,000 acres of old-growth were in stands less than 80 acres

(The Wilderness Society 1988). In a lawsuit against the Forest Service, preservationists indicated 40 acres was the minimum viable acreage (Seattle Audubon Society et al. v.

Robertson 1989), and a 40 acre minimum was suggested for stands below 2,500 feet elevation in the preservationists' counter proposal of July 1989 (Wild Oregon 1 990e). The ONRC stated that areas of 25 acres or less had no significant multiple use value other than timber harvest

(Oregon Natural Resources Council 1 989b). 128

Table 19. Chronosequence of changes in thesize of area needed for northern spotted owl habitat proposed by different organizations.

AddDora Total Acres/ Year Organizanon Reg;on No. Pairs Aas 0-C/Pair Aaes Pair Total Habitat

1973 OR Endangered OR aJI known 300 Species Task Force (OESTF) I

1976 OESTFt OR 400

1977 OESTF2 OR 400 300 900 1,200 480,000 (290FS)

1979 OR-WA Inter- OR 400 300 900 1,200 agency Wildlife Committee (IWC) 3

1980 WC3 OR/WA 614 1,000 1,000

1981 P3 OR/WA 512 1,000 1,000 (375 FS) (1.5 ml. radius)

1981 Forest OR/WA 375-599 300-1,000 Service 3

1984 Forest OR/WA 375 300 900 (May) Service3

1984 Forest ORiWA 551 (April) Service 3

1986 Audubon OR/WA/CA 1,500 4,500 WA Society 4 2,500 OR

1986 Forest OR/WA 550 2,000 Service 3

1987 Forest OR/WA 1,125 3,000 Olympic Pen. 1.9 milton Services 2,200 WA Cas. (after 15 yrs.) 2,000 OR Coast 1500 OR Cas. 1,000 Klamath Mts.

1989 Forest ORiWA 1,200 Service 6

1. Lee 1985; 2. Caleson and Haight 1985; 3. USDA Forest Service 1988a; 4. Dawson et al. 1986; 5. Robertaon 1987; 6. Salwasser 1989 129

The Forest Service used a variety of minimum area sizes. For inventorypurposes, the

Service used 10 acres (USDA Forest Service 1981, 1984a, 1988g). Forty acres was used for bald eagles (USDA Forest Service 1 988h) and patches of 60 acres were considered useful for spotted owls (USDA Forest Service 1988a), but Robertson's (1988) Record of Decision used

10, 21 and 30 acres as minimum patch size depending on geographic location. The BLM adopted 80 acres as the minimum viable size (USD1 Bureau of Land Management 1988).

Soatial Characteristics Harris et al. (1982) were particulaily concerned with the fragmentation of old-growth habitat, and noted the ecological value of an old-growth stand was dependent on the age and area of surrounding forest stands. They suggested an old-growth stand surrounded by very young forests would need to be 10 times the size of a stand surrounded by mature timber in order to maintain Its ecological character. Harris (1984) proposed a pattern of linked old-growth long rotation islands spaced throughout a forest based on the drainage pattern. Franklin and Forman (1987) suggested fragmentation be reduced by harvesting In large continuous blocks rather than small blocks dispersed throughout the landscape as was the current practice.

Based in part on the concepts of landscape ecology, The Wilderness Society (1988) claimed the number of acres of remaining old-growth was actually much less than stated by the Forest Service (Morrison 1988). The Wilderness Society (1988) said areas within 400 feet of roads or clearcut edges as having little biological value.In the six forests examined, The

Wilderness Society estimated 38 percent of the 1.14 million acres it defined as old-growth were

Ncproml [not ecologically significant] (Morrison 1988). Neither theage of the adjacent clearcuts nor the position of roads relative to the old-growth stand were defined. However, roads are a nemesis for potential wilderness designation, and their association with old-growth was perceived as a very negative landscape feature (Wild Oregon 1986b; The Wilderness

Society 1988). Harris (1984) did not consider the impact of roads on the ecological significance of old-growth although his management plan implied roads. The industry claimed 130

the criteria used by The Wilderness Society to define ecologically significant relative to roads

and clearcuts had no ecological basis, and Its estimate was unreliable because the Forest

Service data it used was designed to estimate tree volume (Northwest Forestry Association

1989).

Physical Parameters The Wilderness Society discounted old forests that did not

meet the specific criteria of PNW-447 (Morrison 1988). The result was that on the Wilamette

National Forest approximately 247,000 acres of "oki forest, over 200 years old, were

eliminated from the old-growth area estimate (Morrison 1988). But, old-growth scientist Jerry

Franklin said, "There are forests that do not meet the old-growth definition [PNW-4471 that have

a lot of ecological value (Hayakawa 1989j)." Data from one of the 1989 MOM survey plots on the Willamette National Forest indicated there were 49 trees per acre over the age of 300 years

(Figure 17a). However, the snag and log numbers (Figure 17b) did not meet the criteria of the

PNW-447 definition. Only six percent of the Willamette National Forest MOM survey plots had all the PNW-447 characteristics (Teply 1989).

Other Parameters

Geographic Location The number of acres of old-growth was often muddled by the data's target geographic area. The industry usually used data for all of Oregon and

Washington (Mickey et at. 1989; Northwest Forest Resource Council 1989a,b) while preservatlonists usually confined their figures to the Douglas-fir region (MorrIson 1988). The

Forest Service would give estimates for the old-growth within the range of the spotted owl

(USDA Forest Service 1988a), all national forests in the two states (USDA Forest Service

1984a,b), and the Douglas-fir region (Slrmon 1982). The forests of northwest California were induded in some discussions of the issue (USDA Forest Service 1969; The Wilderness Society

1988). 200- 100- 60'80 Tr eo Spedes Douglas-ttr 60'90- 140 o wesem9 oIlier 70 Fore SI ComponentsDouglas-hr 120 0. snagsotherWestern spectes hemlock I 181 - 4050 00 togs 60-80' 30 40- 20 20 l0 0 50 100 160 200 50 year cLasse250Age Class (a) 300 s)50 400 450 500 550 600 0 9 15 21 27 (micoint 6 inch classes) Diameter33 Class JJ1 39 45 51 57 63 .1 69 75 81 Source:distributionFigure 17. Da tabase(b) compiledfromNumber Mature from of liveand USDA trees Over Forest byMature age Service class (MOM) distribution1 989h.inventory (a) a nd numberplot 5366, of live point trees, 1, Willamette snags Nationaland For logs by (b) est.diameter class 132

Land Ownership Some estimates were for all land ownerships (Society of American

Foresters 1984; Brown and Kerr 1989; Mickey et al. 1989) while others concentratedon

national forest lands (Morrison 1988). The Industry claimed therewere 1.0 million acres of

old-growth in national parks of Oregon and Washington (Mickey et al. 1989), but these lands were rarely mentioned by preservationists.

Land-use Preservatlonists tended to ignore lands administratively set aside (Norse

1989; USDA Forest Service 1988g), and dismissed wilderness areas as being mostly rock and ice (Wild Oregon 1 990a) or containing small amounts of old-growth that were not significant

(Brown and Kerr 1989; Wild Oregon 1990J; Marsden 1989). Preservationists argued the only protected old-growth was In parks and wUdemess (Brown and Kerr 1989). The industry argued that 53 percent of the Northwest's national forest lands already excluded timber harvest

(Mickey et al. 1989), and there was or would be a large amount of old-growth In wilderness which contained considerable commercial forest land (Northwest Forestry AssocIation 1989;

Mickey et al. 1989). The MOM survey did not include sampling wilderness areas (reply 1989).

Confusion also existed as to whether old-growth or spotted owl habitat acres were being used.

For example, The Oregon State Forester Indicated there were 3.7 million acres of old-growth on the national forests of the state that contained spotted owls, but these same forests contained only 2.1 millIon acres of suitable spotted owl habitat (Lane 1986).

Forest TVDe Some estimates of old-growth combined all forest types (Andrews and

Cowlin 1940; USDA Forest Service 1965a) while others excluded mountain hemlock (USDA

Forest Service 1989a). Some forest types had no definitions (Old-growth Definition Task

Group 1986; Morrison 1988). The use of different forest type names added to the confusion.

Some references used forest type names based on Kuchler (1964) (USDA Forest Service 1981) while others used type names based on Franklin and Dymess (1973) (Old-growth Definition

Task Group 1986). 133

Year of Data CollectIon The date of the data used by participants also created confusion. For example, Haynes wrote an evaluation of old-growth that was published in 1986, but the data were collected in the late 1970s. The data used in the Draft EIS for the Wiiiamette

National Forest, released in 1987, were collected In 1981. The Wilderness Society (1988) said it updated the Willamette National Forest data to account for timber harvested since1981.

Estimates of Acres of Old-growth

Estimates of old-growth acreage played a major role in the debate over land-use allocation. There were significant differences between the estimates of old-growth acres on six national forests by The Wilderness Society and the Forest Service (Figure 18). On the six national forests the draft plans Indicated there were 2.5 million acres of old-growth, but The

Wilderness Society said only 1.1 million acres existed (MorrIson 1988). The Forest Service countered that the difference In acreage was due to the use of different definitions (USDA

Forest Service 19880. However, there was approximately 0.45 bbf harvested on the Wilamette

National Forest between 1981 and 1987 which represented a significant amount of land (USDA

Forest Service I 989f).

Reaional Estimates There was considerable variation in estimates of old-growth acreage from a variety of sources at different times (Table 20). Most estimates of the presettiement or heavy logging eras were between 14.0 and 17.3 million acres of old-growth.

Preservatlonists considered almost the whole forested area of the region to be old-growth.

The amount of old-growth on all ownerships fell from 11.9 millIon acres in 1933 to about 5.0 million acres in the mid 1970s. The national forests experienced a reduction of about 50 percent of their old-growth area during the same time period. In the 1 980s estimates of old- growth area ranged from 2.4 to 7.7 million acres in the Douglas-fir region with timber industry estimates at the upper value and preservatlonists' and scientists' at the low end. The Society 134

3000

2800

2600

2400 national forest plans The Wilderness Society 2200

2000

1800

. 1600

1400 o 1200 i-1000 800

600

400

200

0 Mt. Baker-Snoqualimi.Olympic Gifford Pinchot Mt. Hood Willamette

National Forests

Figure 18.Variation in estimates of the amount of old-growth remaining on six national forests in the Douglas-fir region as determined by The Wilderness Society in 1988. Source: Adapted from The Wilderness Society 1988. 135 Table 20. Selected estimates of the number of acres of old-growth forestsat different times in Oregon and Washington. The sources in bold typeare Forest Service; the underline sources are timber industry; the plain type are scientists; and alic is preservationists. Values are in millions of acres. The total forest base of western Oregon and Washington is 25 million acres (Society of American Foresters 1984).

Estimate Pre 1800 All National Geographic Data Source Year Estimates Ownerships Forests Location

Andrews and 1933 14.0 11.9 5.1 Douglas-fir CowHn 1940

Kirkland 1946 1945 9.3 Douglas-fir

USDA Forest 1953 7.5 Douglas-fir Service 1958

USDA Forest 1950s 6.3 3.3 Douglas-fir Service 1963

USDA Forest 1963 6.1 Douglas-fir ServIce 1965a

Slrmon 1982 2.4 Douglas-fir

Slrmon 1984 3.9 OR and WA

Society of American 1970s 4.7 (200 yrs) 2.9 Douglas-fir Foresters 1984 7.7 (100 yrs) 4.9 Douglas-fir

Franklin and Spies 1984 1 970s 15.0 5.0 Douglas-fir

USDA Forest 3.9 OR and WA Service 1984a

Cary 1985 15.0 5.0 2.5 Douglas-fir

Haynes 1986 1970s 3.3 1.9 Douglas-fir

Miller 1986 15.0 7.7 5.9 Douglas-fir

Spies and Franklin 1988 1988 14.8 2.5 Douglas-fir

Thomas et al. 1988 2.5 Douglas-fir

National Forest Products 7.5 6.2 OR and WA Association 1988

USDA Forest 6.2 OR and WA ServIce 1988g

Northwest Forest 7.5 6.2 OR and WA Resource Council 1 989b

Anderson 1989 1989 24.0 2.4 Douglas-fir

Harmon et al. 1990 1970s 17.3 4.9 Douglas-fir 136

of American Foresters' 1984 report used data from the late 1970s collected by Haynes (1986)

and estimated 4.7 million acres contained stands older than 200years of age, and 7.7 million

acres had stands over 100 years of age. Estimates by the Forest Service of old-growth on all

national forests in Oregon and Washington increased from 3.9 million acres in the early 1 980s

to 6.2 million acres in the late 1980s (Mickey et at. 1989). The Forest Service numberswere

usually supported by the industry. Some estimates for the area of old-growth in the region

(Franklin and Spies 1984) were based on data collected In the 19708 (Haynes 1986) andwere

used in a publication as late as 1990 (Harmon et at. 1990). One of the authors of the 1990 publication was a member of the Society of American Foresters' (1984) group that madesome of the first estimates.

Estimates for Oregon Gannett (1902) estimated 9.7 million acres of merchantable timber existed in western Oregon at the beginning of the 20th century.It was calculated there were 6.8 million acres of old-growth In 1933 (Andrews and Cowlin 1940), and by 1945 Kirkland

(1946a) said Oregon's Douglas-fir region had 5.8 millIon acres of old-growth. Three point nine million acres of old-growth commercial forests were thought to exist in western Oregon in 1963

(USDA Forest Service I 965a), while a 1977 inventory, using trees 21 inches diameter and greater as the largest category, estimated a total of 4.4 million acres on all ownerships in western Oregon with the Forest Service managing 2.5 millIon acres and BLM managing almost

1 million acres (Gedney 1982). Brown and Kerr (1989) estimated there were 2.8 million acres state wide on all ownerships.

Estimates for the Wilamette National Forest Using a variety of definitions and forest types, several estimates of the amount of old-growth existed for the Willamette National Forest

In the late 1980s (Table 21). The Wilderness Society said 122,000 acres of old-growth were within 400 feet of a road or clearcut, and did not include these areas in its estimate of 299,000 acres (Morrison 1988). Total estimates range from 868,000 to 299,000 acres. Table 21. Variation in estimates of old-growth forest acres on the Willamette National Forest. The matrix of estimates is based types and definitions. Sources: USDA Forest Service 1988d; Morrison 1988. Definition on different forest w. Douglas-firhemlock Forest Type WNF DEIS MOM lnventoiy 256,649 Regional Guide 224,686 PNW-447205,330 Soc. Amer. For.186,579 Wilderness Soc. pureDouglas-firclimaxDouglas-fir 582,000 273,506 8,509 225,794 8,491 194,151 8,341 165,015 5,447 hemlockmountaintrue fir 156,000130,000 103,18694,788 29,73055,238 22,58546,840 36,30417,317 allTotaltypes Douglas-firtypes 868,000582,000 736,638538,664 543,939458,917 477,247407,822 410,662357,041 299,000 138 Future Old-growth

Much of the conflict In the 1 980s centered on how much old-growth remained, but the

Implication was how much would there be in the future. For example, Elliott Norse (1989),an ecologist for The Wilderness Society, said that all the old-growth outside current wilderness would be gone between the years 2005 and 2061 (USDA Forest Service 1 988g).

In part preservationists felt the problem was the rate of old-growth liquidation (Brown and Kerr 1989), but there was also the potential for stands to become old-growth. Morrison

(1988) acknowledged that some current mature stands would provide future old-growth, but made no estimates. Based on their preferred plans, three natIonal forests In Oregon projected the amount of old-growth that would exist in the future (Table 22). The Willamette calculated a larger old-growth base in 150 years than the 1980 acreage while the Siuslaw estimateda tripling of Its old-growth acres In 100 years. The Mt. Hood projected a 30 percent decrease in old-growth acres in 100 years. The Forest Service estimated that In about the year 2035 there would be a total of 3.2 million acres of reserved old-growth on the 19 national forests in Region

6 (USDA Forest Service 1988g). Data from the westslde unit of the BLM Salem District also

Indicated an increase In old-growth acres in 100 years (USD1 Bureau of Land Management

1981). The increase in acreage of old-growth on different management units was primarily attributed to younger forests In areas set aside for noncommodity production reaching an age where old-growth characteristics would prevail (USDA Forest Service 1987b).

As of 1988, the Forest Service estimated there were a total of 4,145,000 acres of spotted owl habitat on Northwest national forests wIth 1,580,000 acres of that total in nonharvest areas (Robertson 1988). Assuming preferred levels of timber harvest over the next five years, there would be 3,965,000 acres available for spotted owl habitat when the spotted owl plan was scheduled for review in 1993 (Robertson 1988). Oregon.Table 22. Compiled from the Forest Service's preferred alternative management plan in Present and future acres of old-growth forests on three national forests in the Douglas-fir region of environmental impact statements of the three forests. Sources USDA Forest Service 1 986b, 1 987b, 1 Time Period the draft forest plans and 988c. NationalForest Forested BaseLand Old-growth 1 980sBase Old-growth 10 year Base Old-growth 50 year Base Old-growth100 year Base Old-growth150 year Base (1987)Willamette(1988)Mt. Hood 1,507,225 832,241 638,000346,000 (1981)(1985) 779,800 NA 509,000270,000 252,600 NEI 672,000 NE1 (1986)Siuslaw1. Not Estimated. 581,515 34,000(1976) 31,000 22,400 102,000 NE1 140

Summary

Perception of the old-growth resource was one factor that affected behaviors of old-

growth issue participants to influence the allocation of old-growth areas for a variety ofuses.

Preservation groups emphasized the preservation of old-growth for wildlife habitat while the

timber industry considered It a source of raw material. Most scientists' working for public

agencies and universities held views similar to those of preservatlonists while most local and

state government officials' views supported those of the timber industry due to their partial

dependency on revenue sharing programs based on federal timber harvests and associated

jobs. By the mid 1 980s most participants agreed the minimum age of old-growth Douglas-fir

forests was 200 years and contained some snags and logs. But, there was wide variation in

opinions as to what constituted the minimum attributes for old-growth.

The habitat requirements of the northern spotted owl also varied through the 1970s

and 1980s. According to some definitions not all forests over 200 years old were suitable

spotted owl habitat and the owl could use forests less than 200 years old. The number of

spotted owl pairs and size of habitat areas needed by each pair increased over time in agency

plans and proposals by scientists. The Forest Service and BLM considered their land

management plans adequate to provide enough habitat for the maintenance of viable spotted

owl populations so it would not need to be listed as an endangered or threatened species, but

preservation interests were of the opinion that not enough habitat would be maintained while timber interests thought too much old-growth was being allocated for owls and other wildlife in the new agency management plans. But, all participants indicated they did not want the

spotted owl to become extinct.

Management strategies proposed for old-growth and spotted owl habitat varied.

Several scientists supported some active management to yield both wildlife habitat and timber,

but most preservationists supported passive management with no human intrusions. The

Forest Service advocated the preservation of some spotted owl and other wildlife habitat, and 141 by 1989 it supported the use of active management strategies that would yield timberyet maintain the old-growth character of a forest stand. Timber Industry interests did notsupport the use of active management strategies to maintain forests In an old-growth condition.

The conflict resulted in different estimates of how much old-growth remained due to the use of a variety of parameters. One parameter concerned different perceptions of the physical characteristics of old-growth which changed over time andspace. By the mid to late

1 980s there were a variety of estimates of remaining old-growth area used by different participants with the industry generally supporting estimates given by the Forest Service and preservationists supporting those by scientists. The estimates of the amount of old-growth remaining in the Douglas-fir region in the late 1980s varied from 7.7 to 2.4 million acres. 142

CHAPTER 4: VIEWS ISSUE PARTICIPANTS HAD OF EACH OTHER

Introduction

Views by one group of issue participants of other participants are basedon the words

and behaviors of others. The views of others may in turn influence different participants'

behavior relative to the resource allocation process. To evaluate this dimension of the conflict

an analysis was conducted of the periodicals of ONRC and NWTA. Information from other

sources and data in a 1979 survey supplemented the data from interest groups' periodicals.

Table 23 represents the mean values of data which were interpreted to be the perceptions two

interest groups had of other participants. The values were determined by coding sentences in

which a participant's name was used in connection with the old-growth issue in Wild Oregon

and NWTA Bulletin from 1978 through 1989 on a seven point intensity scale (+3 to -3)as

described by Osgood et al. (1957).

Preservationists' Views of Other Participants

Views of the Industry

The preservatlonists' negative perceptIon (-1.39) of the industry was based on several factors. Preservatlonists said the industry wanted to liquidate the last virgin forests (Monteith

1986). Analysis of WMd Oregon articles indicated the words "profir and "greed" were used in

one article with reference to the destruction of old-growth (Atiyeh 1989). For example, Jeff

DeBonis (1989) said the timber industry is motivated by short-term profit. MaIm (1979) found

environmental leaders most closely associated the word "profit" with the timber industry.

Preservation groups tended to portray the timber Industry as well funded and organized in its efforts to weaken preservation efforts (Cross 1990). They also considered the industry grass

roots movement of 1989 to be a surrogate Table 23. Perceptions by the North West Timber Association (NWTA) and the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) of several participants in Westthe old-growth Timber Association forest issue. NWTA The valuesBulletin are and the The mean Oregon scores Natural denved Resources from a Council Wild Oregon. Otherseven Participants point scale is from -3 to +3 based on statements in the North IndustryTimber Preserva-tionists ServiceForest TimberNorthWest Assoc. NA1 -1.6 -1.1 Courts0.23 Scientists -1.17 Hatheld1.75 AuCoin 1.7 DeFazio -2.5 1ResourcesOregon NA Natural Cou. = Not Applicable -1.39 NA1 -1.42 3.0 0.33 -2.8 144 roots movement of 1989 to be a surrogate of mill owners and trade associations (Wild Oregon

1990h).

Views of the Forest Service

Preservationists perceived the Forest Service more negatively (-1.42) than did the

industry. One common phrase Indicated the Forest Service could not be trusted (Schier 1986;

Wild Oregon 1 989g). Some preservatlonists thought the Forest Service lied about its actMties,

and it was highgrading the forest (Wild Oreaon 1 987b). Andy Kerr noted that preservationists'

"history with all those agencies has not been a good one (Hayakawa 1 989d)." David Brower

(1989) suggested that a Oregon Cascades National Park be created so the Park Service could

protect what the Forest Service refused to.

The Forest Service was viewed as being In collusion with the timber industry (Nielsen and Lochner 1989). Former Forest Service employee DeBonis (1989) said the Forest Service and the BLM were "perceived by the conservation community [preservationists] as being advocates of the timber Industry's agenda." Brock Evans claimed the Forest Service was already managing its lands like Weyerhaeuser (Durbin 198bb).

Views of the Courts

The only statement concerning the courts received a +3 score, and indicated the courts successfully enforced public laws (Stahl 1989). But, James Monteith said it was clearly difficult to get Justice at the district court [Oregon] level (Painter 1989c). Gary Kahn (1988), a private attorney who represented environmental clients, said suits brought by environmentalists in Oregon are almost routinely appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court where rulings were more favorable to the plaintiffs. For example, preservationists claimed Judge Bums gave the BLM total discretion in scientific matters (Durbin 1989w). 145 Views of Scientists

Preservationists perceived scientists as relatively neutral. However, statements by scientists indicate preservationists probably had more thana neutral relationship with them as science was often used as the foundation of their arguments. Daniel Slmbeiloff (1987),

population biologist at Florida State University, said there was broad overlap between conservationists [preservationists] and the academic scientists, and noted preservationists had an unusually strong cooperatively derived scientific basis for their arguments.

Views of Members of Congress

The analysis Indicated Senator Hatfield was perceived very negatively (-2.8). James

Mónteith (1989b) characterized Hatfield as a champion of environmental causes outside

Oregon while at the same time liquidating the old-growth forest of the Northwest. Statements

In Wild Oreaon (19900 IndIcated he was the englneer of forest destruction, and Evans (1987) said Hatfield would not favor anything that slows the rapid rate of old-growth lIquidation. One preservationist referred to Hatfield as the great Satan (Hayakawa 1989o).It was believed

Hatfield acted unconstitutionally by placing riders on appropriations legislation to limit judicial review of agency actions (Wild Oregon 1988d; Hayakawa and Durbin 1989c). A note in Wild

Oreaon (1990k) said the most powerful members of the Northwest delegation [Hatfield and

AuCoInJ remain committed to an agenda of deforestatlon.Monteith (1988, 1989b) also said that certaln pdlticlans were wedded to the timber industry, and their loyalty to the Industry outweighed all other considerations.

By 1989, It was felt the Congressional Delegations of Oregon and Washington were not sympathetic to more forest allocations for preseriation (Evans 1989a). Andy Kerr noted the problem with gettIng a solution favorable for preservatlonlsts was the entire Oregon congressional delegation (Durbin 1989s). Senator Hatfield was considered by preservatlonists to be the most influential member of Congress on the old-growth issue, followed by 146

Representative AuCoin (Jable 24).Hatfield and AuCoin were considered to be the two most influential Congressmen due to their high rank as members of the Appropriations Committees

(Wild Oregon 1990g).

The national League of Conservation Voters gave AuCoin a rating of 100 percent for his staunch defense of the environment based on his 1988 voting record. But the Oregon

League of Conservation Voters thought otherwise, and chose not to endorse him for reelection because of his support to maintain high timber harvest levels on federal lands (Wild Oregon

1 989a).In the literature analyzed he received a score of -2.0.

The preservation community perceived members of Congress outside the Northwest as their supporters. Based on the large amount of print (2 pages) in the tall/winter 1989/1990 issue of Wild Oregon, Senator Wyche Fowler of Georgia was considered to be the most sympathetic and influential member to support the preservationists' cause. Other major supporters mentioned were Jontz, Vento, Atkins and Yates. After the battle over Section 318 ended in the fall of 1989, preservatlonlsts felt the Oregon delegation as no longer In control of the ancient forest Issue, but was still a major player (Oregon Ancient Forest News 19899; Kerr

1990b).

Views of Congress as an Institution

Preservationists believed Congress was the institution in which they could achieve their objectives. An article In a 1988 issue of Sierra Indicated that for 30 years preservationists took their cases to Capitol Hill "for a simple reason: Washington, D.C. is where the federal action is

(Scott and Pope 1988)? SIerra Club officer Charlie Raines (1989) saId, "Congress, not the agencies and not the federal courts...must resolve.. . land use controversies...like the old-growth issue? Preservatlonists were of the opinion that the Appropriations' Interior

Subcommittees of the House and Senate were the most Important subcommittees for determining how the federal lands were used (Wild Oregon 1987c, 1988d). Carol Ueberman 147

Table 24. Amount of influence different members of Congress hadon the old-growth forest issue as expressed by three preservationgroups. Rank was based on the number of articles associated with the old-growth issue in which a members namewas mentioned. Periodicals of The Wilderness Society, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the OregonNatural Resources Council (ONRC) were analyzed for the time periods listed under the periodicalname. Number in parenthesis indicates number of articles the name was mentioned.

Preservation Groups

Wilderness Society 1 Sierra Ck.jb2 ONRC3 Rank (1986-1989) (1989) (1989)

1 Hatfield (3) Hatfield (11) Hatfield (10)

2 AuCoin, Vento (2) AuCoin, DeFazio (5) AuCoin (6)

3 several4 (1) Packwood (3) Adams (4)

4 Marra (2) Dicks, Fowler (3)

5 Yates, D. Smith (1) Foley, Yates (2) B. Smith

1 Wilderness 2 Oreaon Coniter Wild Oregon (includes articles in the falL/winter 1989-9 issue). 4 Weaver, Dicks, Volknier, Fowler, Wyden,Adams, Jontz, Yates, and Atkins. 148

(1989), Chair of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the 1988 congressional appropiiatlon for an old-growth Inventory was the Institution's first acknowledgement of the significance of the issue.

Views of Participants within the Preservation Bloc

Perceptions of different groups and Individuals within the preservation bloc often puta strain on working relations. For example, the Cathedral Forest Action Group (CFAG)was formed when a split occurred within the Middle Santlam Wilderness Committee over differences for the need to use confrontatlonal, nonviolent tactics to protect the old-growth

Pyramid Timber Sale (Bortz 1989; Loveland 1989). A member of the Siuslaw Task Force said the ONRC spent too much time with the media rather than filing timber sale appeals (Glick

1987). Sierra Club member Tim Hermach founded the Native Forest Council because he felt the Club was a weak advocate for old-growth preservation.

The Sierra Club was especially distrusted by many preservationists (Church and

Kobersteln 1989; Wild Oregon 1990c). "Everyone was afraid the Club would sell us out" was the belief held by many leaders of other preservation groups (Wild Oregon 1990b). When preservatlonists were deciding who they should nominate as representatives to the timber summit, "No one, except the Sierra Club, wanted a Sierra Club representative on the panel

(Wild Oregon 1990b)." On the other hand, certain national organizations did not want ONRC staff members Andy Kerr and James Monteith as representatives to the timber summit CII

Oregon 1990b). David Brower, former executive director of the Sierra Club, said the Club was wrong for compromising (Brower 1989). James Monteith (1989c), suggested the Sierra Club was not fully dedicated to the preservation cause by noting that ONRC approached conservation Issues seriously because it's Not A Club, It's Our Business."

During the Senate deliberations on Section 318 in late July 1989, members of the

Oregon Ancient Forest Mlance said some Washington, D.C. based national groups were weak 149

for compromising (Wild Oregon 1990f). James Monteith (1989a)castigated Brock Evans for

gMng up after seeing that Hatfield had 80 votes, and felt betrayed. Afterpassage of Section

318 In the fallof 1989, the Oregon Ancient Forest News (1 989g) acknowledgedthe differences

among groups, but said the intense negotiations during the conference committee meeting

brought solidarity and most groups were united more thanever. At a November 1989 meeting

the Sierra Club was still defending itself (Russell 1989).

Timber Industry's Views of Other Participants

Views of Preservatlonists

The industry perceived preservatlonists negatIvely (-1.6). A typical industryresponse to preservation actions was the Slerra Club wants it air [old-growth and second-growth]

(NWTA Bulletin 1986c), or their actions are not out of environmental concern but economic sabotage (NWTA Bulletin 1 988a). In reply to preservationists' rejection of the timber summit compromise, James Geisinger, president of the Northwest Forestry Association, said, "Iguess what the preservationists have done here Is expose to the public what their agenda is, and that is to shut down the Industry and stop the harvesting of treeson public lands (Church and

Koberstein 1989).This view of preservatlonists was expressed by others (Mackenzie 1989;

Mickey et al. 1989; Tritch and Slezak 1989). Industry said preservationistswere well-coordinated, well-financed, and sophisticated In their efforts to discredit the industry

(Plumb Une 1989b).

Preservatlonists were viewed as untrustworthy. Dennis Hayward (1988a) tolda congressional subcommittee that preservatlonists Ndo not accept or honor compromise nor do they act responsibly.Hayward (1988a, 1988b) said that preservationists and the Industry reached a compromise on preservation of old-growth through the two wilderness bills passed for Oregon, but preservationists failed to acknowledge it and wanted more. Hayward (1988a) 150 expressed confusion over the fact that ONAC supported the 1984 Federal TimberContract

Payment Modification Act, then in February 1988 ONAC filedover 200 appeals on the resale of these same timber sales. After passage of Section 318, Jim Geisinger said: "Whether this

[Section 318] works depends on the good faith of the environmental community (Durbin

1 989ee)." Two and a half months later, Chris West, of the Northwest Forestry Association, called preservationists "Obstructionists" for trying to have the courts nullify Section 318, which he felt was the result of a compromise (Durbin I 989nn). West also said preservationists' selections of sales to be released from injunctions indicated they were more concerned with protecting large tracts of unroaded forests than owls (Durbln 198911).

Views of the Forest Service

The Forest Service was perceived negatively (-1.1) by the industry. Hayward and

Geisinger (1986) felt the Forest Service did not consider the wood products industry to be a full participant in the drafting of the SEIS for the spotted owl plan, and made a back-room deal to stop timber sales in the Opal Creek area (NWA Bulletin 1987). Jim Geisinger criticized the

Forest Service's October 1989 policy on old-growth as being developed without Congressional direction (Durbin and Church 1989). One industry supporter indicated that environmentalists were working with a "new breed of Forest Service management to lock up more of our forest lands (Humberd 1986)."

Views of the Courts

The industry's perception of the decisions by the courts was essentially neutral, but there was wide variation in the comments. Statements ranged from "the courts are destroying our future" (NWTA Bulletin 1 988b) to "the courts raised awareness of the critical importance of public timber [supply] (NWTA Bulletin 1 989a)." 151 Views of Scientists

The timber industry had a negative (-1.17) perception of scientists.If statements concerning industry scientists are factored out, the scientists groupscore drops to -2. A general comment about scientists [mostly those working on spotted owls]was that most "let their personal philosophy and sympathy with the preservationist's community dominatetheir professional opinion (NWTA Bulletin 1 988c)." James Geisinger said the industry always believed the research on spotted owls was flawed because it was conducted by people who advocated the preservation of old-growth timber, "and was done to justifya preconceived conclusion (Durbin 1989v)."

Views of Members of Congress

The timber industry perceived Senator Hatfield and Representative AuCoinas supporters (Table 23). A comment In the NWA Bulletin (1989c) indicated that Hatfield's resolve [to keep Section 318 unchanged] was high. Another statement thanked AuCoin for getting more timber from the Forest Service than the Service requested (NWTA Bulletin 1985).

Representative DeFazio, whose district includes much of the WUlamette National Forest, was not well regarded by the industry. For example, the NWTA Bulletin (1989e) said it heard from a reliable source that Defazio was going to side with the ONRC to claim the industry was deceitful in blaming mUl closures on log shortages and lawsuits. Mark Rey, vice-president of the National Forest Products Association, expressed frustration with Senator Adams and other members of the Northwest Delegation for wanting to split the difference in the timber sale volume proposed at the timber summit and the preservationists counter proposal (Hayakawa

1 989n). Labor unions thought the politicians were not interested in hearing their concerns

(Painter 1 989d). 152 Views of Congress as an Institution

The industry believed Congress would be more sympathetic to their need for timber

than the general public. Based on the results of a 1977 public survey which indicated wide

support for setting aside commercial timber land for wilderness, the industry said "Washington

thought leaders" would receive its concerns "more rationallytm (NWTA Bulletin 1 978a).

Scientists' Views of Other Participants

Jerry Franklin (1 989a) said preservationists were too preoccupied with preservationas a solution to all problems (Cogswell 1 989a). While statements by some scientists about the timber industry revealed a distaste for economic values. Rocky Gutierrez (1987) said the government was ignoring its commitment to preserve species by allowing "the timber industry to make a lot of money." He went on to say the government should focus on the negative impacts logging has on other renewable resources such as salmon. Two biologists from the

Washington Department of Game said government subsidies were the reason for profit in harvesting old-growth, and argued that subsidies to timber companies were bad, but subsidies to workers put out of jobs due to old-growth preservation were acceptable (Dixon and Juelson

1987). OToole (1988a,b) pointed out while many Forest Service timber sales in other parts of the country were subsidized, timber sales in the Douglas-fir region made money. Dixon and

Juelson (1987) belIeved the industry was better organized and effective than preservationists in focusing its lobbying efforts at Congress.

Views by the Forest Service of Other Participants

Foresters and others in the employ of public agencies must be cautious with public statements about other issue participants; therefore, data from public sources were sparse.

The Forest Service thought Congress as unable to provide clear guidanceas indicated by an 153 agency spokesman who said, Congress can't have It both ways, higher timber sales andno roads (Hayakawa 1 989r).The northwest regional office felt that Congress was unreasonable

In expecting It to sell 8 bbf by 1990 without clear guidelines, but latter changed Its position

(Durbln 1 989x; USDA Forest Service 1 989g). Former Pacific Northwest Regional Forester,

James Torrence, accused Congress [northwest delegation members] of setting timber sales too high (Durbin 1 989aa). Based on lawsuits filed against it by preservationists and the industry, the Service considered itself "right where we belong- in the middle (UIrich 1989)."

Views by Members of Congress of Other Participants

Views of Preservationists

The view of preservation groups varied among the members of Congress, and may be ascertained by which members supported the preservationists' objectives. Senator Hatfield told an industry group he felt the real problem [timber supply] was with those who wanted to lock up the resource (North West Timber AssociatIon 1972). In a 1982 Journal of Forestry interview, Hatfield said Oregon environmentalists had gained too much relative to economic needs (Popovlch 1982). The Sierra Club was looked upon as reasonable and balanced by

Hatfield and the rest of the Oregon delegation (The Orecionian 1989k; Koberstein 1989e;

Calder 1989), but Hatfield referred to ONRC leaders Andy Kerr and James Monteith as radicals

(Koberstein 1989e). Representative AuCoin considered The Wilderness Society was an obstructionist for sending a pair of letters to House members advocating they not support his proposals to solve the old-growth crisis (Kobersteln 1989e; AuCoin 1989a; Hayakawa 1989w).

Views of the Timber Industry

Views of the Industry were reflected In the support different members provided the industry. For example Senator Hatfield (1988) said the loss of jobs as unaccetable. While 154

Senator Fowler (1989b) believed the old-growth crisis was due to shortterm greed on the part

of the Industry.

Views of Resource Agencies

In the first seven decades of the 20th century Congress thought the management of

the national forests was best left to the discretion of professional foresters. This viewwas

reflected in the Organic Act of 1987 and the MUSY Act of 1960 which delegated broad

authorIty to agency professionals (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). Senators Hubert Humphrey

(D.MN) and Jennings Randolph (D-WV) were both supporters of the MUSY Act whichwas

primarily written by the Forest Service (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). The 1 970s wasa turning point in the image of the agency by Humphrey, Randolph andmany other influential

members of Congress, and Humphrey and Randolph were the two sponsors of the NFMA.'

Humphrey said in 1976: "The days have ended when the forest may be viewed onlyas trees and trees only as timber (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).' Humphrey questioned the agency's trust to manage the national forests, and said the NFMA should prevent the Forest Service from 'turning the national forests into tree production programs which override other values

(Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).'

Congress was convinced the Forest Service was not doing the job Congress directed it to accomplish in the NFMA, but Senator Adams (1989) saId the Northwest delegation was not eager to Intervene In the operation of the forests. Representative DeFazlo said the Forest

Service was deliberately allowing a timber supply crisis to develop so Congress would have to bail the Service out of trouble by writing a new plan or declaring a specific plan legal (Church

1989c). DeFazlo later conceded the Forest Service was being pulled one way by Congress which was asking It to do "extraordinary things' and another by the Office of Management and

Budget (Durbin 1989aa). AuCoin (1989b) scolded the Forest Service for not having new plans, which were four years late, so Congress had to cover the agency's mistakes. 155

The Northwest delegation expressed dissatisfaction over the performance of the three federal natural resource agencies' failure to develop guidelines for identifying critical habitat for spotted owls in order that some timber sales could be released from injunction as directed by

Judge Dwyer (Hayakawa I 989o). The Conference Report of October 2, 1989 stated: "the managers are extremely concerned that the agencies did not pursue avenues to resolve the conflicts or more adequately address the issues raised in the legal challenges (U.S. Congress

1 989e)." The Conference Report went on to indicate Congress took extreme steps in defining judicial review procedures because of "the failure of the agencies to take steps on their own to resolve these matters in a manner which would have prevented the current1 989J situation

(U.S. Congress 1989e)." AuCoin (1989b) also said the Forest Service created a situation in which Congress had to Intervene.

Views of the Courts

Senator Hatfield viewed the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as "thumbing their noses at Congress" in their decision of June 7, 1989 (Durbin and Painter 1989). He said,

"It's very obvious that the courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit Court, are trying to take over the management of public lands" (Calder 1989). He also added that the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals' rulings had been overturned by the Supreme Court more times than other federal appeals courts. On another occasion, Hatfield said the Ninth Circuit Court "has demonstrated

Its Incompetence in the area of land management questions and its ability to recognize the laws made by Congress (Reeder 1988)." Hatfield argued the limitations on judicial review placed In the timber summit compromise were needed because of the recent decisions of the

Ninth Circuit Court to block logging (Calder 1989). 156 Views of Other Members of Congress

There was also friction among the members of the Oregon delegation. After Hatfield

and AuCoin set-up the timber summit, Representative Denny Smith (R-OR), accused themof

being in "the environmentalists' camp all along" and lashed out at Hatfield, Packwood, AuCoin,

Wyden and DeFazio for supporting eatlier preservation legislation for wildernessand the

Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area (Goetze and Hayakawa 1989). Senator Packwood

thought Hatfield, AuCoin and Governor Goldschmidt excluded him from consultations in

organizing the timber summit (Ames and Hayakawa 1989). Goldschmidt felt Packwoodwas

undercutting the summit by trying to make secret deals. After passage of Section 318, Bob

Smith (R-OR) said AuCoin sold out to preservationists (Conaressional Record 1989).

Federal Judges' Views of Other Participants

Judge Burns (1987, 1988) decided that Congress had the power to exclude the courts from hearing certain cases by passing legislation that said "no judicial review." Judge Frye

(1989), in Portland Audubon Society et al. case, also ruled that Congress had thatpower, and

used It In writing SectIon 314 to preclude judicial review In cases challenging agencies' current land management plans. Judge Goodwin (1 989a,b) said the "sponsors [Hatfleldj of section

314 intended to bar this very lawsuit", and while It was Senator Hatfield's intent to preclude lawsuits, it was not the intent of Congress (Kadera 1989b). He also noted that the law was ambiguous and wrote: "We found the language of section 314 'anything but clear' (Goodwin

1989b)."

Judge Dwyer, who heard the suit against the Forest Service, said "Whether more old-growth should be cut...is for Congress and the public to decide" (Wild Oreaon 1990n).

This sentiment was also expressed by Judge Frye (Painter 19899). After the Fish and Wildlife

Service decided to propose the spotted owl as a threatened species, Judge Dwyer advised the 157

Forest Service It could sell timber In areas approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service

(Hayakawa 1 989o). Dwyer's deference to experts indicated he thought technical matterswere

beyond the ability of the court to determine. Judge Frye (1989) noted that trial courts should defer to agency expertise, but It was up to the court to decide if the agency considered

relevant factors and exercised clear judgement. Frye (1989) was convinced that the BLM did not consider certain factors relative to spotted owl survival. Judge Burns (1987) said the

Forest Service had "taken this procedural and substantive 'hard-look' at the environmental consequences" in its NEPA evaluation of logging the North Roaring Devil sale.

Public's Views of Other Participants

Despite perceptions by the principal issue participants generally deploring the performance of the Forest Service, the agency did have its supporters. Analysis of the data from the public response to the Willamette National Forest Draft Plan indicated a large portion of people supported the agencies proposed land use plans for old-growth and related issues.

Sixty three percent of the 10,2015 respondents commenting on old-growth protection agreed with the Forest Service plan for old-growth protection (Rogers 1988). In addition, 46 percent of

16,640 respondents commenting on the timber harvest level agreed with the Forest Service on the amount of proposed timber harvest, although 37 percent did want it lowered (Rogers

1988). Thirty nine percent of the 258 respondents who addressed the habitat requirements of the spotted owl agreed with the Forest Service while 22 percent disagreed and the rest had no opinion (Rogers 1988).

The public's positive Image of the timber industry as a good land steward fell from 90 percent in 1982 to 69 percent in 1985 (American Forest Institute 1985). In 1982, 63 percent indicated the industry did a good job in conserving natural resources, but by 1985 this slipped to 58 percent (American Forest Institute 1985). 158

Summary

Preservation and timber industry interests perceived each other negatively over the

Issue of old-growth land-use allocation. The views of preservation and timber industry participants associated with the old-growth Issue involved distrust of each others' motives and objectives, and a belief that opponents had greater resources and access to the policy process. These views are simllar to those found by Culhane (1981) and support Maim's (1979) results that preservation and commodity interest group leaders believed the other group's goals were in self interests. As the Issue became nationalIzed in 1989 all the participants except Congress most congressional participants believed Congress was the only institution in the issue network that could facilitate a direct solution. Congress in turn perceived the federal agencies as incompetent at addressing and solving the Issue.

Perceptions of individual members of Congress depended on the support given to the

Interest groups. Senator Hatfield and Representative AuCoin were considered by both preservation and industry participants as the two most influential members of Congress affiliated with the issue due to their positions on the Appropnatlons Committees of their respective chambers. Both Hatfield and AuCoin were perceived as supporters of the timber industry by both preservation and timber Interests.

Scientists played a key role In the issue and were viewed favorably by most preservationlsts, but strongly disliked by the timber industry. Uke members of Congress, preservation and industry Interests perceived the Forest servIce negatively for not supporting all their demands. Many people in the preservation movement considered the Sierra Club as a weak supporter of the old-growth preservation movement. But, some members of Congress felt the Sierra Club was reasonable and other preservation groups extreme In their demands.

Senator Hatfield felt the decisions of the federal courts were not following the laws passed by

Congress. The industry had mixed opinions about the courts while preservatlonists considered most courts positively. 159

CHAPTER 5: SOCIO-POLJTICAL BEHAVIORS AND INTERACTIONS

Introduction

In part the behaviors of the old-growth issue participantsare a result of their

perceptions of the resource and other issue participants. Some behaviors of the old-growth

Issue participants were reviewed in Chapter 2. The section which follows furtherdefines

participants' behaviors. The behaviors were directed at influencing the development of appropriate federal land-use policies as perceived by the different participants. These behaviors resulted in interactions within and among the four elements of participants. Most of the discussion which follows concerns behaviors and interactions among members of

Congress because that was the final policy arena.

Interactions Within Elements

Interest Groups

The formation of major coalitions and cooperation was new for both preservationists and the timber industry. The effort of coordinating strategies among many organizations through the Ancient Forest Alliance was a new level of cooperation for national, regional and local groups (Anonymous 1988a), and was a key factor in gaining the support of members of

Congress outside the Northwest. Hayward (1988b) said the fierce independence of individual timber companies made it difficult for them to work together. Such a split occurred over the timber sale bale out legislation in the mid 1980s (Random Length 1983). But he noted the old-growth issue pulled them together more than on past controversies. The Northwest Forest

Resource Council (NFRC) was Incorporated in April of 1987 in response to the developing old-growth/spotted owl Issue (Burley 1992). By 1989, the NFRCwas a regional coalition of 11 timber industry associations, Figure 19, which represented approximately 160 timber industry Northwest Forest Resource Council John Hampton ManufacturersIndependentAssociationNorthwest Forest AssociationIndustriesWestern Forest 7 WashingtonAssociationContractLoggers AssociationIndustriesSouthernOregonTimber FigureResource 19. CouncilTimber industryin 1988. tradeSource: associations Adapted from and Northadministrative West Timber executives Assoc iationwho 198B; were m Mickeyembers et of al. the 1989. Northwest Forest 161

firms In the Northwest (Northwest Forest Resource Counc1 989b; Hayward 1 988b). This

umbrella organization represented diverse Interests in the timber industry, but allrelied to some

extent on timber from public lands for their operations (Burley 1992). The Northwest Forestry

Association (NFA) formed in 1987 from the merger of two older associations, and represented

approximately 80 forest industry companies, large and small, who relied on public timber to

some extent (Timber! 1987; Burley 1992). David Hancock, vice-president of the American

Forest Resource Alliance, told a September 1989 meeting that the industry hada new sense of

unity due to the potential impact of the reduction in federal timber sales (Plumb Une 19891).

Shifts in land-use allocations by the Forest Service, and preservationists' protests,

appeals and endangered species petitions became the stimulus for the creation of several new

organizations which promoted commodity and recreational uses. One of the first of these new organizations was the Western States Public Lands Coalition based in Pueblo, Colorado. This

organization, founded in 1987 by former Oregon state legislator BI Grannell and his wife,

Barbara (Durbin 1989cc), was "An alliance between local governments, school districts and public lands industries In the west advocating continued multiple use on public lands (Federal

Lands 1989)." Another new organization was the Wise Use Movement, founded by Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb.It was composed of a variety of public land users with the common goal of keeping public lands open to all kinds of uses rather than set them aside for preservation; old-growth was on its agenda (Portland Free Pres 1989; Arnold 1989). The formation of grassroots organizations composed of loggers, mlworkers, truckers, equipment suppliers and others generated more intense support for the industry. Groups such as the Yellow Ribbon

Coalition and Communities for a Great Oregon formed in the spring of 1989, and by the fall of

1989 they formed a regional group called the Oregon Lands Coalition.

Occasionally opposing groups joined forces on an issue.In 1989 small timber companies who depended on federal timber (NWTA) and preservationists joined In support of an Oregon ballot initiative In June to ban log exports from State of Oregon public forests. 162

These same groups later gave testimony to Congress in support of federalrestrictions on log exports (Hayward 1989c).

Agencies

Members of different agencies and different dMsions within agencies worked together.

The research branch of the Forest Service cooperated with the national forest system to develop old-growth definitions and inventory strategies. Research on the spotted owl often brought collaboration among the Forest Service, BLM and Fish and WUdlife Service. Each had personnel on various committees which developed owl management plans. At other times, especially in the later half of 1989 when the proposed endangered species listing of the owl and Judge Dwyer required federal agencies to work together, they had difficulty agreeing on which forest stands to release for sale without threatening the owl (Hayakawa 19890).

Congress

The Congress is the most complicated element in the policy development process due to the myriad of members and committees and subcommittees with over-lapping jurisdictions. The principal members of Congress, the committees and subcommittees to which they belonged, and their staff members who participated in the old-growth Issue in 1989 are identified in APPENDIX B.

The Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate and their Subcommittees on

Interior are the most important because money is usually needed to implement policy. By

1988 Congress felt the agencies were not responding quickly enough to demands for information on the amount of existing old-growth forest.It responded by providing the Forest

Service with $500,000 to accelerate its Inventory of old-growth, and directing it to better define old-growth (Wild Oregon 1988c). The House directed the Forest Service, BLM, and National

Park Service to develop a common definition for old-growth (Wild Oregon 1988c). The Senate 163 took a different approach and proposed a Forest Service design which inventoried forest characteristics so that a variety of definitions could be used. The Senate's concept of inventory methodology was chosen over the House version (Teply and Holthausen 1989).

Senators Hatfield and Adams were not members of the Interior and Related Agencies

Subcommittee, but were members of the full Appropriations Committee, and used their influence at that level to get approval of Section 318. OrIginally, the Senators wanted their old- growth plan submitted as an amendment in the Interior Subcommittee (Hayakawa and Durbin

1989c). But Chairman Byrd requested the Senators hold their amendment until the full committee met because Senator Leahy, a member of the Interior Subcommittee, said the provision for limits on lawsuits in the Hatfield-Adams amendment was a matter for the Judiciary

Committee of which he was also a member. Senator Fowler, a member of the Appropriations

Committee and Judiciary Committee, indicated his objection to the Hatfield-Adams Amendment as being intrusive to interests of his committees' responsibilities. In the full Senate Fowler introduced a measure to reduce the Forest Service road building budget from $201 million to

$140 million (Plumbline 19891; Hayakawa 1 989q,r).It passed with Adams voting for it and

Hatfield against. Hatfield (1989) chastised Fowler for trying to defeat the purpose of Section

318.

Most of Senator Packwood's public remarks on the issue concerned increasing restrictions on log exports to ease the timber supply crisis (Danks 1989; Durbin 1989m). As the ranking minority member of the Finance Subcommittee on International Trade and a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Foreign Commerce and Tourism, he could influence log export legislation. Since 1973, he annually Introduced a rider to prohibit the export of raw logs from federal lands (Wiseman and Sedjo 1985), and in

1989 he Introduced two bills in the Subcommittee on International Trade which made the federal export ban permanent and gave states the right to determine restrictions on exports from state lands (Durbin 1989cc).In addition, his idea to accelerate court cases involving federal timber was incorporated as part of Section 318 (News from Bob Packwood 1989). 164

Northwest Representatives Les AuCoin and Norm Dicks were on the House

Appropriations Interior Subcommittee. Just prior to the timber summit, they got the

Appropriations Interior Subcommittee to approve enough money for the Forest Service to prepare 4.5 billion board feet of timber for sale in 1990 despite a proposal from Chairman

Yates to reduce old-growth logging (Church 1989b). After the summit, they along with Peter

DeFazlo attempted to get preservationists to agree to the summit planso it could be inserted into the Interior Appropriations bill in eaily July 1989, but were unsuccessful.

AuCoin, Dlcks and Hatfield were on the Conference Committee for Interior

Appropriations which met In late summer 1989, and supported the retention of the original

Section 318 Senate amendment. Yates, chair of the conference committee, and Atkins, a member, supported preservatlonists' demands. Representatives Jontz and Vento worked through their ally Atkins to advance the preservationists' position. AuCoin and Dicks approached Yates with a new proposal on September 25, to reduce the Forest Service two year sale level to 7.8 bbf (Hayakawa 1989y; U.S. Congress 1989c). But he turned it down the following day and countered with a sale level of 7.4 bbf (Hayakawa 1989z). AuCoin and Dicks rejected the Yates proposal, backed by Atkins, and negotiations broke down on the 26th

(Hayakawa 1989aa). This prompted House Speaker Foley to intervene (Hayakawa 1989aa).

Foley met with Yates on the 27th while his aide, Nick Ashmore, met with Atkins. On the night of the 28th, AuCoin, Dicks, Atkins and Ashmore met, and Atkins accepted AuCoin and Dicks' plan (Hayakawa 1989ff). Senator Hatfield withheld his vote in the Conference Committee until the Forest Service road building budget for the Northwest was restored. The Conference

Committee quickly agreed to restore $12 million (Hayakawa 1989cc). Senator Fowler (1989a) later chastised Hatfield for subverting the Senate's July vote to reduce the road building budget.

Preservationists believed their last and best weapon against Section 318 was the threat of a floor fight in the House (Wild Oregon 1 990h), and Representative Vento and Jontz were willing to initiate such an action if the Section 318 was not substantially changed in the 165

Conference Committee (Hayakawa 1989x). After the Conference Committee resolution,

Speaker Foley met with Vento and Jontz along with AuCoin, Dicks and Atkins to have the pair

give him their word they would go along with the Conference Committee solution andnot

Initiate a floor fight (Hayakawa 1 989ff).

Courts

The decisions of separate judges at different levels of the federal judicial system

impacted the availability of timber for sale. The decisions of the judges and resulting

interactions with judges at other levels and participants in four cases are summarized below.

ONRC v. U.S. Forest Service Although Judge James Bums (1987) appreciated the

esthetics of the old-growth on the North Roaring Devil sale, on March 31 [May 7J37, 1987, he

decided In favor of the defendants which meant road building and logging could proceed

(Bums 1987, 1988). The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court which reversed Burn's

ruling In December 1987 (Durbln 1989f). The Ninth Circuit Court told Judge Burns to Issue an

Injunction against logging while the plaintiffs pursued an administrative appeal (Painter 1 989c).

The Forest Service dismissed the appeal on September 22, 1988 (Painter 1 989c). The case

was pending in the district court when logging began on March 24, 1989. Six days later Judge

Bums ruled the plaintiffs had waited too long to seek judicial review, and added that Judge

Dwyers injunction In the Seattle Audubon Society et al. suit did not apply to timber already

sold (Painter 1989c). A telephone appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court for a temporary restraining

order was denied (Manzano 1989).

The behaviors associated with the judicial decisions in the three principal court cases

Initiated by preservatlonists are outlined In Table 25. Of the three court cases initiated by

preservationists only the BLM case moved between the district court and the court of appeals, and eventually the Supreme Court was requested to review the case. 166

Table 25. Chronology of the major judicial proceedings for the three principal lawsuits brought by preservation groups against three federal natural resource management agencies concerning the management of the old-growth habitat for the northern spotted owl.

Federal Agency

Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service Forest Setvce

CASE Portland Audubon Soc. et al. v. Hodel Spotted owl et at. V. Hodel Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Robertson 1987

10/19 Suit filed in District Court of Oregon. Portland, Judge Frye.

1988

4/20 Dist. Court dismissed suit based on Sect. 314 of 1987 Appropriations Act

5/5 Suit filed in DIStriCt court of Western Washington, Seattle, Judge Zily. 5/18 9th Circuit Court banned sales on trees >200 yrs. within 2.1 miles of 389 known owl sites.

11/17 DIstrict Court gave FWS 90 days to justIfy decmion of 12/15/87 not to recommend owl for endangered species listing.

12/14 FWS requested more time to reevaluate owl Judge grants FWS until May 1.1989. 1989

1/24 9th Circuit Court said sales not exerrpted. from SectIon 314. Sent casebachto District Court.

28 Suit filed In District Court Western WA, Seattle, Judge Dwyer. 3/17 Injunction issued blodcing I bbft tinter on 40 sales, set trial for June13.

4/26 FWS told judge their reeevaluatton ndlcated owl should be proposed as threatened. 5/18 District Court said Section 314 does not permit judicial challenge.

&7 9th Circuit reinstates injunction on 0.5 bbf of tinter sales.

9'6 9th CIrcuit said SectIon 314 excluded lawsuits, liftsedlnjunction.

9/12 Judge told parties to decide on trIal date.

11/6 Judge said Section 318 is constitutional, lifted injunctions. 12/4 PAS took case to Supreme Court.

12/21 District court dissmissed case. 167

Portland Audubon Society v. Hodel Judge Helen Frye (1988) agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that logging would be detrimental to spotted owl suMval, butsaid she could not stop logging because Section 314 of the 1987 appropriations act forbad judicial review of challenges to existing BLM landuse plans. The case ws appealed to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals which interpreted some of the language In the law concerningjudicial review differently than the district court. The judges of the appeals court reversedJudge

Frye's ruling, and granted an injunction on sales In spotted owl areas (Wilderness 1988).

The case was returned to the district court but Judge Frye again ruled that Section 314 precluded lawsuits in this type of case (Frye 1989). On appeal again, the judges of the Ninth

Circuit Court, on September 6, 1989, agreed with Judge Frye.In their view Senator Hatfield's

Section 314 amendment to 1987 and 1988 ApproprIations legislation precludeda legal challenge because, by challenging so many timber sales, the plaintiffs were really challenging the BLM land-use plan (Goodwin 1989b). The case went back to the district court for considereation of other claims, but the passage of the Appropriations Act for 1990 with Section

318 affected the disposition of the case. Preservationists challenged the constitutionality of

Section 318, but Judge Frye ruled that the limitations on Judicial review in Section 318were constitutional, and dismissed the case on December 21, 1989 (Frye 1992; Laatz 1989; Painter

1989g).

Seattle Audubon Society v. Robertson Judge William Dwyer issued an injunction on

March 23 halting 140 sales which totaled approximately 1 bbf (Klass 1989; Durbin 1989c).

After passage of the Appropriations Act of 1990, Dwyer also considered Section 318 to be constitutional, and on November 6, 1989 lifted his injunction of the previous March (Durbin

1 989jj).

Northern spotted owl v. Hodel Judge Thomas Zilly was convienced the spotted owl might be in more danger than indicated by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and ordered the Fish 168 and Wildlife Service to justify its original decision of December 1987 not to recommend listing the owl. He accepted the agency's revised recommendation topropose the northern spotted owl for listing as a threatened species on April 26, 1989.

Interactions Among Elements

Interest Groups and Other Elements

Both preservationists and the industry administratively appealed agency decisions, but the efforts of preservationists were the most successful because their efforts resulted in delaying forest plans and timber sales. Between 1978 and 1988 there were 60 appeals related to timber sales proposed by the Siuslaw National Forest, of which 55 were brought by preservation groups (Sluslaw National Forest 1988). Twenty eight of the preservation appeals involved old-growth/spotted owls. The appeals of regional planning guidelines by preservationists resulted in delays to prepare new ones which delayed individual forest plans by several years. Occasionally an agency worked with an interest group. For example, the

Forest Service paid the Defenders of Wildlife $28,000 to conduct a public opinion survey on the old-growth issue (USDA Forest Service 1988j).

Both preservatlonists and industry sought relief through the courts, but preservationists' lawsuIts had the greatest Impact on withholding timber from sale. Without the courts restraining significant amounts of timber harvest, the Issue would not have reached the crisis level which compelled the Congress to respond. The preservatlonlsts' lawsuit against the

BLM held up some timber sales for two years. The suit against the Forest Service resulted in the court restraining almost halt the national forest timber sales in the Douglas-fir region.

Another member of Congress outside the Northwest delegation to show major support for preservatlonists was Gerry Studds whose Investigation of the spotted owl listing decision of

1987 elevated interest the issue. The June 1989 hearings on old-growth, promoted by Vento 169

and Jontz, made the Issue more visible to other members of the House. Preservationistsmade

arrangements to bring Atkins and a Congressional staff member to Oregon In the latesummer

of 1989, and Jontz participated in a three day forest reform conference in the Cascades.

During the late summer of 1989, when negotiations on changing the Senate version of Section

318 in the Conference Committee were taking place, the National Wildlife Federation

conducted a media campaign in Pennsylvania (Wild Oregon 1990h). The people of

Pennsylvania were probably not too aware of the issue at that time, but two House members

on the Conference Committee, John Murtha (D) and Joseph McDade (D), were from

Pennsylvania (Barone and Ujifusa 1989). The Alliance hoped to gain the representatives

support by having members of environmental groups in the districts of these members contact them and register support for the Alliance's position.In order to gain national support of the

public for preservation of old-growth, one group took an old-growth log on a tour of the country in the Spring of 1989 (The Ancient Forest Rescue Expedition 1989). Supporters of the timber Industry drove two trucks exhibiting logs and forest products from Oregon to

Washington, D.C. just before the Conference Committee deliberations in early September, 1989

(Hayakawa 1989v).

The Fish and WUdlife Service was a major access point for preservationists due to their petitions requesting the spotted owl be listed as an endangered species. Perhaps the most curious behavior related to the Issue was the request to list the spotted owl by an environmental group about which no one knew.It is not dear how Green World, which seemed to consist of two people who used a phone booth to call people, became interested in the owl (Stahl 1993). The Green World petition was combined with a later one by a consortium of environmental groups which led to a review and determination by the Fish and

WUdlife Service that the owl was not endangered. The preservationists' lawsuit against the agency over the review, coupled with the U.S. General Accounting Office report on the 1987 listing decision, brought too much political pressure on the agency, and it decided to propose the owl for listing as a threatened species. 170 Affiliated Interests interactions

The Association of O&C Counties' interestswere allied with the industry. The

Association lobbied hard to maintain a high timber harvest (Doerner 1992), and the industry

often used the potential loss In revenues as a reason not to reduced harvests (CH2M Hill and

Ron Chastain Economic Consulting 1988; Mickey et at. 1989; Northwest Forest Resource

Council 1 989b).It and timber interests were intervenors on the side of the BLM In the lawsuit

against that agency (Federal Supplement 1989). However, Lane County Commissioner Jerry

Rust addressed preseivatlonists' meetings and supported their position. The State of Oregon

supported the Industry by filing affidavits and friends of the court briefs to lift Injunctions

barring the sale of federal timber (Kadera 1989a; The Oregonian 1989n).

Experts or scientists interacted in a variety of ways. Jerry Franklin provided advice

to House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee Chairman Yates, gave presentations at

preservation meetings and conferred privately with preservation groups. Michael Soule, a

biologist at the University of California-Santa Cruz, acted as an advisor to the Fish and Wildlife

Service (USDA Forest Service 1988a), and Dawson et at. (1987) advIsed the Audubon Society.

