12 CapitalPress.com
March 25, 2016
Logging, grazing have decreased in past 25 years
COLVILLE from Page 1
Online
‘It’s a big deal’
Tucked in the corner of
Washington state where its
border intersects with those
of Idaho and Canada, the
Colville National Forest’s
1.1 million acres cover near-
ly one-third of Stevens, Ferry
and Tend Oreille counties. It’s
also the only part of the state
with an established wolf pop-
ulation, another challenge for
ranchers.
Logging and grazing have
both decreased in the Colville
over the past 25 years.
In the late 1980s, some
135 million board feet of tim-
ber was harvested annually.
Today the number is about 44
million board feet, a 67 per-
cent decrease. Under the plan,
the Forest Service projects
future timber harvests will be
slightly higher, about 48 mil-
lion board feet.
The fi rst grazing allot-
ment in the national forest
was issued in 1911. By 1988,
as many as 7,000 cow-calf
pairs were permitted to graze
from June to October in the
Colville. The number has
since declined by more than
21 percent to fewer than 5,500
pairs.
Yet the remaining grazing
creates signifi cant economic
activity, generating 98 jobs
and revenue of $1.5 million,
according to the Forest Ser-
vice.
Hedrick
acknowledged
that federal grazing fees are
low — this year it will be
$2.11 for a cow and calf to
forage for one month — but
operating costs such as labor,
fuel and equipment in the na-
tional forest are substantial.
Ranchers say they depend
on the national forest to main-
tain their livelihood. If it be-
comes impractical to graze
cattle there, the cows won’t
have anywhere to go in the
region because surrounding
summer grazing lands are al-
ready taken, Hedrick said.
He fi gures his family’s
ranch would have to reduce its
herd by 800 head — one-third
of the total operation.
“Any other available land
basically is tied up in agri-
culture, so it makes getting a
lease fairly diffi cult,” he said.
“It’s a signifi cant amount of
land. It’s the heart-and-soul
of the whole tri-county econ-
omy. It’s a big deal.”
Revised plan
The Colville National For-
est currently operates under a
More information about the
plan and how to comment is
available on the Internet at
www.fs.usda.gov/colville.
Rules are confusing
Courtesy of Colville National Forest
Cows graze in Smackout Meadows in the Colville National Forest in northeast Washington. A cattlemen’s association says a forest plan
proposed by the Forest Service would effectively end grazing in the 1.1 million-acre forest.
Courtesy of Colville National Forest Heritage Collection
In this photo from 1943, ranchers herd sheep in the Colville National Forest in northeast Washington.
No sheep currently graze in the forest. If sheep return, they will have to stay away from bighorn sheep
because of the threat of disease transmission.
plan adopted in 1988. Work
on a new plan began more
than a decade ago. The Forest
Service held public meetings
over the years on the plan’s
progress. Interest picked up
in February when the plan,
written under the direction of
Pacifi c Northwest Regional
Forester Jim Tena, was re-
leased for public comment.
The comment period was ex-
tended last week to July 5.
The revised plan refl ects
the tension between the
changing demands on fed-
eral land management in the
West. Trior to 1988, forest
managers thought grazing
was of “little public interest,”
according to the old plan, in
which they confessed to be-
ing surprised by any public
complaints about grazing.
In the revised plan, forest
managers say they have re-
sisted calls from vocal spe-
cial interests to ban grazing
entirely.
The new plan, howev-
er, still blames grazing for
damaging streambanks, dis-
rupting riparian ecology and
muddying streams.
Meanwhile, according to
the plan’s introduction, for-
est managers are increasingly
focused on “providing quiet,
natural places for personal
renewal while emphasizing
planning and restoration of
forest ecosystems.” Such an
added focus, according to
the Forest Service, is vital to
building public support for
federal land management.
Some conservationists say
the Forest Service, general-
ly, has not acted fast enough
to curb grazing, which they
claim amounts to the public
subsidizing environmental
destruction.
“Livestock gets a very
sweet deal off American pub-
lic lands,” said Randi Spivak,
public lands director for the
Center for Biological Diver-
sity, a nonprofi t group critical
of grazing.
Cattle should be kept
away from streams and graz-
ing seasons should be short
enough to give plants time to
fl ourish, she said.
