U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–433 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–826

H.R. 4200—THE FOREST EMERGENCY RECOVERY

AND RESEARCH ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, 

AND RURAL REVITALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 2, 2006

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

VERNIE HUBERT, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

H.R. 4200—The Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act ......................... 1

Wednesday, August 2, 2006

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho ...................................................... 1

Coleman, Hon. Norm, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota ........................................ 12

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., a U.S. Senator from Arkansas .................................... 8

Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................ 10

WITNESSES 

Panel I 

Rey, Hon. Mark, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture .......................................................................... 4

Scarlett, Hon. Lynn, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior .......... 3

Panel II 

Crouch, Jim, Executive Director, Ouachita Timber Purchasers Group, Russellville, Arkansas ...................................................................................................... 22

Kupillas, Sue, Executive Director, Communities for Healthy Forests ................ 20

Ringo, Charlie, Oregon State Senator, Beaverton, Oregon .................................. 24

Thompson, Alan, Commissioner, Ravalli County, Montana, on behalf of the 

National Association of Counties ........................................................................ 19

Panel III 

Helms, John A., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Forestry, University of California, Berkeley, on behalf of the Society of American Foresters .................... 33

Karr, Jim, Ph.D., Ecologist and Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington ................................................................................ 34

Krepps, Robert L., St. Louis County Commissioner, Duluth, Minnesota ........... 36

MacSwords, Leah W., Director and State Forester, Kentucky Division of Forestry, on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters ....................... 38

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Crouch, Jim ....................................................................................................... 48

Helms, John A. ................................................................................................. 53

Karr, Jim ........................................................................................................... 61

Krepps, Robert L. ............................................................................................. 66

Kupillas, Sue ..................................................................................................... 70

MacSwords, Leah W. ........................................................................................ 76

Rey, Hon. Mark ................................................................................................. 80

Ringo, Charlie ................................................................................................... 85

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued

Scarlett, Hon. Lynn .......................................................................................... 87

Thompson, Alan ................................................................................................ 91

(1)

H.R. 4200—THE FOREST EMERGENCY 

RECOVERY AND RESEARCH ACT 

Wednesday, August 2, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND

RURAL REVITALIZATION

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in Room 

SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Crapo, Coleman, Lincoln, Daytan, and Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. The hearing will come to order. This is the Senate Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, holding its hearing regarding H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. I want to thank everybody for 

being here today to discuss H.R. 4200, and I would especially like 

to thank our Deputy Secretary, Lynn Scarlett, and Under Secretary 

Mark Rey, and all the other witnesses, many of whom have traveled great distances and gone to a lot of work to be here. I want 

to thank everybody for taking the time to be here and provide your 

testimony for this important legislation. 

H.R. 4200 is a bipartisan bill introduced by Representatives Greg 

Walden and Bryan Baird and co-sponsored by 146 of their House 

colleagues. It was passed by the House of Representatives on May 

17. The legislation is a product of 2 years of work to identify and 

address obstacles to forest recovery following catastrophic events. 

3 years ago, this committee worked in a bipartisan fashion to 

pass the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and many of you here 

today were here then to help make that a success. I was pleased 

to work closely with the subcommittee ranking member, Senator 

Blanche Lincoln, to see that that bill was enacted. 

With millions of acres of Federal land at high risk of catastrophic 

fire, prolonged drought affecting many States across the Nation, 

and the potential for hurricanes and storms, the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act has provided Federal land managers with the tools 

necessary to improve the health of forests and rangelands. Progress 

is being made. Work is under way to limit the risk on our Federal 

lands. 

However, as work is being done additional storms and fires and 

other natural events are contributing to the backlog of more than 

2

one million acres of national forests in need of reforestation. For instance, the National Inter-Agency Fire Center is currently reporting large fires in Arizona, California, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. These fires are destroying property, degrading air and water quality, damaging fish 

and wildlife habitat, and threatening lives and communities. 

I recognize the important and valuable role that fire plays in our 

ecosystem. However, in many cases we are not talking about normal healthy ecosystems. The fires that are a result of unnatural 

fuel loads do tremendous damage to our forests and with the current state of our forests this is all too often. 

However, this legislation is about more than forest fires. It is 

about what happens when the last flame from a forest fire is extinguished. It is about what happens after a tornado, such as the tornado that tore a 12–mile swath through Idaho’s Payette National 

Forest in June, impacting nearly 5,000 acres of public land and private forested land. It is about what happens after hurricanes knock 

vast stretches of forest land. It is about what happens after insects 

infest forests, threatening neighboring communities. 

This legislation is about restoration and ensuring that Federal 

land managers can respond in a timely manner when disaster 

strikes to limit the impact on neighboring communities. The legislation is about planning ahead. It seems to me that it is just common sense to be as prepared as possible to respond quickly and effectively when a catastrophe occurs. 

While we cannot always predict the specifics of natural disasters, 

we can be prepared with recovery plans when disaster strikes. An 

important aspect of this legislation is that it provides for that kind 

of forward planning by providing for the establishment of pre-approved management practices. 

The legislation also strengthens research by requiring forest 

health partnerships with colleges and universities when establishing post-catastrophe research projects and requiring development of independent third party peer-reviewed research protocols. 

The bottom line is that failure to bring a forest back to a healthy 

condition after a catastrophe can leave the forest more susceptible 

to additional fire, pest outbreaks, and threaten families and wildlife that live in and or around our natural resources. 

Today we are going to hear from witnesses representing the administration, local stakeholders, the environmental community, the 

private industry, scientists, and foresters. All of our witnesses have 

a valuable perspective to share as we look to provide our Federal 

land managers with the tools necessary to ensure timely recovery 

from catastrophic events. I know the committee is going to find this 

information presented very helpful as we move forward to consider 

this legislation. 

With that, I am going to move on to our first panel. Let me remind not only our first panel, but all of our witnesses, that you 

have been notified to try to keep your remarks to 5 minutes, and 

we have a little clock in front of you to help you do so. I almost 

always jokingly say in my case my 5 minutes is gone before what 

I have to say is done. Please be assured that the reason we have 

the 5–minute rule is so that we can have a good give and take in 

3

questions and answers, and if you do not have the opportunity to 

finish your statement during your initial presentation you will certainly have an opportunity to make your points in the question and 

answer period. So please try to pay attention to the clock. 

For those like me occasionally who forget to pay attention to the 

clock, if it starts running over too much I will just lightly tap the 

gavel to remind you to take a glance at it. 

With that, we have with us today, as I indicated, in our first 

panel Lynn Scarlett, the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, and Mark Rey, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

We will start with you, Ms. Scarlett. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN SCARLETT, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research 

Act. The administration and the Congress have provided Federal 

land managers with tools to improve health of public forests and 

rangelands. As you noted in your remarks, these tools are making 

a difference. Together, the Forest Service and Interior’s agencies 

have reduced hazardous fuels since 2001 on over 17 million acres 

of public and tribal lands. 

However, when fire, drought, insect epidemics, or other catastrophic events occur on public lands, procedural delays under current laws still prevent timely implementation of recovery and restoration activities. H.R. 4200 would provide tools to expedite recovery and restoration activities. To date this year, over five million 

acres have burned. Much of these acres would benefit from postfire restoration actions in a timely fashion. 

Post-fire situations often require a rapid coordinated response to 

assure effective recovery and restoration efforts. Current authorities and procedures make coordinated decisionmaking among Federal, State, and local land managers difficult. For example, the Bureau of Land Management missed an opportunity to coordinate salvage and restoration activities with an adjacent landowner in the 

area burned by the Timbered Rock Fire in 2002 in Oregon. The adjacent landowner moved ahead immediately with salvaging and 

within 1 year had salvaged and replanted all 9,000 acres of burned 

land. Because of the procedural requirements to salvage and replant on Federal lands, most of the Bureau of Land Management 

portion of the burned area was not salvaged, although a portion 

was eventually replanted. 

Provisions of H.R. 4200 would increase the likelihood of effective 

restoration on a landscape or watershed basis. The bill establishes 

a process for pre-approved management practices that may be implemented immediately after catastrophic events to recover economic value of timber as well as undertake reforestation and revegetation. 

The need for this authority is acute on Bureau of Land Management rangelands as well as forests and woodlands. For example, 

after the 67,000 acre Jackie Butte Fire near Vale, Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management proposed a 33,000–acre emergency stabilization rehabilitation project to drill and seed the site to reestabVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:17 Mar 19, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30433.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
4

lish sagebrush steppe. The project met with protests, appeals, and 

delays to the point that fall seeding windows were missed. Though 

some 28,000 acres were eventually seeded due to light snowpack in 

the winter, the rehabilitation benefits were significantly less than 

had we been able to do that project in a timely fashion. 

H.R. 4200 would replace some current BLM planning and program operations for post-catastrophic event recovery and restoration with a new system of pre-approved management practices for 

events affecting 1,000 or more acres of Federal land. The list and 

use of pre-approved management practices meet the NEPA requirements. By authorizing rapid responses to prevent the loss of deteriorating timber resources after a catastrophic event, H.R. 4200 

strives to make post-fire landscape and community economic recovery a priority. The administration strongly supports these goals. 

Fuels projects and post-fire recovery can produce significant 

amounts of small diameter woody materials. Better coordinated 

technical support, investment, and incentives can enhance development of infrastructure and help new technologies that make profitable use of forest and rangeland resources available at the advent 

of emergency salvage and recovery projects. 

H.R. 4200 also addresses one of the Department’s most vexing 

problems, the inability to implement recovery actions on fire-damaged lands despite agency compliance with current laws. In cases 

such as the Timbered Rock Fire, the environmental impact statement was developed with extensive public participation in the 

NEPA process and included a peer-reviewed science research component. Nonetheless, subsequent litigation resulted in BLM being 

prohibited from conducting many of the proposed restoration activities, including salvage logging of 17 million board-feet of dead and 

dying timber worth about $1.3 million. 

In the BLM’s portion of the Biscuit Fire in Oregon, where the 

Bureau proposed to harvest 2.4 million board-feet of dead and 

dying timber worth about $124,000, a judge recently lifted restrictions on harvest of post-fire materials. Unfortunately, in the years 

during which the BLM has been responding to litigation the timber 

has deteriorated to the point that it is almost unsalvageable. In the 

last 2 years it has lost 75 percent of its value. 

While the administration strongly supports the House version of 

H.R. 4200, we do continue to have some concerns about the spending provisions of Title 4. We welcome the opportunity to work with 

the committee to address any of these concerns, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett can be found on page 87 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. REY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting 

me to talk with you today about H.R. 4200. The administration 

strongly supports Congressional enactment of H.R. 4200 and I will 

5

submit the administration’s statement of policy issued during 

House consideration of the measure for the record of this hearing. 

President Bush recognized the need to restore our Nation’s public 

forests and rangelands to long-term health with the introduction of 

the Healthy Forests Initiative. The President directed the Federal 

agencies under Under Secretary Scarlett and my jurisdiction to develop tools to allow Federal land managers to restore hazardous 

fuels conditions in a timely manner. 

The Congress passed legislation that allowed for long-term stewardship contracts to implement management goals, including fuel 

reduction projects. This committee was instrumental in enacting 

the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, which is helping to address severe forest health conditions in a meaningful timeframe. 

While we now have tools to assist us in treating forests and 

grasslands to recapture healthy conditions before a catastrophe occurs, we still have the need for similar tools to help us recover and 

restore areas after catastrophic events, such as wildfires, hurricanes, or tornadoes and other wind events, and ice storms and insect and disease infestations have occurred. 

So far this year, wildland fires have burned over 5.6 million 

acres on Federal, State, and private lands throughout the Nation 

and destroyed over 1700 structures. Last summer Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita along the Gulf Coast destroyed cities, tragically 

took many lives, and disrupted millions of others. These storms 

also caused moderate to severe damage to about 20 million acres 

of woodlands, including private, State, and Federal ownerships, 

across the Gulf States from Texas to Florida. 

Along with causing physical damage, Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita have adversely impacted many ecosystem functions and processes that create conditions for attack by invasive species. Invasive 

insects and diseases pose great risks to America’s forests and have 

risen to catastrophic levels over the recent past. 20 million ash 

trees have been killed already by the emerald ash borer in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, and Virginia. The non-native hemlock woolly adelgid is currently affecting over half of the 

native range of hemlock species. Sudden oak death has the potential to affect susceptible oaks in most of the eastern United States. 

In Colorado and Wyoming alone, bark beetles have killed trees covering 1.7 million acres, and across the western United States there 

are currently 6.6 million acres similarly affected. 

These are some of the examples of the scope of the challenges to 

our research managers and we are using our current authorities to 

address these matters. However, we believe H.R. 4200 would provide some additional innovative authorities to improve the ability 

of the Secretary to promptly implement recovery treatments in response to catastrophic events affecting Federal lands. While these 

treatments include the removal of dead and damaged trees, the bill 

covers the entire spectrum of resource needs. Reforestation treatments, road and trail rehabilitation, and infrastructure repair are 

among other commonly critical aspects of post-disturbance recovery 

covered by the bill. 

H.R. 4200 would also support the recovery of non-Federal lands 

damaged by catastrophic events and would provide similar authority for Forest Service experimental forests. 

6

The Department strongly supports the goals of the legislation 

and its intent to get recovery actions accomplished promptly, while 

focusing on maintaining sound environmental decisionmaking and 

public involvement. We urge rapid Senate consideration and enactment of the measure. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey can be found on page 80 in 

the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Rey. 

I will ask questions first and then as I turn to our colleagues who 

have joined us, we will give you an opportunity if you want to 

make an opening statement at that time, and then you can proceed 

with questions. 

First I have a couple questions for both of you together and I encourage both of you to respond. The first question is what are the 

current impediments to active recovery and reforestation on the 

Forest Service and BLM lands? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Senator. As I mentioned in my testimony, we 

are continuing to face litigation, protests, appeals, and other actions when we try to move rapidly forward with our post-catastrophe restoration activities. As I indicated, in the Biscuit Fire, in 

its wake, that brought us to 2 years to 3 years after the actual 

event occurred before we could get in and do constructive work. 