Mark Boyce and others testified in court on behalf of the industry while Russell Lande and

others testified for preservatlonlsts (Frye 1989). Several scientists participated on various task forces both public and private. Simbeiioff (1987) noted the research and consultation on

spotted owl management among agencies and academics was the prototype for endangered

species management. State wildlife agencies participated in developing plans for spotted owl

management. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife successfully challenged the BLM

spotted owl plan of the eaiiy 1980s, and established a formal working relation with BLM to

protect the owl. 171 Agencies and Other Elements

The Forest Service established advisory groups of preservation and industry interests to aid in developing national forests plans.It also used these advisory groups to help solve some disputes such as the logging of the Mellinlum Grove. Federal resource management agencies interacted with interest groups by processing administrative appeals. The agencies spent a great deal of time defending their actions to Congress and in court. Congress, through Section 318 and prior legislation, set BLM and Forest Service timber sale levels.

Congress and Other Elements

When Congress passed the NFMA and FLPMA, it believed the planning process itself would resolve the various conflIcts over national forest land-use allocation and management

(O'Toole 1988a).It was thought that less costly administrative appeals would be used to settle land use conflicts instead of lawsuits (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). Senator Hubert

Humphrey, a principal sponsor of NFMA, said, "In short, this bill ENFMAI is designed to get the practice of forestry out of the courts arid back into the forests (Hall and Wasserstrom 1978)."

The funding to prepare timber sales was set in the annual appropriation bills. For fiscal year 1988, Representative AuCoin wanted to maintain the Forest Service's Pacific

Northwest Region timber sale level of 5.2 bbf while the Forest Service requested funding for only 4.2-4.3 bbf based on the proposed new plans (Wild Oregon 1987c). Congress funded 5.2 bbf which was slightly less than one-half the total sale level for all the National Forests in the

United States (Wild Oregon 1987c). For fiscal year 1989, the Region-6 timber sale funding was

4.95 billion board feet (Wild Oregon 1988d). In order to find a short term solution to the crisis,

Congress micromanaged federal lands for habitat preservation and timber production by passing the detailed management provisions in Section 318.

Members of Congress involved with the issue, such as DeFazio and AuCoin, expressed frustration with the Forest Service for not being able to deal with the timber old-growth crisis. 172

As the spotted owl habitat issue became more controversial in the late 1980s, Congress

allocated more money to the Forest Service for research (Figure 20).

Through legislative amendments Sections 314 and 318, Congress placed restrictions

on judicial review of certain agency actions, in addition, Section 318 gave courts a protocol to

expedite hearing old-growth/spotted owl lawsuits (U.S. Congress 1989e).

Members of Congress interacted with citizen groups In a variety of ways. Most met

with and gave speeches to a variety of groups. There were many such meetings with

representatives of different old-growth issue interest groups in 1989. Hatfield gave an address to the 16th Annual ONRC Conference (Wild Oregon 1988f), but played a major role In the formation of the Industry oriented Oregon Project (Sands 1989; Wild Oregon 1989d). Although

Hatfield said the pendulum was far to the environmental side in Oregon in 1982, he sponsored legislation for wilderness in 1984, the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area In 1985, and wild and scenic rivers in 1988 (Hatfield 1988).

Representative DeFazio sponsored a conference, Oregon's Forest 2010., in February,

1989 In Eugene with scientists, industry leaders, preservationists and agency personnel partIcipating (Cogswell 1989a). In July of 1989 Senator Fowler and Representative Wyden held hearings in Portland to gather informatIon on the impact of the 1986 capital gains tax on timber growing, but old-growth was added to the agenda and dominated the hearing (The Oregonian

1989m; Kerr 1990a; U.S. Congress 198gb). Senators Leahy and Fowier held a joint committee hearing on forest management and the old-growth issue in late October of 1989 (Kerr 1989b;

U.S. Congress 1989g).

Based on lndMdual behaviors and perceptions of their behaviors, Table 26 outlines the support different congressional members involved with the old-growth issue gave the timber industry or preservationists. Some members fully supported one group of interests or the other and aligned themselves with it.Although Representative AuCoin (1989b) said he was in the ranks of both the timber industry and preservationists, his behavior and the perceptions of him by the two sides cleary Indicated he supported the industry's position. Other members 174

Table 26. Alignment of members of Congress associated with the old-growth forestissue in 1989 with the goals of preservationists or the timber industry. Informationwas compiled by the author from a variety of sources. Members were assigneda position relative to the perceptions the two interest group blocks had of the member. For example, members suchas Peter DeFazio were perceived negatively by both groups, so he was in the middle while others playedneutral roles. Vertical rank of member indicates relative amount of influence.

Senate House

Freservation Industry Preservation Industry

Wyche Fowler Mark Hatfield Sidney Yates Les AuCoin

Patrick Leahy Brock Adams Bruce Vento Norm Dicks

Robert Byrd Chet Atkins

Jim Jontz

Tom Foley

Peter DeFazio

George Miller

Claudine Schneider 175 were not completely committed to one side or the other, or were perceived negatively by both sides and assigned a middle position.

Courts and Other Elements

Participants in the other elements were Involved with the court system to some degree.

The courts were the main access point for preservatlonists and where they had the most success. As a result of their lawsuits, the Forest Service and BLM were directed to withdraw a large number of timber sales. Judge Dwyer told the Forest Service to not sell timber in spotted owl habitat, and ordered the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service to work together to find some sales that would not threaten the owl.

The Interaction between the courts and the Congress primarHy revolved around the matter of judicial review. In the BLM case, the appeals court had difficulty determining the exact Intent of Congress. By the end of 1989, the judges in the BLM and Forest Service cases ruled that Congress had the authority to exclude certain activities from Judicial review, and

Judge Dwyer ordered preservationists to select timber sales to be released from injunction as directed by Congress.

White House Actions

Attempts by Presidents Nixon and Carter to accelerate the harvest of old-growth played a role in the issue In its eatly phase. The Reagan administration proposed doubling the harvest from national forest (Culhane 1984), and there appeared to be attempts by politically appointed department heads to suppress the Fish and Wildlife Service from proposing the spotted owl as a threatened species (U.S. General Accounting Office 1989; Koberstein 1 989a).

The Bush White House originally supported the export of raw logs from federal lands, but In the fall of 1989, the Office of Management and Budget decided to reverse its policy, and supported the continuation of the ban (Durbin I 989m,dd). 176

Individual Participant Dynamics

Issue network participants were dynamic with people moving withinor between

network elements. Brock Evans was a staff member and lobbyist forthe Sierra.Club from

1968-1980, then became a vice-president of the National Audubon Society, but retained tiesto

his former employer by retaining a seat on the board of directors of the Sierra Club (Evans

1986). Ron Arnold (1989) started as a volunteer with the Sierra Club,but switched allegiance

and became one of the founders of the Wise Use Movement. Most Washington D.C.staff

members of the major environmental groups were former Congressional staff members (Wood

1992), and Representative AuCoin's wife worked for The Wilderness Society (Kerr 1989a).

Several people involved with technical matters also moved within the issue network.

Chuck Sisco obtained a masters degree through work with spotted owl scientist, Ralph

Gutierrez, and then went to work for the National Audubon Society. The Wilderness Society

old-growth forest analyst Peter Morrison earned a masters degree with forest ecologist Fred

Swanson (1990). As Ph.D. students studying forest ecology at Oregon State University, Paul

Alaback, Glenn Juday and Miles Hemstrom were active with preservationgroups and after

graduation worked for the Forest Service on old-growth projects (Loveland 1989; Aiaback and

Juday 1989). APPENDIX C illustrates movements within the federal public land-use network of selected individual participants involved with the old-growth issue.

Summary

Both preservation and industry supporters formed new groups and coalitions as the old-growth issue became a crisis in the late 1 980s. Participants on both sides appliedpressure to those points of acces to the policy issue network that was the most effective in terms of achieving their objectives. Preservation groups developed considereable expertise and success at using administrative appeals and lawsuits of agency actions, especially in 1989.

The lawsuits brought by preservationists were the crux in elevating the issue toa national level 177 by reducing timber supply and forcing the Fish and Wildlife Service topropose the northern spotted owl for listing as a threatened species. The courts seemed sympathetic to the arguments of preservationists but yielded to the directives of Congress by not allowing lawsuits of some agency decisions. The injunctions on timber sales by the federal court Judges had the effect of signficantly reducing the sale of federal timber and bringing the issue toa crisis in

1989.

Preservation and Industry group leaders worked closely with members of Congress associated with the Issue. Timber industry groups concentated their lobbying effortson members of the Northwest Congressional delegation while preservation groups concentrated their lobbying efforts on members from outside the Northwest. Congressional supporters of preservatlonists tried a variety of tactics from attempts to reduce the Forest Service road building budget to threatening floor fights. The negotiations between members of Congress supporting different interest groups views was very Intense. The intense lobbying and networking dunng the summer of 1989 was probably the most intense every on a Northwest environmental issue. The result was a short term congressional legislative fix that reduced federal timber sales by 20 percent and appeared to be unravelling almost before the inkwas dry. Several participants in different elements of the issue blamed participants In other elements for allowing the issue to escalate to a crisis level while that was the goal of preservatlonists. 178

CHAPTER 6: THE FEDERAL PUBUC LANDS POUCY PROCESS

Current Environmental Policy Models

Several descriptive models of natural resource development have been proposed.

One of the most common models used to describe policy development for natural resources, and the federal government policy process In general was the Iron triangle (Truman 1951;

Culhane 1981; Frome 1984; Buck 1991; Forest Watch 1992; Heclo 1978). The iron triangle

(Figure 21a) is based on the interaction of interest groups, government agencies, and congressional committees and subcommittees which have jurisdiction of specific issues.

O'Riordan (1971) proposed a two stage model (Figure 21 b) with a modified Iron tnangle in the first stage, but the second stage showed no Interaction between interest groups and the administrative agency. O'Rlordan's model provides a feedback mechanism for Interest groups based on a political decision concerning environmental policy.

Due to the Increasing number of interest groups making demands on government and the Increasing complexity of government, Heclo (1978) suggested the concept of issue networks which was a group of issue participants having shared knowledge concerning a particular aspect of public policy. Culhane (1984) described an issue network or subgovemment as based on: (1) the various subgovemment participants sharing a common understanding of an Issue, (2) CongressIonal committees usually controlling the legislative process and (3) different Interests groups providing public support for sympathetic agencies and congressional committee members. Berry (1989) proposed an issue network model consisting of concentric cirdes representing different degrees of influence of issue participants. Iron Triangle Model Special Interest O'Riordan Model public or private group V V InterestGroup PoliticianAgency A Impact group protest Decision 1 V SubcornmittiesCongressional ResourceAgency Interest Group Public Interest Group Private (a) (b) 1PoliticianAgency A Decision 2 forandFigure1951; more elected 21. (b)interaction Two adaptedofficials. models due fromThe of to IrontheO'Riordan the resource Triangleinfluence 1971. (a)allocation of indicates competing process. a tightlyinterest Both controled groups. models process,Source: use the (a) wherethree constructed elementsas, the O'Riordan from of: intrest description model group, in(b) agency, Truman allows 180

Wobbly Diamond Old-growth Issue Network Model

Basic Model

Lawsuits against the Forest Service in the 1 960s averaged one a year, but by the mid-

1 970s the number of lawsuits averaged about two dozen a year (Clary 1986). Between 1975 and 1988, there were 218 forestry related cases decided in federal courts (Ellefson 1992). The federal courts also played a key role in the old-growth Issue. Therefore, no contemporary model describing public land use policy is complete without the inclusion of the judicial system.

The structure in Figure 22 is proposed as a model to describe the old-growth issue policy process. This model includes the judicial system, and expands the elements of the old iron triangle to create a diamond which is metaphor for shape, not stability. The basic structure of the model includes the following four elements: (1) affected interest groups, (2) relevant Congressional committees and subcommittees, (3) involved federal agencies, and (4) the federal court system. The White House is also included In the model as dashed lines because on occasion it was involved in the issue. The arrows indicate the general pattern of

Interactions. The diamond model provides a realistic framework for identifying old-growth forest issue participants and their interactions within and between elements as indicated in

Figure 22. Tables in APPENDIX B identify the principal old-growth interest groups, institutions and individuals associated with each element during 1989.

This policy model Is termed the "wobbly diamond." The concept of a wobbly diamond gives the model a dimension of change and instability as opposed to the stability suggested by an Iron triangle model. The placement of the four elements of the wobbly diamond is important as it Influences the stabliity of the diamond. The interest groups are at the top because they define the Issue, set the agenda, and provoke policy shifts.Interest groups perceived the principal policy access points in the old-growth issue in 1989 were the federal 181 NIEREST GROU

Timber Preservation ndustry BlAt' Bloc

Affiliated Affiliated Participants Participants

House Senate District for Oregon White I District for Western House: Washington 'OMB - :.: 4...... - ....,..,... Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service

Figure 22. Old-growth forest issue network based on the wobbly diamond model of federal land- use policy development. 0MB is the Office of Management and Budget. The numbers in the Congress element represent the following committees and subcommittees: 1. Appropriations Subcommitte on lnterior 2. Interior and InsularAffairs Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands; 3. Agncufture Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms and Energy; 4. Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation; 5. Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies; 6. Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests; 7. Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry; 8. Commerce Subcommittee on Foreign Commerce and Trade. Individual participants in the four elements are identified in Appendix B. 182 courts and the Congress. Therefore, they are placed closest to the interestgroups. Federal agencies are farthest from the interest groups because the agencies usually reactedto court rulings or legislation. The White House is placed below the interestgroups because its influence on policy may be associated with the objectives of the competing interestgroups; therefore, it may move horizontally.

Interest Group Structure

One of the reasons the old-growth issue, like many Issues, seemed complexwas because many groups with different agendas were involved. Somegroups formed coalitions while others worked alone. The basic associations of groups In the interestgroups element Is outlined in Figure 23. The two major competing Interests are assembled into blocs and within each bloc are coalition linages.Figure 23 identifies coalitions at the regional and national levels, and shows selected lineages from indMdual members through the organizational hierarchy. Three coalition lineages developed in the industry interests blocu with the objective of keeping timber harvests at the 1988 level. The traditional industry Interest groups were trade associations which represented mill owners, and formed one coalition lineage.40 The interests of organized labor and managementwere often different, and each pursued a different course in its attempts to achieve the same objective on this issue. The third coalition lineage was the gras&oots. The organization of preservation groups was not as complex as the industry. The Ancient Forest Alliance was the only coalition lineage. Several groups worked on their own, but some, like the Cathedral Forest Action Group and Earth

First!, maintained ties to other local and regional groups.

Associated with the Interest group blocs were affiliated interest groups, individuals and experts. Elected othcials and agencies of state and local governments were affiliated interests allied with different blocs. These affiliated with interests lobbied and worked with agencies and members of Congress, and acted as intervenors in lawsuits. Experts and scientists were Preservation Interest Bloc fSanC Industry Interest Bloc Defenders National Ancient Forest Alliance Geographic national Level Organization coalition Level GrassrootsWise Use AFL-CIOLabor AmericanAssociations Forest Trade of WildliFe Oregon AncIent Forest Alliance regional coalitionlevel 12 Oregon LandsMovementCoalition limber-Labor Coalition ResourceResourceNorthwest Council Council Forest Oregon Natural Resources Council regional group a GreaterCommunities Oregon tor InternationalWoodworkersol America AssociationNorth West Timber Cathedral ForestAction GroupAndy Bortz Santiam Wilderness Committee Pat Loveland local incivideal group Tom HironsChapterMill City BillLocal Hubbell 345 Seneca Sawmills LocalJerry RustGov. Affiliated intetests FishOregon & Wiluilte Dept. State Gov. Michael Soule Experts O&CAssociation Counties ot Local Gov. AffIliatedGoldschrnidt Inteints (OR) Govenor NielState Cloy. Larry IrwinExperts Daniel SimberioltRandalRussellDawson OToole Lande et al. BentonRoseburg, County ORCity Council Mark Boyce IIerest numberModel groups of of the element organization, actual ot participants. the affiliation wobbly an d interactiondiamond of in selected late 1989. grou The o PSrganizations and mdiv idualsand in theindividuals old-growth in the forest model issue represent 184 essential participants the old-growth issue, and were associated with different elements and participants. Most experts and scientists worked for government agenciesor universities, but some worked for interest groups. They developed Information whIch lead to new perceptions about older forest ecosystems, participated in court cases, developed land use policy with agency personnel, provided advice to Interest groups and conferred with members of

Congress on legislation.

The model for Interest group organization described above was not as neat as outlined because there were often Interactions between coalitions and sometimes blocs. For example, several Independent logging companies who were members of the Associated Oregon Loggers trade association were also Involved with the grassroots movement. Local Audubon Societies belonged to the National Audubon Society, and were members of the ONRC while local Sierra

Club groups had formal ties with their regional and national organization, but were not members of ONRC, but all three types of groups belonged to the OAFk The NWTA aligned itself wIth ONRC to oppose log exports.

The Dynamic Wobbly Diamond

The wobbly diamond In Figure 24 illustrates the interaction and influence different participants had on the Issue in 1989. The thickness of the outline of a participant bloc reflects its relative Influence during that year. Connections among the four elements of the wobbly diamond indicate the InteractIons of the various elements, and the line direction Indicates the source and recipient of an action. The thickness of flowllnes reflects the relative magnitude of

Influence one element had with another.

The Influence of competing Interests groups throws the diamond off balance. The behaviors and interactions of the old-growth Issue participants caused the diamond to lean toward the goals of the preservatlonists because their behaviors resulted In a reduction of tImber sales from federal lands In the region from 4.1 bbf In 1988 to 1.8 bbf in 1989 (Warren 185

Preservation Timber Bloc Industry Bloc

All hated Aft iliated Paillcipants Participants

District for Oregon District for Western O M B Washington

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Department of Agricufture Forest Service

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service

Figure 24. The major interactions and relative amount of influence among and within the four elements of the wobbly diamond old-growth forest issue network during 1989. 0MB is the Office of Management and Budget. The nunters in the Congress element represent the following committees and subcommittees: 1. Appropriations Subcommitte on Interior; 2. Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands; 3. Agricufture Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms and Energy; 4. Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation; 5. Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies; 6. Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests; 7. Agricufture Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry; 8. Commerce Subcommittee on Foreign Commerce and Trade. 186

1992). Preservationists' influence is Indicated by relative increase In size and line width of the preservation bloc which causes the imbalance. The leaning of the diamond to the side

Indicates a policy change. The wobbly diamond issue network adjusts by rebalancing along an Issue continuum to a temporary new status quo. Then the policy process dynamics repeat.

Figure 25 illustrates the policy shift In the wobbly diamond old-growth Issue networkas a cycle three stage process relative to old-growth tImber harvest.In this case the primary result of the policy process in 1989 was a reduction in timber sales.

Wobbly Diamond Model as a General Model

Federal Land-use Issue Dynamics

At various times different issues arise over federal public land-use allocation. Often land-use conflicts occur due In part to opposing perceptions of nature and its use. Since the

1 960s preservation groups have defined the Issues by challenging the status quo. Different

Issues dominate the overall conflict of public land use at different times, but usually several

Issues are related. Most issues tend to be regional, but occasionally a public land use issue like old-growth becomes a national concern.

The models In FIgure 26 represent the theoretical importance and relationship of the old-growth Issue relative to other issues concerning federal public land use allocation in 1979 and 1989 from the perspective of environmental groups. The models are based on a set of

Issues related to the general question of how should the public lands be used. The various

Issues may be conceptualized as circles which expand and contract depending on their

Importance at any given time. In addition, peripheral Issues may be present at different times.

The thickness of the lines connecting different issues provides a measure of their relatedness.

Those issues within the larger public land-use and management questIon circle are issues directly related to the federal land base. Those circles lying outside are peripheral Issues 187

Stage 1 Status Quo

Less More Old-Growth Old-Growth Haivest Harvest

Stage 2 Interest Group Pressure for Change

Less More Old-Growth Old-Growth Harvest Harvest

Stage 3 New Status Quo

Less More Old-Growth Old-Growth Harvest Harvest

Figure 25. Policy change through the wobbly diamond model relative to the harvest of old-growth dumng 1989 was a three stage process along a continuum of harvest levels. The initial harvest level in Stage 1 was perceived to be too high by preservationists. An imbalance in the diamond was created by preservationists who tried to lower old-growth harvest levels in Stage 2. A policy shift to lower old-growth harvest levels temporarily stabilized the diamond. The new status quo is short lived as the policy process continues with new demands which cause imbalances and shifts to rebalance the diamond. Public Land Use Allocation Issues and Relationships, 1979 Public Public Land Use Allocation Issues and Relationships, 1989 Public Wilderness andstrengthrepresentsFigure private 26. of theHypothetical importancerelationship.sector. ofmodels The the locationissue that whitreflect of e ththethe e linesissue connimportance circle relativeectingof federal the to thecirclespublic large landindicate circle issues reflectsthe of relationships land-use the relati at onshilocatibetw peenon of in thoseissues, 1979 issues and and 1989. the to thethickness The federal circle indicate public size lands$ the 189 identified with the private sector or broad governmental policies. Those issues which affect both public and private participants are Indicated as being partially Inside the public land-use question circle. This model Is proposed as a way of describing and analyzing the Importance and relatedness of federal public land-use resource allocation and management issues.

In the Douglas-fir region, the public land-use and management question at the end of

1989 was dominated by the old-growth Issue. The old-growth Issue was related to the wilderness issue by virtue of the fact that both represented the conflict between resource preservation and commodity use. On the other hand there was no relationship between old-growth and mining or grazing. A peripheral Issue was the export of logs from public and private lands. Another related Issue Involved the relationship between the authority of

Congress and the federal judiciary concerning Congressional limits on judicial review. Jobs were also a major Issue which could Impact both private and public employment.

General Issues and Participants

The old-growth Issue was part of the broad question of public land use and management. For example, The Wilderness Society was a key participant In the old-growth issue, but The Wilderness Society also participated In a wide variety of other public land-use

Issues from grazing to mining. The Sierra Club's Interests included a wide variety of environmental issues, one of which was old-growth. Federal resource agencies have a wide variety of resource management obligations. Often these agencies' missions and objectives conflict with each other. Sometimes they may cooperate to achieve a shared or Imposed objective. The Appropriations and other Congressional committees and subcommittees deal with a wide variety of land use Issues. Congress has passed a variety of environmental and land-use laws that are frequently challenged In the courts. The Office of Management and

Budget (0MB) through Its associate director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science Is usually the contact the White House has with Congress, agencies and interest groups (Sample 190

1989; VIg 1984, 1990). On rare occasions, the Presidentmay become Involved as did Franklin

Roosevelt In the establishment of Olympic National Park (rwight 1983).The wobbly diamond

model (Figure 27) Is proposed as the general structure by which to identifyissue participants,

Interactions, and analyze the policy process fora variety of federal public land-use issues.

Summary

The issue net work and process through which policy Involving the old-growth forest

Issue Included the federal courts along with Congress, federalresource management agencies and interest groups. This issue network and policy process interactions did not fit conventional models for policy process analysis. A new model, the wobbly diamond, which includes participants In all the four policy elements described abovewas proposed. The wobbly diamond Is a dynamic model which moves along a continuum of policy shifts. The shifts hi policy result from Imbalances In the network caused by Interestgroups dissatisfied with the current policy. After a policy shift the diamond becomes stabilized temporarily until the next effott to change policy Is Initiated.In the case of the old-growth issue the Interactions of the old-growth Issue network participants caused a shift In policy toa reduced timber harvest The wobbly diamond could be used to analyze a variety of federal land-use and other issues 191

Wobbly Diamond Issue Network

Issue Interest Groups

White House i Congress Federal Committees and Subcommittees Courts

Federal Agencies

Figure 27. General model of interaction for issues involving the federal government. 192

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

The old-growth conflict Is best understood If the Issue Is analyzed In a broad social context. Wengert (1980) saId conflict was part of the social process that shaped theever changing public's Interests. FIgure 28 IdentIfies a model consisting ofa set of three conflict types representing competItion between Interest groups for shifts In policy related to materialism. This model Illustrates an Idealized set of conflict types from purely material through purely ideological. For example, a Type I conflict, the more traditional type, Involves competing Interests In which both are concerned with the gain or loss of material benefits. The conflict between big and small timber companies over the criteria to qualify for Small Business

Administration timber sale set asides is a Type I conflict (NWTA Bulletin 1979, 1986a; Hayward

1988b). In contrast, a Type Iii conflict is between groups which have only Ideological positions togalnorlose. Anexampleofthiswouldbethelssueoiprayerinpubllcschoolg.

Conflict Type Ii is between groups with material Interests and those that are idea based. The old-growth Issue discussed and analyzed in this research was a Type ii conflict which was between coalitions of groups with material interests and those with only Ideological

Interests. The old-growth issue typifies the pattern noted by Cuihane (1981) as being common to natural resource allocation conflicts In the late 20th century. One side faced material loss, but the other expected no direct material gain. This does not Imply that a group with a material interest Is devoId of ideologies. The owners and managers of forest product companies base their perception of old-growth in part on ideologies of economic organization founded on market capitalism (Anonymous 1989a). The old-growth Issue is part of the larger conflict of competIng perceptions and ideologies over the value of nature. Land-use policies developed through the wobbly diamond model resulted in management decisions which provided old-growth to one group of interests at the expense of other.Much of the following material win Confi nersict Type and loosersI material wi Cont I nnersict Type II too sers no material winners or loosers Conflict Type Ill direct material transfer InterestsMaterial High indirect material transferMaterialism no material transfer InterestsMaterial No relatedFigure to 28. material Three wealth conflict (materialism). types representing competition between interest groups for shifts in government policy 194 discussion focuses on preservationlsts because their perceptions inpart resulted In behaviors which Initiated change from the statusquo.

Materialism

Basic Ideas

Many of the early pioneers of the American preservation movement despised the materialistic mind-set of their society (Nash 1982). During the late 1800s, Frederick Law

Olmsted contended natural places had a way of countering TMexcessive materlalism, and

Robert Marshall was convinced that forest preservation wasnecessary to balance the pressures of "overcivlilzatlon and Nman..r_e superflclalIty (Nash 1982). The utiltarlan faction of the progressive conservation movement also perceived that people had becometoo attached to the attainment of material gaIn at the expense of other values (Hays 1959), and

Pinchot believed the major villain was the timber industry (Greely 1951).

Although many preservation leaders disdain material wealth, they have done quite well materially (Milbrath 1984). Forty-nine percent of Sierra Club members In 1988 earnedover

$50,000 (King 1989). Surveys of the general population indicate Its willingness to advocate preservation of forests, but the population consumes enormous amounts ofresources (Tucker

1982). For example, Americans were the world's greatest per capita consumers ofpaper products In 1988 (U.S. News and World Reoort 1988).

The material Interests of people associated with the timber Industry, jobs, profits and production of consumer products, are well-recognized. Another form of material Interest, advocated by public land management agencies, is based on the broad social context of forests as repositories of resources for multiple uses ranging from raw material for houses

(Plnchot 1908; Greely 1951) to public recreation (Frome 1984), and watersupplies (WUson

1992). 195 Value of Nature

Miibrath (1984) argued there was a sharp difference between environmentaland

business leaders concerning the value of nature for commodity production relativeto its value

left undisturbed. When Mlibrath's (1984) dataare plotted on a line graph (FIgure 29), however,

they indicate a considerable amount of ovetlap In opinion between environmentaland business

group leaders. When generalities are considered there appears to be room for discussion and

compromise. But, more polarization might be expected where groups and individuals identify

with a specific issue in which they have a stake. This was thecase with the old-growth issue

as one side focused on timber supply and the other on wildlife habitat. But preservationists

said they did not want to stop all timber harvest, and industry leaders and their affiliated

interests did not want the owl to become extinct.

The ideological Interests of presevatlonlsts are principally based on the Intrinsic rights

of nature to exist (Nash 1989), and the perceived negative Impact that materialism hason

nature. David Brower once said I believe In wilderness for itself alone...I believe in

the rights of creatures other than man (McPhee 1971). In some cases, nature Is also

promoted as an economic asset for recreation (Cathedral Forest Action Group 1984; Ervin

1988b; Olson 1989), and a source for medicines (Norse et al. 1986; Norse 1989; Wild Oregon

1989c).

Management of Old-growth

Views varied among interest groups on how to manage forest stands and landscapes to maintaIn the structural characteristics of old-growth and timber production. The Industry was relatively silent on this topic, but did acknowledge that old-growth conditions could be

produced through silvicuiturai techniques. The industry would likely accept such strategies if the alternative was total preservation. Hayward (1 989b) said, To the preservatIon zealots the 196

40

environmental

business

30

environmenta

20 C 2 a-

10

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 preserve use nature nature Value of Nature Continuum

Figure 29.Distribution of perceptions of environmental and business leaders on preserving nature for its intrinsic value and using nature to produce goods. Source: Constructed from data in Milbrath 1984. The mean value for each group is below the group. 197 issue is not one of good management or bad management- but is based on an almost religious conviction that management of theresource Is in itself bad."

If the old-growth values presefvationists described In their literature,e.g. wildlife habitat and ecological diversity, could be maintained through theuse of silvicultural techniques, they should have been willing to accept old-growth landscape management strategies.A few preservationists advocated limited old-growth management, but thesewere generally not group leaders. Analysis of adjectives used to describe old-growth indicated the emphasiswas on

"virgin." Preservation leaders wanted virgin forests, not necessarily old-growth.If the preferred

Forest Service draft plans were adopted, more than one-half the old-growth that existed In

1989 would still exist in 50 years. Preservationists, however painteda different scenario; they said it would all be gone in 5 to 20 years. The fear some them hadwas that the virgin character of these stands would be gone as they would be "managed old-growth" rather than

"virgin old-growth", or they would later be removed from administrative set asides and harvested. This supports ea,lier studies by Milbrath (1984) and Culhane (1981) whIch indicated environmental elites strongly disapproved of technological fixes to environmental problems.

For them, old-growth was fundamentally a wild place, and should remain thatway. Scheffer

(1989) said one of the tenets of environmentalism is that "Nature'sway is best."

Steeped in the tradition of multiple use and the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number, the Forest Service's position on old-growth management did not fit either the concept of virgin forests desired by preservatlonists nor the demands of industry. The Forest

Service and some scientIsts proposed technological solutions to maintain both harvest and forests which function like old-growth. Public land management decision makers did not yet grasp the intensity of preservationists' Ideology.It may be the Forest Service and other agencies believed their mission was above clientele politics or they could educate and convert nonbelievers to its way of thInking. 198 Timber Supply

While the timber supply issue became most critical for those companies with littleor

no timber lands, the problem for those companies dependent on timber from federal lands was

that most of the timber of harvestable age had been identified by other participantsas

old-growth or spotted owl habitat. For many forest products companies, a stable supply of

raw material remained their chief concern and this influenced their behavior in the old-growth

issue network.

Preservationists believed the timber supply problem could be solved by restricting log

exports. This was an attractive idea on the surface, and gained great support from the public,

some politicians, and one federal Judge. In 1989 there was a total of 3.6 bbf of logs exported

from the Northwest (Warren 1992). A small portion of the exports would have easy madeup

the difference between the volume specified in Section 318 and the volume harvested from

Northwest federal forests (5.0 bbf) the previous year (Warren 1992). The problem was that 82

percent of the logs exported came from companies with private lands (Mickey at al. 1989),

while a large percentage of national forest timber sales went to companies which did not own

timber lands (USDA Forest Service 1989f). Preservationists claimed Weyerhaeuser was the

largest exporter of logs from the Douglas-fir region (Wild Oregon 19894). In 1988 it was the

largest private land owner in Oregon (Kadera 1988a). Typically, the large timber companies

compete with others, both large and small, and those with their own timber supply usually do

not sell logs to their competition.

