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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–331 PDF 2009

HEARING TO REVIEW THE FUTURE 

OF OUR NATION’S FORESTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, 

OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

June 3, 2009

Serial No. 111–16

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, 

Pennsylvania 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

FRANK KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,

Ranking Minority Member 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

NICOLE SCOTT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND

FORESTRY

JOE BACA, California, Chairman 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, 

Pennsylvania 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, ex officio

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska,

Ranking Minority Member 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

FRANK D. LUCAS, ex officio

LISA SHELTON, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from California, opening statement ...................................................................................................................... 1

Childers, Hon. Travis W., a Representative in Congress from Mississippi, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 32

Fortenberry, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from Nebraska, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 2

Herseth Sandlin, Hon. Stephanie, a Representative in Congress from South 

Dakota, opening statement ................................................................................. 11

Kagen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Wisconsin, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 10

Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from Wyoming, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5

Submitted material .......................................................................................... 7

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 12

Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative in Congress from Oregon, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

WITNESSES

Jensen, Jay, Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ............................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16

Koehn, Steve, Maryland State Forester, on behalf of the National Association 

of State Foresters, Parkton, Maryland ............................................................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Bentz, Clint, on behalf of the Oregon Tree Farm System and American 

ForestFoundation, Scio, Oregon .......................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

McPeek, Brian, North America Conservation Region Director, The 

NatureConservancy, Denver, Colorado .............................................................. 45

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Dr. Monaghan, Tom, on behalf of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, 

Starkville, Mississippi ......................................................................................... 53

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Neiman, Jim D., Vice President and CEO, Neiman Enterprises, Inc., 

Hulett,Wyoming ................................................................................................... 59

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60

Smith, Matt, on behalf of the Society of American Foresters, Falconer, New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 64

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Smith, Matt, on behalf of the Society of American Foresters, Falconer, New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 82

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW THE FUTURE OF OUR 

NATION’S FORESTS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, 

OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:36 p.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joe Baca 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Baca, Kagen, Schrader, 

Dahlkemper, Childers, Fortenberry, and Lummis. 

Also present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Markey, Thompson, and Goodlatte. 

Staff present: Adam Durand, John Konya, John Riley, Lisa 

Shelton, April Slayton, Rebekah Solem, Patricia Barr, Brent 

Blevins, and Jamie Mitchell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BACA. I would like to call the meeting to order. The Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and 

Forestry to review the future of our nation’s forests will come to 

order at this point. We will begin with opening statement by myself 

and then other Members that are present will have opening statements if they wish. There will be 5 minutes provided for each of 

the opening statements. We may have other Members—if there is 

no objections to non-Members of this Subcommittee who to come 

and be here—we will allow them to sit here with us and then ask 

questions. Is there any objection? Hearing none, then we will proceed and we will allow that. 

Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome everyone to this hearing examining the future of our nation’s forests and forest policy. 

Thank you all for being here, particularly the new Deputy Undersecretary, Mr. Jensen. Thank you very much. And our second panel 

of witnesses as well. Before we begin the hearing, I have a few 

comments. It is my pleasure to Chair the Subcommittee that has 

jurisdiction and duties over the U.S. Forest Service. I know firsthand about the values of the national forest to a community. The 

beautiful San Bernardino National Forest borders in my district, 

and of course everyone can say theirs is better and beautiful, but 

I think all of ours are pretty good within our area. 

2

The recreational opportunities, economic benefits, plus the natural enhancement to our environment contribute to a higher quality of life for not only my residents but throughout the areas where 

many residents have forests in their area as well. It is not only our 

responsibility but also a personal interest of mine to help create 

and maintain policies that protect and promote our forests; and we 

are here to talk and to hear how we can protect our forests and 

enhance our forests too as well as developing a kind of partnership 

in collaboration. Forests are dynamic entities, ever changing environments that respond to the effects of weather. Climate change 

and other factors similarly are policies that must be flexible enough 

to meet these changes. 

I am sure that today’s hearing will provide a good overview of 

the major issues affecting the current forestry policies and we have 

to look at those current policies that we have. I and other Members 

of the Subcommittee have many questions surrounding the forest 

health, wildfires prevention, and the role a forest can play in solving climate change. For example, how do we best limit the devastating impact of bark beetle, another invested pest in our forest. 

What balance do we strike between the development in our forest 

because as we all know there is a lot of development of homes in 

our area. And what forest land preservations to ensure that we do 

not lose more communities to wildfires and mud slides. 

How can we better equip our brave men and women who fight 

fires on the ground to ensure both they have continued protection 

and success? Do we need to look at those policies? Do we need to 

modify those policies? In addition, there ways that we can be cost 

effective in the type of equipment that we have as well with our 

forestry firefighters out there, and how can we best work with the 

businesses and labor communities to ensure the survival of timber 

related to industries during these times of economic difficulties and 

how can we utilize America’s forest to better protect the health of 

our water resources. As a Californian, water conservation is an 

issue of particular importance to me because of the state’s continued drought problem, and as a father and grandfather, I know it 

is critical that we protect America’s forests for all our future generations to enjoy. 

We must find workable solutions to the hazards facing the future. Ultimately, we must have better legislation to serve these forests and many dedicated people who work for the forest as it relates to the industry that we are all working together. So today we 

will listen, learn from an excellent panel of witnesses about the future forestry policies, and I hope this hearing will build an important body of evidence so that we can continue to work together collaboratively in partnership to preserve our forests, our nature, and 

our environment and create that healthy quality of life for all of 

those that are impacted by it or its surroundings. I now yield to 

our Ranking Member, Congressman Fortenberry, for his opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FORTENBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. I apologize for running behind. As you know, Mr. ChairVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
3

man, the future of forestry is an essential issue for all of us, all 

Members of this Committee, regardless of how much forest we 

might actually have in our respective districts. Forestry has been 

a vital component of this country and its economy for more than 

400 years. Timber-related fields employ more than 1 million people, 

interestingly more people than are currently employed by the automobile industry. Forest land comprises roughly 750 million acres of 

Federal and private land across the country which is 33 percent of 

the total land area of America. There are many issues facing the 

future of forestry in the United States, and I would like to address 

a few of those, Mr. Chairman, if I could. 

Like the economy at large, forestry has suffered a recent downturn. Demand for lumber has dropped more than 50 percent since 

2005. New housing starting this year will be only 20 percent of 

2005 levels, the lowest level in 50 years, and roughly 20 percent 

of jobs in this field have disappeared. We must examine ways that 

we can help this important sector of our economy weather the 

storm. The Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee held a hearing last month 

on the current definition of renewable biomass and the renewable 

fuel standard. The consensus from the testimony that day was that 

the definition needed to be amended to include more sources of 

wood. 

I am sure everyone on our panel, or I hope everyone on our 

panel, will agree wood is the original renewable energy resource. 

Our nation’s timber, furniture, and paper factories have been using 

wood chips as a source of renewable energy long before the term 

biofuel became popular. I would also like to take this opportunity, 

Mr. Chairman, to mention a bill that I introduced earlier this year, 

H.R. 2170, to promote the use of biomass as a renewable energy 

resource. Specifically, this legislation creates a revolving loan to be 

used by schools and other institutions for capital costs needed to 

convert to the use of biomass for energy generation. The legislation 

addresses the major obstacles facing schools and other institutions 

seeking to convert to woody biomass as an energy source, namely, 

capital cost. By creating a revolving fund with zero or low interest 

loans, these public institutions could then take the next step forward in creating and utilizing this sustainable energy source. 

These institutions could then pay back the loans with their savings and energy cost. Another issue, Mr. Chairman, invasive species represent an ongoing threat to our health of our nation’s forests. Federal, state, and private landowners must work together to 

ensure that these species do not further damage to our nation’s 

treasured forest. I am aware that this is an issue facing several 

members here today. Wildland forest fires are also an increasing 

problem. As the Forest Service continues to devote a larger share 

of its budget to fighting these fires, it is able to devote fewer resources to other programs that are meant to assist state and private landowners. These fires threaten communities and property 

and Congress must work with the Administration to see that these 

issues are addressed in the future. 

I want to welcome Mr. Jensen and our witness from the private 

sector on the second panel as well. I look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses about the current state of forestry in the United 

4

States and what actions they recommend to ensure that forestry 

remains a vibrant integral component of our nation’s economy. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. 

At this time, I will recognize the individuals in order that they 

came in with the exception of going back and forth between the 

Democrat and the Republican. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KURT SCHRADER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Fortenberry, for holding this very important hearing on current 

and future policy in our American forests. I value the Committee’s 

willingness to address these critical issues relating to forest health, 

including the wildfire prevention, forest restoration, and enhancing 

access to woody biomass. Our Federal and private forests have 

served as an economic and social cornerstone in American history, 

and I appreciate the Subcommittee’s willingness to address critical 

issues to ensure their health and viability for future generations. 

Frankly, I am very concerned over the current state of our forests. 

Our forests are under extreme duress from drought, insects, diseases, wildfire, and, frankly, poor management due to lack of funding. 

Our rural forest counties are facing historic unemployment and 

the forest industry, a significant institution critical for good jobs in 

rural Oregon, is struggling just to stay alive. While urban areas are 

in one of the worse recessions in their history, rural America has 

been in one since the 1980s. They have had longstanding double 

digit unemployment that is only now coming home to roost in some 

of our urban environment. I hope this Congress understands that 

our forests, the backbone of these rural counties, can be part of the 

economic and environmental solution. This is not the 1970’s or 

1980’s timber management anymore. This is a cleaner, smarter, environmentally friendly, and sustainable industry that is part of the 

global climate change solution and creating much needed jobs in 

rural America. If properly managed, our forest can be a key resource toward economic revitalization, through job creation, construction of new homes, bio-product manufacturing, and a positive 

market influence while all being one of the world’s greatest carbon 

sequesters known to man. 

Our forests through the use of woody biomass has the ability to 

help us become more energy independent as we strive to utilize 

more forms of renewable energy. This not only decreases our dependence on foreign energy, it increases and ensures the energy 

produced at home in our communities creates good jobs. And I hope 

as we begin discussing the Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 

this Congress recognizes the benefits of adopting a workable, pragmatic biomass definition like the one in the 2008 Farm Bill that 

the Chair and Ranking Member and others here have worked so 

hard to put in. Once again, I really appreciate the opportunity to 

have this hearing and recommend we adopt good policies as a result of what we hear today. 

5

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. 

Next, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, 

Ms. Lummis, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the gentleman 

from Oregon in applauding you for holding this hearing today. It 

is a very important hearing, and I appreciate your doing it. I am 

aware of your commitment understanding how Federal policies affect the nation’s forests, and so I am so pleased that you have invited Jim Neiman from my home State of Wyoming to testify today, 

and I am very much looking forward to his testimony. I know of 

no one in my state that knows forestry better than Jim Neiman so 

thank you so much, and thank you, Jim, for coming to Washington. 

This hearing is broad in scope covering many aspects of forestry 

policy. That is how it should be for the first hearing of the year on 

the subject. I do want to renew my invitation to the Chairman to 

hold a field hearing to explore the issue of bark beetle destruction 

in greater detail. I would be pleased to host such a hearing in Wyoming so we can visit the vast swaths of forest destroyed by beetles 

in my state. In addition to the beautiful forests that make up our 

national parks in Yellowstone and Grand Titan, Wyoming is home 

to nine national forests encompassing about 8.8 million acres of 

land. Put into context, national forests in Wyoming cover about a 

million acres more than the total land areas of Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia combined. Add the vast tracts 

of state and private forests, and you begin to understand the monumental task of maintaining healthy forests in my state. 

To some, forestry policy is an academic exercise, a way to experiment with grand theories about the role of fire, disease, and the 

management of forests. To citizens of Wyoming, Federal forestry 

policy is so much more. Decisions about fuel reduction, beetle prevention and mitigation, prompt harvesting of dead and dying trees, 

and the overall health of our forests have real tangible effects on 

our livelihood. We live near or even in these forests. We base entire 

industries off them. We recreate and enjoy them and we count on 

these forests to attract thousands of tourists every year. In fact, 

while I was home over the break in one county 79 percent of forest 

users reported just driving through to enjoy the scenery as their favorite use of forest lands. 

Healthy forests are integral to our lives and livelihoods. That is 

why I am so concerned about the current state of our forests. The 

bark beetle epidemic in Wyoming has already destroyed millions of 

acres of adult forests. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a map of the Bridger-Teton National Forest that illustrates 

this damage. The blue areas mark the beetle kill which had destroyed about 40 percent of that forest since 1991. As vast as that 

seems, 40 percent earns only a silver medal for the highest rate of 

destruction in Wyoming. Forest managers estimate that by 2012 

every single adult lodgepole pine in southern Wyoming and northern Colorado will be destroyed by bark beetle. This is devastating 

to our forests and our forest economies. It is also downright dangerous as we enter another wildfire season. 

6

I am eager to hear the steps that the Forest Service intends to 

take to mitigate the beetle epidemic and to reduce the fuel load 

that has continued to grow year after year. For Wyoming’s forests, 

we can no longer wait. Our forests are crying out for help in the 

here and now. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The submitted material of Ms. Lummis follows:]

7

SUBMITTED MAP AND PHOTOS BY HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING


11116001
8


11116002
9


11116003
10

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much for your statement. And I know 

the minority Ranking Member and I just discussed that maybe we 

can go in the near future and have that kind of hearing in Wyoming since I look forward to going back there. I have relatives in 

that area and, of course, the Ranking Member says he has never 

been to Wyoming so it gives him an opportunity to go there as well. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Consider yourselves invited. We will fall all over ourselves to make your trip enjoyable 

and informative. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. 

Next, I would like to recognize Mr. Kagen from the State of Wisconsin for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KAGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing, 

and thank you for everyone who is about to testify. In the great 

State of Wisconsin, we are an agricultural state. We have a great 

deal of forest land. Nearly 70 percent of that land is owned by private industry by private families, and we take good care of our forests. But at the same time, we have all the same challenges as 

other people across the country. It is an economic issue, and with 

the downfall of our housing markets we have also lost much of our 

lumber industry. In the State of Wisconsin nearly 300,000 people 

are employed because of our forests in the lumber industry and 

others. We have about 1,800 employers who are directly linked to 

the lumber industry and the forest industry. 

So we have an economic reason to be very keenly interested in 

the testimony we are about to hear today. We also have an environmental concern. You know, we are Wisconsin, the source of 

Earth Day, Aldo Leopold, Gaylord Nelson, so in that Wisconsin tradition about caring not just about people’s health but the health of 

our environment and how they are interrelated, I look forward to 

hearing your testimony. In particular, we have experienced recently some wildfires, and, Mr. Jensen, I look forward to hearing 

how you are addressing that and what the Forest Service intends 

to do, and more particularly throughout the state and the region 

the emerald ash borer is becoming an increasing economic pest. 

So I look forward to your testimony and working with you to 

fashion some solutions that make sense, not just for Wisconsin but 

for forest owners and landowners and recreators all across the 

country. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Kagen. 

Next, I would like to call on the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 

for 5 minutes, Ms. Dahlkemper. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am from Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania means Penns Woods, so obviously our forest in Pennsylvania is very near and dear to us, and I am from the 

Northwest part of Pennsylvania, still very much of a forested area. 

I also have a special interest in the fact that 12 years ago, I foundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
11

ed and then ran an arboretum until I came to Congress. I actually 

miss my arboretum and learned a lot about trees over that time, 

but I just will concur with everyone’s opening statements so far. 

Certainly, the economic and environmental impact of trees is great 

in my district as it is throughout this country, and we are dealing 

with emerald ash borer and we are surrounded in my district by 

it and just the southern part of the district, we think it has actually entered that part of the district at this point. 

So these are all issues that I am looking forward to hearing from 

our different witnesses from today. And just lastly, I am going to 

end with a quote that we put in the arboretum, and it is that a 

society grows great when old men plant trees under whose shade 

they know they shall never sit. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Next, I have the gentlewoman 

from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, for 5 minutes recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH 

DAKOTA 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Baca, 

and Ranking Member Fortenberry for allowing me to join you at 

this Subcommittee hearing. I appreciate your commitment to our 

nation’s forests, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today about the challenges facing our forests and the forest industry. I would like to extend a welcome to all of our witnesses today, 

but like Ms. Lummis, I would like to extend a special welcome to 

Jim Neiman, who I would like to count as an honorary South Dakotan given all the great work that he does in the western part of 

my state. This hearing is especially timely given the consideration 

in the Energy and Commerce Committee on their approval of the 

energy and climate change legislation we have been hearing so 

much about. 

Acre by acre, healthy forests can sequester more carbon than any 

other land use, and furthermore forests can serve the key source 

of woody biomass, an important energy source. I strongly believe 

that forests must be fully recognized in any energy and climate 

change legislation for the essential role they play in reducing carbon emissions and in generating renewable energy. According to 

one 2005 U.S. Government study often referred to as the billion ton 

study each year our nation’s forests are capable of generating about 

368 million dry tons of woody biomass and our agricultural lands 

can produce almost 1 billion dry tons. 

Unfortunately, given these unprecedented opportunities, our forests and related industries and the rural communities they often 

sustain are facing a startling set of challenges. Forest products 

companies provide crucial tools for managing our national forests, 

but these companies must make multi-million dollar investments 

in equipment and mills in order to be competitive nationally and 

internationally. Thus, when the economy is faltering and when 

Federal forest policy is uncertain, it becomes difficult for private 

companies to make the long-term investments that are needed for 

healthy rural economies and sustainable forest management. At 

the same time, in addition to the economic difficulties facing mills 

and related service providers, many of our public and private forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
12

ests are also experiencing significant stress from droughts, development, disease, and other factors. Like too many forests across the 

west, South Dakota is witnessing significant threats from wildfire 

and mountain pine beetles in the Black Hills National Forest, both 

of which point to the need for up front preventive management. 

Mr. Neiman’s experience and insights from his work in the Black 

Hills of Wyoming and South Dakota will illustrate the interconnections among forest health, forest management, and the forest products industry. In particular, I applaud his interest in construction 

of electrical coal generation facility near the Spearfish, South Dakota sawmill. This co-gen proposal is exactly the type of innovative 

project that we need to expand our clean, renewable energy sources 

as we bring on line new low carbon sources of energy and seek to 

create opportunities for rural states to fully participate in the new 

energy economy. 

It is exactly projects like Mr. Neiman’s that may be stymied if 

we don’t correct the flawed definition of renewable biomass contained in the renewable fuels standard enacted as part of the 2007 

Energy Bill and in any renewable electricity standard that Congress seeks to pass this year. As noted by among others the Society 

of American Foresters on whose behalf Mr. Smith is testifying 

today, the definition of renewable biomass contained in the energy 

and climate change legislation approved in the Energy and Commerce Committee needs to be improved in important ways. I have 

introduced H.R. 1190, which would correct the mistakes made in 

the 2007 Energy Bill, where nearly all federally sourced biomass 

was excluded from the RFS. 

I am also an original co-sponsor of Chairman Peterson’s new bill, 

which would implement the similar farm bill definition of renewable biomass for the RFS. I am strongly committed to ensuring 

that H.R. 2454, the American Climate and Energy Security Act, includes a definition of renewable biomass for the RES and RFS that 

adequately recognizes the role federally sourced slash, mill residue, 

and other materials should play in meeting our renewable energy 

goals. The current definition in the bill is incomplete and inadequate. An overly narrow definition will continue to hinder responsible forest land management and slow our nation’s movement toward energy independence, as well as to lead to shortfalls in cellulose fuel production under the RFS and hurt many rural communities’ ability to participate in the new energy economy. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this very important hearing, 

and again I commend you for the foresight and the timeliness of 

the issues we will be discussing today. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much for your statement, Ms. 

Sandlin. 

The Chair would request that other Members submit their opening statements for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you Chairman Baca for holding this hearing today to educate Committee 

Members about forestry policy and the Agriculture Committee’s role in ensuring 

that Federal policy preserves and improves the health of our nation’s forests. 

13

Forest fires, insect epidemics and other threats to the health of our nation’s forests must be addressed with proper management and planning. The Agriculture 

Committee has jurisdiction over forestry on federal lands, forestry research and forestry assistance to states and to private landowners, which means that we have an 

important role to play in protecting forestry resources. 

Forests are an important feature of our national landscape, but they also have 

the potential to play an important role in the future of renewable energy production 

in the United States. Unfortunately, provisions included in the 2007 Energy Bill 

prevent forestry resources from playing a meaningful role in renewable energy. I 

have fought for two years now to expand the definition of renewable biomass included in that law to include woody biomass from public land. This woody biomass 

has little economic value and often ends up in landfills or pile burns. The technology 

needed to convert woody biomass into biofuels has been demonstrated on a pilot 

scale, and allowing that wood waste to be used for energy production would create 

an incentive to continue these activities. This is a win-win situation - removing 

wood waste that can fuel forest fires and using it for renewable energy, but for some 

misguided reason, provisions added at the last minute to the bill passed by Congress 

are preventing this from happening. Many of this Subcommittee’s members joined 

me in co-sponsoring legislation that will fix this and other problems with the Renewable Fuel Standard, and we are united in the belief that we need to pass legislation to fix these major problems if we are ever to see a second and third generation 

of biofuels in this country. 

Chairman Baca, thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look forward to 

the testimony from our witnesses.

We would like to begin with our first panel. We would like to call 

on Mr. Jay Jensen, who is the Deputy Undersecretary for Natural 

Resources and the Environment U.S. Department of Agricultural, 

here in Washington, D.C. Each of the panelists will have 5 minutes, but in your case since you are the only panelist, we will allow 

you to go the 6 minutes that you have indicated at this point. Mr. 

Jensen. 

STATEMENT OF JAY JENSEN, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY FOR 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. JENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I can add to the 

wealth of knowledge and understanding that is clearly on this 

panel here right now, so hopefully I will add a little bit of insight 

into that. I am truly honored and humbled to be here. This is my 

first hearing in this new role, and I take it as an auspicious sign 

that, Mr. Chairman, I am here before you because as a child growing up in Los Angeles, my first exposure to forests was up in San 

Bernardino. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department’s view on the future of our nation’s forests. 

We are blessed with some of the most diverse, beautiful, and productive forests on the planet. We are a great country, in part, because we have great forests. 

The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands for 

the needs of present and future generations. This mission extends 

to assisting both public and private forests nationwide. As we look 

to the future today, I would like to have our conversation focus as 

much as we can on the values our forests provide more than on any 

specific output. It is clear that we have our challenges ahead of us, 

yet I believe we need to rethink our relationship with our forest 

lands in terms of their long-term values, not just their short-term 

uses if we are all to get to the best solutions to these challenges. 

14

Our forests are owned privately by individuals, families, and 

companies, we have already heard this, 420 million acres on that 

side of the ledger, 56 percent, and publicly by counties, states, and 

the Federal Government, about 330 million acres, about 44 percent 

of the ledger. One can find these forests in the back country far 

from cities, around communities, and sometimes in our own backyards. Our challenge is to reconnect urban and rural Americans to 

these forests and to focus on how we can work together to deliver 

all these important and essential values. 

As part of this delivery, we must have a clear assessment of the 

current condition of our nation’s forests. Our forest scientists, located at universities and research stations throughout the nation, 

are continually gathering and analyzing this data, primarily 

through the forest inventory and analysis program to help us better understand the conditions we are facing. Here are some specifics. Insects and disease, while tree mortality caused by insects 

and disease tend to be cyclical, it is currently at the highest level 

in 50 years. Eight percent of the forested area in the U.S. is at risk 

of attack or mortality. Beetle killed trees cover areas of the Northern Rockies, the Southwest, and the dry forests of the Northwest, 

estimated around 8 million acres over the past few years. 

Similarly, areas of the Lake States are being ravaged the emerald ash borer, as we have heard from a number of folks here today, 

and it is threatening to move into the plains states. Around 137 

counties in 12 states reported that Asian long horned beetles are 

destroying trees in the Northeast, and right here in our backyard 

of the nation’s capitol five major cities in New York, New Jersey, 

Massachusetts, and others. Water, 53 percent of our nation’s demand for water comes from forested watersheds. Protecting those 

forested head waters is going to be key. Wildfire, public and private 

forests have built up excess hazardous fuels due in large part to 

a century of fire exclusion. On the nation’s forests alone, just alone, 

between 60 and 80 million acres of forest land is classified as 

densely stocked and at risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

Further, over the past 10 years fires have burned on average 

around 7 million acres per year. This is a size nearly twice the size 

of the State of New Jersey. Management predictions for the next 

decade indicate fires may well burn in excess of 10 million acres 

per year. Last year we lost 2,000 homes, about 4,000 buildings 

total. In 2009, we are on trajectory to surpass that number right 

now, and for all Federal, state and local fire agencies, the cost of 

fire suppression continues to grow. Forest land conversion, over the 

next 10 years we anticipate that almost 22 million acres of forest 

within 10 miles of existing cities and towns will be further subdivided and developed into non-forest uses. 

In addition, many of the owners of larger tracts of these lands 

are growing in age. Right now there is 100 million acres owned by 

people at age 65 years or older, and they are beginning to contemplate how to pass on those lands to the next generation, who 

may have different ideas for the forest lands. Considering that the 

majority of forest land in the country is owned by private family 

forest land owners, around 280 million acres, 10 million plus people, change is coming and it may be significant. Urban forests, 

today over 80 percent of the population lives in urban settings 

15

where the average canopy cover is around 27 percent with trees. 

These trees help clean our air, minimize flooding, cool our neighborhoods and offset demand for energy. One million tons of pollutants were scrubbed last year and over 800 million tons of carbon 

were either stored or offset as estimated. 

The right tree in the right place can save homeowners big money 

and help to mitigate climate impacts. And we can’t forget climate 

change. It is estimated that the U.S. forest offset approximately 11 

percent of the gross U.S. emissions each year. With wildland fires 

and loss of forest land increasing forests as carbon sinks are not 

a given. Lastly, community vitality. In addition to these resource 

challenges the forest products industrial infrastructure is in decline 

right now in many places since 2006, our numbers we have are 

around 127 mills have closed. Accompanying that decline is a loss 

of jobs and a decline in community vitality. More often than not, 

these mills are a huge part of the fabric of these rural communities, and while much of this is a result of the current recession 

and the associated decline in housing starts that does nothing to 

soften the blow. And for forest managers, this loss of the strategic 

infrastructure makes resource management more difficult and costly. 

These are numerous challenges ahead but every set of challenges 

also offers opportunity. I am particularly excited about opportunities related to the development of new markets around ecosystem 

services and bio-energy, which amongst other things helps to maintain, reconnect, and renew the bond between communities and 

their forests. We can deliver the many values we have come to appreciate and want if we invest the time and energy to work together. There is no doubt that people and interests will have differing ideas on how to tackle these issues and leverage opportunities, yet it has been my experience that people on opposite sides of 

the forestry table often have the same values. They just differ on 

how they want to see those values expressed on the land. While for 

one person protection is eliminating human influence on the ecosystem for another protection is aggressive treatment. Both want 

the forest to exist and thrive. 

So if we can focus on values and focus more on the outcomes of 

our actions, meaning we focus more on what we leave behind in 

our forests rather than on what we take away from our forests, we 

can enlarge the dialogue and arrive at a better solution. Collaborative dialogue, a means to an end, is the path forward here. Currently, collaborative efforts are flourishing across the nation creating increased understanding between citizens of diverse backgrounds. This is a notion we are very supportive of. Our intention 

will be to provide the means to multiply these successes across the 

country. As an example, on a national and local scale, collaborative 

efforts of the past few years have revolved around the development 

of community wildfire protection plans. There are over 56,000 communities at risk and right now around 4,700 communities have 

completed these plans. There is more work to do. These plans 

prioritize fuel reduction areas across the landscape. A perfect example of this notion is what the Mountain Area Safety Task Force 

in San Bernardino, California has accomplished. 

16

Taken further, in Arizona, this is another example, through 

former Governor Janet Napolitano’s Forest Health, Oversight, and 

Advisory Committee, they have worked at the same concept at multiple levels of Government to the point where interests are now 

agreeing on how much biomass can sustainably be taken off of Federal lands on the scale of millions of acres, perhaps a lesson for the 

energy bill debate that we have been talking about here today. And 

while these examples deal with in large part with wildfire the notion of communities getting together to chart a course and make a 

statement of what is most important to them can reap rewards on 

almost any issue and on any scale, be it kudzu eradication in Mississippi or forest restoration work in Montana, so we have much 

restoration work ahead to accomplish. 

Fortunately, the U.S. Forest Service is staffed by some of the 

best trained, hardest working professionals in the world, but it 

won’t be one entity alone. We know we cannot achieve these objectives without the active participation and collaboration of citizens, 

other Government resource management agencies, elected officials, 

conservation interests, the forest products industry, and the general public. Simply put, our belief is that healthy forests equate to 

healthy communities. We must conserve, protect, and enhance our 

forests. We welcome your involvement and assistance in that effort. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to 

answer any and all questions that you have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VAY JENSEN, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

CONCERNING THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION’S FORESTS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to provide the Department’s view on the Future of Our 

Nation’s Forests. We are blessed with some of the most diverse, beautiful, and productive forests on the planet. We’re a great country in part, because we have great 

forests. The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to sustain the health, resilience, 

and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present 

and future generations. Our mission extends to assisting both public and private 

forests nationwide. 

Over 100 years ago, the forests of the east and south were significantly cut over, 

as were some in the west, largely due to the primary objectives of the time, the conversion of forests to crop land, and the use of wood for building railroads, mining 

and fuel. The National Forests and the United States Forest Service were created 

over a hundred years ago in the initial stages of the American conservation movement, in part, to stop rampant deforestation and to begin the practice of scientific 

and sustainable forest management. Eventually, national forests were established 

in the east primarily for the purpose of healing cut over watersheds. The goal of 

stopping and reversing the deforestation crisis of 100 years ago was largely 

achieved. Today, our nation’s forests cover about one-third of the country, provide 

51 percent of the nation’s demand for water (US Forest Resource, Facts and Historical Trends, 2005), provide wood and paper products, provide habitat for threatened 

and endangered species and other wildlife, and offer beautiful settings for billions 

of recreation visits (RPA, 2005). 

Today I’d like to focus on the values our forests provide, rather than on any specific output. I believe we need to rethink our relationship with these lands in terms 

of their long-term values, not just their short-term uses. These values include everything from clean drinking water to hardwood for furniture to grizzly bear habitat 

to an experience of solitude as a respite from urban life to biomass that can help 

solve some of our nation’s energy challenges. To protect and maintain the values 

the nation’s forests provide requires much vision, planning, and work. Our forests 

are owned privately by individuals, families, and companies, and publicly by counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
17

ties, states, and the federal government. One can find these forests in the 

backcountry far from cities, around communities, and sometimes in our own backyards. Our challenge is to reconnect urban and rural Americans to these forests and 

to focus on how we can work together to deliver all these important and essential 

values. 

As part of delivering those values, we must have a clear assessment of the current 

condition of our nation’s forests. Our forest scientists, located at universities and Research Stations throughout the nation, are continually gathering and analyzing data 

to help us better understand the conditions we are facing. In addition, our Forest 

Inventory and Analysis division has been gathering on-the-ground data on the condition of our nation’s forests for the better part of a century. These assessments 

point to the challenges our nation’s forests are currently facing due to changes 

caused by insects, disease, noxious and exotic weeds and fire, and the conversion 

of forest land for development. Here are some specifics:

• While tree mortality caused by insects tends to be cyclical, it is at its highest 

level in fifty years. Eight percent of the forested area of the US is at risk of 

attack and potential mortality (RPA 2005). Beetle killed trees cover large areas 

of the Northern Rockies, the Southwest, and dry forests in the Northwest. Similarly, areas of the Lake States are being ravaged by the Emerald Ash Borer and 

the Asian long horned beetle is destroying trees in New England and right here 

in the backyard of the nation’s capitol. The impact of insects and disease is not 

limited to the back woods. Cities and towns throughout the Northeast are witnessing the death of their beloved trees along streets and within community 

parks.

• Public and private forests have accumulated a significant amount of excess hazardous fuels (brush and woody materials) due, in large part, to a century of fire 

exclusion. On the National Forests alone, between sixty and eighty million acres 

of forest land is classified as densely stocked with small diameter trees and at 

risk for a catastrophic wildfire (Budget Director re: Congressional testimony 

provided in 2009). As a result, wildfire is burning large amounts of forests 

across the nation. In recent years fires have burned about eight million acres 

each year of forest and grassland. This is an area nearly twice the size of the 

State of New Jersey. Management predictions for the next decade indicate that 

fires may well burn in excess of ten million acres of forest and grassland annually (Quadrennial Fire Review). In addition, more homes are being burned each 

year. For many federal, state and local agencies, the cost of suppression continues to grow.

• Forested lands are being invaded by noxious and exotic weeds. On the National 

Forests alone, our management estimates indicate that to be six to eight million 

acres annually (Invasive Species Threat to America’s Forested Ecosystems, 

Ielmini).

• Over the past fifty years urban areas have increased in size by 60 percent. During that same period, forested acreage has shown little change. The actual picture is somewhat more complex than the simple statistics alone would suggest. 

The amount of forest area is generally shrinking in the eastern and western 

states due to urbanization and fragmentation, while the amount of forest area 

is increasing in the interior of the nation as some of our cropland reverts to forest. Over the next ten years we anticipate that almost 22 million acres of forest 

within ten miles of existing cities and towns will be further subdivided or developed (Forest on the Edge, Stein, McRoberts, and Alig, 2006). In addition, many 

of the owners of large tracts of forest are senior citizens, indicating vast tracts 

of forested land will be transferred to new owners who may or may not maintain them as large forested tracts. Considering that the majority of forestland 

in this country is owned by private family landowners, change is coming and 

it may be significant.

• Today, over eighty percent of the population lives in urban settings (cities and 

towns with a population greater than 2500). The average canopy cover in these 

cities and towns is 27 percent. These trees have many environmental benefits 

in the urban ecosystem including cleaning the air and actually cooling neighborhoods which reduces our energy needs. Open space also provides areas for filtering surface water and helps mitigate potential flooding. Management estimates indicate that there are 3.8 billion trees in these settings (Forest Resource 

Facts and Historical Trends, 2009). As noted, the impact of insects and disease 

is also a major concern in these urban ecosystems.

• We continue to demonstrate our appreciation for forest settings in large numbers. Last year, we estimate that Americans made several billion visits to forest 

18

settings. On the National Forests, our survey data indicates that the Forest 

Service hosted approximately 186 million visitors. These forested settings are 

critical to the quality of life for many of us and our communities. (Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends, 2009)

In addition to resource challenges, the forest products industrial infrastructure is 

in decline in many places. Accompanying that decline is a loss of jobs and a decline 

in community vitality. Much of this is a result of the current recession and the associated decline in housing starts. This makes resource management, where needed, 

more difficult. 

There are numerous challenges ahead, but every set of challenges also offers opportunity. There are significant opportunities to begin addressing these challenges 

by maintaining, reconnecting, and renewing the bond between communities and 

their forests. We can deliver the many values we’ve come to appreciate and want 

if we invest the time and energy to work together. 

We look forward to working with the Congress to address many of the challenges 

facing America’s forests. Some of those challenges include:

• private forests and development,

• insect, disease and noxious weed epidemics in both rural and urban settings,

• hazardous fuels reduction near communities, municipal watersheds and critical 

infrastructure,

• moving towards more fire resilient forested landscape,

• balancing sustainable wood products and the biomass industry which helps restore healthy ecosystems,

• managing roadless areas,

• supporting such values as clean water, clean air, and fiber and carbon sequestration and storage,

• protecting and enhancing wildlife and fish habitat, and

• providing opportunities for citizens to choose forest settings to recreate, refresh, 

and renew themselves.

Another challenge our forests face is the deep divide that persists in the wake of 

decades of debate about how to best manage for the desired multiple uses. Some 

of our forests need restoration work and sustainable active management to remove 

hazardous fuels, to ensure clean water flows; all while maintaining forest health 

and resiliency in a changing climate. It is important to note that not every acre 

needs active management. We must move beyond the all or nothing ideas of competing interests by focusing on shared values and how they can overlap and come 

together. This requires intelligent, collaborative planning, smart, scientific based 

management, and inclusive decision-making. 

It’s been my experience that people on opposite sides of the forestry table often 

have the same values. They just differ in how they would want to see those values 

expressed on the land. While for one person, protection is eliminating human influence on an ecosystem, for another it is aggressive treatment. Both want the forest 

to exist and thrive. If we can focus on values, we can enlarge the dialogue and arrive at a better solution. 

Currently, collaborative efforts are flourishing across the nation, creating increased understanding between citizens of diverse backgrounds. Here are several recent examples where people have been working together to accomplish this vision:

1. The town of Woodland Park, Colorado, working with the Front Range Fuels 

Treatment Partnership Roundtable, of which the Forest Service is a member, 

was the recipient of the Community Demonstration Project Award. The project 

already has attracted $100,000 to help treat fuels in high-risk areas. One hundred percent of the project is in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Funding 

from the Governor’s Energy Office, the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, 

and the Office of Smart Growth will be matched with funding from national 

foundations and local organizations to make the Woodland Park Healthy Forest 

Initiative a reality. This collaborative project of various federal, state, local government, nonprofit, and individual partners is dedicated to the improvement of 

the resiliency and health of forests in and around the Woodland Park area, and 

the implementation of the Teller County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 

Current funding for this project from the grant and from other partners exceeds 

$350,000.

2. The National Forests of Mississippi produced a nearly completed draft Land 

and Resource Management Plan that was a result of excellent collaboration 

with all interested parties. The collaborative process clarified the wide support 

19

for prioritizing native ecosystem restoration and habitat improvement for 

threatened and endangered species as core components of the plan. This collaborative process demonstrates how active forest management is a tool for meeting 

ecosystem restoration goals, sustaining healthy, resilient forests while also supplying desired goods and services to the local communities.

3. The Mississippi Forestry Commission is leading a collaborative effort to address the kudzu problem. Utility companies, federal, state and local officials 

spend thousands of dollars each year to control kudzu. Kudzu contributes to the 

intensity of woodland fires because it is highly flammable and provides a fuel 

ladder from the forest floor to the forest canopy. The purpose of this collaborative and comprehensive approach between state and federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations is to address the threat and destruction that kudzu 

poses to farmers, ranchers, and foresters on both public and private lands.. The 

coalition intends to facilitate a voluntary and cooperative effort in educating the 

public, researching this pest species, and providing a means of control, suppression, or selective eradication of kudzu. As a partner in these efforts, Secretary 

Vilsack recently approved $1.6 million for American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act invasive species projects on the Holly Springs National Forest.

Our intention is to provide the means to multiply these successes across America. 

We are committed to a vision where Americans will sit down to not only address 

impacts, but more importantly, to protect and promote the full range of forest values 

that are important to all of us. 

On a national and local scale, one particularly successful collaborative effort over 

the past several years has been the development of Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans (CWPPs). The National Association of State Foresters estimates that there 

are over 56,000 communities at risk. To date, more than 4,700 at-risk communities 

have completed (CWPPs). These plans prioritize fuels reduction areas across the 

landscape. Federal and state agencies have found CWPPs to be very useful in helping prioritize agency fuel treatments via these collaborative mechanisms. 

The Administration is increasing support for the Forest Legacy Program as well 

as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, both of which will help Americans protect important forested landscapes for future generations. 

We have much restoration work to accomplish on the nation’s forested landscapes. 

Fortunately, the U.S. Forest Service is staffed by some of the best-trained, hardest 

working professionals in the world. They know we cannot achieve these objectives 

without the active participation and collaboration of federal and state resource management agencies, elected officials, residents living in and close to forested areas, 

the forest products industry, environmental interests, and the general public. We 

look forward to working together with the Congress and our partners to, among 

other things: 1) conserve working forest landscapes, 2) protect our nation’s forests 

from harm - wildfire, invasive species and the ravages of insect and disease outbreaks, and 3) enhance benefits associated with trees and forests; e.g., water quality 

as well as sustainable communities and landscapes. 

I am convinced that with the help and continued engagement of the Congress and 

our state and local community partners, we can improve upon these successes by 

restoring our forests, public and private, consistent with the values we cherish. Simply put, healthy forests equal healthy communities. We welcome your involvement 

and assistance in that effort. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have.