That is one example, but we face that across the landscape in 

many instances. 

Mr. REY. I think even in more perfect situations, where there are 

not appeals or litigation, the case law that is already developed 

concerning the kind of analysis and the depth of analysis that is 

required makes many projects’ timeframe not susceptible to rapid 

recovery of these systems. So the burden of existing case law, particularly the kinds and scope of analysis required by NEPA, is an 

impediment to moving very quickly. We are, within the landowning 

community, the Federal Government is by far the slowest actor in 

recovering from a natural catastrophe. 

Senator CRAPO. When Senator Lincoln and I joined forces a few 

years back to bring the Healthy Forest Restoration Act forward, 

these same kinds of issues were presented and we developed an approach to addressing them in that act. I understand that that act 

had limited parameters in terms of its applicability, but has the approach taken in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act worked to address these kinds of issues? 

Mr. REY. It has worked very well to address these kinds of issues 

in situations involving actions that are preventative in nature, and 

that is its major thrust, providing us expedited authorities in some 

respect similar to those in this legislation for 20 million acres of 

Federal land to do preventative work. What we are talking about 

in this situation, in this legislation, is what we do after a catastrophe has occurred. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

The GAO report released on Monday highlights the need for better prioritization of recovery projects. Does this act help address 

the need for that by mandating post-event evaluations? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I would suggest that this act would be a significant advance with respect to our ability to set priorities with resVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:17 Mar 19, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30433.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
7

toration activities. It does ask that we do a post-catastrophe evaluation, work also with community wildfire protection planning 

processes to integrate our identification of restoration priorities 

with neighboring communities and adjacent lands. So I would suggest that it will be a significant help in that regard. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

In your testimony, Mr. Rey, particularly your testimony, you indicate that the debate over salvage logging is carried on without 

the benefit of a lot of effective science, scientific information. One 

of the emphases of H.R. 4200 is to improve forest restoration and 

recovery science. Do you believe that the provisions of the act in 

the area of science are effective or will be effective? 

Mr. REY. I think the act rightfully encourages the development 

of additional data to apply what we know in a more site specific 

sense. The big problem with the debate as it is being carried out 

today is that it exists at a very general level, with some parties 

saying that salvage is good and some parties saying salvage is bad 

as sort of a categoric statement. The truth lies closer to when is 

it good and when is it bad, based on what you are trying to accomplish in the site specific circumstances associated with the disaster 

that you are responding to. 

I think what this bill does is provide some mechanisms forest report us to generate additional data to answer those kinds of questions on a more site specific basis. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Another one for you, Mr. Rey. There is a lot of debate right now 

over the environmental effects of logging after a fire. Could you 

please speak to this argument or this issue, but particularly I am 

looking at the comparison of the potential negative effects that 

some have identified versus the negative effects of taking no action 

at all. 

Mr. REY. We will submit for the record a synthesis of the existing 

research on that question that was produced by the Forest Service’s research establishment. But I think that the short answer is 

that in many cases, not all, but in many cases, active recovery can 

restore a forest system faster than allowing nature to take its 

course, and that we do know enough in many cases to apply that 

knowledge to assist that recovery taking place. 

That is quite apart from whether it makes sense to get some 

value from trees that have already been killed by a fire or a natural catastrophe. Putting that question aside, the simple issue of 

does active management assist more rapid recovery, the answer is 

yes in many instances, but not all, and the important thing is to 

look at the site specific circumstances to decide whether this is an 

issue, an area where that will happen. 

Now, bringing in the question of should we put to use trees that 

have been killed by some natural catastrophe, a fire or an insect 

epidemic, it seems to me that that is the essence of conservation, 

because the alternative is to simply allow the material to go to 

waste, and I do not think that is a very conservationist point of 

view. 

Senator CRAPO. I just have one last question and I would encourage each of you to respond. Critics have claimed that this legislation lifts the Endangered Species Act and NEPA protections in 

8

order to speed up logging after a natural disaster. Does the legislation do that? Does this legislation require logging? Or, well, just 

could you respond to those criticisms? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Mr. Chairman, the act specifically addresses ESA 

provisions as well as NEPA provisions. In the pre-approved management elements that the secretaries of the respective agencies 

would put forth, there are public comment opportunities that are 

deemed in the act to be consistent with meeting NEPA requirements. With respect to the Endangered Species Act also, the act 

specifically sets forth that the activities would conform to the existing requirements under ESA for emergency actions. So I would 

suggest that the act is fully consistent with our fulfilling those responsibilities as well as our forest health responsibilities. 

Mr. REY. In fact, the provisions of the act dealing with NEPA are 

virtually identical to the provisions in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. And those same charges were levied 3 years ago when 

this committee was considering the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 

Indeed, it was asserted that if the committee enacted the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act the world as we know it would come to an 

end and the sky would certainly be on the ground, and none of that 

has happened in the ensuing 3 years. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

I will turn next to our ranking member, Senator Blanche Lincoln. Blanche, thank you and welcome here today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly a 

pleasure to be here with you again this morning to take up another 

issue that falls under our jurisdiction in the subcommittee. As always, I very much appreciate the chairman’s strong leadership in 

this committee. He does a tremendous job in making sure that we 

are paying attention to the things that we need to, and I think 

holding this hearing today is evidence of that. 

Before I have any brief remarks, I also want to thank the panelists for their participation. I am particularly pleased to have before 

the subcommittee today Mr. Jim Crouch of Russellville, Arkansas. 

Jim is a tremendous help to me and my staff on forestry issues, 

with many years of experience in the field, and we are very proud 

to have his testimony here today and I look forward to him sharing 

with the subcommittee on the next panel. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Under 

Secretary Mark Rey. He has on more than one occasion taken the 

time to sit down with me and my staff to answer some of our questions and to listen to what our views and concerns are, and I just 

want to say how much I very much appreciate the generosity of 

your time and your attention when we have these issues before us, 

and we look forward to working with you on this. 

As many of you know, I have worked closely with Senator Crapo 

and certainly others in the committee to craft the bipartisan 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act several years ago. In my view, the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act takes necessary steps to ensure 

that we can address the many problems that are affecting our Nation’s forests, both on public and private forest lands, in the SouthVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:17 Mar 19, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30433.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
9

east, the southern areas, the western forests, and throughout both 

the hardwood and the pine ecosystems. 

I do firmly believe that if we value our forests, and I certainly 

do—I grew up with one of the smallest and yet one of the probably 

premier hardwood natural forests, national forests, in my back 

yard, in the middle of the Arkansas Delta. But if we can conserve 

our woodland resources, if we can preserve their natural beauty, 

and if we want to ensure that the natural bounty of our forest land 

is available for future generations, then it is important that we actively manage those lands and those resources with a very careful 

eye toward their long-term health. 

With that national forest in my back yard growing up, I never 

will forget looking at the age and the quality of those hardwoods 

and then being told by my father that 100 years ago it had just 

been pasture land. So without a doubt the management of forests 

and taking an eye to that is critically important. 

We are here today to discuss a bill that provides new tools for 

our forest managers to more swiftly salvage timber and conduct reforestation activities in our national forests following some catastrophic events, events such as the wildfires that are currently 

wreaking havoc in so many of our western States. But also there 

are tornadoes, there are ice storms, there is insect infestation that 

commonly plagues eastern forests in States like my home State in 

Arkansas. 

I understand that we are going to hear a diversity of viewpoints 

on this bill from our panelists this morning and I certainly appreciate that. I think we all believe that that is tremendously helpful 

to us in coming about and bringing to the table the right combinations of solutions and ideas that we need to make our forest across 

this great land the best that it can be. 

So I look forward to the testimony. I have got just a few questions, Mr. Chairman, and I will pass it over to others here today. 

Secretary Rey, are the savings from what we are talking about 

here in our Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act adequate 

to cover the treatment of the additional acreage that would have 

been left to nature to heal, I guess I am looking at the resources 

that we really need. I know that you had mentioned earlier that 

letting those things waste is not in the best interest of conservation. But do we have the resources there? And if not, where will 

the money come from? 

I have got some concerns that the bill would allow the limited 

resources for active forest management, particularly on our eastern 

forests, to be diverted to post-fire salvage projects in western forests. Obviously, the forests are so much larger out West than what 

we have. We may not have the volume, but we do feel like we have 

the important task in the East of preserving the forests that we do 

have. 

Mr. REY. I think the bill will have the effect of reducing significantly the costs of post-catastrophic recovery projects and that will 

allow us to do more as we approach these catastrophes, wherever 

they occur. I think one of the benefits of the bill is the geographically evenhanded way it addresses forest and rangeland catastrophes, with a particular emphasis on insect and disease 

epidemics, which are becoming more and more a problem in the 

10

East, particularly now in the Midwest, with invasive species like 

the emerald ash borer and the Asian longhorn beetle. 

So I think there is a real opportunity in this bill to get a lot more 

done than we are currently doing in responding to those kinds of 

epidemics, as well as responding to wildfires. 

Senator LINCOLN. Are there any real specifics that you have in 

terms of how it would reduce the cost? 

Mr. REY. I would say, based on our experience with the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act and using the somewhat similar tools that 

that has provided, on larger projects we are seeing cost reductions 

of about 30 to 40 percent. 

Senator LINCOLN. Would either of you like to comment or give us 

some ideas of what would be included in a set of pre-approved 

management practices and how you might arrive at those practices? You have talked about how they would be beneficial and how 

they would be consistent with what already exists in terms of management practices. 

Mr. REY. I think the way that we would arrive at those practices 

is pretty clearly specified in the bill, in that it requires a notice and 

comment rulemaking as well as a peer review for scientific integrity. What I think you will see in those lists of management practices is practices associated with specific kinds of catastrophes in 

individual forest types. So you will not necessarily see the same list 

of practices for dealing with a southern pine beetle epidemic in Arkansas as you would necessarily seeing—as you would with a wildfire recovery in central Idaho. 

So they will be fairly—I think they will be fairly specific to the 

forest and rangeland type involved. 

Ms. SCARLETT. If I could just add one element to that, the act 

specifically sets forth that we would undertake these recovery and 

restoration activities pursuant to the existing land use plans and 

the land use planning objectives that we already have set forth. So 

the management tools selected would be those most germane to 

achieving those on-the-land healthy outcomes that are set forth in 

our land use plan. 

Senator LINCOLN. So more complementary of what already exists, 

as well as specific, because the specifics is important to me, as you 

know, in the case of the insect infestation like we saw with the red 

oak borer in Arkansas. So that would be critical. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. I want to also say how 

much a pleasure it is to work with you, Blanche. We always talk 

about our history, but we seem to sit on the same committees and 

we seem to like each other and get things done on a bipartisan 

basis. So it is good to work with you. 

Senator Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Crapo and Senator Lincoln, for holding this hearing, and thank you to Mark Rey 

and to Lynn Scarlett also for being here this morning. 

Let me say that, with respect to House of Representatives Bill 

4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, I am open 

11

to looking at how we can do things better on the ground after we 

have a catastrophe and we are responding to how we best recover 

from it and how we clean it up. If there are ways by which we can 

improve by changing the law, we certainly ought to be open to 

them, and I appreciate the initiative of you coming forward with 

ideas that need to be reviewed. 

I wanted to go back, though, to an issue that is very near and 

dear to my heart, that both of you have heard me talk about. That 

is what we are doing under the current authorities and the current 

funding streams with respect to the beetle infestation that we see 

in many places around the country, and here specifically for me in 

Colorado, where the 1.5 million acres that you referred to, Under 

Secretary Rey, are something that I see and hear about every day 

and something that concerns me. 

When I look at what might happen yet this summer, this fall, or 

in the next year, I can see hundreds of thousands of acres of our 

national forests going ablaze and continuing to see the spread of 

the bark beetle throughout the western part of Colorado. About 2 

weeks ago someone reported to us that they had seen the first of 

the bark beetles flying throughout the forest. Well, those bark beetles are now searching out their new habitats and soon we will see 

some of those large acreages that are now green start becoming red 

and part of the forest dying. 

My question to you, which is one that I am going to continue 

harping on, is why are we not providing the funding that is needed 

for us to be able to do the treatment with respect to many of these 

acres of land that have already been approved by the NEPA process? I think that we have had about 280,000 acres of treatments 

that have already been NEPA-approved. We have another 235,000 

acres in the pipeline that have been NEPA-approved. But it seems 

like it is the funding problem that is keeping us from addressing 

the treatment of those acreages. 

So I would like you to respond to that if you could, Mr. Rey. 

Mr. REY. We have some acres that are NEPA-approved, that are 

still awaiting funding. But I do not think, with all due respect, that 

that is the major impediment to proceeding on some of this recovery work. I think the major impediment to proceeding with some 

of it is the unit costs associated with getting the NEPA work done 

and getting the other analytical work done is consuming a substantial amount of resources. Bills like H.R. 4200 give us a real opportunity to reduce those costs and to, by reducing those costs, transfer more money into getting that work actually applied and finished on the ground. 

This is a budget environment which is very challenging, but the 

fact is that our fiscal year 2007 request for this kind of on-theground work is the largest budget request that any President has 

made of any Congress since the previous one we made, which was 

itself a record, and the one before that, which is a record. 

So we are devoting a substantial amount of money to this work 

as a Presidential priority. But we are still spending in some 

areas—and the Colorado Front Range is not our highest cost area, 

but it is a pretty high-cost area. But in our highest cost areas we 

are spending upwards of $3,000 an acre to get this work done. At 

that rate, there is never—there is no prospect for us ever to get 

12

ahead of things like pandemics of bark beetles. We have to reduce 

that rate substantially in some cases, not so much in Colorado, but 

substantially in other areas, before we are going to get ahead of 

this problem. This bill does that. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, I would like to, if I could, just add one 

thing. Of the 400,000–plus acres in northern Colorado infested by 

the beetle, about 10 percent of those are BLM lands, and I am 

pleased to say that what we have done is to shift money at the 

Washington office level to Colorado to supplement what would have 

been the Colorado State office funding to address those issues. So 

we are putting resources into Colorado, recognizing that challenge. 

Mr. REY. As are we, but again it is a very big problem. 

Senator SALAZAR. I appreciate that. 

Will we have another round with these two witnesses? 

Senator CRAPO. We certainly can. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me just make a comment on this and I 

have some other questions that I want to ask. While it seems to 

me that there may be changes in the law that can be made, Mr. 

Rey, to expedite what we are trying to do with respect to dealing 

with these infestations and these fire emergencies that we see 

throughout the West. The fact of the matter is that I think money 

is still a huge problem. I think when you look at the fact that in 

Colorado you have 283,000 acres that are ready to be treated, if we 

look at the average of the last several years we are going to treat 

50 to 80,000 acres in Colorado. That is a huge gap. That is almost 

200,000 acres that are not being treated. 

I think we just need to be straightforward and direct with the 

people and communities who are affected, and that is that there is 

not the resources available to go and treat these vast swaths of 

bark beetle-infected forests in our State, and that really necessitates, it seems to me, two things. One, we need to have the 

money in order to be able to deal with the problem. We just need 

to say that that is a reality. Second, if there are changes that we 

need to make in the law, some of which you might have suggested 

here, we ought to look at those if we can do this thing in a less 

expensive way. 

But I do not think we can escape the reality here that one of our 

major problems is that we just do not have the money to be able 

to go out and deal with these huge swaths of infestation that we 

see throughout the West. When we talk about 1.5 million acres in 

Colorado that have been infested by the bark beetle and we know 

how bark beetle is spreading throughout those western States, we 

have a catastrophe on our hands and we need to be smart about 

it, both in terms of the money that we put behind it as well as creating the kind of legal framework that will help us address the 

issue. 

Mr. REY. I think we are in agreement on both counts. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Senator Coleman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MINNESOTA 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank both 

you and the ranking member for holding this important subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:17 Mar 19, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30433.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
13

committee hearing on the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. I will note that I have to preside over the Senate at 

10 o’clock. I am going to miss the third panel, where we are going 

to have St. Louis County Commissioner, Land Commissioner, Robert Krepps, here. So I apologize for that, but duty will beckon. 

I have a fuller written statement, Mr. Chairman, that I would 

like to have entered into the record. 

Senator CRAPO. Without objection. 

Senator COLEMAN. And just if I can, just make a couple observations. I think quite often folks think about forest issues as a western issue, but you can see from this committee certainly it is a 

southern issue and it is a Minnesota issue. We have got two national forests that span 5.8 million acres across northern Minnesota. 

Consideration of this bill is particularly important and timely for 

me. We have got two wildfires right now that are currently burning. That is what those pictures are, in the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area located in the Superior National Forest. These fires 

started in mid-July, have burned nearly 34,000 acres. We have had 

some rain in the last couple of days, which has been helpful, but 

we are thinking that these fires could burn for the rest of the season. 

We had blowdown in 1999 that had straight-line winds in excess 

of 90 miles an hour, that caused severe flooding, damaged more 

than 600 square miles of Superior National Forest. In 2002 our forest mortality exceeded net growth and the spruce budworm infestations resulted in the death of one-third of the balsam fir in Minnesota. 

So we have got challenges, as we do around the rest of the country. I thought we made a start with Healthy Forest Restoration. I 

think this is now the next step and we have to get there. I am 

proud to be a co-author with Senator Smith on the Forests for Future Generations Act, I think under the next phase here. So these 

are all living systems. We have got to restore, we have got to manage and protect them. I think we share that commitment, and it 

affects broad areas of America. 

So I am pleased to be here at this hearing today. Mr. Rey, it is 

always a pleasure to have you in front of this committee. Ms. 

Scarlett, it is great to have you here. 

Just in reference to fires, could the two fires—it may be too hypothetical. Could these have been prevented or at least minimized if 

further recovery actions were taken following the 1999 blowdown? 

That is one of the big complaints of folks back home, that we did 

not do recovery then and now we have this situation. 

I guess the second part of this would be, how are the fires affecting adjacent land that is not Federal land and is that an area of 

concern? 

Mr. REY. I think the fires that you are experiencing now could 

have been minimized. I doubt that they could have been prevented. 

Some portion of the blowdown was in wilderness and we would not 

normally have treated that. We did go to CEQ to get alternative 

arrangements under the existing regulations to treat the areas that 

we did treat. As a consequence of the treatments that we did do, 

we were able to get the Cavity Lake Fire to lay down for us and 

14

we were able to protect the dwellings and the structures around 

the Gunflint Trail. 

I think the important thing is that, had H.R. 4200 existed when 

the blowdown occurred in 2000, we would not have had to go 

through the additional process of getting alternative arrangements 

from CEQ and the treatments that were done would likely—would 

certainly have been faster and would likely have been more extensive, given the authorities in this legislation. 

So I think it would have had a material effect on reducing the 

size and the intensity of these fires. But the Boundary Waters Area 

is not dissimilar to a lot of western forests. It is a fire-dominated 

system. In fact, some of the Forest Service’s earliest research on 

the effect and periodicity of fire in forest systems was done in 

northern Minnesota by Myron Heinzelman, a Minnesotan who had 

a long research career with the Forest Service. 

Senator COLEMAN. If I can then follow up, FERRA requires thorough environmental review, which is critically important, full evaluation of environmental effects of catastrophe event recovery, a lot 

of important protections. It is a key component of this proposal that 

I support. The question I have is, could the legislation be implemented to protect the environment without slowing what is intended to be a speedy emergency forest mitigation process? Either 

witness. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, I think that is precisely what the bill 

does strive to do, by allowing us—with two components: first, a research component that allows us to better understand how we can 

achieve the land health outcomes that we are seeking and yet by 

doing that be able to implement those more expeditiously and more 

routinely. But second, I think the act in addition will allow us to 

get in there and undertake these actions, undertake them consistent with our environmental—our Endangered Species Act requirements, the National Environmental Policy Act requirements, 

water quality requirements. 

None of the provisions would absolve us from those responsibilities. They would rather allow us to address those responsibilities 

in an expedited fashion. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

I have concluded my questions and so we will start a second 

round, if any of the rest of you would like to ask further questions. 

Senator LINCOLN. Just one quick question. Are the provisions in 

4200, H.R. 4200, are there any in there that would require the Forest Service or the BLM to leave certain legacy stands for habitat 

and ecosystem restoration? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Senator, there are. Our land use plans actually already specify the retaining of legacy stands and so forth, and 

the act specifies that the actions we undertake in recovery and restoration would link to those requirements in the land use plans. 

There are additional provisions beyond that that specifically suggest if those land use plans do not have such provisions that we 

would give special attention to ensuring that such legacy stands remain as we develop the plans for restoration. 

15

Senator LINCOLN. So if those specific requirements were not included in existing forest land use plans, you would still have to, is 

that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is my understanding as I read the bill. 

Mr. REY. Per the requirements of section 109 of the bill. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, The Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Senator Salazar. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask you a question with respect to the site specific actions 

that you would take. I guess my question would be on pre-approved 

management practices, how specific will they be for the Forest 

Service and DOI in preparing them? Let me give you a specific example, the Hayman Fire in Colorado, 135 million acres burned. If 

this bill were to become law and it were to be implemented by your 

agencies and you are looking at how you respond to an area like 

the Hayman Fire, those 135,000 acres in those four counties, would 

there be an environmental analysis with respect to how you move 

forward to dealing with those 135,000 acres that would be specific 

to Hayman or would instead what you would do is to look at other 

forests that are in similar ecological zones and elevations and say, 

well, this is the program then that would apply to the Hayman 

Fire? 

Mr. REY. I think the short answer is the bill would require both. 

We would develop pre-approved management practices for mid-elevation ponderosa pine systems, which is largely what burned in the 

Hayman fire, and then in the development of a catastrophic recovery project, per Title 1 of this legislation, there would be some more 

individual analysis associated with that particular instance. 

Senator SALAZAR. Spin that out for me just a little bit, Mark, in 

terms of what you would look at with respect to the site specific 

analysis? 

Mr. REY. I think what you would look at in the individual project 

analysis is the size of the incident, the intensity of the fire over 

various parts of the incident, any specifics about the watershed. If 

there are threatened or endangered species in that particular locale, that would be part of the project level analysis as well, because that would not necessarily be covered in the development of 

the pre-approved management tools. 

Senator SALAZAR. What do you think the timeframe would be to 

come up with that plan once you have a catastrophe like Hayman? 

Mr. REY. I think the bill requires that it be developed within 60 

days and that would be our objective, to try and do it within 60 

days. 

Senator SALAZAR. Do you think that is sufficient time to do the 

analysis to make sure that we are doing the right thing on the 

ground? 

Mr. REY. I think so. I think one of the advantages you have here 

is you have already developed some of the preapproved management tools and then you are doing an individual analysis, which 

you can do more quickly, to evaluate how you would use those tools 

in a specific instance, what restrictions you would place on them 

and that sort of thing. 

16

So I think this has the prospect of cutting our turnaround time 

for one of these kinds of projects probably by about three-quarters. 

Senator SALAZAR. Ms. Scarlett, do you have any comment? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I do not know that I can add to that. The idea 

I think of the act is that we would begin with the preapproved 

management arrangements or elements, having researched them, 

having known that they are effective applied to certain kinds of 

categories of circumstances, but then using that as a foundation off 

which we tier additional information at that site specific level. 

I think Mark is right, I think the timeframes set forth in the act 

would be sufficient to do that tiering down to the specific level at 

the site. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rey, Under Secretary Rey, I want to ask you a question concerning the management of our forests in Colorado, and that is 

with respect to the Gunnison, the Uncompahgre, and the Mesa, the 

so-called GMUG forest plan. The plan had been put together for 

those three forests covers a time span of about 4 years, about 3 

million acres involved in those 3 forests. We were supposed to see 

the plans published by USDA last week some time and my understanding is they were pulled from the shelf. 

It is a tremendous concern to me and to our community in Colorado as to why that happened, and I was hoping this morning that 

you could help me shed some light on that. 

Mr. REY. Sure, I would be happy to give you a briefing on where 

we are at with that. First let me say that the forest supervisor, 

who you by the way stole from Senator Lincoln, Charles Richmond, 

who used to be the supervisor on the Ouachita, has done an outstanding job of involving local interests in the development of that 

plan. So there appears to be a substantial amount of local support 

for the plan. That is the good news. 

Now, the less good news is that as the plan came forward and 

we did the standard quality control review that we do on every 

draft plan before we put it out for public comment, we discovered 

a couple of problems. Problem one is the issue associated with what 

is required of us now to comply with the 2005 Energy Policy Act, 

and in particular with regard to the GMUG we are obliged to do 

an assessment of compliant and super-compliant coals and the 

availability of those resources as part of a land and resource management plan revision. It was not clear that that was done adequately, and this was one of the first plans with significant energy 

resources associated with it that has come forward since the enactment of the Energy Policy Act. 

That is a fairly minor problem. What the forests agreed to do is 

to supplement the record with an analysis of those resources and 

we do not think that will take more than a couple of weeks. 

The larger problem is a little more complex and will take a little 

longer to address. In our 2005 planning regulations we gave forests 

the opportunity to do plan revisions using a categorical exclusion 

from NEPA, provided that the decisions that they are making in 

those plan revisions fit within that categorical exclusion. They are 

allowed to do more and make more decisions in the plan, but if 

they do then they are going to engender a higher level of NEPA 

analysis as part of the obligation of revising the plan. 

17

As we looked at the plan, it appeared to us that it would not fit 

as it was written under that categorical exclusion. So we told the 

region and the forest, you have two options. You can either scale 

back some of the decisions that are being made if you want to avail 

yourself of that categorical exclusion and use the 2005 regulations; 

or if you want to do a more fulsome plan with a larger range of 

decisions, then you have to do either an environmental assessment 

or an environmental impact statement. 

Last night the forest responded to us and said they would prefer 

to use the 2005 regulations and to fit their plan squarely within 

the categorical exclusion for more detailed NEPA analysis that we 

have provided. In order to make those modifications, that is in 

order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, it is 

going to take them until about November 15 to make those 

changes. 

I am relatively certain that they will be able to get that done. 

When they do, the plan will then go out for public review and comment as it would in any other case. 

So two issues: one, compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 

2005; and the second, compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. In both cases I think they are on a path to make 

those changes so that they can be in compliance with both statutes 

and the public will have a plan to look at about mid-November. 

Senator SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but could 

I just pursue this for just a couple more minutes? 

Mr. Rey, I appreciate the briefing and appreciate the fact that 

you are taking more time and we will have another plan for public 

review by the 15th of November. I would only say that, with respect to the GMUG plan, it is an incredibly important three set of 

forests for my State. It covers the area above Grand Junction up 

into the Gunnison and the Uncompahgre River Basin. When we 

think about 3 million acres of our national forest land, which we 

consider to be our crown jewel, I am concerned because of the fact 

that there was so much of an effort that was made in Colorado to 

make sure that the public support that you talked about at the beginning of your comments was in fact there, that you had the communities that were affected in these three forests saying this is a 

good plan that we have created together in collaboration with the 

Forest Service. 

Then it seemed like at the last minute before it was approved 

that the Forest Service decided, well, we are going to pull it off the 

table to address these issues. I can only tell you that I will be 

watching closely, as I am sure my constituents in Colorado will be 

watching closely, as you go through those revisions leading up to 

the November 15th publication of the plans. 

I think for all of us who sit on this subcommittee our forests are 

our crown jewels of our State and we need to make sure that we 

do not do things with these long-term management plans that are 

going to diminish the sustainability of the forests. When I think 

about a 15–year plan, I can think about a 4 or 5–year timeframe, 

but when I think about 15 years that is a very, very long time. So 

we just have to make sure that we get it right. 