Information supplied by preservationists indicated that of the 5.46 bbf of wood

exported from Oregon in 1988, 57 percent was wood chips (Donnelly 1989). By converting the wood chips to board feet, preservationists gave a false impression of how much was exported as raw logs. The actual amount of logs potentially avaable for export was less than stated but still significant.In 1988, 3.7 bbf of logs were exported from ports In Oregon and Washington (Warren 1992). 199

The lack of recognition of harvest levels near those that presetvationlstsonce deemed acceptable, Indicates some of the preservation leadership wanted to drastically reduce timber harvest on public lands. On the other hand, some preservation leaders said they did notwant to shut down all timber harvesting on public lands (Evans 1989b). Kerr was quoted In j]

Oregonian as saying, We never said stop cutting all forestsor Stop cutting public forests.

We're saying stop cutting ancient forests (Durbin 1 9891).But, Montelth Indicated there was too much emphasis on increasing the yield from federal lands and money should be directed toward Increasing yield on private and state lands (The Oregonian 1989e).

Jobs

The interaction of timber supply, mill automation and general health of the economy affects jobs in the timber industry (Ryals 1988). Jobs remained central to the debate and generated the greatest polarization at the Individual level. At first preservatlonists did not acknowledge the Issue, then said jobs would eventually be lost to mill automation- a fact admitted by the industry (Anonymous 1989b). Preservationists acknowledged some jobs would be lost due to set asides, but calculated lower numbers than other participants (Figure

30).This supports Rosenbaum's (1985) argument that environmentalists often deliberately choose to minimize or Ignore a problem they fully recognize results from their action.

Liverman (1989) acknowledged preservationists were not too concerned about jobs. They often argued removing forests from the raw material base would not cause job loss, but may In fact Increase jobs by creating growth In tourism.

Preservatlonists wanted to identify with mill workers over the Issue of jobs. During the

January 14-16, 1989 meetIng of the Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance, mlllworkers of

Roseburg Lumber Company were on strike. During the meeting where the Alliance was developing strategies to reduce the amount of timber available for harvest, an old-growth preservation activist circulated a letter of solidarity from the Alliance to the strikers. 200

maximum predicted job loss

minimum predicted job loss

U, (n

. 2OO

2 3 4 5 preservation ,i dust ry state academic Forest economist Service

Figure 30.Variation in predicted job losses in Oregon due to court injunctions withholding Forest Service and BLM timber sales and the potential listing of the spotted owl as an endangered species. Sources: 1. Oregon Natural Resources Council 1 989a;2. Northwest Forest Resource Council 1 989b; 3. MacKenzie 1989; 4. Stratham and Rufolo 1989; 5. Hayakawa 198gb. The Forest Service estimate was for Washington and Oregon and the data represented in this figure was calculated from the percent of timber industry workers in Oregon. 201

Timber industry spokespersons and agency officials tended toexaggerate their job loss claims while more neutral estimateswere in between (Figure 30). The industry at all levels

used the jobs Issue to support its need for timber. The industry said automationwas necessary to remain competitive, and Increases In product recovery had created jobs (Mickey et al. 1989). For the grassroots people supporting the Industry, job losswas a very real issue, but for the owners and managers of mills, it was oftena secondary concern because they were not in the business of providing jobs but making a profit and staying In business.

However, many small mills were family owned as were most logging companies and equipment suppliers.

Social Change and the Policy Process

Social change is a continuous process, and in the latter third of the twentieth century

Type II and Ill conflicts have Increased in proportion to Type I conflicts due to the Increase in the number of groups and people advocating Ideological values (Culhane 1981; Schlozman and Tierney 1986).

Ron Arnold, of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, said, We are establishing a movement [Wise Use] for social change just as the environmentalists did [preservation] in the 60s (Neuburger 1 989).Some participants in the preservatIon movement felt social change was to be promoted because they perceived the earth was dying (Cathedral Forest Action

Group 1984). These different outlooks support Mllbrath's (1984) finding that many environmental elites and business leaders believed considerable social change necessary.

Although a high priority for both groups, the desired social change was in different directions.

Experts and Technology

The development of the profession of forestry In the United States and the retention of forests in federal ownership came about as responses to the need for social change (Richards 202

1974; Hays 1959). A former Chief Forester said the Forest Servicewas Bom In controversy and baptized with the holy water of reform (Schiff 1 962).The Progressive movement believed the material wealth of America's forest resources was being over-exploited by industrial interests, and as a result, Type I conflicts developed. Whilesome Type II conflicts arose during this era they did not dominate. The reliance on experts to devise technological solutions to social problems, became a major aspect of the progressive era's formula to achieve social change (Hays 1959). In the early part of the twentieth century scientific management of the nation's forests would avoid a timber famine. During the 1980s, preservatlonists readily accepted Information supplied by experts on the biological characteristics of old-growth systems, but the alternative silviculture techniques proposed by scientists were usually rejected. Charlotte Levinson (1990) feared preservationists had gotten caught up In the syndrome of the expert to make theircase for the preservation of old-growth.

Old-growth forest ecologist Jerry Franklin (1989c) saw preservatlonlsts as too fixated with preservation as an answer to all problems (Cogswell 1989). The industry tended to castigate most experts associated with the issue because they tended to advocate set asides, or the reduction of harvest through old-growth management strategies.

It was surprisIng how a relatively small group at The Wilderness Society, using Forest

Service data, produced evidence of the amount of old-growth remaining in 1988, while a vast bureaucracy like the Forest Service seemed caught off guard, and did little to counter the

Society's claims. The Forest Service could have updated its figures to 1988 as did The

Wilderness Society. Or, the Service could have used existing data in its inventory files, and applied it to the best flttlng attributes of density and diameter as suggested by Franklin and

Spies at the March 1989 conference on old-growth wildlife habitat.Perhaps bureaucratic inertia, common among iarge organizations, or the desire to be technically correct In its estimates may have led the agency to take a cautIous approach to the Issue. The agency eventually responded to criticism of its Inventory with a new survey to include living and nonlMng forest attributes; but the name of the new survey, mature and overmature (MOM), 203

reinforced perceptions of the agency as interested only In old trees for thepurpose of harvest.

A more politically acceptable name such as Nolder forests survey might havebeen used.

The preservatlonists' argument as to how much old-growth remained Involvedtwo

main strategies. The first, Involving their definitions and estimates illustrated therewas little old-growth left and thus the urgency of the Issue. This strategy had the potentialto backfire because their narrow definitions exduded thousands ofacres of old forests. Secondly, they effectively diminished the credibility of the Forest Service by continually challenging Its estimates and producing theIr own estimates.

Relationship of Forest Service and Industry

The forest reserves and national forests were created In the late 1 800s and eaily 1 900s out of concern for future generations ability to supply themselves with wood. A major objective of the Forest Service's program under Pinchot In the first two decades of the twentieth century was to point out the deficiencies of private timber management; theagency strongly advocated federal control over the Industry (Nelson 1985; Greely 1951).

By the mid 1920s, there was a shift In the relationship between the Industry and the

Forest Service. In 1917, future Chief of the Forest Service William Greely noted that the timber industry did not need the Service's criticism, but its help (Greely 1951; Steen 1976). Greely believed the Forest Service's polIcy should be to avoid competing with the Industry by withholding federal timber from the market until private supplies were depleted (Greely 1917;

Steen 1976).Interior Secretary Hall did not agree with the policy, and accused the Forest

Service of locking up the West for future generations when the wood could be used then

(Greely 1951). In 1930, the Timber Conservation Board recommended the coordination of public and private timber supplies, and proposed federal timber be kept off the market until private supplies were depleted at which time the public forests would supply timber until the private lands regrew (Steen 1976). 204

The future arrived in the 1950s with an Increased population demanding houses.In

response, the national forests of the Douglas-fir region began to supply part of the timber. The

plan entailed national forests filling the supply until the private lands hadgrown back and were

ready for harvest in the eatly part of the twenty-first century (Beuter et al. 1976; Steen 1976).

By 1988, however, a major problem had developed: much of the federal timberwas being sold

to companies without timber land and they expected a predIctable timber supply from federal

lands. As illustrated in Figure 31, most of the nonfederal timber landswere not old enough for

harvest In 1988.

Preservationists perceived the Forest Service and BLM to be surrogates of the

industry. This claim was true to the extent that these agencies sold raw material to mills.

However, the Forest Service opposed many demands of the industry suchas accelerating the

harvest of old-growth. The BLM and Forest Service also differed from the Industry In

management strategies for determining harvest age. Brock Evans argued the Forest Service

already managed its lands like Weyerhaeuser (Durbin 1989bb), but companies like

Weyerhaeuser harvested their trees at an age based on financial maturity (40-50 years), while the Forest Service and BLM used a harvest cycle based on physiological maturIty (80-100

years). The Forest Service and BLM resisted pressures to switch to a financial maturity

rotation system (Clawson 1976; Seaton et al. 1973; Deacon 1985). The Industry also disagreed with wildlife and other set asides proposed in the forest plans of the mid 19805.

The challenge to federal forest management agencies as advocated by preservationlsts

reflects societies growing perception of forests as places to be protected for noncommodity values such as wildlife and nature's Intrinsic values. The Increasing financial resources and influence of these organizations reflect an Increasing segment of society's desire for social change relative to forest resources. Source: AdaptedfromOregonStateDepartmentofForestry1989. Figure 31. 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000 ieoo 200 400 600 800 0 Distribution ofeven-agedforestacresinOregonbyownershipandageclass. D otherownerships 0) Forest ServiceandBLM (7' Age Class 55 65 75 125 175 200 205 206

Defining the Public's Interest

Determining the public's interest relative to federal forests has been at the heartof the controversy. One set of issue participants felt the public's interest reliedon a stable supply of timber for the production of goods to provide fora high standard of living, while other set of participants believed the intrinsic and noncommodity values of nature enhanced the quality of life.In 1989 industry groups responded to what they saw as an erosion of the timber base by noting that half the national forest lands in Oregon and Washington excluded timber management [harvest], and 50/50 was fair (Hill 1989). But from the preservationlsts' point of view, there was little virgin forest remaining anywhere. Ultimately, Itwas the advocates from each of the two interest blocs that defined the 'public's interest' In the Issue.

The effect of pressure for social change through redefinition of the public's Interest In federal forests, as illustrated by the wobbly diamond issue network model,can be measured by shifts in land-use allocation. The ONRC perception of the draft natIonal forests' plans of the late-mid 19805 was that they were 'vintage 1962' and 'hopelessly outdated (Wild Oregoi

1988d).' The Willamette National Forest made dramatic shifts In land-use allocations toward reducing the land base available for timber production between 1965 and 1988 (Figure 32).In

1965, 78 percent of the land base was available for timber production while In 1988 the proposed land allocation for timber production dropped to 51 percent, and similarly, thearea allocated to full harvest fell from 69 percent of the land base In 1965 to 32 percent in 1988.

Although some lands were set aside by Congress through the pressure of preservatlonists, the belief by preservation groups that the Forest Service was not responsive to demands for social change was wrong. Land-use changes on national forests came aboutas a direct response to pressure for social change. From the preservationists' perspective, however, the change was too slow. The process of shifting land-use policy within the wobbly diamond model tends to support Undblom's (1959) concept of rational incremental change based on the Involvement of many participants and strong advocacy of few options. Although there was no major land-use Full Harvest Administ rative Set AsidesLimited Harvest Wilderness 69% no' /0 55% 13% 1965 Plan 1977 Plan 1987 Preferred Plan basesbaseadoptedFigure of in32. approximately orUSDA Changes proposed Forest in for 1.67land-useService three million different1965a, allocation acres 1977, periods. during on 1987a.the theThe Willamette three Willarnette time National periods. National Forest Source: Forest under Constructedmaintained management a from tota data-Iplans land 208 shift in Section 318, the policy direction initiated in 1989 set the stage for future attempts toset aside old-growth and alter forest allocation significantly.

Preservation groups' use of administrative appeals and the Judicial system delayeda large number of timber sales. As a result, many timber sales were not offeredon schedule which created a shortage of timber unknown in the region. This moved the issue to the national level by forcing Northwest members of Congress to yield some control to members from outside the region. The result was Section 318 of Public Law 101-121. A related issue concerned access to the courts to challenge actMtles on federal forests. Preservationists vigorously fought any attempts by Congress to restrict their access to the courts claiming such actions were unconstitutional. But, when the courts were confronted by Congress with legislation denying judicial review of specific agency actions, they conceded Congress did have this power. The chief sponsor of restrictions on judicial review, Senator Hatfield (1989), indicated he did not like doing It, but he said the abuse of the legal system by preservatlonists forced such restrictions. With the support of members of Congress outside the Northwest, preservationists retained access to the courts in SectIon 318, but the process was expedited.

Most preservationists did not consider Section 318 as something they had agreed to, and behaviors after passage of the legislation indicated they would aggressively appeal and litigate timber sales they released from injunction.

Environmental lawyers view certain Judges as more favorable to their suits than others

(Wenner 1990), and where jurisdiction permits, they wUl file a case in the most favorable court.

The lawyers for Seattle Audubon Society et al. and the Northern Spotted Owl et al. could have brought their suits In the federal courts of either Oregon or Washington as that was the area of the alleged violations. They chose to tile their suits in the District Court for Western

Washington in Seattle rather than in the District Court for Oregon because they believed the

Seattle judges to be sympathetic.

Hoban and Brooks (1987) pointed out the function of the courts is to interpret and apply laws. In the case of environmental suits, the courts do not identify an environmental 209

problem and order it fixed, but decide if the environmental condition Is legaland If the law

requires the court to intervene (Hoban and Brooks 1987). Althoughmany environmental cases like the old-growth/spotted owl cases are full of scientific facts, judgesare supposed to decide

if the arguments presented are legally, not scientificallycorrect.

Judges have personal beliefs that may be reflected In their decisions (Wenner 1984

1990; Hoban and Brooks 1987). As political appointees, they tend to have ideologies similar to those of the appointing administration. Table 27 lists the political and appointment affiliations of the judges involved in some old-growth cases. Lunch (1987) argued that political Ideology served as a litmus test for appointment, especially during the Reagan administration.If the

Reagan era resource development agenda (Kraft 1984) was reflected in the decisions of Its appointees, Judge Zilly might have failed the ideological litmus test. Judge Zilly could have accepted the Fish and Wildlife Service's 1987 explanation for not listing the spotted owlas threatened or endangered, but he probably knew that decision would be appealed. In the BLM and Forest Service cases, the judges appeared sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the preservationists. For example, Judge Dwyer issued an injunction and ordereda trial because he felt the preservationists had a good case and might prevail (Klass 1989). Judge

Frye and the Ninth Circuit Court judges viewed the many contested BLM timber salesas a challenge to the BLM management plan, which was prohibited by Section 314. Judge Dwyer, on the other hand, did not consider the large number of contested Forest Service sales as a violation of SectIon 314 language prohibiting challenges of existing management plans.In each of the suits brought by preservationists, it did not appear the judges let personal beliefs about old-growth forests Interfere with final decisions concerning points of law,even though some judges may have sympathized with arguments presented by preservatlonists.

Most all the wobbly diamond participants except key members of Congress felt that only congressional action could mediate the public's Interest. Congress, especially members from the Northwest, were frustrated that the federal resource agencies could not work out an acceptable solution as envisioned by the framers of the NFMA. But the planning process Table 27. Political affiliations and appointmentName associations of federal judges who presided Political Date of Nominating Appointingover old-growth/spotted owl cases. Helen Frye (court) Independent Affiliation Feb. 20, 1980Appointment Hatfield (A) Senators Carter President Portland Audubon Society Court Cases James(OR) Burns Republican June 2, 1972 PackwoodHatfield (R) (R)(A) Nixon CouncilOregonv. Hodel v.Natural Forest Resources Service ThomasWilliam(W.WA) Dwyer Zilly Democrat Apr.Dec. 20, 1, 1988 1987 AdamsAdams(D)Gorton (A)(0) Reagan v. NorthernSeattleRobertson Audubon Spotted SocietyOwl Alfred(9th(W. WA)GoodwinCircuit) Nov. 30, 1971 PackwoodHatfieldGorton (A)(R) (A) Nixon v.PortlandV. HodelHodel Audubon Society (9thHarryMary(9th Circuit) Schroeder PregersonCircuit) Nov.Sep. 2,26, 1979 1979 CranstonGoldwaterDeConcini (D) (R)(A) Carter CouncilOregon v.Natural Forest Resources Service 211 resulted in exactly what NFMA was expected to avoid: disputes in the courts. A study by

Milbrath (1984) indicated environmental elites looked upon planningas a very desirable way to allocate goods and services. The record of preservationists' statements relative to the planning process for the federal forests of the Douglas-fur region indicated that planning was acceptable only if they controlled the process. A similar argument could be made for the timber industry, but its activities were not as disruptive as those of preservatlonists. Therewas little Congress could do to keep the agencies from being taken to court except to prohibit judicial review of agency actions. Northwest members of Congress were reluctant to take on the issue directly because their decisions and actions would be open to extreme public scrutiny. Despite the misgivings of some members of Congress, it was the only element in the issue network which could provide a solution. The Section 318 decisIons were unpopular with almost all Interest groups.

The Forest Service and BLM were caught between the demands of two aggressive interest group blocs and members of Congress who were trying to avoid making difficult decisions. The days when one interest group dominated an issue weregone as well as the days when an agency could play one interest group against the other. The agencies made their decisions via the planning process, but neither preservationists not timber industry interests were pleased; so, each sought redress in the courtsas a holding action while they and the agencies sought relief from Congress. Recognizing thenew realities imposed on it by

Congress, the Forest Service responded to the issue by puttingsome polish on its philosophy of multiple use as a means to supply something for all the issue participants. A week priorto a Congressional hearing on Forest Service management (October 25, 1989), theagency announced a new old-growth policy and took the media out to see some recently discovered very old trees. The agency embraced the concepts of new forestry and alternative silviculture to provide both timber and old-growth habitat. The Service's embrace of old-growth management was in part out of bureaucratic self-interest to maintain Its budget. But preservation generates few dollars and requires few employees whilemanagement generates 212

revenue and requires many employees. However, as O'Toole (1 988a) pointed out, incentive

for a bureaucracy like the Forest Service is to survive. The Forest Service also establisheda

committee of scientists to devise another spotted owl plan with the hope that the spotted owl

would not need to be listed as a threatened species.

As a result of the temporary resolution in 1989, sides were drawn for future

confrontations over old-growth. The old-growth Issue spawned the likelihood of Involving

Congress in federal forest allocations issues more contentious than the Monongahela

clearcutting issue of the early 1970s.In the future, Congress might have to provide more

prescriptive land-use directives and dedicate specific sites for individualuses. On the other

hand, Congress cannot micromanage the federal forests. Perhaps Congress could legislate

that individual forest plans meet all existing and new laws during the 10 to 15year life of the

plan. Future old-growth allocation conflicts focusing on the spotted owl and other wildlife

habitat may drastically reduce the land base available for harvest. Asa result, the Forest

Service would have to after the way it conducts business. For example, the remainder of the

land available for commodity production may come underan economic type of management

at least with revenues covering expenditures. The cutting rotation may change froman age

and size based on physiological maturity, to one based on financial maturity. Multipleuse may

change to dominant use, an idea resisted by the Forest Service, but advocated bysome

preservationists (Evans 1977, 1 989b).

O'Toole (1988a) believed a market based system would serve society's and

preservationists' interests better than the current use of interest group politics. Applying these

concepts to the allocation of old-growth, preservation organizations could compete in open

bidding with timber companies for the rights to old-growth timberon public lands, and if they win the bid, preservationists could hold the timber fora period of years equivalent to the

rotation age.If the market approach were adopted, the interactions of issue participants in the wobbly diamond model would diminish considerably. Theuse of such an approach might be attractive to some old-growth issue participants, but preservationgroups would resist this 213

concept because under the existing system they pay little in the way of direct cost for theuse

of public goods and services. However, Nelson (1982) argued that the Forest Service, BLM

and preservationlsts do not have much use for economic thinking that places incentives for

economic gain on the individual or groups.

Local governments in counties with high percentages of federal forests were placed in

a difficult situation at the end of 1989.If social change moves toward more old-growth and

spotted owl habitat preservation, Congress will have to review Its revenue shaiing programs,

and society assume part of the cost In lost revenues to these local governments.

One of the most significant by-products of the old-growth issue was theemergence of

coalitions and new groups in both interest blocs. The issue galvanized people associated with

the industry to organize to counter the older, well established preservation and environmental

interest groups. Several grassroots organizations allied with the timber industry were

established in 1989. Industry owners and trade associations made a major error by not

including representatives of these organizations as part of their June 25, 1989 timber summit

team. The image of a well-dressed, well-paid timber company executive Is simply notas

persuasive a symbol as a mill worker about to lose a job. The grassroots people made strong

emotional pleas to public officials at meetings, but their emerging interestgroups were not

established in the public land-use network in mid 1989. Considering the short time-frame in which these various grassroots groups organized, they proved themselves quite capable. The future success of local grassroots groups toward full participation in the federal land-use policy

network will depend partly on how well they gain access to the media to maintain visibility.

Despite their complaints, preservationists wona great but difficult victory by

significantly reducing timber harvested from federal lands in 1989. They didnot achieve their

long term goal of permanent Congressional protection of specificareas, but did lay the ground work. In retrospect, the use of appeals and lawsuits by preservationists delayed the development and implementation of national forest plans.In the end this strategy may have been to the detriment of some old-growth stands.If the new plans had been implemented on 214 schedule, the amount of harvest would have been reduced approximately 20 percent. The delays caused Congress to pass legislation that kept the harvest levels at those established in the old plans until the new ones were approved. Had the new plans been approved on time, preservationists could have still pursued the same strategies they employed to preserve old- growth. On the other hand, It might be argued that the draft plans contained more habitat set asides because of the mounting pressure.

The higher prices for Northwest lumber in 1989 shows what happens when the supply of softwood timber from public lands is restricted. With a decrease in the amount of available raw material, the price for timber will continue to increase for those companies who do not own land. The smaller companies face a harsher reality and will likely go out of business.

Some large companies like Wilamette Industries, which used a combination of federal and company timber, will have to down-size in order to compete with companies owning large tracts of timber. Due to a probable future increased demand, alternative sources of timber such as obtaining timber and rough lumber from overseas, will be tapped. This approach may not bring lower wood product prices as U.S. companies would have to compete with Japanese and other foreign companies. Another raw material source will be from nonindustrial timber land owners who will be tempted by higher prices to sell. Whatever thesource of timber or alternative materials, society will pay the cost of preservation through higher prices for commodities, or forgo some commodities due to the increased cost.

Conclusions

Conflicts over virgin forests have taken place since the federal government decided to retain these lands; so the old-growth issue was only a new phase in the process of deciding how to allocate federal forests.Different values of nature shaped the perception of the resource by different interest groups.It is ironic that both the first conflict over old-growth in the Olympic National Forest and the conflict of the 1 980swere over the same issue of forest 215

use for wildlife habitat versus timber production. The old-growth issue evolved along a

continuum of concepts concerning the physical attributes of the resource anda continuum of

Ideological values related to Its use. Preservation interests valued the resourceas habitat for

nongame animals and a vanishing link to a primeval world unmarred by the impact of human

progress. While the large size and age of trees was important, they were not the main criteria that inspired appeals and lawsuits. Virgin forests were their primary concernas they supported

logging halts in 100 to 200 year old stands which along with those over 200years old were considered spotted owl habitat. The timber Industry considered the resource primarilyas a raw material for the production of commodities and maintenance of jobs; the size of the trees and other attributes of old-growth ecosystems were secondary considerations. These two different perceptions of the value of forests drove these two Interestgroup blocs to attempt to influence the three elements of the federal government to support policies compatible with the bloc's interest.

The development of definitions for old-growth were more an outgrowth of political necessity rather than scientific curiosity. To scientists the development of definitions allowed for the development of analytical tools to distinguish forest stands with different histories.

Preservationists pressed for an account of how much old-growth remained and used the definitions to illustrate there was very little left, but by the end of 1989 they advocateda broad definition which included considerably more land than their earliernarrow definitions allowed.

The timber industry did not pay much attention to definitions because the size of thetree was not important.

Those segments of the timber industry dependent on federal timber have been fighting reduced access to public timber since the creation of the first forestreserves. But the industry and members of Congress from the Northwest did not envision the large volumewithheld from sale in 1989. As access to federal timber continues to decrease due to land-usereallocations to old-growth, spotted owl and other wildlife considerations, the industry will respondas it has in the past by more efficiently using the supply ithas and by seeking new sources. These new 216 sources might include purchases from nonindustrial owners waling to sell as prices go up, or be purchases from outside the United States.

Preservationists did not trust the administrative old-growth set asides created by agencies because these areas could be placed back into a commodity land-use category.

Preservationists' long term goal was to have Congress proclaim specific areas as off limits to commodity land-use. From 1970 through 1989, the federal land management agencies, especially the Forest Service, shifted their land-use policies toward less allocation for commodity production. But preservation interests did not think the shift rapid enough. By the end of 1989, the Forest Service responded to the pressure generated by preservationists through the Congress and the courts to set aside more old-growth.

The old-growth issue also initially coalesced preservation groups on an unprecedented scale. A broad cross section of groups from the national to local levels tirelessly worked on making old-growth a national Issue by creating the perception of urgency. Timber industry groups also joined together on this issue as never before, especially the grassroots groups that formed in 1989, and as a result, have the potential to be a powerful force in future forest and other land-use issues.

Believing the agencies were not in compliance with the land-use laws, preservationists very aggressively used the judicial system to reduce timber sales and force a decision on the issue by Congress. Although preservatlonists' goals were not met through the Section 318 legislation which did not provide significant land-use allocation shifts, they did have a major impact on the old-growth issue at the end of 1989. They nationalized the old-growth issue, and laid the ground work for future negotiations concerning the allocation of federal public forests for values they deemed important.

Members of Congress from the Northwest were extremely reluctant to take on the issue and pressed the interest groups and agencies tocome to an agreement. But all the participants outside Congress believed it to be the only Institution that could fashiona solution.

The planning process set forth in the NFMA did not work because neither interestgroup bloc 217 considered more compromise an option. Congressional action was the only option, and In the end It left no one happy. Uke the wdemess Issue, Congress wl have to deal with the old- growth issue for many years to come.

The NFMA did not work because dissatisfied interest groups on both sides of the issue circumvented the planning process established in NFMA by using the courts to attain what they could not get through the NFMA planning process. Although the courts yielded to the directives of Congress on the issue of no judicial review, their Injunctions against harvesting had the effect of significantly reducing the amount of timber sold. This was a major goal of preseivationists.

Local governments may have revenues drastically reduced if large segments of forest are set aside for spotted owl habitat.In those counties where federal forests make up a major part of the land base, Congress may provide supplementary payments to replace some lost timber revenues, or it may change the revenue sharing formulas.In addition, those counties that have had generous federal payments In the past may have to increase the tax burdenon the local residents.

The wobbly diamond model of the old-growth issue network is a realistic model for identifying issue participants and analyzing the policy process; Itmay also be adapted to a variety of issues involving the federal government. Future researchon perceptions and behaviors related to old-growth and other natural resources should focuson the leaders who are principal participants in the federal public lands issue network. The next step would be to develop the potential analytical features of the wobbly diamond by devising techniques to quantify the interactions of the participants and their influenceon the policy process.

For those who advocate the intrinsic rights of nature, their goals for social change relative to the allocation of old-growth advanced In 1989 when Congress finally took-up the issue. Allocations of specific old-growth forest areas wUlcome In future years. For those who promote forest products at reasonable prices and support jobs to produce them, land allocation continues to shift away from theuse of federal forests to support these goals. Many 218 people in the timber industry and Forest Service believe the time wMl come when the policy momentum wW shift back to a more commodity-oriented use of federal forests. But history Is not on their side. This study indicates the trend toward more preservation wUl continue. The participants in the wobbly diamond issue network will continue to redefine the public's interest in the material and nonmaterlal values of old-growth. 219

NOTES

The Cascade Forest Reserve, straddling the Cascade mountains from the Oregon- California state line to the Columbia River was created September 28, 1893. The Pacific Forest Reserve was established February 20, 1893 and greatly enlarged February 22, 1897. The Olympic and Washington forest Reserves were created on February 22, 1897 (Rakestraw 1955).

During World War II, there was an attempt to harvest the trees in Olympic National Park, but it failed (Frome 1984, Nash 1982).

The NDEF language is one of the most controversial and ambiguous parts of the NFMA because of different interpretations of how even-flow relates to sustained yield and the various interpretations as to what is meant by sustained yield (Parry et at. 1983; Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).

The State of Oregon had no endangered or threatened wildlife law untU May 15, 1987 when the legislature passed a bill (Gossan 1993).

The Secretary of Agriculture called on the National Academy of Sciences to help select a committee to provide advice on establishing regulations for compliance with the NFMA (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). The NFMA stated certain species must be chosen as "indicators of the effects of management activities. The committee of scientists submitted its first report In the fall of 1979, and recommended establishment of Management Indicator Species which allowed a few key vertebrates to act as surrogates for all other species in an ecosystem (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). The Forest Service was a step ahead of the committee because it informally established the northern spotted owl as an Indicator species of old-growth Douglas-fir In 1978 (Vander Heldie 1988). The northern spotted owl was officially designated a Management Indicator Species for old-growth Douglas-fir In 1981 (USDA Forest Service 1981).

The Oregon Endangered Species Task Force was expanded and reorganized in 1978 as the Oregon-Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee with a spotted owl subcommittee (USDA Forest Service 1988a).

The Oregon Wilderness Coalition et al. appeal of January 11, 1980 protested the Regional Forester's decision not to prepare an Environmental Assessment or EIS for the Draft Pacific Northwest Region Plan (Regional Plan) prior to adoption of the Oregon Endangered Species Task Force's new spotted owl management recommendations (Wll Oregon 1980c, USDA Forest Service 1988a). This action initiateda series of delays and changes related to old-growth habitat requirements and viability of the spotted owl on national forest lands through 1989. Chief Peterson upheld the Regional Forester's decision in August of 1980, and the Draft Pacific Northwest Reaion Plan was published in May 1981 (USDA Forest Service 1988a).

Forest Supervisor, Mike Kerrick, and his deputy, Bob Chadwick, persuaded the League of Women Voters of Central Lane County [Oregon], and the Bureau of Governmental Research and Service at the University of Oregon to cosponsor a conference on the issue (Powers 1989).

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission changed itsname to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife during 1983. 220

The Oregon Wilderness Coalition changed its name to Oregon Natural Resources Council (ON AC) in 1982 to reflect the organizations broader Interests (Montelth 1 982b).

The definitions in this publication were often referred to by the Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Research Note designation PNW-447 (USDA Forest Service 1986a). The definitions were also referred to as the Franklin definitions in recognition of Jerry Franklin's chairmanship of the Definition Task Group. These definitions will be referred to throughout this paper as PNW-447.

This lawsuit challenged the following five federal laws: the National Environmental Policy Act, the Oregon and California Lands Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act (Portland Audubon Society et al. v. Hodel 1987).

Due to the appointment of a new Secretary of the Interior a few weeks later, the name of the defendant was changed from Hodel to Lujan.

One of the streams was Opal Creek which runs through an area preservationlsts believed to be "... the most intact stand of ancient forest [old-growth] remaining in the western Cascades" (Wild Oregon 1988b). Opal Creek was In Representative Denny Smith's (R) district, and he opposed set asides for noncommodity uses (Goetze and Hayakawa 1989). In order to gain Smith's support for the other streams, Hatfield removed Opal Creek from the list.

Studds requested the Investigation because of controversy over the dismissal of the Western Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roif Wallenstrom, on January 9th, for refusing to accept a transfer (Kobersteln and Hayakawa 1989). Wallenstrom daimed the transfer offer and subsequent firing was punishment for taking views on wildlife issues, especially those related to the spotted owl, opposed by his politically appointed superiors Donald Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, Frank Dunkle, Fish and Wildlife Service Director, and James Cason, BLM Director, (Koberstein 1989a).

Preservationists tried to revive the Opal Creek Ancient Forest State Park bifi In the State House on April 28th, but, the mood in Oregon was not amiable tomore preservation agitation due to the April 26th proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recommend the northern spotted owl for listing as a threatened species (The Oregonian 1989b, Wild Oregon 1990J). The measure died.

This seven-state organization grew out of the May 1988 Great Northwest Log Haul to Darby, Montana, and the August 1988 Silver Fire Roundup in Grants Pass, Oregon (Yellow Ribbon CoalitIon 1989). In Oregon the most active group was the Lane County chapter which was organized in April of 1989 by Charlie Jantz, who owneda timber brokerage business (Yellow Ribbon ExDress 1989).

Communities for a Great Oregon, headquartered in Mill City,was started in the spring of 1989 by Tom Hirons, owner of Mad Creek Logging Company, and Jim Morgan, part owner of Young and Morgan Lumber Company.

Tom Giesen, President of the ONRC, Larry Tuttle, Director of the Oregon office of The Wilderness Society, and Arthur Johnson, an attorney and conservationist,were selected by the Delegation to represent preservationists' views (The Orecionian 1 989f, Wild Oregon 1990b). William Shields, Executive Vice-president of Willamette Industries, John Hampton, Chief Executive Office of Hampton Lumber Sales and Willamina Lumber Company,and 221

James Geisinger, President of the Northwest Forestry Association were selectedas the industry's representatives (The Oregonian 1 989d).

On Tuesday morning, the 27th, there were intense negotiations in Washington, D.C. between the Oregon Delegation and their staffs, and representatives of the National Ancient Forest Alliance to get it to agreed with the summit compromise.

Representatives AuCoin and DeFazio delayed action In the Appropriations Subcommittee, and spent Wednesday trying to convince preservatlonists to reconsider the compromise (Koberstein 1989d, 1989e). But, Syd Butler, vice-president of The Wilderness Society, sent a letter to each member of the subcommittee asking them to "defer a final resolution of this issue" [old-growth] (Koberstein 1989e). AuCoin said the letter "really fried my bacon" because he considered it an end run on his and others' efforts to get an acceptable amendment into the House appropriations bill, and killed any chance of finding an immediate short-term solution (Kobersteln 1989e).

Several companies who exported logs from federal lands before 1972 were allowed to continue the practice with limits set on the amount after restrictions were passed in 1972. Other loop holes were third party log substitutions, and minimal processing to produce cants.

This response was In part tied to the 1978 addition of 200,000 acres of wilderness In Oregon.

Jerry Franklin was a member of the Society of American Forester's task force on Scheduling the Harvest of old Growth (Society of American Foresters 1984).

Western hemlock is considered to be the dimax forest species in much of the Douglas-fir region (Franklin and Dyrness 1973).

Cary (1985) outlined several hypotheses as to why spotted owls are associated with older forests.

In the 1933 survey, Douglas-fir was the only species categorized as old-growth. However, several tree species In the Douglas-fir region reach great age and size. For example, western hemlock and western red-cedar attain ages of 500 and 1,000 years and diameters of 48 and 96 inches dbh respectively (Harlow and Harrar 1969). Western hemlock, the most common associate of Douglas-fir was classified by Andrews and Cowlin (1940) as small and large with limits of 6-20 inches dbh and more than 20 Inches dbh respectively.

One example reads: "little of the very old, high-grade timber which now occurs In virgin forests Is being replaced" with second growth (Greely et al. 1923).

The Pacific Northwest was the first area to be surveyed under the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928 because of the national significance of its "potentially large timber-producing capacity (Stuart 1930; USDA Forest Service 1933)."

Pinchot's immediate successor, Henry Graves, referred to the forests of the western Cascades as "old timber" which required clearcutting "because nearly all of the trees are mature and of very large size (Steen 1976)." Wilamette National Forest Supervisor Bruckart (1949) noted that "The first need then was to convert the overmature timber toa growing condition - to utilize the old trees". 222

The NFMA regulations include a requirement to Identify management Indicator species (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). The northern spotted owlwas officially selected as the management Indicator species for old-growth in the 1981 Draft Pacific Northwest Region Plan (USDA Forest Service 1981). But, The Siuslaw National forestwas using the owl as a management indicator species as early as 1978 (Vander Heidie 1988).

The McNary Act or the Oregon and California Sustained Yield Act (O&C Act) [43 USC 1 181a et seaj of 1937 stated the O&C and CBWR lands were to be managed for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut and removed In conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providinga source of timber... contributing to the economic stability of local communitles (Tollenaar 1981).

It took the timber industry a while to respond to the significance Issue. The Northwest Forestry Association with the cooperation of the Forest Service prepareda reply to the claims by The Wilderness Society [the Forest Service also cooperated with The Wilderness SocietyJ (Northwest Forestry AssocIation 1989).

Randolph's version of the bill was primarily written by James Moorman,a staff member of the Sierra Club (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).

The primary jurisdiction for policy relating to the national forests Is divided between four subcommittees. The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Subcommitteeon Conservation and Forestry, and the House Agriculture Subcommitteeon Forests, Family Farms, and Energy have jurisdiction over general forest issues and national forests that were not established from public domain lands. Issues concerning national forest created from public domain lands are brought before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests, and the House Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.

The Forest Service estimated the half million dollars would be enoughto Inventory one national forest (teply 1988).

The May 7 date was used in the Environment Reporter-Cases.

The first petition to list the owl was by two children living in California whowrote a petition as part of a project associated with their home schooling (Stahl 1993). The children and their parents were contacted by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and persuaded to withdraw their petition due to the pending petition by that organization.

One of the first involvements of scientists Ina public land-use issue involving old-growth was In 1896 when Harvard botanist Charles Sargent chaired a National Academy of Sciences commission that investigated misuse of the forestreserves (Greene 1984, Unran 1987). As part of its investigation the commission visited the Cascade ForestReserve.

Seneca Sawmills along with 17 other mills belonged to the North West Timber Association which joined other trade associations like the Northwest ForestryAssociation with 80 member companies to forma regional coalition called the Northwest Forest Resource Council with 12 member associations which In turnwas part of a national coalition called the American Forest Resource Council. 223

UTERATURE CITED

Adams, Brock. 1989. Congressional Record-Senate. October 7. p. S 12961.

Alaback, Judy and Alaback, Paul. 1981. The Middle Santlam is dying. Oreaon Conifer. 4(1):6-7.

Alaback, Paul and Juday, Glenn. 1978. What's so special about old growth forests???. Northwest Conifer. 24(2):1.

Alaback, Paul B. and Juday, Glenn Patrick. 1989. Structure and composition of low elevation old-growth forests In research natural areas of southeast Aiaska. Natural Areas Journal. 9(1 ):27-39.

American Forest InstItute. 1985. The Forest Industry Perspective. Public ODinion and the Forest Products Industry: The Outlook in 1985. American Forest Institute, Washington, D.C.

Ames, Sarah and Hayakawa, Alan A. 1989. Goldschmldt hits Packwood's 'secret' meeting. The Oregonian. June 16, p. Dl.

Anderson, Dorothy H. and Brown, Perry J. 1984. The displacement process in recreation. Journal of Leisure Research. 16(1),pp. 61-73.

Anderson, Michael H. 1989. Letter to the Honorable Ron Wyden concerning The Wilderness Society's answers to Congress' concern about old-growth, July 6, 1989. In: Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Regulation, Business Opportunities, and Energy of the Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives and the Subcommitteeon Conservation and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, First Session on U.S. Wood Products Competitiveness: Timber, Taxes and Trade; July 8, Portland, OR.pp. 254- 258.

Andrews, H.J. and Cowlin, R.W. 1940. Forest Resources of the Douaias-flr Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 389.

Anonymous. 1988a. Developing a More Effective Strategy for Protection of Ancient Forests of the Pacific Northwest [Working paper of the First Annual Conference of Old Growth Forest Activist. September 24.] Portland, OR.

Anonymous. 1 988b. Comment at the 16th Annual Oregon Natural Resources Conference, August 25-27. Menucha Conference Center, Corbett, OR.

Anonymous. 1 989a. Comment of forester from Starker Forests at meeting of the Philomath Action Committee. July 12, Philomath, OR.

Anonymous. 1 989b. Comment by industry forester at State of Oregon information gathering forum for input to the national forest plans, March 23, Eugene, OR.

Arnold, Ron. 1989. Personal communication, Wise Use Movement, Beilview, WA.

Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the AmericanInstitute of Planners. 35(4):21 6-224. 224

Arthur, Bill and Hinton, Diana. 1989. "Timber summit update". Oreaon Conifer. XII(4):8.

Atiyeh, George. 1988. Conversation with members of the Cathedral Forest Action Group. May 15, Jawbone Flat, OR.

Atiyeh, George. 1989. Opal Creek. Wild Oregon. 15(4):5.

AuCoin, Les. 1 989a. Letter to George Frampton, President, The Wilderness Society, September 5.

AuCoin, Les. 1 989b. Comment on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressional Record - House. October 3, p. H 6506.

Auliciems, Andris and Burton, lan. 1971. Air pollution in Toronto. In: Sewell, W.R. Denick and Burton, Ian (eds.). 1971. PerceDtions and AttitudeIn Resource Management: Selected Proceedings of a Symposium on the role of PercWtions and Attitudes in Decision Making in Resources Management.pp. 71-80. Resources Paper No. 2. Policy Research and Coordination Branch, Department of Energy and Resources, Ottawa, Canada. Information Canada, Ottawa.

Barker, Mary L 1971. Beach pollution in the Toronto region. In: Sewell, W.R. Derrick and Burton, Ian, (eds.) 1971. Perceptions and Attitudes in Resource Management: Selected Proceedinas of a SjnDosium on the role of Perceotions and Attitudes in Decision Making in Resources Management. pp. 37-47. Resources Paper No. 2. Policy Research and Coordination Branch, Department of Energy and Resources, Ottawa, Canada. Information Canada, Ottawa.

Barnard, Jeff. 1989. 24 logging protestors arrested. The Oregonian. July 12, p. C6.

Barone, Michael and Ujifusa, Grant. 1989. The Almanac of American PolitIcs 1990. National Journal Inc., Washington, D.C.

Baumann, Duane D. 196g. The Recreational Use of Domestic Water Supoly Reservoirs: Perceotion and Choice. Research Paper No. 121, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Becker, R.H.; Jubenville, Alan and Burnett, G. W. 1984. Fact and judgment in the search for social carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences. 6(4)475-486.

Bently, Arthur. 1908. The Process of Government. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Berry, Jeffrey M. 1989. The Interest Group Society. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL

Beuter, John H.; Johnson, K. Norman; and Scheurman, H. Lynn. 1976. Timber for Oregon's Tomorrow: An Analis of Reasonably Possible Occurrences. Research Bulletin 19, Forest Research Laboratory, School of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Bevans, Charles I. (ed.). 1974. Treaties and other International Aareemönts of the United States of America 1776-1949. U.S. Department of State, Publication 8761. Washington, D.C. 225

Bioloaical Abstracts. 1959-1990. Biosciences Information Service, Philadelphia.

Blumenthal, Les. 1989. Economics should have bearing on spotted-owl Issue, Lujan said. The Oregonian. March 17, p. D9.

Booth, William. 1989. New thinking on old growth. ScIence. 244:141-143.

Borman, F.H. and Likens, G.E. 1979. Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem. Springer- Verlag, New York.

Bortz, Andy. 1988. Presentation for the Cathedral Forest Action Group. Memorial Union, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. November 19.

Bortz, Andy. 1989. Personal communication, Cathedral Forest Action Group. Corvallis, OR.

Braun, E. Lucy. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. McGraw-HIll Book Co., Inc. New York.

Brower, David R. 1989. Letter to Doug Scott, Conservation Director, Sierra Club. July 13, 1989. In: Wild Oregon. 1990. 16(1):40-43.

Brown, Richard T. 1987. Congress to blame for overcutting. Wild Oreoon. 14(2): 11.

Brown, Rick; Butler, Sydney J.; Blomquist, Jim; Momtelth, James; Hunt, Fran; Evans, Brock. 1989. Letter to members of the Oregon Congressional Delegation and Governor Neil Goldschmidt, June 27.

Brown, Rick and Kerr, Andy. 1989. Just exactly how much Ancient forest is left?. Wild Oregon. 15(3):13-14.

Bruckart, John R. 1949. "Taming a wild forest. In: Year Book of Agriculture 1949.pp. 326-334. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Buck, Susan J. 1991. Understanding Environmental Administration and Law. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Bultena, Gordon L and Hendee, John C. 1972. Foresters' views of interest group positions on forest policy. Journal of Forestry. 70:337-342.

Bultena, Gordon L and Taves, Marvin J. 1961. Changing wilderness images and forestry policy. Journal of Forestry. 59:167-1 71.

Burch, William R., Jr. 1981. The ecology of metaphors-spacing regularities for humans and other primates in urban and wildland habitats. Leisure Sciences. 4(3) :213-230.

Bureau of Governmental Research and Service. 1989. Data on file. University of Oregon. Eugene, OR.

Burford, Robert. 1983. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) O&C Forest Resources Policy, March 15. in: U.S. Department of the Interior. 1984. Timber Management for the 1980$. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 226

Burley, Chuck. 1992. Personal communication, Northwest Forestry AssociatIon. February 21, Portland, OR.

Burns, James M. 1987. Opinion in: Oregon Natural Resources Council mc,v. U.S. Forest Service. Environment Reporter-Cases. 25:2027-2036.

Burns, James M. 1988. All they've got to say is three little words: "No judicial review". W1Lc Oregon. 1 5(2):26-27.

Burton, lan. 1962. Types of Agricultural Occuoance of Flood Plains in the United States. Research Paper No. 75. Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Burton, lan. 1971. The social role of attitude and perception studies. In: Sewell, W.R. Derrick and Burton, Ian (eds.). Perceptions and Attitudes in Resources Manaaement: Selected Proceedings of a SvmDosium on the role of Perceotions and Attitudes In Decision Making in Resources Manaaernent.pp. 1-6. Resources Paper No. 2. Policy Research and Coordination Branch, Department of Energy and Resources, Ottawa, Canada. Information Canada, Ottawa.

Burton, lan and Kates, Robert W. 1964. The perception of natural hazards inresource management. Natural Resources Journal. 3:412-441.

Burton, Ian; Kates, Robert W. and Snead, R.E. 1968a. The Human Ecoloav of Coastal Flood Hazard in Megalopolis. Research Paper No. 115, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Burton, Ian; Kates, Robert W. and White, Gilbert F. 1 968b. The Human Ecology of Extreme Geophysical Events. Natural Hazard Research Working Paper No. 1. Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Burton, Ian; Kates, Robert W. and White, Gilbert F. 1978. The Environmentas Hazard. Oxford University Press, New York.

Business Week. 1982. The Battered fortunes of the forest products industry. September 12,pp. 70-73,76.

Byrnes, Patricia. 1 989a. Ancient forest as victims of myth. Wilderness. 53(186) :3.

Byrnes, Patricia. 1 989b. Litigation update. Wilderness. 53(186) :5-6.

Byrnes, Patricia. 1 989c. Ancient forests agreement. Wilderness. 53(187) :3-4.

Calder, Bill. 1989. Hatfield hits court on timber decisions. The Oregonian. July 1,p El.

Carey, Andrew B. 1985. A Summary of the scientific basis for spotted owlmanagement. In: Gutierrez, Ralph J. and Carey, Andrew B. (eds.). Ecoloav and Manaaement of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest.pp. 100-114. General Technical Report PNW-1 85, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 227

Carleson, Richard 0. and Haight, William I. 1985. Status of spotted owl management in Oregon as perceived by Department of Fish and Wildlife. In: Gutierrez, Ralph J. and Carey, Andrew B. (eds.) Ecology and Management of the Sootted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. pp. 27-30. General Technical Report PNW-185, USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Cathedral Forest Action Group. 1984. Press packet. Corvallis, OR.

Cathedral Forest Action Group. 1988. Help Save Oregon's Economy and National Forests. Corvallis, OR.

CH2M Hill and Ron Chastain Economic Consulting. 1988. Economic Impact Analysis: Forest and Resource Management Plans. Northwest Forest Resource Council, Portland, OR.

Church, Foster. 1 989a. AuCoin to seek OK for plan to cool dispute over timber. flj Oreaonian. June 20, p. Bi.

Church, Foster. 198gb. 2 Northwest congressmen block bid to reduce old-growth timber harvests. The Oregonian. June 21, p. B6.

Church, Foster. 1 989c. Forest chief says logging shouldgo on. The Oregonian. June 23, p. D6.

Church, Foster and Koberstein, Paul. 1989. Timber proposal called dead. The Oreoonian. June 29, p. Al.

Clark, Irving M. 1947. Our Olympic heritage and Its defense. The Livina Wilderness. 12(2l):1-10.

Clark, Roger N.; Hendee, John C. and Campbell, Frederick L 1971. Values, behavior, and conflict in modem camping culture. Journal of Leisure Research. 3:143-159.

Clark, Roger N. and Stankey, George H. 1976. Analyzing public input toresource decisions: criteria, principles, and case examples of the CODINVOLVE System. Natural Resources Journal. 16:213-236.

Clary, David A. 1986. Timber and the Forest Service. The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KA.

Clawson, Marion. 1975. Forests for Whom and for What?. The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Clawson, Marion. 1976. The national forests. Science. 191:762-767.

Cogswell, Phil. 1989. New issues loom in old forest debate. The Oregonian. February16, p. C6.

Corkran, Dave. 1982. Crisis in the Mt. Hood National Forest. Oregon Conifer. 4(6) [4(1), February] :ii-Iv.

Corvallis Gazette-Times. 1986a. Protester arrested for sitting intree. April 1, p. Al.

Corvallis Gazette-Times. I 986b. Opinion: Old-growth timber deservesprotection. April 3, p. A4.

Coyle, David Cushman. 1957. Conservation. An American Story of C9nflictand Accomplishment. Rutgers University Press, NJ. 228

Craig, George A. 1986. The SDOtted Owl and Wise Forest Use. 1986. Artprint Press for the Western Timber Association, Inc., Sacramento, CA.

Craik, Kenneth H. 1968. The comprehension of the everyday physical environment. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 34:29-37.

Craik, Kenneth H. 1970. The environmental dispositions of environmental decision-makers. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 389:87-94.

Cross, Sally. 1990. Timber beasts attack ONRC. Wild Oregon. 16(1):54.

Cuihane, Paul J. 1981. PublIc Lands Politics: Interest GrouD Influenceon the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Culhane, Paul J. 1984. Sagebrush rebels in office: Jim Watt's land and water politics. In: Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E. (eds.). 1984. Environmental Policy In the 1980's: Reagan's New Agenda. pp. 293-317. CongressIonal Quarterly Inc., Washington, D.C.

DahI, Robert A. 1967. Pluralist Democracy in the United States. Rand McNally, Chicago.

Dana, Samuel Trask and Fairfax, Sally K. 1980. Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

Danks, Holly. 1989. Members of Congress get petitions signed by 158,000 people who think there is too much emphasis on protecting the spotted owl. The Oregonian. May 22,p. 61.

Davis, Charles and Davis, Sandra. 1987. Interest groups and the implementation of public lands programs: conformity or capture. Journal of Environmental Systems. 16(4) :237-257.

Dawson, William R.; Ugon, J. David; Murphy, Joseph A.; Myers, J.P.; Simbe1off, Daniel and Verner, Jared. 1987. Report of the scientific advisory panel on the spotted owl. The Condor. 89(1):205-229.

Deacon, Robert T. and Johnson, M. Bruce. 1985. Forestlands Public and Private. Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco.

DeBeII, Dean S. and Franklin, Jerry F. 1987. Old-growth Douglas-fir andwestern hemlock: A 36-year record of growth and mortality. Western Journal of ADolied Forestry. 2(4):1 11-114.

DeBonis, Jeff. 1989. A forester's perspective on the value of ancient forest. Oregon Conifer. XII(2):4.

DeFa.zio, Peter. 1988. Not so appealing riders. Wild Oregon. 15(2):24-25.

Defenders of Wildlife. 1988. Nongame Wildlife Assessment Survey. ExecutiveSummary. Defenders of Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Democratic Party of Oregon: Campaign 88...Dukakis/Bensten. 1988. Press release, September 14. 229

Dixon, Kenneth R. and Juelson, Thomas C. 1987. The pohtical economy of the spotted owl Ecology. 68(4) :772-776.

Dodwell, Arthur and Rixon, Theodore F. 1903. Cascade Forest Reserve, between Townships 18 and 29 South. In: Langille, H.D.; Plummer, Fred G.; Dodwell, Arthur; Rixon, Theodore F. and Leiberg, John B. 1903. Forest Conditions in the Cascade Range Forest Reserve. pp. 147-227. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 9.

Doerner, Ray. 1992. Personal communication, Executive Director, Association of 0&C Counties, March 2, Roseburg, OR.

Donnelly, Michael. 1989. Fact sheet on log exports from Oregon.

Dowhan, Joseph J. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Proposed threatened status for the northern spotted owl U.S. Department of the interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register. 54(120) :26666-26677. 50 CFR Part 17.

Dunbar, Randy. 1989. Personal communication. District Ranger, McKenzie Ranger Station, Willamette National Forest, OR.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989a. New alliance joins drive to save 'ancient forests' in NW. The Sunday Oregonian. February 5, p. B2.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989b. Legislative help sought to save old-growth timber stand. The Oregonian, February 10, p. F2.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989c. Owl issue halts sales of timber. The Oregonian. March 25,p. El.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989d. George Atiyeh heads 'Save Opal Creek effort. The Sunday Oregonian. March 26, p. Bli.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989e. Police arrest timber sale protesters. The Oregonian. March 28, p. Bi.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989f. Decision time here for timber industry, environmentalist. The Oreaonian. April 1, p. A23.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989g. Vote on Opal Creek won't end differences. The Oregonian. April 13,p. E4.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989h. Agency says logging threatens owl. The Oregonian. April 27,p. Cl.

Durbin, Kathie. 19891. Timber towns in Oregon fight back. The Oregonian. May 22,p. BI.

Durbin, Kathle. 1 989j. Packwood urges support for log export ban. The Oregonian. May 24,p. C2.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989k. Values shape fight for forest. The Sunday Oregonian. June 18,p. Al.

Durbin, Kathie. 19891. Outspoken advocate leads timber fight. The Oregonian June 21,p. 81.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989m. Timber group says 20,000 jobs could be lost to owl. The Oreaonian. June 21, p. Cli. 230

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989n. Poll shows sharp split on old-growth logging In state. The Oregonian. June 22, pp. Al, Al7.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989o. Log exports called biggest threat to timber industry, survey finds. The Oregonian. June 22, p. B6.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989p. Poll respondents go opposite ways on 'owls vs. jobs'. The Oregonian. June 22, p. B6.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989q. 1st hearing on status of owl may be volatile. The Sunday Oregonian. August 13, p. Cl.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989r. Industry demands owl delay. The Oregonian. August 22, p. Bi.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989s. Old-growth controversy reignited. The Oreaonian. August 27,p. El.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989t. Labor joins timber interests at Salem rally. The Oregonian. September 9, p. Cl.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989u. Judge orders fall trial for spotted owl case. The Oregonian. September 13, p. B8.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989v. Cutting down: The days of major harvest for Northwest timber industry are numbered. The Sunday Oregonian. September 17, pp. Fl, F4.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989w. Environmental group fights logging order. The Oregonian. September 27, p. B4.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989x. Timber coalition tests clout. The Oregonian. September 29,p. B7.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989y. President supports export ban on NW logs. The Oregonian. September 29, p. Dl.

Durbin, Kathie. 19892. Timber plan causes grumbling but also stirs feelings of relief. The Oregonian. September 30, p. Al2.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989aa. Forest Service faces big task. The Sunday Oregonian. October 8,pp. Al, A28.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989bb. Radical changes in forestry proposed. The Oregonian. October 27,p. El 3.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989cc. Judge lifts old-growth sales injunction. The Oregonian. November 7,p. Bi.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989dd. Environmentalists, Forest Service OK logging agreement. 3] Qreaonian. November 8, p. C6.

Durbin, Kathie. 1989ee. Timber-sale choices spark fresh furor. The Oregonian. November 10,p. A25.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989ff. Conservationists ask high court to OK timber-sale challenges. The Oregonian. December 7, p. Cl 2. 231

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989ii. Environmentalists launch court battle to regain right to contest timber sales. The Oregonian. December 16, p. D3.

Durbin, Kathie. 1 989jj. Environmental group battles 4 timber sales. The Oregonian. December 27. pp. Cl ,C8.

Durbin, Kathie and Church, Foster. 1989. Forest Service changes its policy on old growth. The Oregonian, October 20, p. Dl.

Durbin, Kathie and Painter, John Jr. 1989. Court bans sale of old growth. The Oregonian. June 8, p. Al.

Durning, Jean. 1986. Northwest. Wilderness. 49(173):8.

Dyrness, 0.1. 1973. Early stages of plant succession following logging and burning in the western Cascades of Oregon. Ecoloav. 54(1) :57-69.

Eber, Ron. 1984. Its a wilderness bill. Oregon Conifer. 7(3):3.

Ellefson, Paul V. 1992. Forest Resources Policy: Process. Participants. and Programs. McGraw- Hill, Inc., New York.

Ellis, Barnes C. 1988. Court says decision on spotted owls 'capricious'. The Oregonian. November 19, p. 1 A.

Ervin, Keith. 1988a. A tall tale of too few trees. Sierra. 73(6):34-35, 39-40.

Ervin, Keith. 1 988b. Timber economy evolves. An Audubon ActMst Special Report included as a supplement in: Audubon ActivIst. July/August.

Evans, Brock. 1967. Lowland forest trails: A crisis in preservation. Northwest Conifer. 13(3) :7-8.

Evans, Brock. 1977. Statement before the Senate Subcommittee on Interior of the Appropriations Committee Regarding the Forest Service Budget for Fiscal Year 1978. April 19. Washington, DC.

Evans, Brock. 1986. The forest product industry: Environmental interests and dialogue. Vital Speeches of the Day. 52(1 0) :312-316.

Evans, Brock. 1987. An open letter from a Washington, D.C. lobbyist to Northwest Conservationists. Wild Oregon. 1 4(2):33.

Evans, Brock. 1988. Address at the First Annual Conference of Old Growth Forest ActMsts. September 24, 1988. Portland, OR.

Evans, Brock. 1989a. Address to the Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance, January 15, Eugene, OR.

Evans, Brock. 1 989b. Statement before the Joint Oversight Hearing on the National Forest Planning Process as Provided in the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, October 25, 1989. Washington, DC. 232

Evans, Brock; Blomquist, Jim and Anderson, Nancy. 1989. Letter of August 4 to members of the House-Senate Conference Committee on the Interior Appropriations Bill. Washington, D.C.

Ewing, Arnold D. 1968. Address before the Forest Products Conference, Oregon Bankers' Association, March 14, Eugene, OR. Text on file, North West Timber Association office, Eugene, OR.

Ewing, Arnold. 1972. Statement before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation Concerning S-866, May 25. Washington, D.C. Text on file, North West Timber Association office, Eugene, OR.

Federal Lands. 1989. Western States Public Lands CoalItion. 2(12):8.

Federal Suoolement. 1989. 712:1456. West Publishing Co. St. Paul, MN.

Fleming, Mark. 1988. 'Painful' times ahead if alternative adopted. Timber!, 2(1):2-5.

Fonaroff, L Schuyler. 1963. Conservation and stock reduction on the Navajo tribalrange. Geouraohical Review. 53:200-223.

Forest Industries. 1988. Industry News: Obstructionists tie knots In timber sale process. 115(5) : 11-1 2.

Forest Watch. 1992. The ironwood triangle. Forest Watch. I 2(9):40.

.Forestrv Forum. 1989. Massachusetts Congressman visits Northwest. August 16,p. 5.

Forman, Dave. 1978a. Are we degrading the wilderness system? Part I. Wild Oregon. 5(1 0) :6-8.

Forman, Dave. 1978b. Are we degrading the wilderness system? Part II. Wild Oregon. 5(1 1/12):4-5,14.

Forsman, Eric. 1976. A Preliminary Investiaatlon of the Spotted Owl in Oregon. M.S. thesis, 127 pp., Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Forsman, Eric D.; Meslow, E. Charles and Strub, Monica J. 1977. Spotted owl abundance in young versus old-growth forest, Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 5(2):43-47.

Forsman, Eric D.; Meslow, E. Charles and Wright, Howard M. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monograoh. 87

Fowler, Mr. [Wychej. 1989a. Comments in the Senate Chamber. Congressional Record- Senate. October 7, 1989, p. S 12960. Washington, D.C.

Fowler, Wyche. 1989b. Comment during the Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Regulation, Business Opportunities, and Energy of the Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, First Session on U.S. Wood Products Competitiveness: Timber, Taxes and Trade. July 8, Portland, OR. 233

Fox, Stephen, 1981. The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.

Frampton, George. 1 989a. Testimony before the Joint Hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives, Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and the Agriculture Subcommittee on Forests, Family farms, and Energy. June 20. Copy provided by The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

Frampton, George. 1 989b. Letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives, July 28. President, The Wilderness Society. Copy provided by The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

Francis, Mike. 1 989a Speakers push for delay in listing owl 'threatened'. The Oregonian. August 18, p. B4.

Francis, Mike. 1 989b. The owls are coming! the owls are coming! Californians cry. Iti Oreaonian. August 25. p. E5.

Franklin, Jerry F. 1 989a. Natural diversity in temperate forests: Lessons for our future landscapes. Presentation at Biodiversity Seminar, February 15, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Franklin, Jerry. 1989b. Toward a new forestry. American Forests. 95(11/12):37-41.

Franklin, Jerry F. 1 989c. An ecologist's perspective on northwestern forests In 2010. Forest Watch. 10(2):6-9.

Franklin, Jerry F.; Cormack, Kermit; Denison, William; Mckee, Arthur; Maser, Chris; Sedell, James; Swanson, Fred and Juday, Glen[n]. 1981. Ecological Characteristics of Old-growth Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-1 18. PacIfic Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR.

Franklin, Jerry F. and Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oreaon and Washington. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Franklin, Jerry F. and Forman, Richard T.T. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: Ecological consequences and principals. Landscape Ecoloav. 1 (1):5-18.

Franklin, Jerry F. and Spies, Thomas A. 1984. Characteristics of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. In: New Forests for a Changing World. Proceedings of the 1983 SAF National Convention. Portland. Oreaon. October 16-20.pp. 328-334. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.

Franklin, Jerry F. and Spies, Thomas A. 1989. Ecological Definitions of Old-growth Douglas-fir Forests. Final draft for: Old-Growth Douglas-fir Forests: Wildlife Communities and Habitat Relationships. symposium, March 29-31, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Franklin, Jerry F. and Spies, Thomas A. 1991. Composition, function, and structure of old- growth Douglas-fir forests. In: Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaaed Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR. 234

Franklin, Jerry F. and Waring, Richard H. 1980. "Distinctive features of the Northwest coniferous forest: Development, structure, and function. In: Waring, R.H., ad. Forest:Fresh Perspectives from Ecosystem Analysis. Proceedings 40th Annual Biological Colloquium 1979, pp.59-86. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Freeman, J. Leiper. 1955. The Political Process: Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee Relations. Random House, New York.

Friemark, Bob. 1989. Comment at the Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance meeting, January 14-15, Eugene, OR.

Frome, Michael. 1962. Whose Woods These Are: The Story of the National Forests. Doubleday & Company, New York.

Frome, Michael 1984. The Forest Service. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.