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much for your testimony. And we all 

agree that we have all got to work in partnership and got to collaborate if we are really looking at where we are at today and 

where we need to be in terms of the future. With that, I would like 

to begin by yielding myself 5 minutes and then we will ask each 

of the other individuals if they have any questions. They will be 

given 5 minutes to ask questions. Again, thank you very much, Mr. 

Deputy Undersecretary Jensen. As California, I am too well aware 

of the devastating effects that recent wildfires have had on our national forests. I also know the terrible impact the shift of Forest 

Service funds to fire suppression activities has on many of our 

other important programs that safeguard the environment and 

health of our forest. Do you see any other feasible answer to the 

20

constant underfunding problem besides increasing the budget of 

the USFS? 

Mr. JENSEN. I do. I am glad you are asking this. This is probably 

one of the most immediate challenges we have right now. There are 

going to be some discussions. I know discussions are ongoing right 

now within Congress about looking at the budget structure and restructuring that. I think you have noted in the President’s 2010 

budget there is also a notion of creating a contingency fund to try 

to help get ahead of that problem and that curve because currently 

right now we are looking at other program areas to fund our fire 

suppression efforts, and that is not something that is acceptable. 

What I would put on the table in answer to that is this issue has 

been debated and discussed for more than 10 years, and there are 

some pretty good efforts out there that if we turn to what some of 

the states have been doing in the past, notably the Western Governor’s Association developed back in 2001, along with the help of 

multiple other collaborators, a 10-year comprehensive wildfire 

strategy. I would encourage the panel to look closely at that document as I believe it is a pretty good blueprint as to where we might 

want to look forward. 

Mr. BACA. Along the same lines as we look at, is there enough 

funds in the emergency or reserve in conjunction with other states 

too as well because the states also have to pick up a certain portion 

of it, and is there anything that we need to do or to begin to look 

at in how we can look at that budget especially under emergency 

situations that are unexpected, whether it is wildfires in our areas, 

where it is mud slides or diseases or water or even endangered species or any other act? 

Mr. JENSEN. We currently feel that we are more than prepared 

for this wildfire season and going into the next budget cycle and 

prepared with the President’s budget to handle these issues right 

now. The season itself will certainly dictate the reality of that, but 

right now we feel we are prepared. But as the season unfolds, we 

will look forward to connecting with you and working with other 

agencies and departments at the Federal, state, and local levels to 

try to figure out what we need to ensure that we have the resources that are needed out there to protect our communities and 

for our wildland firefighters. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. I know that we all agree that the men and 

women who are firefighters are remarkable for their ability and 

bravery and they do an outstanding job in protecting us down at 

the bottom, and then also protecting our forestry too as well, but 

one aspect of firefighting that is rarely discussed is the science of 

firefighting. Are we providing firefighters with the most up-to-date 

equipment to make sure they are adequately protected? 

Mr. JENSEN. We believe right now that we have, and do have, 

the right resources in place. And we would look forward to hearing 

from you if there are certain areas and interest where you see otherwise but the way we structured and prepared for the season otherwise feel like our firefighters are prepared for the season. 

Mr. BACA. Well, it is not just about having the resources for 

them. It is looking at if we can be cost effective and get other kind 

of equipment that are just as protective and better in handling and 

fighting fires. And that is one of the things that I have heard from 

21

a lot of the firefighters is that we need to update the kind of equipment that we have that is more modernized, that it is even more 

cost effective than some of this heavy equipment that they are constantly carrying right now. And so we have the resources but we 

are spending on outdated equipment, and we need to look at what 

is it that we need to do now scientifically and still get the same 

kind of results to preserve cancer presumption and other things. 

And I know the doctor knows a lot of this because he is involved 

with a lot of the patients and others. But to see what needs to be 

done, we need to explore that as well, and hopefully you can begin 

to look at the equipment that we have. 

Do we need to make changes? Is it cost effective for us? Because, 

you know, if we can save money there and buy equipment and still 

be safe, then we have to look at other alternatives. And there isn’t 

one set of policy that is in place, and part of the problem is that 

every state, every area has its own policy in terms of their own 

equipment. And do we need to standardize it so this way we can 

be more cost effective or do we still allow the autonomy of each 

state? That is something that we need to begin to look at as well. 

And being cost effective and looking at what resources we have and 

what we will have in the future. 

Let me ask you the other question, regarding the stimulus package, many of the projects will receive funding. Can you tell us the 

criteria that were used to select Forest Service projects? 

Mr. JENSEN. Certainly. Currently we are about halfway through 

the release of the Recovery Act funds that have been allocated for 

the Forest Service, and the way the products are selected are 

through a competitive criteria based process of looking at jobs both 

near term and longer term chronic unemployment, as well as the 

impacts and outcomes that those projects would have on the 

ground. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. My time has expired, so at this time I 

would like to recognize Mr. Fortenberry for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Jensen, congratulations on your new position and obviously you have a passion for it given your testimony. 

I would like to return to the subject though of changing the definition of the renewable fuel standard to include more sources of wood 

renewable biomass. It wasn’t uncommon when I was young to see 

large piles of trees pushed up as development from occurring, 

pushed into piles and simply burned. That is a vivid image I have 

of growing up. Recently on my way home, going down the interstate, probably coming back from here, and that memory from 

childhood was evoked again as I saw a large pile of woody trees 

pushed up and simply burning. It is rare to see that now but the 

thought crossed my mind, what a waste. 

Now it is not always practical, clearly, in certain clearing situations to move wood to a renewable type of energy conversion, but 

at the same time a growing sensitivity to allow for waste wood 

products and other forms of biomass to be converted and the technology allowed to be developed to regularize woody biomass as a 

part of our renewable fuel strategy. We have to build a big book 

with multiple strategies in order to build a sustainable energy future, and I think renewable woody biomass has an important role 

to play there. I also think none of this should be wasted. So as a 

22

representative of the Administration, is this a directive that you 

would like to see? What are your thoughts and ideas on how we 

make progress in this regard? 

Mr. JENSEN. Secretary Vilsack has been very clear on his desire 

and support of creating wealth and the health of rural communities 

across this country and part of that equation is trying to find uses, 

sustainable uses, that protect fish, water, and wildlife habitat 

along the way. When that can be done in conjunction, I am very 

much in support of. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So again place it though in terms of a priority 

within the Administration. How are you going to develop and unpack that as one—it is a small chapter, we understand, but a lot 

of small chapters have to be built in order to create a renewable, 

sustainable energy future. 

Mr. JENSEN. Working landscapes are going to be a key component of the agenda that we are starting to put together right now, 

and what that means is trying to knit the connections between the 

urban landscapes and the rural landscapes, protecting the head 

waters in the forest down to the urban forests where a lot of the 

population gets its first exposure to these sorts of issues and what 

the glorious benefits of trees and forests are. We are going to work 

to make sure that that knitting of the working landscapes is done 

sustainably, which means it takes into account the ecologic, the 

economic, and the social aspects of that coming together. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Is there any resistance to changing the definition of the renewable fuel standard to include more sources of 

wood—renewable sources of wood? 

Mr. JENSEN. I think that debate is ongoing right now, and it is 

pretty clear that there is a certain amount of resistance or discussion points that are happening right now. The Department and the 

Administration are still figuring out its exact position on that matter. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, I think we can help you. 

Mr. JENSEN. It is safe to say that the Secretary feels that the 

definition, an overly narrow definition, would not be of benefit to 

that objective of——

Mr. FORTENBERRY. What do you see as the drawbacks from pursuing this more aggressively? What is your hesitation? 

Mr. JENSEN. It is around the sustainability of use of that materials. We have to make sure that the systems that get put in place 

are done in a sustainable manner and that is the——

Mr. FORTENBERRY. You heard my comments. I qualified it by saying renewable woody biomass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Next, I have Mr. Schrader for 

5 minutes recognized from Oregon. By the way, it is next to the 

state that just won the World Series women’s softball from Washington State. 

Mr. SCHRADER. We take pride with our Oregon State Beavers 

having done pretty well in the World Series for the men too, so 

men and women are doing great up in the Northwest. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you being here, and apologize for the 

tenor of my questions because I agree with the Ranking Member 

that we need the Administration and the Forest Service to step up 

in a big, big way on the biomass discussion. You have the experVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
23

tise. You have the knowledge. You need to impart that, frankly, to 

the rest of the Administration and make sure they understand that 

our forests are part of the solution, not a part of the problem, so 

I really would urge you to get on with that. Why is it that the Forest Service is not implementing HFRA? I mean basically why are 

we being held hostage by the extreme environmental organizations 

that sue at every opportunity and not implementing the goals of 

the Congress and this nation under HFRA? 

Mr. JENSEN. I don’t have all the numbers in front of me right 

now, but I think I would put on the table right now that the agency 

has pursued projects under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to 

the tune of hundreds of thousands of acres right now. If there are 

specifics or there are some concepts and ideas that you would like 

to pursue in earnest, we look forward to some conversations with 

you on how we can get at more. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, I would hope some of the panelists might 

discuss and see how well we are implementing that. Certainly in 

my part of the world it is not working at all. I would also take 

issue, you said that we have the equipment, we are prepared to 

deal with the fire season and such. We have the right resources. 

How can you say that without the air tanker fleet being in the air? 

Basically without that air tanker fleet, we have hamstrung, frankly, the Forest Service ability to fight these fires, and they are just 

going to rage out of control and it falls to the states to step up with 

resources they just don’t have. 

Mr. JENSEN. I will look to get more information for you on this, 

but my understanding is that our air tanker fleet and helicopter 

fleet is in the air right now. The status and briefing I had this 

morning, I think had 10 active tankers out there. There has been 

in the past some grounding of the air tankers, and some of those 

issues have been worked through. It had to do with the safety certificates of those planes. We are currently looking to the future to 

make sure that our fleet is exactly what we need and currently 

right now we feel that the resources we have to come to bear are 

adequate to deal with the situation at hand. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I pleasantly disagree. I am glad your attention is 

on it though and hope we do a little more. One of the strategies 

that my state has adopted that I don’t see the Forest Service adopting is an early intervention strategy. By getting into these fires 

early with resources up front you not only save money, you burn 

less carbon into the atmosphere, you protect homes, you protect 

trees. Why is the Forest Service not adopting an initial attack 

strategy like has been used very successfully—as a matter of fact, 

with that strategy my state is actually able to buy insurance from 

Lloyd’s of London to help defray the cost of excessive catastrophic 

wildfires because we have a strategy they believe in. 

Mr. JENSEN. Oregon has got some interesting and unique abilities in that regard. The agency shares that objective. Our goal and 

our direction as well is to have early and aggressive initial attack 

done safely. So we hope that it is clear that there may be some 

challenges in Oregon right now in front of you but we definitely 

share, and that is a key part of our strategy, is that you have to 

catch these fires early before they move into the larger conflagrations that cost us the larger dollars than we currently are impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
24

menting as a few strategies to help with that. I would be happy 

to discuss with you further. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate the response and look forward to 

working with you on that and the rest of the Committee. And I 

apologize again for the tenor of my questions, but I am just really 

interested in making sure that the Forest Service is shown to advantage and our healthy forests remain healthy or get healthier. 

Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Before I recognize the next person to ask a question, I just wanted to recognize Glenn Thompson 

from Pennsylvania, who has been with us since the very beginning 

of the hearing and then also I would like to welcome Ms. Markey 

from Colorado who are sitting here too as well. I would add—I 

would like to recognize Ms. Lummis for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of both the 

Ranking Member and the gentleman from Oregon’s comments and 

the gentlelady from South Dakota in support of changing the RFS 

standard to include renewable woody biomass, I won’t ask the same 

question. However, I would ask unanimous consent to insert for the 

record a photo that shows a huge slash pile much as you described, 

Mr. Fortenberry, that could be used as woody biomass under the 

renewable fuels and renewable electric standards, but otherwise 

could and would go to waste. So I want to ask unanimous consent 

to introduce that, Mr. Chairman. As well, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a second photo that shows 

the type of destruction that we are seeing in the west of adult 

lodgepole pines due to bark beetle. This particular photo is from 

the Frazier Forest in Colorado. 

And, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my beloved Jackson 

Hole Mountain Resort, I do occasionally sneak down to Steamboat 

Springs and Winter Park to ski in Colorado because I am closer to 

the Colorado border than to Jackson. And it is just devastating 

there. You would be stunned if you saw Winter Park, Colorado, absolutely stunned. It is devastating for these economies, and the fuel 

loads are very dangerous. So my question is this. What specific 

steps do you anticipate the Forest Service undertaking to reduce 

the hazardous fuel load in areas like this? 

Mr. JENSEN. Right now we are looking at a very unique and unfortunate circumstance in the sense that we have the Recovery Act. 

It is in response to some terrible times that are out there right 

now, but it is also providing some amazing opportunities to get 

ahead of some of these problems. And I don’t have specific numbers 

in front of me right now but we are using some of those monies 

to get ahead of this to do exactly the types of things that you are 

talking about. We are not going to have ever enough money to 

throw at this to get at the problem, but we have some pretty 

unique opportunities right now, and we are going to be doing our 

best. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, another question. This is with regard to HFRA. When projects include road closures or wildlife protection in addition to HFRA requirements the Forest Service seems 

to be hesitant to use HFRA. Do you agree with that assessment 

and, if so, why is that the case? 

25

Mr. JENSEN. I would have to know the specifics of the case. As 

with most forest management decisions, the tool you use is usually 

driven by the types of circumstances on the ground and every 

choice and decision looks different in different parts of the country, 

so the HFRA tool while it may be appropriate in some places may 

not be the one solution in all, and I would hope that our forest 

managers and our rangers in the field are using the right tool for 

the right place. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, just to comment, and that is 

that I would ask you, almost plead with you, to look at the BridgerTeton Forest management in Wyoming. I am tremendously concerned about that forest in terms of its management. It is my personal opinion that the Shoshone Forest is better managed than the 

BT. And, furthermore, this devastation that is occurring on its 

northern Colorado and southern Wyoming border is beyond the 

pale, and I strongly encourage you to visit, Mr. Jensen. You will 

be stupefied. Thank you. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Ms. Lummis. Next, I would like 

to call on Mr. Kagen from Wisconsin for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Than you again, Mr. Jensen, for being here and coming under fire, so to speak, but it isn’t 

so hot in here that you can’t take it. I would like to know exactly, 

and you don’t have to report this now, but this Committee as an 

oversight Committee is very interested in knowing the total number of dollars that you have received through the stimulus funds, 

the name of every program that you originated, the name of the director of that program, how many jobs you have created through 

those specific programs, and the economic impact on the communities in which you are investing those hard-earned Federal tax 

dollars. I think these are the questions that the people in Northeast Wisconsin are very interested in. 

You don’t have to provide it today, but through each and every 

one of those programs, we would like to see how that is moving. 

And if you don’t mind giving us a report month by month, we 

would really appreciate it. Could you do that? That is a yes? 

Mr. JENSEN. We will certainly follow up with you and get you the 

details you need. 

Mr. KAGEN. I am going to interpret that as, yes, we will. 

Mr. JENSEN. Very good. 

Mr. KAGEN. So that is a yes. That is a very good thing. It is 

unanimous. The other question I have for you is a real easy one. 

What are the top three complaints you are getting from people you 

are working for, from state agencies, from foresters, from private 

landowners, from people trying to make a living, what are the 

three most common complaints that you are getting through the 

Forest Service, and what are you responding, what are you doing 

in response to those problems that they are presenting to you? 

Mr. JENSEN. I would put that in the context right now of dealing 

with economic recovery, wildfire, and then generally the discussion 

right now around forest management and the utilization of the forests and the biomass themselves. 

Mr. KAGEN. Have you given any consideration—I appreciate 

what you are hearing, and I would appreciate a more in-depth response in writing as to how you are responding to their demands, 

26

and perhaps more importantly have you taken any time to study 

your own department to decide how you could become more lean 

in your functioning, more rapid in your respond? We understand 

how long it takes to grow a crop of trees. We all agree here on this 

Committee that every tree should be reclassified as an agricultural 

product. But we don’t want your department to take as long as it 

takes to grow trees to harvest them to respond to these problems, 

so have you taken a look or do you have an in-house report or an 

active person that is looking at how to become more lean within 

your own department? 

Mr. JENSEN. The most important thing for us is to make sure 

that these dollars get to the ground and to the people that need 

them. We have been looking and we are still early in this Administration right now, but we have been looking at certain efficiencies 

to do just that, and we will be happy and look forward to further 

discussion. 

Mr. KAGEN. Very good. Then with your saying yes, we will stop 

over, a number of us on the Committee are interested in stopping 

over at the USDA to take a look personally at how you are doing 

and maybe you can give us some response in writing before we get 

there. We will be there in about 4 weeks. 

Mr. JENSEN. I look forward to that. 

Mr. KAGEN. Very good. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Now I would like to recognize 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member, for putting this hearing together. Mr. Jensen, congratulations on the new position, and I was real pleased to hear in your 

opening remarks about recognition or the partnership and community vitality surrounding our forests and national forests. And I 

have to tell you, I am very pleased with the fact that we have an 

individual such as yourself with your experience as a forester and 

a wildland firefighter in that position. I think that is very good. 

Just to start out, I am going to change course just a little bit in 

terms of discussion. 

The Forest Service web site has a statement many of the communities most affected by the economic downturn are located near national forests, and that has been my experience. I have the Allegheny National Forest, 513,000 acres that were organized 86 years 

ago. I am fortunate to serve a district that includes that treasure. 

Unfortunately, the economic downturn in and around the Allegheny National Forest in my district has been really brought about 

more by the actions of the Forest Service recently than the state 

and national economy. For example, the recent agreement between 

the Forest Service and out-of-state environmental organizations 

will in fact close down oil and gas production in the Allegheny. 

Ninety-three percent of the Allegheny National Forest sub-service 

mineral rights are privately owned. The United States Government 

made a decision to leave those in private hands when it formed the 

forests, and oil and natural gas has been produced there for a century under strict control of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Another example of Forest Service policy shift is reduction in 

timber harvesting. Under the 1986 forest plan the Allegheny could 

27

be producing 90 million board feet a year, and this year we will be 

lucky to hit 25 million even though the ANF is, I believe, the only 

national forest which actually turns a profit because of the value 

of the cherry hardwood specifically. The continuously declining timber harvest and natural gas and oil production brought about by 

policy decisions of the Forest Service, not the economic downturn, 

really are killing the economy of the ANF region and fly in the face 

of the President’s policy of job preservation and creation. I wanted 

to get your opinion on that. Is there an explanation why there is 

a contradiction between the words of what the President is calling 

for in terms of job preservation and creation and, frankly, the action of the Forest Service related specifically to overseeing in the 

Allegheny National Forest? 

Mr. JENSEN. First, I would say we very much share the sensitivities around this current economic climate, particularly in the districts around the Allegheny National Forest, and the need to look 

at this nation’s energy needs and what those lands can potentially 

provide for that. We are hoping that our actions to date from what 

little I know right now on that are moving forward with those two 

items in mind, but also being mindful of the protection responsibilities that the forest has for the surface and the forests that are on 

there right now. We will look forward to having some conversations 

with you further to learn more about what is happening in your 

district and get a little better sense for the details. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Again, I quote from the Forest Service web site. 

The Forest Service has always risen to the great conservation challenge of our time and with this in mind Abigail Kimball, the Chief 

of the Forest Service, has identified three times in particular that 

have stood out, climate changes, water issues, and the loss of connection to nature, especially for kids. The phrase climate change 

appears on the main page of the Forest Service web site 15 times, 

yet there is no mention of timber or harvesting, the historic reason 

that the Forest Services in the Agriculture Department, not the Interior Department. And I guess I would just ask, this is really just 

a core principle question, what your belief is are the core functions 

of the Forest Service, and what role does timber harvesting play in 

its future. 

Mr. JENSEN. I guess I would turn back to the mission of the 

agency, and that is to protect the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forest lands. And turning again back to my 

testimony a little bit, I think the focal point on this is there is a 

place for timber. There is a place for oil and gas. We want to focus 

on what is being left behind, not so much on what is coming off. 

Mr. THOMPSON. In the Allegheny National Forest with the issues 

going on there in a recent meeting with Chief Kimball, she was 

kind enough to come into the office and we talked about the crisis 

there and the Forest Service agreement with the out-of-state environmental groups to apply NEPA to future gas and oil production. 

