Here in the northeast we are responsible for sustainable forest management of over 1 million acres of forestland, part of a land ownership of 5 million acres of forestland in the U.S. We, and the communities we live in, depend directly on the health and productivity of our forests for our livelihood. One of the core values and responsibilities of forestland ownership is water quality. We take our responsibility for water quality seriously. Our ownership in New Hampshire, 170,000 acres just north of here, includes the headwaters for the Connecticut and Androscoggin Rivers. Both are important bodies of water in this region.
We appreciate your invitation to testify before the committee on our concern about the impact of the EPA's proposed TMDL and NPDES rules on our operations and regarding our support for your legislation, S.2417.
EPA's proposed changes to the regulatory treatment of silviculture under these new rules are not justified either in terms of need or in terms of improved environmental benefits. In our region, silviculture is not a significant threat to water quality. Successful voluntary and regulatory initiatives are already in place here to ensure that silviculture activities are undertaken with measures that protect water quality. These programs would be jeopardized by EPA's proposed rule changes. And while we appreciate Mr. Fox's efforts to improve the proposed rule, EPA's recent joint announcement with USDA on changes to the treatment of forestry operations falls quite short of what we view as improvements.
Champion's forest management activities in the northeast region include harvesting, forest management road construction, and other silvicultural activities to improve the health and productivity of our forests (planting, thinning of young stands, herbicide treatments to control competing vegetation, etc.). All of these activities have planning and monitoring components that address water quality.
Prior to beginning any activity on our lands, our foresters develop plans incorporating state regulations, our riparian guidelines and any applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). We consider the silvicultural prescription, the timing or season of the operation, the type of soil and potential for erosion and the type of equipment or operation. In Maine, we abide by state regulations which govern the amount of wood we can remove in a streamside management zone. Best Management Practices developed with the state govern, for example, how we build roads, how we build culverts, and how a logger can drive a skidder through the woods during harvest so that it does not create a channel that might cause soil erosion into a stream. All of these factors are assessed with a focus on preventing a negative impact on water quality.
Once activity begins, we monitor and inspect operations on a regular basis. Should a water quality issue arise, we are able to address it quickly. Should weather conditions change, such as the early spring thaw we had this year, we can move or modify our operations quickly to assure water quality is not compromised. Ongoing monitoring of our property by state natural resources agencies and informal monitoring by members of the public also assures that if a water quality concern arises, we are aware of it.
We also conduct a broader annual water quality BMP audit of our operations in this region, often involving outside natural resource professionals. These audits are designed to provide an extra layer of review and identify areas for improvement in our operations.
In addition to what is required by law, Champion and the forest industry have a voluntary national program in place that addresses water quality - the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFIsm).. The SFI is a comprehensive set of standards that includes measures that integrate the growing and harvesting of trees with the protection of wildlife, plants, soil, air, and water quality. Under SFI, Champion must meet or exceed all established BMPs and state water quality regulations under the Clean Water Act.
SFI requires that we establish riparian protection measures for all streams and lakes. Champion has addressed this through the implementation of a landscape classification system called Forest Patternssm. One component of Forest Patterns is the designation of restricted management or special value areas where the first priorities for our management activities are the protection of water quality, wildlife habitat, or recreation. Here we have implemented riparian management guidelines that in most cases exceed the existing state standards. Champion was the first company in the U.S. to commit to third party verification of our performance under the SFI standards. This formal third party audit reviews both the systems we have in place to protect water quality as well as our performance on the ground. Champion has engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct these audits. Our operations in the northeast will be reviewed this October for the fourth time since 1996.
Champion also supports efforts to encourage other landowners to protect water quality. Our procurement foresters require that loggers and landowners that sell wood to our mills comply with state water quality regulations and BMPs. Our foresters audit these operations for performance and work with contractors to take corrective action if needed.
Under our commitment to SFI, we also sponsor and support training for loggers and landowners that addresses water quality BMPs and regulations. In Maine and New Hampshire, we participate in an SFI process for the public to raise concerns about forest practices that appear to be inconsistent with SFI principles. By calling 1-888-SFI-GOAL, people can identify a site-specific area of concern, such as water quality, and be assured of follow up on that operation by a forester that will focus on education and change in behavior, if necessary.
EPA nationally and regionally recognizes that silvicultural and forest management activities are not a significant source of water quality impairment. I believe due in great part to the efforts I have just described. At a March 21, 2000 meeting with members of the New Hampshire forestry community, EPA's New England Region Associate Director of Surface Water stated that "silviculture in New England is not a threat to surface water."
Here are some statistics to illustrate:
--Silviculture is at or near the lowest "leading source" of pollution or impairment for rivers and streams shown in summary charts in each of EPA's section 305(b) reports from 1988 through 1994. In the 1996 report, EPA dropped silviculture from the chart as one of the seven leading sources of impairment to rivers and streams. --The total number of river and stream miles impaired due to silviculture declined 20 percent between 1994 and 1996. --The number of river and stream miles classed as "major impairment" due to silviculture dropped 83 percent from 1988 to 1996. --Silviculture is not even included in the summary charts of leading sources of impairment to lakes, reservoirs, estuaries or ocean shoreline waters according to EPA's 305(b) reports. --None of the 305(b) reports list silviculture as a public health or aquatic life concern nor a source of groundwater impairment.