“It seems they (the Forest
Service) are very accommo-
dating to livestock, and we
need better protection,” Spi-
vak said. “Livestock confl icts
with a lot of other uses.”
In written response to
questions, Colville National
Forest managers repeatedly
made the point that the plan
won’t change grazing prac-
tices — directly. Changes
could come, however, in al-
lotment-by-allotment adjust-
ments.
The changes could include
“shortened grazing seasons
and/or restricted livestock
access to streams that have
federally listed threatened
or endangered fi sh spawning
beds,” according to the For-
est Service.
The plan’s mandates in-
clude:
• Grazing can’t interfere
with the life cycles of threat-
ened, endangered and sensi-
tive plant species.
• Salt blocks and watering
tanks would be prohibited
around rare plants.
• Grazing should be man-
aged to maintain conditions
that support snowshoe hares,
a main food for Canada lynx.
• Cattle should be man-
aged to discourage congre-
gating on trails, destination
areas and cultural sites.
• Livestock must be kept
away from spawning fi sh.
• Stubble height of at least
6 to 8 inches should be main-
tained near waterways.
• Braided trails in some
areas should be blocked.
• 69,000 acres of addi-
tional wilderness area would
be designated, with no new
grazing permitted in that
area.
• Domestic sheep would
not be allowed near bighorn
sheep because of the poten-
tial for transmitting disease.
No domestic sheep cur-
rently graze in the national
forest.
The Stevens County Cat-
tlemen’s Association says the
requirements, when taken
together, will mean the end
of grazing in the Colville Na-
tional Forest.
“We do not need a plan
that creates unobtainable
standards like having 6 to 8
inches of stubble height in a
riparian area,” Hedrick said.
“We need a plan that has
guidelines that refl ect the con-
sistent effort ranchers make to
keep their allotments in good
condition.”
‘You can win the legal battle but you’re going to lose the war’
GMO from Page 1
While the Grocery Manu-
facturers Association, which
represents the industry, has
successfully defeated sever-
al ballot initiatives and still
hopes to prevail in court, in-
dividual companies may be
less willing to put up a fi ght,
he said.
“You can win the legal
battle but you’re going to
lose the war because con-
sumers have made up their
mind,” said Gillpatrick. “You
can be right, but you can be
dead right, too. It’s much eas-
ier to have the wind at your
back.”
Major farm groups have
opposed mandatory labeling,
fearing that it will further
stigmatize GMOs among
consumers.
Labels send the message
that something is wrong with
GMOs and may cause peo-
ple to avoid certain products,
said Barry Bushue, president
of the Oregon Farm Bureau
and former vice president of
the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
“This effectively pits one
form of agriculture against
another,” Bushue said.
Labeling also involves
more than changes to pack-
aging, as farmers and other
suppliers will have to certify
that they’re providing manu-
facturers with non-GMO in-
gredients, said Ian Tolleson,
director of government af-
fairs for the Northwest Food
Trocessors Association.
“It’s going to have to be
substantiated
throughout
the supply chain,” Tolleson
said.
Bushue and Tolleson said
the decision by General Mills
pointed to the need for a na-
tional voluntary standard for
GMO labeling, which would
provide consistency across
the food industry.
A bill creating such a sys-
tem while pre-empting state
laws recently failed to move
forward in the U.S. Senate.
The prospect of separate-
ly labeling foods headed for
Vermont may have contribut-
ed to the decision by General
Mills, since it’s expensive to
stop and restart production for
a single state, said Michael
Sansolo, a food industry con-
sultant and former senior vice
president of the Food Market-
ing Institute.
Trying to predict how
many packages to earmark for
a specifi c state is also tough
for manufacturers, Sansolo
said.
Competing food compa-
nies, including smaller pro-
cessors, will have no choice
but to examine how the po-
sitions adopted by General
Mills and Campbell’s affect
their own markets, he said.
“We’re talking about two
very signifi cant companies,
both of whom like to present
themselves as having health-
ful products,” he said.
Extreme seasonal fl uctuations cause the frog’s eggs to dry up
FROG from Page 1
“We can’t fl ip it to Lewis
and Clark days overnight,” said
Beth Ginsberg, attorney for the
irrigation districts.
Environmentalists
risk
harming the spotted frogs they
want to protect by demanding
major operational changes at
three Central Oregon water res-
ervoirs, according to the federal
government.
Frogs actually benefi t from
a wetter habitat in some areas
in late spring and summer, said
Mike Eitel, attorney for the
government.
“What the plaintiffs pro-
posal does is takes those good
conditions and ratchets them
back,” said Eitel. “The cur-
rent conditions are enhancing
the quality of the downstream
sites.”
The plaintiffs fi led a law-
suit against the federal agency
and three irrigation districts —
Central Oregon, North Unit and
Tumalo — earlier this year for
allegedly violating the Endan-
At a glance
Oregon spotted frog
Binomial name: Rana pretiosa
Appearance: Medium-size frog ranging from 1.75 to 4 inches long. Body
color varies with age. Adults appear brown to reddish brown with black
spots with ragged edges.
Courtesy of U.S. Fish
Range: British Columbia, Washington,
and Wildlife Service
Oregon and California
Habitat: Found in or near
perennial bodies of water that
include zones of shallow
water and vegetation.
Status: Threatened
Reasons for decline:
Habitat loss, competition
from non-native species,
predation
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
gered Species Act.
Their complaint alleges
that reservoir operations have
reversed the natural hydrology
in associated rivers and creeks,
which experience low fl ows
during winter while water is
stored and higher fl ows during
the summer irrigation season.
Extreme seasonal fl uctua-
tions cause the frog’s eggs to
Alan Kenaga/Capital Press
dry up during low fl ows and
exposes them to predators
during high fl ows, the plain-
tiffs claim.
Water levels differ from
year to year, creating unpre-
dictability for female frogs that
would otherwise return to the
same breeding sites, according
to the environmentalists.
Insuffi cient water fl ows in
winter also reduce habitat for
the frogs, forcing them to con-
gregate in marginal areas where
they’re vulnerable to predation,
the plaintiffs argue.
“If they continue dropping
to these low water fl ows, these
frogs are going to keep dying,”
said Lauren Rule, attorney for
the Center for Biological Di-
versity.
Under the preliminary in-
junction proposed by plaintiffs,
the Bureau of Reclamation and
irrigation districts would oper-
ate the reservoirs under a “reg-
ulated option” — with higher
winter fl ows and lower summer
fl ows set a fi xed levels — or a
“run-of-the-river option,” un-
der which dam controls would
be left open to mimic natural
fl uctuations.
The Bureau of Reclamation
asked the judge to reject the
preliminary injunction request
because there’s no evidence the
frog’s population will suddenly
deteriorate without these mea-
sures.
“It’s not going to have the ef-
fect the plaintiffs think it’s going
to have,” said Eitel. “You could
have very drastic consequences
for this frog population.”
Such “aggressive and im-
mediate” actions aren’t justi-
fi ed by science and wouldn’t
work in the best interest of the
species, which is more likely
to respond positively to gradu-
al changes, the federal agency
said.
The “regulated option” and
the “run-of-the-river” option
are inconsistent with each oth-
er, since unmanaged fl ows of
the river could result in low-
er water levels than environ-
mentalists claim are necessary
under the “regulated option,”
according to the Bureau of Rec-
lamation.
Reducing fl ows in summer
would eliminate some frog
habitat while greater winter
volumes could overwhelm
the species with cold water to
which it’s now unaccustomed,
the agency said.
The plaintiffs have also
failed to give the irrigation dis-
tricts credit for conservation
measures aimed at improving
the frog’s chances of surviv-
al, the Bureau of Reclamation
said.
These steps are being imple-
mented while federal agencies
consult on the impact of dam
operations on Oregon spotted
frogs and develop a broader
“habitat conservation plan” that
preserves several protected spe-
cies in the region, as required
by the ESA, the agency said.
Rule, the environmentalists’
attorney, said the habitat con-
servation plan has already tak-
en eight years so far and frogs
cannot wait “eons” for it to be
completed.
Ginsberg, attorney for the
irrigation districts, said the
habitat conservation plan will
be based on the best science
and input from multiple groups
and agencies, including Water-
watch of Oregon.
“They’ve become impatient
with it, but the solution is not
to throw the baby out with the
bath water,” she said.