I asked Chief Kimball for copies of the studies done by the Service 

demonstrating the necessity for NEPA application, and she said 

that there were none and that the Service relied on pictures of environmental damage, and so my question, I guess, is do you believe 

that such an important decision should be based on photographs 

and opinion rather than thorough analysis and documentation? 

28

Mr. JENSEN. I just don’t know enough about the details of that. 

I will commit to work with you to find out a little more about that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I look forward to that, and I appreciate your 

presence here today. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. At this time, I would like to 

call on the gentlewoman from South Dakota for 5 minutes, Ms. 

Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow 

up, Deputy Undersecretary, and again I echo the congratulations 

of others on the panel for your position. I look forward to working 

with you. But I do want to delve into some follow-up questions 

based on the line of questioning of Mr. Thompson and Mr. 

Fortenberry. More specifically, can you describe the steps that 

USDA is taking to provide more stability and predictability in the 

annual timber sales volume, and more specifically what is the Forest Service doing to address the shortfalls in meeting allowable 

sales quantity levels established by forest management plans 

throughout the United States? 

Mr. JENSEN. Our current efforts right now are focusing and being 

drive a lot by the current economic recession, and so the active efforts that we are in right now are looking around the timber sale 

program and making rate adjustments around some of those timber sales to make sure that when these contracts were signed some 

years ago, they may have been signed when the markets looked at 

a lot different than now when they are actually moving towards action on the ground. The prices look a whole lot different, and that 

is the focal point right now of where we are trying to make sure 

that these timber sales go forward in an economic, viable fashion. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So the focal point is on adjusting rates, 

but not necessarily addressing the shortfalls in the ASQ? 

Mr. JENSEN. We are going to need to have some more discussions 

around that, and I would look forward to hearing what your vision 

for those are right now. As I come on board, there is a real strong 

focus on the immediacy of the near term implications of the economic recession and that is where the focal point is. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And I think that is an appropriate focus, 

but I will look forward to talking with you about our experience in 

the Black Hills National Forest. Are you familiar with the Ponderosa Pine in the Black Hills and how quickly it regenerates? 

Mr. JENSEN. The most productive. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And you are familiar with some of the 

problems we have had over the course of the last decade as it relates to meeting ASQ levels to sustain our industries but also to 

manage the forest in a much more effective way? 

Mr. JENSEN. I have heard from some of the constituents in that 

area and will look forward to a lot more detailed conversations 

from here. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Great. And then on the biomass issue, 

are you familiar with the recent assessment, I believe it was by the 

Energy Information Administration, that we are in danger of not 

meeting the targets set forth for cellulosic ethanol development and 

the renewable fuel standard? 

Mr. JENSEN. I am not familiar with that. 

29

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I would point you to that report, and 

again it will follow up. If it is not the EIA, but I am fairly certain 

that it was the EIA that did the assessment. And you are familiar 

with the President’s recent comments of last week in terms of his 

commitment to achieving advanced biofuels while maintaining the 

sustainability of the current corn ethanol industry, but clearly a 

demonstration of his commitment to cellulosic biofuels? You are familiar with his comments that he made last week? 

Mr. JENSEN. I have not seen them most recently, but I am very 

familiar with the commitment of the Administration towards advanced biofuels and cellulosic ethanol. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And so with that, the Secretary nor the 

President has yet to put forward a position on the definition of renewable biomass for either the RFS or the RES? 

Mr. JENSEN. That is my understanding, correct. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. What role, in your opinion, can utilizing 

woody biomass on Federal lands play in accomplishing our goals for 

bioenergy? 

Mr. JENSEN. I think there is a huge role. Starting from a community standpoint, I think the obvious one of trying to reduce fuel 

loads out there on the landscape to protect those communities, and 

then also trying to tie that into the economic possibilities done 

sustainably to those communities is a huge one to get that going. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. You have mentioned sustainable, sustainability a couple of times in your opening testimony and responses 

to questions. Do you feel that more information is necessary as it 

relates to sustainability even as it concerns utilizing slash and 

other materials coming off the forest under current management 

practices? 

Mr. JENSEN. I would say yes. It is clear that to make good decisions we need to have the best information we possibly can, and 

we are trying to—we want to make sure that the programs and capacities that we have in place give us the answers we need to make 

the best decisions on the ground. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, how long do you anticipate that 

that will take and in the interim are we just going to continue to 

burn or let rot existing slash piles in our national forests? 

Mr. JENSEN. We are prioritizing our works to make that they are 

done in areas that are of highest risk and where there is energy 

within the communities to get at those situations. That is not to 

say that it is enough. We need to double our efforts and get in front 

of this instead of behind it and reactive to it, but we are definitely 

trying to work to target our resource with the best information and 

best science we have to make sure it is done in the right way. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, I appreciate your responses to my 

questions, and I would implore you and the Secretary and the 

President to weed into the debate on biomass and to take a position 

in light of the over arcing goal to meet the targets that we set forth 

in 2007 and get these answers to some of the lingering questions 

that some may have as to sustainability so that we can achieve our 

energy independence goals as well as sustain our rural communities that rely on our Federal forests as well as our private forests 

across the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

30

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Ms. Sandlin. At this time, I 

would like to call the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Markey, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. MARKEY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to speak at this Subcommittee hearing. Mr. Jensen, I want to 

elaborate on what my colleague from Wyoming was talking about 

with the devastation of the bark beetle in southern Wyoming and 

northern Colorado. Two weeks ago, Secretary Vilsack was in Fort 

Collins, Colorado with me. We visited Colorado State University, 

and we were talking to some of the researchers looking at the bark 

beetle problem, and they said that in 5 years 90 percent of the 

lodgepole pines in Colorado will be dead, 90 percent in 5 years. It 

is well over 2 million acres. You know, of course, this has an enormous increase in the risk of wildfires. And I know that there is 

some stimulus money coming but there is just really not going to 

be enough funds for the magnitude of the problem that we are 

dealing with in southern Wyoming and northern Colorado. 

Some of our county commissioners have come to me and said we 

know the Forest Service is doing other programs like prescribed 

burns on our grasslands in the eastern part of the state, can some 

of that money at all be shifted to fighting wildfires as a result of 

the bark beetle problem. So can you tell me, is there any discussion, I know we passed the FLAME Act. We hope to have more 

money for fire suppression. There is stimulus money as well. But 

are you looking at shifting any money within the existing Forest 

Service budget as well? 

Mr. JENSEN. Most certainly, and I think the region has received 

a good amount of money to date and obviously this is a priority in 

the future as well. I would note that this is exactly the type of 

issue why it is important that we have these sort of public and private partnerships that are inclusive of traditional and new industries that are out there to be able to get out all the work because 

as you just said 2 million acres is a lot. And it is not going to be 

solved alone by the public dollar. We need to move forward in partnership where we can work with communities and work with existing and new industries to find solutions. 

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Ms. Markey. At this time, that 

concludes the questions of our panel. I would like again to congratulate you on your position, Mr. Jensen, and thank you very 

much for appearing before us. And if there are any additional questions that Members may have had that they didn’t have an opportunity, they may submit them for the record and hopefully you will 

be able to respond back to those particular questions. Again, thank 

you very much. 

Next, I would like to call our next panel up front. Would they 

please come to the table? Thank you. I think at this time everybody 

has sat down, but we would like to welcome our second panel to 

the hearing. I would like to begin by again reintroducing our Member from Oregon to introduce our guest from Colorado, Mr. 

Schrader, would you please introduce the Member from Oregon? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my pleasure to introduce the representative from Oregon Tree Farm System and American Forest Foundation, Mr. Clint Bentz. Clint is known as a major 

31

leader and advocate for family forestry in our Northwest. He is the 

Chairman of the American Tree Farm System, the first Family 

Forest Landowner President. He was recognized in 2002 along with 

his father as the Western National Tree Farmers of the year. Also, 

a graduate of the Master Woodland Manager Extension Program 

based out of Oregon State University, the best land grant institution in the country. He is also an author and recently wrote ‘‘Ties 

to the Land, Your Family Forest Heritage’’ in partnership with 

OSU. Clint manages a 25-acre tree farm and 700-acre family tree 

partnership at the Blue Den Ranch in Scio, Oregon. He is also an 

avid trout fly fisherman and recently honored by Governor 

Kulongoski for his work as President of the Oregon Aquaculture 

Association in aiding salmon recovery efforts, a big deal in my 

state, and showing fish and forestry are not incompatible. 

In his spare time, he works as a certified public accountant. He 

also helped rewrite Oregon’s property tax program for small woodland owners, and in Scio he lives with his wife, Maureen, and their 

six children, so he does have some spare time. And I thank Mr. 

Bentz for making a long trip to Washington and commend his dedication of aiding forestry and fishing in our great state. I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much for that introduction. Next, I 

would like to have the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis, 

to introduce her guest from Wyoming. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really an honor for 

me to welcome Jim Neiman to Washington, D.C. He is in the middle of a very busy season for his business, but he dropped everything at our request to join us today, and there is no one more 

knowledgeable about forest industry or just forestry in general in 

Wyoming. Jim Neiman has served on the University of Wyoming 

board of trustees. Jim Neiman is a steward of the land and the natural resources in Wyoming. I served a brief stint as the Director 

of State Lands and Investments to which forestry is tied in Wyoming, and also 8 years on our Board of Land Commissioners, and 

no one was more helpful in terms of providing advice with regard 

to good stewardship of the State of Wyoming’s forested lands than 

Jim Neiman. 

You will learn a great deal from him today. Jim Neiman is also 

involved in Devil’s Tower Forest Products in Hulett, Wyoming, and 

it is the last remaining sawmill in the entire State of Wyoming. So 

the survivability of this industry is at risk in spite of their best efforts to employ good stewardship. And so I am so excited to hear 

your testimony today about cogeneration, about renewable resources, and the great stewardship that you provide. Thank you for 

being a wonderful Wyoming citizen and looking forward to your 

testimony today, Jim. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Next, I would like to have Mr. 

Childers recognize his guest from Mississippi. 

Mr. CHILDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like for the 

Committee to join me in welcoming Dr. Tom Monaghan here. Mr. 

Monaghan has had a long career with Mississippi State University, 

which I will take issue that another college that was mentioned 

was the best land grant institution in the country. We have one 

that we think is the best. He is from Starkville, which is techVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
32

nically not in my district but he and I have a lot in common in that 

we are both tree farmers and have a great respect for the land and 

what it produces. I welcome you here today. He has also worked 

with the Mississippi Forestry Association, the National Association. 

I am looking forward to hearing from you today. Dr. Monaghan, 

thank you for being here, sir. Welcome. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Then I would like to have Ms. 

Markey introduce her guest from Colorado. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Childers follows:]

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF HON. TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MISSISSIPPI

I want to thank Chairman Baca and the other Members of this Committee for 

holding this essential hearing. I also want to thank Mr. Monaghan for taking the 

time to testify today and for representing the Forests Owners of my home state. 

Mississippi’s forests have been a vital a part of the cultural fabric of our state 

for over 200 years. The Forestry industry provides 8.5% of all jobs in Mississippi. 

Mississippi State University is both a premier research institution in forestry and 

an important educational resource for forest owners. The state’s 6 National Forests 

provide residents and tourists alike with some of the most pristine hiking, camping 

and fishing areas in the entire country. Mississippi is also a leader in forest conservation as the first state to implement a comprehensive state-sponsored forest resources inventory and finally, over 65% of Mississippi’s land is in forests. 

on energy, conservation, and agriculture policies it is important that we recognize 

the vital role forestry can play in all of these issue areas. I am pleased to participate 

in this hearing and I am looking forward to listening to the testimony of all of the 

witnesses and I hope to learn more about the ways we as Members of Congress can 

help bolster our National Forests and our forest industry.

Ms. MARKEY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank all of our speakers today, and I want to thank Mr. Brian 

McPeek for being with us today from Colorado to speak about the 

great work of the Nature Conservancy and what you do in North 

America. The previous speaker today highlighted the bark beetle 

epidemic in the Rocky Mountain region. The Forest Service expects 

the bark beetle epidemic will kill most of the mature lodgepole pine 

covering 2.2 million acres in Colorado and southern Wyoming over 

the next 5 years. The epidemic can be seen by the large swaths of 

red trees and is now spreading to the eastern slope and the Ponderosa Pines on the front range. 

While these beetles are native to Colorado, the increase in numbers over the past several years has been attributed to increased 

temperatures leaving large areas of dead wood and increasing the 

risk of wildfire. While some forest areas are growing back, these 

younger, smaller trees also increase wildfire risk. Infestation prevention techniques in Colorado are very labor intensive and do not 

guarantee the trees will survive. Therefore, it is important to focus 

on our wildfire prevention efforts. For the future of our forests in 

Colorado, it is imperative that we provide a stable source of funding for emergency wildfire suppression such as provided in the 

FLAME Act. 

Finally, I would like to stress the importance of providing the 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service with the resources that they need to update the quarantine 37 regulations for 

the importation of plants into the U.S. Without these updated regulations our forests are prone to invasive species. Updating these 

regulations will ensure that we are not unnecessarily exposing our 

33

forests to destructive and invasive plants. Thank you again for 

being here, Mr. McPeek, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. And we have two other panelists that are here. We have Mr. Steve Koehn, Maryland State Forester, on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters, 

Parkton, Maryland. Thank you, and welcome to the panel. We also 

have Matt Smith, on behalf of the Society of American Foresters 

from Falconer, New York. I would like to welcome all of you to the 

panel, and thank you very much for agreeing to be out here and 

giving us your expert testimony. We will begin with Mr. Koehn at 

this time. Again, you have 5 minutes. Each of the speakers will 

have 5 minutes and then at the conclusion of the panelists, we will 

ask questions. But there may be a time that I believe that the bell 

may be ringing for votes at 3:00. What we will do is go as far as 

we can and then break for recess and then come back and reconvene. So, Mr. Koehn, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE KOEHN, MARYLAND STATE FORESTER, 

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS, PARKTON, MARYLAND 

Mr. KOEHN. Thank you. Chairman Baca, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of 

the National Association of State Foresters. My remarks today will 

highlight the role of the nation’s forests as a strategic national resource. I also want to address the importance of markets for ecosystem services and traditional forest products in ensuring the nation’s forests provide environmental benefits today and for future 

generations. All the nation’s forests face numerous threats from 

changes in forest ownership and land use to wildfire, climate 

change, insects and disease. These threats will inevitably impact 

their ability to deliver essential environmental services like clean 

air and water and may provide these services at no cost or very little cost to the American public. 

Water quality has emerged as one of the most important and 

public environmental issues of our time. In the United States, well 

over half of our population depends on water supplied through 

areas that are originating on or protected by forest lands. Forests 

increase the resilience of watersheds through water storage, soil 

protection, nutrient buffering, and filtering of sediment and other 

pollutants. Increasing the ability of private forest landowners, public forest managers and communities to manage, protect, and enhance forests is one of the greatest challenges to ensuring the future sustainability of clean drinking water and our waterways and 

our water dependent ecosystems. 

State level best management practices have become widely accepted and understood tools to help reduce non-point source pollution by providing forest buffers and limiting soil disturbance, sedimentation, and leaching of fertilizers into our waterways. BMPs 

have relied on both regulatory and voluntary mechanisms for their 

implementation and have been found to be very effective in controlling non-point source pollution. New regulatory requirements will 

impact the ability of private forest landowners to realize value from 

a working forest. They also are often unnecessary given that BMP 

implementation and compliance rates are consistently quite high. 

34

Forest practice regulations threaten to place additional burdens on 

private forest landowners and serve as a disincentive in many 

cases to maintain forest land cover. 

Land conservation of non-forest uses such as urban and industrial development pose greater risks to impairing water quality. 

Legislative efforts should target and encourage the development of 

private and more diverse force markets. These will help landowners hold on to their forest land in the face of increasing development pressures. Fundamentally, sustainable force management 

is not possible without diverse, viable, and robust markets. The absence of markets deprives landowners of financial incentives for 

them to keep forest as forest. In other words, no markets, no management, no cash flow, no conservation. Markets for traditional forest products have typically done the heavy lifting as far as providing economic returns to landowners. Today, however, global 

competition has created a situation where U.S. imports of forest 

products have grown at a faster rate than American exports. 

The current economic downturn and housing slump have also reduced the demand for paper products and lumber and led to a 15 

percent decrease in the forest product industry’s work force. State 

foresters are well positioned to work with Federal partners to correct these declines, support new markets, and help create jobs at 

the local level. In the meantime, emerging carbon markets have 

been making important progress. Carbon is projected to become one 

of the largest commodity markets in the world. However, water 

quality protection, forest and habitat conservation programs are 

also critical ecosystem services and should have a place in an active market place. State foresters believe that it is important to reestablish effective programs that maintain and diversify markets 

even in difficult budget times and particularly when the nation’s 

forests are being called upon to address national climate and renewable energy priorities. 

The renewable electric standard in the proposed American Clean 

Energy and Security Act, better known as H.R. 2454, adds yet another dimension of the role of forests as a strategic national resource. State foresters believe that the forest biomass will be essential in meeting the goals of producing 15 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by the year 2020, particularly in 

states such as my home State of Maryland where wind and solar 

and other renewable energy options are less viable. Including a 

broad biomass definition in an RES like the one found in the 2008 

Farm Bill will be essential in attracting new investment in renewable energy facilities. Including a restrictive biomass definition in 

H.R. 2454, would severely constrain the ability of new projects to 

generate renewable electric credits under a Federal RES. 

Our nation’s priorities for renewable energy are underscored by 

global efforts to address a changing climate. NASF supports a national cap and trade program that includes forest carbon offset 

projects that guarantee reductions in atmospheric greenhouse 

gases. Forestry projects offering quantifiable emission reductions 

but cannot meet higher standards for offset markets should be eligible for incentives beyond offsets. Although they may not be able 

to qualify for offset payments support for these incentives and 

35

1 NCASI. 2008. Compendium of State and Provincial Forestry Best Management Practices. 

other programmatic efforts could some from the sale of allowances 

for carbon emissions as well as other sources. 

Mr. BACA. Your 5 minutes are up, but if you can conclude real 

quick, and if I can ask the other panelists to look at the light and 

try to stay within the given time limits because we have quite a 

few witnesses and the bell has just rung for us to vote. 

Mr. KOEHN. I will wrap up immediately. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. 

Mr. KOEHN. As long as public values continue to be derived from 

private forest lands, there is an undeniable role for Federal investments in order to achieve cooperative conservation on state and 

private forest lands. NASF asks that this Committee give favorable 

consideration to appropriate allocations for these important services, and with that I conclude my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koehn follows:]

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN KOHEN, MARYLAND STATE FORESTER, ON

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS, PARKTON, MARYLAND

Chairman Baca, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters. NASF represents the directors of the state forestry agencies of all fifty states, eight territories 

and associated states, and the District of Columbia. State Foresters manage and 

protect state and private forests across the U.S., which encompass two-thirds of the 

nation’s forests, as well as support our federal partners in their efforts. 

Private forest lands in the U.S. encompass approximately 495 million acres and 

provide significant environmental benefits at little or no cost to society. All forests 

face myriad threats from changes in forest ownership and use, wildfire, climate 

change, as well as insects and disease. These threats will inevitably impact the ability of the nation’s forests to deliver any number of environmental services. 

In today’s discussion, I will highlight the vital role our forests play as a strategic 

national resource that will continue to ensure water quality and quantity, provide 

renewable energy, mitigate climate change and allow wildlife to adapt to new habitats. I will also address the importance of markets for traditional forest products 

as well as for ′′ecosystem services′′ in ensuring that the nation’s forests provide environmental services today and for future generations. 

Water Quality and Quantity

Water quality has emerged as one of the most important public environmental 

issues of our time. The availability of sufficient amounts of clean water is critical 

to communities, agriculture and industry, fisheries, wildlife, as well as wetland and 

estuarine habitat. In the U.S., well over half of our population depends on water 

supplies that originate on or are protected by forestlands. Forests are essential in 

increasing the resilience of watersheds through water storage, soil protection, nutrient buffering and filtering of sediment and other pollutants. 

Water quality is an important indicator of how well land is managed. Increasing 

the ability of private landowners, public forest managers and communities to manage, protect and enhance forests is one of the greatest challenges to restoring and 

ensuring the future sustainability of clean drinking water and healthy waterways 

and ecosystems. 

State-level Best Management Practices (BMPs) have become widely accepted and 

understood tools to help minimize soil disturbance, limit sedimentation and leaching 

of fertilizers and pesticides into nearby streams, provide forested buffers around 

streams and other water bodies, and provide guidelines for proper road and water 

crossing construction. BMPs have relied on both regulatory (i.e. through state forest 

practices acts) and voluntary (e.g., landowner education and technical assistance 

programs, third-party certification) mechanisms for their implementation and have 

been very effective in controlling non-point source pollution when they are properly 

implemented. Overall implementation and compliance rates are consistently to be 

quite high.1A1

Because regulatory requirements impact the ability of private forest owners to realize value from a working forest, policymakers must consider the economic implicaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
36

tions whenever new environmental requirements are entertained. Without considerable forethought, new regulations which place additional burdens on private forest 

landowners may serve as a disincentive to maintain forest cover and could encourage conversion to non-forest uses (e.g., urban or industrial development) which-in 

many cases-pose greater risks to impairing water quality in rivers, lakes, streams, 

ponds and other waterways. Conversely, regulation that helps to establish private 

and more diverse markets can be an important way of helping forest landowners 

hold onto their forestland in the face of increasing development pressures. 

Renewable Energy

The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently passed their version of the 

American Clean Energy and Security Act (i.e. HR 2454) on May 21. The bill included a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) that would require the nation’s utility providers to supply as much as fifteen percent of their power from sources such 

as wind, solar and biomass by the year 2020. Reaching this goal will hinge on 

whether Congress can craft an RES that does not interfere with the ability of the 

nation’s forests to contribute to renewable energy. Forest biomass will be essential 

in meeting national goals for renewable energy, particularly in states-such as Maryland-where wind, solar, and other renewable energy options are less viable. Including a broad biomass definition-such as the one found in the 2008 Farm Bill-in an 

RES will be essential in attracting new investment in renewable energy facilities. 

In Maryland, for instance, two wood-based bioenergy facilities are planned on the 

Eastern Shore to meet increased energy demands imposed by an ever-increasing 

population. 

The first anticipated project is Fibrowatt’s FibroShore facility which would utilize 

a projected 50,000 tons of forestry residues alongside 300,000 tons of poultry litter 

to deliver 40 MW of power to as many as 50,000 homes. FibroShore’s sister power 

plant is FibroMinn located in Minnesota, the first of its kind biomass-fueled facility 

in North America. 

The second project - which is under consideration by the Maryland Environmental 

Service (MES), a quasi-public entity -is envisioned to need an estimated 80,000 dry 

tons of forest residues (i.e., bark, chips, tops, limbs, unmerchantable small trees) to 

produce as much as 10 MW of power annually at the Eastern Correctional Institution (ECI). Given a biomass-fueled facility is a base-load operation - compared to 

intermittent production, like wind and solar -- it is possible to realize excess generation that could be fed to the PJM grid. 

In addition to renewable energy, these two projects will also generate green jobs 

in areas of Maryland which are experiencing unemployment rates higher than the 

state average and median incomes below the state average. 

New markets will provide Maryland-as well as other parts of the nation-with the 

infrastructure needed to improve forest health and productivity while creating incentives for families and individuals to maintain their forests in forests. Both would 

also produce measurable environmental benefits including a reduction in harmful 

greenhouse gas emissions and reduced non-point source nutrient pollution in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Limiting the availability of forest biomass by including a restrictive biomass definition in HR 2454 could severely constrain the ability of the FibroShore and ECI 

projects (as well as other similar projects across the country) to generate renewable 

electricity credits (RECs) under a federal RES. Removing the possibility of RECs 

would serve as a disincentive to investment, would likely have a detrimental effect 

on the economic viability of the projects, and would likely contribute further to the 

erosion of energy reliability at a time when PJM predicts rolling brownouts and 

blackouts throughout Delmarva by 2011 and 2012, respectively. 

Climate Mitigation & Wildlife Adaptation

National priorities for renewable energy are underscored by global efforts to address a changing climate. Our forests will serve as a strategic national resource in 

our collective climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. NASF supports a national 

cap-and-trade program that includes forest carbon offset projects that guarantee reductions in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG). Forest carbon offsets offer one of 

the quickest means of reducing carbon emissions, are highly cost-effective, and provide valuable co-benefits such as clean water, wildlife habitat, clean air and recreational opportunities. State Foresters recommend that eligible offset project types 

should include afforestation, reforestation, improved forest management, and others 

such as avoided deforestation to be added at a later date. Early adopters participating in existing regulatory and voluntary carbon markets should be rewarded in 

order to maintain their current and future interest in supplying emissions reductions. 

37

Forestry projects offering quantifiable emission reductions-but that cannot meet 

higher standards for offset markets-should be eligible for incentives beyond offsets. 

Although they may not be able to qualify for offset payments, support for these incentives or other programmatic efforts could come from the sale of allowances for 

carbon emissions as well as from other sources. We recommend that legislation offer 

these kinds of incentives to reward forest project types with quantifiable climate 

benefits-including avoided deforestation-and would designate Forest Legacy, EQIP 

and other Farm Bill programs as part of a ready delivery system. 

NASF supports legislation that includes new and expanded funding for adaptation 

activities across the nation’s federal and non-federal forests. Past proposals have focused climate adaptation funding on federal lands and have omitted opportunities 

to help fund adaptation activities on state and private forest lands. State forestry 

agencies-in coordination with state fish and wildlife agencies-help provide forestbased habitats for fish and wildlife (among many other forest-related benefits) in the 

face of changing climates. Cooperative Forestry Assistance programs can play an essential role in implementing forest adaptation strategies on private forestlands. Yet, 

with the exception of a very small allocation for the Forest Legacy Program, HR 

2454 makes no provision for funding these programs as part of the Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Fund. NASF asks that this Committee ensure 

that adaptation funding be allocated to support nonfederal forests as well as federal 

forests and wildlife needs. 

Importance of Markets for Sustainable Forestry

Sustainable forest management is not possible in the absence of diverse, viable 

and robust markets. The absence of markets results in passive management and deprives landowners of financial incentives for keeping forests as forests. In other 

words: no markets - no management; no cash-flow - no conservation. Today, markets 

exist for traditional forests products and for the ′′ecosystem services′′ forests provide. 

Both have important roles in providing incentives which encourage conservation and 

for implementing sound forest management and stewardship practices. 

Markets for Traditional Forest Products 

Markets for traditional forest products (e.g., lumber, pulp, piling, poles) have done 

the bulk of the heavy lifting as far as providing economic returns to landowners and 

have helped reward them for keeping forests as forests. Currently, the nation’s forest products industry faces significant global competition creating a situation where 

U.S. imports of forest products have grown at a faster rate than American exports. 

Further, the current economic downturn and housing slump have reduced the demand for paper products and dimensional lumber resulting in a loss of traditional 

markets all across the country. Over the past three years alone, 15 percent of the 

forest products industry’s workforce-found mostly in our rural areas-has been left 

without a job as a result of mill closings. 

Ecosystem Service Markets 

Ecosystem services are the values that forests provide above and beyond the traditional products like lumber and pulp. Important progress has been made in regard 

to carbon and renewable energy markets under the high-profile urgency of climate 

change. In fact, the market for carbon is projected to become one of the largest commodity markets in the world. But water quality protection, forest conservation, and 

habitat conservation programs are also critical ecosystem services that should also 

have a place in an active marketplace. 

In Maryland, the ′′Bay Bank′′ is attempting to provide innovative solutions to 

bridge the gap by offering a basic online market infrastructure to help landowners 

determine what markets and programs they are eligible to participate in and then 

generate and market credits for various ecosystem services. Landowners can place 

different practices on their land; see what types of credits those practices are capable of generating; and the costs and benefits of implementation and potential income 

from credits. The multi-state nature of the registry will also assist the development 

of regional markets. 

Programs Needed to Facilitate Diverse & Robust Forest Markets 

NASF strongly supports the new Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets, led 

by former USDA Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins. The leadership role 

of USDA through this office will be critical in developing markets which will compensate landowners for the wildlife, water, clean air and carbon storage benefits 

their forests provide. 

State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service should also be involved in efforts 

to support new markets-particularly for low value materials-and thus helping to correct declining markets particularly at a time when unprecedented global competitive 

38

pressures confront the forest products industry and as the nation’s forests are being 

called upon to address national priorities related to renewable energy and climate 

mitigation. State Foresters believe it is important to reestablish effective programs 

that maintain and diversify markets even in difficult budget times. Past programmatic efforts in these areas were not clearly articulated and have lost sight of 

their intended purpose. New programs could help identify and fund the most innovative projects from around the country which address priority issues in each state, 

ensure longevity of benefits, maintain and create jobs, and promote the overall goal 

of improving the prospects for practicing sustainable forestry. 

It is also important to recognize the important role of Farm Bill programs in 

achieving these national goals. NASF sincerely appreciates the leadership of Chairman Peterson and Members of the House Agriculture Committee in crafting the 

Forestry Title of the 2008 Farm Bill. The State Assessments and Strategies specified in that title are critical in developing direction and future appropriations for 

Cooperative Forestry Assistance programs. Similarly, State Forestry agencies anticipate improved services and cost-share capabilities through the enhanced forestry 

provisions contained in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

I would like to commend Chairman Baca and Ranking member Fortenberry for 

holding this hearing today and thank the Committee Members for allowing us to 

offer our views on the future on the nation’s forests.

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Mr. Bentz. 

STATEMENT OF CLINT BENTZ, ON BEHALF OF THE OREGON 

TREE FARM SYSTEM AND AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION, 

SCIO, OREGON 

Mr. BENTZ. Thank you, Chairman Baca, Ranking Member 

Fortenberry, and Members of the Committee. My dad brought our 

property in 1964, and we were like most family forest landowners 

trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage. We bought it originally to run cattle on. It was a cutover stump ranch. There really 

wasn’t a whole lot happening on the property. And so we ran cattle. 

We created a fish hatchery. We built some lakes. We had private 

recreation. We were just kind of doing anything we could. And in 

the late 1970’s a stewardship forester, our local stewardship forester, Mike Barsoti, started talking to my dad about managing for 

the timber resources. And so we had some cost share funds that 

were available at that time, and we started pushing brush and 

planting trees. And over the last 20 years, we have re-planted and 

re-started about 400 acres of forest. 

I moved home about 20 years ago, and we realized we were making all these investments in the land. We were going to create a 

state tax problem for our family. We started talking also about 

generational transfer issues that this work that my dad was doing 

and that I came back to help him with, we would not live long 

enough to see through to completion, and so if we were going to be 

successful, we needed to engage our children and our grandchildren 

in this process so they had as much passion about it as we did. And 

out of that resulted this ties to the land curriculum that is now 

being used nationally by family forest landowners across the country connecting inter-generationally to the land. 

As a result of all of our work, we were named the 2002 National 

Outstanding Tree Farmers of the Year by the American Forest 

Foundation. America’s Forest Foundation has a tree farm program, 

which was founded in 1941 in Oregon. We were the first tree farm 

Committee. And we work basically doing education and outreach 

and recognition of family forest landowners. There is 91,000 of us 

across the country. We have 24 million acres under internationally 

third party certified green management of the property so 

39

sustainably managed for wood, water, wildlife, and recreation. I 

just finished a three-term chair as the chairman of the organization. I am continuing as a trustee. Oregon has produced four National Tree Farmers of the Year over the last 60 years so Oregon 

actually has the largest number of tree farmers that have received 

that award. 

Small forest landowners in the United States are defined as 

being under 1,000 acres. There are 10 million of them, and they 

own more than a third of the forests in the United States. Average 

holding is under 100 acres. If we compare that to family farms 

there is roughly the same number of acres, about 250 million acres 

of family farms. There is 2-1/2 million family farmers. There is 10 

million family forest landowners, but basically the same land base 

that they are controlling. In Oregon, the forest products industry 

is the largest forest products industry in the United States. We 

produce more than 18 percent of the total U.S. softwood lumber 

production, so timber still is a big deal in Oregon. We are the Persian Gulf of timber, we like to say out there, so even though we 

have the Silicon Forest growing up near Portland. 

Ninety percent of endangered species rely on our forest land. We 

are facing all kinds of issues with multi-generational issues. Our 

loss of markets, we are being left out. Many of the renewable building standards that are coming out don’t recognize wood at all or 

if they do they don’t recognize our wood as a part of the standard. 

We have development pressure. I know in Oregon forest land goes 

for about $1,000 an acre. If you can put a house on it, it is worth 

$30,000 an acre. That is a huge differential that makes it very 

hard to talk family forest landowners into keeping the land in that 

use. Of course, we have generational change. One in five owners is 

over 75 years of age. We are going to have 44 million acres of this 

land change hands in the next 5 years. 

So we have this climate change bill in front of us. We want to 

make sure that family forest landowners qualify for carbon offsets, 

that the work we are doing can be in there. We are now trading—

we have pilot projects American Forest Foundation has set up to 

help family forest landowners aggregate and trade carbon in the 

voluntary markets. We want to make sure that whatever new rules 

get written coming out of Congress don’t throw those people under 

the bus, that they are able to continue to trade their carbon and 

aggregated. Again, most of our landowners are small, so a lot of 

times economies of scale aren’t there so we still need incentives. 

We need cost share, we need other help to help them get through. 

I think the bottom line for me is that family forest landowners 

really care deeply about their land. We own the land but really it 

owns us. Stewardship is a natural part of that ethic. We don’t live 

long enough to see the fruit of our labors. 

Our success, the success of American Forest Foundation is built 

on engaging the hearts and minds and the creativity of these folks, 

and I know that if you recognize and reward these landowners for 

the hard work that they are doing, they will give back to you far 

more than you ever give them. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bentz follows:] 

40

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLINT BENTZ, ON BEHALF OF THE OREGON TREE FARM

SYSTEM AND AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION, SCIO, OREGON

Tanking member Fortenberry, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of America’s family forest owners. 

I’m a family forest owner in Oregon, where my siblings and I own 700 acres and 

manage it as a certified property under the American Tree Farm System - a program of the American Forest Foundation. ATFS certification means that my forest, 

like that of the 91,000 other family forest landowners in the system, is managed 

in a way that ensures the continuation of clean water, wildlife, recreational opportunities, and renewable wood products. 

We were honored by the American Forest Foundation as the National Outstanding Tree Farmers of the Year in 2002 for our conservation and outreach efforts. We were also honored by Oregon’s governor, Ted Kulongoski, for our conservation efforts on behalf of the Oregon Salmon Plan. I just completed my 3-year term 

as Chairman of the National Operating Committee of the American Tree Farm System - the first family forest landowner to hold that post in the organization’s 65-

year history. I currently serve as a Trustee and Treasurer of the American Forest 

Foundation. 

As a Certified Public Accountant, I speak, write and work with family forest landowners around the nation on the issue of maintaining family ownership of farm and 

forestland across the generations. I’m also a member of the Oregon Small Woodland 

Owners Association, which represents over 3,000 family forest owners in Oregon. 

I’m here today on behalf of the American Forest Foundation and the 91,000 family 

owners in the American Tree Farm System. 

Why Forests Matter

In Oregon, families own 4.7 million acres, or around 15 percent of the forested 

landscape. Nationally, 56 percent of the 751 million acres of forestland is privately 

owned. Of this private forestland, 62 percent, or 264 million acres is owned directly 

by individuals and families. This family forestland is owned by roughly 10 million 

individuals, with an average land holding of less than 100 acres. The forest industry 

in Oregon is the largest in the nation, accounting for 18 percent of total U.S. 

softwood lumber production. Our soils and wet climate have made Oregon the 

′′Persian Gulf′′ of timber in the U.S. Voluntary efforts by private forest landowners 

in Oregon over the last 10 years under the Oregon Salmon Plan have restored over 

3,700 miles of stream banks and have made 3,100 miles of stream accessible to fish 

by improving culverts and stream crossings. 

Securing the future of the nation’s family-owned forests is a priority we should 

all be concerned with, whether we own forests ourselves, work in the forestry sector, 

or simply live in an urban environment. Family forests that are sustainably managed are critical to our daily lives. 

Across the nation, these family forests supply the bulk of the wood for wood products, clean water and air, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Ninety 

percent of our nation’s endangered species rely on family-owned forests for some 

part of their critical habitat. If these lands aren’t managed sustainably and families 

are not able to hold onto their lands, we will lose a vast part of our nation’s natural 

infrastructure, the jobs and economic value that forests provide for rural communities, the hunting, fishing, and other recreational opportunities, and the scenic 

beauty we all enjoy. 

Ensuring Clean Water Supplies. Safe drinking water is pretty much taken for 

granted in the U.S., but in fact more than 50 percent of the freshwater flow in the 

lower 48 states depends on forested watersheds for purification. Forests protect 

water quality by stabilizing soils, slowing runoff, preventing erosion and floods, and 

filtering pollutants. The US Forest Service estimates that 180 million Americans depend on forests for their drinking water. 

A Green Building Material. Wood itself is increasingly recognized as one of the 

best ′′green′′ building materials for many reasons-it is renewable, forest products 

store carbon, and it takes far less energy to provide than other building materials 

like steel and concrete. 

Mitigating Climate Change. Since trees absorb carbon, our nation’s forests are effectively reducing 10 percent of all harmful carbon dioxide pollution in the U.S. 

every year. Without forests, we would be sliding even closer and faster into climate 

change. 

The US EPA predicts, with the right incentives to encourage good forest management practices (planting trees, replanting cut trees or trees damaged by disasters, 

lengthening cut rotations, and avoiding deforestation), forests could actually do 

41

much more to combat climate change-capturing and storing up to 20 percent of all 

U.S. carbon emissions. 

This is important-we have 20 percent of the solution to our nation’s climate challenges right here in our back yard today-in the nation’s forests. This is a climate 

mitigation tool that we can put to work immediately. 

Providing Renewable Energy. Forests can also supply significant amounts of renewable energy, for both fuels and electricity. As we strive to reduce the nation’s 

reliance on foreign sources of oil and fossil fuels, we should turn to the nation’s forests, where we have 50 percent more biomass today than we did in 1950. If these 

lands are managed sustainably, we can meet our wood fiber and our renewable energy needs. 

The thing I love about being a Tree Farmer is that I don’t live long enough to 

see the fruit of my own labors. Everything I do on our Tree Farm is for the benefit 

of generations yet to come. Anything I do on our land that generates income is due 

to something that the previous generations created. We care about these lands and 

our goal is to leave them to the next generation better than we found them. 

My father purchased our property in 1964 to provide summer pasture for our 

cows. At the time it was a ′′cut-over stump ranch′′ that had been significantly degraded by the prior owners. In the 1980’s we began to manage for timber, and in 

one generation a forest that had been gone for over 50 years began to re-emerge. 

When he passed away seven years ago, the task of management fell to me. I am 

working hard to ensure that my children acquire the passion and vision to continue 

the work of restoration Dad and I started on this property 30 years ago and see 

it through to completion. 

As a professional, I have worked with several families who have owned their 

forestland for 6 to 10 generations. Imagine the sense of heritage and pride these 

families have in their lands. They are true stewards and while they own the land, 

in many ways the land owns them. With the many challenges in family life today, 

these properties can become a unifying force keeping families working together for 

a common purpose. They can also be a source of division and frustration if the families do not work to keep this sense of heritage alive.Clearly, there is a lot at stake 

with this essential aspect of our nation’s natural infrastructure. Unfortunately, the 

news isn’t all good. These family forests are at grave risk for a number of reasons. 

When I get family forest owners together to talk about why we are so passionate 

about out lands in the face of the risks of fire, insects & disease, a rapidly changing 

regulatory environment, declining markets, the estate tax and climate change, the 

only answer we can come up with is Brain Damage! We love these lands. The dirt 

gets under your skin and you become a part of it. 

Development Pressures

Family forest owners are faced with tremendous development pressures, as urban 

areas grow, and the cost of owning their land rises. The US Forest Service predicts 

that by the year 2030, roughly 44.2 million acres of forests will experience substantial increases in housing density. When forests are converted to other uses, the US 

Forest Service reports that these negative impacts are common: • Decreases in native fish and wildlife and their habitats

• Changes in forest health

• Reduced opportunities for outdoor recreation

• Poorer water quality

• Greater loss of life and property to wildfire

• Decreases in production of timber and other forest products.

While development pressures have certainly slowed due to the economic slump, 

we are sure to see it pick back up. Annually, we lose about 1.5 million acres, an 

area about the size of the state of Delaware. What does this mean? Well, the slide? 

We lose the ecological services like water and air filters and these lands become 

much harder and more costly to manage for economic and ecological purposes. 

Climate Change and Forest Health

Scientists around the globe predict that as our climate changes, we’ll see drastic 

changes to our forested ecosystems. Many predicted changes will negatively impact 

America’s forests-increased catastrophic wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks, 

shifts in forest species compositions, and major drought.We are already seeing the 

affects of the changing climate today. Take, for example the massive mountain pine 

beetle outbreak in the Rocky Mountain region, where millions of acres of forests are 

dying from the outbreak. Scientists believe the severity of this outbreak is due to 

a number of factors, one of which is the fact that earlier warming in spring and 

a longer growing season have allowed the beetles to increase their rate of reproducVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
42

tion to a level we did not think was possible. Earlier spring warming is already 

causing alarm in southern Vermont where folks have seen the harvest time for 

maple syrup consistently starting earlier and earlier until it is now a whole month 

earlier. 

We also have a growing collection of invasive forest pests and pathogens that 

threaten the nations forests, whether it’s the emerald ash borer in the Lake States, 

Sudden Oak Death in my neighborhood, Asian longhorned beetle in the Northeast, 

or the European wood wasp in New York, or cogongrass in the south, it seems that 

every forested region is facing more threats from pests that arrive from overseas 

due to our increasingly global economy. 

Declining Traditional Markets

One risk to our family forests is the changing economics of forestry. In the West, 

most of our lumber goes into the housing market. The decline of new housing starts 

from 2.1 million to fewer than 500,000 in two years has decimated the forest products industry and sent timber prices to historic lows. Contributing to this problem 

is the fact that we are importing logs and lumber from countries whose environmental regulations are not as strict as our own.In the South and East, we see paper 

production moving offshore for a variety of reasons with a resulting loss of pulpwood 

markets. Markets for wood products of all kinds are declining, and without cash 

flow to the landowners, there can be no conservation of the land. While the economic 

downturn is magnifying this, we have seen dramatic declines in market opportunities for traditional wood products from family forests for more than a decade. This 

is due in large part to the global economy and rising competition from places like 

South America and Asia. We are quickly losing our ability to compete with other 

countries, as manufacturing and environmental costs rise here in the U.S. and the 

regulatory climate for forest owners continues to grow more burdensome. 

Forest owners, who previously may have done some cuts to generate revenue each 

year, have had to hold off the last couple of years because of the weak market. One 

of our Tree Farmers in Louisiana, Judd Brooke, was only able to get about ten cents 

on the dollar when clearing down trees from Hurricane Katrina, compared to the 

pre-Katrina prices. In Oregon, log prices are currently at or below the cost to harvest and transport the logs to the mill. I didn’t harvest any timber last year and 

won’t harvest any this year either. 

As a result, many saw mills have been closing down, making it more and more 

expensive (especially with higher gas prices) to ship timber to farther-away saw 

mills. Loggers and truckers are going out of business and young people are choosing 

other careers. Together, these types of market trends have put tremendous pressure 

on rural communities that have long been dependent on timber production. This is 

happening at the same time that we are importing 35 percent of our lumber from 

other countries. 

Aging Population of Forest Owners

It’s of course a fact that the U.S. population is aging. However, this issue is much 

more pronounced in the population of family forest owners where most family forest 

owners are above the age of 55. Generational change is a huge issue for family 

forestlands. With nearly 20 percent of the acres are owned by individuals over 75 

years of age, and half owned by someone of retirement age, we expect over 40 million acres of family forests to change hands in the next five years. In many cases, 

these families have not begun engaging the next generation to prepare them for the 

handing over of the baton. For certain, the average size of these holdings will decrease as this land is further fragmented, and this is likely to have impacts on how 

these lands are viewed and managed by the new owners. Eighty percent of family 

forest owners list as a top priority the passing of their lands to the next generation. 

Surprisingly, less than a third of the current generations of landowners inherited 

their land from the previous generation. Almost 80 percent of forest landowners 

have purchased at least some of the lands they manage. 

Raising timber is a multi-generation project. In Western Oregon, it takes 40-80 

years to raise a tree from seedling to harvest. In Eastern Oregon and the Inland 

West, it takes on average 80-120 years to raise a tree to maturity. Hardwoods in 

the Midwest and East can take up to 150 years to produce high quality hardwood 

lumber. That is 3 to 6 generations of owners for one harvest cycle. If families fail 

to prepare for generational change, this is a point where we see a lot of forests shift 

into non-forest uses, become fragmented, or developed, never to return to a working 

forest. 

Another impact is the effect of the estate tax on family forestlands. When the land 

gets valued and taxed at fair value 3 to 6 times between planting and harvest, it 

often results in the premature harvest of the timber, followed by the sale of the 

43

land. For many families, after they pay estate bills, there is not enough of the property left to make it worthwhile to keep it. 

So, now that I’ve laid all this depressing information on you, we have some policy 

solutions to address these threats, capture the tremendous value of family forests 

for climate mitigation, renewable energy and other ecosystem services like clean 

water, and help keep this essential element of our rural economies intact. This is 

how we will truly secure the future of the nation’s forests. 

Expanded Market Opportunities

While the primary motivation for ownership among most family forest owners is 

not timber production (it is a top 10 reason, but not a top five reason for owning 

the land), financial incentives are an essential element for keeping them on the 

land-no cash flow, no conservation. 

Maintaining and improving traditional wood products markets. These markets 

have and will continue to be a strong source of income for family forest owners, if 

the appropriate policies and incentives are put in place. This includes ensuring that 

wood grown on family forest lands is considered ′′renewable′′ in new and emerging 

green building markets. Unfortunately, some green building standards, including 

the Standards used by our very own General Services Administration, exclude the 

use of wood from most family forests, including the 30 million acres certified under 

the American Tree Farm System. 

Emerging renewable energy markets. This Committee has been at the forefront of 

the debate over emerging energy markets for biomass. This new market has the potential to offset revenue streams lost by the declining timber market. Unfortunately, 

family forest owners are essentially left out of the renewable fuels market due to 

an unduly limited definition in the Renewable Fuels Standard. Emerging carbon 

markets. Carbon markets represent another minor, yet important, emerging income 

stream for family forest owners. However, it is critical that the policies are structured to reflect the needs of family owners; otherwise, the vast climate mitigation 

potential in these forests will go untapped. Right now, there are still many questions and uncertainties present in the House climate bill, HR 2454, that could make 

or break this market opportunity for family forest owners. The American Tree Farm 

System already has pilot programs in place where family forest landowners are aggregating and selling their carbon on the existing voluntary markets. We want to 

see these efforts encouraged and expanded under whatever regulatory structure is 

adopted by Congress. 

Emerging Ecosystem Service Markets. In addition to carbon markets, markets for 

other ecosystem services, like clean water and endangered species habitat are 

emerging. The 2008 Farm Bill took a step in the right direction, requiring the development of standards and guidelines for ecosystem services and the establishment 

of the USDA Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets. We must have policies in 

place that encourage the development of these markets, to secure the continuation 

of these services in the future. 

Investments in Conservation

In addition to market opportunities, we also need incentives for family forest owners to continue managing their land sustainably and stay on the land. These incentives help add to revenue streams from markets and are by far preferable to a regulatory approach. Again, no cash flow-no conservation.Tax Incentives. Tax policy can 

serve as either a major incentive or a major deterrent to family forest owners who 

wish to keep their land in the family and manage their forests sustainably. This 

is especially true as development pressures and land values escalate, often putting 

forest land owners in a situation where they may feel forced to sell in order to pay 

property, estate or other taxes. Forest land is a unique, risky, investment, often requiring significant upfront expenditures that can take 30-150 years to yield favorable returns. In many cases, there is a 10-fold or more difference in the value per 

acre as forest land or development land. 

Tax incentives can take the form of lower income taxes for forest revenue, an estate tax system that encourages rather than discourages intergenerational ownership of family forestlands, tax credits or deductions for conservation activities such 

as conservation easements or endangered species conservation. Congress will have 

an opportunity this year to tackle several of these issues, including the estate tax 

and tax credits for conservation easements. 

Conservation Incentives. Tax policy is just one way to create incentives for forest 

conservation and sustainable management. Other incentives, like those provided in 

the 2008 Farm Bill through programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program, also help spur sustainable forest management. We also need better safe 

harbor agreements so that when a landowner creates habitat for an endangered speVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
44

cies, they are not punished by losing the ability to continue the active management 

of their lands. 

This year, with climate legislation moving, Congress has a unique opportunity to 

create incentives for climate mitigation activities on family forests. While carbon offset markets are one way to do this, they won’t work for every forest owner. Pilot 

projects underway at the American Forest Foundation indicate that while family 

forest landowners can effectively aggregate their carbon for sale in carbon offset 

markets, the economic feasibility drops precipitously for forests at or below 80-100 

acres. Because the vast majority of forest owners own less than 100 acres, we need other 

ways to capture the carbon benefits of these forests-if we are going to double the 

sequestration in forests from 10 to 20 percent. Incentives will do the job, provided 

the legislation includes them. Unfortunately, the current Waxman-Markey climate 

bill only includes incentives for international forestry projects, and leaves out America’s forest owners and farmers. Congress can rectify this and provide an incentive 

for carbon sequestration that can start happening immediately. 

Research Investments. Today, more than ever, we need cutting edge research to 

face the challenges before us. Whether it’s figuring out how forests can help solve 

climate problems or finding a way to control increasing number of invasive forest 

pests, there is no shortage of questions that need answers in order for our forests 

to continue to thrive. Unfortunately, forest research funding has drastically declined 

over the past decade, due in large part to a decreasing investment from the private 

sector. Investments in research at our federal agencies and our universities are essential to getting the right information in the hands of those making decisions about 

forests. 

Federal Forest Policy. The problems that plague our national forests have made 

them bad neighbors to the family forestland owners that live on their borders. In 

the Pacific Northwest Region over the last 10 years, the average size of a wildfire 

on the national forest was 133 acres. On state and private lands the average size 

was 24 acres. In 2007, more than 500,000 acres of national forests in Oregon were 

damaged as a result of bark beetles and other insects and disease problems caused 

largely by stress from drought and historically overstocked stands. 

Wildfire and insect and disease issues do not honor property lines, and the federal 

forests need to be funded and actively managed to restore the health of this vital 

ecosystem and national resource. In 2007 in Oregon alone, less than 7 percent of 

the annual growth in the federal forests was harvested. Nearly 20 percent of the 

annual growth was lost to fire, insects and disease, and the remaining 73 percent 

of the growth is still there, increasing the stress on these already overstocked 

stands. This is a recipe for disaster. 

By comparison, on private forest lands in Oregon in 2007, 75 percent of the annual growth was harvested, 4 percent was lost to fire, insects and disease, and 21 

percent of the growth is still there in the woods. 

The US Forest Service concluded in 2007 that forest health could be restored by 

thinning these stands, burning after thinning, harvesting insect-infested trees, and 

selected harvesting which restores the forest to healthy, historical stocking levels. 

Private landowners in these same areas have adopted these practices and have seen 

great improvements in the health of their forests. This was vividly brought home 

to Oregonians in the recent B & B fire where national forestlands were devastated 

and the adjoining private forests escaped relatively unharmed. 

Education Investments. All the market opportunities, incentives or other policies 

we enact will have little effect if the next generation of landowners, conservationists, and general citizens do not have the awareness and skills to tackle our environmental challenges. Investments in education about the environment, science, math, 

and other areas, that help prepare our children to meet these challenges in essential. There are several opportunities through USDA, including through the US Forest Service’s conservation education programs, to increase these investments. This 

should also be a priority as we seek to secure the future of the nation’s forests. 

This Congress and decisions made over the next several years will have a dramatic impact on the future of the nation’s family forests. Right now, the future is 

looking good, family forest owners have tremendous potential to help solve some of 

our toughest environmental challenges and Congress is poised to help see this happen. We must make the right decisions about our nation’s forests, ensure adequate 

market opportunities and provide incentives that will help us address our pressing 

challenges and secure the future of this precious natural resource. 

I believe that families have the ability to hold and manage land sustainably over 

the generations. However, if we don’t help them succeed, we will lose a vast part 

of our nation’s natural infrastructure, the jobs and economic value that forests provide for rural communities, the hunting, fishing, and other recreational opportuniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
45

ties, and the scenic beauty we all enjoy.Forests have long provided traditional benefits like wood, wildlife, and recreation. Now, we are also depending on forests to provide ecosystem services like clean drinking water, carbon sequestration, and biomass for clean fuel. Family forests will play an essential role to help our nation with 

its most pressing environmental issues-climate change and the demand for renewable energy. But family forest owners need supportive policies and market incentives if their forests are going to do all they can to survive as healthy forests, providing all the ′′free′′ benefits the public now enjoys. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you. I’m happy to answer any 

questions you may have.

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Mr. McPeek. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN MCPEEK, NORTH AMERICA CONSERVATION REGION DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. MCPEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee. I appreciate the invitation to testify today. First, Mr. 

Chairman, I want to thank you and the Subcommittee for your 

great leadership and support on farm bill conservation programs. 

Thank you for that. As you know, The Nature Conservancy is a 

leading conservation organization working in all 50 states and 30 

countries around the world. Our mission is to preserve the plants, 

animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of 

life on earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Forests in the United States provide extensive habitat for 

many of the plants and animals that the Nature Conservancy is 

committed to protect and made profound contributions to the ecological health of our lands and waters. 

From our first acquisition of a 60-acre hemlock gorge in New 

York State in 1955 to the 310,000-acre purchase of Plum Creek forest lands in western Montana last year, the Conservancy has more 

than 50 years of experience in developing strategies to conserve forest habitats. Forests in the United States and around the world 

have many values from improving air quality to providing clean 

drinking water to storing carbon and sheltering an incredible diversity of plants and animals. Forests have an immensely positive impact on the American economy and the quality and character of the 

American way of life. 

Despite their economic and environmental importance, forests in 

the United States are threatened on many fronts and are showing 

severe signs of stress. Another 44 million acres of forest, as someone cited earlier, are predicted to be lost in development by 2030. 

Wildfires cost us $2 billion a year to extinguish at the same time 

that overgrown brush and trees are choking lands that are adapted 

to periodic fire. An astounding array of non-native insects and diseases are found across the continent. These pests can destroy all 

or nearly all oaks, maples, hemlocks, birches, willows, and bay in 

the U.S. climate change; specifically, increases in temperature and 

new patterns of precipitation is beginning to affect our forests in 

profound ways. The length of the fire season, expanding populations of some native insects like the bark beetle in Colorado are 

now tied to climate change with dramatic and noticeable impacts. 

The country’s movement towards renewable energy creates huge 

opportunities for forests as an alternative energy source. Without 

sideboards to encourage sustainability, we run the risk that the energy boon could trigger losses of native forests and biodiversity. FiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
46

nally, budget cuts to Federal and state forestry programs have 

trimmed back technical assistance to private landowners at a time 

when shifting markets and the threats I described make information and technical assistance all the more important. 

A wide and balanced range of strategies are needed to address 

these threats. The Nature Conservancy believes that successful forest management must incorporate five overall management strategies. First, we need forest planning and management at the landscape level wherever possible. Second, we need to focus adequate 

resources to conserve private forests. Third, we need to manage forests for their full range of values and benefits. Fourth, we need to 

make restoration a key component of forest policy. And, finally, we 

need forest management to take climate change into account. In 

our written testimony, we have provided a number of specific recommendations for each strategy, and I will end my comments by 

focusing on three specific projects that we are involved in that we 

think are good examples of the programs you might support. 

The 25 million acre flood plain of the Mississippi River north of 

New Orleans was once one of the great bottom wetland hardwood 

forests on earth. Eighty percent of the delta, however, has been 

converted to farmland. While most of this land should remain in 

agriculture, there are at least a million acres of very wet and flood 

prone soils that should be restored to bottom land hardwoods. This 

restoration would reduce the impacts of flooding trapped nutrients, 

provide wildlife habitat, and store carbon. The Conservancy’s experience in forest and hydrological restoration in the delta suggests 

that the wetland reserve program in tandem with a new carbon reserve program, a carbon offset program, and a land and water conservation fund can restore bottom hardwoods over hundreds of 

thousands of acres on both public and private land. 

In the Jemez Mountains in New Mexico, they are a candidate 

area for the newly created Forest Landscape Restoration Act. This 

forest supplies water to several towns and cities, as well as recreation, grazing, and modest amounts of timber, burned severely in 

the 2000 Sierra Grande fire. The green forest that remains is severely overgrown. Partners have been working together to plan and 

manage the various jurisdictions in this landscape for over a decade. While their approach has received some results were this 

landscape to receive sustained funding under the Forest Landscape 

Restoration Act the scale of treatments could increase dramatically. 

Finally, the Garcia Forest, 24,000-acre Garcia River Forest in 

Mendocino County, California, is among the first and largest forest 

to be recognized by the California Climate Action Registry as a 

verified source of carbon credits. 

The Nature Conservancy owns the conservation easement on the 

property, ensuring protection that makes verification possible. The 

giant redwoods and Douglas fir in the Garcia River Forest can 

store more than 77,000 tons of carbon emissions annually, the 

equivalent of taking more than 14,000 cars off the road every year. 

The Garcia River Forest is poised to offer the most reliable and 

valid carbon credits in the country to private companies and public 

organizations seeking to offset the greenhouse gas emissions while 

allowing for sustainable harvest activities in the process sustaining 

water quality, habitat for salmon, forest and wood product jobs in 

47

the local economy. As we have outlined in the testimony, forests 

are critical to the American way of life and are necessary to sustain 

our water supplies and products we use daily. The Nature Conservancy looks forward to working with this Committee as opportunities emerge to enact forward looking legislation that protects our 

nation’s forests and the benefits they provide to people. Thanks 

again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McPeek follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN MCPEEK, NORTH AMERICA CONSERVATION REGION

DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, DENVER, COLORADO

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for your invitation to testify today on the future of our nation’s forests. 

My name is Brian McPeek, and I am Director of the North American Conservation 

Region of The Nature Conservancy. 

Introduction

The Nature Conservancy is a leading conservation organization -- working in all 

50 states and more than 30 countries around the world -- with the mission of preserving the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity 

of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. 

Forests in the United States provide extensive habitat for many of the plants and 

animals The Nature Conservancy is committed to protect, and forests make profound contributions to the ecological health of freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. 

From our first acquisition of a 60-acre hemlock gorge in New York State in 1955 

to the 310,000-acre purchase of Plum Creek forest lands in western Montana last 

year, the Conservancy has more than 50 years of experience in developing strategies 

to conserve forest habitats. 

While acquisition of interests in land, whether outright or by conservation easements, remains an important conservation strategy for us, to address the scope and 

complexity of today’s conservation challenges, we also use other conservation tools: 

policy advocacy for the management of public and private lands, conservation incentives for private landowners, implementation of payments for ecosystem services, reforestation and restoration projects, learning networks and technical assistance. In 

pursuing these strategies we partner with many organizations and interests -- from 

rural communities to large corporations, from municipal governments to federal 

agencies -- to achieve lasting forest conservation. 

The Essential Values of Forests

Forests in the United States and around the world have many values -- they improve air quality, provide clean drinking water, regulate stream flows, maintain 

water temperatures to improve fish habitat, filter out pollutants, mitigate flooding 

and erosion, moderate our climate, store carbon, supply wood fiber and wood products, and are a renewable energy source. They are habitat for an incredible diversity 

of plants and animals, and forests are the setting for outdoor recreation and tourism. Forests have an immensely positive impact on the American economy and on 

the quality and character of the American way of life. 

Forests Are Threatened on Many Fronts

Despite their economic and environmental importance, forests in the United 

States are threatened on many fronts and are showing signs of severe stress: 

Land Use Conversion and Fragmentation. 

Relentless conversion of forests to other uses, especially urbanization, is a primary threat with as much as 44 million acres of forest land predicted by the 

U.S. Forest Service to be lost to development by 2030. In some places, including 

western lands adjacent to national forests and land along the Appalachians, second home development is the leading cause of fragmentation, while in other 

places urbanization, along with road and energy development or off-road vehicle 

use are the primary contributors. 

Climate Change 

Climate change scientists are continually releasing new information about the 

impacts of climate change on U.S. forests. Recent studies have documented the 

effect of warmer temperatures and variability in precipitation on the length and 

48

intensity of fire seasons, the life cycle of native bark beetles, and on the viability of a wide range of species. 

Altered Fire Regimes 

The typical interval between natural fires is every 1-35 years for about 2/3 of 

the continental United States. More than 80 million acres of these lands are 

now prone to catastrophic wildfires because fire suppression and other management activities have increased tree density and fuel loads. Fire risks are exacerbated by climate change impacts, such as longer summer weather, higher summer temperatures, early peak snowmelt and faster runoff. Under the drought 

conditions now present in some places, the woods have become tinderboxes 

where wildfires are likely to do long-term ecosystem damage. 

Invasive Pests and Pathogens 

An astounding array of non-native insects and diseases threaten forests across 

the continent, most acutely in the East, the Pacific Coast, the South, the Rockies and the upper mid-west. These pests could destroy all or nearly all oaks, 

maples, hemlock, birch, willow and redbay adding to the existing extirpation of 

the American chestnut and the American elm. Estimates of economic damage 

for each of several pests run to the tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars, 

but policies to prevent these pests are out of date and inadequately funded. Climate change appears to be having an impact on native insect species causing 

them to spread to new areas and interact in new ways with their host trees, 

producing devastating impacts such as the 15 million acres currently impacted 

in the Rocky Mountains by the native mountain pine beetle. 

Energy Development and Woody Biomass Use 

Forests are a renewable resource and can be used as an alternative energy 

source. However, without sideboards to encourage sustainable use, such activities could lead to huge losses of native forests and biodiversity. When woodfueled energy facilities are out of balance with wood supplies overcutting of native forests or their conversion to non-native species could result. 

Reductions in Funding for State Forestry Programs and Technical Assistance 

In recent years, budgets for many state forestry programs have been drastically 

reduced as have some Federal programs providing technical assistance to private land owners. At a time of shifting markets and increasing threats, the lack 

of management information and technical assistance presents a distinct threat 

to privately owned forests. 

The Nature Conservancy Recommends Five Overall Strategies to Address 

These Threats

A wide and balanced range of strategies are needed to address these threats. The 

Nature Conservancy believes that successful forest conservation must incorporate 

five overall management strategies: 

1. Wherever possible forest planning and management should take 

place at the landscape scale. 

Forest managers have experience working at small scales, whether at the stand 

level on a large ownership or across small properties in a fragmented landscape. 

Our experience tells us that we cannot address threats like altered fire regimes 

or land use conversion unless we are working at a larger, landscape scale. Large 

blocks of contiguous forest are increasingly more and more important where 

they exist in the United States, providing critical habitat for an array of endangered and sensitive species that are often confined to forest remnants and rare 

forest habitats. 

2. Focus adequate resources to conserve private forests 

Threats to the nation’s forests cannot be addressed only by attention to the 

management of public lands. In the 13 Southern states, for example, more than 

85% of the forest land is privately owned. While over time a small proportion 

of these lands may shift to public ownership, the great majority will not. Private 

land conservation incentives, including robust funding for the Forest Legacy 

Program, will be essential to keeping forests in forests. 

3. Manage forests for their full range of values and benefits 

Traditionally forests have been managed for only a few purposes, such as wood 

production and recreation. We now realize that forests provide other very important values such as protection of water resources, carbon storage, protection 

from natural disasters, control of soil erosion and maintenance of stream water 

temperatures. Market strategies and valuation of the benefits forests are essential if landowners are to have an economic rationale for long-term forest stewVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
49

ardship. Similarly, public land management must achieve a more encompassing 

balance of uses. 

4. Make restoration a key component of forest policy 

Many American forests have been lost or degraded over time, compromising 

their values, and making restoration critically important. While forest management is increasingly targeted at restoration of habitat elements that were once 

common in forests, it is insufficient to address the scale of the problem. Across 

the nation many restoration efforts are underway: old timber roads are being 

decommissioned, culverts removed, fish structures installed, and overgrown 

brush and trees thinned out by mechanical means or with controlled fire that 

replicate natural conditions, all demonstrating the efficacy of restoration to forest conservation. In addition, many areas where forests have been removed or 

significantly altered can, and where appropriate, should be restored back to 

more natural conditions. 

5. Forest management must take climate change into account 

The impacts of a warming climate are already being seen in our forests. Long 

range forest planning should include evaluation of likely climate impacts and 

adopting measures to help forests become more resilient and more able to adapt 

to change, whatever the rate and scope of impacts turns out to be. 

A Number of Policy Barriers Impede Management that Carries Out These 

Overall Strategies

On private lands, the current set of funding and incentive programs function effectively at smaller scales, but are difficult to coordinate across agencies and jurisdictions to achieve landscape scale outcomes. State land policies vary widely, but to 

the extent that they rely on federal funding and programs, they are impeded by 

similar policy barriers. 

Federal land management is inhibited by policies that require longstanding forest 

management practices be continued into the future, even though public needs and 

expectations have changed. Legislation that was ground-breaking and innovative in 

its time - for example the Multiple Use/Sustained Yield Act of 1960, National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 - 

now creates barriers to the development of markets for water and carbon, and management of environmental services from forests that are critical to sustain people 

and nature. 

Specific Actions Are Needed to Conserve America’s Forests on Both Private 

and Public Lands

In conformance with the overall strategies that I have outlined in this testimony, 

The Nature Conservancy makes the following specific recommendations for conservation of private and public forest lands: 

On Private lands: 

Increase Funding for and Expand Farm Bill Forest Programs 

The 2008 Farm Bill included important steps forward for forest conservation. 

We are grateful to the Committee for this progress. Given our growing understanding of forest threats, however, the forestry incentives included in the 2008 

Bill should be better funded and greatly expanded, particularly to address the 

water resource and carbon values of forests. While there is much discussion of 

ecosystem service markets, these have been slow to develop. In the meantime, 

the reserve and cost share programs in the Farm Bill can become, in effect, surrogates for true markets by paying forest land owners for forest practices that 

provide additional, significant and quantifiable values to society. Toward that 

end:

• Increase funding for the reserve and cost share programs included in the 2008 

Farm Bill (Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program).

• The Wetlands Reserve Program should be expanded and funded to explicitly address the conservation of forested headwater streams

• A new reserve program is needed to reward landowners for forest practices that 

increase long term carbon storage on their lands. Such a program would be different from a framework for tradable emissions offsets and designed to be more 

suited to the needs of small and medium sized landowners.

• Funding is needed to complete the State Forest Resource Assessments required 

by the 2008 Farm Bill as a guide to the strategic and landscape scale application of Farm Bill incentives. In the past, incentive programs have been so distributed across states that they have not achieved a critical mass of protection 

50

and management in watersheds or landscapes. State Forest Management Plans 

can be used to better focus these programs.

• Funding should be restored to the State and Private Forestry Program of the 

Forest Service for state forestry programs to again provide technical assistance 

to private landowners.

Extend and Expand Tax Incentives for Forest Conservation

Tax policies can be significant incentives and disincentives for forest land stewardship. The Conservancy recommends that:

• Tax deductions for conservation easements be made permanent

• Legislation should increase the tax limitation on the amount excluded from a 

gross estate for lands covered by a conservation easement

Define Forests Offsets in the Climate Bill to Meet International Standards

A framework for defining tradable forest carbon offsets should be adopted as 

part of climate change legislation that is robust and credible, including clear 

principles on additionality, permanence, leakage, measurement, verification, 

and environmental criteria. 

In addition, while strongly supporting market-based approaches, the Conservancy believes that other complementary policies are needed to ensure the full 

climate mitigation potential of the forest sector. 

On Public Lands

Fund the Forest Landscape Restoration Act and Address Wildfire Budget Issues

With passage of the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (FLRA) as part of the 

Omnibus Public Lands Bill of 2009, a new tool is available for accomplishing 

large scale forest thinning and restoration over an extended time period. To 

meet its promise, the FLRA should be funded at $40 million annually, as provided in its authorization. This should be a priority for Congress, along with restructuring the appropriation process for the U.S. Forest Service to provide 

funding for fighting wildfires that does not compromise other spending by the 

Service. 

Revise Forest Service Organic Statutes to Reflect Additional Forest Values

Revise the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), to allow for 

′′ecosystem services and compatible recreation′′ that meets the needs of the 

American people in the 21st century. Reshape the Organic Act to provide a 

foundation for the definition of ecosystem services and values in authorizing legislation that modifies the multiple use mandate, i.e., managing each acre for all 

uses, and provides a framework to ensure that the ecological health of federal 

lands is restored and maintained for future generations. Revise existing targets 

for products and services to include targets for ecosystem services, and realign 

the Forest Service budget to support the transition from multiple-use to restoration and ecosystem services. Incorporate mechanisms into Forest Service policies that encourage payment for ecosystem services that directly benefit communities, and use these funds to maintain and expand ecosystem benefits. 

For All Lands 

Ensure Rules Governing Live Plant Imports Move Forward Swiftly

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) needs to move 

swiftly to implement programs to prevent insects and diseases from entering 

our country from overseas, and to improve response to those pests that do arrive. Because American trees did not evolve in concert with these pests, they 

often have little resistance, and devastation can result.

The most critical need is to move forward revision of rules governing live plant 

imports. These rules have become outdated over several decades as the number 

of plants imported each year has risen from a few thousand to more than 2 billion plants. APHIS announced its intent to revise them in 2004, but action has 

been too slow due to a combination of insufficient resources and insufficient 

leadership attention. For example, putting forward the first phase of a planned 

three phase rule-making has taken more than four years. The first phase still 

has not been published in the federal register, although it has been substantially complete for a year. This Committee could help highlight the problem and 

encourage faster action on the remaining phases of the rule revision via oversight hearings.

Ensure that Renewable Energy Standards Protect Forests from Over-cutting and 

Conversion

Renewable Energy Standards (RES) should not encourage the large scale destruction of forest resources. While forests can be used to provide renewable biomass for the production of energy (including biofuels), recent studies have 

51

shown that if facilities for the generation of energy from woody biomass are not 

scaled to available wood supplies, and these supplies are not harvested in a sustainable manner, forests in those woodsheds are at risk from overcutting to 

meet the demand and natural forests may be converted to plantations, often of 

non-native species, to meet the demand. The Nature Conservancy believes the 

RES regulations should be developed to avoid these outcomes.

Similarly, while wood and other plant materials from National Forests can provide energy and fuels, it is our view that federal lands should not be expressly 

harvested for this purpose but rather fuel should come as a by-product of forest 

restoration.

Provide Funding for the Careful Expansion of Public Forest Lands Including the 

Conservation of Large-scale Landscapes and Corridors

The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Forest Legacy Program have 

been important in securing additions to federal and state forests and, in the 

case of the Forest Legacy Program, to buying easements over private forest 

lands. These programs have been greatly underfunded in relation to the demand. The Conservancy recommends that LWCF be funded at the authorized 

level of $900 million annually and the Forest Legacy Program increased to at 

least $150 million annually. We are gratified by the President’s FY10 budget 

request of $90 million for the Forest Legacy Program; however, we are concerned that the budget request for the Forest Service’s portion of LWCF has 

been reduced by more than $20 million from FY09 enacted.

These existing programs, however, are not sufficient to create the large and connected forested landscapes needed to sustain critical habitat and other forest 

values in the face of climate change. To accomplish this we are supportive of 

a new federal matching program designed to catalyze large landscape conservation through planning and capital funding to create landscape connections. In 

tandem with such a program, we propose that Farm Bill Programs give priority 

to these same larger landscapes.

Use a Mitigation Protocol: Avoid, Minimize, and Compensate

Our country is moving into a period of large scale investment in energy, transportation and other infrastructure. This investment has the potential to fragment and otherwise damage forests. Where wetlands, large blocks of 

unfragmented forest, or endangered species are involved, or on public lands, infrastructure planning should employ the mitigation protocol (avoid, minimize, 

compensate) to plan the location and design of infrastructure such that it avoids 

the most significant forest habitat and, where, impacts cannot be avoided, provides compensatory investments that most effectively offset the impacts. Here, 

too, State Forest Resource Assessments can be important in identifying areas 

best avoided as well as areas where forest restoration can be most useful.

No Net Loss of Natural Forests

Given the importance, and rapidly diminishing extent, of our native forests, the 

federal government should consider establishing a national policy goal to maintain and expand the existing ecological benefits of forests. A federal target could 

be established, to be reached in the near future, e.g. 2020, with the intent that 

federal forest and other policies be modified, developed and implemented to 

meet this goal. Attainment of this goal should not preclude periods of time 

where there may be a decline in stocks (e.g., natural disturbance or restoration 

of forest health) - the goal would be to drive policies that seek to maintain and/

or expand our forests over time.

Several Projects from Our Work in the Field Exemplify What Needs to Be 

Done

To illustrate our recommendations I would like to describe three projects in which 

the Conservancy has been involved with a particular emphasis on the role of forests 

in the protection of water resources. 

Mollicy Farms and the Mississippi Delta

The 25 million acre floodplain of the Mississippi River north of New Orleans 

was once one of the great bottomland hardwood forests on Earth. 80% of the 

Delta, however, has now been converted to farmland. While most of this land 

should remain in agriculture, there are at least a million acres of very wet and 

flood prone soils that should be restored to bottomland hardwoods for their multiple values, including reducing the impacts of flooding, trapping nutrients, providing wildlife habitat and storing carbon.

52

In a prototype of such restoration, a 20,000 acre tract on the Upper Ouachita 

National Wildlife Refuge has been replanted in bottomland hardwoods by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and through the Economic Stimulus Bill the levees separating the tract from the Ouachita River will be breached to allow the 

Mollicy tract to flood during times of high water. Ecosystem services such as 

carbon storage, flood mitigation, nutrient removal and wildlife production from 

these lands will be monitored over time in an attempt to better quantify ecosystem values. The Forest Service has already made investments in the Delta, 

and would be an excellent location for piloting coordination of a new carbon reserve initiative with an enhanced Wetland Reserve Program. LWCF and new 

landscape conservation funds might also be used here to expand the chain of 

National Wildlife Refuges along the region’s rivers to better manage flood waters, reduce the flow of nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico, and provide even more 

wildlife habitat.

The Jemez Mountains

The Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico are a candidate area for the 

newly created Forest Landscape Restoration Act. This million acres of forested, 

mountainous land is truly multi-jurisdictional with lands managed by Bandolier 

National Monument, Valles Caldera National Preserve, Santa Fe National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Jemez 

Pueblo and Santa Clara Pueblo. The forest supplies water to several cities and 

towns, as well as recreation for locals and New Mexico’s urbanites, grazing for 

local communities and modest amounts of timber products. The forest sustained 

one of the first large scale wildfires in 2000, the Cerro Grande Fire, and across 

the entire region the mid-elevation forests are severely overgrown and in need 

of fuels treatment. In addition, the low-elevation pinon juniper woodlands suffered a massive infestation of native pine beetles during the drought period 

2002-2005, killing 90% of the pinon pines across the entire landscape.

Climate change studies by The Nature Conservancy and others have recently 

identified the Jemez Mountains as having New Mexico’s most extreme temperature increases and precipitation decreases during the recent period of global 

warming. Partners have been working together to plan and manage the various 

jurisdictions in this landscape for more than a decade. While their piece meal 

approach has already achieved some results, designation of this landscape to receive sustained funding for treatments under the Forest Landscape Restoration 

Act would allow restoration at a much larger scale, boost resiliency of the forest 

to climate change impacts, and sustain critical water supplies for New Mexico’s 

largest urban areas.

The Garcia River Forest

The 23,780 acre Garcia River Forest is almost 24,000 acres of forest in 

Mendocino County, California and is among the first and largest forest to be 

recognized by the California Climate Action Registry as a verified source of carbon credits. The Conservation Fund owns and manages the property as a sustainable working forest that safeguards wildlife habitat, improves water quality 

and preserves the traditional economic base of the local community. In partnership, The Nature Conservancy owns the conservation easement on the property, 

ensuring protection, regardless of ownership, that makes verification possible. 

The redwoods and Douglas fir in the Garcia River Forest have the capacity to 

store more than 77,000 tons of carbon emissions annually, which is the equivalent of taking more than 14,000 cars off the road every year. By achieving the 

Registry’s high standard of carbon verification, Garcia River Forest is poised to 

offer the most reliable and valid carbon credits in the country to private companies and public organizations seeking to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, 

as well as protecting water quality, fish and wildlife habitat particularly for Pacific salmon restoration while also providing forest and wood product jobs in the 

local economy.

Conclusion

Thank you for your interest in the future of the nation’s forests. As we have outlined in this testimony, forests are critical to the American way of life and are necessary to sustain our water supplies and provide products we use daily. Forests are 

threatened in numerous ways, and we run the risk of losing too much forest land, 

and of unhealthy forests that are killed by fire, insects, or climate stress. The Nature Conservancy looks forward to working with this Committee, the entire ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
53

gress, and the Administration as opportunities emerge to enact forward-looking legislation that protects our nation’s forests and the benefits they provide to people.

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much for your testimony. What we 

will do at this point what we will do is recess and convene after 

the votes are concluded. And I appreciate the panel’s staying here 

until after we are done voting. So at this time we will recess and 

we will reconvene right after votes. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BACA. We will reconvene the Subcommittee hearing. We will 

start with Dr. Tom Monaghan. 

STATEMENT OF TOM MONAGHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF FOREST OWNERS, STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. MONAGHAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to 

appear before the Subcommittee. I am here as a private forest land 

owner, forester, scientist, educator, and conservationist. In 2002 I 

retired as extension leader of the Department of Forestry at Mississippi State University, and now am employed by the Mississippi 

Forestry Association. We represent forest landowners and businesses, and we are a member of the National Alliance of Forest 

Owners, which represents owners in 47 states. My testimony will 

focus primarily on private landowners, but as you know forest owners are dependent on loggers and manufacturers for markets and 

vice versa. We are all in a fox hole together. 427 million acres of 

U.S. forest land are privately owned by 10 million individuals and 

firms and represent much of the wealth of our country. To sustain 

these diverse forest and their benefits, we have to know more about 

those 10 million owners and their diversity. 

Their objectives vary from income to recreation, from secluded 

home sites to long-term investments. Forest owners are people like 

you and me or they may be farmers, factory workers, professionals, 

housewives, retirees, widows, blue collar and white collar. Another 

private ownership group has changed recently. In the past, forest 

industries owned manufacturing facilities in vast forests to supply 

their mills with wood. Now most of their forest land has been sold 

to new companies like real estate investment trust or timber investment management organizations which are owned by individual investors. Some of you may be owners through your pension 

fund or life insurance company. These firms employ professional 

foresters and managers and focus on long-term sustainability and 

profitability. In the past 100 years, our forest land area has remained relatively stable. Unlike the rest of the world the volume 

of our standing timber has grown by 50 percent in the past 50 

years, and this growth has occurred during a time of increased use 

of forest products. How could that be? 

Well, it is through sound forest management by the private owners that I have mentioned. Recently, however, markets have begun 

to dwindle and the positive trends of the past 50 years may be in 

jeopardy. Markets are important to sustainability. If trees have no 

value what is the incentive to pay ever increasing annual taxes. A 

little widow on Social Security once told me, and I quote, ‘‘I can’t 

afford to hold on to this forest land that has been in my family for 

100 years. I am being taxed on what they say I should be proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
54

ducing, but I can’t afford to do what it takes to help my timber 

produce.’’ Some forest owners like that little old lady depend on 

their forest to yield enough income just to pay their taxes and keep 

their land, but collectively forest owners depend on the value of 

their forest for a variety of things like retirement, college fund, 

long-term investment, savings account, collateral for borrowing 

money, medical emergencies, and for some it is their primary income. 