Frye, Helen. 1988. Civil No. 87-1 160-FR OPINION (Portland Audubon Society et al.,v. Hodel). April 20. On file at the Gus J. Solomon U.S. Courthouse, Portland, OR.

Frye, Helen. 1989. Portland Audubon Society et al. v. Lujan, United States District Court, District of Oregon. May 18, 1989. Federal SuDclement. 712:1456-1489. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN.

Frye, Helen. 1992. Portland Audubon Society et al. v. Lujan, United states District Court, District of Oregon. June 8, 1992. Federal Supplement. 795:1489-1511. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN.

Gannett, Henry. 1902. The Forests of Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper No. 4.

Gares, Paul A. 1989. Geographers and policy-making: lessons learned from the failure of the New Jersey Dune management plan. The Professional Geographer. 41(1) :20-29.

Gashwiler, J.S. 1970. Plant and mammal changes on a clearcut in west-central Oregon. Ecoloay. 51 (6):101 8-1 026.

Gedney, Donald R. 1982. The Timber Resources of Western Oregon- Hiahlights and Statistics. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest And Range Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin PNW-97. Portland, OR.

Glick, Gayle. 1987. Personal communication, Siuslaw Task Force. Corvallis, OR.

Goetze, Janet. 1989. Goldschmidt calls for careful planning of forestuses. The Oreaonian. April 28, p. A20.

Goetze, Janet and Hayakawa, Alan. 1989. Environmentalists plan strategy for summit.The Oregonian. May 11, p. C5.

Goodwin, Alfred. 1989a. Portland Audubon Society et al.v. Lujan. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, January 24, 1989. Federal Reporter 2nd Series. 866:302-310. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN. 235

Goodwin, Alfred. 1989b. Portland Audubon Society et al. v. Lujan. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CIrcuit, September 6, 1989. Federal Reporter 2nd Series. 884:1233-1242. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN.

Gossans, Rebecca. 1993. Personal communication. Nongame DMsion, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Graber, Linda H. 1976. Wilderness As Sacred Space. The Association of American Geographers, Washington, D.C.

Gramann, James H. and Burdge, Rabel J. 1984. Crowding perception determinants at intensively developed outdoor recreation sites. Leisure Sciences. 6(2): 167-186.

Grant, C.l. Jr. 1985. Opinion in appeal of Lane County Audubon Society et al. U.S. Department of the Interior Board of Land Appeals, February 26. Mington, VA.

Graves, Henry. 1910. Reoort of the Forester for 1910. U.S. Forest Service.

Greeley, William B. 1917. Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry. USDA Report No. 14.

Greeley, William B. 1951. Forest and Men. Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, NY.

Greeley, W.B.; Clapp, Earle H.; Smith, Herbert A.; Zon, Raphael; Sparhawk, W.N.; Shepard, Ward and Kittredge, J. 1922. mmber: Mine or crop. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1922. U.S.D.A. Yearbook 1922.pp. 83-180.

Green World. 1986a. Letter to Frank Dunkle [Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] requesting that the northern spotted owl be listed as an endangered species, October 1. Letter on file with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Green World. 1 986b. Petition to Frank Dunkle [Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service], requesting the northern spotted owl be listed as an endangered species, November 28. In: U.S. General Accounting Office. 1989. Endangered SDecies: SDotted Owl Petition Evaluation Beset by Problems. Washington, D.C.

Greene, Linda W. 1984. Historic Resource Study: Crater Lake National Park. Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, CO.

Grier, Charles C. and Logan, Robert S. 1977. Old-growth Pseudotsuga menziesll communities of a western Oregon watershed: Biomass distnbutlon and production budgets. Ecoloaical Monograohs. 47:373-400.

Gutierrez, R.J. 1985. InformatIon and Research needs for spotted owl management. In: Gutierrez, Ralph J. and Carey, Andrew B. (eds.). 1985. Ecology and Management of the SDotted Owl In the Pacific Northwest.pp. 115-118. General Technical Report PNW- 185. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Gutierrez, Rocky. 1987. In: Threat to the spotted owl. Scientific American. 257(4)34-35. 236

Gutierrez, Ralph J. and Carey, Andrew B. (eds.). 1985. Ecology and Management of the Sootted Owl In the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report PNW-185. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Hackworth, Kevin and Greber, Brain. 1988. Timber derived revenues: Importance to local governments In Oregon. In: Lettman, Gary J. (ed). 1988. Assessment of Oregon's Forests. pp. 205-225. Oregon State Department of Forestry, Salem, OR.

Hall, John F. and Wasserstrom, Richard S. 1978. The National Forest Management Act of1976: Out of the courts and back to the forests. Environmental Law. 8(2):523-538.

Harlow, William M. and Harrar, Eliwooci S. 1968. Textbook of Dendrologv. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Harmon, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; and Swanson, F.J. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris In temperate ecosystems. Advances In Ecological Research. 15:133-302.

Harmon, Mark E.; Ferrell, William K and Franklin, Jerry F. 1990. Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science. 247:699-702.

Harris, Larry D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Harris, Larry D.; Maser, Chris and Mckee, Arthur. 1982. Patterns of old-growth harvestand implications for Cascades wildlife. Proceedings of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Harris, Larry D. and Chris Maser. 1984. AnImal community characteristics. In: Harris, Larry D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest.pp. 44-68. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Harris, Tiff. 1979. Public Perceotions of Federal Land Use Decision-Makina in Oregon: Results of a Survey. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Hatheld, Mark 0. 1984. Comment in interviewon KOIN television, March 23. Portland OR.

Hatfield, Mark 0. 1988. Address to the 16th Annual Oregon Natural Resources Conference. August 25-27, Menucha Conference Center, Corbett, OR.

Hatfield, Mark 0. 1989. Statement before the Joint oversight hearing on the National Forest Planning Process as Provided in the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and the Senate Committeeon Energy and Natural Resources, October 25, 1989.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989a. Gap widens in battleover endangered species. March 5, p. C2.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989b. Hatfield says spotted owl talks goingon. The Oregonian. April 11, p. Bi.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989c. Summit meetingon owl, timber industry set for June. fl Oregonian. May 5, p. E9.

Hayakawa, Alan A. 1989d. Plan requested tosave both owl, timber industry. The Oregonian. May 12, p. D7. 237

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1 989e. NW congressional delegation seeks short-term answer to owl controversy The Oreaonian. May 17, p. Cl.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989(. "Spotted owl summit" won't include public. The Oregonian. June 14, p. D5.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989g. Divisions threaten proposal on timber. The Oregonian. June 27,p. Al.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989h. House Oks money to fund research of owls, old forests. The Oregonian. July 13, p. D5.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 19891. Timber supply talks continue. The OregonIan. July 19,p. Al. Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989J. Progress on timber crisis reported after talks In capital.fl Oregonian. July 20, p. C5.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989k. Spotted owl guidelines gridlocked. The Oreaonlan. July 22,p. Bi.

Hayakawa, Alan A. 19891. Logging plan OK'd by panel. The Oreoonian. July 26,p. Al ,A1 2.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989m. Senate approves old-growth proposal. The Oregonian. July 27,p. Al.

Hayakawa, Alan R.l989n. Senate vote to trim funds for forest road construction may upset NW timberplan. The Oregonian. July 28, p. B6.

Hayakawa, Alan R.1 989o. Administration absent In spotted-owl debate. The Oregonian. July 31, p. B5.

Hayakawa, Alan R.l989p. Packwood proposes limiting appeals of timber sales. ]] Oreaonlan.August 1, p. B4.

Hayakawa, Alan R.1 989q. Both sides gather for fight over owl. The Oregonian. September 11, p. Bi.

Hayakawa, Alan A.1989r. Loggers voice timber sale plea in rally at Capitol. The Oregonian. September12, p. C4.

Hayakawa, Alan A.l989s. AuCoin rebukes Wderness Society over timber plan. The Oreaonlan.September 13, p. B8.

Hayakawa, Alan R.1 989t. Deadlock continues over timber supplies. The Oregonian. September 23, p. BlO.

Hayakawa, Alan R.1 989u. AuCoin, Dicks try to resolve timber deadlock. The Oreaonian. September26, p. B4.

Hayakawa, Alan R.1989v. Timber showdown may be unavoidable. The Oreconian. September 27, p. B4.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1989w. Timber talks moving after almost stalling. The Oregonian. September 28, p. E4. 238

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1 989x. Timber plan gets panel's OK The OregonIan. September 30,p. Al.

Hayakawa, Alan R. 1 989y. Behind scenes drama leads to timber settlement. The Sunday Oregonian. October 8, p. A28.

Hayakawa, Alan and Ames, Sarah B. 1989. Summit called on old growth. The Oregonian. April p. Al.

Hayakawa, Alan R. and Durbln, Kathie. 1 989a. Wildlife Service lists owl 'threatened'. The Oregonian. April 25, p. Bi.

Hayakawa, Alan and Durbin, Kathie. 1 989b. Talks sought on owl impact. The Oregonian. April p. Al.

Hayakawa, Alan A. and Durbin, Kathie. 1989c. Senators unveil timber deal. The Oreaonian. July 25, p. Al.

Hayakawa, Alan R. and Kobersteln. 1 989a. Proposal offers protection, stability. TheSunday Oregonian. June 25, p. Al.

Hayakawa, Alan R. and Koberstein, Paul. 1 989b. Old-growth deal in limbo. The Oregonian. June 28, p. Al.

Hayes, Philip. 1989. Personal communication. Sierra Club, Mary's Peak Group. Corvallis OR.

Haynes, Richard W. 1986. Inventory and Value of Old-Growth in the Douglas-Fir Region. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Research Note PNW-437.

Hays, Samuel P. 1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement. 1890-1920. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hayward, Dennis. 1981. What You Always Needed to Know About the Northern SDotted Owl but Didn't Know to Ask. North West Timber Association, Eugene, OR.

Hayward, Dennis R. 1 988a. Testimony on behalf of the Northwest Forest Resource Council before the Subcommittee on Forest, Family Farms and Energy of the House Committee on Agriculture, April 13. Washington, D.C.

Hayward, Dennis. 1988b. Personal communication, June 20. Executive Director, North West Timber Association, Eugene, OR.

Hayward, Dennis. 1989a. Personal communication, April 21. Executive Director, North West Timber Association, Eugene, OR.

Hayward, Dennis R. 1 989b. Comments Before the Lane County Democratic Forum, May 16. Eugene, OR.

Hayward, Dennis A. 1 989c. Testimony before the International Finance Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee, November, 7. Washington, D.C.

Hayward, Dennis and Geisinger, Jim. 1986. Letter to Max Peterson, Chief, USDA Forest Service, February 14. On file North West Timber Association, Eugene, OR. 239

Heathcote, R.L 1969. Drought in Australia: a problem of perception. Geoaraohlcal Review. 59(2):1 75-194.

Hebeilein, Thomas A. and Dunwiddie, Peter. 1979. Systematic observation of use levels, campsite selection and visitor characteristics at a high mountain lake. Journal of Leisure Research. 11(4) :307-31 6.

Heclo, Hugh. 1978. Issue networks and the executive establishment. In: king, Anthony (ed.). 1978. The New American Political System. pp. 87-124. Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C.

Heinrichs, Jay. 1983. The winged snail darter. Journal of Forestry. 81(4) :212-216.

Hendee, John C.; Catton, William R. Jr.; Marlow, Larry D. and Brockman, Frank C. 1968. Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest-Their Characteristics. Values. and Management Preferences. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-61.

Hendee, John C. and Harris, Robert W. 1970. Foresters' perception of wilderness user attitudes and preferences. Journal of Forestry. 68:759-62.

Hennessy, Bernard C. 1985. Public Opinion. Brooks-Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA.

Hermach, George. 1990. Wild talk. Wild Oregon. 16(2):5.

Hermach, Tim. 1988. Comment made during the October meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club. Salem, OR.

Hermach, Tim. 1989a. Ancient Forest Alliance formed. Oregon Conifer. XIl[12](2):5.

Hermach, Tim. 198gb. Comments during the May 21 Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance meeting, Eugene, OR.

Hill, Robert L 1989. Hampton speaks for his industry. Oregon Business. October,p. 43.

Himman, John H. 1963. America's forests and the public interest. Proceedings Fifth American Forestry Congress. pp. 1-16. American Forestry Association, Washington, D.C.

Hinton, Diana. 1989. SpecIal ancient forest issue. Oregon Conifer. XII (2): 1.

Hinton, Joseph. 1985. On virgin forests. Oregon Conifer. 8(4) :8-9.

Hinton, Joseph. 1986. Spotted owl looms large in forest planning. Orsoon Conifer. 9(1):5,13.

Hinton, Joseph, 1988. Comment during the October meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club. Salem, OR.

Hirons, Tom. 1989. Personal communication. Organizer of Communities for a Greater Oregon. May 12, Mill City, Oregon.

Hoban, Thomas More and Brooks, Richard Oliver. 1987. Green Justice: The Environment and the Courts. Westview Press, Boulder. 240

Hollender, John W. 1977. Motivational dimensions of the camping experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 9(2):133-141.

Howard, James 0. and Ward, Franklin R. 1991. Oreoon's Forest Products Industry: 1988. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-183. Portland, OR.

Humberd, Barbara A. 1986. Letter to Regional [61 Forester, November 14. In: USDA, Forest Service. 1988. Final SuDolement to the Environmeptal Impact Statement for an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Reaional Guide. Volume 2. Aopendices. Sootted Owl Guidelines. p. G3-142. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Hunt, Frances A. 1986. We asked for it or did we?. American Forests. 92(10):19-21, 60-63.

Hunter, Maicom L 1989. What constitutes an old-growth stand?. Journal of Forestry. 87(8):33- 35.

Huth, Hans. 1957. Nature and the American: Three Centuries of Chanaing Attitudes. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ingram, Douglas C. 1931 Vegetative changes and grazing use of Douglas-fir cutover land. Journal of Aariculture Research. 43: 387-417.

Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Sootted Owl. USDA Forest Service; USD1 Bureau of Land Management, Fish and WdIife Service, and National Park Service, Portland, OR.

International Woodworker. 1978. Log exports protested at Olympia House hearings. 43(5):1,3.

International Woodworker. 1 979a. Timber supply, labor's image topics at region 3 convention. 44(3):1 ,3.

International Woodworker. 1979b. January log exports up. 44(3):3.

Irwin, Larry; Self, Steven and Smith, Unwood. 1989. Status of Northern Sootted Owls on Managed Forestlands in Northern California. Timber Association of California, Sacramento, CA.

Isaac, Leo A. 1940. Vegetative succession following logging in the Douglas-fir region with special reference to fire. Journal of Forestry. 38(9)716-721.

Jackson, Richard H. 1974. Frost hazard to tree crops in the Wasatch Front: Perception and adjustments. In: White, Gilbert F. (ad.). 1974. Natural Hazards: Local. National. Global. pp. 146-151. Oxford University Press, New York.

Johnson, Ronald N. 1985. U.S. Forest Service Policy and its budget. In: Deacon, Robert T. and Johnson, M. Bruce (ads.) 1985. Forestlands: Public and Private.pp. 103-133. Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco.

Jones, Holway R. 1968. French Pete- Why we must save it. Northwest Conifer. 14(2):7-9. 241

Jontz, Jim et al. 1989. Letter to Sidney R. Yates, Chairman of the House Subcommitteeon Interior and Related Agencies, September 11. Washington, D.C.

Juday, Glenn Patrick. 1978. Old growth forests: A necessary element of multipleuse and sustained yield national forest management. Environmental Law. 8(2):497-521.

Kadera, Jim. 1980. Fights over old growth timber increase as value rises. The Sunday Oregonian. November 16. p. El.

Kadera, Jim. 1 988a. Financier cashes In with vast sales of NW timber. The Oregonian. April18, p. D13.

Kadera, Jim. 1988b. BLM blames spotted owl ruling for cuts in timber sales volume. The Oregonian. November 30, p. C7.

Kadera, Jim. 1989a. Governor asks end to timber sales ban. The OregonIan. January 13,p. E 10.

Kadera, Jim. 1 989b. Court opens timber sales in owl areas. The Oregonian. January 25,p. Fl.

Kahn, Gary. 1988. Presentation to the 16th Annual Oregon Natural Resources Conference. August 25-27. Menucha Conference Center, Corbett, OR.

Kasperson, Roger E. 1 969a. Environmental stress and the municipal political system. in: Kasperson, Roger E. and MinghI, Julian V. (eds.), The Structure of Political Geography. pp. 481-96. Aldine, Chicago.

Kasperson, Roger E. 1969b. Political behavior and the decision-making process in the allocation of water resource between recreational and municipal uses. Natural Resources Journal. 9:176-211.

Kasperson, Roger E. and Minghi, Julian V. 1969. Environment: introduction. in: Kasperson, R.E. and Minghi, J.V. (eds.). The Structure of Political GeOgraDhv.pp. 423-435. Aldine, Chicago.

Kates, Robert. W. 1962. Hazard and Choice Perception In Flood Plain Manaaement, Research Paper No. 78, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Keller, Bill. 1978. Logging-off of old-growth firs eyed. The Oregonian. April 23,p Al.

Kerr, Andy. 1982. Crabtree: A decade's effort nears completion. Wild Oreaon. 9(7-8):16-17.

Kerr, Andy. 1988. Presentation at the 16th Annual Oregon Natural Resources Conference, August 25-27. Menucha Conference Center, Corbett, OR.

Kerr, Andy. 1 989a. Comments at the 17th Annual Oregon Natural Resources Conference,July 23-25. Camp Cascade, Mehama, OR.

Kerr, Andy. 1 989b. Comment to participants at Incentives for Better Forest Management: The National Conference on Forest Service Reform, August 25-27. Camp Cascade, Mehama, Oregon.

Kerr, Andy. 1990a. The gentleman from Georgia. Wild Oregon. 16(1):31. 242

Kerr, Andy. 1 990b. SurvMng (and even prospering from) the rlder from heir. WOd Oregon. 16(1):37.

Kerr, Andy. 1 990c. Andy Kerr's response to Wild Talk. Wild Oregon. 16(2): 11.

Kerrick, Michael. 1989. Statement at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field hearing on the proposed listing of the Northern Spotted Owl as a threatened species, Forest Supervisor, Willamette National Forest. August 28, Eugene, OR.

King, Jonathan F. 1989. Yogurt-eaters for wilderness. Sierra. 74(1 ):22-23.

Kirkland, Burt P. 1 946a. Forest Resources of the Douglas fir Region. Joint Committee on Forest Conservation, West Coast Lumberman's Association and Pacific Northwest Loggers Association, Portland, OR.

Kirkland, Burt P. 1946b. Let's grow big timber too!. American Forests. 52(2):68-70,91-92.

Klass, Tim. 1989. Court halts plan to sell timber. The Oregonian. Friday, March 24,p. El.

Koberstein, Paul. 1 989a. Ex-official says BLM opposed protection of spotted owls. 3] Oregonian. February 22, p. D5.

Koberstein, Paul. 1 989b. Logging ban extension requested. The Oregonian. February 25,p. Al.

Koberstein, Paul. 1989c. Judge refuses to bar logging. The Oregonian. March 16,p. Al.

Koberstein, Paul. 1 989d. Oregon mifi plans 80 layoffs If timber deal fails. The OregonIan. June 28, p. B4.

Koberstein, Paul. 1989e. Old-growth compromise remains possible, given time. The Oregonian. July 1, p. 83.

Koberstein, Paul and Hayakawa, Alan A. 1989. Spotted owl study flawed, GAO. charges. The Oregonian. Feb. 22, p. Al.

Kraft, Michael E. 1984. A new environmental policy agenda: The 1980 presidential campaign and its aftermath. In: Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E. (eds.). 1984. Environmental Policy in the 1980$: Reaaan's New Agenda. CO Press, Washington, D.C.

Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential Natural Vecetation of the Conterminous United States. American Geographical Society Special Publication Number 36. American Geographical Society, New York.

Laatz, Joan. 1989. Federal ludge declares timber deal constitutional. The Oregonian. December 12, p. 81.

LaFollette, Cameron. 1978. Old growth. Wild Oregon. 5(6):3.

LaGate, Lawson. 1987. Timber industry mounts all-out offensiveon forest planning. Oreoon Conifer. l0(2):4-6.

Lane, Thomas. 1986. Attached to letter to Dennis Hayward, North West Timber Association, June 12. State of Oregon Department of Forestry, General Fe #7-0-3-200, 3/25/86. 243

LaP lere, Richard T. 1934. Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces. 13:230-7.

Latham, Earl. 1952. The GrouD Basis of Politics: A Study in Baslng-oolnt Leolsiatlon. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Leavell, William G. 1984. Letter to reader. In: Timber Management for the 1980s.p. 1, USD1 Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. Portland, OR.

Lee, Philip L 1985. History and current status of spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) habitat management in the Pacific Northwest Region, USDA, Forest Service. In: Gutierrez, Ralph J. and Carey, Andrew B. (eds.). Ecolociv and Management of the Sootted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. pp. 5-9. General Technical Report PNW-185. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Lee, Robert G. 1977. Alone with Others: The paradox of privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 1 (1):3-19.

Leuschner, William A.; Ritchie, Viola P. and Stauffer, Dean F. 1989. Opinions on wildlife: responses of resource managers and wildlife users in the southeastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17:24-29.

Levine, Jonathan B. 1989. 'The spotted owl could wipe us out'. Businessweek. September 18, p. 94,99.

Levine, Jonathan B. and Parks, Michael J. 1989. Sawmills are starting to drop like trees. Business Week. February 6, p. 42.

Levine, Ralph L and Langenau, Edward E., Jr. 1979. Attitudes toward clearcutting and their relationships to the patterning and diversity of forest recreation activities. Forest Science. 25(2):31 7-327.

Levinson, Charlotte. 1990. Are we too dependent on environmental experts?. Wild Oregon. 16(4):5.

Lieberman, Carol. 1989. Chair's report. Oreaon Conifer. XlI(1):2-3.

Undblom, Charles E. 1959. The science of muddling throughu. Public Administration Review. 19:79-88.

Litton, R. Burton, Jr. 1972. Aesthetic Dimensions of the Landscape. In: Krutilla, John. V. (ed). Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. pp. 262-291. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Utton, R. Burton, Jr. 1974. Visual Vulnerability of Forest Landscapes. Journal of Forestry. 72:392-7.

Uverman, Marc. 1989. Averting extinction not a radical goal. The Business Journal. 6(15):7.

Lonsdale, Harry. 1989. Ancient forests: What do we want?. Wild Oreaon 15(3) :5.

Loveland, Pat. 1989. Personal communication. President, Santiam Wilderness Committee. Corvallis, OR. 244

Lowenthal, DavId. 1968. The American scene. Geograohlcal Review. 58:61-88.

Lowenthal, David and Prince, Hugh C. 1964. The English Landscape. Geographical Review. 54(3) :309-346.

Lowenthal, David and Prince, Hugh C. 1965. English Landscape Tastes. Geographical Review. 55(2):186-222.

Lowery, Roger C.; Hepburn, Marcus; Dixon, Richard D. and Sabella, James. 1983. Perceptions of resource regulation: A comparison of North Carolina fishermen and managers. Coastal Zone Manaaement Journal. 10(4) :387-405.

Lowi, Theodore. 1964. American business, public policies, case studies and political theory. World Politics. 16:677-715.

Lucas, Robert C. 1964. Wilderness perception and Use: The Example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Natural Resources Journal. 3:394-411.

Lunch, William. 1987. The Nationalization of American Politics. University of California Press, Berkeley.

MacCleery, Douglas W. 1985. Letter to Max Peterson, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, March 8. In: USDA Forest Service. 1988. Final SuoDlement to the Environmental impact Statement for an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide- Volume 2. Appendices: Spotted Owl Guidelines. Appendix E,pp. 1-13.

Maclver, lan. 1970. Urban Water Supply Alternatives: PerceDtion and Choice In the Grand Basin. Ontario. Research Paper No. 126, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

MacKenzie, Bill. 1989. Forest crisis dominates meeting. The Oregonian. April 29, p. D2.

MaIm, Lucia. 1979. Federal Land Use Policy: Perceotions of SDeclal Interest Group Leaders in Oregon. Rangeland Resources Program and the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Mannan, R. William; Meslow, E. Charles and Wright, Howard M. 1980. Use ofsnags by birds in Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(4):787-797.

Manzano, Phil. 1989. Court denies appeal to halt logging. The Oregonian. March 31, p. Cl.

Mapes, Jeff. 1988. State supporters try to keep Dukakis out of political woods. The Oregonian. September 14, p. Cl.

Mapes, Jeff. 1989. Spotted owls population focus of public hearing. The Oregonian. August 15, p. Al.

Marsden, Steve. 1989. Economics buffeted Wilderness Act. The Oregonian November 2,p. B9.

Martins, Cheryl. 1989. Log trucks set to roll at rallies. The Oregonian. June 2,p. El.

Maser, Chris. 1988. The Redesigned Forest. R. & E. Miles, San Pedro, CA. 245

McBride, Robert H. 1972. Mexico, Protection of migratory birds: Agreement supplementing the agreement of February 7, 1936. In: United States Treaties and Other International Agreements. 1972. 32(1):260-261. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McClelland, B. Riley.; Frissell, Sidney S.; Fischer, William C. and Halvorson, Curtis H. 1979. Habitat management for hole-nesting birds in forests of western larch and Douglas-fir. Journal of Forestry. 77(8):480-483.

McPhee, John. 1971. Encounters with the Archdruid. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.

Meslow, E. Charles. 1978. The relationship of birds to habitat structure-plant communities and successional stages. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Nongame Bird Habitat Management in the Coniferous Forests of the Western United State. pp. 12-18. General Technical Report PNW-64. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Meslow, E. Charles. 1986. CIted in: USDA Forest Service 1988. Final Suoplement to the Environmental Impact Statement for an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide-Volume 1: Spotted Owl Guidelines. p. 111-17. PacIfic Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Mickey, Ross; West, Chris; Saperstein, Ralph; Tribble, Bob and McCauley, Jim. 1989. SDotted Owls. Old Growth and the Economy of the Northwest. Northwest Forest Resource Council, Portland, OR.

Mikesell, Raymond F. 1988. Logging on public lands: Social benefits vs. social costs. Oregon Conifer. XI(2):11.

Milbrath, Lester W. 1984. Environmentalists: Vangiard for a New Society. State University of New York Press, Aibany, NY.

Miller, Mike. 1986. Old growth will it really be gone one day. Tomorrow's Forest. Fall. Oregon Forest Industries Council.

Mitchell, Bruce. 1979. Geociraohy and Resource Analysis. Longman, New York.

Moeller, George H.; MacLachian, Robert and Morrison, Douglas A. 1974. Measuring Perception of Elements in Outdoor Environments. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-289, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA.

Monteith, James. 1 978a. Wilderness comes home to Oregon. Wild Oregon. 5(1/2/3) :5-6.

Monteith, James. 197th. Flnally...The Oregon alternative. Wild Oreaon. 5(8/9)5-8.

Monteith, James. 1 982a. Personal reflections on old growth conference. Wild Oregon. 9(3/4) :24.

Monteith, James. 1982b. Wild talk. Wild Oreaon. 9(11 /12):2.

Monteith, James. 1986. Old growth forests: Where goes the old growth, so goes Oregon. Wild Oregon. 13(1):17.

Monteith, James. 1987. From the Editor. Wild Oregon. 14(2):2. 246

Monteith, James. 1988. From the publisher. Wild Oregon. 15(2):2.

Monteith, James. 1 989a. Presentation at the 17th Annual Oregon Natural Resources Conference. July 23-24. Camp Cascade, Mehama, OR.

Monteith, James. 1 989b. From the publisher. Wild Oreaon. 15(3) :2.

Monteith, James. 1989c. From the publisher. Wild Oregon. 15(4):2.

Moore, Bob. 1989. Timber Issues have the public split. The Business Journal. 6(12):7.

Moms, William G. 1958. Influence of slash burning on regeneration, other plant cover, and fire hazard in the Douglas-fir region. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station Research Paper 29. Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Morrison, Peter H. 1988. Old Growth In the Pacific Northwest: A Status ReDort. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

Munger, Thornton T. 1930. Ecological aspects of the transition from old forests to new. Science. 72(1 866) :327-332.

Munger, Thornton T. 1940. The cycle from Douglas fir to hemlock. Ecoloav. 21(4):451-459.

Myshak, Richard. 1982. Cover letter. In: The Northern Sootted Owl: A Status Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Portland, OR.

Nash, Rodenck. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd. ed. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Nash, Roderick Frazier. 1989. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.

National Forest Products Association and American Forest CouncU 1988. Old Growth- A Protected Legacy for Future Generations. National Forest Products Association and American Forest Council, Washington, D.C.

National Wildlife Federation, Oregon Wildlife Federation, Lane County Audubon Society, and Oregon Natural Resources Council. 1984. Appeal of Region VI Regional Guide and EIS. October 18. In: USDA Forest Service. 1988. Final SuDDlement to the Environmental Impact Statement for an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide-Volume 2. ApDendices-SDotted Owl Guidelines. Appendix E.

Nelson, Robert H. The public lands. 1982. In: Portney, Paul R. (ed.). 1982. Current Issues in Natural Resource Policy. pp. 14-73. Resources for the Future, Inc. Washington, D.C.

Nelson, Robert H. 1985. "Mythology Instead of Analysis: The Story of Public Forest Management". In: Deacon, Robert T. and Johnson, M. Bruce (eds.) 1985. Forestlands: Public and Private. pp.23-76. Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco.

Neuberger, Carl. 1989. Wise use conference maps goals to restore public lands to public. CounterDoint. 5(4):1 4-5. 247

News from Bob Packwood. 1989. Summary of the Land Management Review Act of 1989.

Newton, Michael and Cole, Elizabeth C. 1987. A sustained-yield scheme for old-growth Douglas-fir. Western Jour .1 of Applied Forestry. 2(1 ):22-25.

Nielsen, Chris and Lochner, Rich. 1989. Environmentalists, loggers natural allies. I Oregonian. July 27, p. E7.

Norse, Elliott. 1989. Presentation at the Biodiversity Seminar serIes, February 25, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Norse, Elliott A.; Rosenbaum, Kenneth L; Wilcove, David; Wilcox, Bruce; Romme, William H.; Johnston, David W. and Syout, Martha L 1986. ConservIng Biological Diversity in Our National Forest. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

Northern Spotted Owl at al. vs. Hodel. 1988. C88-573. on file In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

Northwest Conifer. 1966. Oregon Cascades in limelight 11 (4):3-5.

Northwest Conifer. 1968a. French Pete Creek. 14(1):12.

Northwest Conifer. 1 968b. Increase in allowable cut. 14(2) :5.

Northwest Conifer. 1 978a. Timber industry poll shows public likes wilderness. 24(1): 1.

Northwest Conifer. 1 978b. Flash! 24(1): 1.

Northwest Forest Resource Council. 1986. Forestry: The Pacific Northwest's Green Future. Northwest Forest Resource Council, Portland, OR.

Northwest Forest Resource Council. 1987. Forestry: The Pacific Northwest'sGreen Future. Northwest Forest Resource Council, Portland, OR.

Northwest Forest Resource Council. 1988. National forest planning: A potential economic disaster for the Pacific Northwest. Timber!. 2(3) :2-3.

Northwest Forest Resource Council. 1989a. I'm Mad as #&$! and I'm not Going to Take it Any More: A Resource Book for Peoole Affected by Log Shortages. Northwest Forest Resource Council, Oregon edition, June, Portland, OR.

Northwest Forest Resource Council. 1 989b. Resoonse to the Oreaon Delegation Questions. National Forest and Public Land Manaaement Meeting. June 24. 1989. Northwest Forest Resource Council, Portland, OR.

Northwest Forest Resource Council. 1 989c. America's Forests- America's Future: Recommending SUDDOrt for the Hatfield/Adams Amendment HR 2788. Section 318. Northwest Forest Resource Council, Portland, OR.

Northwest Forest Resource Council et al. vs. Robertson. 1989. CV-89-1 36FR.on file in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland, OR. 248

Northwest Forestry Association. 1989. Review of the Wilderness Society's Old Growth Status Reoort by the Northwest Forestry Association. February, Portland, OR.

NWTA Bulletin. 1968. February 26. North West Timber Association

NWTA Bulletifl. 1969. March 13. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1973. August 13. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1976a. May 28. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1 976b. August 23. North West Timber Association.

NWA Bulletin. 1978a. January 24. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1978b. May 24. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1979. July 13. North West Timber Association

NWA Bulletin. 1981. May 16. North West Timber Association

NWTA Bulletin. 1985. June 11. North West Timber Association

NWTA Bulletin. 1 986a. June 11. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1986b. July 25. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1987. November 10. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1988a. April 7. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1988b. June 7. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1988c. December 12. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1989a. April 12. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1989b. July 10. North West Timber Association.

NWTA Bulletin. 1989c. September 15. North West Timber Association.

NWTA BulletIn. 1 989d. December 21. North West Timber Association.

North West Timber AssociatIon. 1972. Hatfield-Industry Breakfast Meeting, March 23.

North West Timber Association. 1988. Northwest Forest Products Industry Organizational Diagram. Eugene, OR.

North West Timber Association. 1989a. Fact Sheet.

North West Timber Association. 1 989b. Timber Summit- No Closer Than Before. July 7, 3 pp. 249

Old-growth Definition Task Group. 1986. Interim Definitions for Old-orowth Doualas-fir and Mixed-conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. Research Note PNW-447. USDA, Forest Service Research Note PNW-447. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR.

Oliveira, Ron. 1988. Personal and corporate income tax revenue of Oregon forest-related industries. In: Lettman, Gary J. (ad.). 1988. Assessment of Oregon's Forests. pp. 227-230. Oregon State Department of Forestry, Salem, OR.

Olson, Jeff. 1989. Presentation to the Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance meeting, January 15, Eugene, OR.

Olson, Jeffrey 1. and Hoppe, Richard M. 1989. Ancient forest protection and the Pacific Northwest timber industry. Wild Oregon. 15(3) :24-26.

Oregon Ancient Forest News. 1 989a. Timber summIt. 1(1): 1-2.

Oregon Ancient Forest News. 1 989b. Post summit happenings. 1(1) :2.

Oreaon Ancient Forest News. 1 989c. Summer developments. 1(2): 1.

Oregon Ancient Forest News. 1 989d. Conservationists rally. 1(2): 1.

Oregon Ancient Forest News. 1989e. Jontz and Vento. 1(2):1-2.

Oregon Ancient Forest News. 1 989f. Eleventh-hour compromise. 1(2) :2.

Oregon Ancient Forest News. 1989g. Mixed reviews. 1(2) :4,7.

Oregon Ancient Forest News. 1 989h. Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance organizational structure. 1 (2):6.

Oregon Natural Resources CouncL 1989a. Press release, May 10. Eugene, OR.

Oregon Natural Resources Council. 1 989b. Draft White PaDer: Realistic Solutions for Log SUDpIY Problems in the Pacific Northwest. June 16, Portland, OR.

Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service. 1987. Environment Reporter- Cases. 1987. 25:2027-2035. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Oregon Office of the Secretary of State. 1990. Oregon Blue Book. Secretary of State, Salem, OR.

Oregon State Department of Forestry. 1989. Oregon's Forest Industry and Timber Supply. Oregon State Department of Forestry, Public Affairs Office, Salem, OR.

Oregon State University, College of Forestry. 1992. records on file. Corvallis, OR.

O'Riordan, Timothy. 1971. Public opinion and environmental quality: A reappraisal. Environment and Behavior. 3(2):191-214.

O'Riordan, Timothy. 1976. Environmentalism. Pion, London. 250

Osgood, Charles E.; Suci, George J. and Tannenbaum, Percy H. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL

O'Toole, David. 1989. Editor's note. Wild Oregon. 15(4):6.

O'Toole, Randal. 1988a. Reforming the Forest Service. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

O'Toole, Randal. 1 988b. Presentation at the 16th Annual Oregon Natural Resources Conference, August 25-27. Menucha Conference Center, Corbett, OR.

Painter, John Jr. 1 989a. Ruling expected on Breitenbush old-growth logging. The Oregonian. March 29, p. Cl.

Painter, John Jr. 1 989b. Ruling extends logging site ban. The Oregonian. March 30,p. Al.

Painter, John Jr. 1 989c. Judge rules Breitenbush logging can proceed. The Oregonian. March 30, p. B4.

Painter, John Jr. 1989d. Loggers rally next to Capitol. The Sunday Oregonian. June 25,p. A18.

Painter, John Jr. 1 989e. Federal litigation over spotted owl In Oregon to roost a while. The Oregonian. December 22, p. C8.

Parry, Thomas; Vaux, Henery J. and Dennis, Nicholas. 1983. Changing conceptions of sustained-yield policy on the national forests. Journal of Forestry. 81(3): 150-154.

Perelman, R. 1980. Contributions to reflections on rural landscapes. Landscape Planning. 7:223-228.

Pinchot, Gifford. 1908. Report of the Forester for 1908. U.S. Forest Service.

Pinchot, Gifford. 1947. Breaking New Ground. Island Press, Washington, D.C..

Plumb Une l987a. September 25. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line. 1 987b. December 31. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line. 1988a. January 5. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line. 1988b. January 15. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line. 1988c. August 5. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line. 1988d. September 2. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line 1989a. April 28. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line. 1989b. May 5. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line. 1989c. May 12. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Line. 1 989d. May 19. Western Wood Products Association. 251

Plumb Une. 1989e. July 28. Western Wood Products Association.

Plumb Une. 1989f. September 15. Western Wood Products Association.

Popovich, Luke. 1982. Oregon and the state of forestry: A conversation with Senator Hatfield. Journal of Forestry. 80(11 ):731 -734.

Portland Audubon Society et aJ., vs. Hodel. 1987. October 19, CV-87-0001160. on file at the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland, OR.

Portland Free Press. 1989. Grassroots movement to exploit federal wilderness organized by Moonie front, timber industry. November 16, 1(6): 1.

Postovit, Howard R. 1977. A Survey of the Sootted Owl in Northwest Washington. National Forest Products Association, Washington, DC. As cited by: Beckstead, Maureen A. 1985. OlympIc National Forest spotted owl habitat management: Translating evolving management guidelines Into action. In: Gutierrez, Ralph J. and Carey, Andrew B. (eds.). 1985. Ecology and Manaaement of the Sootted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. pp. 14-20. General Technical Report PNW-1 85. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Potter, John. 1980. Forest Service moves to destroy Middle Santlam. Wild Oregon. 7(1 -2):12-1 3.

Powers, Lou. 1989. Personal communication, League of Women Voters. Eugene, OR.

Raines, Charles. 1989. Testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms and Energy of the Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, June 20. Washington, D.C.

Rakestraw, Lawrence. 1955. A History of Forest Conservation in the Pacific Northwest 1891-1913. PhD Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Random Lengths. 1984. July 13.

Random Lengths. 1989a. April 28.

Random Lengths. 1989b. May 19.

Random Lengths. 1989c. June 2.

Random Lenaths. 1989d. July 7.

Random Lengths. 1989e. July 21.

Random Lengths. 1 989f. July 28.

Random Lengths. 1989g. September 1.

Readers' Guide to Periodical LIterature. 1970-1989. The H.W. Wilson Company, New York. 252

Reeder, Marie. 1988. Battling for the lady's honor. Wild Oregon. 15(2):28-29.

Redford, Emmette. 1969. Democracy and the Administrative State. Oxford University Press, New York.

Richards, Norman A. 1974. Forestry in an urbanizing society. Journal of Forestry. 72(8):458-461.

Richards, Becki. 1989. Personal communication, Western Wood Products Association, Portland, OR.

Robertson, F. Dale. 1988. Record of Decision on the Final Suoolement to the Environmental lmoact Statement for an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide: Spotted Owl Guidelines. December 8. Washington, D.C.

Robertson, F. Dale. 1989. Memorandum No. 2410, October 11. Old-growth management. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.

Robinson, Glen 0. 1975. The Forest Service: A Study in Public Land Management. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, for: Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Rogers, Patti A. 1988. Content Analysis Reoort: Public Responses Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Forest Plan. Willamette National Forest. Preliminary Draft. Wilamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W. and Deborah L Berrler. 1982. A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Communicative Strategies In Dispersing Wilderness Campers.

Rosenbaum, Walter A. 1985. Environmental Politics and Policy, first edition. CO Press, Washington, D.C.

Rosenbaum, Walter A. 1991. Environmental Politics and Policy, second edition. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.

Ruediger, William C. 1985. Implementing a spotted owl management plan: The Gifford Pinchot National Forest experience. In: Gutierrez, Ralph J. and Carey, Andrew B. (eds.). Ecology and Management of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. pp. 10-13. General Technical Report PNW-185. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Russell, Bob. 1989. Comments at the November 7 meeting of the Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance, Chair of the Many Rivers Group of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club. Eugene, OR.

Rust, Jerry. 1989. Statement to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hearing on the proposal to list the northern spotted owl as a threatened species, August 28, Eugene, OR.

Rutzick, Mark C. 1989. Letter to Barry S. Mulder, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, February 28. Portland, OR. 253

Ryals, Frank. 1988. Good times and contradictions. Oregon Labor Trends. November1988, pp. 1-3. State of Oregon, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources, Salem, OR. (Edited version appeared in the Oregon Conifer. 1989. Xll(2):1.)

Rydant, A. L 1979. Adjustments to natural hazards: Factors affecting the adoption ofcrop-hail Insurance. Professional Geoorapher. 31 (3):312-320.

Saannen, Thomas F. 1966. Perception of the Drouaht Hazardon the Great Plains. Research Paper No. 106, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Saannen, Thomas F. 1969. Perception of Environment. Resource Paper No.5, Commission on College Geography, Association of American Geographers, Washington, D.C.

Salwasser, Hal. 1989. Sootted Owl Viability: The Forest Service AdaDtive ManaaementStrategy. August 11. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Sample, V. Alaric. 1989. National forest policy-making andprogram planning: The role of the President's Office of Management and Budget Journal of Forestry. 84(1):17-25.

Sand bach, FrancIs. 1980. Environment. ldeoloav and Behavior. Allanheld, Osmun &C. Publishers, Inc., Montclair, NJ.

Sands, Joe. 1989. Personal communication, Media coordinator, The Oregon Project, Salem, OR.

Sauer, Cail. 1925. The morphology of landscape. University of CaliforniaPublications in Geograohy. 2(2): 19-54.

Sauer, Carl. 1947. Early relations of man to plants. Geographical Review. 37:1-25.

Sauer, Carl. 1956. The agency of man on the earth. In: Thomas, William L, Jr.(ed.). Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Scheffer, Victor B. 1989. Environmentalism: Its artides of faith. Northwest Environmental Journal. 5(1):100-109.

Schier, Jeff. 1986. Millennium Grove loggingcauses a public outcry. Wild Oregon. 13(2):10-1 1.

Schiff, Ashley L 1962. FIre and Water: Scientific Heresy In theForest Service. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Schlozman, Kay Lehman and Tierney, John T. 1986. OrganizedInterests and American Democracy. Harper & Row, Publishers, New York.

Schroeder, Walt. 1986. Letter of November 7 to Regional [6] Forester.In: USDA, Forest Service. 1988. Final SugpIement to the Environmental Imoact Statement foran Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Realonal Guide. Volume 2-Aooendices- Sootted Owl Guidelines. p. G368. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland,OR.

Scott, Douglas and Pope, Carl. 1988. Dear Colleagues.Sierra. 73(5):44-46,48. 254

Seaton, Fred A.; Hodges, Ralph D.; Spurr, Stephen H.; Clawson, Marion and Zlnn, Donald. 1973. Report of the President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Seattle Audubon Society et al., vs. Robertson. 1989. CV-C89-160, on file in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

Sell, James L; Taylor, Jonathan G. and Zube, Ervin H. 1984. Toward a Theoretical Framework for Landscape Perception. In: Saannen, Thomas F.; Seamon, David and Sell, James L (eds.). Environmental Perception and Behavior: An Inventory and Prosoect.pp. 61-83. Research Paper No. 209, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Senior, Jeanie. 1989. Big trucks carry timber workers' protest on spotted-owl issue through Hood River. The Oregonian. May 3, p. Bi.

Sessions, John; Johnson, Norman K; Beuter, John; Greber, Brian and Lettman, Gary. 1990. Timber for Oregon's Tomorrow: The 1989 Update. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Sewell, W.R. Derrick. 1971. Environmental perceptions and attitudes of engineers and public health officials. Environment and Behavior. 3:23-59.

Sewell, 'W.R. Derrick. 1974. Perceptions, attitudes and public participation In countryside management in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management. 2:235-257.

Sewell, W. A. Derrick and O'Riordan, Timothy. 1976. The culture of participation in environmental decision-making. Natural Resources Journal. 14:1-21.

Shaffer, Mark L 1985. The metapopulation and species conservation: The special case of the northern spotted owl. In: Gutierrez, Ralph J. and Carey, Andrew B. (eds.). Ecology and Management of the Sootted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. pp. 86-99. General Technical Report PNW-185. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

Shelby, Bo. 1976. Social Pjycholoaical Effects of Crowding in Wilderness: The Case of River TnDS in The Grand Canyon. PH.D Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder. As cited by: Heberlein, Thomas A. and Dunwiddie, Peter. 1979. Systematic observation of use levels, campsite selection and visitor characteristics ata high mountain lake. Journal of Leisure Research. 11(4) :307-316.

Shelby, Bo. 1981. Research, politics, and resource management decisions: Acase study of river research in Grand Canyon Leisure Science.4(3):281 -296.

Shelby, B. and Nielson, M. 1975. Use Levels and User Satisfaction In The Grand Canyon. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, San Francisco. As cited by: Becker, R.H.; Jubenville, Alan and Burnett, G.W. 1984. Fact and judgement in the search for a social carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences. 6(4):475-486.

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 1987. Letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service petitioning that the northern spotted owl be listed as an endangered and threatened species. On file with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Seattle. 255

Sierra Club. 1986. Sierra Club Policy on Northwest Old Growth Forests. Northwest Regional Conservation Committee.

Sierra Club. 1988. List of areas to lobby Congress against roads and logging. Usedat the November 1988 meeting of the old-growth committee of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Jawbone Flat, [Willamette National Forest], OR.

Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter. 1989. Summary of the timber compromise of June 24. June 25, Salem, OR.

Simberloff, Daniel. 1987. The spotted owl fracas: Mixing academic, applied, and political ecology. Ecoloav. 68(4):766-772.

Sisco, Chuck. 1988. PresentatIon at work shop on national forestuse, December 12-14. Sponsored by the Audubon Society and the USDA Forest Service. Portland State University, Portland, OR.

Sirmon, Jeff. 1982. Managing old growth forests. In: Tollenaar, Ken (ad.) 1982. Old-Growth Forests: A Balanced Perspective. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Central Lane County and the Bureau of Governmental Research and ServIce, February 12-14, Eugene, OR. Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Sirmon, Jeff M. 1984. Regional, political and economic issues in managing old growthon national forest land. In: New Forests for a Changing World. Proceedings of the 1983 SAF National Convention. Portland. Oregpn. October 16-20. pp.325-327. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.

Siuslaw National Forest. 1977. Letters on file, Forest Supervisor's office, Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR.

Siuslaw National Forest. 1988. Data on file, Forest Supervisor's office, Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR.

Slaughter, David. 1989. Comments at meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club old-growth committee meeting June 25, Salem, OR.

Sloan at al. 1983. cited In: USDA, Forest Service. 1987. AoDendices-Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement. Pro_posed Land and Resource Manaaement Plan. Willamette National Forest. p. B-24. Wilamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

Smith, Bob. 1989. Comments on the floor of the U.S. Houseof Representatives. October 3, pp. H 6531-H 6533.

Smith, Kelly O'Brian. 1983. The old growthcontroversy. Oregon Conifer. 5(5):12-14.

Society of American Foresters. 1984. Schedulina the Harvest of Old Growth.Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, MD.

Solis, David M., Jr. 1983. Summer Habitat Ecoloavof Sootted Owls in Northwestern California. MS Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 256

Spies, Thomas A. and Franklin, Jerry F. 1988. Old growth and forest dynamics In the Douglas-fir region of western Oregon and Washington. Natural Areas Journal. 8(3): 190-201.

Spies, Thomas A. and Franklin, Jerry F. 1991. The structure of natural young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir forests in Oregon and Washington. In: Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. pp. 91- 109. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Spies, Thomas A.; Franklin, Jerry F. and Thomas, Ted B. 1988. Coarse woody debris in Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington. Ecoioay. 69(6) :1689-1702.

Spohn, Dick. 1986. Personal thoughts: I like owls, but.... International Woodworker. 50(9):2.

Stahl, Andy. 1989. The law protects ancient forests. Wild Oregon. 15(3):18.

Stahl, Andy. 1993. Personal communication, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. Seattle, WA.

Stankey, George. H. 1973. Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-142, Ogden, Utah.

Steen, Harold K 1976. The U.S. Forest Service: A History. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.

Strathman, James G. and Rufolo, Anthony M. 1989. InJunction may cost 5,500 wood-products Jobs. The Oregonian. May 12, p. D 13.

Stuart, Robert Y. 1930. ReDort of the Forester for 1930. U.S. Forest Service.

Stuart, Robert V. 1932. Reoort of the Forester for 1932. U.S. Forest Service.

Stuart, Robert V. 1933. Reoort of the Forester. 1933. U.S. Forest Service.

Swanson, Diane. 1971. PublIc perceptions and resource planning. In: Sewell, W.R.Demck and Burton, Ian. (eds.). Perceptions and Attitudes in ResQurce Manaaement: Selected Proceedings of a Symposium on the role of Perceotlons and Attitudes in Decision Makina in Resources Management.pp. 91-98. Resources Paper No. 2. PolIcy Research and Coordination Branch, Department of Energy and Resources, Ottawa, Canada. Information Canada, Ottawa.

Swanson, Fred. 1990. Personal communication. Forest Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, OR

Tepfer, Sanford. 1958. The wderness bHI: A statement. Pacific Northwest Chapter. Sierra Club Newsletter. 4(4): 1.

Tepter, Sanford S. 1968. Statement before the House Committeeon Interior and Insular affairs, Public Lands Subcommittee, June 3, Washington, D.C.

Teply, John. 1988. Personal communication. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (6) Office, Portland, OR. 257

Teply, John. 1989. Personal communication. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (6) Office, Portland, OR.

Teply, John and Hoithausen, Dick. 1989. Mature and Overmature (MOM) Inventory. on file: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (6) Office, Portland, OR.

The Ancient Forest Rescue Expedition. 1989. press release. The Ancient Forest Rescue Expedition, Bellingham, WA.

The New York Times. 1989. Wildlife Service assailed over owl. February 22,p. A19.

The Oregon Project. 1989. Fact sheet. The Oregon Project, Salem, OR.

The Oregonian. 1 989a. Old-growth logging alleged. March 25,p. 02.

The Oregonian. 1989b. Protection of Opal Creek's old growth given second chance in legislature. April 29, p. D5.

The Oregonian. 1989c. Owl backers ask U.S. court to halt logging. May 25,p. ElO.

The Oregonian. 1989d. Timber panel choices due. June 15,p. D18.

The Oregonian 1989e. Higher timber yields urged to offset bans. June 22,p. 014.

The Oreoonian. 1989f. Timber summit: Who's meetIng. June 23, p. D6.

The Oregonian. 1989g. Pursue timber proposal [edItorial]. June 30,P. 86.

The Oregonian. 1989h. Hatfield expects new bid for old-growth compromise. July 6,p. BlO.

The Oreconian. 1989i. Timber hearing expanded tocover old-growth Issues. July 7, p. B4.

The Oreaonian. 1 989j. Governor wants state brief filed In owlcase. July 14, p. E3.

The Oreaonian. 1989k. New offer on old growth [editorial]. July 17,p. B6.

The Oreaonian. 19891. Scientist team to be created for spotted owls. September 1,p. E2.

The Sunday Oregonian. 1989. Prices at record level for federal timber sales. December 17,P. E5.

The Wilderness Society. 1988. End of the Ancient Forest: Special Reporton National Forest Plans in the Pacific Northwest. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

The Wilderness Society. 1 989a. New Directions for the Forest Service. TheWilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

The Wilderness Society. 1989b. Old growth/timber supply Interim solution. July14, Portland, OR.

The Woodworker. 1 989a. Forests products unions form coalitionon timber supply. 3(8): 1.

The Woodworker. 1989b. 3(10)1. 258

Thomas, Jack Ward; Rugglero, Leonard F.; Mannan, R. William; Schoen, John W. and Lancia, Richard A. 1988. Management and conservation of old-growth forests in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 16(3) :252-262.

Thorson, Robyn. 1987. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Finding on northern spotted owl petition. Federal Register. 52(246):48552-48554.

Thomburgh, Dale. 1978. Unpublished research. Department of Forestry, Humboldt State Unrversity, Arcata, CA.

Timber!. 1987. Northwest Forestry Association: Merger creates new kid on the block. 2(11): 14.

Timber Framers Guild of North America. 1988. Letter from the Board of Directors of the Timber Framers Guild of North America to those responsible for the national forests and Bureau of Land Management timbeilands of the United States. June 9. Keene, NH.

Tims, Dana. 1989. Eugene reverberates with rumble of log trucks. The Oregonian. June 4,p. C8.

Tollenaar, Kenneth C. 1981. The O&C Lands. Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Toilenaar, Ken (ed.). 1982. Old-growth Forests: A Balanced Perspective. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Central Lane County and the Bureau of Governmental Research and ServIce, February 12-14, Eugene, OR. Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Trttch, John and Slezak, Mark. 1989. Preservationists want to control 'all Oregon public forest lands'. The Oreaonian. July 27, p. E7.

Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public ODinion. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1968. Discrepancies between environmental attitude and behavior: Some examples from Europe and China. Canadian Geographer. 12:176-191.

Tuan, Yl-Fu. 1973. Ambiguity In attitudes toward environment. Annals of the Association of American Geographer. 63:411-423.

Tucker, William. 1982. Progress and Privileae: America in the Age of Environmentalism. Anchor Press / Doubleday, New York.

Tuttle, Lawrence A. 1989. Testimony before the Joint Hearing of the Subcommitteeon Regulation, Business Opportunities, and Energy of the Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, First Session on U.S. Wood Products Competitiveness: Timber, Taxes and Trade; July 8, Portland, OR.

Twight, Ben W. 1983. Oraanizational Values and Political Power: The Forest Service Versus the Olymoic National Park. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. 259

Twight, Ben W. and Lyden, Fremont J. 1989. Measuring Forest Service Bias. Journal of Forestry. 87(5):35-41.

Ulnch, Roberta. 1989. Gardner requests restart in owls vs. forests issue. The Oregonian. Feb. 10, p F3.

Unran, Harlan D. 1987. Administrative History. Crater Lake National Park. Oregon. Volume 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. 1987. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy of the Committee on Agricufture, U.S. House of Representatives One Hundredth Congress, Second Session on National Forest Management Issues in the Pacific Northwest. August 25, Medford, OR.

U.S. Congress. 1989a. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred and First Congress First Session on Sustainability of our Forest Resources. June 21, Washington, DC.

U.S. Congress. 1989b. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Regulation, Business Opportunities, and Energy of the Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, First Session on U.S. Wood Products Competitiveness: Timber, Taxes and Trade. July 8, Portland, OR.

U.S. Congress. 1989c. H.R.2788, July 26.

U.S. Congress. 1989d. Congresslo.Record-House. October 2, pp. H 6409-H 6412.

U.S. Congress. 1989e. Conference Report [To accompany H.R. 27881. Report 101-264. October 2.

U.S. Congress. 1989f. Congressional Record- House, Sec 318. October 3, 1989. pp. H 6529-H 6530.

U.S. Congress. 1989g. Joint Oversight Hearing on the National Forest Planning Processas Provided in NFMA of 1976. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee arid Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. October 25, Washington, DC.

U.S. Congress. 1989h Congressional Record-Senate. October 7,p. S 12960.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1920. Timber Deoletion and the Answer. U.S.D.A. Circular 112.

USDA Forest ServIce. 1933. A National Plan for American Forestry. Senate Document 12, 73rd Congress, 1st session, 2v. 1,677pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1934. Forest Resources of the Doualas Fir Reoion: A Summary of the Forest Inventory of Western Oreaon and Western Washington. Forest Research Note 13. Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1946. Gaging the Timber Resources of the United States. Report 1 from A Reaporaisal of the Forest Situation. 260

USDA Forest Service. 1958. Timber Resources for America's Future. Forest Resource Report No. 14.

USDA Forest Service. 1963. Timber Trends In Western Oregon and Washington. Research Paper PNW-5. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1 965a. Timber Resource Statistics for the Pacific Northwest as of January 1963. Resource Bulletin PNW-9. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1 965b. Timber Management Plan. Willamette National Forest. Region 6-- Oregon. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1969. Doucilas-fir SUDPIY Study. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1973. The Outlook for Timber in the United States. Forest Resource Report No. 20.

USDA Forest Service. 1975. Cod involve Anaysls of the Draft Environmental Statement Land Use and Timber Manaaement Alternative. Willamette National Forest. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1976. Final Environmental Statement for the Timber Management Plan of the Mt. Hood National Forest. Mt. Hood National Forest, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1977. Willamette National Forest Plan Final Environmental Imoact Statement. Wilamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1979. Final Environmental Imoact Statement Ten-Year Timber Resource Plan Siuslaw National Forest. Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1980. The 1980 Report to Congress on the Nation's Renewable Resources.

USDA Forest Service. 1961. Draft Pacific Northwest Region Plan. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1 982a. An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States 1952-2030. Forest Resource Report No. 23.

USDA Forest Service. 1982b. Old-growth Forest Wildlife Habitat Research and Development Program. Pamphlet, 8 pp. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1984a. Regional Guide for the Pacific Northwest Region. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1 984b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1 986a. Proposed Land and Resource Manaciement Plan. Siuslaw National Forest. Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR. 261

USDA Forest Service. 1986b. Draft Environmental lmoact Statement. Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan. Siuslaw National Forest. Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1987a. Pr000sed Land and Resource Management Plan. Willamette National Forest. Wglamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1987b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan. Willamette National Forest. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1987c. ADoendices-Draft Environmental Impact Statement. ProDosed Land and Resource Manaaement Plan. Willamette National Forest. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1988a. Final Suoplement to the Environmental Impact Statement for an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide. Volume 1.QOtted Owl Guidelines. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1988b. Final Supolement to the Environmental Imoact Statement for an Amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide. Volume 2. frppendices. Spotted Owl Guidelines. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1988c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan. Mt. Hood National Forest. Mt. Hood National Forest, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1988d. Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan. Mt. Hood National Forest. Mt. Hood National Forest, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1 988e. OId-arowth Inventory. [internal informational paper] August 24. 2 pp. PacIfic Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1988f. Old-growth Inventory. [internal informational paper] September 6. 5 pp. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest ServIce. 1988g. Old Growth Briefing Paper. October 10. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1988h. Suoolement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Land and Resource Manaaement Plan. Siuslaw National Forest. Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1988i. Payments to States from National Forest Receipts, Fiscal Year 1988. Data on file Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1988j. Funding for spotted owl research, development & application program. Data on file Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1 989a. Potential Mature and Old Growth Matrix Willamette National Forest: Draft - Preliminary Information. ADril 18. 1989. Wilamette National Forest, Eugene, OR. 262

USDA Forest Service. 1989b. The SDotted Owl Issue. [Informational paper] May 15.pp. 7, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1989c. Forest Service Positions on SDotted Owl Issue. July 14. Message Scan of August 10 reply to [memorandum] 2670. Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1989d. Position Statement on National Forest Old-growth Values. October, 11. on file at Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1989e. Forest Service News, October 19. On file with Pacific Northwest Region, Public Affairs Office, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1989f. Timber sale data on file, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

USDA Forest ServIce. 1989g. Timber harvest data on file, Pacific Northwest Region office, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1989h. Mature and Overmature (MOM) survey plot 5366 data on file, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 19891. Data on file, Forest Environment Research for Wildlife, Range, and Fish Habitat Research [Nancy Gilman]. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1940. Forest Conservation on Lands Administered by the Department of Interior.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1976. Final Environmental Imoact Statement for Timber Manaciement.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1981. Draft Timber Manaaement Environmental Impact Statement: Westside Salem. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1982. Draft Timber Manaaement Environmental Impact Statement: Eugene. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland OR.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Management Framework Plan: Older Forest Retention Areas. Bureau of Land Management, Salem District Office, Salem, OR.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1984. Timber Management for the 1980$. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1986. Program Direction. Oreaon and Washington.Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1987a. Spotted Owl Environmental Assessment. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1 987b. BLM-ODFW Agreement for SpottedOwl Management on BLM Lands in Western Oregon, December 22, Instruction memorandum NO. OR-88-230. 263

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Pr000sed State Director Guidance: Planning for the Public Lands In Western Oregon. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1989. BLM Facts Oreaon and Washington 1988. U.S. Government Printing Office, Region No. 10.

USD1 Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Public Land Statistics 1990.

USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

USD1 Fish and WUdlife ServIce. 1982. The Northern Spotted Owl: A Status Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Portland, OR.

USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. The Northern Spotted Owl Status Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Portland, OR.

USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970-1990. Wildlife Review.

USD1 National Park Service. 1993a. Data on file, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA.

USD1 National Park Service. 1 993b. Data on file, Mount Ranier National Park, Ashford, WA.

USD1 National Park Service. 1993c. Data on file, North Cascades National Park, Sedro Woolley, WA.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1989. Reoort to the Chairman. Subcommitteeon Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fl h-ri- HS fR 'r--ntiv-: E.n. -r. S S P-itin Evaluation Beset by Problems. Washington, D.C.

U.S. News and World Rec)ort. 1988. News you can use. February 29,p. 75.

Vander Heidie. 1988. Personal communication. Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR.

Vaske, Jerry J.; Donnelly, Maureen P. and Tweed, Dan L 1983. Recreationist definedverses researcher defined similarity Judgments in substitutability research. Journal of Leisure Research. 1 5(3):251 -262.

Versteeg, JIm. 1988. Comment at the October 12 meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Salem, OR.

Vig, Norman J. 1984. The President and the environment: Revolutionor retreat? In: Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E. (eds.). 1984. Environmental Policy In the 1980's: Reagan's New Aoenda.pp. 77-95. Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington, D.C.

Vig, Norman J. 1990. PresidentIal leadership: From Reagan to the Bush administration. In: Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E. (eds.). 1990. Environmental Policy in the1990s: Toward a New Aaenda.pp. 33-58. CQ Press, Washington, D.C. 264

Waddell, Karen L; Oswald, Daniel D. and Powell, Douglas S. 1989. Forest Statistics of the United States. 1987. Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-168. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Wagner, David H. 1989. Your 25 cents worth. Wild Oregon. 1 5(4):6.

Waring, Richard H. and Franklin, Jerry F. 1979. The evergreen forest of the Pacific Northwest. Science. 204:1380-1386.

Washington State Research Council. 1985. The Handbook for Washington's Governments. Washington State Research Council, Olympia, WA.

Warren, Debra D. 1992. ProductIon. Prices. Employment, and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries. Third Quarter 1991. Resource Bulletin Pnw-RB-190. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Wengert, Norman. 1955. Natural Resources and the Political Strugale. Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, NY.

Wengert, Norman. 1980. Political and social aspects of ownership. In: Town Meeting Forestry- Issues for the 1980's: Proceedings of the 1979 Convention of the Society of American Foresters. pp. 8-13. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.