I look forward to staying in touch with your office and I ask you 

to stay in touch with us as you move forward with this issue. 

18

Mr. REY. We would be happy to do that. For better or for worse, 

the GMUG has always been a pioneer. It was one of the first forest 

plans produced under the 1976 National Forest Management Act. 

It was appealed and later litigated and now it is one of the first 

forest plans being revised per the 2005 planning regulations and in 

the aftermath of Congressional enactment of the Energy Policy Act. 

I have read some of the editorial coverage which seems to suggest that there is some conspiracy afoot. I can only make two observations on that score. One, if there was a conspiracy we probably 

would have waited to hatch it when the plan was going final, not 

when it was going to go out for public review, since obviously it is 

going to be transparent and everybody is going to have their shot 

at it. Second, as a personal insight, I have found that you can explain most instances of our sometimes confusing behavior by simple mistakes, without needing to find a conspiracy to explain it. So 

those would be my observations on that score. 

Senator SALAZAR. I look forward to staying in close touch with 

you on it. I will tell you that on the rumor mill there were meetings 

supposedly taking place over the weekend in high-level offices in 

Colorado as Washington officials and Colorado Forest Service officials were making decisions about what kinds of revisions were 

going to be made, and that they were dramatically different from 

what had been proposed in the earlier version of the plan. 

So I think that the sooner that you make the statement that you 

made here today, that you have a plan to move forward, to look at 

these two issues, with a date certain of November 15 to come up 

with a new plan, it will help, maybe not eliminate, but it will help 

at least clarify what it is that the Forest Service is doing with the 

GMUG. 

Thank you very much. I have taken more than enough time on 

this issue and I appreciate your indulgence in letting me have this 

conversation. Thank you very much. 

Mr. REY. Not to belabor that, but the forest supervisor is contacting the local communities today to explain his decision and how 

he wants to proceed to remedy the problems with the plan. 

Senator SALAZAR. Good move. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, and I want to thank Mr. 

Rey and Ms. Scarlett, thank both of you for your attendance here 

and for your continued assistance to this subcommittee as we work 

on these critical issues. 

We will excuse the first panel now and call up the second panel. 

While the second panel is coming up, I will introduce them. Our 

second panel consists of: Alan Thompson, who is the—I am going 

to say these names wrong—Ravalli County Commissioner from 

Montana; Sue Kupillas—and if I got your name wrong I apologize—who is with Communities for Healthy Forests; Jim Crouch 

with the Ouachita Timber Purchasers Group; and Charlie Ringo, 

an Oregon State Senator. 

Once again, I would like to welcome this panel here with us and 

thank you all for your preparation and for the information and wisdom that you are going to bring to our panel, to our committee 

today. We will go through the testimony of the panel in the order 

that I introduced you, which means we will start with you, Mr. 

Thompson. I would again remind each of you to try to remember 

19

to pay attention to the clock so we will have time for the Senators 

to ask questions and engage in some dialog. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER, RAVALLI 

COUNTY, MONTANA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

Mr. THOMPSON. Good morning, Mr. Crapo, and Ranking Member 

Lincoln, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity and the honor of testifying before you this morning. My 

name is Alan Thompson. I am a County Commissioner from Ravalli 

County in western Montana. I am also proud to represent the Montana Association of Counties on the Public Lands Steering Committee of the National Association of Counties, and it is on NACO’s 

behalf that I appear today. 

I would like to speak to you today about a series of tragic incidents in our valley. Almost exactly to this day 6 years ago, lightning strikes started 78 fires in our valley that ultimately consumed 

307,000 acres of Federal land and 49,000 acres of State and private 

lands. Landscapes, homes, and lives were destroyed in the summer 

of 2000 in our valley. That was the first tragedy and my written 

testimony records the statistics and facts of how it affected the 

Federal lands and the citizens in our county. 

What I would like to speak to you today is about the second tragedy. While State and private lands began immediately to clean up 

their properties and salvage dead and dying timber, the Federal 

lands sat in limbo. When the dust settled from the lawsuits and 

the negotiations, we were able to salvage 4 percent of the 1.2 billion, with a ‘‘b’’, board-feet of timber that was destroyed in the fires 

of 2000 on the Federal lands. 

Our county leads the State of Montana in the building of log 

homes. Yet with all the dead trees that were standing in our forests, local companies have had to purchase house logs from other 

counties, States, and from Canada. Since the restoration work was 

not done promptly, in the ensuing years we have seen mudslides 

from unstable slopes that have closed a Federal highway, county 

roads, and devastated ranchers’ lands. Trees that were not cut and 

utilized now endanger hikers, hunters, and recreational forest 

users. Many trees have blown over, exposing their roots and allowing the fragile soils to run off and impact our streams and the 

world-class fishery of the Bitterroot River. 

As late as the 1980’s, we had sawmills in our valley and a vibrant economy. When Federal land management policy changed, 

our valley changed and we no longer had the mills, we no longer 

had the vibrant economy, we no longer had the good-paying jobs. 

We are told now to look to tourism to sustain our economy. Yet 

with the runoff from burnt lands silt has impacted our fisheries, 

specifically endangering the threatened bull trout and the west 

slope cutthroat. What was once beautiful mountain vistas is now 

scarred landscape that very few tourists are interested in experiencing. 

I am sure that many of you have seen this particular picture of 

the elk in the river. This is the Bitterroot River and the fires, back 

in the fires of 2000. Not only human lives are impacted, but also 

wildlife and fishery. The cost to fight the fires in our valley was 

20

$54 million and much of that expense could have been recovered 

if there had been a Federal policy that would have expedited the 

salvage while the timber had some value. 

I believe H.R. 4200 holds great promise to improve the response 

time and I encourage you to adopt a similar Senate version of this 

bill. 

Second, we in the county were disappointed when elected officials 

had no say-so in the settlement. Citizens in our county should be 

represented in any settlement that directly affects our lives. Elected officials should have been given standing to speak on their behalf. 

Finally, I believe there should be a policy that requires the posting of a bond when a lawsuit is filed. If the belief is so strong that 

something wrong has been done, then there should be the will to 

back the suit with more than just the cost of filing. 

I would like to invite members of the subcommittee to visit our 

county, see for yourselves the difference between the State lands 

that was burned and the Federal lands, the restoration work that 

has taken place in the ensuing years. You can see on the ground 

the difference, what that landscape looks like at this time. 

Again, thank you for listening. I appreciate your ongoing efforts 

and the opportunity to be here this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found on page 

91 in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. 

Ms. KUPILLAS. Did I pronounce your name right? 

STATEMENT OF SUE KUPILLAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COMMUNITIES FOR HEALTHY FORESTS 

Ms. KUPILLAS. ‘‘Kue-PILL-us.’’

Senator CRAPO. ‘‘Kue-PILL-us,’’ thank you. You may begin. 

Ms. KUPILLAS. Good morning, Chairman Crapo and Senator Lincoln and Senator Salazar. My name is Sue Kupillas. I am Executive Director for a nonprofit organization, Communities for Healthy 

Forests, based in Roseburg, Oregon. Communities for Healthy Forests’ mission is to realize the prompt restoration and recovery of 

the conifer forests in the aftermath of fire and other catastrophic 

events, ensuring the presence and vitality of forest lands for future 

generations. 

We are an organization of community members, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, who have come together 

around the common interests of the need to restore forests that 

have been devastated by catastrophic events. CHF was founded because this group of community leaders recognizes there are serious 

impediments to restoring forests in a timely manner. 

Communities for Healthy Forests is proud to support the Forest 

Emergency Recovery and Research Act because the key principle 

underlying FERRA is the need to move quickly to restore forests, 

key watersheds, and wildlife habitats. Under current Federal law 

the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management face an almost insurmountable amount of analysis, red tape, and bureaucratic steps following a catastrophic event. While Federal forests 

suffer crippling delay in the process, tribal, State, and private forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:17 Mar 19, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30433.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
21

est land managers move forward with recovery and reforestation 

projects much sooner following these catastrophic events. 

One of the best examples of successful forest restoration can be 

found in my home State of Oregon. Beginning in 1933, a series of 

four catastrophic wildfires burned over 350,000 acres of forest land 

now known as the Tillamook Burn. The people of the State of Oregon approved a measure to initiate a massive restoration effort to 

recover economic value from the burned timber, protect watersheds 

from erosion, and reforest the barrel landscape by seeding and 

planting young seedlings. 

As a result of these efforts, what was formerly known as the 

Tillamook Burn became the Tillamook State Forest. Since then the 

forest has returned over $2 billion in the form of revenue for county governments and needed rural jobs and schools. Most importantly, the forest now provides immeasurable benefits in terms of 

fish and wildlife habitat, clean water and open spaces for the enjoyment of Oregonians and people all over the world. 

Today’s vibrant Tillamook Forest is a testament to the benefits 

of taking swift action to successfully restore and rehabilitate a forest ravaged by catastrophic wildfire. The values of this forest—the 

values this forest provides are now cherished by many, so much so 

that environmental activists recently ran an unsuccessful ballot 

measure to restrict forest management activities on half the forest. 

Mr. Chairman, this is just one example, and there are many others included in my testimony that serve as real-world proof of the 

benefits of taking swift action following catastrophic events. 

The need for legislation hits close to home for me. Right in my 

back yard is the 2002 Biscuit Fire, which burned almost 500,000 

acres. While approximately 178,000 acres are Congressionally withdrawn as wilderness and not appropriate for recovery, almost 

322,000 acres were in need of restoration activities. Of this 

amount, 312,000 acres remain untreated today due to the effects of 

delays, appeals, and litigation. After almost 4 years, less than 3 

percent of the total Biscuit Fire area has been restored in any way. 

Federal courts have ultimately dismissed all lawsuits on the Biscuit. However, after almost 4 years much of the value of the dead 

trees is lost, so there is little incentive or money to undertake further restoration activities. 

These posters are aerial shots of the Biscuit Fire from a helicopter trip I took last September. Just 2 weeks ago coming back 

from a raft trip, I drove through the Biscuit Fire area and it looks 

much the same—miles and miles of dead standing timber. 

Another vivid picture can be witnessed at Mount St. Helen’s, 

which I visited in June of this year, where private lands were restored and Federal lands were not. Weyerhauser’s private industrial land was salvaged and replanted following the 1980 eruption 

and harvesting and thinning of those trees is now taking place. 

Federal land is still a moonscape with a few flowering bushes. 

While we have practical experience in reforestation and some research, we still need further research to continue to improve our 

success with restoration. FERRA has a research component that 

will do just that by providing guaranteed funding for ongoing research and monitoring from proceeds from harvesting this valuable 

resource. The restoration of forests issue should not be controverVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:17 Mar 19, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30433.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
22

sial. Oregonians understand and support restoration, as shown by 

two polls completed in Oregon in 2005. 76 percent of the people believe forests should be restored, including clearing dead trees and 

replanting seedlings. 

While CHF supports FERRA and believes that it is a good piece 

of legislation, today’s hearing in the Senate provides an opportunity to begin incorporating provisions from other legislative proposals that have been introduced in this body dealing with forest 

restoration. 

I would like to thank Chairman Mike Crapo and members of the 

Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization 

for holding this important hearing and starting these discussions 

on this critical issue. I believe you have a unique opportunity to 

build upon FERRA by developing and passing bipartisan common 

sense legislation here in the 109th Congress. 

I appreciate this opportunity to testify and would answer any 

questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kupillas can be found on page 

70 in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Ms. Kupillas. 

Mr. Crouch. 

STATEMENT OF JIM CROUCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OUACHITA TIMBER PURCHASERS GROUP, RUSSELLVILLE, 

ARKANSAS 

Mr. CROUCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln, Senator Salazar. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. My testimony is on behalf of the Ouachita Timber Purchasers Group, the 

Ozark-St. Francis Renewable Resource Council, and the Lake 

States Federal Timber Purchasers Committee. These folks buy 

wood from the national forests to feed their mills. Their operations 

range in size from mom and pop to global operations with thousands of employees. 

Today national forest managers are faced with almost insurmountable challenges from unhealthy forests, catastrophic events, 

a hostile stakeholder minority that opposes active forest management, and budgets that are woefully inadequate. FERRA will help 

break this gridlock for catastrophic events. 

The spectacular forest fires and insect and disease outbreaks 

that we see on the evening news are symptoms of deeper underlying problems in the forests. These events are rooted in the nearcustodial management that the agency has practiced in recent decades. Without aggressive active management, nature ultimately 

harvests the forests. I strongly support active management as the 

first critical step in achieving health forests. 

Let me share with you an example of what happens when the 

agency relies on custodial management. You know the typical sequence. Over several decades, the forests become too dense, trees 

become too old, and during an extended drought period the bugs 

multiply rapidly and destroy the forest or either fire burns it. 

In the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas and Missouri, the red oak 

borer, a one inch long beetle, has destroyed more than $1 billion 

worth of red oak since 1999. These borers have actually killed 50 

million trees on 300,000 acres of the Ozark National Forest. Gone 

23

are the magnificent oak forests that provided an abundance of oak 

lumber, crossties, and pallets, along with huge acorn crops that fed 

bear, deer, turkey, and squirrels. Thousands of tons of hardwood 

fuel remains to feed the catastrophic fires of tomorrow. The scary 

thing about this situation is it is not just a problem in Arkansas; 

it is a problem in most States with national forests. 

In a move to improve forest health and reduce the impacts from 

catastrophic events, Congress passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the administration launched the Healthy Forest Initiative. Most people support these efforts, but a handful of folks 

who are opposed to active forest management continue to appeal 

and litigate the agency’s decisions. The delays usually mean the usable wood will ruin and recovery plans will stall. Sadly, since 2003 

when HFRA was signed into law the Federal Government has accomplished only a little over 77,000 acres out of the 20 million 

acres that they were authorized. 

Here is an example of what happens without FERRA. The Missionary Ridge Fire in southern Colorado burned about 70,000 acres. 

