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

20-970 PS 2005

REFORESTATION PROBLEMS ON

NATIONAL FORESTS: A GAO

REPORT ON THE INCREASING

BACKLOG

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND

FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Serial No. 109-10

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Vice Chair

George P. Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Devin Nunes, California

Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina

Thelma Drake, Virginia

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Jim Costa, California

Charlie Melancon, Louisiana

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Jay Inslee, Washington

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis Cardoza, California

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

GREG WALDEN, Oregon, Chairman

TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Ranking Democrat Member

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Jay Inslee, Washington

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis Cardoza, California

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 ......................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Udall. Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Statement of Witnesses:

Franklin, Dr. Jerry, College of Forest Resources, University of

Washington .................................................................................................... 52

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54

Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Department

of Agriculture ................................................................................................ 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Kane, Kenneth, Society of American Foresters, Kane, Pennsylvania .......... 47

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50

Nazzaro, Robin, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S.

Government Accountability Office ............................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Schlarbaum, Dr. Scott, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries,

University of Tennessee ............................................................................... 42

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

Shepard, Ed, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning,

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior .............. 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31

Additional materials supplied:

Anderson, Dale E., President, Pennsylvania Forest Industry Association,

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................... 62

The Forest Foundation, Statement submitted for the record by Michelle

Dennehy ......................................................................................................... 63

Sexton, George, Conservation Director, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands

Center, Letter submitted for the record ...................................................... 66

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON REFORESTATION

PROBLEMS ON NATIONAL FORESTS: A GAO

REPORT ON THE INCREASING BACKLOG

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Committee on Resources

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Walden, Gilchrest, Peterson, Renzi,

Brown, Tom Udall, DeFazio, and Herseth.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. WALDEN. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear

testimony on ‘‘Reforestation Problems on National Forests: A GAO

Report on the Increasing Backlog.’’

Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and the Ranking

Minority Member may make opening statements. If any other

Members have statements, they can be included in the hearing

record under unanimous consent.

That we are celebrating our 131st Arbor Day this Friday reminds

us that tree planting and reforestation are issues near and dear to

the American people. As Europeans initially migrated to our continent, a typical consequence of that settlement was deforestation,

primarily as a consequence of the conversion of forests to cropland.

The large majority of Americans during the first three centuries of

our history were farmers. Between 1850 and 1910, Americans

cleared more than 190 million acres of forests for crops and pasture, while using wood for cooking and heating, home construction,

and fence building.

During that time, lumber production grew at twice the rate as

the population. By 1850, more than 90 percent of the Nation’s energy came from wood. In addition, during the 18th century, virtually all iron produced in the country was smelted using wood

charcoal. By 1900, over 15 million acres of forest land were needed

just for the production of railroad ties and trestles. Without exaggeration we can say that America was built on wood—but not

2

without cost. Forest depletion in the East was rampant. One traveler wrote in the early 1800s that he passed only about 20 miles

of woodland on the 240-mile trip between Boston and New York.

Over time, the resulting impacts on wildlife populations and water

quality became painfully obvious.

Much of America’s conservation movement sprouted out of the

growing awareness of the economic and environmental impacts of

deforestation. Names such as Fernow, Roosevelt, and Pinchot and

other organizations such as the American Forestry Association and

the Boone and Crockett Club encouraged the reforestation and productive management of private forest lands through tax incentives

and financial assistance, promoted forest research and the creation

of college forestry curricula, helped adopt wildlife conservation laws

and promoted the protection and wise use of forests through the

creation of Federal forest reserves and the establishment, exactly

100 years ago, of the United States Forest Service. By the 1920s,

the 300-year loss of American forest land had virtually stopped.

Today, even with the large increase in population, we have about

the same number of forested acres than we did in 1920.

Even with these successes and even though our knowledge of

forestry and reforestation has grown significantly in the last 100

years, we still find that important issues need to be addressed.

Once again, the GAO has aptly assisted our committee in understanding the essential aspects of this subject through the report it

is issuing today. In particular, the estimated backlog of reforestation and timber stand improvement needs, primarily on national

forests, is addressed in this report. The main reason for today’s

hearing, therefore, is to shed light on how the backlog is determined, why it is increasing, and how reforestation is funded and

potential solutions for addressing reforestation and timber stand

improvement concerns.

While reforestation issues, like all forest issues, are complex,

most Americans have learned the importance of keeping our

national forests forested—for wildlife, for water quality, for scenic

beauty, and all the other values that growing, diverse forests provide. I look forward to hearing what the GAO, the agencies, our

visiting forest professionals, and others have to offer on this

important subject.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

That we are celebrating our 131st Arbor Day this Friday, reminds us that treeplanting and reforestation are issues near and dear to the American people. As Europeans initially migrated to our continent a typical consequence of that settlement

was deforestation, primarily as a consequence of the conversion of forests to cropland. The large majority of Americans, during the first three centuries of U.S. history, were farmers. Between 1850 and 1910, Americans cleared over 190 million

acres of forests for crops and pasture, while using wood for cooking and heating,

home construction and fence building.

During that time, lumber production grew at twice the rate as the population. By

1850 more than 90% of the nation’s energy came from wood. In addition, during the

18th century, virtually all iron produced in the country was smelted using wood

charcoal. By 1900, over 15 million acres of forest land were needed just for the production of railroad ties and trestle. Without exaggeration we can say that America

was built on wood—-but not without cost. Forest depletion in the East was rampant.

One traveler wrote in the early 1800’s that he passed only about 20 miles of

3

woodland on the 240-mile trip between Boston and New York. Over time, the resulting impacts on wildlife populations and water quality became painfully obvious. Much of America’s conservation movement sprouted out of the growing awareness of the economic and environmental impacts of deforestation. Names such as Fernow,

Roosevelt, and Pinchot and organizations such as the American Forestry Association

and the Boone and Crockett Club encouraged the reforestation and productive management of private forest lands through tax incentives and financial assistance, promoted forest research and the creation of college forestry curricula, helped adopt

wildlife conservation laws and promoted the protection and wise-use of forests

through the creation of federal forest reserves and the establishment, exactly 100

years ago, of the Forest Service. By the 1920s, the 300-year loss of American forest

land had virtually stopped. Today, even with the large increase in population, we

have about the same number of forested acres than we did in 1920.

Even with these successes and even though our knowledge of forestry and refor- estation has grown significantly in the last hundred years, we still find that important issues need to be addressed. Once again, the GAO has aptly assisted the Committee in understanding essential aspects of this subject through the report it’s

issuing today. In particular, the estimated backlog of reforestation and timber stand

improvement needs, primarily on national forests, is addressed in their report. The

main reason for today’s hearing, therefore, is to shed light on how the backlog is

determined, why it’s increasing, how reforestation is funded and potential solutions

for addressing reforestation and timber stand improvement concerns. While reforestation issues, like all forest issues, are complex, most Americans

have learned the importance of keeping our national forests forested, for wildlife,

water quality, scenic beauty and all the other values that growing, diverse forests

provide. I look forward to hearing what the GAO, the agencies, and our visiting

forest professionals have to offer on this important subject.

Mr. WALDEN. I now recognize my friend from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, the Ranking Minority Member, for any statement he may

have.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to wel- come our witnesses and am looking forward to hearing from them

today about reforestation issues on our public lands. In anticipation

of Arbor Day, there could not be a more appropriate time for this

Subcommittee to look at reforestation.

In April 1885, J. Sterling Morton, the founder of Arbor Day and a resident of Nebraska, delivered the following address to the

schoolchildren and townspeople of Nebraska City to mark the first

official Arbor Day, and I quote: ‘‘Each generation of humanity takes

the Earth as trustees to hold until the court of death dissolves the

relation, and turns the property over to successors in trust. To each

generation, the trust involves the duty of at least permitting no deterioration in the great estate of the family of man. During the continuance of the temporary trust, comprehending thus the dependence of animal life upon contemporaneous plant life, it must be conceded that we ought to bequeath to posterity as many forests and

orchards as we have exhausted and consumed.’’

There is not a more basic act of stewardship and conservation

than planting a tree. Trees root us in the earth while they grow

to provide shelter and shade. Forests provide clean water, wildlife

habitat, and places of recreation and refuge for all of us.

Given our link to the forests, I am troubled by the recent GAO

report indicating a growing backlog of reforestation needs on our

national forests. Over time, the Forest Service estimates of reforestation needs have fluctuated significantly. For example, after

having a significant backlog, the Forest Service in 1985 declared

4

that the reforestation backlog had been virtually eliminated. However, in March 2004, the agency again declared that it had a backlog of about 900,000 acres of land in need of reforestation. I am concerned that, like previous GAO reports, this GAO report

again finds that the Forest Service lacks sufficient data to accurately quantify reforestation needs. I also draw attention to previous GAO reports and attention from Congress about the use of

the various funds for reforestation projects. In 1998, the GAO reviewed the Knutson-Vandenberg Reforestation Fund and found

that up to 30 percent of the fund was being charged to indirect expenses.

I look forward to hearing hard numbers from the Forest Service today about where the money is being spent out of the various reforestation funds and specifically the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund. I

would also like to draw attention to the importance of prioritization

of reforestation projects and the use of ecological principles in reforestation. Our understanding about the dynamic nature of forest

ecosystem has evolved since the days of tree plantations. I look forward to hearing the testimony of Dr. Jerry Franklin about these

issues.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall of New Mexico follows:

Statement of The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome our witnesses and am looking forward to hearing from them about reforestation issues on our public lands. In anticipation of Arbor Day, there couldn’t be a more appropriate time for this subcommittee to look at reforestation.

In April 1885, J. Sterling Morton, the founder of Arbor Day and a resident of Ne- braska, delivered the following address to the school children and townspeople of

Nebraska City to mark the first official Arbor Day: ‘‘Each generation of humanity takes the earth as trustees to hold until the

court of Death dissolves the relation, and turns the property over to successors in trust. To each generation the trust involves the duty of, at least,

permitting no deterioration in the great estate of the family of man during

the continuance of the temporary trust. Comprehending thus the dependence of animal life upon contemporaneous plant life, it must be conceded

that we ought to bequeath to posterity as many forests and orchards as we

have exhausted and consumed.’’

There isn’t a more basic act of stewardship and conservation than planting a tree. Trees root us in the earth while they grow to provide shelter and shade. Forests

provide clean water, wildlife habitat, and places of recreation and refuge for all of

us. Given our link to forests, I am troubled by the recent GAO report indicating a

growing backlog of reforestation needs on our national forests. Over time, the Forest Service’s estimates of reforestation needs have fluctuated

significantly. For example, after having a significant backlog, the Forest Service in

1985 declared that the reforestation backlog had been virtually eliminated. However, in March 2004 the agency again declared that it had a backlog of about

900,000 acres of land in need of reforestation.

I am concerned that like previous GAO reports, this GAO report again finds that

the Forest Service lacks sufficient data to accurately quantify reforestation needs.

I also draw attention to previous GAO reports and attention from Congress about

the use of the various funds for reforestation projects. In 1998, the GAO reviewed

the Knutson-Vandenberg Reforestation Fund and found that up to 30% of the fund

was being charged to indirect expenses. I look forward to hearing hard numbers

from the Forest Service today about where the money is being spent out of the various reforestation funds, and specifically the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund.

I would also like to draw attention to the importance of prioritization of reforestation projects, and the use of ecological principles in reforestation. Our understanding about the dynamic nature of forest ecosystems has evolved since the days

5

of tree plantations. I look forward to hearing from the testimony of Dr. Jerry Franklin about these issues.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, and thank you for your fine opening

statement.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland. Do you have

any comments?

Mr. GILCHREST. No. Thank you.

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady from South Dakota?

Ms. HERSETH. No. Thank you.

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Then we will ask our first panel of witnesses

to come forth. Today we have Ms. Robin Nazzaro, Director of Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability

Office, as our first witness. We appreciate your participation here.

I guess I am supposed to swear you in. So why don’t we go ahead

and do that.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. We certainly welcome you back to our

committee and appreciate the work of your fine agency in evaluating these issues and look forward to hearing your testimony before our Subcommittee. So welcome.

STATEMENT OF ROBIN M. NAZZARO, DIRECTOR, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Ms. NAZZARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the reforestation and timber stand improvement program within the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.

Last March, the agency reported to this Subcommittee that it

had a backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation.

Reforestation, whether it is achieved by planting trees or letting

them naturally regenerate, is critical to restoring and improving

the health of our national forests after timber harvests as well as

after natural disturbances, such as wildland fires, outbreaks of disease, or insect infestations.

The success of reforestation efforts often depends upon subsequent timber stand improvement treatments such as removing

competing vegetation to allow seedlings to survive. In some parts

of the country, without active intervention, it may take decades for

disturbed land to return to a forested condition. In other parts,

trees may naturally return soon after a disturbance, but the type

of regrowth may not be consistent with the Forest Service program

objectives such as improving wildlife habitat, enhancing recreational opportunities, and ensuring timber production.

My testimony summarizes the results of our report being released today on, one, the reported trends in Federal lands needing

reforestation and timber stand improvement; two, factors that have

contributed to these trends; and, three, potential effects of the

trends that the Forest Service officials have identified.

As shown on the chart on the screens, the reported acreage of

Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvements has been generally increasing during the past 5 years.

6

It might be a little hard to see, but the top line, the blue line, is

the timber stand improvement needs, and the bottom red dashed

line is the reforestation needs.

Mr. WALDEN. Can you just tell me over what period that is?

Ms. NAZZARO. It is a 10-year period starting 1994 to 2004.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you.

Ms. NAZZARO. So you will see the biggest increase that we have

identified is after the year 2000.

While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify

these relative trends, we found that the data are not sufficiently

reliable to accurately quantify the agency’s specific treatment needs

to establish priorities among treatments or to estimate a budget.

Our reasons for concern include the fact that Forest Service regions

and forests define their needs differently. Further, the differences

in data among locations are compounded because the reforestation

and timber stand improvement needs reported are a mixture of actual needs diagnosed through site visits and estimates. In addition,

some regions do not systematically update their data to reflect current forest conditions or review their data’s accuracy. Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to better track its needs. However,

while helpful, taking this action alone will not resolve the data

problems we have identified without making changes to agency

policies and practices to standardize how reforestation and timber

stand improvement needs are defined, reported, and validated.

According to Forest Service officials, the need for reforestation

since 2000 is mainly the result of the increasing acreage of land affected by natural disturbances such as wildland fires. However,

funding sources to pay for such needs have remained relatively stable rather than rising in step with the increasing needs. In the

past, the need for reforestation resulted primarily from timber harvests, and the timber sales produced enough revenue to pay for

most of the related reforestation.

Regarding the need for timber stand improvement, agency

officials said that these needs are increasing in part because managers in some forest regions do not emphasize these treatments.

They believe that reforestation treatments, which generally must

be completed within 5 years after harvesting trees, are more important that timber stand improvement treatments. Another reason

for the reported increase in the acreage needing timber stand improvement is that high-density planting practices used in the past

to replace harvested trees are creating the need for thinning treatments today.

If future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace the Forest Service’s ability to meet these needs

and treatments are delayed, agency officials believe their ability to

achieve forest management objectives such as protecting wildlife

habitat may be impaired; treatment costs could increase; and

forests could become more susceptible to fire, disease, and insect

damage. While Forest Service officials express concern about these

potential harmful effects of delaying projects, the agency has not

adjusted its policies, practices, and priorities to reflect this concern

and the current environment of constrained budgets.

7

1GAO, Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and

Timber Stand Improvement Needs, GAO-05-374 (Washington D.C.: April 15, 2005).

In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture

direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take several actions to improve the agency’s ability to identify its needs for reforestation and

timber stand improvement and ensure funding for the most critical

projects. In commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service

agreed with our findings and recommendations and stated that it

was preparing an action plan to address the recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy

to respond to any questions that you or members of the Subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazzaro follows:]

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and

Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss several issues related to the reforestation

and timber stand improvement program within the Department of Agriculture’s

Forest Service. Last March, the agency reported to this Subcommittee that it had

a backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation. Reforestation,

whether it is achieved by planting trees or letting them naturally regenerate, is critical to restoring and improving the health of our national forests after timber harvests, as well as after natural disturbances such as wildland fires, outbreaks of disease, or insect infestations. The success of reforestation efforts, as well as the overall health of the forests, often depends upon subsequent timber stand improvement

treatments, such as removing competing vegetation to allow seedlings to survive. In

some parts of the country, without active intervention, it may take decades for disturbed land to return to a forested condition. In other parts, trees may naturally

return soon after a disturbance, but the type of regrowth may not be consistent with

the Forest Service’s program objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat, enhancing recreational opportunities, and ensuring timber production.

My testimony summarizes the results of our report being released today on the

(1) reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement, (2) factors that have contributed to these trends, and (3) potential effects of

these trends that Forest Service officials have identified. 1 In conducting our review,

we analyzed Forest Service data for 1995 through 2004, interviewed agency officials

at all levels, and visited four regions with the largest reported reforestation or timber stand improvement needs. We focused on the Forest Service’s reforestation and

timber stand improvement program because this program, which covers 155

national forests, is the largest one administered by a federal land management

agency. In 2004, for example, the Forest Service reported reforesting more than

150,000 acres nationwide, while the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the

Department of the Interior, which has the second-largest program, reported reforesting less than 20,000 acres. While our work included a limited review of BLM’s

program, my testimony today centers on our findings about the Forest Service’s program because we found no significant issues to report concerning BLM.

Summary

The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement has been generally increasing since 2000, according to Forest Service

officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as other studies. Much of the

increase in reforestation needs occurred in western regions, where needs associated

with natural disturbances, such as wildland fires, began to increase dramatically in

2000. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify this relative

trend, they are not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency’s specific

treatment needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. The

data are limited in part because Forest Service regions and forests define their

needs differently, and some do not systematically update their data to reflect current forest conditions or review their data’s accuracy. Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to

better track its needs. However, while helpful, taking this action alone will not resolve the data problems we have identified without making changes to agency poliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:12 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\20970.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
8

2Shortly after the Forest Service reported its backlog, the Congress enacted the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, requiring the Forest Service to annually

request funds for an orderly program to eliminate backlogs in all Forest Service renewable

resource programs. This act was amended by NFMA, which contains more specific direction to

address the elimination of reforestation backlogs.

cies and practices to standardize how reforestation and timber stand improvement

needs are defined, reported, and validated.

According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs are accumulating because

of the increasing acreage of land affected by natural disturbances—such as wildland

fires, insect infestation, and diseases. In the past, reforestation needs resulted primarily from timber harvests, and timber sales produced enough revenue to pay for

most of the related reforestation needs. Since 2000, however, needs have been resulting mainly from natural disturbances, and funding sources to pay for such needs

have remained relatively stable rather than rising in step with the increasing needs.

For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that needs are increasing in

part because managers in some Forest Service regions do not emphasize these treatments. They believe reforestation treatments—which generally must be completed

within 5 years after harvesting trees—are more important than timber stand improvement treatments. Another reason for the reported increase in the acreage

needing attention is that high-density planting practices, used in the past to replace

harvested trees, are creating needs for thinning treatments today.

If future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace

the Forest Service’s ability to meet these needs and treatments are delayed, agency

officials believe their ability to achieve forest management objectives, such as protecting wildlife habitat, may be impaired; treatment costs could increase; and forests

could become more susceptible to fire, disease, and insect damage. For example,

forest management objectives could be impaired if an area previously dominated by

forests became dominated by shrub fields, compromising wildlife habitat, recreation,

and timber value. While Forest Service officials expressed concern about these potential harmful effects of delaying projects, the agency has not adjusted its policies,

practices, and priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect this concern and the current environment of constrained budgets.

Forest Service officials did acknowledge the need to make such changes.

In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief

of the Forest Service to take several actions to improve the agency’s ability to identify its reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and ensure funding for

its most critical projects. In commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service

agreed with our findings and recommendations and stated it was preparing an action plan to address the recommendations.

Background

Historically, the Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand improvement program focused on maximizing timber production. Now, however, the program is intended to achieve a variety of objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat, maintaining water quality, and ensuring sustainable timber production. To achieve these

objectives after timber harvests or natural events that damage forests, Forest Service staff identify sites needing reforestation and plan specific treatments. For reforestation, staff either plant seedlings or allow the sites to regenerate naturally as existing trees reseed the area. The latter approach sometimes requires the sites to be

prepared by removing unwanted vegetation that could compete with young seedlings. As with reforestation, Forest Service staff identify areas of a forest needing

timber stand improvement and plan specific treatments. These treatments are intended to provide better growing conditions for trees and include activities such as

removing competing vegetation and thinning forests when trees are too crowded.

In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber stand improvement backlog affecting 3.3 million acres of forested lands. To address this backlog,

the Congress included a provision in the National Forest Management Act of 1976

(NFMA) requiring the Forest Service to annually report the estimated funding needed to prevent the recurrence of a backlog on lands available for timber production. 2

The Forest Service primarily uses moneys generated from the sale of timber to reforest areas where timber has been harvested, whereas it relies primarily on annual

appropriations to reforest areas affected by natural disturbances. In 1980, the Congress created the Reforestation Trust Fund, which is funded through tariffs on imported wood products, to provide dedicated funding for reforestation and timber

stand improvement treatments and to help eliminate the backlog. In 1985, the

9

Forest Service declared that it had virtually eliminated the backlog reported in

1974.

The Forest Service’s implementation, management, and oversight of the reforestation and timber stand improvement program are decentralized. Its headquarters

and 9 regional offices establish policy and provide technical direction to 155 national

forest offices on various aspects of the program. District office staff within these

national forests are responsible for assessing reforestation and timber stand improvement needs, planning treatments to address the needs, and accomplishing the

treatments. Although the Forest Service’s Director of Forest Management in headquarters is responsible for reporting agency-wide reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the standards and procedures for collecting and

reporting these data are decentralized.

Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand

Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make It

Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs

Forest Service reports to the Congress show a generally increasing trend in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs during the last 5 years, as shown in

figure 1. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend, they are not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency’s specific needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. Although

the Forest Service is developing a new national data system, the agency does not

anticipate making significant changes to its policies and practices to improve the

quality of the data.

The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs

Forest Service reports to the Congress show that the acreage of agency lands

needing reforestation declined steadily between Fiscal Years 1995 and 1999 but

then steadily increased from 2000 through 2004. Much of the recent increase in

10

3 In 2001, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior developed a National Fire Plan with state and local agencies and tribal governments to provide technical and financial resources

to reduce the risk to communities and ecosystems from wildland fire, in part, by reducing hazardous fuels by thinning trees—one type of timber stand improvement treatment. 4These numbers include lands under federal and state ownership, not just Forest Service land.

reforestation needs occurred in Forest Service regions located in western states. Officials from three of the four regions we visited (the Northern, Pacific Northwest,

and Pacific Southwest Regions) expressed concern about the increasing level of their

reforestation needs relative to their future ability to meet these needs. With respect

to timber stand improvement needs, the Forest Service reports that the acreage of

its lands needing such treatments increased most years since 1995. While nationwide timber stand improvement needs generally have been increasing, some regions

have reported stable or decreasing trends. For example, the Pacific Southwest Region has reported slightly decreasing needs since 1995, which agency officials attribute in part to an emphasis on thinning treatments associated with the National

Fire Plan. 3

Forest Service Data Are Not Sufficient to Accurately Quantify the Agency’s Needs

The Forest Service’s reforestation and timber stand improvement data, when combined with other information from Forest Service officials and nongovernmental experts—as well as data on recent increases in natural disturbances such as wildland

fires—are sufficiently reliable for identifying relative trends in needs. However, we

have concerns about the use of these data in quantifying the acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments for several reasons. • First, Forest Service regions and forests define their needs differently. For example, the Pacific Southwest Region reports reforestation needs in areas where

it anticipates a timber harvest, even though the forest is still fully stocked with

trees, while other regions we visited do not report a need until after the timber

is harvested. • Second, differences in Forest Service data among locations are compounded because the reforestation and timber stand improvement needs reported are a

mixture of actual needs diagnosed through site visits and estimates. In cases

where the needs are based on estimates—for example after a wildland fire—the

reported needs may not always be adjusted after the actual needs are known. • Third, Forest Service regions do not always update the data to reflect current

forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Moreover, some regions

cannot link reported needs to distinct forest locations, making it difficult for

them to detect obsolete needs and update the data. • Finally, Forest Service headquarters staff have not conducted reviews in the

last decade to ensure that the data reflect on-the-ground conditions. These inconsistencies in data and data quality mean that the needs reported at the regional level may be understated or overstated and cannot be meaningfully aggregated at the national level. Moreover, many of these data problems are longstanding and may not be adequately addressed when the Forest Service implements

a new data system later this year. Although the new system will replace individual

district, forest, and regional systems for reporting needs with a modern agency-wide

database, the quality of the data used in the new system will not improve unless

the Forest Service addresses how reforestation and timber stand improvement needs

are defined, interpreted, and reported. Forest Service officials acknowledge these

problems and are preparing an action plan to address them.

Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Forest Service officials told us that reforestation needs have been rising largely because such needs have increasingly been generated by causes other than timber

harvests, and funding to address these needs has not kept pace. During the early

1990s, the agency shifted its management emphasis from timber production to enhancing forest ecosystem health and, as a result, harvested less timber. Timber harvests, which provided sufficient revenue to pay for related reforestation needs, are

no longer the main source of such needs. According to Forest Service reports, beginning around 2000, the acreage burned in wildland fires and damaged by insects and

diseases annually began to increase significantly, leaving thousands of acres needing reforestation. Nationally, wildland fires burned over 8 million acres in 2000,

compared with about 2.3 million acres in 1998. 4 Similarly, the amount of land dam- aged by insects and diseases increased significantly, with over 12 million acres of

11

5 Under NFMA, each national forest is required to have a forest management plan describing

the agency’s objectives for the forest, including those related to reforestation and timber stand

improvement.

forest affected in 2003, compared with less than 2 million acres in 1999. As the acreage affected by these natural disturbances increased, so did reforestation needs.

However, funding allocated to pay for reforestation did not increase at the same

rate, so needs began to accumulate.

For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that management practices

have been the primary factor contributing to the increase in acreage needing treatment. For example, some regions prioritize funding for reforestation treatments over

timber stand improvement treatments and consequently do not treat timber stand

improvement needs as quickly as they are accumulating. These regions follow this

practice in part because they are required to complete reforestation treatments

within 5 years of harvesting, whereas for timber stand improvement, there is no

such requirement. National timber stand improvement needs also are increasing because the Forest Service has expanded the scope of the program, now identifying

lands where timber stand improvement work is needed to meet objectives beyond

maximizing timber yield, such as improving wildlife habitats or thinning hazardous

fuels to reduce fire danger. As the objectives of timber stand improvement have expanded, needs have expanded accordingly. Finally, nationwide timber stand improvement needs are increasing because reforestation techniques favored in the

1980s and 1990s recommended planting trees much more densely than may be currently recommended so that as the trees grew, the agency could keep the largest

and healthiest of them for cultivating, and thin out the others. Consequently, many

stands that were planted 15 or 20 years ago now need thinning, according to agency

officials.

Agency Officials Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Needs Are Not

Addressed, but Have Not Positioned the Agency to Manage Such Effects

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to accumulate in

the future and the Forest Service is unable to keep pace with the needs, the agency

will likely have to postpone some treatment projects. According to agency officials,

the agency’s ability to achieve forest management objectives may consequently be

impaired; treatment costs could increase; and forests could become more susceptible

to fire, disease, and insect damage. While Forest Service officials expressed concern

about the potential harmful effects of delaying projects, the agency has not clarified

its direction and priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect this concern and the current context in which the program operates.

Achievement of Management Objectives Could Be Impaired; Treatment

Costs Could Increase; and Forests Could Become More Vulnerable to

Fire, Insects, and Disease

The Forest Service’s ability to meet the management objectives defined in its

forest plans 5—such as maintaining a variety of tree species in a forest or appropriate habitat for certain wildlife—could be impaired if reforestation or timber stand

improvement treatments are delayed. For example, an area previously dominated by

forests could become dominated by shrubfields, compromising wildlife habitat, recreation, and timber value. Such a situation developed in the Tahoe National Forest,

where about 750 acres were cleared by a 1924 wildland fire and replaced by shrubs

that remained until agency officials replanted the area in 1964—40 years later.

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed in a timely manner, treatment costs also could increase because removing competing vegetation, which is required for most reforestation and timber stand improvement

projects, will become more costly as the vegetation grows. In addition, forests would

likely become more susceptible to severe wildland fires and damage from insects and

disease, according to agency officials. When reforestation needs are left unattended,

brush can grow in place of forests, providing dense, continuous fuel for wildland

fires. When thinning needs are left unattended, experts believe the tightly-spaced

trees fuel wildland fires, causing the fires to spread rapidly and increasing the likelihood of unusually large fires that create widespread destruction. In addition,

densely populated forests tend to be stressed because the trees compete with one

another for sunlight, water, and nutrients. When insects or diseases infect such

forests, they can spread rapidly.

12

Forest Service Is Not Well Positioned to Manage Potential Effects of Increasing Needs

Although Forest Service officials expressed concern about the potential effects of leaving reforestation and timber stand improvement needs unattended, the agency

has not made sufficient adjustments to address these concerns and adapt to the

present context in which the program operates. Over the past decade, the Forest

Service has shifted its management emphasis from timber production to ecosystem

management, sources of reforestation needs have shifted from timber harvests to

natural causes, and budgets have become increasingly constrained. The agency,

however, has not adjusted the program’s direction, policies, practices, and priorities

in keeping with these changes, although agency officials acknowledged the need to

do so.

While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis from timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s, there remains a lack of

clarity about agency mission and goals, and more specifically, about the direction

and goals for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program, according

to agency officials. When timber production was the emphasis, program direction

was clearly focused, whereas in the current environment, it is less so. Reforestation

and timber stand improvement projects now are done for multiple purposes—such

as improving wildlife habitat, protecting streams, and reducing susceptibility to

wildland fires—but it is unclear which purposes are more important, if any, and

how to allocate limited funds to support such diverse purposes. The lack of clarity

is apparent in forest management plans, where objectives are expressed in vague

or contradictory language, according to agency officials. The plans are intended to

help guide decisions, such as which reforestation techniques to use, but agency

officials said it can be difficult to interpret the plans because of the problematic language. In the absence of clear, up-to-date program direction, there are priorities, policies, and practices remaining in place that reflect outdated management emphasis. For

example, a 2001 report had recommended that the Pacific Northwest region change

its priorities by diverting some of its reforestation funds to pay for timber stand improvement. Doing so could help reduce the impacts of wildland fire, and thereby reduce the reforestation needs created by such fires, the report argued. Nevertheless,

regional officials we talked with did not all agree with the recommendation, and the

region has instead continued to prioritize reforestation over timber stand improvement as it has done since the inception of the timber program. Similarly, in the Pacific Southwest region, when officials reforest an area, they almost always rely on

planting—a more expensive method than natural regeneration. This approach may

have been appropriate when timber production was the emphasis and timber revenues were higher, because natural regeneration can be slower and less productive

than planting. However, the region continues to avoid natural regeneration because

they have always done so and, according to agency officials, this practice has been

reinforced by the regional culture.

Conclusions

Although the Forest Service annually reports its reforestation and timber stand

improvement needs to the Congress, the agency has not developed a tally of these

needs that accurately reflects the condition of our national forests. While we recognize that the systematic collection of accurate data may take resources away from

reforestation and timber stand improvements in the short-term, such an investment

could lay the foundation for the Forest Service to provide a credible picture of our

forests’ needs to the Congress. With the advent of a new agency-wide data collection

system, the Forest Service has the opportunity to improve the consistency and accuracy with which its data reflect on-the-ground conditions in our national forests.

Consistent, accurate data would help the agency to build a well-founded budget case

for funding reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.

However, the Forest Service must recognize that in the current, fiscally constrained environment, even well-supported needs may not always be funded. The

agency needs to update its goals and policies for the reforestation and timber stand

improvement program to reflect the current fiscal environment, as well as its current emphasis on ecosystem management. Until it does so, it will be difficult for the

Forest Service to identify the best investments to minimize adverse effects on the

lasting health and productivity of our national forests.

To address these issues, we recommended in our report that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to standardize guidance for reporting

data on reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and improve the data’s

accuracy in time for congressional deliberation on the Forest Service’s 2007 appropriations request. We further recommended that the Secretary direct the Chief to

13

clarify the program direction and policies, and establish criteria for prioritizing the

agency’s use of program funds. The Forest Service, on behalf of the Department of

Agriculture, concurred with our findings and recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this

time.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-3841

or at nazzaror@gao.gov. Bill Bates, David P. Bixler, Christy Colburn, Sandy Davis,

Omari Norman, Cynthia Norris, Jena Sinkfield, and Jay Smale made key contributions to this statement.

GAO Highlights

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2004, the Forest Service reported to the Congress that it had a backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation—the planting and natural regeneration of trees. Reforestation and subsequent timber stand improvement treatments,

such as thinning trees and removing competing vegetation, are critical to restoring

and improving the health of our national forests after timber harvests or natural

disturbances such as wildland fires.

GAO was asked to (1) examine the reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement, (2) identify the factors that have contributed to these trends, and (3) describe any potential effects of these trends that federal land managers have identified. This testimony is based on GAO’s report Forest

Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber

Stand Improvement Needs (GAO-05-374), being released today.

What GAO Recommends

In its report, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief

of the Forest Service to take several actions to improve the agency’s ability to identify and prioritize its reforestation and timber stand improvement needs. In commenting on a draft of the report, the Forest Service agreed with GAO’s findings and

recommendations.

What GAO Found

The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand improvement has been generally increasing since 2000, according to Forest Service

officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as other studies. While the

Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend, they are

not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency’s specific needs, establish

priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data’s reliability is limited

in part because some Forest Service regions and forests define their needs differently, and some do not systematically update the data to reflect current forest

conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Forest Service officials acknowledge

these problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to better track

its needs. While helpful, this action alone will not be sufficient to address the data

problems GAO has identified.

According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs have been increasing in

spite of declining timber harvests because of the growing acreage of lands affected

by natural disturbances such as wildland fires, insect infestation, and diseases. In

the past, reforestation needs resulted primarily from timber harvests, whose sales

produced sufficient revenue to fund most reforestation needs. Now needs are resulting mainly from natural causes, and funding sources for such needs have remained

relatively constant rather than rising in step with increasing needs. For timber

stand improvement, the acreage needing attention is growing in part because highdensity planting practices, used in the past to replace harvested trees, are creating

needs for thinning treatments today and because treatments have not kept pace

with the growing needs.

Forest Service officials believe the agency’s ability to achieve its forest management objectives may be impaired if future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace the agency’s ability to meet these needs. For example, maintaining wildlife habitat—one forest management objective—could be hindered if brush grows to dominate an area formerly forested with tree species that

provided forage, nesting, or other benefits to wildlife. Also, if treatments are delayed, costs could increase because competing vegetation—which must be removed

to allow newly reforested stands to survive—grows larger over time and becomes

more costly to remove. Further, without needed thinning treatments, agency

14

officials said forests become dense, fueling wildland fires and creating competition

among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect attack and disease.

While agency officials expressed concern about these potential effects, the agency

has not adjusted its policies and priorities for the reforestation and timber stand

improvement program so that adverse effects can be minimized. Forest Service

officials did, however, acknowledge the need to make such changes.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. We appreciate, again, the

work of your agency in doing this research for us. It certainly helps

guide us in our policymaking decisions, and every member of the

Subcommittee has a copy of the full GAO report. So we appreciate

that.

Ms. NAZZARO. Thank you.

Mr. WALDEN. I noted in the report that there is a discussion

about timber stand improvements, and I know some dispute even

the term ‘‘timber stand improvement.’’ But the report indicated

timber stand improvement needs reported by the Forest Service’s

Pacific Northwest Region covering all of Washington and Oregon

were the highest of any region during 4 of the last 5 years.

Can you tell us why that is?

Ms. NAZZARO. I do not believe that I have that information. I

could provide it to you, though. If that was included as part of our

audit, we could provide that for the record.

Mr. WALDEN. I would be interested to know more about that. It

seems like your report really focuses on an issue that has been before the Congress multiple times, and that is the quality of data

that we are getting out of the Forest Service. And you have indicated the Forest Service agreed with your recommendations and is

going to prepare a response. Did they give you any time line?

Ms. NAZZARO. No. There is a requirement that they provide within 90 days an action plan to do this, but we have not heard from

them yet, other than the official comments in the report that said

that they were developing this new data system. However, we are

concerned that the data system itself will not be enough because

what we need is to make sure that the data that is going into that

system is accurate. What they are doing now is automating what

previously was done manually, so it could be bad data in, bad data

out. We still will not know if it is overstated or understated without having quality data that has been validated.

Mr. WALDEN. What do you recommend to us to figure out, to help

them figure out how to get good data in? What should we be looking for? What should we change?

Ms. NAZZARO. Well, we made a number of recommendations in

that area, and particularly we are requiring data validation by all

the regions. In some cases, as I noted in my statement, they had

done site visits to try to validate the accuracy of their data. In

other cases, they told us these were just estimates. So they really

do not know how accurate the data are themselves.

Mr. WALDEN. I sort of ran into this in trying to acquire some

data on the work being done on healthy forest restoration, the

thinning projects and all, and I wanted to get it as close to the

ground, to the smallest unit as possible. And it was odd that I

could get statewide numbers, but I could not get localized data.

Now, I am a journalism major, not a mathematician, but I could

not figure out how you get to the total without all the little things

15

in between. And it sounds like that is part of the problem here,

that they can give you sort of a global number, but that may not

reflect what is really happening on the ground.

Ms. NAZZARO. And, actually, I think we are seeing maybe just

the converse of that, that some of the localities were able to give

us what they perceived as accurate data, although they do not have

criteria that is used uniformly across all of the localities. So then

when you wrap it up, you really have suspect data because they

have used different criteria for the input to that total number.

Mr. WALDEN. Now, it looked like, too, that the laws that were

passed in 1974 and later helped the agencies be able to get at this

backlog issue and virtually work it down to virtually no backlog.

And now we are seeing a trend the other direction again.

Am I correct in reading the report that in part that is due to a

lack of funding, in part that is due to stands that were replanted

very densely after harvest in anticipation of future thinning that

have not been thinned? And then the third issue really is the really

terrible wildfires we have seen over the last 5 years.

Ms. NAZZARO. You are correct in that. The reforestation is definitely what they have told us as a result of the increase in

wildland fires, which we were able to validate that that increased

trend has occurred. For timber stand improvements, it is that the

forests were planted very densely, and now they have not done the

thinning necessary.

Mr. WALDEN. And certainly in some forests, it makes perfect

sense to allow natural regeneration. I do not think anybody is talking about single species regeneration, some plantation deal. But it

looks to me like from this report and others that we can make a

choice to get in and replant a mixed group of trees to reflect what

was there before. And you can do that cheaper and faster and restore the habitat, protect watershed, and all that quicker if you get

in faster, or you can delay and get a brush field, and it may take

a decade or two or more to get to the same place or to get back

into a natural forest regenerated.

Is that in keeping with what your report found?

Ms. NAZZARO. Definitely, that it would take longer.

Mr. WALDEN. And cost more?

Ms. NAZZARO. And cost more, right. What we are seeing is that—

and you could also have a change in habitat as well. So there is

a lot of different consequences of just letting the natural habitation

or the vegetation regrow. It could be that you are going to have different species of trees growing, so that would be inconsistent with

what was already decided that this forest should have. But it could

also affect recreation needs, habitat needs, watershed concerns.

Mr. WALDEN. One final question and then I will turn it over to

my colleague from New Mexico. Did you find any downside to more

rapidly going in and doing reforestation work after a fire? Did your

folks look at that? Did anybody that you talked to say, gosh, you

ought to just let it do what it is going to do?

Ms. NAZZARO. No, we did not. I didn’t recall any in the report.

I just wanted to make sure. No.

Mr. WALDEN. I did not see it in what I read either. All right.

Thank you very much.

I will turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Udall.

16

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This must be a little bit frustrating for the GAO. I note here,

here is a 1991 report that says better reporting needed on reforestation and timber stand improvement. Then here we have a September 1994 report that says management of reforestation program

has improved but problems continue. And then you have the report

that we are having the hearing on today. And the Chairman I

think probed into this a little bit, but is there any suggestion you

have on how we can get this right, get the Forest Service to get

it right?

Ms. NAZZARO. The bottom line certainly is the need for better

data. What we are saying is they need to be able to prioritize so

that at least we know where the money is being spent and if it is

being spent effectively. But they will not know that unless they

have the right data. And they have agreed with our recommendations. As I said, they are developing this new data system, although we are concerned with the data quality.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you.

On page 22 of the current GAO report, it states, and I quote,

‘‘While reported reforestation needs have been rising, funding allocated for reforestation and timber stand improvement has not.’’

In researching this report, did your agency take a close look into

the various reforestation funds and where the funds were being allocated, specifically in reference to the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund?

Ms. NAZZARO. We did not look into that issue as to how the funds

were being spent. We did note that they have asked for an increase

in funding in 2006, but we have not looked at how prior funds have

been used, no, sir.

Mr. WALDEN. Please, for the benefit of the committee members

that may not be familiar, could you detail, or somebody, maybe

staff, what the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund is and how the money

goes into that? Because there may be members that do not know

that.

Ms. NAZZARO. Actually, I am not familiar with it.

Mr. WALDEN. You cannot? All right.

Ms. NAZZARO. I do not believe we have anybody here that has a

detailed knowledge to give you a primer on it.

Mr. WALDEN. We have Forest Service here.

Ms. NAZZARO. I would defer the question to the Forest Service.

Mr. WALDEN. It is a very important part of this.

Mr. TOM UDALL. I agree, Mr. Chairman.

Are you aware of the previous congressional concerns about onethird of the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund not being used for reforestation activities as initially intended?

Ms. NAZZARO. No. As I say, we did not look at all into how any

of the appropriated funds have been spent. Again, you may want

to defer that question until you have the agency up here.

Mr. TOM UDALL. OK. And I think you are probably going to say

no to this, too, but did you find instances where funds collected for

reforestation in individual sale areas did not cover the actual reforestation cost?

Ms. NAZZARO. No, but the issue was raised when we talked about

salvage logging as to whether the costs were going to be able to—

that the costs—excuse me, the receipts received from those sales,

17

whether they would be able to cover all the associated costs. And

they did talk about administrative costs that needed to be factored

in as well. So it was unclear that the Forest Service had any data

to show us how cost-effective any of these measures were.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Just for the record, in 1998, the GAO reviewed

the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund and reported that up to 30 percent

of the fund was being charged to indirect expenses. This report led

to a successful amendment to prohibit the use of Knutson-Vandenberg funding for indirect expenses during the consideration of the

Fiscal Year 1999 House Interior spending bill, and Mr. Chairman,

I yield back to you.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, and I appreciate your raising those

issues on Knutson-Vandenberg and we will—because that was an

issue that you all raised, that it was like 30 percent of the fund,

questionable expenditures, and we will get an answer as to how it

is being spent now.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

Gilchrest, for 5 minutes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Nazzaro, could you tell us—and maybe the Forest Service

might want to focus on this or tell us as well—when the Forest

Service collects data throughout the country in all the different regions, assuming there is specific criteria or purpose for the kind of

data they are looking for, do they do it with satellites, airplanes,

walking on the ground? How do they collect that data?

Ms. NAZZARO. We documented two methods: one, doing site visits, that they had gone out and actually viewed these sites; and the

other was that they just did estimates.

Mr. GILCHREST. So there are no flyovers or satellite data that

would be pertinent to the kind of data they are looking for?

Ms. NAZZARO. You might want to ask the Forest Service about

that. We did not document any of those methods being used.

Mr. GILCHREST. As you were going through this with BLM and

the Forest Service, is there any similarity—the refuge system has

volunteers that do a lot of data collecting for all the refuges, Federal refuges. Does the Forest Service have any counterpart to those

kinds of volunteers that collect this kind of data?

Ms. NAZZARO. No, we did not document any performance like

that. Again, you might want to ask the agency whether they do.

I don’t know whether they do or not. We did not experience that.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. You also mentioned in your report that

land managers—and I am assuming that is the Forest Service—

cite adverse effects that could result in reforestation and timber

stand improvement needs not being addressed. Some of the adverse

effects resulting from the lack of reforestation is that there seems

to be an expansion of priorities in different regions, whether it is

for fuel reduction or some other purpose.

Is there any way—and I think the Chairman made mention to

this earlier. Does your report say that the Chief of the Forest Service should be specific about the goals or priorities of each region,

giving less independence to each manager for a different region? Or

is it good that each manager has independence in each region?

Ms. NAZZARO. We did not specify exactly that they needed—at

what level they needed to do it. We asked that they clarify the

18

direction and the policies for reforestation. We feel right now that

the Forest Service has a multifaceted mission. I mean, you are asking them to address issues of wildlife habitats, recreational uses,

timber production, in addition to dealing with the issues from the

wildfires. So we really feel that there needs to be some kind of program direction as to what goal are they trying to achieve, what are

their objectives. And that is where we talk about the need to set

some priorities. And it could vary certainly from location to location. Not all locations are set with the same goals in mind.

Mr. GILCHREST. In your research, does the Forest Service have

a list of priorities for each region, such as wildlife habitat, such as

timber harvesting, such as water quality? Are those things listed

out there that you could see?

Ms. NAZZARO. They do have forest plans, but our view there was

that the plans were vague and contradictory. So I would say no,

they do not have the clear direction.

Mr. GILCHREST. So if the plans are vague and contradictory, who

determines the kind of data that you are going to collect to ensure

that the priorities, which might be contradictory, are achieved?

Ms. NAZZARO. Right now we do not see that the Forest Service

has those directions or policies to tell them what criteria they

should use.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

Ms. NAZZARO. We found some that were using criteria based on

existing needs; some were projecting needs into the future. So there

is not a uniformity, at least in the Forest Service, like we saw at

BLM. BLM has a criteria that the need had to exist within a 5-

year time—within the last 5 years, and they do not project to the

future. They have much more solid criteria.

Mr. GILCHREST. In any of the regions that you went to, the

Forest Service or the BLM, one of the goals would have been economic value placed on ecosystem services provided for that forest,

is that in—in other words, water quality has a certain economic

value. Wildlife habitat has a certain economic value. Carbon sequestration has a certain economic value. Was that in any of the

regions that you visited, economic value of the ecosystem services

provided by the forests?

Ms. NAZZARO. I did not see that analysis discussed in our report,

no.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.

Before I go to the gentlewoman from South Dakota, on page 7

of the GAO report, at the bottom is a good explanation of the

Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930: establish a trust fund to collect

a portion of timber sale receipts to pay for reforesting areas from

which timber is cut. The reforestation projects eligible for such

funding include growing trees for planting, planting trees, sowing

seeds, removing weeds and other competing vegetation, and preventing animals from damaging new trees. The Act was amended

in 1976 to allow the Forest Service to use these funds for other activities such as creating wildlife habitat.