Wenner, Lettie M. 1984. Judicial oversight of environmental deregulation. In: Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E. (eds.). 1984. EnvIronmental Policy in the 1980s: Reagan's New Agenda. pp. 181-199. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.

Wenner, Lettie M. 1990. Environmental policy In the courts. In: Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E. (eds.). 1990. Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. pp. 189-210. CO Press, Washington, DC.

West, Neil E. and Chilcote, William W. 1968. Senecio syWaticus in relation to Douglas-fir clear- cut succession in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecology. 49:1101-1107.

White, Gilbert F. 1942. Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical ADproach to the Flood Problem in the United States. Research Paper No. 29, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

White, Gilbert F. 1961. The choice of use in resource management. Natural Resources Journal. 1:23-40.

White, Gilbert F. 1963. Contributions of geographical analysis to river basin development. Geographical Journal. 129:412-436.

White, Gilbert F. 1966. Formation and role of public attitudes. In: Jarrett, H. (ed.). Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy. pp. 105-127. John Hopkins, Baltimore.

White, Gilbert F. 1974. The role of scientific information in anticipation and prevention of environmental disputes. In: Kates, Robert W. and Burton, Ian (eds.). 1986. Geograohv, Resources and Environment: Selected Writinas of Gilbert F. White. Vol. I.pp. 377-391. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 265

White, Gilbert F.; Cajef, Wesly C.; Hudson, James W.; Mayer, Harold M.; Sheaffer, John R. and Volk, Donald J. 1958. Changes in Urban Occu_pance of Flood Plains in the United States. Research Paper No. 57, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Wigg, Mark H. 1988. Analysis of USDA Forest Service Timber Management Planning In Western Oregon and Washington. S,lvan Services, Inc., Salem, OR.

Wilderness. 1988. Litigation update. 52(183):6-9.

Wild Oregon. 1978a. Carter and old growth. 5(4/5):6.

Wild Oreaon. 1978b. Crabtree Vailey in jeopardy. 5(8/9):2.

Wild Oregon. 1979. Carter abandons even flow policy. 6(7/8):20-21.

Wild Oregon. 1 980a. Conservationists file Willamette timber appeals. 7(3/4) :20.

Wild Oregon. 1980b. Oregonians want public lands protected. 7(5/6):23.

Wild Oregon. 1980c. Forest Service nixes elk and salmon; spotted owl given partial reprieve. 7(9/10):16.

Wild Oregon. 1982. New O&C policy: Timber ranks 1st, 2nd, 3rd....9(9/10): 10-11.

Wild Oregon. 1983a. Senate drags feet, ONRC files suit. 10(4):6-7.

Wild Oregon. 1983b. As the old-growth goes, so does the spotted owl. 10(4):9-1 1.

Wild Oregon. 1984. Planning Oregon's national forests. 11 (4):12-13.

Wild Oregon. 1985a. Crabtree Valley land exchange made. 12(1):8.

Wild Oregon. 1985b. Conservationists win major appeal to protect old growth. 12(2):7.

Wild Oregon. 1986a. Millennium Grove may hold the oldest trees. 13(1):23.

Wild Oregon. 1986b. A second national park for Oregon?. 13(1):24.

Wild Oregon. 1 987a. Old growth forests debate is attracting the national press. 14(1 ):7.

Wild Oregon. 1987b. Forest Service data show massive overcutting on Oregon's national forests. 1 4(2):1 2-13.

Wild Oregon. 1987c. Potomac Report: Appropriations process the name of the game. 14(2):43.

Wild Oregon. 1988a. Potomac Report: ONRC attacked by state's Congressional delegation. 15(1):37.

Wild Oregon. 1988b. Oregon Omnibus Wild and Scenic Rivers Act becomes lawI. 15(2):6.

Wild Oregon. 1 988c. Congress funds ancient forest inventory. 15(2) :8. 266

Wild Oregon. 1988d. See you in court. 15(2):10-13.

Wild Oregon. 1988e. Inside ONRC: 16th annual conference a hit. 15(2):32-34.

Wild Oregon. 1989a. National League of ConservatIon Voters issue ratings. 15(3):7-8.

Wild Oregon. 1989b. Stay tuned for Audubon special. 15(3):8.

Wild Oregon. 1989c. Pacific yew: A remnant from the past provides hope for the future. 1 5(3):27.

Wild Oregon. 1989d. Potomac Report: Ancient forest Issues to be most contentIous. 15(3):35.

Wild Oregon. 1 989e. Your 25 cents worth: Editor's Note. 1 5(4):6.

Wild Oregon. 1 989f. Poll shows strong support for wildlIfe. 15(4) :7.

Wild Oregon. 1989g. You just can't trust the Forest Service. 15(4) :7.

Wild Oregon. 1989h. Mill Creek Report: Senator Fawbush prevents Opal Creek vote. 15(4):34.

Wild Oregon. 19891. Potomac Report: Log exports command congressional attention. 15(4):35.

Wild Oregon. 1990a. Protecting the greater Mount Mazama ecosystem. 16(1):12-13.

Wild Oregon. 1990b. Naming the conservation summiteers. 16(1):16.

Wild Oregon. 1990c. June 24, 1989: Timber summit. 16(1):17.

Wild Oregon. 1990d. The delegation proposal-In full. 16(1):18.

Wild Oregon. 1 990e. The conservation counter proposal. 16(1) :20-22.

Wild Oregon. 1990f. Senate markup: Worse than the summit proposal. 16(1):24-25.

Wild Oregon. 1990g. At last...a fight for the ancient forests. 16(1):26-27.

Wild Oreaon. 1990h. "Follow the money..." 16(1):38

Wild Oregon. 19901. RealistIc solutions for Oregon's "log supply problems". 16(1):44-45...53.

Wild Oregon. 1990j. Mill Creek Report: Legislature gradeda "(U.(Its on a curve). 16(1):48.

Wild Oregon. 1990k. In this Issue. 16(3):3

Wild Oregon. 19901. Your 25 cents worth. 16(3) :7-8.

Wilkinson, Charles F. and Anderson, Michael H.. 1987. Land and Resource Plannina In the National Forests. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Wilihite, Robert G. and Sise, William R. 1974. Measurement of reactionto forest practices. Journal of Forestry. 72(9):567-571. 267

Williams, MIchael. 1989. Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wilson, James 0. 1973. PolItical Oruanizatlons. Basic Books, New York.

Wilson, James 0. 1989. American Government: Institutions and Policies. D.C. Heath and Company. Lexington, MA.

Wilson, Roy R. 1992. CooperatIon and conflict in a federal municipal watershed: A case study of Portland, Oregon. Environmental History Review. 16(3):71-91.

Wiseman, Clark A. and Sedjo, Roger A. 1985. Have controls reduced log exports In the Pacific Northwest?. Journal of Forestry. 83(11):680-684.

Wong, S.T. 1972. A model of municipal water demand: a case study of Northeastern Illinois. Land Economics. 48:34-44.

Wood, Wendell. 1988. From the field. Wild Oregon. 15(2):35.

Wood, Wendell. 1992. Personal communication. Conservation Coordinator, Oregon Natural Resources Council. Eugene, OR.

Wright, John K 1947. Terrae lncognitae: The place of the imagination In geography. Annals of the Association of American Geograohers. 37:293-305.

Wyant, Dan. 1988. Timber appeals rapped. The Register-Guard. March 4,pp. 1A,4A.

Wyant, Dan. 1989. Can the forest policy deadlock be broken?. The Reaister-Guard. Feb. 12,p. 1A and 4A.

Yellow Ribbon Express. 1989. A brief history. July 7,p 1. Springfield, OR.

Yellow Ribbon Coalition. 1989. Organization information paper. Springfield, OR.

Yin, Robert K 1984. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Young, Oran R. 1981. Natural Resources and the State. University of California, Berkeley.

Zarn, Mark. 1974. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species: Report No. 10 spotted owl Strix occidenta!is. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Technical Note ii, February.

Zube, E.H. 1974. Cross-disciplInary and intermode agreementon the description and evaluation of landscape resources. Environment and Behavior. 6:69-89. APPENDICES 268

APPENDIX A

Chronological Summary of Major Events in the Evolution of the Old-growth Issue by Participant Type

Preservationists

1973 Oldest stand of Douglas-fir in Oregon discovered in Crabtree Valley In Unn County.

1978 First articles on old-growth appeared in regional preservation periodical publications

1981 Appealed Forest Service Region-6 draft planning guide

1982 Conference on old-growth forests held in Eugene

1984 Appealed Forest Service Region-6 final planning guide

1985 Protesters occupied a logging site in the Middle Santlam area of the Willamette National Forest they believe to contain trees over 1 ,000 years old

1986 Green Worki sent letter to Fish and Wildlife Service requesting the spotted owl be listed as endangered.

1986 (November) Green World sent second letter to Fish and Wildlife Service petitioning the spotted owl be listed as endangered.

1987 (August) 29 environmental organizations petitioned Fish and Wildlife Service to list the spotted owl as endangered.

1987 (October) Portland Audubon Society et al. sued the Bureau of Land Management (Hodel) for not writing an Environmental Impact Statement on spotted owl management.

1988 (May) Northern spotted owl at. al. sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for not listing It as an endangered species.

1988 (February) Oregon Natural Resources Council filed 228 old-growth timber sale appeals

1988 (September) Several national, regional and local preservationgroups met in Portland to plan a strategy to save old-growth forest and formed the Ancient Forest Alliance. Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance formed in December.

1989 (January) Seattle Audubon Society et al. sued the Forest Service (Robertson) over its spotted owl plan as outlined in the Record of Decision 12/8/88.

1989 (June) Sent delegation to the Salem timber summit. 269

Prese,vatlonists (continued)

1989 (July) Ancient Forest Mlance rejected Salem timber summit proposal and submitted one of their own.

1989 (November) The law suit against the BLM appealed to the Supreme Court

Timber Industry

1969 Introduced Timber Supply Act to Congress with hope of accelerating the harvest of old-growth.

1973 President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment recommended accelerating the harvest of old-growth.

1976 Accelerating the harvest of old-growth became a dead issue after passage of National Forest Management Act.

1981 Dennis Hayward of the Northwest Timber Association published a paper outlining the potential loss of timber supply for spotted owl habitat setasides.

1987 (April) Northwest Forest Resource Council formed.

1989 (January) Northwest Forest Resource Council filed suit against the Forest Service's over the December 1988 spotted owl plan.

1989 (June 24) Sent delegation to Salem timber summit

1989 (June 27) Reluctantly accepted the provisions of the Salem timber summit.

Scientists

1970 Coniferous Forest Blome Protect of the international Biological program decided to Include older forest ecosystems in their studies.

1973 Jerry Franklin and C.T. Dyrness published Natural Vegetation of Oreaon and Washington.

1976 ErIc Forsman completed master of science degree on the northern spotted owl in Oregon.

1977 Forsman, Meslow and Strub published Spotted owl abundance inyoung verses old-growth forest in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.

1981 Franklin et al. published Ecological Characteristics of Old-growth Dougla-flr Forests. 270

Scientists (continued)

1984 Forsman et al. published monograph on Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon.

1984 USDA Forest Service and the Cooper Ornithological Society sponsored a conference on the Ecology and Management of the Spotted Owl In the Pacific Northwest (1985).

1984 Society of American Foresters published Schedulina the Harvest of Oid-arowth.

1986 Interim Definitions for old-growth Doualas-Fir and Mixed-Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest and California published by USDA Forest Service as Research Note PNW-447.

1987 Report of the scientific advisory panel on the spotted owl sponsored by the National Audubon Society and published in Condor.

1987 Ecological Society of America published a special feature on the spotted owl in Ecoloav.

1988 Oregon State University and the International Union of Forest Research Scientist sponsored conference on old-growth.

1989 (March) USDA Forest Service and the University of Washington sponsoreda conference titled Old-growth Doualas-flr Forests: Wildlife Communities and Habitat Relationships.

1989 (fall)Scientific committee chaired by Jack Ward Thomas formed to evaluate the biological needs of the northern spotted owl as directed by Congress in section 318 of the 1990 Appropriations Act.

Federal Natural Resource Management Agencies

1969 Douglas-fir Supoly Study caused the Forest Service to reevaluate its method of calculating the harvest rate of old-growth.

1973 Fish and Wildlife Service noted the spotted owl asa possible species warranting federal protection.

1973 Forest Service adopted nondeclining even flow policy which slows the rate of old-growth harvest.

1976 National Forest Management Act required the Forest Service tomanage for values other than timber, especially wildlife.

1977 Forest Service initiated a task force to develop definitions for old-growth inventory and management.

1981 Draft regional plan guide issued with spotted owlas an indicator species of old-growth. 271

Federal Natural Resource Management Agencies (continued)

1982 Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed status of the northern spotted owl and determined it did not need federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

1984 Final regional planning guide issued

1984 Forest Service denied preservationists appeal of the spotted owl management plan in the regional guide.

1984 Forest Service over ruled on spotted owl plan and told to prepare a supplemental environmental Impact statement for the owl as part of the regional planning guide.

1986 Draft SEIS released for public comment

1987 Bureau of Land Management denied appeal by preservationists to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for spotted owl management.

1987 Fish and Wildlife Service denied request to consider proposing the northern spotted owl as endangered or threatened.

1988 Final SEIS released with record of decision to manage 36,000 acres of forest for the spotted owl.

1989 Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to consider the northern spotted owl as a threatened species.

1989 (June) Regional heads of the Forest Service, BLM, and Fish and Wildlife Service presented information at the Salem timber summit.

1989 Forest Service announced new policy on old-growth retention and management.

Congress

1891 Passed the Forest Reserve Act

1897 Passed second Forest Reserve Act

1919 Passed Migratory Bird Treaty Act

1937 Passed the Oregon and California Lands Act

1946 Passed Administrative Proccedures Act

1969 Passed National Environmental Policy Act.

1973 Passed new Endangered Species Act. 272

Congress (continued)

1974 Passed the Federal Lands Policy Management Act as authorizing legislation for lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

1976 Passed National Forest Management Act which required development of periodic land use plans.

1978 Passed the Endangered American Wilderness Act which included 200,000 acres in Oregon.

1984 Passed the Oregon Omnibus Wilderness Act which added 200,000 acres of wilderness.

1986 Rep. Weaver held hearing on Forest Service old-growth logging.

1987 House and Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittees reject preservationists' request to deny funding to log 55 sales.

1987 House Agriculture subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy hearing on national forest management issues in the Pacific Northwest in Medford, OR.

1988 Congress appropriates funds for old-growth inventory on national forests.

1989 (April) House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies held hearings on Forest Service budget and old-growth crisis.

1989 (June 20,22) Joint hearings held by the House Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, and the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy on the northwest old-growth issue.

1989 (June 21) Senate hearing by Fowler

1989 (June 24) Salem, OR timber summit attended by all members of Oregon Congressional Delegation who proposed a short term solution to the old-growth crisis.

1989 (July 8) Fowler hearing in Portland

1989 (July 26) Hatfield -Adams Amendment (section 318) proposed to legislatea solution to old-growth crisis passed by full Senate.

1989 (September 29) Hatfield-Adams Amendment survived the House-Senate Conference Committee for Appropriations but with reduced harvest levels, expidited judicial review, and old-growth forests were legally defined as described In PNW-447.

I 989 (October 25) Joint hearing held by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Agriculture Committee on Nutrition and Forestryon National Forest Management Act. 273

APPENDIX B

Ust of the Principal Interest Groups, Organizations, Government Agencies and Institutions, and Associated Old-growth Issue Leaders and ActMsts by Participant Type. Individual names in bold type were considered to be major participants based on the relative frequency of their name mentioned in a variety of media formats.

Preservation Bloc Participants

Local Groups

Sierra Club Many Rivers Group, Eugene - Bob Russell Mary's Peak Group, Corvallis - Uz Frenkal, Mark Wilson Columbia Group, Portland - Davi Rouge Group, Ashland - Dan Kellog Save Opal Creek Council (Mill City)- George Atiyeh Friends of the Brietenbush Cascades (Salem)- Michael Donnelly Cathedral Forest Action Group (Corvallis)- Andy Bortz, Leo Hund Santlam Wilderness Committee (Corvallis)- Pat Loveland, John Potter Portland Audubon Society - Lynn Herring Lane County Audubon Society - Art Fancy2 Salem Audubon Society- Mark Wigg Seattle Audubon Society Headwaters (Grants Pass)- Julie Norman, ChuckLevin2, Boyd Peters Siuslaw Task Force (Corvallis)- SteveKratka2, Gayla Cady Waldo Wilderness Council (Eugene)- Doug Notland

Regional Groups

Oregon Natural Resources Council- AndyKerr2, James Monteith, Wendell Wood, Tom Glesen2, Tim Lillebo2 Sierra Club Oregon Chapter- John Albrecht, Diana Hinton, David Slaughter2, Joe Hinton, Dan Kellog, Jack Desmond, Roger Brown Sierra Club Northwest Region- Bill Arthur, Charlie Raines, Doug Scott, Rick Johnson Western Natural Resources Law Clinic, University of Oregon- John Bonine, Mike Mine The Wilderness Society, Oregon- Larry Tuttle, BobFreimarlr2'3 The Wilderness Society, Washington- Jean Duming, Melanie Rowland, Mike Anderson Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Seattle- Vic Sher, Todd True, Andy Stahl, Corrie Yackulic, Denise Antolini National Wildlife Federation, Portland- RickBrown2, Bruce Apple2, Roy Elicker National Audubon Society, Portland- MarcUverman2 Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance- Bob Freimark 274

Regional Groups (continued)

Native Forest Council - Tim Hermach Earth First! - Karen Wood, Jan True, Robert Bob Car Brothers, Mary Beth Nearing, Darryl Chemey Oregon Environmental Council Llghthawk - George Atiyeh (OR rep.) Native Plant Society of Oregon - Dan Luoma

National Groups

The Wilderness SocietyGeorge Frampton, Syd Butler3, Jeff Olson, Valerie Diana National Audubon Society - Brock Evans3, Chuck Slsco, Jim Pissot, Tom Shoemaker, John Talberth, Judy Johnson, Stan Wood3 National Wildlife Federation - Jay Hair, Fran Hunt3 Sierra Club - Jim Blomqulst3 National Ancient Forest Alliance- coordinating committeemember3 Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics - Jeff DeBoins

Other Participants

Harry Lonsdale - CEO Bend Research, In. member of the timber supply task force of the Oregon Business Council), ONRC board of directors Gary Kahn2 -attorney Arthur Johnson - attorney for preservatlonists at timber summit Lou Gold - mountain hermit and philosopher (former political science professor, University of Illinois)

Affiliated participants Melanie Rowland - attorney (SAS) Bill Marlett2 - Oregon Ancient Forest AJliance (OAFA) Charlotte Lvinson2 - OAFA. ONRC board directors Randal OThole - economist, Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants

2 of the Oregon Ancient Forest Alliance

of the National Ancient Forest Alliance 275

Timber Industry Bloc Participants

Local Trade Associations

Siuslaw Timber Operators1- Kent Kelly Willamette Forestry Council - Mark Fleming Wilamette Timbermans' Association1 - Bob Unsey Douglas Timber Operato& - Troy Reinhart Southern Oregon Timber Operators1 - Greg Miller

Regional Trade Associations

Northwest Forest Resource Council - John Hampton North West Timber Association'- Dennis Hayward, Ross Mickey Northwest Forestry Association1 - Jim Gelslnger, Chris West Associated Oregon Loggers1- Mike Miller, James McCauley Western Wood Products Association1- Bob Roberts, Malcolm Epley Western Forest Industries Association'- Joe McCracken, Ralph Saperstein, Joseph Miller, Wayne Gaskins Oregon Forest Industries Council- Ward Armstrong Northwest Pine Association - Jim O'Donnell Northwest Independent Forest Manufactures1- Gus Kuehne (P) Industrial Forestry Association - Norm BJor$dund Western Washington Commercial Forest Action Committee- Ann Bums

National Trade Associations

National Forest Products Association- Mark Rey (v-p), Mark Pawlicki (w.reg. dir.) American Forest Resource Alliance- David Hancock (v-c) American Forest Council (NFPA and API)

Organized Labor

Timber Labor Coalition - Mike Draper, Bill Hubbell International Woodworkers of America-Bill Hubbell (pres.) Western Council of Industrial Workers-Mike Draper (ex. sec.) United Brotherhood of Carpenter Western Council International longshore and Warehousemen's Union United Paper Workers' International Union Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers Oregon AFL-CIOlrv Fletcher (pres.) 276

Grassroots

Local Communities for a Great Oregon- Tom Hirons (Gates), Rob Freres (Mill City) Save our Sawmills (SOS) Communities First! Workers of Oregon Development (WOOD) -Evelyn Badger (Canyonville) Philomath Action Committee- Russ Sapp

Regional Communities for a Great Northwest- Bruce Vinclent (Ubby, MT) Yellow Ribbon CoalItion- Chatlie Jantz (Eug.-Spr. Chap.) Oregon Lands Coalition- John Kunzrnan, Valerie Johnson Oregon Project - Barbara Grannell Western States Public Lands Coalition- Bill Grannell Wise Use Movement - Ron Arnold Oregon Women in Timber- Billie Smith

Other participants

Bill Swindells - CEO Willamette Industries Ted Ferrioli - Community Relations Association, publisher of Timber! Mark Rutzke - attorney (NFRC) William Shields - V-P Willamette Industries Pat Amedeo - attorney, Northwest Forest Resource Council; nat. res. aide to former Gov. Vic Atiyeh Jim Morgan - President Young and Morgan Lumber Co., Bugaboo Timber Co. (Mill City) Kevin Long - lobbyist for N. Santlam Canyon mill owners Bill Avison - Avison Lumber Co. Bruce Vincent - cofounder of Yellow Ribbon Coalition, Ubby, MT Jim Peterson - publishes Evergreen, Grants Pass, OR Dan Goldy - economic consultant Paul Moorehead - union representative, Boise Cascade Co. Ann Goos - Washington (Forks)

1members of the Northwest Forest Resource Council 277

Scientific and Expert Participants

U.S. Forest Service - Research Stations Jerry Franklin - Pacific Northwest (old-growth) Tom Spies - Pacific Northwest (old-growth) Paul Alaback - Pacific Northwest (old-growth) Glenn Juday - Pacific Northwest (old-growth) Andrew Carey - Pacific Northwest (spotted owl) Leonard Ruggiero - Pacific Northwest (spotted owl) Eric Forsman - Pacific Northwest (spotted owl) Jack Ward Thomas - Pacific Northwest (wildlife) Chris Maser - former BLM attached to Pacific Northwest (wildlife) Barry Noon - Pacific Southwest (spotted owl)

U.S. Forest Service - National Forest System Bruce Marcot - Reglon-6 Hal Saiwasser - National Office Richard Hoithausen - Region-6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Charles Mesiow - Cooperative Research Unit, Oregon State University Barry Mulder - Portland Regional Office Mark Shaffer - Portland Regional Office

Academic Ralph "Rocky Gutierrez - Humboldt State University Daniel Simberloff - Florida State University (congressional testimony) Bruce Wilcox - Stanford University Russell Lande - University of Chicago Gordon Orians - University of Washington Paul Ehrllch - Stanford University (court testimony) Daniel Goodman - Montana State University (court Testimony) Mark Boyce - University of Wyoming (court testimony) Michael Soule - University of California, Santa Cruz

Preservation David Wilcove - The Wilderness Society Elliot Norse - The Wilderness Society

Timber Industry Larry Irwin - National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (ncasi) Steven Self- Timber Association of California 278

Local and State Governments Participants

States Oregon

Governor - Nell Goldschmldt Gall Achterman - natural resources aide Ken Johnson - spokesman aide David Taibot - State Parks Director K Norman Johnson - coordinator for national forest plans Tom Imeson - Chief of Staff

Legislature Senators - John Kltzhaber, BUl Bradbury, Bob Kintigh, Wayne Fawbush Representatives - Cati Hosticka, Cedric Hayden, Bernie Agrons

Washington

Governor- Booth Gardner

Counties

Association of O&C Counties - Ray Doerner (exc. dir.) Jerry Rust - Lane County Commissioner Hank Henry - Jackson County Commissioner 279

Federal Natural Resource Management Agency Participants

Department of Agriculture - Clayton Yuetter, Secretary

U.S. Forest Service - National Forest System F. Dale Robertson - Chief George Leonard - Associate Chief Dave Hessel - Director of Timber Management Bob Nelson - Director Fish and Wildlife Programs Hal Salwasser- Dep. Dir. Wildlife and Fisheries James Torrence - Regional Forester, RegIon 6 (retired8/89) John Butruitle - Regional Forester, Region 6 (started8/89) John Lowe - Deputy Regional Forester, RegIon 6 Mike Kerrick - Supervisor, Willamette National Forest John Teply - Region 6 blornetrician and inventory forester Steve Paulson - Assistant Director Timber Sales, Region 6 Larry Fellows - Region6spotted owl project leader

Department of the interior - Donald Hodel, Secretary (replaced3/89), Manuel Lujan, Secretary (appointed3/89)

Assistant Secretary for Wildlife and Parks

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Frank Dunkle - Director (replaced3/89) Susan Lawson - acting Director John Turner - Director (appointed6/89) Ralph Morgenweck - Assistant Dir. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Roif Wallenstrom - Regional Director, RegIon 1 (fired1/13/89) Marvin Plenert - Regional Director, Region 1 (appointed3/89) David Riley - Deputy Regional Director, Region 1 Barry Mulder - Spotted Owl Coordinator Region 1

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals- John Hughes

Bureau of Land Management Robert Burford - Director Dean Stepanek- Deputy Director Charles 'BiII Luscher- State Director OR and WA

Office of Management and Budget Richard Darmen - Director 280

Congressional Participants by Committe and Subcommittee

House - Tom Foley (D-WA) Speaker; Staff: Nick Ashmore

1. Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Interior Sidney Yates (D-IL) Chair Lea AuCoin (D-OR), staff: Kevin Lynch Norm Dick. (D-WA) Chet Atkins (D-MAss)

Interior and Insular Affairs Committee-George Miller (D-CA) acting chair Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands Bruce Vento (D-FL) Chair Peter DeFazlo (D-OR) staff: Bob Warren, Jim Middaugh, Doug Marker Bob Smith (R-OR) Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment

Agriculture Committee SubcommIttee on Forests, Family Farms and Energy Jim Jontz (D-IN) Bob Smith (R-OR)

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Gerry Studds (D-MA) Chair

Budget Committee Subcommittee on Community Devel nt and Natural Resources Chat Atkins (D-MA) Denny Smith (R-OR)

Small Business Committee Subcommittee on Regulation, Business Opportunities, and Energy Ron Wyden (D-OR) Chair

Senate

5. Appropriations Committee Robert Byrd (D-WV) Chair Mark Hatfield (R-OR) staff:Mike Saisgiver, Julie McGregor, Pat Reiten (NR aide) Brock Adams (D-WA) 5. Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies Robert Byrd (D-WV) Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) James McClure (R-ID) Dale Bumpers (D-AK) 281 Senate (continued)

Energy and Natural Resources Committee Dale Bumpers (D-AR) Chair Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests Mark Hatfield (R-OR) Wyche Fowler (D-GA)

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Chair 7. Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry Wyche Fowler (D-GA) Chair Slade Gorton (R-WA)

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Subcommittee on Foreign Commerce and Tourism Bob Packwood (R-OR) - staff: Elaine Franklin Finance Committee Subcommittee on International Trade Bob Packwood (R-OR) General Accounting Office Congressional Research Service

Source: Barone, Michael and Ujifusa, Grant 1989. The Jrnanac of American Politics J..9. National Journal Inc., Washington, D.C. 282

Federal Court Participants by Jurisdiction and Case

District Courts

Oregon - Portland Judge Helen Frye - suit against the Bureau of Land Management (Portland Audubon Society et al. vs. Hodel 1987)

Judge Helen Frye - suit against the Forest Service (Northwest Forest Resource Council et al. vs. Robertson 2/13/1989)

Judge James Bums- suit against the Forest Service (Oregon Natural Resources Council et al. vs. U.S. Forest Service 1986)

Judge Helen Frye - suit against Forest Service (Western Washington Commercial Forest Action Committee vs. Robertson 2/8/89)

Western Washington - Seattle Judge Thomas Zilly - suit against the Fish and Wildlife Service (northern spotted owl et al. vs. Hodel 5/5/1988)

Judge William Dwyer - suit against the Forest Service (Seattle Audubon Society et al. vs. Robertson 2/8/89)

Judge William Dwyer- Suit against Forest Service (Washington Contract Loggers vs. Robertson 3/2/89)

Western Washington- Tacoma Judge Tanner - HALT vs. Robertson

Circuit Court of Appeals

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals- San Francisco Judge Alfred T. Goodwin - suit against BLM 8/89 Judge Harry Pregerson - suit against BLM 8/89 Judge Mary M. Schroeder - suit against BLM 8/89 Judge Edward Leavy - suit against BLM, earlier appeal

Supreme Court - Washington, D.C. Suit against BLM 283

APPENDIX C

Movement of Selected Old-growth Issue Participants Within the Issue Network.

Name Pre 1989 1989

Bob Warren ONRC staff Rep. DeFazio

Paul Alaback Sierra Club Forest Service scientist PhD student OSU

Glenn Juday Sierra Club Forest Service scientist PhD student OSU

Chuck Sisco MS student HSU National Audubon Society under Gutierrez

Bruce Marcot MS student HSU under Forest Service scientist Gutlerrez, PhD student OSU

Miles Hemstrom PhD student OSU under Forest Service scientist Franklin, Middle Santiam Wilderness Committee

Peter Morrison MS student OSU under The Wilderness Society Swanson, Forest Service

Ron Arnold Sierra Club Wise Use Movement

Fred Swanson ONRC Forest Service scientist

Brock Evans Sierra Club National Audubon Society

Andy Stahl Oregon Associated Loggers Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

Bob Freimark Champion International The Wilderness Society

Peter DeFazio congressional aid to Rep. U.S. Representative J. Weaver, county commissioner

Larry Tuttle county commissioner, The Wilderness Society congressional candidate

Tom Imeson aide to Senator Hatfield Gov. Goldschmldt staff

Pat Amedeo aide to OR Gov. Atiyeh Lawyer for NFRC APPENDIX D Douglas-firAmount of landregion (acres) in Washington. managed byThe the Bureau U.S. Forest of Land Service Management (F.S.) and administers National Parkapproximately Service (NPS) 2,000 in acres the 19 in countiesthe area. of Sources: the Federal Lands of Western Washington ClallamCountyWashington State Research Council 1985; USDA Forest Service 1988i; USD1 National Park Service 1993 a,b,c. Total Acres 1,125,120 FS Acres 519,728 % FS Acres 3.30 NPS Acres % NPS Acres Total FS+NPS 519,728 % FS + NPS 3.28 IslandGray'sCowlitzClark Harbor 1,222,400 135,680732,160401,280 160,32028,378 1,150 1.000.180.00 11,500 0.07 171,82028,378 1,150 0.180.001.09 LewisKitsapKingJefferson 1,550,7201,361,9201,155,200 251 .520 441,752346,285701,630 4.402.802.19 538,50039,444 0.25 3.4 1,240,130 481,196346,285 3.042.197.84 SanJuanPiercePacificMason 1,072,640 114,560581,120615,680 124,612164,866 0.791.04 196,16837,500 1.240.24 320,780202,366 2.031.28 ThurstonSnohomishSkamaniaSkagit 1,342,72011,110,400 .070,080 456,960 635,097517,982 622 4.013.270.00 152,051 0.96 635,097670,033 622 4.014.230.00 totalWhatcomWahkiakum 15,827,8401,360,640 167,040 4,478,592 836,170 28.30 5.28 1,699,115 388,952 10.73 2.46 6,177,7071,225,122 39.03 7.74