The Forest Service spent a year and thousands of dollars doing an 

EIS to salvage 3 percent of the burned area. They were stopped in 

court over surveys for the Abert squirrel population. The Abert 

squirrel is a game species that is routinely hunted by hunters in 

Colorado. Due to the length and time required to prepare the bulletproof EIS and the delay caused by appeals and litigation, the 

timber became basically worthless and the project was abandoned. 

The snags and downed timber was left for the next fire to burn. 

In the Lake States and the South, where private, State, and national forests are intermingled, we support the FERRA Title 2 language that encourages the Forest Service, communities, and the 

State foresters to cooperatively develop landscape assessments and 

to work together on recovery projects. 

I have several suggestions that I believe could improve FERRA. 

The first one is I believe the term ‘‘burned area emergency response’’ needs change to ‘‘area emergency response.’’ The definition 

of ‘‘catastrophic events’’ includes not only fires, but insects and disease, storms and so forth. 

I believe the requirement in section 101 for peer reviewed research protocols is probably an overkill. I support the use of effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management. One must remember the Forest Service restored lands nobody wanted to the condition that groups hammer on your doors asking you to designate old 

cotton fields in the South as virgin wilderness. 

In closing, I urge you to pass FERRA with the changes as soon 

as possible and I would appreciate it if you would put both the 

written and oral testimony in the record, and I would be glad to 

answer any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crouch can be found on page 48 

in the appendix.] 

Senator LINCOLN [PRESIDING]. Thank you, Mr. Crouch. Certainly 

your written and oral testimony from all of you will be included in 

the record. 

The chairman excused himself for a few moments, so, Mr. Ringo, 

if you will proceed, we will get to questioning. 

24

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE RINGO, OREGON STATE SENATOR, 

BEAVERTON, OREGON 

Mr. RINGO. Thank you very much. My name is Charlie Ringo. I 

am a State Senator from Oregon. I represent the Portland, Washington County area. It is a pleasure to be here this morning, and 

I am going to strike a little bit of a different note from the testimony you have heard so far. 

About a month ago I had the pleasure of loading my kids in the 

car and driving to Yellowstone National Park, and we got there 

and we looked at the geysers and we looked at the buffalo and we 

looked at the forest that had burned in 1988. There are signs along 

the road in Yellowstone indicating where the great conflagration 

had occurred. If you will remember, at the time there were pictures 

similar to these you have seen today with just amazing sheets of 

flames going up to the sky and the devastation that looked like 

this. At the time a number of scientists said: Look at this, this is 

devastated for centuries; we have done this to our national park. 

Now you go there—1988, not too long ago—and you see the that 

trees are already recovering and it is very good habitat and the 

ecology is rebounding, without any active management, without 

any recovery efforts, without any rehabilitation plans. The point is 

that all this testimony we have heard saying it is absolutely necessary—it may be necessary in some cases, but it certainly is not 

necessary in a lot of cases. We have to look very carefully at the 

science to see what does the best science say as to when active 

management is or is not called for. It is not automatically called 

for. It certainly was not necessary in Yellowstone National Park. 

Now, I want to acknowledge that there is another important objective in this bill besides forest recovery and that is getting the 

benefit, the economic benefit out of the forest—money for timber 

communities, jobs. Those are important objectives and we have got 

to put that right on the table and say that is something we have 

got to consider. You just cannot ignore that. 

But the other objective that is often set forth is this is absolutely 

essential for forest recovery and for forest health. Essentially it is 

saying you have got to cut the forest in order to save the forest. 

I suggest to you that that is not supported by the science. 

Now, I have some exhibits that I would like to make available 

to the committee members and talk a little bit about, well, what 

is the best science concerning forest recovery. In Oregon we have 

got Oregon State University. I grew up in that college town of 

Cravallis. I am very fond of OSU. We had the scandal earlier this 

year where there was a paper that was accepted for publication in 

Science magazine by several grad students. The lead author was 

Daniel Donato. The Donato paper says that post-fire logging may 

impair the natural regeneration of the forest. It is just one study. 

You need to look at it in the context of lots of other studies and 

the entire body of science. But that was a study nonetheless that 

would not support this bill, at least the objective of this bill of recovering forests. 

The reaction by the leadership of the College of Forestry was 

very instructive. Rather than giving a claim to these grad students 

for such an achievement of being published in a prestigious journal, 

the leadership of OSU College of Forestry attempted to interfere 

25

with its publication because it was not convenient for the timber 

industry that helps fund the college and because it might pose a 

threat to the legislation that is on the table today. 

Now, I obtained a number of emails from the College of Forestry 

leadership that—the first one, the one that is right on top, Senator, 

is from an Oregon State University vice president to Dean Hal 

Salwasser, saying: ‘‘Heads up. This issue is coming. I am sure you 

will hear from your industry partners and any nemesis we have in 

sustainability,’’ essentially imposing a judgment value of opposition 

to sustainability. 

I do not want to go through all of these emails, but it shows a 

very close coordination with industry representatives and with government officials to put the right spin on this so that it would not 

have an inconvenient impact for this legislation. 

So where does that leave us? As a State Senator in Oregon, I am 

a policymaker. You are policymakers. We have got to look at our 

objectives. As I said earlier, one of the objectives certainly is getting the economic benefit out of the forest. 

The other objective that is often talked about is the, we have got 

to do this for forest recovery. I suggest to you that that is not supported by the science. There is some suggestion that that is accomplished. There is many scientific publications that say otherwise. 

I want to just mention one thing. There are some examples given 

and Ms. Kupillas referenced the Tillamook State Forest as a wonderful example of active management, now we are enjoying the 

benefits today. The Tillamook State Forest is a jewel in Oregon. It 

is 350, 400,000 acres. Unfortunately, it has got Swiss needle cast 

because it was replanted incorrectly. The seedlings used were actually not from the Coast Range, and I could go into a lot more detail 

about that. 

The upshot and I guess the final message that I want to leave 

with the committee is that the objective of recovering our forests 

for ecological purposes must be science-based. It must be sciencebased, and the science that is behind this bill in that regard I believe is not credible and you have got to look at it a lot closer. 

Thank you very much and I would be interested in answering 

any questions. 

Senator CRAPO [PRESIDING]. Thank you very much. 

We will proceed with the questions at this point. My first question, Ms. Kupillas, is to you. You indicated that in the litigation 

that you referred to in your testimony, that virtually all of the litigation was ultimately dismissed by the Federal courts; is that correct? 

Ms. KUPILLAS. That is correct, and that is on the Biscuit Fire. 

Senator CRAPO. On the Biscuit Fire. 

Ms. KUPILLAS. Right. 

Senator CRAPO. But the litigation took approximately 4 years 

and during that time the value of the wood on the forest was degraded? 

Ms. KUPILLAS. I believe it was around 3 years, but yes, there was 

significant degradation of the wood out there over a 3–year period. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Thompson, you compared post-fire situations 

on State and private forests versus the national forest land. I 

would like to tell you, I had a similar experience as I first began 

26

learning more and more about forests as I served on this committee 

and served in the Senate and the House. I had an occasion once 

when we were doing a tour of one of the forests in Idaho and touring a forest fire. The fire burned right up to a certain line and then 

stopped burning. 

As we flew in the helicopter over that line, there was a road 

there. I mentioned to the foresters that were with me, I said: I did 

not realize that one road would stop a fire of that size. They said: 

Oh, it was not the road that stopped the fire; that road is the 

boundary line and the forest on the other side of the road is State 

land, or it was either State or private land, and it was managed 

differently and it did not—the fire was not able to continue burning 

because the forest was in a better condition. 

So I have observed that myself. 

Could you compare the difference between the approaches that 

we are talking about here on State and private land versus Federal 

land management and what we need to seek to achieve at the Federal level that we are not able to achieve at this point? 

Mr. THOMPSON. The Sula State Forest exists in Ravalli County. 

As you know, that is State trust land, and because of the fires that 

came through in 2000 that land burned the same as the Federal 

land. The fire did not stop at that boundary. As you know, oftentimes fires create their own intensity, their own winds, and so 

forth. So it came through and burned that land also. 

Immediately, State foresters came in, did a quick environmental 

assessment on the damage that had been done, and in the winter 

of 2000–2001, January and February, they were able to harvest 60 

million board-feet of timber off of that land over the snow. No degradation of any property took place at that time. The difference, at 

this time there is a stark difference between what transpired. They 

were able to plant vegetation, plant trees, put straw wattles in to 

stop the silt from coming into our fisheries, stop some mudslides, 

etcetera. Federal land did not. 

Vast difference in the way that they look at the moment. Mr. 

Ringo’s comment saying that the science does not show that 

FERRA would be beneficial, I would dispute that by saying come 

out, walk the ground, look at the difference of getting in immediately, harvesting, salvaging the dead and dying timber, doing the 

restoration work that needs to be done, versus letting it set, go 

through the court process, and what Ms. Kupillas has talked about 

is exactly what happened in our county. After all the lawsuits were 

finally done, we were able to go in and do some work. Now all of 

that timber can possibly be used for firewood. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Ringo, I agree with you that our forest management should 

be based on good sound science. Is it your testimony that the 

weight of the science in this case is against the kind of forest management that is contemplated in this legislation? 

Mr. RINGO. Senator Crapo, I believe that the weight of the 

science indicates that post-fire logging operations will often inhibit 

natural regeneration. One of the earlier witnesses said you do need 

to look at it on a case by case basis and I think that is right. 

One of the things I mentioned—I think you had stepped out of 

the room—was I drove across the upper part of your State to go 

27

to Yellowstone Park this summer and we saw the regeneration that 

has occurred in Yellowstone without any active management at all. 

I think it is a remarkable example of natural recovery. It is not always going to happen, but I think you have got to look at the 

science very carefully, and there is a large body of science that does 

indicate that natural regeneration is actually preferable and will 

yield better results than active management. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Rey in his testimony, I think he is the one 

you may have referred to who earlier said that there are some 

cases where active management is not the right technique. If I am 

reporting his testimony or paraphrasing it correctly, he said there 

are many cases where it is. Do you agree with that or are you saying that in all cases active management is not appropriate? 

Mr. RINGO. No, I would not say that. And I would also acknowledge that there is other objectives. I do think it is an important objective to consider the economic benefit of quick action. You cannot 

ignore the impact on the local treatment communities and on jobs. 

You just cannot say those are not relevant. Clearly they are. 

My message to the committee, though, is that I believe the public 

wants balanced management, and that is part of the management. 

The other part that needs to be considered is what is the real environmental impact, what is the real ecological impact, and what 

does the science say about that. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Crouch, could you comment on the same general set of 

issues? What does the science say in your opinion? Where is the 

weight of the evidence here, if you will? 

Mr. CROUCH. Yes, sir. You know, the thing that comes to my 

mind as I sat and listened, there is an awful lot of commonality 

among what is being said and yet there is an awful lot of difference 

when we finally see the actions that different interests take. 

I would suggest to you that the Forest Service has a tremendous 

amount of science behind its decisions. I would suggest to you that 

the Forest Service research is as good as there is probably in the 

world when it comes to forestry. So we need to be very careful that 

we do not kind of conclude that maybe these activities that you see 

going on the ground or these activities that are laid out in the land 

management plans, the standards and the guides and so forth—

they are based on an awful lot of science, and I guess I would leave 

it at that. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Crouch, thanks again for being here, taking time to be with 

us here today. In your prepared statement you had said that additional funding may be needed to implement the recovery plans. 

Maybe you might explain a little bit of that or go a little further 

to let us know if you see existing funding mechanisms as provided 

in the FERRA bill as a problem for active management of forests 

that have not experienced as frequent catastrophic events? 

Again, in the South we do not necessarily have the volume of forest fires and other. We do have tremendous volume of insect infestation, ice, tornadoes, different types of natural disasters, maybe in 

a smaller forest, but certainly just as catastrophic. You might want 

to expand on that a little bit. 

28

Mr. CROUCH. The folks, Senator, that I represent very strongly 

support FERRA. The thing that we are kind of looking at is, as the 

Under Secretary said, we believe that FERRA will substantially reduce the cost of the NEPA work, reduce the cost of litigation, reduce the cost of appeals. We believe it will therefore bring an awful 

lot more opportunity for recovery of many of these fires that we 

have heard talked about, or insect, disease problems, or Katrina 

type stuff, that has not been very well restored in the past. 

So what I am really saying is you have got a tremendous number 

of acres that, for example, may need to be reforested and those cost 

tremendous amounts of money. So what I am suggesting is that the 

savings on the one hand from the paperwork side, if you will, may 

not be nearly great enough to take care of the additional acres that 

will be treated. So while the mechanisms in this bill are OK, I suggest that they probably will not produce adequate dollars. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, that is so important, because that is 

something up here that we deal with constantly, are the resources 

that are needed to do all of the great ideas that we try to bring 

together and balance up here in terms of management and legislation that provides the tools out there. But if the resources are not 

there to do it, it just becomes a big ball of frustration for everybody, us as legislators and certainly those that are out in the field 

to implement it. 

So I think that is important. Under Secretary Rey did mention 

that he thought that there were considerable savings there, 

but——

Mr. CROUCH. I agree with that. 

Senator LINCOLN. Right. But without a doubt, ultimately it is 

whether there is enough savings to be able to do what we want to 

do and would additional resources be necessary, which is something we have to consider here. 

What on the ground—again, Mr. Crouch, what on the ground 

benefits resulted from the active recovery on our Ouachita National 

Forest following the ice storm in 2000? That was devastating to us 

in Arkansas in December of 2000, the ice storm that was tremendous really across the southern part and the western part of the 

State. Kind of what negative effects were there? 

Mr. CROUCH. You know, that is a real good question. We had an 

ice storm about Christmas of that year that really destroyed the 

timber on lots of acres. Estimates were there was probably 200 million board-feet on the ground. The Forest Service made the decision 

to actively salvage as much of that as possible. We went to CEQ 

and was given some alternative arrangements and the Forest Service immediately began to expedite it, weighing the timber, things 

that were quite different from what they have traditionally done. 

As a result of that, about 100 million board-feet was harvested 

before the bugs began to ruin it. When you look at the ground 

today that was harvested as compared to the grounds that were not 

harvested, you see a much, much different forest. The forest is beginning to regenerate. A lot of it, short-leaf pine has been planted, 

as compared to the other acres where you have got tremendous 

tons of fuel still on the ground, it is drying out, it is drying up, and 

the ecosystem is beginning to change in a lot of cases. 

29

Basically, in Arkansas, as you know, we get maple and sweet 

gum, stuff like that, back in catastrophic events. We typically do 

not get back the pines that we look for economically. So we do not 

have any question in our minds on many, many pieces of ground 

that it is much, much better to institute active management, salvage it, restore it. There are other cases, obviously, steep slopes, 

things like that, where you should not. 

One decision that was made on the Ouachita case was to stay out 

of the streams, stay out of the streamside zones. So there was a 

lot of acres left there that was not touched. Now the biologists are 

saying we have got to go back in there, thin that out somehow, so 

we can get the benefits we need for wildlife, and so they are kind 

of going back and trying to adjust. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, I think it is so important that first and 

foremost, that everyone is engaged, and I know through our forest 

initiatives, our landowners and others in Arkansas, the best management practices and the other types of efforts that are made to 

include everybody at the table in making those decisions, and obviously the Forest Service as well, has really been a tremendous benefit to recognizing, back to the question that Senator Ringo was 

bringing up, and that is when it is best to have a management plan 

and when it is not. Having lived through that ice storm in 2000 

and seeing the kind of fuel that was left on the floor and then the 

repeated droughts that we had after that, it was a terrible circumstance. 

I know that forest fires create these pictures that are so horrific 

and you look at the results of an ice storm and it is almost gorgeous. So it is hard for us in the South and areas where we do see 

these types of situations to really bring about the impact of what 

it has on our economy and on our ecosystems in the forests that 

we enjoy for so many things. 

So I just think really the idea that everybody comes to the table 

and looks at what the circumstances are, what the objectives are, 

in making sure that as we go through those detailed plans that we 

think forward and think carefully about the steps that we take, I 

think that is important. 

Ms. Kupillas, in your testimony you referred to the social and the 

community aspects of more timely forest regeneration. Would you 

like to elaborate on that? 

Ms. KUPILLAS. Yes, Senator Lincoln. The communities surrounding these burned forests, the mills depend on a consistent 

supply of wood. When we have dead standing timber that seems 

available to supply these mills, then it seems logical that we should 

be able to take out the timber and at least maintain some of the 

jobs that are in these rural communities. 

I would like to respond also to a couple of statements that Senator Ringo said if I could, please. On the Donato report, Donato indicated that the regenerating trees were damaged after 3 years of 

delay, that the regenerated trees were damaged when they went in 

to do some harvest. I would suggest that the Donato research supports FERRA because FERRA says the essence is to get in there 

early, before those little seedlings start growing again, get in there 

early and harvest before that happens, and therefore you would not 

have damage to the seedlings. 

30

I could give you many other examples, and it is in my written 

testimony, of areas that have not been restored side by side with 

areas that have on private or State lands. There are many, many 

circumstances where restoration really should occur and does not 

occur. But I think that there are many social and economic effects. 

As we drive through the Biscuit, there are a lot of tourism aspects. 

Dead standing slopes that are bare and eroding now really do not 

attract the tourists. 

This used to be a sea of green. I have flown over it when this 

was mile after mile after mile of green forest. 

Senator LINCOLN. Is the tourism the only ramification? I mean, 

what other—you spoke about the acres that were left untreated in 

the Biscuit Fire, the lack of restoration. It has affected the community, the neighboring community, through tourism. Perhaps are 

there other things? 

Ms. KUPILLAS. Well, the mills that really could put another shift 

or two on should they have had the several billion board-feet of 

timber available to them. There are local mills that could have 

been on that had it been done early enough. But after deterioration, after all the lawsuits had been dropped, then most of those 

mills really cannot afford to go in there and harvest dead trees that 

have deteriorated. 

Senator LINCOLN. Right. 

Senator Ringo, you have mentioned, and I agree with Senator 

Crapo, that we definitely want the use of sound science. We have 

consistently said that in this committee. Whether it is trade or reforestation or our industry areas, science is critical. 

To me, one of the issues that comes up most readily from all of 

you is the timeliness of it. Of course, that issue also falls back onto 

whether or not the resources are there to pull the necessary groups 

together, to have the kind of research and science necessary to 

make timely decisions. If you wait too many years, seedlings have 

come up. Then you have the problem of damaged restoration that 

is occurring naturally when you go in too late to make the correct 

restoration that you would like to do from a manual standpoint. 

Do you have any comments? You referenced the Yellowstone an 

awful lot. You might want to—and I do not know if there is a different version or maybe you have some insight on why the natural 

restoration in Yellowstone might have been different than maybe 

some of the lack of restoration that has occurred on Mount St. Helen’s that Ms. Kupillas was referencing. 

Mr. RINGO. Senator, I have gone hiking up on Mount St. Helen’s 

and I think there have been all kinds of pictures showing remarkable natural restoration on St. Helen’s as well. Again, it can depend on what your management objective is. If you are 

Weyerhauser, you want a big tree farm that is going to grow as 

fast as possible so you can harvest them as fast as possible. That 

is a different objective than saying you want an ecologically balanced area that is good for habitat. It is a different objective. 

I think we need areas with both objectives. But the second objective, of a balanced environment, a balanced ecological system, that 

will regenerate naturally and it is not Weyerhauser’s objective. So 

I do not think it is fair to look at what Weyerhauser did in trying 

31

to restore a tree farm as fast as possible and say, gee, that is the 

way we want all of our forests to be. 

Just as a point on the science, it is difficult. I think there is lots 

of disagreements. A lot of it does depend on what part of the country you are looking at. The Yellowstone is different than the southern part of the United States, which is different than the wet coastal ranges in Oregon. 

Senator Crapo asked me about the weight of the evidence. The 

problem I have with where this bill is going is I believe that some 

of the science does rely on scientists that are really working at the 

behest of the industry. That is demonstrated through these emails 

from the College of Forestry, where essentially the industry is 

spoon-feeding the leadership, saying we want you to help us with 

our political problem, please get some professors to come out with 

a report that says this. 

At least the Daniel Donato report was independently peer reviewed, which is really the mark of excellence in science. This committee has relied on the report of Professor John Sessions before 

with a study that was never independently peer reviewed and said, 

well, that is the good science and that is what we are going to rely 

on. I just suggest to you that the studies from Professor Sessions 

really are done at the behest of industry and that is why they 

should be given less credibility. I hope we do not latch onto one scientist we believe because we like that conclusion and because it is 

politically expedient. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, I think the objective of the committee is 

to certainly gather a wide variety in our panels as well as in our 

science and the scientists that present it, in order to make sure we 

come up with a balanced approach. 

Just one last question for Mr. Thompson. You compared the postfire situations on State and private forests versus national forest 

lands. Maybe you might go a bit further or in more detail about 

the difference between the approaches and the results that were 

there. That might be helpful to us in the committee. You might 

want to share your views on the role for research and certainly 

monitoring to validate some of the——

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, the approach obviously was that State 

lands, being State trust lands, that money is used for education. In 

the State of Montana we are having an education crisis at the moment, trying to fund, as I am sure in your State and many States 

are having the same problem. 

Natural resource is one way that we can utilize funds for education. When they went into the Sula State lands they were able 

to harvest that timber, bring it off, and although we do not have 

mills in our county to harvest it and utilize it, they moved into 

Missoula County, some of the other counties north of us, and were 

able to see some economic impact there. 

Again, the land—we can talk about science all we want and the 

approach and the way that it looks when you are all done with it, 

but the best example is to come out on the land and see the different approaches, look at the private land where people have gone 

in and done the work that needed to be done. It can be done in an 

economically friendly way and that is the way the Sula State lands 

32

were done. Again, the timber was harvested in the winter over the 

snow, over frozen ground. Nothing was damaged. 

The Federal lands again, ugly, straight stalks of black trees 

sticking up, fallen over in some wind-blown areas, and so forth. 

I would like to make one comment on Mr. Ringo’s last comment 

about Yellowstone. As you are well aware, Yellowstone sits partially in Montana, and I have been into that burned area many 

times. Forests when they regenerate and regrow should not look 

like wheat fields, and much of the area that has been regenerated 

in Yellowstone looks like a wheat field. The trees are so dense that 

even small rodents I think are going to have a difficult time getting 

through. Large ungulates are going to have a very difficult time in 

there—bison, elk, deer, etcetera. 

Again, we can look at it and say that area without any approach 

by us doing any recovery has recovered itself. But I think that we 

need to look at long-term and not short-term. Let us wait a little 

bit and see what happens to Yellowstone in the next few years. 

There may be another catastrophic event there. 

It may be such that it burns so intense that there are areas of 

the Bitterroot, there are areas of Yellowstone, that have hydrophobic soils, that have been damaged down 10 to 12 inches and 

nothing is going to grow for a long time. You must get in, break 

that soil up, break that hydrophobic surface up, plant trees, do 

some restoration work. That has been done on the Sula State 

lands, on many of the private lands, and not all of the Federal 

lands. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, we appreciate the panel. I am going to 

turn it back over to the chairman if he has any further questions. 

But just to say that certainly our objective here is to look at the 

balance of all of the things we are trying to achieve—without a 

doubt the conservation of the land, the economics that can be used, 

the timeliness of what we need to do in order to achieve those 

things, and most importantly keeping healthy forests in our Nation. 

With twin boys that are 10 years old who are with the Scouts 

right now out in the forests at Scout camp this week, it is very 

much an objective of mine that future generations will have the 

benefit of enjoying the forests like I did in the Ouachita and the 

St. Francis, the wonderful forests I was able to grow up in. 

So Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership. I will turn it 

back over to you and assure the panel that we will work on a balanced approach. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much. 

Again, we thank this panel for your attendance and the testimony you have provided today. We will excuse you and we will call 

up our third panel. While the third panel is coming up, I will introduce them as well. Our third panel consists of: Dr. John Helms, 

who is Professor Emeritus of Forestry at the University of California, Berkeley, who will be representing the Society of American 

Foresters; Dr. Jim Karr, an Ecologist and Professor Emeritus at 

the University of Washington; Mr. Robert L. Krepps, St. Louis 

County Land Commissioner; and Leah W. MacSwords, Director 

and State Forester of the Kentucky Division of Forestry. 

33

Senator CRAPO. Again, we would like to welcome all of you for 

the time and effort that you have put forward to help this committee and to participate in this panel. I again remind each of you 

to try to pay close attention to that clock as we move forward. 

Dr. Helms, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. HELMS, PH.D., PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF FORESTRY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS 

Dr. HELMS. Thank you, Chairman Crapo, for the invitation to 

provide testimony at this hearing. As you mentioned, my name is 

John Helms and I am a Professor Emeritus from the University of 

California, Berkeley. But I am here this morning to give testimony 

on behalf of the Society of American Foresters. As I am sure you 

are aware, the society has a membership of about 15,000 people, 

who represent a very broad range of expertise, including forest 

managers, researchers of a variety of kinds from geneticists 

through to economists and biologists, and also consultants. 

What I would like to do first of all, however, is comment that just 

prior to coming to the hearing, as you mentioned, there is a fire 

occurring in northern California, and this is rather significant because it is burning into a fire—an area that previously burned in 

2001. That area, which was national forest land, was not salvaged 

due to process delays. They attempted to sell some logs at about 

2, 2–1/2 years after the fire and no one bid on the sale. 

Just 2 days ago, fire came over the ridge, into that area, and 

completely eliminated all the standings, dead snags, all the downed 

logs, for the second time damaged the watersheds, and for the second time threatening the town of Weaverville. So I think it is pertinent to your committee to appreciate that a second fire only 5 

years after the first can create a significant amount of damage. 

I would like to summarize my testimony by just a few points. 

The first is that we are going to continue to have catastrophes such 

as we have had in the past due to wildfire, due to insects and disease, due to windstorm, and the question is what should we do 

about these lands. Is the land better served to let it proceed under 

natural conditions or should there be active management? 

Resolving this issue really depends on emphasis being placed on 

identifying just what are the needs that are peculiar to that particular fire, that particular situation. Undoubtedly there will be 

mixes of responses that are appropriate. Some of the areas should 

be left alone for natural regeneration and recovery. Other areas a 

prudent land manager would want to address the possibility of salvage harvesting, and there may be other areas that would warrant 

some other kinds of restorative action. 

Now, the areas that would benefit from salvage cutting, I want 

to emphasize that it is essential that prompt action be taken. We 

have abundant past experience. There is abundant peer reviewed 

research since the 1930’s that has shown, particularly in areas that 

are relatively dry, that the burned areas rapidly become dominated 

by shrubs. So the importance of promptness is to get the slower 

growing conifers established before the areas become covered with 

shrubs. 

34

Alternatively, one can, instead of having shrub fields there for 

perhaps 50 or so years, is to adopt some kind of action that enables 

one to return that forest back to pre-burn conditions in a much 

smaller frame of time. 

Therefore we believe it is critically important for Congress to establish a process as outlined in FERRA, that involves immediate 

professional assessment, immediate consideration of prompt action 

using best management practices within the context of pre-approved plans. Again, I really want to emphasize the importance of 

the promptness to prevent the shrubs taking over the land. 

I would like to perhaps illustrate with three posters here. The 

area on the left is national forest land that has not been salvaged. 

This is from a fire in 1992. The area on the right shows rehabilitation through planting. The question is does the area on the right 

that has planting enable the landscape to be returned to pre-burn 

conditions quicker than if it was left unattached. 

The second poster, which I am afraid, Chairman Crapo, you cannot really see, shows an area that has been reforested after, 45 

years after the burn. The interesting thing about that image is that 

it is a mixed conifer forest. The average person would not expect 

that that was a planted forest. It looks very natural. 

The third one, behind you, is again a 45–year old area just adjacent to this one that was replanted, which is still a permanent 

brush field. 

So I would like to thank you very much for your giving me the 

opportunity to provide testimony and I will be very pleased to address any questions you might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Helms can be found on page 53 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Karr. 

STATEMENT OF JIM KARR, PH.D., ECOLOGIST AND PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

Dr. KARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to be here 

as you discuss the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. 

As you know, our Nation’s forests provide vital natural and cultural benefits for all Americans. What you may not know, however, 

is that certain forms of disturbance play a vital role in sustaining 

our forests. Although people see wildland fires, wind and ice 

storms, and insect outbreaks as catastrophes affecting Federal and 

non-Federal lands, over time such events have in fact both created 

and helped sustain the character of many regional ecosystems. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 4200 does not acknowledge that these disturbances play a constructive role. Rather the act is founded on the 

premise that, quote, ‘‘recovery treatments,’’ end quote, are needed, 

quote, ‘‘in response to catastrophic events affecting lands,’’ end 

quote. 

I am especially dismayed that H.R. 4200 takes this view, given 

that half a century of publicly funded research by government and 

nongovernment scientists from a wide range of disciplines has demonstrated the contrary. My remarks today are based on my ecological research over 4 decades, particularly on research over the past 

35

12 years with a dozen scientists, examining what happens when 

areas affected by natural disturbances—notice I did not use the 

word ‘‘catastrophe’’; natural disturbances—are left to regenerate on 

their own or when humans intervene. 

The first point I wish to make is that logging after natural disturbances is not an ecosystem restoration tool. Such logging damages forest landscapes, limiting populations of species crucial to the 

maintenance of these landscapes by impeding the natural processes 

that have long sustained these ecosystems. A substantial body of 

evidence, some dating from the early 20th century, demonstrates 

that post-disturbance logging impairs the ability of forest ecosystems to recover from natural disturbances. 

Specifically, post-disturbance logging prevents or slows natural 

recovery by slowing the establishment of plant and animal populations and degrading streams. For example, the dramatic physical 

changes in forest structure resulting from hurricanes and insect infestations in New England do not disrupt biogeochemical cycles or 

degrade water quality, but post-disturbance logging increases nitrogen lost from those landscapes and does degrade water quality. 

Post-disturbance logging also threatens species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act and places more species at risk, making 

future listings a near certainty. Damage from post-disturbance logging may consist of direct effects from logging, such as increased 

mortality of trees and other seedlings and damage to soils, or indirect effects of activities associated with logging, such as more traffic on existing roads, creation of new roads, or the spread of 

invasive species. 

These observations are not mere points in an abstract scientific 

debate. They constitute an accumulation of on-the-ground evidence 

that logging after disturbance harms rather than helps the regeneration of forests. As one prominent forest ecologist has put it, and 

I quote; ‘‘Timber salvage is most appropriately viewed as a tax on 

ecological recovery.’’ End quote. 

The second point I wish to make is that recommendations exist 

for how to avoid damage from post-disturbance treatments and how 

to speed recovery of both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Because 

time is limited, I cannot discuss these recommendations in any detail. They are provided in my written testimony. They note that 

maintenance of healthy systems will limit the effects of natural disturbances, that post-disturbance activity should be limited in many 

circumstances. In the unusual circumstances when they are necessary, they must be done within the framework of a carefully formulated, scientifically rigorous program. As a tangent here, I 

would like to note that science is not a monolith and the science 

that we have heard people speak about today is not always the 

same thing, although the same word is used. 

This post-disturbance logging should not be done in a rush, as 

happened following a major wind storm where, and I quote a person doing the analysis of that, ‘‘action was a substitute for 

thought.’’ Because the lessons of science are so clear on this subject, more than 500 scientists from diverse disciplines, institutions, 

and geographic areas have acknowledged the ecological merits of 

the recommendations outlined in my written testimony. I ask that 

36

this letter be put into the hearing record with those 540–some signatures. 

Senator CRAPO. Without objection. 

Dr. KARR. Yet I suggest that careful reading of H.R. 4200 reveals 

assumptions and language in the act that run counter to most of 

these recommendations. 

In closing, may I also suggest that, like all legislation involving 

science, H.R. 4200 should be debated on its scientific merits, not its 

politics. Rather than rush to implement emergency treatments and 

risk undermining the public’s interest in healthy Federal lands, as 

H.R. 4200 appears to do, I respectfully urge this committee to examine with great care the act’s potentially irreversible consequences. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I shall 

be happy to take any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karr can be found on page 61 in 

the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Dr. Karr. 

Mr. Krepps. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. KREPPS, ST. LOUIS COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER, DULUTH, MINNESOTA 

Mr. KREPPS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: I am 

pleased to provide testimony today on an important topic of forest 

recovery and reforestation, specifically the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. My name is Bob Krepps and I currently 

serve as the Land Commissioner for St. Louis County, Minnesota. 

We manage 890,000 acres of county land, including several thousand acres within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area within the Superior National Forest. 

I recently moved to Minnesota, having previously served as the 

State forester in Missouri for 6 years, and I have been engaged as 

a professional forester at the Federal, State, and now county level 

for 39 years. Today I am here to relay a need for action, action on 

the Nation’s Federal lands after catastrophes, natural events, that 

type thing, where currently very little occurs. 

I am not here to say that we need to do something on every acre 

after an event. But if the professional forest managers in the field, 

after public involvement and environmental analysis, think some 

recovery actions are necessary, they should have the processes and 

legal support to act quickly. 

I would like to cite an example that Senator Coleman referred 

to. On July 4, 1999, a very intense wind storm came across northeastern Minnesota. It laid down basically 477,000 acres of forest 

land, primarily on the Superior National Forest, primarily within 

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, but albeit 477,000 acres of forest 

was blown down and laid on the ground, which created a potential 

for intense burning fires. 

8 years and 10 days later, a lightning storm came across the 

same area in northeastern Minnesota and resulted in two fires 

burning that are currently burning, as Senator Coleman referred 

to, burning about 34,000 acres at a direct cost to suppress and 

manage of $7.6 million as of 2 days ago. 

37

I am not here to belabor the point of whether action should be 

taken in the wilderness. I am here to talk about early and prompt 

response to these type situations. Within St. Louis County, within 

the county lands, we rapidly did an assessment. We began the 

process of implementing projects and on the 7700 acres, more or 

less, of county land that was affected by the blowdown, by September we had the first round of projects available for implementation and in December we put the rest of them up. To date we have 

recovery under way on nearly 5,000 acres of forest land that the 

county manages, and that includes the harvest, removal of the fuel, 

and replanting. 

It is important to note that St. Louis County Lands Department 

manages our county lands to provide optimum returns, while also 

aiming to ensure long-term sustained yields of renewable resources 

and to provide protection for wildlife, watersheds, and to provide 

for a diverse recreation resource. 

St. Louis County also maintains dual certification by both the 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the International Standards 

Organization. Included in these certifications is a requirement to 

maintain environmental compliance with Federal, State, and local 

laws, regulations, and ordinances, and we are audited annually. 

Having worked at the Federal, State, and county levels, I would 

say that the level of environmental consideration at the county 

level is at minimum equal to or exceeds the Federal standards and 

certainly involves less process and allows us to be more responsive. 

I have several other examples that I would like to have just entered into the record through my written testimony. In summary, 

it is clear to me after witnessing these and other forest catastrophes first-hand that Congressional action is needed to better enable timely Federal response. When forest managers are allowed to 

move forward with timely recovery and reforest activities appropriate for the values and uses associated with the forest, the forest 

can be restored in a timely manner, sometimes much quicker than 

when left alone. 

Congress needs to untie the Federal land managers’ hands from 

lengthy process and administrative hurdles to enable Federal forest 

recovery. CEQ enabled this in the Superior National Forest with 

the granting of alternative arrangements. FERRA would accomplish similar objectives. 

I strongly urge this committee to take action on FERRA and 

strongly support it. There are other bills that have been introduced 

as well within the Senate with options for addressing this problem 

and I encourage you also to take a look at these ideas and consider 

them as you move forward. 

I guess in closing, Congress has an opportunity to provide the 

support and tools for Federal forest managers to better manage 

Federal forests. It is a tragedy that management of these forests, 

a national treasure, has become a quagmire of litigation, burdensome process, and court-driven decisionmaking. Forest managers 

know what needs to be done and they have incorporated science 

into their work through evolution over careers. But they are shackled in their ability to actually do the work needed. 

I appeal to you here in Congress to clarify the laws, streamline 

the process, and give Federal managers the tools they need to bring 

38

the Federal forests back to being a national treasure. Thank you 

for this opportunity. I will be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krepps can be found on page 66 

in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Krepps. 

Ms. MacSwords. 

STATEMENT OF LEAH W. MacSWORDS, DIRECTOR AND STATE 

FORESTER, KENTUCKY DIVISION OF FORESTRY, ON BEHALF 

OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS 

Ms. MACSWORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify today. I represent the 

National Association of State Foresters. NASF supports FERRA because it will speed the implementation of recovery projects on Federal, State, and private lands and authorize needed research. It reflects the landscape scale of catastrophic events and recognizes that 

restoration work is more effective when it is coordinated across all 

ownerships through the use of assessments, restoration planning, 

and on-the-ground activities, and it provides funding mechanisms 

for restoration activities for private lands and communities. 

In my written statement, I included examples from Kentucky, 

Minnesota, and the Southeast to show how we must deal with forest recovery at the landscape scale if we are to responsibly care for 

the Nation’s forest resources. Allow me to share with you another 

example from Kentucky and submit additional information for the 

record to demonstrate the importance of this bill to the forests that 

are east of the Rockies. 

On November 15, 2005, a tornado ripped through western Kentucky and greatly impacted the Land Between the Lakes National 

Recreation Area. It came across the northern end of the LBL and 

damaged timber in two areas. In one area cleanup efforts have 

been abandoned by the Forest Service due to cultural resources 

there. Proposed restoration activities on the other area, known as 

Tornado Alley, are under appeal and the Forest Service has taken 

no action. 

In my written statement I described an ice storm that occurred 

in February 2003 which caused severe damage to thousands of 

acres of Federal, State, and private owned forest land in central 

and northeastern Kentucky. We were able to harvest the damaged 

timber on the Tygarts State Forest in less than 12 months. We 

would have finished that harvest sooner, but we had a confirmed 

Indiana bat sighting, which required us to obtain an incidental 

take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and delay the 

harvest until winter to reduce any possible impact on the bat. 

Meanwhile, the Forest Service surveyed the damage on the nearby Daniel Boone National Forest and determined a restoration harvest was needed. They started the long process that they have to 

go through and issued a finding of no significant impact in February 1906. The first on-the-ground work is finally expected to 

begin this month, 3–1/2 years after the storm. But I understand 

that a lawsuit may soon be filed to challenge the agency’s decision. 

Timber buyers in Kentucky doubt that the downed timber on the 

Daniel Boone will have much value to them at this late date. 

39

I have another example to present for the record. What happened 

in Wisconsin mirrors what happened in Kentucky. A severe wind 

storm swept through two counties in northern Wisconsin in July 

1999. Extensive areas of public and private forest land and a portion of a national forest were impacted. State, private, and nonFederal public agencies took quick action. They completed most of 

the salvage as well as training of fire personnel within 6 months. 

By contrast, administrative and legal procedures kept the Forest 

Service from awarding contracts for salvage until January 1904, 4–

1/2 years after the storm. By this time, much of the timber value 

was lost and the fire danger remained elevated for several years 

until the salvage harvest work was complete. 

Since the passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, the national forest staff have worked vigorously to complete other salvage 

environmental assessments in 9 to 10 months as long as there are 

no objections that can cause delays. Thus, even under the best circumstances, with current authorities the Forest Service cannot 

mitigate the summer storm damage until at least one fire season 

has occurred and with continued high fire danger and loss of more 

timber value. 

NASF strongly supports the expedited process in this legislation, 

which still requires Federal agencies to comply with applicable 

land management plans, protect soil, water quality, endangered 

species, and historic values, and provide public notice and engagement. If we can act quickly on State and other non-Federal lands 

and still protect the environment, then Federal land managers 

should be able to follow suit. 

The Forest Service and BLM must be able to deal with these disasters quickly and effectively because these catastrophes do not respect boundaries. We must work cooperatively across the various 

levels of government. 

We urge your support for the passage of the bill and I thank you 

for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. MacSwords can be found on page 

76 in the appendix.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Helms, I think I will start out with you. Do you know of, either through the scientific literature or through your own personal 

experience, do you know of ecological benefits that come from recovery and reforestation activities? If so, could you give us some explanation and further development of that? 

Dr. HELMS. My response would be my experience in California in 

the 1950’s and 60’s. At that time California had about one million 

acres of brush field and the Forest Service had a very active program or initiated a very active program of what was called brush 

field reclamation. Now, these brush fields were probably 50 years 

old. They had been sequentially burned and would remain in brush 

field. 

So in response I would say one of the big success stories in California has been to take what was almost a million acres of brush 

field, some of which of course still is brush because it was deemed 

best kept in that state, but the majority of the area is now thriving 

forest and it looks for all the world like natural forest. It is mixed 

40

species and mixed habitat and is a real asset to the people of the 

State and the Nation. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Why is it sometimes necessary to actively recover forest sites? 

Dr. HELMS. I think the two posters you have here illustrate that. 

It depends upon in the public’s interest how quickly do you want 

to return the forest back to a pre-burn condition. If you take no action, then the area will proceed through plant succession in its normal time and this may take decades or even 50 years. That is perfectly fine, but when you have burns that are tens of thousands or 

hundreds of thousands of acres, particularly on dry sites, is this in 

the Nation’s best interest, to have these lands not returned quickly 

back into the kind of form that might provide the variable values 

and benefits that society wants? 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Dr. Karr, is it your testimony that reforestation activities are 

never appropriate, that we should never engage in active management in the face of a fire or any of these infestations that we have 

been talking about today? 

Dr. KARR. I think nothing should ever happen always or should 

never happen. I agree with that point completely. 

I think that much of the testimony that I have heard today focused on getting the value out of the timber that was damaged by 

the fire, the insect outbreak, storm damage. Value there was crafted in the context of salable board-feet of wood. Often the value that 

derives from leaving those pieces of wood on the landscape exceeds 

or at least equals the value to be derived from that harvest, because of protection of water quality, because it will speed the succession or the redevelopment of a complex forest ecosystem there, 

because it will retain the populations of birds that are crucial in 

controlling populations of pest outbreaks in the future. 

If you go in and remove all of that wood, then you do not have 

places for those populations of animals that might feed on the pest 

insects to control their populations in the future. There is a whole 

series of dimensions from water quality to soil quality to complexity of plant and animal life that occurs on these places, including downstream effects on communities as far away as coastal 

ocean environments, that are influenced by the nature of water 

quality and fish populations that are sustained by these headwater 

streams and forested landscapes. 

Senator CRAPO. I noticed you said often that is the case. Other 

witnesses have said that there are occasions when active management should not be pursued, but that there are occasions when it 

is the most appropriate approach. Would you agree with that, that 

there are times when it should be done and times when it should 

not? Or are you saying that we should not engage in logging activities? 

Dr. KARR. I am saying that the language in the bill suggests to 

me that the framework and context and thinking about how this 

bill will be implemented pretends that the scientific information 

that includes these other dimensions of consequences have not been 

brought to bear on the crafting of the language in the bill. 

If that is the case, and I believe it is the case, then it is profoundly important that we incorporate the scientific results that 

41

tell us about things other than board-feet harvested as the only 

context of conservation, to use Mr. Rey’s term from earlier in the 

morning. 

Senator CRAPO. So if I—I want to be sure I understand you. Your 

perception of what the bill says is that the only standard to follow 

in developing the recovery plans is board-feet of timber recovered? 

Dr. KARR. No, my perception is that whenever there is an opportunity to have language crafted to suggest that we do not know 

anything or that we have limited knowledge, that diminishes, demeans, and in fact ignores or distorts the knowledge that we do 

have. It does not bring the existing knowledge to bear in an adequate way to protect the broader public interest in the context of 

our forested landscape. 

So let me give you a specific example. The hemlock woody 

adelgid in New England is an introduced pest that is causing problems. It was included in somebody’s testimony today. There is a 

paper just published, written by a forest ecologist from Harvard 

University, that explores three alternatives as ways of treating 

lands that are associated with the hemlock woody adelgid. 

One alternative is to go in and preemptively harvest hemlocks to 

prevent the insect from contaminating the area. Another one is to 

go in after the hemlock—the bug has gotten in there and damaged 

the trees and removed them. Then the third alternative was to do 

nothing post-disturbance. It turned out that the worst thing that 

could happen in terms of water quality effects and nitrogen loss 

from that landscape was the preemptive. The second worst thing 

that could happen was the post-disturbance logging. 

The best thing to prevent degradation in water quality and biogeochemical cycle consequences was to not do anything post-disturbance. There are numerous examples of that kind of thing, and 

I do not see that kind of major advance in understanding in the 

last 20 years incorporated into the framework and language of this 

bill. 

Senator CRAPO. In the letter that you submitted, which was 

signed by the other scientists, one of the phrases in there is it says 

that ‘‘Neither ecological benefits nor economic efficiency result from 

recovery actions.’’ If that is the case, then how do you explain all 

of the other examples we have had from many other witnesses 

today and that this committee often sees from witnesses of circumstances where the active management has resulted in a much 

more vibrant and thriving forest than the inactive management? 

Dr. KARR. As a scientist, I have spent the last 40 years trying 

to go beyond the simple view that my eyes give me by exploring 

the multiple dimensions of various things that humans do and the 

multiple dimensions of the way natural systems are organized. I 

have repeatedly seen circumstances where on the surface things 

look like they are improved by certain kinds of actions, but when 

you develop the kind of analytical framework and exploratory and 

monitoring contexts that I think are important in these issues you 

understand dimensions that are not obvious at that first level of 

sort of broad overview, as can be seen and illustrated from the examples of people’s visions of things today. 

I would submit that that Harvard example of the hemlock woody 

adelgid is an excellent example of that. There are nutrient cycling, 

42

biogeochemical consequences, and water quality consequences that 

cannot be seen by the sort of standard snapshots, pictures of what 

is going on. We need to be more careful in understanding the multiple dimensions of these things. 

In my reading of the scientific literature in the last 30 or 40 

years and conversing with lots of people who have a great deal 

more expertise about many of the dimensions of this than I have, 

I see us ignoring lots of insights. 

Senator CRAPO. So if I understand—again, I want to be sure I 

do—your major concern is that you do not think that the legislation 

contemplates the thorough review of the entire scientific data bank, 

if you will, in terms of the direction it authorizes for the development of recovery plans? 

Dr. KARR. Both what I see in the bill in terms of the language 

and framework of how it will be implemented does not give me confidence, and my experience in watching what happened on the Biscuit Fire in Oregon leads me to believe that the sort of standard 

operating procedures of the past will continue to be used, as opposed to exploring, understanding, and incorporating recent scientific advances in this discipline. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. 

Mr. Krepps, what are the conditions today on the St. Louis County lands that were actively recovered? 

Mr. KREPPS. Mr. Chairman, we have reforestation that has occurred. Now, you have to recognize much of our land, about half 

of the acres that were affected, were aspen stands. We rely upon 

natural regeneration, sprouting, to go and get that back. We have 

also reduced the fuel loads on those. So those are 5 years headed 

toward recovery. We operate on a 60–year rotation. That is what 

our planning horizon is and so we have got that forest started 

back, where had we not went in and reduced the fuel loading we 

most likely would have been subject to wildfire as well. 

The other half was pine, mixed conifers, and we went in and replanted all of those with seed stock that comes from the area. It 

is our seedling stock and it would be native seed or native seedlings that grow back. They are on their way to recovery. 

We are seeing a lot of benefit. I guess responding a little bit to 

the question to Dr. Karr if I could, a lot of it is going to come down 

to what the objectives of the land management agency is. Our objectives are to optimize return to the county and to maintain that 

product coming to industry, as well as maintaining a healthy forest 

for the future. That is our objective. Other agencies derive their objectives through their line management plans. 

Senator CRAPO. Do you think, is it possible to manage toward a 

return, but also achieve the objective of a healthy forest? 

Mr. KREPPS. Very definitely, very definitely. I think we are seeing it. We have had other catastrophic events—natural events, I 

will acknowledge that—that within a short period of time we have 

recovery. I have also seen other areas that no action was taken and 

you have brush fields and less than ideal growing conditions. 

So yes, recovery can occur. I have seen it many times in my career. 

Senator CRAPO. All right, thank you. 

43

Ms. MacSwords, with the expedited procedures that are in this 

legislation, do you believe that the Federal agencies will still be 

able to protect the environment and recognize the science that we 

have talked about today and assure that we do not diminish the 

viability of our forests? 

Ms. MACSWORDS. Yes, I believe that they will. State agencies 

have been able to do restoration activities on State lands and working with private landowners and protect the environment. So I 

think with the expedited procedures that you are going to have in 

this legislation, Federal land managers should be able to follow 

suit. 

Senator CRAPO. That raises me—I will just toss this question out 

to the entire panel. That raises to me a question, because we do 

have experience with management at the State and on private 

lands that has sought to achieve both objectives, both a return from 

the timber as well as environmental protection and assurance that 

we have healthy, strong, vibrant forests for ourselves and our posterity. 

I just pass this question out to the panel: Is that, is the experience that we have had with the State and private land management, evidence that those two objectives can be achieved? 

Ms. MACSWORDS. Yes, I think you can see that across the Nation. 

In our own case in Kentucky on the Tygarts State Forest that I 

mentioned earlier, what we dealt with was an area that we did the 

restoration harvesting. There was also an area that was around a 

cave area, where we elected not to do restoration harvesting. We 

were able to demonstrate that you would see natural regeneration 

in both areas. You can look now over the areas where we did our 

harvesting and the oaks are coming in. 

So that is an example in my State. But I am aware of other State 

foresters who have faced similar challenges and are showing improved environmental benefits on the lands they manage and with 

the private forest landowners that they must work with. 

I think one thing that I do not want to get lost in the discussion 

of this legislation is, we focus on what will happen on Federal 

lands, but this is important to private landowners and State and 

local governments as well. Almost 93 percent of the forest land in 

the State of Kentucky is owned by private forest landowners. Very 

little Federal land compared to the grand scheme of the amount of 

forests on the land. 

What happens on private forest lands has the ability to impact 

what happens on the national forest lands and vice versa. Insects, 

diseases, disasters do not stop at the boundary line. So it is important that we all be able to work together to look at this landscape 

style management following any kind of disaster, whether you call 

it a catastrophe or an ecological burp in the system. You have got 

to be able to address it on a wide-scale level and that is what is 

important about this piece of legislation. 

Senator CRAPO. Anybody else want to jump in? 

Dr. HELMS. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the committee to 

take a look at the case examples that are available when you look 

at the way in which different ownerships handle responses to these 

kinds of major disturbances, because you can have very, very on 

44

the ground case examples of just what different approaches, how 

effective different approaches are. 

I would just add that, in addition to State and private, I suggest 

that the committee also look at tribal lands, because in the West 

the land management objectives of the tribal peoples include a high 

level of sensitivity to environmental issues, and it would also be instructive for the committee to see how they respond to these kinds 

of issues in which they take active approaches to return the forest 

back to pre-burn conditions in a very successful manner. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Anybody else want to? 

Dr. KARR. Yes, I would just comment. I do not have knowledge 

of many States, but I have watched the process in the State of 

Washington and I am a little dismayed by the extent to which forest harvests to funding for schools is over the long term compromising the long-term ecological and other benefits that can be derived from those State forest lands. We are in a situation where the 

schools are in some sense liquidating the natural capital in forest 

lands at a rate faster than it can be sustained over the long term. 

That will both over the long term damage the schools and damage 

the natural resources of the State. 

Senator CRAPO. So are the State-owned forests in Washington, in 

the State of Washington—are you saying that they are degrading? 

Dr. KARR. I believe that that is a not unreasonable conclusion 

based on some of the land management decisions and so forth that 

are being made in the State of Washington, yes. If I could expand 

on the other point that was made, I strongly encourage looking at 

what counties, States, and various Federal agencies are doing in 

light of these kinds of issues, because it is something that has to 

be done across landscapes where there is an interdigitation of ownership and so forth. 

I think it is really very important to go beyond the sort of veneer 

of those things and ask questions in each of those cases, what are 

the goals and what are the consequences in the many dimensions 

that are important in Federal land management to protect the 

broad public interest. It is easy to find things being done. It is 

harder to understand what the consequences in their multiple dimensions of those decisions are. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Krepps, did you want to have the last word? I will let you 

have the last word if you want it. 

Mr. KREPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many good points made 

across the table. I guess from my perspective looking at the objectives, looking at where we need to go, certainly I understand the 

need for additional research, but I will also say that the forestry 

profession, the natural resource profession as a whole, has been 

evolving based on science since the beginning of the century, of the 

last century. Certainly there are still unanswered questions. We 

are always going to be looking for that additional research. 

We also have to factor in the social and economic factors that we 

face on a daily basis within our communities and the need to utilize a product that is beneficial to society and to our economy in 

this country. As I said, we have a national treasure here. Our forest is a treasure that needs to be cared for and valued, and I beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:17 Mar 19, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30433.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
45

lieve we have diverted away from that over the last few years and 

we need to get back to it. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Dr. Helms, you want the last word? 

Dr. HELMS. If I may. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on 

the example provided by the Yellowstone burn, if I may. 

Senator CRAPO. Sure. 

Dr. HELMS. I would like the committee to understand that there 

is considerable variability in the way in which different forest types 

behave to fire. In the case of Yellowstone, the predominant species 

is lodgepole pine and this species is a pioneer species which the reproduction is enhanced by fire. In fact, it requires fire for the cones 

to open. So it is no surprise to ecologists to see that there is extremely rapid, very dense regeneration following the burn from 

lodgepole pine. 

But I would hesitate to extrapolate that situation into other forest types. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you. 

There is never a lack of controversy in these kinds of issues and 

these kinds of—this type of legislation. I appreciate the time that 

not only this panel but all of our witnesses today have put into 

helping us as a committee to evaluate it. We all know that there 

are a lot of politics, but there is also a lot of science and technological issues that we need to address and understand as we move 

forward on major legislation like this. 

I assure you that this panel is going to very carefully evaluate 

the information that you have provided. It is possible—we will keep 

the record open for 5 days and it is possible that you will receive 

questions from other Senators who did not have an opportunity to 

make it to the hearing. We encourage you to respond to those 

promptly. Then we will carefully evaluate the information that you 

witnesses and others provide to this committee as we move forward. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X

AUGUST 2, 2006

48


30433.001
49


30433.002
50


30433.003
51


30433.004
52


30433.005
53


30433.006
54


30433.007
55


30433.008
56


30433.009
57


30433.010
58


30433.011
59


30433.012
60


30433.013
61


30433.014
62


30433.015
63


30433.016
64


30433.017
65


30433.018
66


30433.019
67


30433.020
68


30433.021
69


30433.022
70


30433.023
71


30433.024
72


30433.025
73


30433.026
74


30433.027
75


30433.028
76


30433.029
77


30433.030
78


30433.031
79


30433.032
80


30433.033
81


30433.034
82


30433.035
83


30433.036
84


30433.037
85


30433.038
86


30433.039
87


30433.040
88


30433.041
89


30433.042
90


30433.043
91


30433.044
92


30433.045
93


30433.046
94


30433.047
95


30433.048
96

Æ