We think this network of regulatory and voluntary oversight works well and the statistics tell us that we are right. From our vantage point, EPA's proposed rule and the recent revisions that EPA announced with USDA are just plain unnecessary. Worse, they could well cost us the gains we have made by jeopardizing the state programs and drastically increasing our exposure to citizen lawsuits.
As you have heard many times these last months, under the EPA's new rule landowners could be required to obtain federal clean water permits for forestry operations, including harvesting, road construction, and other silvicultural activities if they take place near an impaired waterway. Inclusion of silvicultural activities as point source discharges subject to TMDLs in impaired waterways could pit forest landowners and sparsely populated rural communities against heavily populated municipalities when determining TMDLs. The cost, time delay and red-tape involved with such a permit would make many activities cost prohibitive and we think could actually encourage landowners to convert their land to non-forestry uses with a greater potential for negative impact on water quality.
A federal permit process would invite intervention and lawsuits by special interest groups to challenge private forestry practices. Large, private forestland ownerships in the northeast region have been targeted by national and regional preservation groups for conversion to public ownership and elimination of the timber harvesting and management that sustains our economy. Since 1995, numerous legislative and public policy initiatives to ban or restrict forest management practices have been initiated in attempts to make private ownership of these lands economically un-viable. This rule would provide a valuable tool for that agenda.
Consider simply the impact on our operations just from the NPDES permit process: Last winter, we had heavy snow in one of our winter operation areas near Pittsburgh, New Hampshire. We decided that we needed to move our harvesting crew to other areas with lower snow depth for the safety and productivity of those harvesting contracts. How long would it have taken us to get a new permit under EPA's proposed rule? Another example: This year we had an early spring thaw. We always shut down our operations during this time - or "mud season" as we call it here, because the soil gets saturated with snowmelt. These conditions can create ruts which can channel snowmelt into streams causing siltation. Prior to the onset of mud season, we move our operations to environmentally safe areas and then shut down. This year, the timing was different - the thaw came early. The flexibility to respond to weather changes to minimize risk could be lost under this permit proposal.
One final example. If and when the market changes for a particular tree, we need to quickly make decisions about how to respond. Last summer, the regional market for hardwood pulpwood had so much supply that the price was depressed. We needed to decide quickly whether we should leave our hardwood pulpwood stands slated for harvest in place, or harvest at a loss, or shut down or move. Again, would we have that kind of flexibility if we were faced with getting an NPDES permit? I can only wonder about trying to get a NPDES permit to deal with an event that required an immediate emergency response like a fire or a pest infestation.
Proposed revisions to the rule announced by EPA in consultation with USDA this week still do not address these concerns:
--Most importantly and I say with great emphasis: The revised proposal still calls for changing the designation of silvicultural activities from non-point source category to point source. We would still be subjected to a federal NPDES permit. There is no justification for this. --The revised approach is even more expansive than the proposed rule. EPA and USDA now claim authority to review and approve entire state forestry programs as opposed to reviewing each individual TMDL submitted by the state. Through a public process to develop national forestry practices guidance, EPA and USDA now intend to federally dictate the development, implementation and enforcement of virtually every forest management activity conducted on all private forest lands in the country. In other words, if state forestry program requirements for activities such as tree planting, harvesting, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, surface drainage, road construction and maintenance, thinning, cultural treatment, site preparation and nursery operations are inconsistent with federal standards, EPA will impose federal NPDES permits.
--Through this federal oversight, EPA and USDA have for the first time provided environmental non-governmental organizations the ability to dictate how forest management operations should be conducted on private forest lands throughout the country. This could include decisions about what species of tree to plant, what type of forest management operation is conducted, the width of a streamside management zone or if harvesting should even be allowed.
--EPA and USDA do not specify what precise criteria will qualify a state for having "reasonable assurances" that the state will regulate forestry activities. This is a blank check for EPA to approve state programs based on undefined criteria.
--The revised approach may trigger Endangered Species Act consultation with USF&W; and NMFS when reviewing state forestry programs for approval (not a current requirement). This jeopardizes the existing programs and creates great uncertainty for forest landowners and states as to whether state forestry programs are acceptable or not.
While we appreciate the attempt by EPA and USDA to address our concerns, we do not believe that they address the fundamental test. The real test for whether this proposed rule and the recent changes are needed at all lies with this question: Will this result in any improved ability of EPA, the states, or landowners to prevent or correct water quality problems from forestry operations? The answer is no.
We do not believe this rule should be finalized.
Senator Smith and Senator Crapo, we support your efforts to address water quality issues in a more meaningful and productive way than EPA's proposed rules. Your legislation to improve state funding and data quality makes sense and we think speaks to some of the real issues here. We also support legislation introduced by Senators Lincoln and Landrieu to codify the existing non-point regulatory status of silviculture and we hope you will consider them as an important part of this debate when you hold hearings on your bill.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify.