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

86–218 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–930

DECLINE OF OAK POPULATIONS IN SOUTHERN

STATES CAUSED BY PROLONGED DROUGHT

AND THE RED OAK BORER INSECT

INFESTATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION AND

RURAL REVITALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 5, 2002

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

ZELL MILLER, Georgia

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan

BEN NELSON, Nebraska

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE, Minnesota

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho

MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director/Chief Counsel

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Chief Counsel for the Minority

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk

KEITH LUSE, Staff Director for the Minority

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

HEARING(S):

Decline of Oak Populations in Southern States Caused by Prolonged Drought

and the Red Oak Borer Insect Infestation ......................................................... 01

Thursday, September 5, 2002

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

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

Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization,

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ......................................... 01

Carnahan, Hon. Jean, a U.S. Senator from Missouri ........................................... 04

Crapo, Hon. Michael, a U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................................. 03

WITNESSES

Thompson, Tom, National Forest System Deputy Chief, accompanied by

Charles Richmon, Supervisor of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest ........ 06

Panel I

Crouch,‘‘Jim’’ James R., on behalf of the Ouachita Timber Purchasers Group,

Ozark-St. Francis Renewable Resource Council, Mark Twain Timber

Purchasers Group, and the American Forest and Paper Association .............. 21

Krepps, Robert L., Administrator, Forestry Division, Missouri Department

of Conservation ..................................................................................................... 23

Shannon, John T., State Forester of Arkansas, on behalf of the National

Association of State Foresters ............................................................................. 17

Simon, Scott, Director of Conservation, Arkansas Chapter, The Nature

Conservancy .......................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission .............................................................. 67

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 36

Crouch, ‘‘Jim’’, James R. .................................................................................. 78

Hutchinson, Hon. Tim ...................................................................................... 47

Krepps, Robert L. ............................................................................................. 84

Ozark Woodland Owners Association, Inc. ..................................................... 54

Shannon, John T. ............................................................................................. 70

Simon, Scott ...................................................................................................... 73

Thompson, Tom ................................................................................................ 42

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Project Proposal; Restoring Forest Ecosystem Health in the Wildland/

Urban Interface on the Bayou Ranger District - Ozark-St. Francis

National Forest ............................................................................................. 88

Senate Agriculture Subcommittee to Hold Hearing Examining Oak Tree

Mortality, News from U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln ................................. 109

(1)

DECLINE OF OAK POPULATIONS IN

SOUTHERN STATES CAUSED BY

PROLONGED DROUGHT AND THE RED OAK

BORER INSECT INFESTATION

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002

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

REVITALIZATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in room

SR–328-A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln,

Chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Lincoln, Hutchinson, and Crapo.

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, CHAIRWOMAN,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND

RURAL REVITALIZATION, AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM

ARKANSAS

Senator LINCOLN. The Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization will be called to

order.

I would like to thank all of you for coming this morning to talk

about the forest health problem that is really ravaging the entire

Ozark Highlands. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that the House

Committee is having a hearing this very morning as well, with Secretary Veneman and Norton testifying about the health of our forests is indicative of the fact that we do have a problem and that

people are beginning to see in their own States some of the incredible concerns that we have over the health of our forest.

Again, I would like to thank all of you all for joining us. Senator

Carnahan, we are delighted that you are here, as well.

I am going to begin with my opening statement and then pass

it over to Senator Crapo. Thanks for coming, Senator Crapo.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Senator LINCOLN. I appreciate all that you do.

The health of this Nation’s forest, both private and public, is in

the forefront of our minds. We have the seemingly annual fires

throughout the West, forest insects and disease outbreaks throughout the Nation, and now the prospect of losing all of the oaks in

the Ozarks. The situation is particularly pronounced in my home

2

State of Arkansas and throughout the Ozark Highlands of Missouri

and Oklahoma.

Growing up in Arkansas and traveling through the Ozark Mountains, I have become accustomed to seeing a very vibrant oak and

pine forest. However, we are now finding large brown bare patches

developing among the trees, an all too vivid indication of the epidemic of oak decline and the mortality sweeping through the Ozark

Highlands.

Oak decline is a natural occurrence in older forest or in areas

where trees are stressed by things such as old age, overpopulation

of the forest, poor soil conditions, or the effects of several years of

severe drought. Under normal conditions, oak decline is not necessarily fatal to the trees or to the forest.

However, these conditions have allowed insects such as the red

oak borer to flourish throughout the forest and has led to an epidemic of oak mortality throughout our forests. In fact, many estimates now suggest that potentially up to one million acres of red

oaks have been affected in the Ozark Highlands, and it is important to note that this epidemic has not been long in coming. It was

only first discovered in the late 1990’s. I am concerned that this

epidemic will lead to a complete loss of red oak from the Ozark

Highlands and cause long-term changes to the health of the forest

ecosystem.

It is also important to remember that the epidemic has not been

limited to just public land. Private forest landowners and homeowners throughout the Ozarks face the same problem.

The past several years of extremely dry summer conditions have

weakened trees throughout our region. We are going to discuss this

morning the extent of this epidemic in Arkansas as well as what,

if anything, we can do to mitigate the effect this is having on our

forest ecosystem.

Left unchecked, this epidemic of oak mortality could completely

rob the Ozark Highlands of our oak forest and have effects on everything from our timber industry to forest tourism, wildlife populations, as well as causing extreme fire danger. We all too readily

remember the fuel left on the floor of our forest after our ice storm

of a couple of years ago.

The Arkansas delegation has worked together before to respond

to disasters within our forest and I expect this to continue as we

address this new epidemic. Most recently, we worked to gain directly finding, as well as an exemption from NEPA, to aid mitigation efforts following that massive ice storm I just mentioned.

We are also in the midst of debating the Interior Appropriations

Bill on the floor this week and one of the topics being debated is

that of the forest health and how to address and hopefully mitigate

against the problem of fire, insect, and disease. Many of us here

have worked for some time on drafting provisions that would hopefully allow us to quickly address these problems and I hope we will

be successful.

I also believe that the president echoed this sentiment during

August and it is good to have the Administration’s full support in

this endeavor.

Through our witness testimony this morning I hope to gain a full

grasp of the extent of oak mortality in the Ozarks, what the full

3

effects of this epidemic will be, as well as what can be done to mitigate against it.

I would like to yield now to our ranking member on the subcommittee, a good friend and colleague both in the House and here

in the Senate, and someone I have certainly enjoyed working with,

to make any opening remarks. Senator Crapo.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO. A U.S. SENATOR

FROM IDAHO

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator Lincoln.

I appreciate your holding this hearing and certainly agree with

your comments about the need we have to address forest management in a proper manner and the opportunity we will have in the

next few days to do so.

I appreciate your hearing this hearing. Oak mortality is an important discussion and it is timely to be discussing the forest

health, as you said, as the Senate considers the Interior Appropriations Bill, and the repercussions of an unmanaged forest.

I just want to take a few moments to mention the concerns we

have in Idaho. Although it will not be with the same species, this

is a very similar issue, just to show that this is not just a local

issue, one part of a regional issue, one part of the country.

Oak decline in the Ozarks Highlands reflects many of the problems we face across this country. The contribution to the fuel load,

the impact it will have on recreational opportunities, the effect on

wildlife and the repercussions to local economies are all repercussions of the oak.

We do not have the red oak in Idaho and so we do not have the

red oak borer in Idaho. We do have the Douglas fir and the Douglas fir bark beetle and the mountain pine beetle for the pines. The

outbreaks of these insect infestations follow much the same course

as the red oak borer.

In Idaho, we went from 33,000 acres affected in 1996 to 122,000

acres in 2000. The trees stressed by drought, root disease, and

other insects increased the susceptibility of even healthy trees to

these beetles, which then leads to epidemic populations.

In another similarity, loss of the Western white pine and the risk

that it poses to Idaho’s forest is a potential outcome with the red

oaks in the Ozarks. Like red oaks, the Western white pine is an

economically, environmentally desirable species. The white pine,

which by the way is Idaho’s State tree, once dominated the forest

ecosystems in the Northwest. Passive and inactive management

have resulted in a dramatic decline in the abundance of this pine.

In 70 years, we have lost 90 percent of this important species.

The combination of factors that decimated the white pine has resulted in a species shift where the Douglas fir and other less fire

resistant species have increased in abundance. This shift to a more

densely populated species, compounded by the overgrowth, has resulted in a change to the ecosystem that lends itself to increasingly

high risks.

The United States has seen that the loss of the Western white

pine and its replacement by less desirable species has had on the

economic impact in rural communities. Wildlife loses habitat and

4

increased catastrophic wildfires, and similar outcomes could be the

result of the decline of the oaks in the South.

I want to show a map just very quickly. This map is 2 years old.

The red on this map is probably more intense today, if a current

map were to be provided. This Forest Service risk map from 2000

shows that 70 million acres of forest land are at risk of mortality

from insect and disease. It is more distressing when you consider

the fact that about one-third of our nation’s land is composed of forest, as is shown by the gray. Yet, that red is taking over and is

growing every year.

This is an issue that touches Americans in every walk of life. Already this year, we’ve seen 6.3 million acres affected by wildfires

and the suppression costs are reaching $1 billion. This devastation

follows the 2,000 fire season where 8.4 million acres burned with

a suppression cost of $1.36 billion.

Sadly, these costs and these outcomes were not unexpected. Fires

are a natural part of a healthy ecosystem and provide numerous

benefits. In an unhealthy forest, these fires can burn with an intensity and size that is destructive with all of the impacts that we

have previously discussed. They also present a significant safety

risk and cause economic loss that hits most communities very, very

hard.

Madame Chairman, I have more that I would like to submit for

the record, but I would just like to tell you that I look forward to

an interesting discussion with regard to these witnesses that we

have today and hopefully gain a better perspective on the level of

the problem we have.

I can certainly tell you that we, in Idaho and in the Pacific

Northwest, though we do not have the same species and the same

insects, certainly share your concerns and hope that we will be able

to work together to find a common solution to the problem for the

entire country.

[The prepared statment of Senator Crapo can be found in the appendix on page 36.]

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Without a doubt,

we all recognize that not only do we have forest health issues in

Arkansas but Idaho, Montana and California have some real difficult problems that they are going through.

We are hoping that today’s hearing will bring to light not only

the critical problems that our forests across the country are facing,

but some of the ideas and the ways that we can look to mitigate

some of those problems.

Senator Carnahan has requested to testify before the committee

this morning, and we are delighted that she is here. She and I are

both aware of this problem that this epidemic has caused in both

of our states.

We are very pleased to have you before the committee, Senator

Carnahan.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN CARNAHAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

MISSOURI

Senator CARNAHAN. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman,

and I thank you for your leadership in convening this hearing, and

5

certainly Senator Crapo for his words and his commitment to this

problem, as well.

As you know, oak decline is a serious issue in Missouri. I want

to thank you for inviting Robert Krepps, Missouri’s Chief Forester,

to testify today. He has been working hard to manage oak decline

in Missouri for many years. I believe his testimony will be valuable

to this subcommittee.

Although we cannot outwit Mother Nature and halt oak decline,

by working together we can at least mitigate its impact. Mismanagement of our forests many decades ago is the prime culprit

behind the thousands of dead trees that we see today.

Fortunately, we now know how to prevent the mistakes of the

past. A diversity of trees is integral to good forest management in

Missouri’s Ozarks. Although beautiful and stately in their own

right, it is clear that oaks must share the forest with other species

of trees.

Today’s foresters and responsible land stewards have the capability to manage our woodlands in a sustainable and profitable manner. When they do, wildlife, jobs and natural beauty are all protected.

Beyond learning from the past, we must also plan for the future.

Action taken today will determine what our forest will look like at

the turn of the century. A comprehensive and immediate response

to oak decline is essential to Missouri and other states’ suffering.

I am pleased that several government agencies and other stakeholders have taken important steps to access and respond to the

decline. We must make sure that public agencies and private stewards of the land share best management practices. The need for a

coordinate response between State, local and Federal agencies

working closely with the private sector cannot be overemphasized.

In Missouri the Department of Interior, the U.S. Forest Service,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources, the Missouri Department of Conservation, and

several other agencies manage land affected by oak decline. In addition, 85 percent of Missouri’s 14 million forested acres are owned

by the private sector. We must acknowledge and cultivate the private sector that is so essential in forest management.

Government agencies must also be a party to and not a hindrance in these efforts. Missouri’s 500 sawmills and over 34,000

jobs that depend on the wood industry are now being jeopardized

by oak decline. Sadly, a majority of these jobs are in counties that

do not share in the prosperity of the 1990’s. Many of these counties

have unemployment rates among the highest in the State. We must

do all we can to protect these jobs in our rural areas. This hearing

is certainly an excellent step.

My home is in the Missouri Ozarks, an area that is unparalleled

in beauty and serenity. In fact, as I look at these photos displayed

here today, I feel very much at home. They could have been taken

anywhere on the land on which I live in Phelps County, Missouri.

Our stately forests are blemished by thousands of acres of dead

oak trees that mar the landscape. The decline of our oaks threatens

one of Missouri’s most vibrant industries, tourism. Families from

across Missouri and the world vacation in Missouri because of our

scenic outdoors. They come to enjoy our clean streams, our lush forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:32 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086218 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 86218.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
6

ests, and abundant recreational opportunities. Sportsmen rely on

the acorn-lined forest of the Missouri Ozarks to supply food for

deer and turkey and game species.

Declining oak populations will almost surely lead to profound

changes in wildlife populations. Responding to and changes in wildlife population is key to Missouri’s tourism industry and rural lifestyle. Thousands of Missourians rely on tourism dollars for their

livelihood. Tourism contributes $12.5 billion to Missouri’s economy

every year. These jobs, like those in the wood industry, must be

protected.

I look forward to reviewing the testimony of today’s hearing and

I hope that the experts that you have convened will help us to understand what must be done to promote the long-term health of our

forests. Missouri’s picturesque and bountiful forests are among our

State’s most precious resources. Their protection is worthy of our

best efforts.

Again, thank you, Madame Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Senator Carnahan. We appreciate

you bringing not only the interest of the people of Missouri, but

your personal experiences as well. That is very important.

I know that the committee welcomes you behind the dais, if you

would like to join us, if you have time that permits.

Senator CARNAHAN. I may have to go, but thank you.

Senator LINCOLN. Absolutely. We appreciate it. Thank you very

much, Senator Carnahan.

Senator Carnahan mentioned there are so many different aspects

of how this epidemic affects our forests and other very important

things that come from our forests, not just the forest itself but the

acorn crops and the wildlife that are supported. Even those that

are passing through. I know in Arkansas we support a tremendous

population of neo-tropical migratory birds that come through and

use our forests as a stopping over place.

We are happy to welcome our first panel of witnesses this morning. We begin with Tom Thompson, who is the Deputy Chief of the

U.S. Forest Service and Charles Richmond, who is the Supervisor

of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas.

I understand that Mr. Thompson will deliver the oral testimony

and then both of you will be available to answer questions; is that

correct? Great. We look forward to your testimony. Mr. Thompson.

STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

DEPUTY CHIEF, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES RICHMOND,

SUPERVISOR OF THE OZARK-ST. FRANCIS NATIONAL

FOREST

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Madame Chairman and members of

the subcommittee. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before

you this morning. I am Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, Forest Service. I am here today to provide

the Administration’s comments on the oak mortality situation in

Arkansas.

Accompanying me is Charles Richmond who is the Forest Supervisor on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest.

7

Certainly, as has already been spoken of this morning, the health

of some of our forest and rangelands are deteriorating and they are

stressed to the point that insects, disease and wildfire kill literally

millions of acres of trees each year.

In response, Federal, State, tribal, and local governments are

making concerted efforts to restore our forests and rangelands to

healthy conditions. These efforts include reforestation, restoring

fish and wildlife habitat, revegetating riparian areas, thinning, and

prescribed burning.

Additionally, the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative will further existing efforts and establish a framework for protecting communities and the environment through local collaboration and restoration projects. The Initiative would provide for active forest

management, including removal of diseased and infested trees,

thinning of forests to reduce fire risk, biomass removal and utilization and other tools that will meet long-term ecological, economic,

and community objectives.

The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative will also help to expedite active forest management activities which are often complicated by procedural delays and litigation. It will allow us to effectively maintain healthy forests and address forest health problems, including oak mortality in the Ozark/Ouachita Highlands in

Arkansas, and do this in a timely manner.

Forest Service surveys indicate that oak mortality has impacted

well over 1 million acres of oak forest in the Ozark/Ouachita Highlands of Arkansas. Factors such as advanced age, steep mountain

slopes, poor rocky soil conditions, and overstocked forests set the

stage for oak mortality. Drought and defoliation add additional

stresses to the trees.

Secondary agents such as insects and disease attack highly

stressed trees that eventually succumb and die. In Arkansas’ episode of oak mortality, several years of extreme drought and unprecedented population of red oak borer beetles contribute to that problem. The mortality is not associated with the pathogen that causes

sudden oak death that was originally found in California and Oregon.

Preliminary data from the Ozark/St. Francis National Forest

suggests that as many as half of the red oaks on National Forest

System lands are currently dead or dying. The increased amount

of dead trees results in excessive fire danger, increased threats to

life and property, and compounds other forest health problems.

The Ozark/St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas is severely

impacted with over 300,000 acres of the forest’s 1.2 million acres

affected. The Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas, the Mark

Twain National Forest in Missouri are affected as well, but to a

lesser degree.

The impact on private lands, which constitute 78 percent of the

forested area in the interior highlands, is thought to be less severe

and much more difficult to estimate.

Mortality of Northern red, black, and Southern red oaks became

particularly evident in 1999 following 2 years of severe drought.

White oaks, hickories, and other species are affected as well, but

to a lesser degree.

8

A third year of drought in 2000 greatly made the problem more

complex and mortality increased. Oak borer populations have exploded to unprecedented levels in the past 5 years. In 2001, limited

sampling in Arkansas found an average of over 400 insects per

tree. These numbers are vastly greater than any numbers previously recorded, which were four to six insects per tree.

You can see by the oak bore here how devastating that can be,

when they get that number of trees.

Oaks are extremely important to this part of the country. Ecologically, the oaks are a source of food for squirrels and bear and

turkey and deer. A lot of non-game animals, small mammals and

birds depend on acorns for food.

Economically, the red oaks are a highly desirable hardwood species used for furniture, cabinets, flooring and other building

projects. Widespread loss of red oaks could severely impact the social fabric of the Ozark Highlands through job losses, reduced game

populations, scenic quality, and tourism opportunities.

According to forest inventory data in the recent Ozark/Ouachita

Highlands assessment, 25 percent of the board foot volume in the

interior highlands is red oak, a total volume of something like 13.8

billion board feet. In timber terms alone, the dollar value of trees

at risk exceeds $1.1 billion.

We have a strategy in place that has been worked on from an

interagency standpoint, the State and Federal organizations. That

strategy includes five key components: public safety, public awareness, inventory assessment, management strategies for prevention

and suppression and restoration and research.

In looking at the situation overall, I guess the short-term challenges are certainly to provide for the safety of forest users and create a healthy environment for future forests to grow and flourish.

Oaks thrive in a forest that is managed, one that is free from excessive fuels, that incorporates natural and manmade activities in

order to sustain healthy ecosystems.

The long-term challenges that we face include development and

implementation of strategic management actions founded on sound

science that will result in healthy, resilient forests for generations

to come. We are working to address both the short and the longterm challenges and will be able to do so even more effectively and

efficiently under the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative.

This concludes my statement and Mr. Richmond and I would be

happy to respond to any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found in the

appendix on page 42.]

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, your complete

statement will be included in the record. We appreciate it very

much, and we appreciate your service.

I want to particularly say how much we appreciate what Mr.

Richmond does in Arkansas. He does a fine job and he is great to

work with.

In your long service in the Forest Service, Mr. Thompson, have

you ever seen a forest health issue as bad. Is this oak mortality

epidemic evident in other parts of the country? How are they similar?

9

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, it is certainly a classic example of all the

factors coming together at the wrong time. The age of trees, site

conditions, and the extreme drought and the conditions brought on

tremendous explosion in populations. It is not uncommon when you

get a very mature forest, and one that is not able to withstand the

kind of stress that exists here.

Certainly, in the National perspective, this red oak borer, but

more importantly just the entire oak decline, is one that is tremendously troubling. It is very similar, however, to the stress that Senator Crapo was alluding to with regard to whether it is the mountain pine beetle or the spruce bark beetle or the Douglas fir, where

you get conditions where trees are stressed, you get drought, and

you get very mature trees, you get these kinds of outbreaks.

Senator LINCOLN. When I first came into Congress in 1992, we

both came into the House in the same year, in 1992, I remember

one of my first official tours of the national forest in Arkansas, and

I took my father along, who knew every tree and every trail and

every inch of that forest. When we got back I asked him, I said did

they show us all of it? Did they show us everything we needed to

see?

He said well, they showed you most of it. There are a few things

that you did not see that you probably should have. He said but

what so many people do not understand is that the forest, although

it is beautiful and there are some healthy—and as you mentioned

the age of the trees—some old stately trees, he said a hundred

years ago this was pastureland. If you want to keep it healthy and

you want to keep the forest growing and healthy, and you want to

maintain those stately trees and you want to maintain them consistently, you must manage the forest.

That is something that is important for us to look at at this

point, as we are seeing the age of these trees consistently reaching

the same situation. Like you said, almost a textbook situation of all

of these conditions coming together at one time. We have to be very

cognizant of that.

The severe oak decline, it is not just a disaster waiting to happen.

Over a million acres of red oaks will be impacted just during this

year throughout just Arkansas and Missouri.

Can you give us an indication of how the National Forest Service, on a national level, is going to make oak mortality a priority?

Mr. THOMPSON. The challenge that we have at this stage is the

state of the forest and the epidemic is so advanced and so great,

the most important thing that we can do is provide the public safety, to make sure that people are aware of the problem and understand the problem, to look at management strategies that will

allow us to treat those acres where we can do removal of trees. The

area is so large that it is obvious that you cannot treat it all.

Then there are some research questions that need to be answered and continue to look at these factors and how they interplay. Certainly it takes a tremendous amount of interagency cooperation and work. Prioritizing our efforts, though, our principal

focus is on public safety, making sure that we remove those trees

that present a hazard to campgrounds, homes, highways, trails,

10

those kinds of things. The trees, when they get that kind of riddling in them, are very weakened and certainly do pose a threat.

In the longer term, the approach that we have to take, and this

is not unique to Arkansas but across the country, is to remember

the role of management and active management in the treatment

of our forests. We probably have better science, better information,

more knowledge and more professional ability to do active management then we ever have done, and do it in an environmentally sensitive way.

Where we have failed to do that over time, or conditions have extremely worsened, we find ourselves behind the curve. You just

cannot catch up with it in a couple of years. What happened in the

last four or 5 years in Arkansas is an example that we should learn

from and we should be looking for places where we can prevent

that from happening.

At this stage, what we can do is just basically deal with the situation as best we can and try to restore oak where we can, and

make sure that in the longer term it is a part of the ecosystem.

Senator LINCOLN. Well, I go back to my first question, and that

is have you ever seen anything that has happened as rapidly or as

quickly? Your answer there indicates that these things have happened very quickly and it is something that we have to make sure

that we do not let happen again.

Mr. THOMPSON. Tremendous impact, tremendous devastation.

Senator LINCOLN. Mr. Richmond, just a couple of very quick

questions. When were the conditions of the oak decline first detected on our national forest?

Mr. RICHMOND. About 1999, we noticed that we had approximately about 20,000 acres and we called our entomologists and experts in and we talked a lot about oak borers and oak mortality.

At the time, we thought that we would continue to lose some trees

but it would not be this significant.

In 2001, 2 years later, we had over 500,000 acres on the Ozark

National Forest. As you said, it did spread very quickly. Hopefully,

we are sort of peaked out. We have had a very wet summer and

hopefully we can get around this thing in the next few years and

at least slow it down. We probably can.

Senator LINCOLN. If we assume that the root problem is too

many trees per acre, what do we need to actually restore the ecosystem to a healthy condition? What progress do you think that we

could expect on that?

Mr. RICHMOND. As Deputy Chief Thompson mentioned, we do

have a strategy that has five elements. I can prioritize those very

quickly for you that will answer that question.

No. 1 is the public education. We just have to have public acceptance for management on the Ozark National Forest. We will spend

a lot of time during the next few years working with our public,

taking them on tours, showing them the situation and what we

plan to do. That is critical.

Safety, we have 1,800 miles of roadways that have thousands of

standing dead oak trees that will fall across those roads, will be a

safety hazard. We have hundreds of miles of recreation trails, dozens of recreation campgrounds, picnic areas. We are going to work

11

very hard in the next few years to try to take those trees down and

reduce that safety hazard.

Then probably more to answer your question, our management

strategies to restore the oak forest. There are a number of things

that we must do in the next few years. One is to remove some of

those standing dead oak trees out in the forest to allow light to the

ground, so that oaks can grow and replace the dead stands.

Then thinnings. We need to get out ahead of this epidemic, out

in areas where we do not have oak borer, and thin those forests

so they are healthier and can withstand an insect attack. They can

compete better for moisture and be healthier. We have to do those

thinnings out in the areas that are not affected now.

We also need to get our age class distribution out on the forest

more evenly distributed. Currently we have 60 percent of our forest

that is 80 years or older. That is not a healthy situation. We need

some more of the forest in earlier age classes.

Prescribed fire is a tool that we have to increase greatly on the

forest. Currently, we are burning about 30,000 acres a year. That

probably needs to be up around the 100,000 acre a year mark, so

that we can reduce the competition of those other species so that

the oaks can get a head start and replace those dead trees.

Then we are going to have several thousand acres of actual

planting of red oaks that we will have to do, although that is very

costly and we will not be able to do that except on the more productive sites.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you very much. Senator Crapo.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln.

Mr. Thompson, in your testimony you indicated that there was

something like a billion dollars in value at risk here in the oak forests. You also, both of you, have stress the importance of active

management in the forest. Senator Lincoln indicated that one of

the problems is too many trees per acre.

The question that I have with regard to that is there are groups

who believe—at least out in the West, and I assume they would

have the same position in the South, that we should not do anything in the forest, that we should not log the forest period.

The question I have is does this notion of active management or

the management strategy that you are talking about for the red

oak, does it include logging?

Mr. THOMPSON. Most certainly. From the standpoint of removing,

whether it is for fire or for insect and disease, and they are many

times, unfortunately, connected. When you have insect and disease,

you have dead material and then you have a fire hazard which is

just much greater than it was before. If you do not remove material

in some way, you always will have the fire risk, and that is virtually across the entire country.

Getting the amount of biomass down so that when you do have

a fire, a natural fire occurs, that the intensity of that fire does not

damage the site so that you lose productivity over decades and decades and decades, you have to remove the amount of material that

is on the ground.

That, in turn, adds to what the Forest Supervisor was talking

about, with regard to allowing the diversity of ages to come in,

which hence creates more of a self-protective mechanism in the forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:32 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086218 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 86218.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
12

est, to where younger trees withstand the attacks. You may lose

some old trees, but there is not enough old trees that it carries the

kind of epidemic that we are seeing here.

Those kinds of systems are the same in pine stands all across the

West. It is using the tools that we have, recognizing that you are

not going to do it every place. Certainly where you have high value

for scenic, high value for harvesting of a product where we have

very suitable ground, it is very important to manage with all of the

tools that you have. Mechanical treatment, whether it be commercially or through stewardship contracts and other ways, is an approach that we need to take.

Senator CRAPO. Does the extent of the harvesting or the thinning

that you were talking about here, for management purposes, for

the health of the forest and for the safety concerns, does that allow

for viable economic benefit to the private sector in terms of those

who would come in and conduct the thinning and the management

activities? In other words, is there another objective that can be

achieved here? Or are we talking about such a small scale that it

really does not matter economically?

Mr. THOMPSON. When you look at these factors, the key is a sustained program, a sustained program. That is the key as far as prevention, as well. It does not do any good to throw a lot of effort to

it for a few years and then let it get out of balance again.

From an economic standpoint, the tools that we have and the

needs that we have to use people that can remove material and

make a marketable product out of it, you have to sustain that over

a long period of time. If you cannot come up with a program that

goes on for years and years and years, then you have not got a viable program or a solution.

You lose the capability to treat, too. There is only so many ways

to do it and you need to sustain those folks that do that work.

Senator CRAPO. In the current debate that we are having here

in Washington, there are some who are saying well OK, if we need

to get in and do some management in the forests, then we should

do it just in the areas around the urban communities to protect

them from the fire risk.

I personally believe that that ignores the much broader issues

that we are talking about here, but I would like to get your opinion

on that. This issue is not just limited to areas close to urban communities, is it?

Mr. THOMPSON. The insect and disease problems certainly do not.

From a fire standpoint, obviously there are priority areas where

you can treat, through that wildland/urban interface. The issue

still goes beyond that. If you have to prioritize where you would

treat first, certainly for fire purposes, it would be in the wildland/

urban interface.

Again, there are other issues as well. Watersheds, huge watersheds and domestic watersheds go quite a long ways from the

wildland/urban interface and are very important to protect, as well.

Senator CRAPO. I would like to take time to ask one more question, if I could.

Senator LINCOLN. Absolutely.

Senator CRAPO. About 2 years ago I went into an Idaho forest

with our forest supervisor and they showed me an infestation of

13

several different things. There was an insect infestation as well as

a disease that was hitting the trees. In this particular section of

the forest, the Forest Service was proposing some thinning activities that would need to be conducted to help address these disease

and insect infestation problems.

A thinning sale proposal was put forward and went through a

very extensive public process where concerns were brought forward, the proposal was modified several times. Then it was let out.

It was then immediately challenged in court.

I went into that same forest with the forest supervisor again just

a month or so ago. Nothing has happened there. The forest is in

even worse condition, it is more of a red spot on this map now.

What happened was that the litigation was brought by people

who did not participate in the whole process, as the whole plan and

proposal was being developed and put together. Issues were raised

that had never been raised before.

About 90 percent of the proposal was approved by the court, but

there were a few procedural things that were really—the Forest

Service was willing to drop them to get on with it, but they were

sent back to handle. They just decided to drop the whole thing because now it was too late.

Even though there pretty much was no problem, even after the

court review, with what they were doing, the management in this

particular case did not occur and the forest is now being lost. There

are things we are going to be able to do hopefully, but they do not

know really what to do because they are going to get in the same

cycle again.

My question is is there a solution that you can see to this problem? What can we, as policymakers, do to help us get past this litigation paralysis that we face today?

Mr. THOMPSON. The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative will

identify a number of those areas legislatively. There also are a

number of things that we can do administratively. Ultimately it

comes back to again what the Forest Supervisor was talking about

with regard to public awareness and understanding of these issues.

We are in a world where choices need to be made and there are

consequences to those choices. The fire season of this year and the

past year, as we have seen the consequences of some choices that

were made that maybe were not the right choices. We have had

devastating losses. We have had loss of life, tremendous loss of resource and tremendous loss of capability to product clean water

and wildlife and recreation.

The solution is building the public awareness and support for active management. The national forest public lands across this country, whether they be State, Federal or local, as I said before, we

have tremendous scientific knowledge. We have tremendous capability professionally to manage. It is a time to try to pull together

and understand that in the public interest, some choices need to be

made. Active management is one of those.

Building the kind of support that we need is going to take some

time, rebuilding some trust, and understanding the consequences.

In Arkansas, you have a very visible evidence of the consequences

of not being aware of the situation overall, and everybody looking

14

at it and loving the beauty for years but not recognizing the consequences of not doing something in some places.

Obviously, disturbance elements are going to continue in our forest. There are disturbance systems. With the knowledge we have,

there are things we can do about it. That is what the Healthy Forest Initiative is all about, and we certainly look forward to working

with the Senate and the House in trying to come to some better

futures I guess, and better approaches in how we deal with the

very problem that you have explained.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Senator Crapo.

Just to build on his question, I have read through the President’s

Healthy Forest Initiative and many of the points that you make

and that are made in that initiative are points that have been

championed by many of us here in Congress for some time. Knowing how long it does take us to get legislation passed here, we do

not work at breakneck speeds oftentimes.

You talk about parts of the initiative that the Administration can

accomplish without the passage of new laws. I am assuming you

mean this educational process, of better awareness that can be

brought to the public. How much of that has been started? Really

what parts of that will help our oak mortality problem in the

Ozarks? I mean, are we too far gone? What type of educational initiatives have you started and how quickly are they going to be in

place?

Mr. THOMPSON. In addition to the education, there are a lot of

other things we can do administratively that will help with the

problem.

Senator LINCOLN. Without requiring us to pass laws.

Mr. THOMPSON. Right, but there are elements on both sides that

would be helpful. Administratively, looking at streamlining of our

procedures and the Chief of the Forest Service spoke up here

months ago about process, predicament and how we can move

through some of those process. Through streamlined processes on

an interdepartmental interagency manner, so that we do not spend

all of our money and all of our energy just going in circles on process, whether that be for a National Environmental Policy Act, trying to figure out ways to do consultation on the Endangered Species Act better and more efficiently, looking at ways to streamline

those processes are probably some of the greatest ones.

One of the other areas that we can do better at is improving our

ability to manage complexity in projects at the ground level, of

helping our managers to understand when you have enough information to make a decision and get on with making decisions in a

more timely basis.

One that I talk about an awful lot is the prevention side. Prevention of more process, looking and examining everything that we do

to make sure that we do not already have that information. We

have a perpetual kind of just keep adding more and more to that,

and that is very, very difficult.

The public awareness is one that uses the examples that are

showing up in Arkansas and Idaho, using the examples that we see

from the fires of this summer, and understanding the connectivity

between what we do and what the result of that is the public can

15

understand that. The public understands it better today than they

did before the 2000 fire season. They understand it better this year

than they did even after that.

Senator LINCOLN. Is the streamlining of those processes within

the Agency, that is currently occurring?

Mr. THOMPSON. We are working very hard. We have been for several years on some of those. We have stepped up our efforts and

we are focusing on it very intensely right now to overcome some

of those process issues.

Senator LINCOLN. Mr. Richmond, I know you will understand the

educational part of that, which if it has not already occurred, will

occur rapidly in Arkansas. Our home state university is up in the

Northwest corner of our state and everyone travels to the football

games and they go through the Ozark Forest. It is part of the joy

of going to the football game is seeing the trees and the forest on

their way to the university.

I am sure that we are already bracing ourselves in the office for

the calls we are going to get about what they see in comparison to

what they have seen over the past couple of years. Some of that

education will happen whether we initiate it or not.

I am aware, Mr. Richmond, of the press release that you put out

last week, detailing that you are beginning a program to remove

infested oak trees within the Ozark National Forest that pose an

immediate hazard to health and welfare of visiting public. Mr.

Thompson has mentioned that obviously safety was the very first,

and you had mentioned that as well.

Have you already seen an impact to the forest tourism in Arkansas?

What should we be telling the traveling public who venture out

into our forest?

Mr. RICHMOND. I do not know that we have had a great reaction

from the visiting public yet. We probably will have that as these

trees definitely begin to fall and are blocking highways and that

sort of thing. We need just to be telling the public that there are

consequences to management and——

Senator LINCOLN. Or lack of.

Mr. RICHMOND. Or lack of. As the Deputy Chief mentioned, we

have an excellent opportunity, an excellent demonstration to be

able to show people that.

Senator LINCOLN. I know in our particular instance, the red oak

borer is a 2-year cycle, so we talk about how quickly this has happened, and I am assuming we will also see how quickly some of

that destruction and some of those safety problems will occur as

those red oak borer, go into cycle in 2003 again, do they not?

Mr. RICHMOND. The insects will emerge from the trees in 2003.

At that time, we do not know whether the epidemic has slowed or

is continuing and is——

Senator LINCOLN. Or is escalating. Thank you.

Did you have any further questions?

Senator CRAPO. No, I do not have any further questions.

Senator LINCOLN. We are delighted to have been joined by my

colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, if you would like to

ask some questions of our panel or make a statement or however

you want to proceed.

16

Senator HUTCHINSON. Why do we not just continue. I apologize

for being tardy. We had a meeting on Iraq at the Pentagon and

that is the only thing I would have missed this for. Just go ahead.

Senator LINCOLN. OK. You do not have any questions?

Just one last question in terms of educating the visiting public

and those that are actually using the forests. What about land

owners? What actions, maybe you might indicate to us, Mr. Richmond, what actions are being taken or do you think you will be

taken to educate land owners and motivate them to do something

about the problem? They normally do work very well with our

State foresters and I am assuming that is the case with this.

Mr. RICHMOND. State Forester John Shannon can probably answer that when he is up here in a few minutes, but we have

worked very closely with him and his employees in his agency. We

have put out several brochures, question and answer sheets for

those that call in. We have had a lot of requests, and his department has been answering calls almost daily about what to do and

they have actually been going out and helping, assisting private

land owners to both identify the insects and also come up with

management strategies for their lands.

Senator LINCOLN. Thanks. Just in conclusion, Mr. Thompson, you

mentioned something about watersheds earlier. In looking at what

we are dealing with, and I will be asking the second panel the

same thing here, is there anything particular you want us to know

or that you think is very important to be made public about the

effects that this epidemic will have on municipal watersheds as

well as the potential for the species issue which you also mentioned

very briefly, the threatened or endangered status as a result of the

epidemic and what it may cost, both for us locally, but also on a

national level?

Mr. THOMPSON. In general, it is, again, the connectivity between

an insect and disease epidemic like this, the change in structure,

the increase in susceptibility to fire, and then the effects of that to

a watershed or to a viewshed, a scenic area, those kinds of things.

In the forest, everything is connected, and when you have something like this that puts a tremendous change to the system, it is

basically going to affect everything there. It is going to affect wildlife species, it is going to affect water, it is going to affect certainly

the recreation values that are in the forest.

Dealing with that, those extreme shifts, is going to be difficult,

and there will be certainly some major short-term impacts. Hopefully, through restoration activities, the species diversity can be

maintained and we can keep oak in the system and doing well and

future generations will be able to again enjoy the beauty and the

value that comes from that diversity in the forest. It is going to

take some hard work to restore and it is going to take some concentrated, sustained effort to keep the forest healthy.

Senator LINCOLN. Mr. Richmond, do you have any comment on

particular watersheds or species that could be affected in Arkansas?

Mr. RICHMOND. The wildlife situation, the species, is probably

the largest issue for us. Watershed-wise, these trees will be replaced, but they will be replaced with species other than oak if we

do not do the restoration. That leads us to the species question,

17

and in the Ozark Highlands, there are so many species that just

have to have the lakes and the mass crop that those oaks provide.

That is where we are going to see the largest impact if we cannot

restore the oaks in those landscapes.

Senator LINCOLN. We thank you both very much, gentlemen, and

Mr. Richmond, thank you again for the service that you provide to

Arkansas.

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you.

Senator LINCOLN. Mr. Thompson, we appreciate your work, as

well.

As these gentlemen are exiting, I would like to call the second

panel.

Senator HUTCHINSON. Madam Chairwoman.

Senator LINCOLN. Yes?

Senator HUTCHINSON. Could I ask unanimous consent that I

have a statement to put in the record——

Senator LINCOLN. Without objection.

Senator HUTCHINSON [continuing]. A couple of questions. I am

not sure what was covered and what was not, so if I can just put

those questions in the record for the panel.

Senator LINCOLN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchinson can be found in

the appendix on page 47.]

Senator LINCOLN. I am very delighted that our second panel has

taken time out of their schedules in Arkansas and Missouri to join

us this morning. We have with us John Shannon, who is the Arkansas State Forester, Jim Crouch of the Ouachita Timber Purchasers, Scott Simon of the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, and

Robert Krepps of the Missouri Department of Conservation. Mr.

Krepps, I hope you do not feel outnumbered by the Arkansans here

on the panel, but we are very delighted to have everybody here

from our neck of the woods in this country.

The committee has also received written testimony from the

Ozark Woodland Owners Association and the Arkansas Game and

Fish Commission that we will insert into the hearing record at the

appropriate place.

[The prepared statement of the Ozark Woodland Owners Association can be found in the appendix on page 54.]

[The prepared statement of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission follows can be found in the appendix on page 67.]

Senator LINCOLN. Gentlemen, we are all delighted you are here.

We would like to ask you to try to limit your testimony to around

5 minutes, but please rest assured that your entire statement will

be included in the record of the committee.

We can just start with Mr. Shannon. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. SHANNON, STATE FORESTER OF

ARKANSAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

STATE FORESTERS

Mr. SHANNON. Thank you, Senator. It is great to see you again,

and thank you so much for inviting the National Association of

State Foresters to be here. Today, I will try not to wear my Arkansas State Forester hat and I will try to speak on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters.

18

It is meaningful to me as an Arkansan that both of you are here.

We appreciate it more than we can tell you. Thank you for being

here and for calling this hearing.

Senator Crapo had to step out, but he is right. Forest health

issues are much broader than the Ozark Highlands. It is a significant issue from Idaho to Florida. He could look at that map. There

are too many red spots. State foresters are interested in all those

issues, but in Missouri and Arkansas and Oklahoma, this oak mortality issue is of acute interest to us.

I am going to focus on one aspect, and that is the wildfire danger

that has increased because of this oak mortality. You have heard

it before, so I will skip through it quickly. The trees, the oaks in

the Ozarks, are generally really old. The acres are generally way

overcrowded. The sites are generally very poor, very thin soils, very

droughty soils. Red oak borer is as natural as rain. It is a native

species in the Ozarks. It is not going away, even if we want it to.

We had a drought in 1998. We had a drought in 1999. In 2000,

we had a knock-out punch of a drought. All those conditions combined are terrible if you are a red oak, but they are really good if

you are a red oak borer, really good. The population of red oak borers just skyrocketed.

The numbers are—and we are not sure about the numbers, it is

one of the problems we have now—at least half a million acres of

dead oak trees. I would say the number, including private land, is

probably closer to a million acres of dead oak trees. I tried to do

a little homework last night, a little arithmetic. How many trees

are we talking about? I am confident to tell you tens of millions of

dead oak trees.

As you drive through neighborhoods around here and see folks

have stacked a rack or a cord of oak firewood waiting for the winter, there is a reason they choose oak. It really burns hot. It really

burns a long time. Now we have at least half a million acres of that

stuff stacked up in the Ozarks. I would like you to understand the

risk of wildfire has significantly increased. On average, we believe

the fuel loading has increased approximately 350 percent. Now, if

you have a 350 percent increase in the fuel loading, the old ways

we fought fires and the equipment we used just is inadequate.

Not only has the fuel loading tremendously increased, but the

type of fuel has changed. We were talking about hardwood leaves

back 5 years ago. Now, we are talking about big, heavy oak timber.

It is a whole different fuel type. Those fires burn a lot hotter, burn

a lot longer. The acreage will be much bigger, and those types of

fires are much more dangerous for civilians and for fire fighters.

I will bet you I am not the only supervisor of forestry employees

in this room who have had one of his employees killed fighting a

wildfire, and I am telling you, that is a very traumatic event for

an agency to deal with, and we have been through it in Arkansas.

Twenty people have been killed out West this summer—we ought

to do what we reasonably can do to reduce the risk of wildfire.

That brings me down to two recommendations, and these are

captured, Madam Chair, in my written comments. Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma have to upgrade their fire fighting equipment.

Arkansas has started. We just committed about $800,000 to upgrade our equipment, and that is totally independent of whatever

19

this committee may do. My two colleagues and I believe that the

three States combined need approximately $2.4 million worth of

equipment upgrades.

Now, I remember Senator Everett Dirksen and I remember what

he might have said about $2.4 million, and it is real money. It is

not like the $1.3 billion that has been spent out West this summer.

I mean, it is pocket change. Understanding that the Federal budget

is terribly tight, there are ways we can share this cost, and some

of the State foresters disagree on just how we should share the

cost.

I recommend, and this is more of a personal recommendation

now, that the Congress and the States split the cost, that the three

States proportionally come up with a total of $1.2 million and that

the Congress help us with $1.2 million, a 50–50 cost share, dollarfor-dollar, and we will get that equipment in the field and we will

put out the fires. We will do the work.

I know there are some States, like Oklahoma, that will have a

terrible time even meeting that 50–50 match, and they have recommended that the match be in-kind, such as our time, keeping

record of our time on fire fighting. Either way, we really do need

help from Congress on gearing up for these wildfires.

The second recommendation I have, Madam Chair, is we rely on

volunteer fire departments in rural Arkansas very, very heavily,

especially throughout the Ozarks. These are poor communities, and

often the only fire fighting equipment they have is Federal excess

personal property, which means worn-out military trucks that the

State forestry agencies acquire, bring to Arkansas, our home

States, repair them so they operate, renovate them so they are

available for fire fighting, and we give those trucks to the fire departments.

Well, the priority for screening that Federal excess property

changed several months ago and that source of fire fighting equipment has dried up. Congressman Ross has drafted a bill that his

staff is still working on that will help restore the priority that fire

fighters have just in the spring, and if you folks in this committee

could work with Congressman Ross on getting that bill passed, it

would be very helpful.

I appreciate so much being invited here today. Thank you.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Shannon. We appreciate what

you do.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon can be found in the appendix on page 70.]

Senator LINCOLN. Scott Simon, thank you for joining us and

what the Nature Conservancy does. We certainly enjoy working

with the Nature Conservancy.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SIMON, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION,

ARKANSAS CHAPTER, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Mr. SIMON. Yes, ma’am. Good morning. Thank you for inviting

us. Good morning, Senator Hutchinson. My name is Scott Simon.

I work with the Nature Conservancy. I am their Director of Conservation. I am here with Joe Fox this morning, who is our forester.

20

The Conservancy, as you may know, is an international nonprofit

conservation organization. We work on protecting species throughout the world through private action and working with public agencies.

The Ozark Mountains are really a center of biodiversity within

North America and the United States. The Ouachita system and

the woodlands and savannahs that occur there are the largest last

remnant of a system that used to occur from Oklahoma to the

Eastern seaboard. There are about 150 species of animals and

plants that occur there and nowhere else in the world, so it is a

really special place.

Early explorers, like Henry Rose Schoolcroft and Joseph Mudd,

as they traveled through the Ozarks, described an area of very

open woodlands and savannahs, much like this picture here, free

of understory brush and an open, diverse, herbaceous layer, and it

was a system mostly maintained by fire. Native Americans, annual

and biannual, set fires for a variety of purposes.

Over the years, the system has changed, and about 80 to 100

years ago, the Ozarks were cut, and over time, many of the fires

were suppressed and the system looks like this middle picture

here, the Ozarks that we love now. The new woods are much denser. Historically, when the woodlands were maybe 18 to 30 trees per

acre, currently, we see stem densities, on average, of 300 to 1,000

trees or saplings per acre, which is really a staggering increase,

and those trees and stems are trying to compete for the same

amount of nutrients, water and soil moisture and everything that

has always historically been available to them.

Many of the oak trees—a mature and healthy oak tree, white

oak, will live to 250 or 300 years old, a red oak, 125 to maybe 150

years old. This stressed system is vulnerable to outbreaks like the

red oak borer, exacerbated by droughts, and so that in our opinion,

the root cause of the current situation is simply too many trees per

acre, as you describe.

The effects, the long-term effects are concerning because there is

nothing in the post-glacial record that indicates that the Ozark forests have had these sort of changes of this magnitude and rapidity

and we are worried that many of the wildlife species and the rare

species that occur only there and nowhere else may have difficulty

adapting as the forest changes from predominately oaks to maples,

ashes, and other species.

What do we do? Historically, this group of folks here, we have

the knowledge and experience to address this cause and return sustainability to the forest. In the long term, it is restoring fires ecologically and safely and of a frequency that the system has adapted

to. In the short term, it is using mechanical thinnings and fire in

combination to reach a lower stem density that is sustainable.

There are several examples of ongoing projects that have shown

positive results. The Forest Service in the Ozark National Forest,

the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Missouri agencies, the

Nature Conservancy, and the Heritage Commission have all

worked on projects like this, using prescribed fire and ecological

thinning with good results. The Forest Service has some proposed

projects. One is an example that we have submitted with our testimony that is about 54,000 acres in the Bayou Ranger District, and

21

it is projects like this that we think are an example on what to do

on a scale significant enough to restore the system to sustainability.

We think that the three things that are needed to help facilitate

this is there needs to be a Federal funding priority to help ensure

that these projects are funded. Second, as the Forest Service staff

mentioned and that you mentioned, Madam Chairman, ensuring

that the process is streamlined so that these projects can move

through quickly. Third, ensuring that new projects are encouraged

so that we can start working on other areas, particularly in front

of the existing infestation.

It is clear that the changes that are happening in the Ozark forests are a threat not only ecologically, but also economically to the

people that depend upon it, and that the major causes are fire suppression, leading to overly dense woods, and we know what to do

about it. We have the technical experience and the history to be

able to address it.

The Nature Conservancy strongly encourages the use of prescribed fire and ecological thinnings to achieve a more sustainable

density, and although the national forests in our public lands

throughout the country have many needs, ecological sustainability,

we feel, really must be the priority, because all of our other uses

fall from this.

With that, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify and

share our time with you and thank you much for inviting us.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Simon.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon can be found in the appendix on page 73.]

Senator LINCOLN. Mr. Crouch, we appreciate your being here

very much and look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. ‘‘JIM’’ CROUCH, ON BEHALF OF THE

OUACHITA TIMBER PURCHASERS GROUP, OZARK-ST.

FRANCIS RENEWABLE RESOURCE COUNCIL, MARK TWAIN

TIMBER PURCHASERS GROUP, AND THE AMERICAN FOREST

AND PAPER ASSOCIATION

Mr. CROUCH. Madam Chairman, it is real pleasure to be here,

and Senators, it is great to have you here too. I know you would

not be anywhere else if you could possibly be here.

I am Jim Crouch. I do represent the people that buy this timber

in Missouri and in Arkansas and also today I am here representing

the American Forest and Paper Association.

We firmly believe that active management, based on sound

science with local decisionmaking, is the way to go about restoring

the health of our national forests. We do recognize very quickly

that without some significant changes in the existing procedural requirements associated with NEPA appeals and litigation, that the

Forest Service cannot take the timely action that it needs to take.

The Forest Service predicts that the oak mortality crisis will impact over a million acres of national forest. About a billion board

feet of valuable oak will likely die, fall down, rot, and as our State

Forester says, probably burn. Unfortunately, what is happening is

much more serious than anything that we have ever seen before.

22

Instead of a few bugs per tree, there are literally thousands of bugs

in some trees. The mortality is very widespread. It is not localized.

In 1986, the Forest Service approved new forest management

plans for all three of these forests. The plans did provide for

thinning the overly dense stands of immature trees and it provided

for the harvest and the replacement of mature trees with new forest. For a various number of reasons, these three forests fell way

behind, and if you look today, they have actually accomplished less

than half of the work that those forest plans called for.

The Forest Service’s failure to carry out the plans, coupled with

the drought, has contributed greatly to the current crisis. Because

of the widespread mortality, there is a major shift occurring in the

composition of our forests. The dominant and predominant trees in

the oak forests are mostly shade intolerant. The mid-story and understory is made up of maple, hickory, black gum, and other shade

tolerant species. If nature is allowed to take its course, the new forest will change. It will be mostly maple, ash, black gum, hickory,

that type of thing. It will be quite different from what we have

today.

Today, I believe that the Forest Service is at a fork in the road

and must choose between whether it is going to restore the forest,

which we call active management, or whether it is going to let nature have its way, which is passive management. Under the active

scenario, the Forest Service would accelerate the restoration activities immediately using good science and using local decisions. The

activities would include harvesting the dead and dying trees, followed by the silvicultural treatments needed to restore the oak forests.

Under the passive scenario, which is what I am afraid will happen if there is not action from this body, the Forest Service would

let these overstocked and overmature stands decline and die. The

Forest Service would accept the losses and the increased risk of

catastrophic fires. The oak forest would be replaced with maple.

If the decision is to restore the forest, there is a limited window

of opportunity. Dead and dying oaks lose their commercial value

quickly and the risk of catastrophic fire increases as the trees die

out and the falling branches accumulate on the forest floor. The

agency must have new ways to comply with the key environmental

laws if they are to get the job done quickly. There must also be a

major increase in funds.

The forest industry strongly recommends that the Forest Service

choose active management and immediately launch a major restoration effort. The restoration of the land should be completed

within 5 years of any harvest. The affected lands that are classified

as suitable for timber management should retain a major oak component. Congress must either grant exceptions from the environmental laws and regulations or they must authorize some type of

streamlining similar to what we saw recently in the Black Hills.

Congress must provide new money. There is not enough money

within the agency today to do these kinds of things and do their

normal day-to-day work.

In conclusion, the forest health crisis affecting the Ouachita and

the Ozarks is acute. It is not unique. Due to decades of fire suppression, and more recently passive management, our national forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:32 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086218 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 86218.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
23

ests are rapidly approaching ecological disaster. We encourage you

to find as many ways as possible to expedite the efforts of the Forest Service to use active management and local decisionmaking.

With that, I want to thank you again for the very, very important job you are doing by holding this hearing and I know it will

take a lot of action on your part, but we know you will do it. I will

be glad to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Crouch.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crouch can be found in the appendix on page 78.]

Senator LINCOLN. Before we move to our Missourian, I also want

to note that there is another Arkansan that has joined us. Congressman John Bozeman is in the back of the room and we appreciate very much your joining us, John. Thanks for your interest

and input in this issue.

Mr. BOZEMAN. Thank you for holding the hearing.

Senator LINCOLN. Absolutely.

Mr. Krepps, thank you so much for joining us and representing

Missouri. We would love to have your testimony now.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. KREPPS, ADMINISTRATOR,

FORESTRY DIVISION, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Mr. KREPPS. Thank you, Senator Lincoln. I am Bob Krepps and

I am here today representing the Missouri Department of Conservation and the State of Missouri as the State Forester.

The continued decline of forest health and the increasing mortality of red and black oak in Missouri and other States in the Ozark

Highlands are very important issues to me as a State Forester, as

they are to the Federal Government through the National Forest

System. Businesses and citizens depend upon the forest resources

of our State. I appreciate the attention of the subcommittee and am

gratified by your efforts to become better informed on this issue.

Factors such as site conditions that have been described here by

the other folks providing testimony, including advanced tree age,

drought, and insects and disease, are a few of the many factors

that affect our oak forests. In my testimony, I would like to briefly

describe the impacts on recreational use of lands affects by oak decline and mortality. While my comments are focused on Missouri,

they certainly apply to all the States within the Ozark Highlands.

Oak decline is most severe on ridge tops, south- and west-facing

slopes, and sites within thin, rocky soils. These site conditions describe much of the forest land around some of the most important

and popular recreation areas in Missouri and certainly other areas

in the Ozark Highlands.

Much of Missouri’s tourism industry is centered in the forested

areas of the State, areas such as Lake of the Ozarks, the Branson

area, Table Rock Lake, the Ozarks National Scenic Riverways, and

the Mark Twain National Forest. Tourism is very important in

Missouri. Tourism is Missouri’s third-largest industry. It generates

more than $12.5 billion annually for the State’s economy and provides one of every 14 Missouri jobs.

As travelers choose to travel into Missouri, one of the first impacts the visitors will notice will be the amount of dead and dying

24

trees on the landscape. Visual impact will be very noticeable as

trees die and deteriorate across the landscape. In some areas, large

expanses of dead trees will be noticeable for several years. In other

areas, factors such as fire will further impact the forest views.

Changes in the scenic beauty of the forest can contribute to losses

in tourism and recreation.

How does this occur? Well, dead and declining trees located in

areas receiving high recreational use are considered hazard trees

due to the real danger of falling limbs and trees. Recently, I saw

a photograph of an oak tree laying across the top of a camper trailer. Needless to say, the individual that was in the trailer at the

time the tree landed on it was extracted safely, but the trailer was

flattened to the ground. It gives you an idea of what some of the

potential hazard is.

Hazard trees combined with multiple targets, such as people,

structures, and vehicles, greatly increase landowner liability. Hazard tree removal along roads, within campgrounds, parks, picnic

areas, and hiking trails can be very expensive and time consuming.

Often, managers are faced with a decision to remove the trees at

a very high cost or close the facility to protect the public.

On private land, and the trailer that I referred to was in a private campground, on private land, the reality is probably nothing

will be done to reduce those hazards until something occurs to get

private landowners’ attention.

Another primary recreational use of the Ozark Highlands is

hunting of abundant wildlife, such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrel, raccoon, and other species. Many of these species depend upon acorn production as a major food source. As oak decline

increases, a reduction in mast acorn production will occur, with the

result being decreased populations of many wildlife species, which

equates into decreased hunting opportunities.

In the State of Missouri, for example, as our quail population has

declined, we have also noticed a shifting of attention by hunters to

other species or quitting entirely, quitting the outdoor pursuits. We

have a concern that this will carry over into the future, as well.

I guess, in summary, the overriding question, the management

of oak decline and mortality, must be what are our objectives in

managing the forest? In Missouri, we actively manage the State

forest land, which includes harvesting and thinning where needed.

On private lands, we encourage land owners to improve the vigor

of their forests by thinning young stands and harvesting mature

stands. We are actively using the provisions of programs in the

Farm bill, such as EQIP, for forest health management on private

lands. That is not without some prioritization and emphasis on

those areas, and certainly there are conflicting laws that we work

with that affect how effective we are in application of those on private lands.

I guess what we do today will affect what our oak forest looks

like at the end of the next rotation, and I certainly hope that our

children and grandchildren will look back with pride at the efforts

we put forth today.

I guess a couple of things to dovetail into some of the other testimony, probably the most important thing we can do right now, that

Congress can do, the Senate and the House, is to take a look at

25

the myriad of laws that guide the implementation of programs on

the national forests. Many of the laws conflict or give opportunities

for inconsistent management practices. We need to work to get the

National Forest System so they have the tools to rapidly respond

to situations such as the oak decline situation that we are facing

in Missouri. I would like to see more cooperative management

projects encompassing Federal, State, and private lands.

I appreciate the opportunity of being here this day and look forward to working with this committee in the future. Thank you.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Krepps.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krepps can be found in the appendix on page 84.]

Senator LINCOLN. This is obviously a very immediate problem

that needs our immediate attention and we will be continuing to

call on you and others across the country to look at what is the

best way that we can deal with it.

Just a couple of questions and then I will pass it over to my colleague. Mr. Crouch, I have always praised the Forest Service for

making our forests what they are today and have enjoyed working

with them. I noticed in your testimony you talked about how the

Forest Service has done their job almost too well in some ways.

What should the Forest Service do to restore the oak ecosystem

devastated by our oak mortality, what we are seeing here? Do you

have any specific ideas that you would suggest to the Forest Service?

Mr. CROUCH. I really do, Senator, and I would like to just emphasize what you just said and what the National Forest Deputy

Chief said. There is no question that within the agency, there exists a tremendous knowledge base and a tremendous ability and

willingness, in fact, to do the things that need to be done to keep

these ecosystems healthy. As you can imagine, in recent years, the

agency probably has been as frustrated as many of us on the outside have been and a lot of things have not happened, and that is

what I pointed out.

On the Ozark and the Ouachita and the Mark Twain, they have

had management plans now for the last 20 years almost that basically said you need to thin these young stands, you need to harvest

the old trees, you need to use a commercial program as much as

you can to save taxpayer dollars, and yet they have been challenged almost every time they try to do these things.

That is why we talk so much about we have to do something

with some of these laws that are really just bottlenecks, and it is

not that the majority of the people are using them. It is a handful

of people. I often wonder, in a democracy, how do we get to vote

on these kinds of things rather than letting one individual completely stop it?

To answer your question more specifically, I believe that the Forest Service on all three of these forests should immediately recognize the emergency, start a salvage program, maybe not use that

word, but start a harvest program that will harvest as much wood

as the forest industry can assimilate, recognizing that a lot of the

infrastructure has disappeared in recent years, and at the same

time begin to prescribe burn, begin to do timber stand improveVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:32 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086218 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 86218.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
26

ment work trying to favor these oaks so that these future stands

that we do have will have a significant component of red oak in it.

I do not really hear or see much about any money to increase

these programs, and obviously, supervisors like Charlie Richmond

cannot do it out of the goodness of his heart. There is going to have

to be some significant money flow in order for him to be able to

do these bigger programs.

Senator LINCOLN. Right. Well, I can always remember my father

telling me that too much of anything can be hazardous, even chocolate if you eat too much of it. Well, if there is one thing we have

come to understand about our forests, it is that the diversity of

those forests is very important, both in age as well as in species.

Mr. Simon, in your testimony, you talk about the need to better

reintroduce fire back into the forest ecosystem, and larger land

owners, such as the National Forest and State lands, or even very

large private land owners, this might seem practical. I am just curious, how would that apply to our smaller land owners? Is fire

really a viable management tool for smaller land owners? We talk

about the use of fire as a management tool on both public and private forest lands. I just wonder, how viable a tool is it for small

land owners?

Mr. SIMON. Yes, ma’am. It is a viable tool for smaller land owners and the State with several agencies offers prescribed burn

courses and technical assistance, as does the Nature Conservancy

with land owners that are in priority areas on how to plan for prescribed burns and execute them and monitor to see if they got the

results and objectives that they meant to achieve when they started.

Senator LINCOLN. One of the other things you mentioned was the

root problem of too many trees per acre.

Mr. SIMON. Yes, ma’am.

Senator LINCOLN. In restoring the ecosystem to a healthy condition, if you look at, say, going in with selective cuttings, I was reading that a man was quoted as saying after a couple of years or better, the dying trees are good for nothing but just firewood. If you

do go in with that cutting, how quickly or how important is regeneration of the trees from the stump in terms of—that is possible,

is it not?

Mr. SIMON. Yes, ma’am.

Senator LINCOLN. Is that healthy?

Mr. SIMON. The way that we have looked at it is trying to identify what the desired condition would be for the stand or the forest

so that it is sustainable and then using whatever methods are

available. If it is regeneration from a stump to allow the red oak

to continue or increased light to allow more red oaks to get on the

floor, are both viable options.

Senator LINCOLN. Well, my question was, if you encourage regeneration from the stump the concern I would have is that you still

have the same amount of root systems per acre as you would previously, so I know it is taking less nutrients from the soil, but does

that matter at all?

Mr. SIMON. Yes, ma’am. Thanks for educating me on that. It

would not necessarily address the issue of too many stems per acre

and that in some way, we would need to thin those, and probably

27

the best way to do it is with prescribed fire, allowing the things

that are most adapted to the Ozark Highlands and the weather

that we have to survive and the things that do not to be thinned

by fire, yes.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. Senator Hutchinson.

Senator HUTCHINSON. Yes. Thank you, Senator Lincoln. I have

not yet thanked you for calling the hearing, and I very much appreciate you doing this. This deserves attention and I regret we do not

have more members here. I know it is a very busy time after everybody getting back, but this is a very important subject and thank

you for calling the hearing today.

It seemed to me, listening, and I did not hear all the testimony

of the first panel, but that there is a general consensus around two

things. One is we need more money in this issue, and the second

is that we need to streamline the process and clear out the kind

of regulatory obstacles that cause a kind of paralysis in moving.

There may be nuances as to where the money ought to go and how

it ought to be prioritized, but everybody seems to agree we have

to make a Federal commitment in resources and we need to change

the way the process works.

After the ice storm, when was it, 2 years ago, the terrible ice

storm, and in trying to move the Forest Service to quick response

and action in dealing with the threat that resulted from the

downed trees and branches and so forth, I was struck with the degree of regulatory obstacles there are in trying to move anything

forward. It was not the Forest Service’s fault, it was this enormous

process that made it difficult to move quickly in responding, and

we are seeing the same thing in the oak mortality issue.

In listening, John, your emphasis was, of course, on the danger

of wildfires. This is what we heard about after the ice storm, was

that with the increased fuel, that we faced a greater, much greater

intensified risk of wildfires. What would be the nature of the kind

of fires we would face? I know they burn longer and hotter, the

hardwoods, but compared with what you see in the West, we have

never had those kind of fires in the Ozarks or the Ouachita, but

what could we expect if nothing is done?

Mr. SHANNON. I am often glad I am the State Forester of Arkansas and not one of those Western States. The climates are different.

More than just the weather climate, the business relationship with

the Forest Service is different in Arkansas. It is cooperative. Folks

get along. They work together. I do not think we can anticipate the

types of fires they have out West. We can anticipate more difficult

fires than we usually have in Arkansas.

You were very helpful, sir, after the ice storms by helping us—

I know you did all the heavy lifting, helping Arkansas get some

money for fire fighting equipment in South Arkansas, and Senator

Lincoln helped us receive an EDA grant. Donna Kay helped us receive an EDA grant to keep our air tankers in the air fighting the

fires, very effective.

We have been lucky since the ice storm and lucky so far in this

red oak borer that the weather has cooperated. We have upgraded

our fire fighting equipment and we do have air tankers in the air

getting to those fires quickly.

28

Senator HUTCHINSON. It seems to me the finance scheme that

you kind of proposed, laid out, I do not know if that is the exact

way it ought to work, but they are pretty modest amounts, and for

the good that could do and the dollars it could save in the long run,

it would seem to me that would be a very worthwhile investment.

Mr. SHANNON. Bob Krepps and I come up here to Washington a

few times a year and it is the only time we hear the figure ‘‘billions.’’ We do not deal with billions. We do not deal with millions.

State foresters deal with hundreds of thousands of dollars to rebuild our fire fighting. I really think this is a partnership, Senators, where we could make a dollar go a long way, and especially

with the Federal excess personal property.

If I can give you my 1-minute stump speech on that, the State

foresters are the ones who acquire the equipment, and there is

none available in Arkansas. It is all out of State. They bring it back

to Greenbrier. We repair the equipment. We renovate it for fire

fighting. We get it out to the fire departments for free. We track

it in our inventory forever, and when that equipment is finally just

flat worn out, we haul it back to Greenbrier, we sell it, and the

money goes to GSA. Now, the Arkansas Forestry Commission does

not want a nickel, and the volunteer fire fighters do all that work

for nothing. You talk about a good Federal program and getting a

big bang for the dollar. To reduce, to lower the priority for the fire

fighters in screening that equipment just really kicks the teeth out

of work that is really valuable for our country.

Senator HUTCHINSON. Thank you.

Mr. SHANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator HUTCHINSON. Mr. Simon, I am curious in what your response would be to what Mr. Crouch said, because both of you, it

seemed to me, were advocating that we cannot just let it go, that

we need to have an active response to the oak borer crisis. You

mentioned prescribed burns and you used the term thinning. Mr.

Crouch used the term harvesting. Is there a conflict there, or do

you see that those are consistent in what you would advocate as

the proper response to the increasing amount of dead oaks that we

have?

Mr. SIMON. Senator, I would think that in any alternative, prescribed fire would be necessary to maintain sustainable density

and that the differences between thinning and harvesting are probably dependent on what you are using to achieve your desired future condition and how, in my eyes, a thinning is something that

leaves an open stand. Thinning, I guess, is a type of harvesting.

Senator HUTCHINSON. Jim, do you want to respond to that?

Mr. CROUCH. Scott is absolutely right. When the stems are real

small, obviously, the best and easiest way to do it would be with

a prescribed burn. Once they get to be middle aged, like a lot of

us are, then obviously you can do it commercially and prescribed

burn would not necessarily be the right tool. Then eventually,

when it becomes mature, you want to replace it with a young, vigorous stand. I really do not see that we are saying anything different there, Senator.

Senator HUTCHINSON. Mr. Krepps.

Mr. KREPPS. I would say we need all the tools in the toolbox. We

need to keep all of our options open and put what fits for a particuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:32 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086218 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 86218.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
29

lar piece of ground in place, whether it be prescribed burning or

thinning. We just need to keep our options wide open on that.

Mr. CROUCH. Let me say one thing John Shannon did not say

that he meant to say and he forgot to say.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CROUCH. All the money that came out of the ice storm for

equipment in Arkansas essentially went to South Arkansas. Most

of the oak problem is in North Arkansas, and what he is talking

about is replacing some of that small, old equipment up there with

some bigger stuff similar to what he bought for South Arkansas so

he can push these big snags around.

Senator HUTCHINSON. Just to sum it up, I know my time is probably way over and you have been indulgent, but I am curious, because you talked about the danger to the species with the transformation of the forests——

Mr. SIMON. Yes, sir.

Senator HUTCHINSON [continuing]. You gave us a little history

lesson on the way it was, which was very interesting. It was not

originally oak and hardwoods, right? Or was it just the density that

was different?

Mr. SIMON. Sir, based on the historical accounts, much of the

Ozarks was oak woodlands and savannahs with pine in scattered

areas and then denser forests maybe on the slopes and in the bottoms, so a mix.

Senator HUTCHINSON. The species mix that we have now, did

that develop in the course of the last 100 years or so and is that

why it is important that the hardwoods stay, that we restore oak

where we have had these forests so damaged, 400,000 or 500,000

acres already?

Mr. SIMON. Yes, sir. Even after the cut of about 100 years ago,

many of the pieces were all still in place and they have lasted this

long, so there was still a predominance of oak with some pine,

though the pine may have decreased on the sandstone ridges.

Senator HUTCHINSON. You all are agreeing that if nothing is

done, the oak stands, the oak predominance disappears and that

we go to an ash, maple, softwood kind of mix that is going to forever change the ecology of that Ozark Highlands, is that fair?

Mr. SIMON. Yes. We all agree on that, based on what is coming

up in the understory.

Senator HUTCHINSON. How long does it take to—and you all may

have covered all of this, but a restoration program like that with

the extent of damage that we have, how long a process is that?

Mr. CROUCH. I would answer it this way, Senator. It depends on

the situation on the ground. There are, in fact, young stands today

that can be thinned and saved that will not experience this mortality. There are other stands that are essentially 100 percent dead,

and this is where you heard the Forest Service talk about maybe

reintroducing oak back into them. There are other stands where

you have enough oak left that you can either cut the tree down

that is there and get the copus from it, or you maybe can even prescribe burn in some cases and get some back.

You have, as the State Forester here said, a lot of different situations, but the agency has the expertise to deal with that. You could

be often in good shape with a healthy span in 10 years, or it could

30

take a long, long time. It just depends on the circumstances. That

is where the expertise comes in that these folks have and they

have to have the direction and money to do those kinds of things.

Mr. SIMON. Yes, sir. I would say, although it is going to vary a

little bit onsite conditions, the last picture on the right shows a restoration area after approximately 5 years and it probably looks

something like this, and that would involve one thinning and two

prescribed burns. On an area that has not been extensively grazed,

there is still a lot to work with. Arkansas is blessed with really resilient communities and they respond with that sunlight. If it has

been heavily grazed, it may take a little bit longer as more species

seed in. I would say between five to 10 years, you could go from

very dense, minimal herbaceous understory, heavy fuel loads, with

a few burns and some thinning to an open stand that is sustainable.

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. That is very helpful. I was just

looking at the time line of the oak forest in the Ozarks and realizing that oaks have been there since 1000 B.C. It would be such a

shame not to be able to try and take advantage of the management

tools we have to maintain them.

How safe is it to say, or how realistic is it that the younger oaks

that Mr. Crouch mentions, if we do not do anything about the older

and dying trees, how likely are the smaller trees to not survive?

Mr. SIMON. Overall, without fire, they would be out-competed by

the maples, the ashes, and the gums, just because they are more

adapted to heavy shade and no fire.

Senator LINCOLN. Has it been our experience in the forestry industry that if we change the landscape, that the species itself

would retreat to its normal condition, because the red oak borer is

indigenous to Arkansas. If we work to return the landscape, then

is it safe to say that the red oak borer would retreat to its normal

existence?

Mr. SIMON. Yes, I think so. I mean, a lot of us in the conservation community and the land management community talk about

complex systems, that maybe we cannot understand all the nuances, but we operate under a simple premise that if we try to establish the conditions that we think are most healthy, that the rest

of the wildlife species or animal species would fall into place. That

under an open stand, the red oak borer would decline to its normal

range of populations, and the same with other wildlife species that

may be threatened.

Senator LINCOLN. We have had some experience with that.

Mr. SIMON. We have had some experience with that. The Conservancy’s experience is probably more with rare species, so that as

we restore the habitat type of plant community or a forest back to

a certain system, some of the rare species will increase because

they are used to that place and the way it looks.

Senator LINCOLN. We talked about one of the easiest solutions

that we can provide is technical assistance to private forest land

owners. In our recently enacted farm bill, we included for the first

time permanent funding for technical assistance to private forest

land owners. To our State Foresters, both John and Robert, how

can you apply that Forest Land Enhancement Program and the

31

sustainable forestry outreach initiative funds to the problem of the

Ozark oak decline and mortality?

Mr. SHANNON. We can apply it directly. The Forest Land Enhancement Program cost share money, the State foresters and the

local stewardship committees have a lot of flexibility on how to use

those funds and we can certainly set aside a significant portion of

those funds for the Ozark oak mortality problem. It will be a direct

help.

Senator LINCOLN. That is our intent.

Mr. KREPPS. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are already

looking at the provisions and have already started implementing

this past fiscal year through the EQIP program, recognizing the

FLEP program will be coming on board. We are having quite a bit

of success. We worked very closely with the Natural Resource Conservation Service in highlighting the forest health issue and have

directed a number of our projects specifically in the oak decline

area, working with private land owners.

We were a little concerned as we started into that process that

many land owners would not recognize the need. With a minimal

of sell, we have had a lot of folks come forward and it is pretty

gratifying to see the interest in implementing forest health measures on private land through those programs, so we are very encouraged.

Senator LINCOLN. Well, that was our intent. Our intent was to

help enhance what you could do and providing private land owners

that ability, and with your ability.

Just to ask the entire panel, and any or all of you may have a

perspective, what effects will this epidemic have on our watersheds? I asked our first panel, and I am very curious to know in

terms of our watersheds and also what potential for species falling

into threatened or endangered status as a result of this epidemic.

Is there anything you all may have to add to that?

Mr. SHANNON. I will jump into the watershed issue, Madam

Chair.

Senator LINCOLN. Please.

Mr. SHANNON. There are several values from a good, vigorous,

healthy Ozark forest and one of those is watershed values and providing water qualities that really are the envy of the nation. We

are talking high-quality water out of the Ozarks.

Millions of those trees die. Then you get a fire through there that

could be hot enough to really reduce it all to ash and even burn

some of the soil and those watersheds are at risk, a true risk of

heavy runoff, heavy siltation. I am not sure how far it will reach

down to municipal water supplies, but it will certainly hurt the

water quality in all those creeks in the Ozarks. I would say the oak

borer followed by wildfires is a significant risk, and we have seen

that out West.

Mr. SIMON. Yes, ma’am. I agree with Mr. Shannon. If there was

a heavy wildfire, that it could threaten, because of the increased

erosion, some of the watersheds, because the historic grassy layer

is not there to hold the soil.

Regarding some of the species, the Ozarks are so rich in species

that only occur there, and numerous dozens of federally listed species, there is a possibility, although I would have to get back to you

32

on which ones, whose populations could decline significantly, that

only are dependent on the oak ecosystem that could potentially be

listed if somebody petitioned it, both terrestrial species and in some

of the watersheds that are threatened. Many of the six rivers that

flow just off the Ozark, the Boston Mountains themselves each

have an endemic crayfish or a fish or a mussel that might only be

known from that river and nowhere else in the world, so it is a possibility.

Mr. KREPPS. I guess from my perspective, certainly, the impact

on the neotropical migrants, as has been mentioned here, as well

as the mussels and the aquatic life potentially are going to be affected through this process.

As far as without fire what is going to happen, I guess my perspective is that we are going to have vegetation out there. The

other species will colonize and grow rapidly on the site to fill the

gap. Certainly, we need to do everything we can to enhance the

maintenance of our oak component in this forest.

Senator LINCOLN. Just in closing, there has been much debate

here in Congress related to preserving old growth trees. This epidemic has affected almost solely older trees. Given the background

of the debate about old growth forests, how does it make the job

of addressing this epidemic of oak mortality in the Ozarks different

from other forest health issues or situations throughout our country and how is that challenge different on private lands?

Mr. CROUCH. I will talk just a little about the National Forests.

You know, the old growth, it depends on whose definition you are

using for old growth because these lands here, as beautiful and as

pristine as they look, oftentimes are truly the lands that nobody

wanted. If you look at most of them, the Ozark, for example, the

Ouachita was put together in the very early 1900’s. There was part

of that land that was so poor and rough that it was never even

homesteaded. It was public domain.

If you move up to Missouri, it was put together basically in the

1930’s out of land that had been farmed, burned, grazed, cut, and

nobody wanted and was out of taxes.

If you consider this old growth, we can grow you any amount of

it you want for 70, 80, 90 years, it is quite different from old

growth in the West.

Mr. SHANNON. A whole different picture of old growth out West

and old growth in the Ozarks. For whatever you want to call old

growth in the Ozarks, red oak borers are not too interested, really,

in what we call the trees. They are taking care of the old growth

right now.

Senator LINCOLN. Bob.

Mr. KREPPS. We have to go back to something that Jim Crouch

said here a minute ago. It depends upon how you define old

growth. When I look back into the history of the Missouri portion

of the Ozark Highlands, it was cut over about 80 or 90 years ago.

It was burned repeatedly up into the 1940’s and early 1950’s. My

agency and my department was formed to try to resolve the massive annual burning that occurred. It is hard to place that all in

context with an old growth forest. What we have here is a result

of 80 or 90 years of mismanagement and mistreatment of the land.

33

Mr. SIMON. I agree with all that. At some level, we are blessed

because Arkansas’s systems are so adapted to disturbance, like fire,

that old growth that may be relevant and capture the image and

the issues in another part of the country, for us, the picture might

be the trees plus all the other species so that we have all the pieces

of the puzzle and the system can be sustainable. I would say it is

not—old growth does not frame the issue for us, it is diversity in

Arkansas.

Senator LINCOLN. In all of the education I have on this issue, diversity of the forest has clearly been the one issue that has come

out most prominent in my mind as being the most viable tool for

sustainability, without a doubt.

I want to thank all of you, all of our witnesses who have come

to Washington this morning. All of your testimony has been very

beneficial and will help the committee address this epidemic in

both the coming days on the Senate floor as well as coming months

as we continue to work toward healthier forests throughout this

nation.

The committee will keep the record open for 10 days for additional submissions to the record. Also, if members have additional

written questions for witnesses, they may submit them during this

time and we will forward them to the witnesses for written response and hope you will make yourselves available for answering

any of those written questions. They will appear in the final hearing record.

We appreciate very much your input and we look forward to

working with you in the days to come. The committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

(35)

A P P E N D I X

SEPTEMBER 5, 2002

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

(87)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

SEPTEMBER 5, 2002

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

Æ