So I don’t know about you all, but I have been on committees

where they buzz right through all the buzz words, and you never

19

quite know what they are talking about. So I thought that might

help.

Now I recognize the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Ms.

Herseth.

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that

guidance where I can refer to in the report. And I appreciate your

testimony here today and all the work, Ms. Nazzaro, of your staff

and your office in preparing the report. And I am going to save

most of my questions for our friends from the Forest Service who

will be following you, but let me just flesh out a few things and follow up on some of the questions that my colleagues have posed

here. I am going to, by way of background, just give you a sense

of where I am coming from here.

I represent South Dakota, and if we use—you had mentioned

that funding is part of the problem here, and maybe we can compare the problems we have there today versus what we were able

to successfully do, as Chairman Walden pointed out, in the 1970s,

the lack of uniformity of the data, as Mr. Gilchrest has pointed out.

But if we use the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota

as an example, and let’s say the normal total annual budget for the

forest there is $20 million, for timber sales, campgrounds, fuel reduction, wildlife habitat, et cetera. Now then let’s say there has

been a major fire, as we have had numerous ones in the last 5

years, as have other national forests. And they estimate that the

planting needs will cost $25 million. That is assuming 50,000 acres

and $500 an acre.

Now, the current system would have the Black Hills National

Forest budget the $25 million out of their annual $20 million operating budget, and then consequently the only way the national

forest could fund the tree planting would be to reduce their budget

for timber sales, campgrounds, et cetera, and not surprisingly, that

is not happening. So when we look at the possible solutions, whether it is to do something as we did in the 1970s as part of the

National Forest Management Act, where the Forest Service was required to determine the reforestation backlog and then to reforest

the backlog acres within a certain period of time that seemingly

worked, or if we had something separate from the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund or we had a separate line item in the budget, is it

your opinion based on the findings in your report that without the

uniformity in the data available that we cannot really make what

we made work in the latter part of the 1970s work now to address

the backlog?

Ms. NAZZARO. I guess it depends how much money you are willing to spend, if you are willing to take at face value that they have

900,000 acres that need reforestation and get an estimate of an average cost per acre and that is what you appropriate to them, although I cannot imagine that those kind of funds are available. So

what we are saying is that you need to set priorities to make

sure—because, as was mentioned earlier, some areas can be allowed to naturally regenerate themselves; some areas need reforestation. So until you set those priorities—but to set the priorities,

you have to have the data to support the existing condition. And

we are feeling right now we cannot tell whether the 900,000 acres

is an overestimate or an underestimate.

20

Ms. HERSETH. And did your report break down by region based

on management in different forests how the data was being collected? I think Mr. Gilchrest was getting at this point of whether

they are estimates, whether it is on the ground, whether it is any

other method that is being used to collect the information?

Ms. NAZZARO. No. The short answer is no. It is not—our first attempt was to try to validate that number of the 900,000 acres, and

when we saw all the problems, we just tried to characterize the

types of problems that were existing, so that led us to the type of

conclusion then as to what needs to be done to correct the problem.

But we didn’t by location say this site uses this method versus that

site. It is just inconsistent, and it needs to be done in a consistent

fashion.

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. Thanks for your comments.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the Chairman. Welcome, Robin. Nice to

have you here.

In your opinion, what are some of the probable consequences of

not addressing the backlog of stand improvement needs?

Ms. NAZZARO. Well, right now you would certainly be—I guess

probably the largest problem we see or the most prevalent problem

for timber stand improvements is that you are creating an ecosystem that is more susceptible to wildland fires.

Mr. PETERSON. That is the major issue, you think?

Ms. NAZZARO. That’s what I would say would be probably the

largest issue.

Mr. PETERSON. Has the Administration budget request taken

into account the increased needs for reforestation and stand improvement?

Ms. NAZZARO. Could you restate that again?

Mr. PETERSON. Does the current proposed budget adequately reflect the need for reforestation?

Ms. NAZZARO. Since we couldn’t verify or validate what their actual needs were, there is no way we can tell whether their budget

request is adequate or inadequate.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, I think the answer is obvious.

[Laughter.]

Ms. NAZZARO. That is why I asked you to restate the question,

to make sure I understood what you were asking. Thank you.

Mr. PETERSON. The GAO report notes that the Western Region

has expressed concern about their future ability to meet reforestation needs. What are the primary reasons given for their concern?

Ms. NAZZARO. For the reasons why they need more funds for reforestation?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

Ms. NAZZARO. The primary concern is because of the increase in

the wildland fires since the year 2000, that at least that we are

able to support that that would justify an increase in the trend

data that we provided.

Mr. PETERSON. OK. But there are a lot of other reasons, but that

is the overriding one, you would think. OK. Thank you.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Brown?

21

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, do you have an accounting of the balance in that fund now for reforestation?

Mr. WALDEN. I do not, but we can get that for you.

Mr. BROWN. All right. Let me preface my question then by saying

that I represent South Carolina, which is the Francis Marion

National Forest, you know, which is about 250,000 acres, and so we

have a little familiarity with that process. And I do not know about

trying to address these 900,000 acres that we have got outstanding.

How many acres do we have today that are under reforestation? I

noticed in the 1920s—you know, we have got as many trees growing today as back in the 1920s. How does that match between the

national forest and the private land holders?

Ms. NAZZARO. I am sorry. I don’t have that information.

Mr. BROWN. OK. Let me go to the next question, then. In addressing trying to meet the needs to find the funding for those

900,000 acres—that is the reason I wanted to find out what the

balance in that account was, but are there any alternative methods

that we are looking at to do the reforestation? Are we doing it all

in-house, or are we looking to do some outsourcing? How is the reforestation being accomplished today?

Ms. NAZZARO. This report did not cover the process by which the

reforesting—to look at the adequacy or the inadequacy of their

methods. That was not addressed.

Mr. BROWN. OK. Who would address that area?

Ms. NAZZARO. I would imagine the agencies can give you some

idea as to what extent they are outsourcing or to what extent they

have their own staff doing the reforestation.

Mr. BROWN. OK. Because, generally speaking, in the process we

always tend to follow the same stream, and when times get tough,

we have to look for better ways of doing things. And I am just wondering if we have got the best and cheapest—you know, best practice that is available today to be able to address those needs. So

you don’t have the answer to that?

Ms. NAZZARO. No, sir. We did not look at the extent to which

they’re contracting, but I would imagine the agencies should be

able to tell you to what extent they’re contracting, and with the increase and the backlog that they’re claiming they’re having, they

should be able to tell you to the extent that they’re now

outsourcing.

Mr. BROWN. OK, because it always seems like if we had more

money, we could get the job done quicker or better, you know. But

we are living in some tight times.

Ms. NAZZARO. Well, and that is our concern, that we are not advocating just giving them more money. We’re saying you need to

know exactly what the backlog is using uniform criteria, and then

set your priorities given the funds that are available to be spent

and make sure that money is well spent.

Mr. BROWN. OK. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALDEN. For the record, Mr. Brown, the minority crack staff

is right there with the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund numbers.

[Laughter.]

22

Mr. BROWN. It was tough following the gentlelady from South

Dakota, when she had all those numbers. It really was amiss to

what I was going to ask, to be quite honest.

Mr. WALDEN. You know, both of you being from ‘‘south,’’ you

have different accents, too.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BROWN. You are right. That is a common connect.

Mr. WALDEN. She needs to work on hers.

Just for the record, since you asked, the Knutson-Vandenberg

Fund program level and budget authority in 2000—I will go back

a couple of years here. It was as high as, in 2002, $241 million.

And then in 2003, it was $73 million.

Now, understand that we borrow out of that fund to go fight fire,

and then it gets repaid. So the numbers jockey around a bit. But

in 2003, it was $73 million program level; 2004 was 63; 2005 was

87; this year is projected 87. The budget authorities are all over the

place, from $44 million to $213 million one year to 60 in the last

two.

The reforestation trust fund is paid for on a duty of imported

lumber that comes in, and it has pretty much stayed at $30 million

going back to 1990. So it has just been a constant $30 million,

which I think is obviously what GAO found as well, this constant

money coming in, and yet the need because of the wildfires have

been so great in the last 5 years, constant funding for reforestation

and yet a more dramatic need. Brush disposal has sort of been in

the $14, $15, $20 million range over the last 10 years. So it has

been sort of constant.

Mr. BROWN. And I guess my concern is not just fighting those

forest fires but having some preventive technique to try to do some

control burns and some other preventive measures to keep that

cost down. And so that is the information I guess I am seeking, Mr.

Chairman, just to be absolutely sure that money is not the end

product, as maybe some other processes that we can address to

make it work even with the funds that are available.

Mr. WALDEN. And I am reminded as well that the K–V fund can

only be spent within timber sale areas. So when you are talking

about the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund, monies out of that can only

be used to do work in timber sale areas. And if you note in the

GAO report the volume of timber—and I don’t remember the years

now, but it is basically half what it was, and we are generating a

third of the revenue we were generating, so you have gone from 4

billion board feet to 2 billion board feet in harvest and from $600

million in revenue to $200 million in revenue. So the revenues off

what we are cutting is less than what it used to be and so less

money is coming in.

Mr. BROWN. So we cannot use that South Dakota revenue to enhance my South Carolina trees, then, right?

Mr. WALDEN. No, but it would sure help in Oregon. We will take

all your South Carolina revenue.

[Laughter.]

Mr. WALDEN. Run it there. Take the South Dakota revenue, too.

Thank you.

And, Ms. Nazzaro, thank you again for your work. Your reports

have been most helpful. I know we have been somewhat like a

23

plague of locusts on GAO with all our requests for reports, but I

really think it is important to get a factual understanding of these

issues so that we can then craft policy that will help America’s

forests for the future. So thank you. We appreciate your testimony.

Ms. NAZZARO. Thank you.

Mr. WALDEN. By the way, we will keep the record open for 10

days if members have other questions, but we appreciate your testimony.

Mr. WALDEN. Now let’s have our second panel come on up, and

as you are coming up, I will tell you they have notified us we may

have a couple of votes here at any time, so we will start and we

may have to recess momentarily.

On panel two, we have Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief of the

National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, and Ed Shepard, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning for the Bureau

of Land Management.

Gentlemen, since I swore in our first witness, I think we will do

it throughout today’s hearing. So if you would rise and raise your

right hand?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. WALDEN. Let the record show they agreed, and I will remind

you of the 5-minute rule, but we appreciate your being here. Your

full testimony will be in the record, and with that I would like to

recognize Mr. Holtrop for his statement. Good afternoon and

thanks.

STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL

FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today

concerning the Forest Service reforestation program.

Historically, one of the most important responsibilities of the

Forest Service has been to establish forests to regenerate forest

lands following timber harvest and natural disturbances.

Reforestation programs have been integral to the management of

national forest resources since the agency’s inception, as reflected

in key legislation such as the Organic Act of 1897, the K–V Act of

1930, and the National Forest Management of 1976. Timely reforestation following harvest or major catastrophic events to restore

forest cover on denuded lands is vitally important to maintaining

forest ecosystems and deriving associated ecological, social, and

economic benefits. Reforestation provides a means by which we ensure that these values can be enjoyed by future generations.

There are many issues regarding reforestation, but I want to

focus on three issues. First is the ability to predict treatment

needs. In the latter half of the 20th century, reforestation treatment needs were closely associated with regeneration harvest activities connected with the timber sale program. This close association was beneficial both from the standpoint of utilizing K–V authorities to collect funds to do the necessary reforestation work and

because reforestation programs could be planned and predicted.

This afforded the opportunity to schedule and complete the many

tasks needed to assure regeneration success. Much of this program

24

predictability is lost when wildfire and other natural events become

the predominant causal factor giving rise to reforestation needs.

Since the location and magnitude of these events cannot be predicted from one year to the next, this makes the job of planning

orderly programs of work to complete reforestation treatments

more difficult, and we must rely on appropriated funds that were

requested as much as 2 years prior to the disturbance event in

order to undertake this work if K–V funds are not available for this

purpose. Moreover, this lack of predictability can also make it very

difficult to plan for and to secure tree seed from appropriate seed

sources in sufficient quantities to address reforestation needs.

The second issue is delays in removing salvage material. Reforestation activities following catastrophic disturbances may sometimes necessitate removal of trees. Some harvest prescriptions are

designed to achieve wildlife habitat objectives. Others are designed

to couple the objective of leaving large tree structures in place

while removing other dead and dying trees to expedite the establishment of a new forest. Trees may also need to be removed to reduce the potential for losses to reforestation and other capital investments. Salvage operations can also be beneficial for economic

reasons. However, the removal of this material must be done

promptly if economic benefits are to be derived.

The removal of salvage from public lands is a controversial issue.

Salvage sales continue to be the focus of numerous appeals and

legal challenges. Often by the time these challenges are resolved,

values for this material may be insufficient to cover the costs of

their removal, much less result in timber sale deposits to help

cover the cost of needed reforestation treatments.

The last issue is data integrity. Forest Service policy has been to

require our regions to identify and report all reforestation needs,

including those resulting from forest fires or other natural disasters, on an accurate, consistent, and timely basis. With the increases in fire and insect and disease killed forest acreage over the

last few years, we have become aware of inconsistencies in some

of the ways some forests have been reporting reforestation needs.

I will now describe the actions we have and will take to address

these issues.

When the needs report was first established, a primary focus of

the report was to foster timber production goals. We believe that

we can provide Congress a more accurate statement of needs not

only for fiber production but restoration of forest conditions to meet

wildlife, soil, water, and recreation objectives as well. We are in the

process of revising current policy and definitions for reforestation

needs and plan to put this direction in place before the end of this

fiscal year.

Currently, our reforestation needs information is contained in

nine separately managed regional data bases. We will replace these

regional data bases with a single national application by the end

of this year. We have also restructured the budget and accounting

framework to enable us to better link resource needs to reforestation needs. We will develop guidance to assist the regions in setting reforestation priorities, to weigh critical reforestation work in

relation to other important work they must do consistent with land

management objectives. We believe that, taken together, these

25

changes will result it improved data consistency, accuracy, and

utility of needs information. This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to answer and address your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]

Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Introduction

Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today concerning the Forest Service reforestation program. The decision to commit resources to reforestation comes about primarily under two conditions; one arising from a planned timber harvesting program, and one following catastrophic natural events such as wildfire, wind, ice, and insect and disease infestations. Under planned activities we have

a statutory requirement to complete reforestation activities within five years following harvesting. While this statutory requirement is absent in the case of a catastrophic natural event, we are still obliged, as responsible land stewards, to assure

forest restoration including reforestation where it is needed.

Background

Historically, one of the most important challenges and resposibilities of the USDA

Forest Service has been to establish forests on lands that are unstocked as the result of natural catastrophes, excessive cutting, fire, insects or farming practices of

the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Reforestation programs have been integral to the management of national forest

resources since the Agency’s inception. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 explicitly provided for the establishment of national forests to improve and protect

forests to secure favorable conditions of water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of timber. The Act provides for reforestation work in support of these aims. The

Weeks Law of 1911 provided for the acquisition of forested, cutover, or denuded

lands within watersheds to regulate the flow of navigable streams or for the production of timber, enabling the Secretary to conduct reforestation work on the acquired

lands.

Tree planting programs conducted on the national forests during the early 1900’s

were primarily concerned with the re-establishment of tree seedlings following large

wildfires. The Wind River Nursery was established in Washington State in 1901 to

ensure a reliable source of tree seedlings to reforest large burns in the Pacific

Northwest. The Bessey Nursery was established in 1902, in an early collaborative

effort involving Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot and Professor Charles Bessey of the

University of Nebraska to restore pine seedlings to the Sandhills region, these efforts led to the creation of what is now the Nebraska State Forest and portions of

the National Forests of Nebraska.

The Knutson-Vandenberg (K–V) Act of 1930 explicitly provided for the establishment of forest tree nurseries and also authorized the Secretary to require timber

sale purchasers to make deposits to cover the cost of reforestation and related work

within timber sale boundaries. The K–V Act continues to be a primary means for

ensuring our reforestation treatment needs are met within timber sale areas.

Timber harvested on National Forests during the first half of the 20th century

utilized selective harvesting practices primarily in green timber stands. Regeneration needs within the timber sale area were commonly addressed by using natural

regeneration methods and could generally be addressed using K–V deposits arising

from the timber sale. The national forests were, for the most part, well positioned

to address their reforestation treatment needs using these deposits and by requesting additional appropriated funds to address the needs associated with sporadic

wildfire, insect and disease attacks.

Following World War II, timber harvesting practices began to shift to increasingly

favor regeneration harvest methods, such as clearcutting, during the mid- to late1960’s on many national forests. Timber sale revenues remained generally sufficient

to address reforestation treatment needs within timber sale areas throughout this

period.

The Forest Service identified and reported understocked areas in the early 1970’s.

Restoring forest cover to these areas was a desirable action to promote timber production goals in support of sustained yield requirements. Congress amended the

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 with passage of

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in 1976. Under the Act as amended, the

Forest Service was required to identify the amount and location of forested lands

26

that had been cut over, denuded, or otherwise deforested, as well as all lands with

stands that were not growing at the best potential rate. In its initial report, the

Forest Service reported a backlog in need of reforestation totaling more than 3.1

million acres predominately associated with old brushfields and other areas that

had been in an understocked condition for several decades. NFMA required the

Forest Service to eliminate this reforestation backlog within 8 years and to annually

report its progress toward this goal. During this time, the Forest Service conducted

treatments that permitted it to report at the end of Fiscal Year 1985 that the agency had reduced the backlog to approximately 46,000 acres. The Forest Service further reported it would carry this amount into its current maintenance needs for reforestation. In that same year, the Forest Service reported to Congress lands needing reforestation from ongoing operations totaled 827,109 acres.

Title III of the Recreational Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of

1980 provided an additional means of funding reforestation work on the national

forests. This legislation established the Reforestation Trust Fund enabling the annual transfer from the U.S. Treasury to the Forest Service of up to $30 million from

tariffs received from the import of selected wood products.

Since 1992, the use of the clearcutting method of regeneration harvest was deemphasized on the national forests. This change, coupled with a general decline in

timber sale program levels, led to sharp reductions in regeneration harvest practices

and associated K–V receipts on many national forests. These reductions led to a

general decline in reforestation needs that continued through the late-1990s.

As a result of the buildup of hazardous fuels over the last 100 years, unnaturally

intense wildfire n has become the predominant causal factor giving rise to reforestation needs on many national forests, particularly in the West. The scale and severity of these events is of a magnitude that often leads to devastating impacts to

forest resources and a variety of post-fire recovery needs and has resulted in sharp

increases in reforestation needs on many national forests in recent years.

Why Reforestation Is Important

America’s richly, diverse forests provide vital products and amenities to our society including: quality habitat for wildlife, biodiversity of plant and animal communities, clean water, aesthetic benefits, and recreational opportunities. Timely reforestation following harvest or a major catastrophic event to restore forest cover on

denuded lands is often important to maintaining forest ecosystems and deriving associated ecological, social, and economic benefits. Some recent catastrophic wildfires,

severe wind and rain events, and other natural disturbance events have resulted in

significant losses to critical wildlife habitat, imperiled fisheries and watersheds and

municipal water sources. These events also threaten the long-term productivity of

forest soils, through erosion and changes in soil properties, as well as many other

resources. Reforestation is one element of a land stewardship ethic that includes

growing, nurturing, and harvesting trees to meet specified resource objectives while

conserving soil, air, and water quality in harmony with other resource management

concerns. Reforestation following harvest or areas denuded by catastrophic fire or

other natural disaster is often important to ensuring forest sustainability; it is a top

priority for national forest management. On many occasions, natural regeneration

can serve to meet forest management objectives. However, in other instances active

reforestation actions such as planting seedlings may be necessary. For example,

many species of wildlife, such as quail, rabbit, deer, elk, moose, ruffed grouse and

wild turkey, and some threatened and endangered species can be found using newly

established forests for food, shelter and nesting. Moreover, through reforestation

treatments we can hasten the development of large tree structural components in

late-successional habitat areas needed by late-seral dependant species like the spotted owl.

The Forest Service reforestation program has four major goals: (1) to maintain all

forest lands within the National Forest System in appropriate forest cover; (2) to

improve the quality and yield of the timber resource; (3) to accelerate the attainment of desired species composition and stocking objectives in a cost-efficient manner; and (4) to develop and demonstrate successful reforestation methods and techniques, and encourage their use by other landowners.

Restoring forested ecosystems following a large scale disturbance typically involves a series of steps: (1) emergency stabilization to prevent threat to life, property, and further damage to watersheds; (2) rehabilitation of resources affected by

the disturbance that are unlikely to recover without human intervention; and (3)

longer term restoration treatments, including reforestation, that span many years

and are needed to restore functioning ecosystems. All of these steps are completed

consistent with the direction contained in individual forest plans.

27

Successful reforestation involves a sequence of carefully planned treatments that begins with the selection of an appropriate regeneration harvest method that is suited to the unique ecological characteristics of the site. Regeneration success is also

dependent on the establishment of a suitable growing environment for young seedlings from appropriate local seed sources. Control of competing vegetation is sometimes necessary to maintain acceptable rates of seedling survival, as well as to control damaging agents.

The Role of Research

The tools utilized by silviculturists to determine reforestation needs and reforest- ation techniques, have been developed over the years by forest scientists, and this

research continues as needs change. In the past, research studies initiated following

major disturbances focused mainly on the most immediate recovery needs such as

soil stabilization, water runoff control, ground cover vegetation and shrubs, and

wildlife needs, and less on the reforestation goals. Reforestation techniques generally utilized (natural or limited direct seeding and planting) were those already

well-researched and readily available by implementing guidance in Forest Service

Silvics and Silviculture Systems manuals.

Practices, such as salvage logging to prepare sites for regeneration and provide

the funds for restoration activities, have been studied and some results synthesized.

In their paper titled ‘‘Environmental Effects of Post-Fire Logging: Literature Review

and Annotated Bibliography’’, Forest Service research scientists, McIver and Starr

reviewed the existing body of scientific literature on logging following wildfire.

Twenty-one post fire logging studies were reviewed and interpreted. McIver and

Starr concluded that while the practice of salvage logging after fires is controversial

the debate is carried on without the benefit of much scientific information. They also

concluded that the immediate environmental effects of post fire logging is extremely

variable and dependent on a wide variety of factors such as the severity of the burn,

slope, soil texture and composition, the presence or building of roads, types of logging methods, and post-fire weather conditions.

We realize that there are gaps in what we know about post-fire restoration and

we are working hard to fill those gaps. Forest Service researchers, in collaboration

with other scientists, are working to increase our knowledge of how ecosystems respond to fires and how management actions can affect desired outcomes.

In recent years, reforestation goals on many national forests have changed to restore forests to a previous level of condition and complexity (e.g., multiple rather

than single tree species, perhaps eventual uneven aged structure, emphasis on noncommodity objectives), and to do this at landscape scales. New research is needed

to accomplish those objectives, and to better understand the long-term results.

One useful collaborative product emerging from Forest Service research and our

National Forests Systems applications group has been the Forest Vegetation Simulator, and the Fire and Fuels Extension model that enables resource managers to

visualize and project through time the development of reforested areas following

wildfires and treatments.

Issues Affecting Reforestation Programs

Predicting Treatment Needs

In the latter half of the 20th century, reforestation treatment needs were closely

associated with regeneration harvest activities connected with the timber sale program. This close association was beneficial both from the standpoint of utilizing

K–V authorities to collect funds from timber sale purchasers to do the necessary reforestation work, and because reforestation programs could be planned and scheduled to coincide with harvest activities under a timber sale contract with a finite

contract period. This afforded the opportunity to schedule and complete needed site

preparation work, collect cones and seed from appropriate sources, sow this seed at

the nursery, grow these seedlings to desired specifications, prepare them for outplanting, and plant the seedlings and complete the other work needed to assure regeneration success.

Much of this program predictability is lost when the principal causal agent creating reforestation treatment needs is a natural disturbance event, particularly

those on a catastrophic scale. Since the location and magnitude of these events cannot be predicted from one year to the next, this dynamic makes the job of planning

orderly programs of work to complete reforestation treatments more difficult. When

the economic value of salvageable material is insufficient to cover the cost of needed

reforestation treatments using K–V collections, the situation is made more difficult

as forests must rely on appropriated funds that were requested as much as two

years prior to the disturbance event in order to undertake this work. Moreover, this

28

lack of predictability can also make it very difficult to secure tree seed from appropriate seed sources in sufficient quantities to address reforestation needs.

Recent trends in the severity of wildfires, particularly in the West, have made it much more difficult in recent years for managers to plan and program their needs

to complete reforestation treatments.

Delays in Removing Salvage Material

Reforestation activities following catastrophic disturbances may sometimes neces- sitate removal of trees. Silvicultural prescriptions which are developed after a catastrophic event are designed to achieve specific land management objectives. For example, some are harvest prescriptions to achieve wildlife habitat objectives; others

are designed to couple the objective of leaving large tree structures in place, while

removing other dead and dying trees, to expedite the establishment of a new forest.

Trees may also need to be removed to reduce the potential for losses to reforestation

investments and resources within the treated area that may result if the trees are

left in place.

Salvage operations can also be beneficial for economic reasons. However, the re- moval of this material must be done promptly if economic benefits are to be derived

because deterioration begins immediately after these trees die and deterioration

rates are rapid for the size of trees being removed in typical salvage operations on

the national forests.

As I have said, the removal of salvage from public lands is a controversial issue. Salvage sales continue to be the focus of numerous appeals and legal challenges.

Often, by the time these challenges are resolved, stumpage values for this material

may be insufficient to cover the costs of their removal, much less result in timber

sale deposits to help cover the cost of needed reforestation treatments.

Meanwhile, on many disturbed areas, shrubs, noxious weeds, and other unwanted vegetation can out-compete native species, increasing the cost and complexity of reforestation operations. In the case of wildfires, there is another ecological cost that

must be considered if salvage operations are not conducted. The standing dead trees

that were killed by the fire may remain standing for a decade or perhaps two, but

they will eventually fall to the ground and create a very significant dead fuel component that, with subsequent wildfire events, could consume the young stand that becomes established within these areas. Because taxpayer funds are not unlimited,

forest managers must make decisions that appropriately consider land management

objectives, sustainability, and other priorities in their decisions regarding the allocation of available reforestation resources. These factors can influence where managers choose to make investments in reforestation treatments, and where they will

choose to rely principally on natural mechanisms to re-establish forest cover.

Data Integrity

Forest Service policy has been to require our regions to identify and report all re- forestation needs including those resulting from forest fires or other natural disasters on a consistent and timely basis. Since 1992 Forest Service policy has been to

estimate the net acres in need of reforestation treatments and program these areas

for treatment immediately following wildfires or other natural disasters. This policy

also requires forests to include stands that will require reforestation treatment following salvage operations in this estimate, and to make adjustments to reflect actual reforestation needs as detailed reforestation prescriptions are completed. With

the increases in burned and insect, and disease killed forest acreage over the last

few years and other factors, we have become aware of inconsistencies in the way

some forests have been reporting reforestation needs. I will describe the actions we

have and will take to address this issue.

Agency Actions

A primary focus, when the needs report was first established, was to foster timber production goals. While timber production remains important, we believe that reforestation and timber stand improvement needs also provide an expression of the

management activities needed to promote broader goals in promoting the health and

sustainability of forests. We believe that we can provide Congress a more accurate

statement of priorities, not only for fiber production, but restoration of forest conditions to meet wildlife, soil, water and recreation objectives as well. We are in the

process of revising current policy and definitions for reforestation needs and plan

to put this direction in place before the next reporting period.

Currently, our reforestation needs information is contained in nine separatelymanaged regional data bases. In 1997, we began developing a single national application to replace these nine regional data bases, and we will have this application

in place by the end of this fiscal year. We believe this change will result in improved

data consistency and accuracy in reforestation needs and treatment data.

29

As part of our efforts to achieve the goals of the President’s Management Agenda,

we are working to improve budget and performance integration. We believe these

changes will better link resource needs to reforestation priorities while also providing Congress with better information on the reforestation activities being

planned.

We will develop guidance to assist the regions in setting reforestation priorities.

This will provide the field units with a better framework for prioritizing critical reforestation work in relation to the other important work they must do. In doing this,

we intend to provide managers with the flexibility to ensure that the unique resource considerations, the objectives for management articulated in the forest plan,

and short- and long-term management objectives and unique attributes of the site

can be weighed in prioritizing treatments.

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to address your questions.

Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate that. Can you just read the caption for

me there on that slide? Because I cannot.

Mr. HOLTROP. That is a 43-year-old ponderosa pine plantation in

the Tahoe National Forest that was planted in March of 1961 following the volcano fire.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.

I now recognize Mr. Shepard for his statement. Thank you and

we are delighted to have you here today.

STATEMENT OF ED SHEPARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT

Mr. SHEPARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity——

Mr. WALDEN. I believe your microphone may not be turned on.

Mr. SHEPARD. Maybe I’ll pull it closer. Is that better?

Mr. WALDEN. I think so.

Mr. SHEPARD. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on reforestation on National Forest and Bureau of

Land Management public lands. As noted in the GAO report, reforestation after timber harvest is a key element in the BLM’s forest

management regimes, not only in the 2.4 million acres of the Oregon and California lands, managed primarily for timber production, but also in the forests and woodlands that cover nearly 53

million acres of our public domain lands. Overall, BLM has a history of successful reforestation in harvested areas and in areas

damaged by wildfire.

Last summer, I testified before this Subcommittee on BLM’s

activities for post-fire rehabilitation and greatly appreciate the

Subcommittee’s continued interest in this vital agency activity. At

the request of the Subcommittee, the remainder of the statement

discusses primarily BLM’s post-fire reforestation and restoration

activities.

Experience has shown that restoration actions taken soon after—

as soon as possible after a fire are the most successful. Professional

resource specialists start evaluating an area for reforestation needs

while the fire may still be burning. Depending on the management

objectives found in the resource management plans and the

condition of the site, the interdisciplinary team may prescribe

treatments including pre-planning site preparation, planning of

seedlings adapted to the site, post-planning stand maintenance and

protection of desirable vegetation, grass seeding, stream

30

enhancement and timber salvage to reduce future fuel loads or recover the economic value of the resource.

While actions undertaken soon after the fire are most likely to

be the most successful, delays in implementing treatments may

jeopardize reforestation and successful restoration of the forest resource. In some areas where low-severity burns have occurred and

on some lands that have burned with moderate severity, natural

processes may satisfy land management objectives and reforestation objectives. And on this slide, you will see areas that had low

to moderate severity and probably would have little activity in

those areas.

But in other areas where high-severity burns have occurred, such

as this slide, we know that without management intervention, the

site conditions of the forest may not return for many decades.

In some parts of the country, particularly in western Oregon, recent court decisions blocking proposed salvage sales following

wildfires have reduced BLM’s ability to aggressively reforest a

burned area and recover the economic value of the fire-killed timber. Litigation has made it very difficult for the BLM, even after

conducting extensive NEPA analysis, to implement comprehensive

fire salvage and restoration activities.

In some cases, such as the 1987 Bland Mountain Fire in western

Oregon and the 2004 French Fire in northern California, the BLM

was able to implement salvage sale, reforestation, and other restoration activities within the first year. In other cases, such as the

2002 Timbered Rock Fire in western Oregon, litigation over proposed salvage sales has resulted in the sales being enjoined.

The Bland Mountain Fire in 1987 burned approximately 10,000

acres, and, tragically, two individuals lost their lives in the fire,

and there was significant property destruction.

BLM’s restoration activities, which included salvaging 55 million

board feet of timber, was done under an Environmental Assessment, which is a lower level than an EIS. The reforested stands are

current 15 to 30 feet tall, although part of this area did re-burn in

2004, and further restoration activities are going on.

The French Fire of 2004 in northern California burned 13,000

acres of BLM/Park Service land and private and State land, and

emergency stabilization measures were employed, and we have ongoing salvage, and it should be completed by this year and the reforestation completed next winter.

The Timbered Rock Fire in southwest Oregon burned in 2002 at

the same time the Biscuit Fire was burning. It burned 27,000

acres, 12,000 of that managed by the BLM. Because this fire was

in a late succession reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan, we

prepared a rigorous Environmental Impact Statement for two salvage sales to recover approximately 17 million board feet of timber

on 800 acres, or 8 percent of the burned area. We also plan to conduct a lot of erosion control and other restoration activities.

This EIS was developed in cooperation with researchers from Oregon State University, and the intent of that was to study a lot of

the post-salvage operations and the effects of different activities.

Litigation has delayed implementation of that activity.

To conclude, successful reforestation following a catastrophic

event is best achieved by immediate action, and delays in

31

implementing treatment after a catastrophic event in some areas

may jeopardize reforestation and successful restoration of the forest

resources for several decades.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I will be glad

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shepard follows:]

Statement of Ed Shepard, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and

Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on issues surrounding reforestation on National Forest and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

public lands. The report, ‘‘Reforestation Problems on National Forests: A GAO Report on the Increasing Backlog,’’ focuses on the U.S. Forest Service and has recommendations for the Secretary of Agriculture. In an Appendix to the Report, the

GAO briefly discusses the BLM’s reforestation and related forest health treatment

activities in the 2.4 million acre-Oregon and California Grant Lands (O&C) in western Oregon. I would bring to the Subcommittee’s attention that the BLM’s reforestation and forest health efforts encompass both the O&C lands and the public domain forestry program on 53 million acres of BLM-managed forests and woodlands

outside of western Oregon.

The GAO reports that BLM eliminated its backlog of post-harvest reforestation

on the O&C lands in 2002, and has since kept pace with its reforestation and

growth enhancement needs on the O&C lands. Elimination of the backlog in 2002

was due to a combination of factors, including reduced harvest levels, increased

funding, and management actions taken by the agency.

The GAO’s comments on BLM’s reforestation activities describe reforestation as

a regular management practice, which most often means post-harvest. In discussions with Subcommittee staff, we were asked to also provide testimony on the

BLM’s reforestation and restoration activities in the aftermath of wildland fire. Last

summer, I testified before this Subcommittee on BLM’s activities for post-fire rehabilitation, and greatly appreciate the Subcommittee’s continued interest in this vital

agency activity. At the request of the Subcommittee, the remainder of this statement discusses the BLM’s post-fire reforestation and restoration activities on all

BLM-managed lands.

When forested areas managed by the BLM experience fire or other catastrophic

events, our highest priority is public health and safety. In the immediate aftermath

of a fire, the BLM addresses short-term impacts to local communities, such as

threats to public health and safety from fire-damaged hillsides and watersheds.

After public health and safety needs are addressed, we turn our attention to the

steps needed to stabilize and restore the forest resource as well as salvage to provide economic opportunities to local communities and economic recovery of the timber. Our experience has demonstrated that the sooner after an event we undertake

restoration actions, the more likely our efforts will be successful in restoring the resource. Conversely, delays in implementing treatments after a catastrophic event

may jeopardize reforestation and successful restoration of the resources.

Reforestation and restoration actions are determined on a site-specific basis. In

addition to management objectives for the resource, the BLM factors into its locally

based decision-making process the scope, intensity and severity of the event; the

possibility of further on-site or off-site damage; the potential economic value of the

resource; the timeframe desired to meet resource objectives; the likelihood of success; and the cost of failure. BLM considers several types of post-fire restoration

treatments, including:

• Seedings to reduce erosion and invasion by exotic species.

• Reforestation to hasten forest reestablishment. Reforestation and stand maintenance and protection are treatments which have the objectives of reforesting

lands following disturbance events such as timber harvest, wildfire, windstorms,

and insect outbreaks. Treatments include pre-planting site preparation, tree

planting, post-planting maintenance and protection of desirable vegetation, and

genetic tree improvement. The BLM’s four seed orchards provide superior seed

of native species used for reforestation of western Oregon forests.

• Timber salvage to reduce future fuel loads, recover the economic value of the

resource, provide for the safety of forest workers, and prepare the site for future

resource conditions to meet RMP objectives.

• Stream enhancements to repair damaged streambanks.

• Structures to control erosion and runoff.

32

If salvage is an option, the BLM must consider how much timber to remove and

how much to leave for wildlife habitat, nutrient cycling, and other ecological functions. Again, this is a site-specific determination. If too much material is removed,

site productivity can be affected. If too much material is left, there is a risk of insect

and disease attack as well as potentially heavy fuel loading that may drive future

wildfires.

The BLM believes that reforestation and all restoration tools, including salvage

logging, should be available for use by our resource managers. To be successful, restoration tools must be employed to meet land and resource management objectives

in a timely, cost-effective, and efficient manner.

I would like to illustrate this process by describing three examples of the BLM’s

reforestation and restoration activities in the aftermath of wildland fires: the Bland

Mountain Fire of 1987, the Timbered Rock Fire of 2002, and the French Fire of

2004.

Bland Mountain Fire, 1987

This fire, near Canyonville in southwest Oregon, started on July 15, 1987. Approximately 10,000 acres burned, including 4,000 acres of BLM-administered land

and 6,000 acres on private lands. Two individuals lost their lives in this fire, and

significant property destruction occurred.

The BLM was able to implement restoration treatments within the first year after

the fire, in large measure because we were able to rely on documents included as

part of our land use planning process in developing an Environmental Assessment

(EA) of our proposed restoration treatments.

Reforestation and other restoration activities included: tree planting on all burned

BLM acreage; grass seeding on 790 acres of stream side areas; creation of 140

waterbars; creation of one 8,000 cubic yard capacity sediment pond; seeding and

mulching of 27.3 miles of roads and fire trails; creation of 320 temporary sediment

catch basins and check dams; and 55 million board feet of timber salvage. Reforestation has been generally successful on both BLM and private lands. Trees planted

post-fire are currently between 15 to 30 feet tall.

Timbered Rock Fire

The 27,000-acre Timbered Rock Fire of 2002 covered nearly 12,000 acres of public

lands managed by the BLM Medford District in southwest Oregon. The fire burned

the same time as the 500,000 acre Biscuit Fire. The BLM proposed two timber salvage sales to recover approximately 17 MMBF of burned, but still merchantable,

timber on approximately 800 acres (8 percent of the burned area). As addressed in

the Timbered Rock Fire Salvage and Elk Creek Watershed Restoration EIS, after

completion of the salvage, about 95 percent of all trees (green and fire-killed) would

remain. In preparing the EIS, the BLM sought public involvement to identify the

desires, expectations, and concerns of interested and affected publics regarding this

project and the use of available resources. A letter seeking input on the EIS was

mailed to 780 individuals, landowners, organizations, tribal governments, and government agencies. A website specific to the Timbered Rock EIS was published on

the Internet. Two public meetings, attended by about 40 people, were held during

the scoping period. A total of 50 comments were received at the meetings and by

e-mail, telephone, and fax.

The Timbered Rock project also contained a science element, developed in cooperation with researchers at Oregon State University, to look at the influences of postfire salvage and salvage intensities on wildlife species. There continues to be scientific controversy about the impacts of salvage activities on burned lands. Salvage

of dead trees has been of particular interest because of the potential economic benefits of harvest activities and the influences of salvage on risk of future fire and insect outbreaks. Salvage also has been highly controversial because of known or hypothesized environmental impacts on soil, water, and biodiversity. A large number

of questions remain about basic relationships between salvage and ecosystem response in different ecosystem types. A key issue related to salvage activities concerns potential influences on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The complete EIS is available online at: www.or.blm.gov/Medford/timbrockEIS/index.htm.

The BLM’s proposed salvage projects in the Timbered Rock EIS were challenged

in court (Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund, et al. v. Brong, Civil No.04-693-

AA, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon). On June 10, 2004, the court

issued a temporary restraining order that halted salvage logging, and on November

8, 2004, the BLM was permanently enjoined from implementing salvage activities

under the EIS.

This litigation delayed implementation of the salvage and other restoration

activities proposed in the Timbered Rock EIS. It is nearly 3 years since the fire, and

33

salvageable material has decayed to the point where much of the value has already

been lost. The Department of Justice, at the request of the Department of the Interior, has filed a notice of intent to appeal the case, maintaining the option of asking

for review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since we were not able to implement the Timbered Rock EIS, however, the opportunity to study some of the issues

surrounding salvage activities was lost.

French Fire

The French Fire, in north-central California, started on August 14, 2004, and burned for six days before containment on August 20, 2004. The final fire perimeter

was in excess of 22 miles, with over 13,000 acres burned. The fire area included

BLM, National Park Service, state, city/county, and private lands. An Interagency

Burned Area Emergency Response Team was convened and prepared an Emergency

Stabilization Plan with detailed recommendations and information.

After implementing emergency stabilization measures following the fire, the BLM began planning a timber sale to salvage approximately 4 MMBF of dead and dying

timber on some 1,930 acres. An EA was prepared, and the French Fire Salvage Timber Sale was sold on March 8, 2005. The precise treatments to be applied to different areas of the sale were selected on the basis of the intensity of the fire and

the level of tree mortality. The harvest of this sale will be completed before the timber volume and value is negatively affected by insects and decay. The timber harvest has begun and is planned to be completed by July of this year. Approximately

240 acres of reforestation is planned in areas of the fire that had the highest fire

intensity and tree mortality.

Conclusion

As illustrated in the Timbered Rock EIS, litigation has made it very difficult in some instances for the BLM to implement comprehensive fire salvage and restoration activities. Delays in implementation of restoration activities may result in lost

value of the resource, not only to the government, but also to local communities.

Perhaps the most significant potential harm from delays in implementation of restoration activities and reforestation is additional damage to the resource from, for

example, widespread insect infestations that often follow forest fire. As land managers, restoration of ecosystem health following a fire or other catastrophic event

is a high priority. We have been successful in implementing treatments in many instances, and new tools provided through the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and

other legislation should increase our odds of success. But delays can, at times, jeopardize reforestation and successful restoration of the resources.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be glad to answer any

questions.

Mr. WALDEN. I want to thank both of you for agreeing to testify today. We appreciate your service, the BLM and the Forest Service,

to our country. I guess maybe for both of you—those were very provocative slides, by the way, and I think really from my perspective detail

kind of what we are facing, whether you go in fairly rapidly and

environmentally sensitively and get a new forest growing or whether you wait. Some have called agency reforestation efforts ‘‘plantation forestry.’’ Do you think that is an accurate portrayal of what you

are doing? And what is even meant by plantation forestry?

Mr. HOLTROP. First of all, I would say I don’t think that that’s an accurate reflection of what it is that the agencies do. I would

assume what they mean by ‘‘plantation forestry’’—and that’s how

I’m responding to this assumption—is that perhaps that plantation

forestry is just row upon row of single-species plantation and——

Mr. WALDEN. Is that what you all do?

Mr. HOLTROP. It is not what we generally do. And even if we were to plant a single species in a reforestation situation, the natural regeneration that occurs in association with that, by the time

the—in most instances around the country, we’re going to have a

mixed stand of species.

34

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Shepard?

Mr. SHEPARD. Well, I would agree with Mr. Holtrop’s assessment.

In the past, particularly on BLM’s O&C lands, which we manage

primarily for timber production, we were closer to plantation

forestry than in many areas of public land management. But we

grew pretty much away from that as we have gone to managing not

only for the timber resource but the other ecological values. We are

planting multi-species. Now we are planting at lower densities

than we did in the past, encouraging the growth of hardwoods in

some areas, where in the past we excluded hardwoods. We are really looking more at providing a diversity of values and species out

there rather than——

Mr. WALDEN. It seems to me, too, on some of the tours I have

been on out in the forest, it is not just trees you are looking at but

the regeneration of natural grasses—I mean, there was a whole operation in Bend, I think the Bend Pine Nursery, part of which goes

on today, I think, with seeds from grasses and brush, to try to replicate what was there. Is that not what your goal really is?

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes, that is accurate. We are trying to look at—

in fact, our nurseries have gone away from growing exclusively tree

species to where we are growing a lot of brush and forb species at

the nurseries.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. The Beschta Report and the more recent

literature review by McIver and Starr recognized that the effects

of post-fire activities in some forest types are well-known, while in

others more information is needed. So what are you all doing to fill

in the gaps in research and data in this area?

Mr. SHEPARD. I am sure the scientists are never going to come

to complete agreement on what is right out there and that, you

know, we will always have questions. We are working with universities and with the experiment stations, research stations at the

Forest Service to try to answer some of the questions that have

come up, whether we should be doing post-catastrophic event harvesting and salvage at all, or whether we should be letting nature

take its course through a passive approach.

The unfortunate point about the Timbered Rock Fire is that part

of the project there was to do experimental designs that were put

in by Oregon State University to look at salvage levels and what

the impacts of salvage and different reforestation activities were on

soil compaction and wildlife habitat and other values. And, unfortunately, we are not able to implement all of those actions.

Mr. WALDEN. And why is that?

Mr. SHEPARD. Because of court injunctions.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Mr. Holtrop?

Mr. HOLTROP. I also agree and would just say that a lot of the

research needs are not only focused around what are the effects of

salvage, but just what are the effects of our immediate emergency

burned area rehabilitation work that we do and which of those

practices are most effective. And we are doing research on that and

continue to find opportunities for more.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Many name economic return as the primary reason for man-induced reforestation. But aren’t there a lot

of other factors at work here, including soil, water, wildlife habitat

restoration? Isn’t that just as important or more so?

35

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes, and I would add that economic return is also

an important consideration.

Mr. WALDEN. Why?

Mr. SHEPARD. Particularly where we’re managing for our mandate in the O&C Lands, is to manage for timber production for the

stability of local communities and industries. And so if we can do

that in an ecologically sustainable way and the most efficient and

effective way, that’s the best way to go about it.

But we are trying to meet other ecological objectives out there,

and following many of our fires, we have planted hardwoods and

stream banks and things like that to provide shading. One fire in

southwest Oregon, the Quartz Fire, we went in and did aggressive

reforestation to more rapidly restore spotted owl habitat.

Mr. WALDEN. My time has actually expired, so we will have to

come back.

Let me go to Mr. Udall, and for the other committee members,

we are in the middle of a vote. I think we will have time for Mr.

Udall to ask his questions, and then we will recess and come back

for the other members.

Mr. Udall?

Mr. TOM UDALL. Mr. Holtrop, you heard me ask earlier about

these three GAO reports over a series of years and why the Forest

Service has not been able to get it right. Could you give us an explanation here?

Mr. HOLTROP. I would say that in response to each of the GAO

reports, we have responded. I would say we have information now

from—based on the 1991 report, we established a process that has

improved the situation. But as our response to the draft GAO report that we had seen indicates, we concur with the recommendations of GAO. We believe that there are things that we can do,

should do, and will do in order to improve our data management

of both our TSI and reforestation so that we can be more responsive to the types of questions that you’re asking and the types of

questions that we’re asking ourselves.

Mr. TOM UDALL. A report by the GAO in 1998 found that the

Forest Service sometimes used up to 30 percent of the KnutsonVandenberg Fund for indirect expenses. Can you discuss how this

could potentially impact the reforestation backlog?

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, if we were continuing to utilize up to 30 percent of the K–V funds for indirect costs, that would, of course, have

a compounding effect on our ability to meet our reforestation needs.

Ever since that report in actions subsequent to that, we have been

working steadily at reducing that, and we are now much closer to

15 percent of the K–V funds are used for indirect costs.

Mr. TOM UDALL. And in the previous report, things were purchased like office furniture in these indirect funds. Are you trying

to more closely link it, at least, to the specific reforestation

projects?

Mr. HOLTROP. Absolutely.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back at this point

and thank both the panelists.

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Ms. Herseth, do you want to go ahead for 5?

I think we still have time. We just have to keep track.

36

Ms. HERSETH. Yes, just a follow-up, and I think, Mr. Holtrop, you

in your statement and in response to Mr. Udall’s question got at

a little bit what I was going to ask, but let me just say at the outset I have had a number of very productive and good meetings with

members of the Forest Service, a number of Forest Service officials

from the prior tenure under a previous superintendent to the current officials there and sympathize with the challenge that they

face with limited resources, particularly with the wildfires that we

have had, with some of the litigation that we have had in the past,

although it is a much better situation now because of the advisory

committee’s rule, and the drought conditions that we have had in

western South Dakota. So I want to say that at the outset.

But it sounds—again, using the Black Hills National Forest here,

which is generally blessed with an abundance of natural regeneration that we have spoken about following a timber harvest or even

some of the wildfires, many of those forest fires over the last 4

years have left a number of areas that don’t regenerate naturally.

And so I would like to separate policy from implementation for

a minute and would like for you to clarify for me, in addition to

what you have already provided, the Forest Service policy on reforestation of suitable timberlands following a forest fire. So, for example, is it Forest Service policy that suitable timberland should

be reforested within a prescribed amount of time after a forest fire?

And what is the Forest Service policy regarding when a national

forest should determine and document reforestation needs following

a forest fire? So, in other words, if I went out and met with some

of our forest fire officials, Forest Service officials in the Black Hills

National Forest this weekend—I am going to be out there this

weekend, and I am not yet meeting with them, but maybe I will—

and just asked them about reforestation needs after a fire, what

should they be able to tell me at this point? I know you are going

to do more, as you have indicated, to provide some clarification.

But at this point, based on the current status of Forest Service policy, what should they be able to tell me are their guidelines?

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, since the question is referring to post-catastrophic event, a natural event is what you are referring to, they

ought to be able to tell you that they are looking at what their

Forest Plan direction is and whether that Forest Plan direction is

giving them an indication of the various resources that they need

to manage that piece of land for.

I think there are many reasons why reforestation—if natural regeneration, natural reforestation of trees is not going to occur,

there are many reasons, such as the Chairman’s question earlier

indicated, many reasons, not just economic and not just timber production reasons, why replanting to trees is an appropriate thing to

do. But there are also circumstances in which there are other values in other things that can be learned from a wide variety of situations as well. And I just think that what our expectation of the

local land managers in a situation like that is they assess what the

needs are, they utilize public involvement in that process, and they

make wise resource decisions as to what the land calls for. They

are going to make some determinations that natural regeneration

is the appropriate approach and rely on natural generation, which

may take longer than others. And if it takes too long to meet the

37

resource objectives, then we need to go in and do some more direct

work to make sure that we’re ensuring the reforestation.

Mr. WALDEN. We are down to about 3-1/2 minutes in the vote.

Ms. HERSETH. Well, then, one last question. Is there a prescribed

amount of time that they have to do any of these things? Or is that

going to be contingent on the Forest Plan?

Mr. HOLTROP. Again, in response to a catastrophic event, for the

reforestation to occur there is not a prescribed amount of time. We

do require a post-fire analysis of what those regeneration techniques are going to be, and generally we are going to get that—in

less than a year’s period of time we’re going to have that, and I

am not familiar with whether we have a national policy as to exactly what that time is.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. And we will be in recess until after the

votes.

[Recess.]

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to call the Subcommittee back to order.

When we had to recess for the vote on the House Floor, Ms.

Herseth had about a minute remaining. And so I would yield back

to her for any further comments or questions she may have.

Ms. HERSETH. Just one final comment. Part of the response that

you gave, Mr. Holtrop, in terms of the direction and looking at the

Forest Plan, the only comment I would make there is that in South

Dakota, with the Black Hills National Forest, we have the same

issue that a few other national forests have that I know you are

aware of, and that is the length of time it is taking us to get a plan

or amendments to that plan, and when you are looking back then

for that guidance as it relates to purposes and resources, you are

dealing with an outdated plan but may very well be nearing the

end stages of getting another plan finalized. So I think that highlights the need for the clarification coming out of your office for everyone at the local-regional level to have more guidance here in

how to address the reforestation challenge.

Thank you.

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. And I think what that does also is it

highlights the complexity of the various issues that we are dealing

with, both at the local level and more regionally and nationally as

well. That’s a good point.

Mr. WALDEN. I know I have heard some forests, it takes as long

to do the plan as the plan’s length. Do you run into that? It can

take as much as 8, 10 years to do a 10-year plan?

Mr. HOLTROP. We have run into that situation in various places

around the country, which is one of the reasons we are working in

establishing a new rule for planning. That is one of the major driving factors in the need for that.

Mr. WALDEN. I have one final question before we go to our next

panel. What changes in reforestation practices have been implemented to address concerns over high-density planting practices?

Because I know in the GAO report they indicate that sort of the

post-timber harvest, after-timber harvest, especially a decade or

more ago, maybe 20 years, there was this intense reforestation

with a plan to do thinning, and we have sort of evolved out of that

and are not doing the thinning.

38

What are you doing now to change the forest replanting practices?

Mr. HOLTROP. In general, those forests are planting at a lower

density. In fact, I would say that that’s a pretty common statement

to say that. In general, we don’t plant at the same density as we

were maybe 10, 15 years ago, with the expectation at that time of

more intense thinning opportunities on down the line.

I would say that what’s really driving that is the recognition of

the multiple resource values in which we manage those lands for,

that there are times in which a thinner planting spacing is going

to result in objectives other than just some of the timber production, but it is going to provide some of the opportunities for us to

accomplish wildlife habitat objectives and those types of things.

One of the things that we need to be careful about, of course, is

that we want to make sure that if we are going to put the investment into regenerating a stand through reforestation techniques,

that we meet the objective of actually reforesting the stand, and we

want to make sure we don’t plant at such a density that competing

vegetation, non-tree vegetation, might outcompete the trees or

whatever. So there needs to be a balance made in that decision as

well.

Mr. WALDEN. How do you prioritize for reforestation compared to

other things? Because these are issues I think everybody on the

committee has. You know, how do you set what is your number one

priority and how do you do reforestation?

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, one of the factors, of course, that weighs into

prioritizing reforestation is under the National Forest Management

Act we are required to regenerate a stand with 5 years of harvesting under the—so if it’s a timber harvest treatment, in order

to meet our legal requirements under that Act, that’s one of the

highest priorities.

Mr. WALDEN. But what about these areas where it is not a timber harvest? I think there is legislation in the Senate to require

similar sort of standards for reforestation after a catastrophic

event—a fire, blowdown, hurricane.

Mr. HOLTROP. You know, the types of things, again, that we

would utilize to prioritize reforestation are things such as is the reforestation necessary in order to make sure that we’re not going to

have soil or water restoration problems because we haven’t regenerated the stands to accomplish a basic stewardship responsibility

on the land. Perhaps there’s a reforestation need that’s necessary

to meet the needs of the habitat of a threatened and endangered

species or some other high-valued wildlife species that the reforestation is going to allow us.

Those are going to be some of the first-tier, high-tier types of

things that we’re going to prioritize at the top of the list of the

types of things.

Obviously the question is also complex from the standpoint of

we’re prioritizing within our reforestation needs, but then we also

have to prioritize our reforestation needs with all the other needs,

such as hazardous fuels treatment, some of those other types of

things as well.

Mr. WALDEN. What happens, though, in a stand that has been

managed or is supposed to have been managed for, let’s say, all

39

those characteristics for spotted owl and that stand burns? I mean,

it is what happened in the Biscuit Fire. Would it not be—I mean,

doesn’t it follow then that the goal should be to get back to an oldgrowth stand as quickly as possible if that was the—I mean, if you

were managing for old growth for spotted owl habit, wouldn’t it

make sense to get back to that type of forest as soon as is environmentally appropriate?

Mr. HOLTROP. You would think that in many instances that

would be the case. Certainly the changed condition that has occurred in terms of the amount of old growth habitat because of

fires such as Biscuit causes a manager to have to make those types

of determinations or find other places in which that old growth

habitat can be provided elsewhere as well.

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Mr. Shepard, can you respond to that sort of

general notion of how do you prioritize?

Mr. SHEPARD. Pretty much the same way. It depends on the land

management objectives, of course, but then we look at the site conditions out there and the species that we are trying to manage

for—if it was a species we were dealing with such as large pole

pine, which usually gets adequate natural regeneration, we would

put that as an area to watch to see if we were going to need to intervene or not, but let nature take its course and naturally reseed.

An area where we are trying to get such as Douglas fir and mixed

conifer type, then we would probably prioritize those to intervene

and do the necessary reforestation and stand maintenance to keep

those stands growing.

Mr. WALDEN. OK, very good. Mr. Gilchrest, do you have questions for our witnesses?

Mr. GILCHREST. Wasn’t Ms. Herseth questioning?

Mr. WALDEN. She actually went, and now we are going to go to

you.

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. Thank you.

Mr. WALDEN. You stepped out. We actually had a few more minutes, so as soon as you were gone, I called on her. So now we are

to you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I guess some of the questions were asked and some of the answers were forthcoming to have some understanding for what I am

about to ask, I guess, and my question was: What are the goals—

who determines the goals of reforestation in all the various regions

around the country or in a particular national forest within a region? And I think you answered that. And to some extent, it will

vary from region to region, forest to forest, landscape to landscape,

and I would assume in the Forest Service or BLM on a designated

wilderness, the reforestation goals would be different than they

would be in an area where the goal was renewed production after

the forest was regenerated.

So I guess some of the goals of reforestation are timber production, soil, water, wildlife habitat, endangered species, those kinds

of things. Does the term ‘‘ecosystem’’ ever come into play with the

goal or your priorities for the management plan for reforestation?

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes, it does, and the way I would describe that is

all those multiple objectives that you were just describing define an

40

ecosystem, and that is indeed the holistic approach that we take

as we determine——

Mr. GILCHREST. So are there forest ecologists on staff that have

some perspective of that, some understanding of that?

Mr. HOLTROP. We have forest ecologists, we have grass line ecologists, we have——

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. You have got them all.

Mr. HOLTROP. And, of course, biologists and hydrologists and

foresters.

Mr. GILCHREST. Soil scientists, you name it. As you pursue this,

do you think about, do you actually try to accomplish, or is there

some sense that in the future your management plans might be

looking at the economic value of the ecosystem services that are

provided since you are looking at the soil, you are looking at water

quality, you are looking at habitat, and also looking at clean air or

the potential for the Forest Service to make money with carbon sequestration? Is that in the mix anywhere in BLM or Forest Service,

that kind of thing?

Mr. SHEPARD. Well, we talk about carbon sequestration, but we

don’t have any process right now to consider the economics of that.

But as Joel said, we do consider all of those values in our interdisciplinary teams as we go through our projects.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you know anyone that is working on that

kind of a thing, the economic value of forest sequestration, either

from a nearby public utility, public entity or a community or a coalfired power plant or anything like that?

Mr. SHEPARD. I know that there is work going on on sequestration credits, but I am not familiar with it.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Yes, sir?

Mr. HOLTROP. I think I can add something to what Ed was saying as well. There is some work going on. The Forest Service researchers are doing some work on carbon sequestration and some

credits. We are beginning to explore what our role should be and

can be to further look into what are the opportunities that we have

to encourage wise forest management, not only on the public lands

but on private forested lands as well, to see if there is perhaps

some opportunities to keep forest lands in forest by——

Mr. GILCHREST. The Delmarva Peninsula, think of that as places

where you can come over and plant trees. You know, we designate

certain areas for refuges. We did that in the last couple of years.

Actually, the Federal Government purchased land to make it a

wildlife refuge. Does the Forest Service ever go out there looking

for more land? We would like you to come over to the Delmarva

Peninsula. I had another question, though. We can talk about that

later.

Mr. WALDEN. Do I feel a field hearing coming on?

Mr. GILCHREST. Field hearing on the Delmarva Peninsula in

October, late October, fall foliage. We could go canoeing while we

are there, and we will—oh, by the way, if I lose my election, I

would, for room and board, be one of those guys collecting data,

and I would walk through those forests.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Just put me some place and let me go, and I will

use my——

41

Mr. WALDEN. I don’t think you are supposed to solicit for a job

until you have lost your election.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, just in case, keep me in mind.

I had a couple of quick questions, if the Chairman will indulge

me for a couple extra seconds. How many acres of forest in the

national forests and how many acres of forest in BLM?

Mr. HOLTROP. The National Forest System is 192 million acres,

not all of which is forested. Is that the question you are asking?

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes. So 192 million acres. BLM?

Mr. SHEPARD. BLM manages 261 million acres, and of that approximately 55 million is forested.

Mr. GILCHREST. So if you looked at the economic value of carbon

sequestration, there is potential for the Forest Service, I assume,

to actually make a little money there from the private sector. Is

that a possibility?

Mr. HOLTROP. I think that is one of the things that we need to

explore. Again, recognizing that there is also 500 million acres of

forested lands that are non-Federal lands, and perhaps there are

some opportunities on those lands as well to explore that as an additional incentive to keep those forested lands in forest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Great. I was going to ask a question about Timbered Rock in southern Oregon where there was a forest fire where

I guess there was about 800 acres that was burned—or 27,000

acres that was burned and 800 acres that was, I guess, reclaimed

or salvaged and you went through an EIS. That was on BLM land?

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. If there was 27,000 acres burned, what was the

reason for the small amount of acreage salvaged? And do you have

any idea how large or how many pages the EIS was to do that?

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes, I do. There was 27,000 acres total; approximately 12,000 acres of that was BLM. It was in a checkerboard

pattern, so a lot of it was owned by a private timber company. It

was proposed that we harvest 800 acres of that, and the EIS, I believe, was almost a page per acre. I think it was something like 700

pages.

Mr. WALDEN. Could I follow up? And how much was harvested?

Mr. SHEPARD. Right now we haven’t harvested it. We’re enjoined

on that.

Mr. WALDEN. And how many years has it been?

Mr. SHEPARD. That was in 2002, so we’re in our third year.

Mr. WALDEN. And in that 3-year period, what’s happened to the

value of the trees?

Mr. SHEPARD. The smaller trees have lost all their value. The

larger trees have probably lost 40 to 50 percent of their value.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thanks.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. We may have to take you up on that

Delmarva canoe trip, too.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, both again for your service,

the BLM and the Forest Service and to our Nation’s forest and

grasslands. We appreciate it, and your testimony and comments

today are most helpful as we work through these issues, and your

staffs who help you out.

Mr. WALDEN. Now I would like to invite up our third panel of

witnesses. On panel three we have Dr. Scott Schlarbaum—I hope

42

I said that right—Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries,

University of Tennessee; Dr. Jerry Franklin from the College of

Forest Resources at the University of Washington, and Mr. Ken

Kane from the Society of American Foresters. And since I have

sworn in all the other witnesses, it is only fair that I swear you

in today. So before you get seated, please stand and raise your

right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. WALDEN. Now pleased be seated. Again, we thank you for

your comments today. We are looking forward to your testimony on

this important issue. So now I would like to recognize Dr.

Schlarbaum. Am I close? OK. And if you could hit your microphone,

I am not sure it is on.

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. How is that?

Mr. WALDEN. That is better. Thank you, sir, and welcome.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT E. SCHLARBAUM, JAMES R. COX

PROFESSOR OF FOREST GENETICS, DEPARTMENT OF

FORESTRY, WILDLIFE, AND FISHERIES, INSTITUTE OF

AGRICULTURE, THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. Mr. Chairman, committee members, national

forests are valued for timber, wildlife, recreation, and many other

uses. Although managed by the Forest Service, citizens have input

into the Forest Plan for each national forest. The Forest Plan is the

centerpiece for management actions and ensures multiple use and

sustained yield of goods and services. Fire, insects, adverse weather, and other catastrophic events that affect large areas of national

forests are unpredictable and, therefore, are not addressed in the

Forest Plan. Reforestation is necessary in order to attain previous

structure and function as specified by the Forest Plan. Successful

reforestation is a three-pronged process that depends upon funding,

a source of living materials, and actual management activities.

Funding for reforestation activities comes from three sources:

Knutson-Vandenberg or K–V funds; national forest vegetation and

watershed management budget, NFVW; and the reforestation trust

fund, RTRT. The K–V dollars are tied to planned harvest sales and

sales of salvage timber, the NFVW funds are appropriated based

upon a submitted fiscal year budget, and the RTRT funds originate

from certain tariffs, both of which do not normally consider catastrophic events in regional allocations.

On the surface, it appears that K–V funds generated by salvage

sales would provide for reforestation. In reality, K–V funds do not

provide enough dollars to reforest large acreages for several reasons. When a catastrophic event occurs and wood is plentiful, there

can be a market saturation. Another problem stems from the

National Environmental Policy Act. Under NEPA, large salvage

logging operations require an Environmental Assessment. This

process can eventually lead to legal challenges which can last until

the trees that could have been salvaged are worthless due to degradation, and this is particularly true for Southern national forests.

Given the above limitations of the three funding sources, it is

evident that reforestation backlogs from catastrophic events will

continue to occur and certain objectives in Forest Plans will not be

met unless additional funds become available.

43

Reforestation efforts often depend upon planting seedlings of appropriate seed origin. The foundation for producing seed for the

production of seedlings in the Forest Service lies with the Regional

Genetic Resources Programs. In addition to producing seed, these

regional programs also develop genetically resistant trees for various native and exotic pests that can cause widespread damage.

With respect to reforestation backlogs, the regional programs

should be regarded as an integral part of the solution. Any funding

increases to address reforestation backlogs should be in concert

with funding increases for these Regional Genetic Resources Programs.

In Eastern forests dominated by hardwoods, seedlings and

sprouts of fast-growing species will often quickly dominate a site at

the expense of slower-growing species such as oaks. Forest managers need to have the flexibility in controlling these competitors

that lack a categorical exclusion for herbicides, despite the fact that

some herbicides are benign to human health and do not move

through the soil. I have selected three examples of problems that

have caused a reforestation backlog of approximately 180,000 acres

in Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004 in Southern national

forests.

Currently, there are 350 acres of severe oak mortality with another 300,000 acres of moderate mortality in the Ozark National

Forest in Arkansas. The red oak borer has been identified as the

primary causal agent. Damage occurs from the larval stage of this

insect, which chews large holes in the tree’s stem. This damage

also predisposes the tree to Armillaria root rot and hypoxylon canker diseases and attacks by other insects.

The overall result of the oak mortality will be low-density forests

with less diversity. Regeneration of the oak component will be limited due to the lack of seed trees and intense competition, and, unfortunately, there are no seed orchards for reduction of red or white

oak acorns adapted for the Ozark National Forest.

Southern pine beetle populations began to multiply and reached

epidemic proportions in 2001 in the Daniel Boone National Forest

in Kentucky. By 2002, there were dead or damaged pines on approximately 70,000 to 90,000 acres. Currently the forest is reforesting approximately 600 acres per year, which is short of the

amount of acreage required under the Forest Plan. Correspondingly, a reforestation backlog exists. In addition, the Regional Genetic Program does not have enough shortleaf pine seed adapted

for the Daniel Boone National Forest to sustain the reforestation

effort.

And the last example is the Osceola National Forest in Florida

recently exchanged land with a timber company to better consolidate the national forest. Prior to this exchange, a prescribed fire on

the national forest escaped and burned approximately 14,000 acres

of land that was intended for the exchange. The exchange proceeded, but the Forest Service inherited a block of burnt-over land

and must fund any restoration with existing funds. Reforestation

efforts will be limited as there are no funds to collect longleaf pine

seed adapted for the local environment.

That concludes my statement.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Schlarbaum follows:]

44

Statement of Scott E. Schlarbaum, James R. Cox Professor of Forest

Genetics, Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, Institute of

Agriculture, The University of Tennessee

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:

National Forests provide a multitude of opportunities for use by American citi- zens. They are valued for timber, wildlife, recreation, and other uses connected with

natural settings. Although managed by the USDA Forest Service, citizens can have

input into the Forest Plan for each National Forest. The Forest Plan is the centerpiece for management actions on a National Forest that include decisions on reforestation, goals and objectives, timber land suitability, wilderness designation, monitoring, and other management activities. Moreover, the Forest Plan ensures multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the National Forest System.

Fire, insects, adverse weather, and other catastrophic events that destroy or damage

large areas in National Forests are unpredictable and therefore, are not addressed

in the Forest Plan. Reforestation of these areas is necessary in order to attain previous structure and function as specified by the Forest Plan. Successful reforestation

is a three-pronged process that depends on funding, a source of living materials, i.e.,

seeds, seedlings, sprouts, and actual management activities.

Reforestation Funding—Funding for reforestation activities come from three

sources: Knutson-Vanderburg (K–V) funds, National Forest Vegetation and Watershed Management budget (NFVW), and the Reforestation Trust Fund (RTRT). The

K–V dollars are tied to planned harvest sales and sales of salvage timber from unpredictable events. The NFVW funds are appropriated based on a submitted fiscal

year budget, which normally does not take catastrophic events into consideration.

The RTRT funds originate from certain tariffs and may not exceed $30 million dollars in total. The RTRT funds to each Region are based on annual request of current

year silvicultural program and budget planning information. As with NFVW funds,

the RTRT funds do not normally consider catastrophic events in Regional allocations.

On the surface, it appears that K–V funds, generated by salvage sales would provide for reforestation, even in a large catastrophic event. In reality, K–V funds do

not provide enough dollars to reforest large acreages for several reasons. When a

catastrophic event occurs and wood is plentiful, there can be a market saturation,

and paper mills and sawmills will not buy more logs. This is particularly critical

to southern National Forests in that the stems of a dead tree will degrade in a relatively short period of time. Another problem stems from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, generally a large (over 250 acres) salvage

logging operation requires an Environmental Assessment (EA). When the EA is

complete and a decision has been made that there will be no significant impacts,

a Decision Notice is posted as a Paper of Record with an appeal process. This process can lead to legal challenges, which can last until the trees that could have been

salvaged are worthless due to degradation.

Given the above limitations for K–V, NFVW, and RTRT funding of restoration,

it is evident that reforestation backlogs from catastrophic events will continue to

occur and certain objectives in Forest Plans will not be met. Additional funding

through RTRT or some other channel will be needed to properly reforest and manage devastated lands according to their respective Forest Plan.

Source of Living Materials—Reforestation efforts depend upon a source of living materials that can be managed or planted to achieve a desired outcome. Disturbed forest land regenerates by natural or artificial (’tree planting) regeneration.

Natural regeneration can be occur from seeds and/or sprouts. Natural regeneration

by seed requires the presence of reproductively mature trees, which are called seed

trees. Spouting is generally limited to hardwood species, although a few coniferous

species, e.g., coast redwood, can sprout. The conifer-dominated western forests of

pines, spruces, true firs, and Douglas-fir do not regenerate from sprouting and

thereby, require seed trees or a source of nursery-grown seedlings to regenerate the

forest. Eastern forests can be either conifer or hardwood dominated. Many hardwood

species will sprout unless over mature or killed entirely, i.e., stem, crown and root

system are dead. Therefore, the need for a supply of seed for artificial regeneration

can be critical for reforestation.

Seed Origin—Although forest tree species can have natural ranges that span

many states and physiographic regions, there are genetic differences in trees of the

same species from different seed sources. For example, seedlings of northern red oak

from the deep South may not be adapted to upstate New York environmental conditions where northern red oak also occurs naturally. Reforestation efforts should use

seedlings from local sources or seedlings from seed orchards that have been

evaluated in the environment that will be planted.

45

Regional Genetic Resources Program—The foundation for artificial regeneration within the Forest Service lies in the Regional Genetic Resources Programs

(Table 1). Regional Genetic Resources Programs (RGRP) were formerly called Regional Tree Improvement Programs and existed in all Regions with the exception

of Region 10 (Alaska). These programs were originally developed to improve species

for timber production through breeding, testing and creation of seed production orchards. In recent years, however, the Programs have become more holistic in purpose. In addition to producing seed for general reforestation or reforestation due to

catastrophic events, the RGRPs can: 1) initiate gene conservation of threatened and

endangered species and populations, 2) respond to forest decline from air pollution

and global warming, 3) respond to changes in emphasis for National Forest use, and

4) develop genetically resistant trees for various native and exotic pests.

The continued existence of RGRPs is essential to reforestation efforts where artificial regeneration is necessary. The planting of seedlings that are adapted to the reforestation site is critical for long term survival and productivity. Unfortunately,

these Programs have been struggling with declining budgets and have been further

impacted by the Forest Service’s Budget Formulation and Execution System, which

was implemented in FY03. In 1991, the combined RGRP budget was over $16 million dollars, but had slipped to approximately $10 million dollars by 1998. In addition, the Region 2, Region 3, and Region 4 Programs were consolidated and placed

under the Regional Geneticist for Region 1 in 1998. The new budget system has removed control of most funds from the Regional Geneticists and allocated them to

National Forest budgets. Forest Supervisors are now faced with the difficult decisions of funding immediate needs or long-term needs such as seed orchards, which

produce seed for reforestation. Seed orchards have been closed or mothballed due

to lack of funding.

With respect to reforestation backlogs, the RGRPs should be regarded as an integral part of the solution. Funding increases to address reforestation backlogs should

be in concert with funding increases for the RGRPs, in order to sustain a supply

of seedlings that are of the appropriate seed source for reforestation sites.

Reforestation Management—There are a wide range of management activities

in conjunction with reforestation. In eastern forests dominated by hardwoods, seedlings and sprouts of fast growing hardwood species, such as yellow-poplar, black

gum, red maple, sycamore, and sweetgum, will often quickly dominate a site at the

expense of slower growing species, e.g., oaks, which are important contributors to

habitat and diversity. Southern forests have an array of aggressive vines, weeds,

and grasses that will overtop seedlings unless controlled. Forest managers need to

have the flexibility in controlling these competitors, but lack a Categorical Exclusion

for herbicides despite the fact that some herbicides are benign to human health and

do not move through soil, e.g., glyphosate. Herbicide use now requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an EA, which cost money to conduct and can be

46

appealed. Delay by litigation can be critical in some regions, as degradation will

quickly ruin the market value for a log. Reforestation Backlogs in Southern Region (R8) National Forests—Recently, southern National Forests have been subjected to catastrophic damage from

insects. In addition, a large portion of land was acquired that had considerable fire

damage. Overall, there is a large reforestation backlog in the Southern Region

(Table 2).

Table 2. Reforestation program accomplishments and backlog, FY2003-FY2005 for the Southern Region (NFVW = National Forest Vegetation and Watershed Management funds, RTRT = Reforestation Trust Fund; K–V = Knutson-Vanderburg funds).

Source: USDA Forest Service R8 2003-2004 TRACS (Timber Activity Control

System) report.

Below are three examples of problems that have caused a reforestation backlog in southern National Forests. In each situation, there is a lack of funding that has

caused a reforestation backlog and there is a lack of seed from an appropriate

source for artificial regeneration. Ozark-St. Francis National Forests—Currently, there are 350,000 acres of se- vere oak mortality with another 300,000 acres of moderate mortality on the Ozark

National Forest (Arkansas). In the areas with severe mortality, over 50 percent of

the red and white oaks are dead, and many of the remaining oaks have thinning

crowns (loss of leaves) indicating that they may die as well. The red oak borer has

been identified at the primary causal agent. Damage occurs from the larval stage

of this insect, which chews large holes in the tree’s stem and branches in the crown.

The borer will attack even small oaks, i.e., 3’’ diameter, and cause mortality. In

heavily infested trees, one oak borer per linear inch of the stem has been found.

This damage predisposes a tree to Armillaria root rot and hypoxylon canker diseases

and attacks from other insects such as white oak borers, carpenterworms, walking

sticks, and grasshoppers. Although the mortality has been primarily ascribed to the

red oak borer, the oak-dominated forests on the Ozark National Forest were heading

for decline because of drought, relatively oak age (70-90 years-old), overstocking,

and poor site quality.

The overall result of the oak mortality will be low density forests consisting of

species inferior for timber and mast production. Regeneration of the oak component

will be limited, due to the lack of seed trees and intense competition from faster

growing hardwoods. If allowed to occur, this will be a significant change in forest

habitat and diversity. Restoration of the oak component will require the use of artificial regeneration and post-planting management to reduce competition. Unfortunately, there are no seed orchards for production of red or white oak acorns adapted

for the Ozark National Forest. The Region 8 RGRP has recently created some oak

plantations for eventual conversion to seed orchards, but it will be a number of

years before the trees reach reproductive maturity.

Daniel Boone National Forest—At the advent of the 21st century, southern

pine beetle populations began to multiply and reached epidemic proportions in 2001

on the Daniel Boone National Forest (Kentucky). By 2002, there were dead or damaged pines on approximately 70,000 to 90,000 acres within the Forest boundaries.

Within the predominately pine stands of the Daniel Boone National Forest, were

red-cockaded woodpecker colonies, a federally listed endangered species. Until the

southern pine beetle outbreak, these colonies had been increasing in size. The outbreak destroyed their habitat, which necessitated trapping the surviving birds and

relocating them to more southern locations in Arkansas, Georgia, and South Carolina.

The Forest Plan was revised in 2004 to include an objective to reforest 8200 acres

in shortleaf pine over the next 10 years and approximately 42,000 acres over a

longer period of time. With current resources, the Forest is reforesting approximately 600 acres per year, which is short of the amount of acreage required under

the Forest Plan. Correspondingly, a reforestation backlog exists. Over time, reforestVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:12 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\20970.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
47

ation will become more expensive as hardwood species are in the process of dominating the sites and will have to be killed or removed prior to planting shortleaf

pine. In addition, there is not enough shortleaf pine seed adapted for the Daniel

Boone National Forest to sustain the reforestation effort.

Osceola National Forest—The Osceola National Forest in Florida recently ex- changed land with a timber company to better consolidate the National Forest and

thereby, reduce management costs, improve water quality, and reduce forest fragmentation, which is important to wildlife. Prior to the exchange, a prescribed fire

on the National Forest escaped and burned approximately 14,000 acres of the land

that was intended for exchange. The exchange proceeded, but the Forest inherited

a block of burnt-over land, instead of a longleaf pine forest, and must fund any restoration with existing funds, i.e., from RTRT and NFVW. Reforestation efforts will

be limited as there are no funds to collect longleaf pine seed adapted for the local

environment.

Closing Statement

Reforestation backlogs on National Forests will continue to occur as catastrophic events are difficult to predict. Provisions for additional funding to meet immediate

reforestation needs from catastrophic events should be made. Otherwise, there will

continue to be alterations in the habitat and diversity on National Forests where

a catastrophic event has occurred, resulting in failure to meet certain Forest Plan

objectives. Reforestation should be regarded as a combination of actions leading to

a single outcome. The Regional Genetic Resources Programs are the foundation for

reforestation where artificial regeneration is required and thereby, are integral in

the reforestation process. Increases in funding to meet reforestation backlogs should

correspond to increases in the Regional Genetic Resources Programs’ budget in

order to generate enough seed of appropriate origin to meet reforestation needs.

Management activities in conjunction with reforestation should be efficient and environmentally safe. A Categorical Exclusion for the use of benign herbicides to control competition in reforestation plantings would significantly improve survival and

growth without damaging the environment.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kane?

STATEMENT OF KENNETH KANE, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN

FORESTERS, KANE, PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. KANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today representing the Society of American

Foresters——

Mr. WALDEN. I am not convinced your microphone is on or it is close enough to you. Those have to be fairly close.

Mr. KANE. How is that? Is that better?

Mr. WALDEN. I think so.

Mr. KANE. OK. I am here today representing the Society of

American Foresters. SAF is an organization of over 15,000 professional foresters in all segments of the profession, from consultant

foresters like myself, to academics, scientific researchers, and Federal and State and local agency personnel. SAF members believe it

is our responsibility as professionals to ensure the continued health

and long-term sustainability of both public and privately owned

forest resources for the current and future generations. Over the

last several decades, SAF has become increasingly concerned with

the lack of action in Federal forests that is needed to maintain and

improve these forests and their associated resources. Foresters

need to be able to apply the proven practices of silviculture, which

at times can include timely human-induced reforestation, to ensure

over the long run that our forests are healthy and the objectives

set forth for these forests can be met. As the General Accountability Office report outlines, reforestation has become a major

problem on National Forest System lands. The backlog of reforestVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:12 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\20970.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
48

ation can inhibit proper stewardship of our forests and can reduce

the health and long-term viability of these forests.

As you said so well in your opening remarks, our area was pretty

much harvested early on from large sawmills. This is a typical sawmill that occurred in our area around 1900. The devastation from

the intense harvest with firewood and forest product materials left

a landscape that the next slide will show. This landscape was not

uncommon across Pennsylvania. In fact, around 1900, Pennsylvania, most of Pennsylvania looked like this, coupled with the deer

herd that was reduced by 400 animals at that time, as the settlers

used the natural resources of the area to survive.

This is what the forest looked like prior to settlement. You’ll see

a lot of vertical structure, a lot of old growth down and dead and

woody material. However, after the harvesting, the next slide depicts what the forest looked like after harvesting. The large materials were taken to the sawmills, and in remote areas small, lowvalue pole timber was left behind. This land was purchased primarily by the Allegheny National Forest that comprises now half

a million acres of public land in our area.

The next slide depicts the very first timber sale on the Allegheny

National Forest in 1927 in the little Arnot watershed. You will notice the next series of slides is taken from the exact spot for a period of approximately 70 years. This is in the spring of 1927, 1937,

1947, 1957, 1967, 1977, 1987, all the way to 1998, which depicts

a mature Allegheny hardwood forest.

Mr. WALDEN. Can you tell us what the tree types are?

Mr. KANE. Interesting. That’s a great question. I hate to take up

the time, but to answer your question in the interim of my

time——

[Laughter.]

Mr. WALDEN. Suspend the clock.

Mr. KANE. OK. Thank you for that opportunity. But I am trying

to depict 150 years of history in 5 minutes, so thank you for bearing with me. But the species you see in this picture, the larger

trees you see are black cherry, prunus serotina, which is the primary species of the Allegheny forest type. Many accuse us foresters

of managing primarily for that tree. However, if you couple what

I have explained to you in the low deer herd in 1900, today the estimated deer herd in Pennsylvania is 1.6 million animals. The

problem we are having and that I will depict later on in this presentation is with that low deer herd, we were able to regenerate a

very diverse forest. The smaller tree on the right-hand side of that

is a sugar maple, acer saccharum. What we tried to do in managing

our resource is we carry the acer saccharum—when we manage for

the forest resource, we try to carry that sugar maple into the next

rotation, and oftentimes we will let that tree go for 200 years. However, the black cherry matures in about 100 years, which is the crisis that we have before us today. We not only are susceptible to the

blowdown that I am going to show you, but we are also susceptible

of overmaturity.

The slides that I’ve depicted show the forest in a dormant state,

our hardwood forest in a dormant state. The next slide will show

you what the forest floor looks like with 1.6 million deer on our

landscape. That slide, you will see hayscented fern in the

49

foreground, and if you look very closely, in the background you will

see at about 5 foot a line, horizontal. That is a deer browse line.

That is the impact of the white-tailed deer to our forest.

Just yesterday, I attended a conference at Penn State, the Pennsylvania Forest Issues Conference, and at that conference it was

stated by research data that two-thirds of Pennsylvania currently

is unable to regenerate itself without foresters actively managing

that resource. Two-thirds of Pennsylvania’s 17 million acres of

forestland can’t regenerate itself because of that condition, because

the white-tailed deer changes the forest structure on the forest

floor, inhibiting natural species to advance.

The next slide will show you how we’re susceptible to blowdown.

We experienced a blowdown in 1985 that damaged the 13,000 acres

in the Allegheny National Forest, and in 2003, we had a blowdown

that blew down 10,000 acres.

The next slide will show you the impact. That is an aerial infrared photo of the Allegheny National Forest, the impact of the tornadoes that crossed it in 1985. That area, 13,000 acres was blown

down quite severely, as you can tell by the color infrared. That area

was let for timber sale within 2 years of blowdown. The 2003

storm, now in 2005, less than 20 percent of the area has been let

for timber sale salvage.

Mr. WALDEN. Excuse my ignorance. Is it the blue or the red that

was blown down? The blue?

Mr. KANE. The red is the growing infrared. The gray in the middle is the impact of the tornado.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you.

Mr. KANE. Which was quite severe. It was a swath approximately a quarter to a mile wide and 60 miles across our half-million-acre national forest.

The next slide shows you what the regeneration looks like in that

tornado swath today. Twenty years later we have a sapling stand,

very similar to that stand that you saw in my earlier slide of 1937.

The next slide shows you why we can’t let our forest go to late

succession. That is a beech tree. The species on—the same tree,

species on the left is early stages of the beech scale nectria-complex; the middle is when the tree is on the killing front; and on the

right is the late stages of the beech scale nectria-complex. Beech

scale nectria-complex is a disease that was brought into North

America at the point of Nova Scotia in 1890 from Europe, and it

has been moving south and west ever since. The Allegheny Plateau

is now in the killing front of that disease. Beeches are late successional species in our forests, so we can’t support a late successional

forest. In Europe, the beech tree is known as—the disease is known

as the beech snap disease because the trees tend to snap off between 15 and 30 feet high. So they’re not even good areas for recreation once you’re in late succession because you’re in there, the

wind blows, and the trees start snapping off all around you.

It’s interesting. I know our area may not quite be as beautiful

as the peninsula you were invited to earlier, but we very much

would enjoy having you up for a tour, if you were inclined.

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, snapping tree tour. That will work.

[Laughter.]

50

Mr. KANE. Also, we’re susceptible to a disease that’s exotic that

is in another late successional species, which is the hemlock wooly

adelgid, which is attacking our State tree, the Eastern hemlock. The next slide shows you what we are up against today. The upper left is straight maple, and the low-story vegetation that

takes over our lower canopy that won’t allow natural forest to replace itself, primarily because of our friend the white-tailed deer.

Bambi is beautiful, but she can cause a lot of problems.

The lower left shows what we have to do. That’s a herbicide apparatus that we use to use herbicides, as Dr. Schlarbaum referred

to, herbicides that are inert to man, but they are herbicides that

we use daily, such as glyphosate, which is Round-up that we use

around our homes. That is the primary herbicide we use to control

these species on the ground. And then, of course, the beech brush, the young root suckers that occur from the dying beech from the scale nectria. They reproduce

through their roots, so we get that thick brush you see in the lower

right. The next slide is my final slide that I will try to conclude my comments with. That is a woven wire deer exclosure. Those are

what we have to erect on our plateau to regenerate our forest. The

area to the right is inside the exclosure. The area to the left is outside. The difference is quite stark. That fence to erect today is—

2 years ago, prior to the cost of energy and steel increasing, that

cost us approximately $1.50 a linear foot to construct. I’m currently

under contract with a contractor to put some of that fence up at

$2.20 a linear foot.

So, in conclusion, action needs to be taken now to ensure the establishment and growth of regeneration in disturbance areas of

northwest Pennsylvania and in many areas throughout the country. Forest policy, funding, and other factors that preclude timely

reforestation are evident in comparing the response, of course, to

the 1985 and the 2003 wind events.

Thank you for the extra time.

Mr. WALDEN. Well, it is very helpful, especially those of us from the West who aren’t dealing with some of the issues you are, but

as a committee we have that responsibility. So it has been most

informative.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kane follows:]

Statement of Kenneth Kane, Consulting Forester, Keith Horn Forestry, Inc., representing the Society of American Foresters

My name is Kenneth C. Kane. I am president of Keith Horn Forestry, Inc., Con- sulting Foresters, in Kane, Pennsylvania. I have been practicing forestry full time

on the Allegheny Plateau since 1983. I am also a native of Kane, Pennsylvania, a

small community located at the eastern edge of the Allegheny National Forest. It

was growing up in the Allegheny Plateau Region that motivated me to attend Penn

State University and obtain my Bachelor of Science degree from Penn State’s School

of Forest Resources.

I am here today representing the Society of American Foresters (SAF), an organi- zation of over 15,000 professional foresters in all segments of the profession, from

consultant foresters like myself, to academics, scientific researchers, and federal,

state, and local agency personnel. SAF members believe it is our responsibility as

professionals to ensure the continued health and long-term sustainability of both

public and privately owned forest resources for current and future generations. Over

the last several decades, SAF has become increasingly concerned with the lack of

action in federal forests that is needed to maintain and improve these forests and

their associated resources. Foresters need to be able to apply the proven practices

51

of silviculture, which at times can include timely human-induced reforestation, to

ensure, over the long-run, that our forests are healthy and the objectives set for

these forests can be met. I will include, for the record, SAF’s position statement in

this issue, titled Use of Silviculture to Achieve and Maintain Forest Health on Public Lands. It is difficult to meet the public’s demands for these lands when foresters

are prevented or restricted from practicing our profession. As the General Accountability Office Report outlines, reforestation has become a major problem on National

Forest System lands. The backlog of reforestation can inhibit proper stewardship of

our forests and can reduce the health and long-term viability of these forests. Many well-intentioned people ask if we should simply allow forests to regenerate on their own. In fact, most forests can regenerate successfully without human influence, However, when society expects (and legally requires) responsible stewardship

of our forests and diverse values from these forests—clean water and air, wildlife

habitat, recreational opportunities, forest products, and scenic beauty, it is sometimes necessary to intervene. Human-induced or artificial reforestation is often

needed to accelerate the growing process and move more quickly towards meeting

the demands society places on forests. Human induced reforestation is also beneficial where there is an abundance of invasive species, wildlife such as deer, a real

problem in northwest Pennsylvania, or other conditions, that would prohibit natural

regeneration of the desired forest. Additionally if there is a lack of seed trees in the

area, it may take years for natural regeneration to take hold, putting the soil at

risk of erosion and putting the area at risk of invasive species. Delayed or inadequate reforestation after catastrophic events, such as wildfires, hurricanes, blow downs, and ice storms, is of particular concern. In some cases it

is extremely difficult to naturally reforest these areas to the desired species and

composition in a timely manner and intervention is needed through forest management and reforestation practices. At times foresters need to remove a proportion of

dead and dying trees in a disturbance area to provide access, remove safety hazards,

or reduce the risk of insect infestations or fire danger the dead and dying trees can

create. This kind of activity encourages forest regeneration. I’d like to share a case example of the reforestation problem from the eastern

U.S., in the Allegheny Plateau. The example demonstrates the need for timely reforestation in the Allegheny region, particularly after catastrophic events, to achieve

the objectives set out for these areas and restore the desired species composition and

forest structure. These problems are certainly not exclusive to the eastern U.S.—

similar issues are prevalent after wildfires in the west and south, blow-downs in the

boundary waters, hurricanes on the east coast and after many other disturbances. Extensive timber harvesting in the Allegheny region in the early 1900’s coupled with a greatly reduced deer herd provided ideal conditions for the establishment of

a new forest of shade intolerant hardwoods such as Black Cherry, White Ash, and

Tulip Poplar, along with Red Oak and Maple. At the turn of the last century, these

lands were of little value to timber companies and were sold to the federal government, forming the Allegheny National Forest. The first timber sale was conducted

on the little Arnot watershed in 1927. I have attached to this testimony a pictorial

sequence of the development of the forest as it moved from an early successional

seedling to sapling stand, to a poletimber stand, to a light sawtimber stand to eventually in seventy years, a mature Allegheny hardwood sawtimber stand.

Unfortunately, these beautiful forests do not stop changing once they are mature.

Mature Allegheny Hardwood forests are very susceptible to wind throw as we experienced in 1985 with the series of tornadoes that crossed the region and again in

2003 with a combination of tornadoes and intense thunderstorms. The 2003 storm

resulted in approximately 10,000 acres of downed trees.

These natural disturbances should create a scenario to regenerate the forest without human intervention—Natural seedlings and a seedbank from the blow down

trees, abundant light created from the disturbance, the same moist rich soil, and

natural protection from the blow down. However, other influences on the landscape

have greatly inhibited the capacity of the forest to naturally regenerate on its own.

First and foremost, the whitetail deer population has exploded. The herd that was

estimated at only 400 animals in Pennsylvania in the early 20th century is now estimated at 1.6 million. The deer through over-browsing, have changed the species

composition of the forest floor from diverse wild flowers, shrubs, and seedling trees

to hayscented fern, beech brush, and striped maple, preventing the natural regeneration of desired species. The beech brush, fern, and striped maple eliminate other

species desired for diversity and favorable stand structure.

Insects and diseases are also a factor precluding natural regeneration of this

forest type. Although American Beech is a late successional forest species, an exotic

disease known as the beech scale nectria-complex prevents the tree from occupying

the upper canopy of the forest and providing valuable mast (food) for animals. The

52

Hemlock wooly adelgid insect threatens the native Hemlock in a similar manner.

These and other invasive species often preclude regeneration of desirable native

species.

In order to overcome these hurdles and restore the forest to desirable species composition and structure, foresters must be able to employ modern science and professionally accepted techniques. In some areas, foresters need to be able to salvage a

portion of the down timber to gain access to the forest or create conditions where

shade intolerant species can grow. In some cases, herbicides may need to be used

to control undesirable vegetation, invasive species, and promote species diversity.

Deer exclosure fences can also be constructed to protect diverse early successional

forests from deer and additional steps can be taken to work with wildlife agencies

to bring deer populations into balance with the habitat. Fertilizers can also be used

to enable regeneration to grow past the level of deer browse. Action needs to be taken now to ensure the establishment and growth of regenera- tion in disturbance areas in northwest Pennsylvania and in many areas throughout

the country. Forest policy, funding, and other factors that preclude timely reforestation are evident in comparing the response to the 1985 tornado and the 2003 blow

down. After the 1985 event—covering a much larger area than the 2003 event—the

Allegheny National Forest completed over 80% of the salvage by 1987 and the area

is now fully regenerated. Here in 2005, nearly two years after the 2003 storm, less

than 20% of the affected area has been salvaged and even less has been reforested.

In contrast on private land and state land, the salvage is nearly complete at over

80% salvaged. Once this material is removed, the area can be quickly reforested to

ensure the presence of desirable species. On the federal lands, where this material

is being removed at a much slower rate or not at all, reforestation is slow and will

most likely not produce desired results. The Allegheny Hardwood Forest type is a unique forest ecosystem. We need to utilize the science available to us to regenerate the forest in a timely manner and

ensure the continuation of this unique ecosystem, before the opportunity passes. NOTE: Pictures attached to Mr. Kane’s statement have been retained in the

Committee’s official files.

Mr. WALDEN. Dr. Franklin, we are delighted to have you here, although I was a little concerned, you being a Husky and me being

a Duck, but, you know, we will put that aside.

Dr. FRANKLIN. I am worse than a Husky. I am a Beaver. [Laughter.]

Mr. WALDEN. That is—I won’t ask you about the football players and the sheep, you know, the guy that got pulled over. But, anyway, we are delighted to have you here and look forward to your

testimony today.

STATEMENT OF JERRY F. FRANKLIN, COLLEGE OF FOREST

RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE,

WASHINGTON

Dr. FRANKLIN. I will briefly go over the points in my testimony. I had understood that we were really focusing on the GAO report,

and I just want to say I agree with the general conclusions of the

GAO report. I think there are serious deficiencies in providing accurate and nationally consistent data regarding reforestation and

stand improvement needs, as well as on a number of other topics.

And the absence of such data bases, combined with the massive retirements of career professional foresters, is resulting in a significant and irretrievable loss of institutional memory on the part of

the Forest Service.

This is a really serious issue. We have no record of what has gone on on a lot of that landscape. We cannot identify who did

what when and why. However, perhaps the most fundamental of the GAO findings in importance is the need to, as they put it, ‘‘clarify the direction and

policies for the reforestation and timber stand improvement

53

program to be consistent with the agency’s current emphasis on

ecosystem management.’’ And I would have to say, I think, the

Forest Service has not systematically assessed its objectives and

methods, silvicultural prescriptions, for example, in reforestation

and stand improvement in light of the dramatic shift from timber

production to ecosystem management that has occurred in the last

15 years.

Objectives and practices in reforestation and stand improvement

need to reflect these new management objectives and not the historic timber emphasis, except where that’s appropriate to the land

allocation. What was appropriate for timber production is not necessarily good for many ecological objectives.

For example, the traditional practice following natural disturb- ances calls for rapid re-establishment of dense (‘‘fully stocked’’)

stands of commercially important tree species. Such an approach

may be antithetical to both short- and long-term ecological objectives. As an example, early successional forest habitat—meaning

relatively open areas free of dominance by closed forest canopies—

characteristically have very high levels of species diversity and are

the site of many important ecological processes. That is when a lot

of the nitrogen-fixing organisms are found, for example.

Further, traditional reforestation practices can result in perverse

outcomes, and a great example of this is on sites that suffer

uncharacteristically severe—meaning stand replacement—wildfire,

where we get intense fire where it is not characteristic. On such

sites it is currently the common practice to salvage and immediately re-establish dense, uniform plantations. What have we

done? We have effectively recreated the conditions for the next,

uncharacteristic stand replacement fire. And a lot of the problems

that we have with uncharacteristically dense stands in the West,

particularly on the coast, has to do with the fact that we created

those stands. Sierra Nevada is a great example of where we have

done it.

An additional perverse example of an outcome from traditional

reforestation practices applies particularly on the west side in the

Pacific Northwest, the west side of the Cascades, and that’s where

we are proposing to go out and create new dense stands—they are

plantations—on sites where we ultimately want to create owl habitat. Now, we have a big program specifically to correct that condition on a lot of designated owl habitat. So, you know, what are we

doing? We are creating more work for ourselves in the future.

I would also add that stand improvement needs and practices

need serious reconsideration along with the reforestation practices.

The treatment of young stands to restore ecological values is often

a very different process than that that we use to achieve timber

management objectives.

I did want to end with just a comment that I think many Forest

Service professionals are really doing their best to understand the

differences and adjust their assessments and prescriptions accordingly, and I really give them high marks for their efforts. However,

agency traditions and local policies may not always allow them to

do what they think is best.

I would encourage you to think about encouraging the Forest

Service to do a serious agency-wide reevaluation and rationalizaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:12 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\20970.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
54

tion of reforestation and stand improvement policies. I think they

need to systematically examine and revise the philosophies, principles, and practices on which its silvicultural activities are based,

including reforestation and stand improvement. I think that would

be an important and worthy exercise. Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Franklin follows:]

Statement of Jerry F. Franklin, Professor, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington

Jerry F. Franklin is Professor at the College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, His degrees are in Forest Management from

Oregon State University (BS ‘‘59, MS ‘‘61) and plant ecology from Washington State

University (PhD, ‘‘66). He has over 50 years of experience in forest management,

silviculture, and forest ecology, primarily with the USDA Forest Service Pacific NW

Research Station (35 years) and as a university professor. I agree with the general conclusions of the GAO report. The Forest Service does have serious deficiencies in providing accurate and nationally consistent data regarding reforestation and timber stand improvement needs. I would note that there

are many similar topics where the agency lacks consistent and retrievable documentation of stand conditions, past silvicultural activities, and management needs

on national forest lands. The absence of such data bases, combined with the massive

retirements of career professional foresters, is resulting in a significant and irretrievable ‘‘loss of institutional memory’’ on the part of the Forest Service. However, perhaps the most fundamental of the GAO findings in importance is the need to ‘‘clarify the direction and policies for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program to be consistent with the agency’s current emphasis on ecosystem management’’ (p. 36). The Forest Service clearly has not systematically assessed its objectives and methods (silvicultural prescriptions) in reforestation and

stand improvement in light of the dramatic shift from timber production to ecosystem management that has occurred in the last 15 years. This failure is resulting

in projects, prescriptions, assessments, and inventories that are neither consistent

with ecosystem-based objectives nor consistent among regions or even national

forests within a region. The emphasis in managing much of the national forest land base has shifted from maximizing timber production to other resource objectives, such as providing habitat

for biodiversity and restoring forests to historic and less fire-prone conditions. Objectives and practices in reforestation and stand improvement programs need to reflect

these new management objectives and not the historic timber emphasis. What was

appropriate for timber production is not necessarily ‘‘good’’ for many ecological

objectives! For example, traditional practice following natural disturbances called for rapid re-establishment of dense (‘‘fully stocked’’) stands of commercially important tree

species. Such an approach may be antithetical to both short- and long-term ecological objectives. Early successional forest habitat—relatively open areas free of dominance by closed forest canopies—characteristically has high levels of species diversity and is the site of many important ecological processes, such as nitrogen fixation.

Allowing for the slower and less uniform process of natural regeneration may have

greater ecological benefits, particularly when such naturally disturbed areas are allowed to retain the structural legacies of the previous stands—i.e., are left

unsalvaged. Traditional reforestation practices often result in perverse outcomes, such as on

sites that suffer uncharacteristically severe (stand replacement) wildfire as a result

of uncharacteristic fuel accumulation. On such sites it is currently common practice

to salvage and immediately re-establish dense, uniform plantations—effectively recreating the conditions for the next, uncharacteristic stand-replacement fire! In

some national forests successful past efforts to replace under-stocked natural stands

with dense plantations have been as important as fire suppression programs in creating fire prone stands and landscapes. This may have been appropriate when the

objective was to intensively tend these stands for timber production but such practices are not consistent with current objectives. Many professionals in the agency

recognize such inconsistencies and have made efforts to change practices but past

regulations (e.g., reforest in five years) and tradition often make this difficult or impossible.

Additional examples of perverse outcomes from traditional reforestation practices

can be found in the Pacific Northwest. Here the agency is engaged in a major proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:12 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\20970.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
55

gram—appropriately I would argue—to treat plantations established during the last

forty years so as to accelerate development of structurally complex forests, which

provide habitat for species such as the Northern Spotted Owl. Why would we continue to establish new dense plantations of this type on sites where our goal is

structurally and compositionally complex forests?! It would not achieve our ecological goals and, if successful, result in the need for additional stand improvement

treatments.

I would emphasize again the importance of structurally complex, gradually reforesting early successional habitat for ecological diversity. Mount St. Helens has provided us with a clear example of the unique contributions that large, slowly reforesting areas of this type can make to regional biological diversity. For example diversity and density of avifauna (birds), amphibians, and meso-predators are at extraordinarily high levels in the Mount St. Helens landscape.

Stand improvement needs and practices need serious reconsideration along with

reforestation practices. Treatment of young stands for ecological purposes often contrasts with what is done to achieve timber management objectives. For example,

creation of uniform stands is a goal in timber management; stimulating spatial heterogeneity through variable density thinning is often a goal in ecologically-oriented

stand treatments. Related to this, ecological treatments often involve removal of

some of the dominant trees while traditional timber thinning is ‘‘from below’’—removal of only the smaller trees. Traditional wood production thinning focuses on

elimination of commercially unimportant species and defective trees while ecological

thinning may focus on retention of minor stand components and trees that have special value as habitat.

Many Forest Service professionals understand these differences and are adjusting

their assessments and prescriptions accordingly. I give high marks to the insight

and creativity of the majority of the agencies professionals as they deal with a bewildering array of new knowledge and new goals. However, agency traditions and

local policies may not always support their efforts.

A serious, agency-wide re-evaluation and rationalization of reforestation and

stand improvement policies is urgently needed. Even the language that is utilized—

‘‘timber’’ stand improvement—is inappropriate where development and enhancement of ecological values are really the primary objective. The language helps perpetuate the confusion of field personnel, stakeholders, and decision makers about

what is really intended with reforestation and stand improvement activities. There

have been profound expansions in the scientific underpinnings for silviculture along

with the dramatic changes in management direction that warrant agency-wide attention.

A major national initiative by the Forest Service to systematically examine and

revise the philosophies, principles, and practices on which its silvicultural activities

are based—including reforestation and stand improvement—would be an important

and useful exercise.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you again, Dr. Franklin. We appreciate your

comments on this important topic. Thanks for being here.

I am going to yield to my colleague from Oregon, who is in the

middle of a markup in another committee, but I know has an intense interest in these issues. We appreciate Mr. DeFazio being

here today, and I will turn it to you first for question.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesy. Yes, we are in the middle of a lengthy homeland security

markup, and I have got to run back.

I am particularly interested in these issues, representing a district more than half owned by the Federal Government, predominantly in forests. And, you know, I would direct a couple of questions to Dr. Franklin, although to Mr. Kane I would observe, if the

white deer are that much of a problem, I don’t know what has happened to your hunter population there in Pennsylvania.

[Laughter.]

Mr. KANE. Interestingly enough, Congressman, Pennsylvania has

a million hunters. We have one of the largest hunting populations

in the United States.

56

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, then, maybe they need to be reoriented onto

what they are hunting.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DEFAZIO. Or beyond that, we have got a few extra cougars

and we could lend those to you, and then maybe some wolf reintroduction would be good.

Mr. KANE. Interesting comment. The hunters have become lazy

with an overabundance of deer. It is an issue in itself within Pennsylvania. Thank you for your comment.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Dr. Franklin, so salvage logging, can it occur and

meet ecological objectives? I mean, are there cases where—or certain sizes of trees or stands where that would be allowable in your

opinion, or desirable, shall we say?

Dr. FRANKLIN. Yes, I think those are relatively uncommon. I

don’t think, you know, that that circumstance generally exists. But

there are circumstances of that sort, and it would be, for example,

on a case where you get an uncharacteristic stand replacement fire

and you have large fuel accumulations left after that fire, and

you’re concerned about having another repeat, excessively intense

fire. So there are circumstances. But for the most part, salvage logging effectively does little or generally no ecological good. We do it.

We do it for economic reasons. But in terms of a direct benefit for

recovery processes, generally it is not.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So in the Northwest, in particular, matrix lands

would be handled differently than LSR lands in sort of salvage and

reforestation.

Dr. FRANKLIN. Absolutely. You know, the land allocation is critical. What are your objectives for that acre? Are they ecological, or

are they timber production? And if they are ecological, then particularly on the west side, salvage is not appropriate. It doesn’t

make a positive contribution. It doesn’t make a direct contribution.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thought, though, from looking at your testimony

that if we had an area that had burned where you had a mix of

fairly dense smaller trees that were not thoroughly burned mixed

into larger trees, some of which were dead or dying and others

which weren’t, that you might go in there, remove the fuel load and

the smaller trees, which perhaps ideally we might have done before

we had the fire. Is that correct?

Dr. FRANKLIN. That’s correct.

Mr. DEFAZIO. And to get any value out of those, that would have

to be done——

Dr. FRANKLIN. Quickly.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Very quickly. OK.

Dr. FRANKLIN. Absolutely.

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is an interesting twist, sort of the inverse of

what we look at now. We look at the highest timber value bigger,

older stuff, and the smaller trees are ignored. And then we generally engage in a longer fight over the larger trees as opposed to

expediting—perhaps we could get some consensus on expediting removal of the smaller trees.

I also would like—I appreciate the issue you raised where you

talked about the uncharacteristically dense stands, and it is my understanding from talking to the Forest Service that, looking at west

side Oregon and Washington, uncharacteristically dense stands

57

west side, and going into thin for ecological value but achieving

commercial grade production in doing that is somewhere around 6

billion board feet, if you want to measure it that way. Obviously,

perhaps, you wouldn’t want to measure it that way. But to me it

seems like a missed opportunity here, and anything you want to

expand on on the pre-fire condition of some of the west side forest

and the uncharacteristically dense stands and the wisdom or lack

thereof in terms of not moving that back more toward a natural

system before a fire. Could you just briefly comment on that? I am

about out of time.

Dr. FRANKLIN. I think there are two places where we really aggressively need to treat stands, and on the west side it’s particularly in the younger stands that are overly dense. We thought we

were going to primarily focus on maximizing timber production. We

aren’t anymore, and there’s a very large acreage of those and a

very large need for treating those. And certainly that would yield

a potentially significant amount of timber.

The other place where we have a very significant need is more

in the eastern slopes of the Cascades, where we have stands that

are clearly—and these include older trees—that are clearly in a

condition that it is not characteristic and will lead to an intense

fire, which is not characteristic of that site. And, clearly, there’s a

real need to get into a lot of those stands and largely remove small

and medium-size material so that, in fact, those forests are sustainable.

In southwestern Oregon, you know, there is a very complex mix

of conditions. It is really complicated. So, you know, it is sort of a

mix of both places where it’s appropriate and places where it’s inappropriate.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, if I would—and, again, it is somewhat difficult

to determine sometimes, but some people want to restrict that to

a particular diameter. But, for instance, I have witnessed on the

Malheur where there has not been a significant fire, mostly because of human intervention in some places for 90 years, where

you have Doug firs of significant diameter growing up into the

crowns of ponderosas that would survive a fire, but the Doug fir

is like 20-some-odd inches in diameter. And so the measures cannot

be just sort of, well, we will go in and take out all the trees less

than a certain diameter. It has got to be we want to protect the

remaining old growth ponderosa, which might mean removing

some significant but exotic trees.

Dr. FRANKLIN. I agree with you absolutely, and it needs to be objectively driven, and arbitrary diameter limits are not a particularly good approach to that. And I have seen exactly the same

thing where 18-, 20-, 22-inch diameter white firs are tucked into

the crowns of some of those old growth ponderosa pine, and I would

like to see us keep those pine. And to do that you have to remove

that white fir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. And, Dr. Franklin, thank

you, because a lot of those are forests that are in my district. When

I was first running for this office, I went on a forest tour out in

the Deschutes, and they were showing us how they were—that the

58

forest we were in was being managed in theory for, I think, last

succession—old growth characteristics of ponderosa pine. And so

that on the one hand, they were describing what the forest should

look like and showed us a photo from, I think, the 1920s of a car

sort of driving through, a savannah type scene with just grass underneath, and then these big old growth ponderosa. And then what

we were seeing when we got out of the bus and got out walking

around was all this white fir and other fir coming up in it. And I

said, now, I am confused, because you just told us it should look

like this, and yet it looks like that. And they sort of threw up their

hands and admitted that was a problem.

I was just up on a proposed thinning project up on Mount Emily

outside of LeGrand, the same deal. And the people who were appealing that fuels reduction project are doing it based on diameter

size, which you have just testified isn’t necessarily the way to manage these old growth forests. We appreciate that.

Dr. FRANKLIN. I don’t think that that is the best way to approach

restoration.

Mr. WALDEN. It seems arbitrary. We ought to be managing for

the stand that is supposed to be there, historically was there. Isn’t

that more accurate?

Let me turn to Mr. Kane. Why has the agency’s response to 2003

blowdown on the Allegheny National Forest taken longer than the

response to the 1985 event?

Mr. KANE. That is an interesting question, and I would tend to

say that there’s—with more pressure on the National Forest System for multiple uses other than primarily timber, in 1985 there

was still a very active timber program on the Allegheny National

Forest, an at that time the timber program produced somewhere in

the vicinity of about 70 million board feet a year, was their ASQ.

In 2000, that was down to about 10. They just didn’t have the staff,

and they didn’t have the resources, because if you couple—what we

have been told on the Allegheny is, as you mentioned, borrowing

from funds to take care of the fire issue, a lot of those management

monies went to fires, as I understand it, and they didn’t have the

resources to address it. Also, there has been more challenges nationwide on our National Forest System and their practices by

other individuals and groups that slows that process where they

tend to get caught up in, you know, preparation of policy and analysis of what they do rather than knowing—we generally know

what to do in short term, but to document it and to do the traditional long-term—as you mentioned earlier with the BLM, a page

of environmental assessment for every acre of treatment. It tends

to slow the process immeasurably.

Mr. WALDEN. And with the funding problem we face, then, if we

lose the economic benefit of salvaging some of this timber, then

that money is not available to engage in some of the restoration

work that needs to be done, clearly.

Mr. KANE. In fact, you will notice today I’ve danced around economics. The Allegheny National Forest is the most valuable forest

in Region 9, and truly one of the most valuable national forests in

America. The timber values on that forest, individual trees can be

worth up to—the trees like I showed in my slide—not every tree.

I have to qualify, not every tree, but individual trees in that forest

59

can be worth in excess of $10,000 per tree, and values in excess of

$10,000 an acre are not uncommon if you check the Forest

Service——

Mr. WALDEN. Ten thousand dollars an acre?

Mr. KANE. An acre for salvage—for the timber that’s on an acre.

An individual tree can be, but it’s not uncommon for an acre of timber to be worth in excess of $10,000. So the economic factor is significant. I’m hesitant to bring that up. I’d rather stick to the

science because the economics are pretty straightforward.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. And, Dr. Schlarbaum, I just want to point

out for the committee—and we may send this around separately.

Your explanation of reforestation funding is probably the most

thorough and yet succinct that we have seen, so we appreciate the

work that you have put into this.

In the South, what happens after a catastrophic event like a

blowdown if human intervention is not undertaken?

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. Well, the timber will degrade quite rapidly. In

fact, with the southern pine beetle hitting these pine stands, if you

do not get in there and salvage within a year, usually it’s too late.

In fact, they won’t even burn.

Mr. WALDEN. Do you have examples of—much more of your

lands are privately held, I assume, than those of us in the West.

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. Yes.

Mr. WALDEN. But what does it look like between the private and

the Federal lands when there is a blowdown? What do you see as

differences in the way they are then managed?

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. Well, again, assuming there is not a market

saturation, the private landowner would immediately move to salvage that timber and then regenerate the stand.

Mr. WALDEN. OK. And the public landowner?

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. Well, the public landowner, you know, you

would have to do an EA if you wanted to do a large salvage sale,

over 250 acres generally on national forest, and those are subject

to litigation.

Mr. WALDEN. OK. My time has elapsed. I recognize my colleague

from South Dakota.

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to each

of you for your statements and for your presence here today and

answering some important questions in a very important area, regardless of what region of the country we are from and districts

that we represent.

You may have heard me speak with the earlier panel that in

South Dakota we have the Black Hills National Forest. We have

experienced not only wildfires that are exacerbated by drought conditions in the western side of the State but pine beetle epidemics

as well. And we have had a series of litigation that has been somewhat minimized here in the last couple of years based on the advisory group that was formulated about a handful of years ago. And

I just want to open up a couple of questions to any of you that want

to respond, but, Dr. Franklin, I couldn’t agree more with your assessment based on what we have heard today from the GAO’s report as well as the testimony from those in the earlier panels that

we need some sort of more comprehensive reevaluation within the

Forest Service, an ability to collect this data that will help guide

60

us in the policies as well as these funding priorities that are necessary for the health of our forests across the country as it relates

to regeneration, the reforestation and stand improvement issues.

So I agree with you there, and I think it is important that we

do that in a way that can then collect regional and forest-specific

data. Let’s see. Whose report here—I think it is, Mr. Kane, your

statement indicates that the Allegheny Hardwood Forest type is a

unique forest ecosystem. That is commonly how we talk about the

Black Hills National Forest, as being a unique ecosystem. Did you

want to respond? You have heard that before, I suppose.

Mr. KANE. Yes, I think we—that brings up a very interesting

point. The Black Hills is a unique ecosystem, as is the Allegheny,

which shows the importance of giving the local managers responsible for that forest the opportunity to practice the silvicultural

techniques necessary to manage that forest.

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you. Again, it is the local and unique characteristics of each of our forests that highlights the importance of

collecting data in a systematic way with standardized criteria that

takes into account what those measures and methods are and the

local importance of those that can then help inform the Forest

Plans. And if we had a way to collect this data more efficiently, it

might help make the whole Forest Plan development process more

efficient as well.

But let me just throw these questions out to any of you. We have

the benefit in the Black Hills of still having some infrastructure for

our timber industry and the economic importance for jobs there.

And I have worked closely with the association that works also

quite closely with the Forest Service in addressing the predictability and stability of the harvest and of the ASQ that is necessary

to sustain those mills and other businesses.

But something that is of importance to all of us and that the association has been involved with in our neighboring State of Wyoming as well is what informs the Forest Plan in a variety of other

areas. And so if you could just share some of your thoughts on the

ecological importance of maintaining species diversity, structural

diversity, and age class diversity when reforesting an area as well,

and then any thoughts that you have on the role of disturbance,

whether it is wildfires, blowdown, or pine beetle epidemics and natural regeneration. If any of you or if all three of you want to respond, if one of you wants to take the lead in either of those areas.

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. I will just say something about the importance

of making sure that you get the appropriate seed source if you are

going to artificially regenerate or plant those areas. You want to

make sure that your seed source is local or if you have an orchard,

they are from the Forest Service’s Regional Genetics Resources

Program that is constructed from materials that have been tested.

Otherwise, if you buy just any seedlings off the market, they may

not be adapted to 2-year force in the short term or the long term,

and sometimes you can get trees that will live that aren’t particularly productive, but they will go ahead and pollinate your more

native local genotypes and lower the overall fitness of your forest.

So pay close attention to your seed source when you reforest.

Mr. KANE. Uniquely, on the Allegheny Plateau, nearly all of our

regeneration is natural regeneration through silvicultural practices.

61

So we don’t have the concern for the genetic purity because it is

already there. We are using native trees for our regeneration.

The important thing for us, as you saw from my presentation, is

that we need more—we may need more structural diversity that

our lower canopy has been really inhibited by man’s influence over

a hundred years of policy on white-tailed deer management in

Pennsylvania that causes a problem, and also that it affects our

species diversity. We are often accused by people in our management schemes that we are managing, again, as I mentioned earlier,

for the black cherry monoculture. That could not be further from

the truth. It is the strength of the tree’s survival and the influence

of man, again, going back to the white-tailed deer problem, that

deer are preferential browsers, just like we are, that they prefer

other species above the cherry, and it just so happens that areas

that were harvested in the 1930s and 1940s when the deer herd

was quite high actually are almost all cherry monocultures.

So all those outside factors affect it, which shows the importance

of why we need, you know, good professionalism and, I would say,

a history of individuals on a forest. It is very difficult to understand—you know, you can understand general silviculture, but I

will be honest with you, as a forester, I guess I’m considered an expert on the Allegheny Plateau. But I wouldn’t attempt to come out

to the Black Hills and try to manage your forest.

Ms. HERSETH. Is that a general—excuse me just a second. I want

to follow up. Is that a general assessment that you are offering perhaps on policy and procedure within the Forest Service and the

moving around of various supervisors and other officials?

Mr. KANE. That is, yes, ma’am.

Ms. HERSETH. OK. Thank you.

Dr. FRANKLIN. Well, it is always difficult to give general guidance

for somebody else’s backyard, but in general, the biological diversity is important, and a lot of it you won’t even be aware of, you

won’t even see, because it’s things like the fungi in the ground that

form the mycorrhizal relationships with the trees. So diversity is

important. Probably structural complexity is the best way to have

an index to that, a reference to that. So structural complexity is

probably your simplest measure of how well you’re doing on diversity. I would just suggest that probably over half, perhaps as much

as two-thirds of the animal diversity in your forest system—and

that means both vertebrates and invertebrates—is probably associated with deadwood. So deadwood is a very, very component of

those systems.

The last thing I would suggest to you is don’t—you mentioned

the issue of different age classes or different successional stages of

forest. Do not deceive yourself that a clear cut is anything like a

natural young stand. Natural young stands have high levels of

structural complexity. One of the things they have in them typically is a lot of residual deadwood. That is one of the reasons why

they work much differently than a clean cut does in terms of providing for things like biodiversity.

Mr. WALDEN. Go ahead, Dr. Schlarbaum.

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. In terms of some historical references, South

Dakota State put out a publication—and you may or may not have

62

seen it—of photos from the Custer expedition. Have you seen this

publication?

Ms. HERSETH. I have, and I would encourage—I will get you a copy, Chairman, because it is fascinating to see during the—all of

these photos document during Custer’s expedition and the growth

of the forest. As you know, the ponderosa pine regenerates itself

tremendous quickly, and given the population of the hills since

Custer’s expedition—and we were talking about the urban-wildland

interface, and the patchwork of private-public property there. So I

am pleased that you mentioned that because I think it is very informative and instructive.

Mr. WALDEN. Can you outline it for me?

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. Well, it is a publication that—they noticed the Custer expedition, he was—what was he? He was up there looking

for gold or—he was doing—I can’t remember exactly what he was

looking for.

Ms. HERSETH. Unfortunately, it may have been something involv- ing poor policy on our part with Native Americans. But there was

an expedition that actually found the gold, that discovered—that

was not—the primary purpose was actually to map out the area,

combined with some of the other missions within the Army, and

then they discovered gold at that time.

Dr. SCHLARBAUM. But they took a number of photos and then some people came back 100 years later from South Dakota State

University, rephotographed the exact spots—I mean, you can see

the same rocks, rock formation, even some dead trees that are

there. And I use it—and I teach a history of forestry class, and I

use that as an example. And it is striking that if you look at the

difference between 100 years, there are more trees now than there

were.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Well, I appreciate the testimony from all of our witnesses today, and especially you all who have hung out

with us until the end here. Thank you for your comments, your

counsel. It is appreciated. Obviously people come at this issue with

different views, and that helps us in some respects, makes our job

harder in others. But hopefully we will get it right and, again, we

thank you for your testimony, your time, and your service. The record will stay open for 10 days. If members of the com- mittee who were unable to be with us today have questions, we

would appreciate your getting back to us. Otherwise, all the testimony today and the statements of our members will be put in the

record.

[Additional information submitted for the record follows:]

[A letter submitted for the record by Dale E. Anderson, President, Pennsylvania Forest Industry Association, follows:]

Mr. Doug Crandall, Director

House Resource Committee

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

The four attachments included here are the recent pleadings from the lawsuit be- fore the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, civil case #04-1466. This case was brought by the Allegheny Defense Project against the U.S. Forest

Service, Allegheny National Forest.

These types of cases consume a huge amount of resources from both the government and private sector.

They result in the destruction of the forest.

They wreck the local custom, culture, and economy.

63

These types of lawsuits are unfair to the local residents.

These types of lawsuits benefit only the non-profits who bring them against the government due to the effect of the Equal Access to Justice Act. A way needs to be found to curb this type of favoritism.

Please include these comments, and these attachments, in the record of the House

Resources Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health hearing as held on Wednesday, 27 April 2005.

Dale E. Anderson

President

Pennsylvania Forest Industry Association

415 Washington Street

Ridgway, Pennsylvania 15853

(814) 776-1883

NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.

[A statement submitted for the record by Michelle Dennehy, The Forest Foundation, follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by Michelle Dennehy, The Forest Foundation

GREATER REFORESTATION EFFORTS NEEDED SAY FOREST FOUNDATION,

FOREST SERVICE RETIREES

Call Comes as Nation Prepares to Mark Arbor Day on Friday, April 29

AUBURN, Calif., April 27, 2005—Forests on federally owned lands in California wiped out by wildfires are not being replanted quickly—or at all, in some cases—

putting ecosystems at risk from severe erosion and mudslides and depriving future

generations of forests, two groups said today. Nearly four years after fires burned more than 117,000 acres in California forests in 2001, a survey by The Forest Foundation found that only about 28 percent of severely burned forest land designated by the Forest Service for replanting has actually been replanted.

The National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) and The Forest

Foundation, an organization dedicated to educating the public about our forests,

today urged the Forest Service to speed replanting efforts to ensure forests for future generations.

‘‘As we celebrate National Arbor Day April 29, the Forest Service cannot do what

is necessary to ensure forests for future generations because their hands are tied

by burdensome regulations and a lack of funding,’’ said Dr. Tom Bonnicksen, a visiting scholar with The Forest Foundation and a professor emeritus of forest science

at Texas A&M University. ‘‘Rather than replanting trees, these once majestic forests

stand burnt and dead, and some are turning into brushfields.’’

‘‘Replanting is key to ensuring our state’s forests stand tall for generations to

enjoy,’’ said Doug Leisz, Chairman of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) who served as U.S. Forest Service Associate Chief from 1979-1982

and California’s Regional Forester from 1970-1978. ‘‘During my tenure with the

Forest Service, we actively replanted soon after fires, before competing brush took

over. The delays experienced by the Forest Service spell disaster for our future

forests.’’

The Forest Foundation’s survey found that of the 117,907 acres in California’s

forests burned in 2001, the Forest Service determined 30,372 acres of their land experienced a high-severity fire and needed replanting. The Forest Foundation surveyed results on 10,647 of these acres where information was available and found

that only 3,011 acres—or about 28 percent—had been replanted to date. Only 1,541

more acres are planned for replanting, meaning only about 43 percent of the area

identified as needing reforestation will ever be replanted.

While the Forest Service’s reforestation efforts focus only on high-severity burns

only, experts believe some moderately-burned areas also need active attention and

replanting, as many trees in these areas will also die.

Historically, natural, low-intensity wildfires helped create forest clearings and ecological conditions conducive to forest regeneration. But after a century of public

policy mandating fire suppression, and a lack of forest management practices that

reduce fuels, forests have grown overcrowded. The resulting buildup has led to

catastrophic wildfires in recent years—fires that often degrade soil quality and destroy forests so completely that regeneration likely will take hundreds of years.

64

‘‘These monster fires of extreme heat kill seed trees over vast areas, making

it difficult or impossible for living trees to spread seeds widely enough to

generate a new forest,’’ Dr. Bonnicksen said. ‘‘Meanwhile, other competitive

plants that thrive in post-fire environments, like manzanita, can quickly

overtake an area and delay regeneration of conifer trees for centuries.’’

These areas that cannot regenerate naturally need a helping hand, the Forest

Foundation found. But the Forest Service faces delays or obstruction of its efforts

to restore burned areas.

For example, the McNally Fire in 2002 burned more than 150,000 acres in the

Giant Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia and Inyo National Forests.

While the Forest Service found 8,400 acres of conifer forest needed replanting, only

4-5,000 acres are likely to ever be replanted. Almost three years after the fire, no

replanting has been accomplished to date due to delays caused by environmental

documentation requirements. The delay has allowed brush to overtake some areas.

In the Megram Fire of 1999, which burned 59,200 acres in the Six Rivers National

Forest, only 1,508 of the 3,000 acres the Forest Service planned to replant have, in

fact, been replanted. Portions of what was once a magnificent conifer forest of Douglas-firs and other trees are becoming brush.

While severely burned public lands haven’t been replanted, private forestland

owners quickly removed dead trees and fuels, using the value of the wood to fund

the replanting of a new forest. These private landowners replant in ways that enhance environmental values and accelerate forest regeneration.

After the 2000 Storrie fire in Plumas and Lassen Counties, local private land

manager W.M. Beaty and Associates removed dead trees and fuels on the 3,200

acres it managed that burned in the fire. Its reforestation efforts, including the

planting of nearly one million trees, were completed by 2004. Some trees in this

young, mixed conifer forest are now 4-5 feet tall.

In contrast, on public land at the Lassen National Forest, of the estimated 27,000

acres burned on the in the Storrie fire, only about 1,206 acres will be treated with

fuels removal efforts and only 230 acres will be replanted. More than four years

after the Storrie fire, only 171 acres have been replanted

‘‘Although some natural regeneration is occurring, Lassen and other

national forests are in need of active replanting,’’ said Doug Leisz. ‘‘Without

this replanting, generations of Californians stand to miss out on the forest

grandeur we now take for granted.’’

Note: Photos of forests turning to brush are available by contacting Michelle

Dennehy at The Forest Foundation, tel. 530 823 2363, email: md@calforests.org.

About The Forest Foundation

The Forest Foundation is a non-profit organization that strives to conserve our

forests and keep them healthy by sharing the knowledge of forestry experts with

the public. Based in Auburn, Calif., its programs include scientific research, community outreach, education programs, and forestry exhibits. For more information, visit

www.calforestfoundation.org.

About the National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR)

The National Association of Forest Service Retirees is a national, nonprofit organization of former Forest Service employees and associates who possess a unique

body of knowledge, expertise and experience in the management of the National

Forests and other forestland. NAFSR members strive to contribute to the understanding and resolving of natural resource issues through periodic review and critiques of agency policies and programs. For more information, visit http://

www.fsx.org/nafsrpg.html.

Contact:

Michelle Dennehy, The Forest Foundation

www.calforestfoundation.org or Email: md@calforests.org

tel. 530 823 2363, cell 530 320 6732

REPLANTING ON OUR NATIONAL FORESTS AFTER 2001 FIRES IN CALIFORNIA

Craater Fire

• Inyo National Forest

• 5,600 acres burned; 800 identified as needing reforestation

• Approx. 400 acres were replanted

• Obstacles: Remaining 400 aces located in Mono Basin Scenic Area and manager

decided not to replant by hand.

65

Darby Fire

• Stanislaus National Forest

• 14,288 acres burned; 2,096 acres identified as needing reforestation

• No replanting to date and none planned. Some natural regeneration occurred.

• Obstacles: No funding available.

Gap Fire

• Tahoe National Forest

• 2,462 acres burned; 1,100 acres identified as needing reforestation

• 1,020 acres planted to date; 80 more acres planned

Hyampom Fire

• Shasta-Trinity National Forest

• 1,065 acres burned; 172 acres identified as needing reforestation

• No acres planted to date; 121 acres planned

• Obstacles: Environmental planning process caused delay; sale of dead material

offered one year after fire was unsuccessful.

Highway Fire

• Sequoia National Forest

• 4,150 acres burned; 150 acres identified as needing reforestation

• 150 acres replanted

McLaughin Fire

• Inyo National Forest

• 2,407 acres burned; 150 identified as needing reforestation

• None replanted

• Obstacles: No seed stock available to plant. The area was also located on a

steep slope that would make replanting difficult.

Modoc Complex

• Several fires in Modoc National Forest

• 2,900 acres burned in Bell Fire, 332 acres identified as needing reforestation

• 186 acres replanted

• Obstacles: Survival of trees planted is questionable because site was not

prepped by removing dead trees and other fuels. Dead trees are likely to fall

on top of new seedlings over next decades, creating a hazardous fire situation.

Several removal sales attempted but wood had deteriorated and no longer held

value.

North Fork

• Sierra National Forest

• 4,132 acres burned; 430 acres identified as high-severity burned areas that

could be reasonably replanted. Many other acres received high-severity fire effects.

• Approx. 250 acres replanted where managers were able to remove dead trees

and fuel; another 70 acres planned over the next year. Of remaining acres, 130

likely to remain unplanted, as dead tree removal was delayed until material

worthless. Planting without fuels removal would create fire hazard.

Oregon Fire

• Shasta-Trinity National Forest

• 1,720 acres burned; 197 acres identified as needing reforestation

• 20 acres have been replanted; no other treatment planned.

• Obstacles: Planning process took 13 months to complete, during which value of

wood to fund removal and replanting was lost.

Sand Prescribed Burn

• Inyo National Forest

• 100 acres burned; 100 identified as needing reforestation

• 100 acres planted

Star Fire

• Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests

• On the Tahoe, where 9,500 acres burned, 5,000 acres identified as needing reforestation.

• 835 acres replanted to date; another 1,200 acres planned. Some natural regeneration occurring, though with white fir only in what was formerly a mixed

conifer forest.

66

• Obstacles: Removal of some trees was stalled by litigation, so the trees lost any

value to fund replanting efforts. Acres not replanted have too much fuel already

on the ground; competing brush, vegetation in area also problematic.

White Fire

• Stanislaus National Forest

• 120 acres need replanting

• 50 acres replanted to date; remaining 70 acres to be planted in 2006.

NOTE: Pictures attached to The Forest Foundation’s statement have been

retained in the Committee’s official files.

[A letter submitted for the record by George Sexton,

Conservation Director, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center,

follows:]

May 5, 2005

House Committee on Resources

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Re: Oversight Hearing on Reforestation on National Forests: A GAO Report on the

Increasing Backlog

Please accept these comments from the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center regarding reforestation efforts conducted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

pursuant to the Timbered Rock fire of 2002. We feel compelled to offer the following

comments to the Subcommittee in order to clarify, and refute, some of the contentions made by Mr. Ed Shepard, Assistant Director of Renewable Resources and

Planning for the BLM to this Committee on April 27, 2005. As the small non-profit

forest defense group that took the lead on the administrative protest and litigation

that ultimately halted the illegal Timbered Rock salvage logging, we have significantly different observations and thoughts regarding the actual relationship between salvage logging and reforestation than was presented to this committee by

the BLM.

We believe that it is important for this committee to know that while a federal

court halted the aggressive and illegal salvage logging at Timbered Rock, that BLM

restoration efforts in the burn area have proceeded has planned. It is inappropriate,

and inaccurate, for the BLM to imply to this committee that the court order preventing large-diameter (old-growth) logging in the Elk Creek Late-Successional Reserve somehow prevented the accomplishment of re-forestation efforts. Indeed the

BLM wrote an Environmental Assessment (EA Number OR ‘‘110-03-08) specifically

authorizing 6,600 acres of tree planting in the Timbered Rock burn area that was

separate and distinct from the proposal to log trees in the Reserve. The EA covering

reforestation was written, signed, and implemented months before the illegal Timbered Rock EIS was completed or litigated. The re-forestation EA was not subject

to administrative protest or litigation, and the BLM is free to implement all proposed tree-planting activities.

Were Restoration Activities Halted or Slowed at Timbered Rock?

No. Not in the slightest.

In November 2002, long before the Timbered Rock Logging EIS was complete, the

BLM issued the Timbered Rock Rehabilitation/Stabilization Environmental Assessment, authorizing thousands of acres of tree-planting in the project area. That Environmental Assessment was never protested, or appealed, and many of the rehabilitation efforts authorized in that EA were implemented with widespread community

support.

Further, upon release of the Timbered Rock Logging EIS, the BLM split the

project into several Records of Decision (RODs), which authorized various actions

across the forests. One of these RODs authorized road maintenance, road closures

and further tree planting. This ROD was not protested or litigated and the BLM

is free to implement it whenever the agency so desires.

Unfortunately, the activities authorized under the ‘‘restoration ROD’’ were mere

sideboards to the large-diameter (average 26 inches DBH) old-growth logging of the

Elk Creek Late-Successional ‘‘Reserve’’. By authorizing the proposed restoration activities in a separate decision from the ROD containing the destructive large-diameter logging, the BLM wisely allowed the less controversial portions of the project to

proceed without administrative or legal challenges. Yet Mr. Shepard inexplicably

told this Committee that litigation (preventing the logging of the reserve) ‘‘delayed

67

implementation of the salvage and other restoration activities.’’ The BLM is simply

wrong about this. Hopefully the BLM was not trying to mislead this committee.

The plaintiffs’ administrative protest and legal complaint, as well as Judge

Aiken’s ruling, all clearly state that the only activity being protested, or enjoined,

was the illegal Late-Successional Reserve logging of large diameter snags from the

‘‘reserve’’ proposed in the Flaming Rock and Smoked Gobbler timber sales. No restoration, or reforestation efforts for this project were ever administratively or legally

challenged. Most, if not all, of the restoration and reforestation activities outlined

in both the EA and the restoration ROD have already been implemented.

Why Was the Timbered Rock Salvage Logging EIS Litigated?

‘‘This EIS does not claim that there is an ecological benefit to salvage

logging.’’

Medford BLM, Timbered Rock FEIS at page 5-16.

Mr. Shepard’s testimony left out many salient facts regarding the proposed Timbered Rock salvage logging. In particular, no mention was made of the fact that all

of the proposed salvage logging would have occurred within forests set aside for protection as the Elk Creek Late Successional Reserve (LSR). These reserve lands were

protected by the Northwest Forest Plan, while other lands, known as the timber matrix, were identified as those forests in which logging, replanting and fiber production would play a dominant role. None of the lands proposed for logging in the Timbered Rock EIS were matrix logging lands. All of the lands proposed for logging in

the planning area were classified as Late-Successional Reserves. Nowhere in Mr.

Shepard’s testimony will you find reference to the term ‘‘Late Successional Reserve.’’

Indeed, the BLM is conspicuously silent as to the protective status that governs

management of this delicate watershed.

Other words that do not appear in Mr. Shepard’s testimony include the terms ‘‘deferred watersheds’’, ‘‘key watersheds’’ and ‘‘critical habitat.’’ While the BLM may not

wish to highlight these words, they are relevant in that the illegal Timbered Rock

salvage logging would have occurred within forests designated by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service as critical to the recovery of the Northern Spotted owl, found in watersheds that were designated as key to the maintenance of healthy salmon runs,

which were deferred from logging by the BLM due to the immense cumulative impacts from prior BLM logging and road construction activities in the watersheds.

Simply put, the Timbered Rock planning area is one of the most environmentally

sensitive, and protected, watersheds in Oregon. But for the Timbered Rock fire, the

BLM could not have proposed large-scale logging in this watershed. Please see the

photo attachment for an image of the cumulative effects of road building on the Elk

Creek watershed.

Plantations in the Planning Area Act as Fire Bombs

While there is no court order, law or regulation that prevents the BLM from creating more plantations in the Timbered Rock planning area, it might be wise for

the agency to avoid creating further tree plantations by its own volition.

Following the Timbered Rock fire, the Oregon Department of Forestry conducted

a damage appraisal report for Timbered Rock which found that 100% of the young

plantations burned with stand replacing intensity, while less than 10% of the big

old growth trees burned intensely. Stand mortality on the Medford BLM land that

was located in the nearby Biscuit fire showed very similar results to Timbered Rock

in that 81% of plantations and 33% of forested stands experienced moderate to high

burn severity according to the BLM (November 8, 2002 Press Release from BLM).

Unfortunately the BLM timber sales at both Biscuit and Timbered Rock targeted

the biggest trees while neglecting to thin the dense young fiber plantations. The average tree marked for logging in the Elk Creek Late-Successional Reserve was about

26-inches in diameter, over two feet wide. A 26-inch average DBH indicates that the

timber sale focuses exclusively on taking old-growth trees. Here in Southern Oregon,

the BLM contended in Medford Mail Tribune newspaper (Timber plan draws cheers,

jeers 2/11/04) that the focus of its logging at Timbered Rock ‘‘would be on smaller

trees, not the largest ones.’’ Unfortunately that statement was not reflected in the

actual logging prescription developed by the BLM. In fact, all of the 24 million board

feet of salvage at Timbered Rock would have come from snags over 16 inches in diameter. In other words, only the largest, most valuable wildlife snags were proposed

for logging. The smaller burned material will simply be left on site as a continuing

fire hazard.

We at the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS Wild) estimate that well over

500,000 acres of native old-growth forests in Southwest Oregon and Northern California have already been converted into small-diameter fiber plantations on our public lands. Similarly, the Medford BLM recently stated that over 770,000 acres of our

68

public forestlands contain trees less than 12 inches wide that could be thinned. It

is high time for the BLM to turn its focus toward managing those fiber plantations

that it has already planted, rather than continuing to convert large-diameter forests

into small-diameter fiber plantations.

BLM Math Tricks

For the committee to understand the complex and controversial issues surrounding post-fire management activities on federal lands, it is essential that you

be provided with accurate information from the federal land management agencies.

Unfortunately Mr. Shepard’s testimony relies on many figures that are simply not

accurate reflections of the BLM’s aggressive plans to log the Elk Creek LSR following the Timbered Rock fire.

Mr. Shepard submitted to the committee that the BLM intended to log ‘‘approximately 17 mmbf of burned, but still merchantable, timber on approximately 800

acres (8 percent of the burned area.’’ In fact the timber sale prospectus for the

Smoked Gobbler and Flaming Rock timber sales called for logging over 24 mmbf,

in order to assure that at least 17 mmbf made it to the mill. While the BLM may

choose to only ‘‘count’’ those trees that make it to the mill, it understates the impacts of the logging by refusing to disclose the actual amount of forest to be felled.

Mr. Shepard’s 800-acre figure is equally dubious. He neglects to mention to the

committee that the roadside-logging portion of the proposal would open up an additional 1,000 acres of the Elk Creek Late-Successional Reserve for salvage logging

on top of the 800 acres of ‘‘area salvage logging’’. Similarly, the 800-acre figure ignores the more than 2,500 acres of proposed green tree logging authorized by the

Timbered Rock EIS which is not defined as ‘‘salvage.’’ To contend that the Timbered

Rock timber sales would only impact 800 acres of small diameter trees is misleading

at best and dishonest at worst. In fact, the BLM is attempting to log the very largest burned trees and a significant number of unburned green trees within the oldgrowth reserve.

Compromise and Collaboration

Mr. Shepard neglected to inform the committee that approximately 6,000 acres of

privately owned industrial timber industry lands within the burn have been salvage

logged and are being managed exclusively for fiber production. Additionally, before

the burn the BLM had converted 5,400 acres of native forest within the Elk Creek

watershed into fiber plantations. Approximately 80% of forest stands in the area

have already been subjected to logging. The Elk Creek watershed has already done

more than its part to supply our nation’s wood fiber needs. Yet the BLM seems intent on proposed to log the remaining forests supposedly protected as a Late-Successional Reserve in a watershed that has experienced extreme cumulative impacts

from past logging activities.

Further large-diameter logging in this watershed would not provide ‘‘balance’’ nor

would it aid in BLM restoration activities. By attempting to blur the lines between

the controversial practice of salvage logging in a Late-Successional Reserve, with

the agency’s efforts to conduct re-planting and other restoration activities, the BLM

does the public, the forest, and this committee a disservice.

The BLM can help resolve the controversy surrounding post-fire management by

truly focusing its activities on restoration of burned stands and small-diameter

thinning of green stands, while abandoning its obsession with logging large trees

and snags within old-growth ‘‘reserves’’ located in sensitive watersheds. It is irresponsible of the BLM to use the forum provided for it by this committee to push

its old-growth logging agenda.

Sincerely,

George Sexton

Conservation Director

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

PO Box 102

Ashland, OR 97520

(541) 488-5789

Mr. WALDEN. And, with that, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