But there is one thing for which forest-related income is essential 

and that one thing is sustainability. The economic value of forests 

is the engine that drives our collective ability to sustain our forest 

resources. Incentives are useful, but there must be a market incentive in order for a practice such as tree planting to be a viable investment. Even if an incentive such as a cost share program reduces the initial investment a landowner still must be able to recover their part of the investment through timber sales or other 

markets. If not, it is a bad economic investment. Bad investments 

won’t sustain our forests. Good investments will. If forestry is not 

a good investment, if trees have little or no economic value what 

is the incentive for a family to incur risk of natural disasters year 

after year? 

Hurricane Katrina was one we won’t soon forget. Wildfire, insects and disease, epidemics or others, but there are other threats 

too. One threat is that public policy can deny owners the opportunity to realize reasonable returns on their investments. Without 

returns, the land may be converted to other uses that do not provide the benefits of the forest. You will soon consider legislation to 

tackle renewable energy. Private forests should be able to play a 

vital role and take advantage of these markets. The national climate policy should allow owners to use carbon credits as a source 

of revenue. State forestry regulations already protect the environment and ensure sustainability. 

We don’t need additional regulations that could cause landowners to take their land out of forest use just out of sheer frustration. Tax policies are also important. They should not create disincentives. Believe or not, overpayment of taxes is not uncommon 

by forest owners. A lack of knowledge is another problem. The extension programs at land grant universities, for example, their mission is to interpret research and design targeted education programs for forest owners, but these programs are woefully underfunded, yet they represent the best opportunity to translate public 

policy from paper to action. Keeping working forests is the key to 

sustainability. The private landowners have shown that they can 

do this, and they will continue to do so if they have a sustainable 

business environment, viable markets, targeted incentives, freedom 

from over regulation, and access to new technology and information. Let us work together to design policies that help landowners 

keep their forest working. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Monaghan follows:]

55

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. TOM MONAGHAN ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL

ALLIANCE OF FOREST OWNERS, STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI

I. Introduction

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee 

on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry today and to assist 

you and your colleagues, also of this Subcommittee, in your efforts to chart the future of our nation’s forests. 

I am pleased to appear before you today as a private forest landowner, a forester 

and a lifelong steward of our natural resources. In 2002, I retired as the Forestry 

Extension Leader from the Mississippi State University Extension Service. In that 

role, I led our state’s extension foresters in delivering a variety of educational outreach programs to private landowners and forestry personnel, all designed to promote stewardship and sustainable forest management practices on the land. The 

day after retiring, I began a second career with the Mississippi Forestry Association 

(MFA), a statewide membership organization representing private landowners, professional foresters, professional wood suppliers, forest industry manufacturers and 

businesses and federal and state agency personnel who manage forests to produce 

clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreational opportunities for all 

Mississippians. 

The Mississippi Forestry Association is a member of the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO), an alliance that represents forest owners in 47 states, encompassing more than 74 million acres. NAFO is an organization of private forest owners committed to promoting federal policies that protect the economic and environmental values of privately-owned forests at the national level. 

My testimony today will focus on the present and future contributions of private 

forestland in the United States. I will examine the importance of forests to our national natural resources infrastructure; how forests can meet important national objectives, such as clean air, water, energy, climate change mitigation and the demand 

for forest products in our everyday lives; and the importance of federal policies that 

support the ongoing efforts of private forest landowners to invest in and be good 

stewards of their land. 

While I will focus on private forest landowners, please keep in mind that all members of the forest products community, including forest owners, resource professionals, loggers and manufacturers play key roles in sound forest management. 

II. Private forest owners manage the majority of forestland in the U.S. Forest inventory is generally increasing and ownership patterns are dynamic. Private forest landowners generally seek to keep working forests in tact rather than convert them to other uses.

Nationally, there are 755 million acres of forestland. Of that, 427 million acres, 

2.5 times the size of Texas, is private forestland owned by over 10 million people. 

Unlike much of the rest of the world, the U.S. is expanding its overall forests and 

standing timber inventory. Over the past 100 years the amount of forestland has 

remained relatively stable. Additionally, the standing inventory (volume of growing 

stock) of hardwood and softwood tree species in U.S. forests has grown by 49 percent 

between 1953 and 2006. This has occurred because of sound forest management and 

through the increased importance of forests and forest products in our economy and 

society in general. Recently, however, markets have begun to dwindle, potentially 

jeopardizing the positive trends of the past 50 years. 

Americans own forests in a variety of ways, including family ownership, partnerships, small and large businesses, private investments, such as Timber Investment 

Management Organizations (TIMOs) and publicly traded investments such as Real 

Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). The vast majority of forestland owners are families. For them, forests represent a significant family investment as well as a considerable share of their wealth. In Mississippi, the 175,000 individual and family forest 

landowners who own and manage 10 acres or more of the state’s timberland, have 

long looked to an investment in land and timber as a very significant means of support for their retirement, for college funds, for savings accounts, for medical emergencies or simply as ′′rainy day′′ reserves. Others have used the value of their lands 

and forests as collateral when borrowing money to build homes or pay for college 

educations. 

Of course, much of the value of these family forests comes in benefits without a 

specific price tag, including family recreation, hunting trips, solitude and aesthetics. 

To many of these families, their forests represent more passion than profit. 

Other private forest landowners include small and large businesses, partnerships 

and investment organizations such as TIMOs and REITs. These owners have taken 

on new significance over the last few years. Most Americans still see the forest prodVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
56

ucts industry as a vertically integrated industry that owns forests for specific manufacturing purposes. However, over the past two decades, most of the forests owned 

by large manufacturing companies have been transferred to businesses that focus 

solely on responsible long-term forest management with little or no manufacturing 

interests. Today over 80 percent of the forests formerly owned by large manufacturers is now owned by companies and organizations comprised of professional foresters and land managers who responsibly manage their forests for multiple market 

opportunities over the long-term. Apart from the inevitable changes in land use that 

accompany a growing population, the long-term value of these private forest lands 

comes primarily from keeping them in a working forest condition. 

Throughout my testimony today, you will hear me use the term ′′working forest.′′

A working forest is one that is conserved, not preserved. President Teddy Roosevelt 

said, ′′Conservation means development as much as it does protection.′′ He charged 

our nation with using our natural resources to provide sustained environmental, 

economic and social benefits over time. Working forests, then, are forests that provide an important base for family-supporting jobs in America’s rural communities, 

that are the source of sustainable building and consumer products, contribute significantly to national priorities, like energy independence and security and climate 

change solutions and that address human health and quality of life needs, water 

quantity and quality, essential wildlife habitats, recreation and other important environmental services. 

III. Private working forests are an increasingly critical part of our natural 

resource infrastructure because they are fundamental to a strong economy, a clean and healthy environment and achieving our national objectives for addressing climate change and developing new domestic 

sources of low-carbon, renewable energy.

Nationally, private landowners own the majority of our forests. This is particularly true in the Southern states where private landowners are the principal stewards of forests and wildlife. In fact, 44 percent of the private forests in the United 

States are in the South. In contrast, the federal government owns the vast majority 

of the forests in Western states. 

Private forests provide significant economic benefits to society, providing the raw 

material for a major industry in our country. The forest products industry ranks in 

the top ten manufacturing sectors in 48 states. It accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP, placing it on par with the automotive 

and plastics industries. Additionally, it generates more than $200 billion a year in 

sales and employs more than 1 million people earning $54 billion in annual payroll. 

Through all of this, the U.S. forest products industry pays approximately $7 billion 

annually in federal, state and local taxes. The U.S. forest products industry is a 

world leader in natural resources stewardship by providing valuable consumer goods 

and services while maintaining the highest standards of environmental stewardship 

in the world. 

In addition to economic benefits, private forests produce a wide variety of environmental services desired and needed by our society, including outdoor recreational 

opportunities, diverse wildlife habitat, the storage of atmospheric carbon and the 

production of clean air and clean water. For instance, nationally, private forests provide 53 percent of our freshwater supply. Outside of the Western region of the U.S., 

state and privately owned forests provide 89 percent of the freshwater supply. 

Nationally, forests sequester almost 200 million metric tons of carbon each year, 

offsetting 10 percent of annual U.S. emissions from burning fossil fuels. This fact 

has been recognized by the international community and federal regulators. The 

United Nations’ 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (′′IPCC′′) highlights forest management as a primary tool to reduce GHG emissions. The IPCC 

states that, ′′In the long-term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at 

maintaining or increasing forest stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield 

of timber, fiber or energy from the forest, will generate the greatest mitigation benefit.′′ The EPA has identified responsibly managed forests as one of five key ′′groups 

of strategies that could substantially reduce emissions between now and 2030.′′

No other land use comes close to producing the array of environmental, economic 

and social benefits provided by our nation’s private forestlands. They are a vital 

part of our national infrastructure that shouldn’t be lost. Sustaining and enhancing 

the value of these forests both to society and to forest owners so they can continue 

to benefit our nation is of vital national importance. 

57

IV. The potential use of wood for renewable energy and to address climate 

change provides an opportunity to strengthen existing markets and encourage the development of new markets for private working forests.

Congress is currently focused on renewable energy policy that will diminish our 

nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and enhance our country’s energy independence. 

Developing the full contribution our private working forests can make to this national priority will at once help us meet our renewable energy goals and maintain 

our working forest resources. As existing markets decline, emerging energy markets 

can provide new opportunities for private forest owners to realize sufficient economic return to continue making long-term investments in their forests. 

Wood is the original renewable energy and has been used at the industrial level 

for decades. Currently, the forest products industry generates approximately 80 percent of all renewable biomass energy, making it the largest industrial renewable energy producer. The current technology for using wood to produce electricity and heat 

is mature and readily accessible. Emerging technology also holds significant promise 

for utilizing wood cellulose to produce ethanol. Each of these applications provides 

a viable future source of domestic renewable energy from a wood resource that is 

efficient, plentiful, sustainable and beneficial to our climate and overall environment. 

If Congress mandates a certain level of renewable electricity generation, it should 

provide sufficient flexibility to allow renewable forest biomass to make its full contribution. This will help keep our working forests working by promoting new market 

opportunities for wood that otherwise may have little or no economic value. 

Congressional interest in renewable energy is in many ways driven by climate 

change considerations because of the potential to replace carbon intensive fossil fuel 

energy with renewable energy that significantly reduces our nation’s overall carbon 

footprint. Private working forests are a fundamental part of the solution to global 

climate change. Both the United States Government and the international community recognize the value forests provide in sequestering carbon through absorbing 

CO2 and storing carbon in trees, soils and forest products. 

Our nation will realize these benefits by developing and promoting markets, like 

renewable energy, that help private forest owners continue managing their forests 

for long-term economic and environmental benefits . 

Just as with renewable energy, as national climate change policy and legislation 

is considered by Congress, it should explicitly include the positive contributions of 

private working forests. Such policy should help maintain a robust manufacturing 

base for working forests to help maintain existing markets that foster long-term forest viability and investment. Any climate change framework should also allow offset 

credits from forest management and harvested wood products to be generated and 

traded as a flexible, cost effective way for regulators and other industries to achieve 

net greenhouse gas reductions. 

Renewable forest biomass energy production on a much larger scale and the opportunity to participate in climate change mitigation markets offer two promising 

new markets for forest landowners. As history has taught us, maintaining existing 

markets and expanding new market opportunities for working forests help ensure 

they will remain and even increase over time. 

V. New and existing markets should rely on local and state level oversight, 

third-party certification, and education programs as the most effective 

means to sustain working forests on the landscape over the long-term.

Sustaining the environmental, social and economic benefits of responsibly managed forests will occur only if governmental policies are aligned with the fundamental economics of forest ownership. Governmental policies must be scientifically 

based and developed through transparent and inclusive processes. They should recognize the important role played by a healthy, domestic forest products manufacturing base, which enables forest owners to continue to meet their ecological, economic and social responsibilities. 

Private forest landowners are diverse and demonstrate sustainable forest management in a variety of ways. These include reforestation of harvested sites to maintain 

the forest cycle, using Best Management Practices (BMPs) defined through voluntary and regulatory state forestry programs and forest certification standards, 

supporting training and outreach programs for loggers and family forest owners, 

using consulting foresters and other natural resource professionals and supporting 

research and technology development on sustainable forest management. 

Additionally, private forest landowners verify their adherence to sustainable forest management principles in many ways, including: compliance with state and federal laws and BMPs; cooperative agreements with government agencies, conservation organizations, and multi-stakeholder partnerships; and transparent data collecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
58

tion and reporting. Forest certification is an especially important method. Credible 

forest certification systems are designed to integrate social, environmental and economic performance, verified through independent, third-party auditing and communicated through a brand or label on products. Several credible forest certification 

programs are available in the marketplace. 

This robust yet flexible array of tools, in the form of federal, state and local laws, 

regulations, programs and BMPs have measurably improved the environmental performance of forest operations in the United States over time. They have also worked 

to promote environmental goals without sacrificing jobs and economic activity. As 

policymakers consider the imposition of new federal regulations on private working 

forests or market limitations on the participation of private working forests in 

emerging renewable energy markets, the implications for the economic viability of 

working forests must be considered to avoid inviting an unintended result -- compelling private forest owners to consider alternative land uses for working forests that 

do not provide the environmental services that promote healthy watersheds, wildlife 

habitat, carbon sequestration and similar benefits that are highly valued by society. 

Rather than creating new federal regulatory overlays on effective existing practices at the federal, state and local level, Congress would be well advised to rely 

on the current framework that has been developed through transparent public processes over decades to strike the right balance between social, economic and environmental benefits. New federal intrusions into the existing framework, particularly in 

a manner that results in federal pre-emption of current state and local practices, 

may create powerful market disincentives that will hinder rather than promote our 

nation’s overall energy and environmental objectives. 

VI. Conclusion

Keeping working forests working across the landscape as a fundamental part of 

our nation’s natural resources infrastructure is essential to the well-being of our 

country. Private forest landowners provide unique economic, social and environmental benefits to our nation. While many of these benefits provide direct economic 

returns to society and to the landowners - the forest products we use every day and 

the jobs that sustain many communities - many are essential benefits to society that 

the private landowner provides for free - clean air, clean water and wildlife habitat. 

The most effective way to keep working forests working is to promote policies that 

seek to sustain both the benefits working forests provide to society and to forest 

owners. This includes viable markets for existing and familiar products and services 

as well as innovative new markets for wood and the environmental benefits provided by sound forest management. 

While oversight is important, it should be based at the state and local level - 

where environmental stewardship is best understood and practiced. This is the approach that has increased the productivity and extent of our forests in the United 

States at a time when many parts of the world have seen massive deforestation. 

By supporting practices that work while seeking new and promising market opportunities, our working forests can continue to provide the many benefits that have 

made them an extraordinarily valuable part of our nation’s past, present and future. 

For more information, please contact: 

National Alliance of Forest Owners 

(202) 367-1163, info@nafoalliance.org

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Monaghan. At this time, 

we would also like to welcome to the Subcommittee hearing our 

past Chair of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you 

very much for being with us. Would you like to make a statement, 

and then I will just quickly turn it over to——

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you 

holding this hearing. I wish I were a member of this Subcommittee, 

and I really thank you for allowing me to sit up here on the dais 

and after the others have asked questions, if I am given the opportunity, I may have a question or two. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BACA. Next, we will call on Mr. Neiman. 

59

STATEMENT OF JIM D. NEIMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NEIMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., HULETT, WYOMING 

Mr. NEIMAN. I am extremely humbled and honored, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is 

Jim Neiman, and I am the Vice President and CEO of Neiman Enterprises in Hulett, Wyoming. Hulett is in the Northeast corner of 

Wyoming 8 miles from Devils Tower National Monument, our nation’s first monument. The Neiman family has been in the forest 

products business for three generations. We currently own three 

sawmills and one pellet operation with 490 employees and 250 

independent contractors that we feel are families we need to support. I appreciate your attention to the future of the nation’s forests. My comments are focused primarily on the nation’s forests, especially the Black Hills National Forest. A health forest products 

industry is critical to the future of our national forest, and they 

make it possible for our company to operate on and contribute to 

management objectives also on private lands. 

The single most important factor in existing sawmill infrastructure in the intermountain west is supply raw material from national forests. A year ago there were three sawmills in Wyoming. 

Now only one remains, and this ours. The biggest reason the other 

two sawmills closed was historic and unpredictable national forest 

timber supply. Without a consistent supply of timber, no mill 

owner can justify the investment to maintain competitiveness in 

the competitive industry. My company is seriously exploring a partnership to construct and operate a $50 million 19 megawatt electrical co-generation facility in our South Dakota operation that 

would also produce steam for dry kilns in the adjacent university. 

The benefits of this facility would be increased supply of renewable energy, better utilization of forest biomass, and additional 

local jobs, up to 40. I need two things to make this work. First, a 

consistent and predictable supply of timber sales from the Black 

Hills National Forest. The sawmill side of our business has to be 

financially sound in order for us to make co-generation work. Second, we need a conclusive definition of biomass in the RES. The 

RFS definition excluded an area all Federal fiber from counting toward renewable biofuels. Unfortunately, H.R. 2454 just approved 

by the Energy and Commerce Committee is on the verge of repeating this mistake by disqualifying any fiber from Federal lands if it 

comes from a mature forest stand. My recommendation to Congress 

is that all biomass for a national forest timber sale that conforms 

to applicable law and the forest plan should qualify under the RES. 

The Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the nation’s forest and grasslands to meet the needs 

of present and future generations. 

When I look at national forest statistics of acres burned and 

acres of trees killed by beetle epidemics, I am not sure the Forest 

Service is achieving that mission. Most of the current timber sales 

in the Black Hills National Forest respond to the pine beetle epidemic. Instead of always responding to crisis, the national forests 

should develop and implement proactive strategies to prevent those 

crises in the first place. In the Black Hills and much of the west, 

we know what it takes to reduce the risk of mountain pine beetle 

and fires. Simply put, the problem is primarily a function of tree 

60

density. Dense stands have a higher risk of bugs and fires and thin 

stands have a much lower risk. Annual growth on the national forest timberlands far exceeds the annual harvest. Increasing the national forest timber sale program would have multiple benefits including stabilizing forest products companies, adding green jobs to 

our local economies, strengthening our nation’s manufacturing sector, increasing the health of our forests, and increasing flow of 

clean water. 

Sawmilling has been a challenge, but this recession is worse than 

anything my father can remember since the Great Depression. We 

are doing everything we can to maintain our operations, keep our 

employees and contractors, and help manage the forests. We are 

not asking for a bail out, but there are contractual steps the Forest 

Service can take that would make a big difference in maintaining 

the current infrastructure of forest products companies. However, 

timing and speed is essential. I want to thank Mr. Jensen for his 

kind words that he spoke earlier to the industry, and in conclusion 

thank you for allowing me to testify, I appreciate your time and attention. I offer my full assistance to the Subcommittee and to you, 

Mr. Chairman, to Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin, and especially 

to Congresswoman Lummis for the invitation. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neiman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JIM D. NEIMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND CEO, NEIMAN

ENTERPRISES, INC., HULETT, WYOMING

Introduction

Thank you Chairman Baca, Members of the Subcommittee, and Rep. Lummis, for 

the opportunity to present testimony today. 

My name is Jim Neiman, and I am the Vice President and CEO of Neiman Enterprises, Inc. in Hulett, Wyoming. Our family has been in the ranching business for 

5 generations and in the forest products business for 3 generations. We currently 

own and operate three sawmills and one pellet mill in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Our company directly supports about 750 families through our 

490 employees and 250 local independent contractors, and those families live in 

communities throughout the Black Hills. We produce lumber for wholesale and retail markets throughout the United States, plus shop grade lumber for window and 

door companies. We also sell sawmill by-products, such as bark, sawdust, shavings, 

and chips for decorative bark, particleboard, pulp and paper, animal bedding, and 

wood pellets. 

I am currently the Vice-President of the Board of Trustees for the University of 

Wyoming. I also serve on the Board for the Hulett National Bank, Hulett Airport 

Board, Black Hills Forest Resource Association and Intermountain Forest Association, and am a member of the Federal Timber Purchasers Committee, which is allied with the American Forest and Paper Association. I have also served in the past 

on the Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Commission, and the Wyoming 

Economic Development and Stabilization Board. 

Background

I appreciate the Subcommittee’s attention to the future of our nation’s forests, and 

I hope my testimony will be helpful to you. My comments are primarily about the 

future of our nation’s national forests. I’m most familiar with the Black Hills National Forest, which straddles the Wyoming - South Dakota border, since our company relies on the Black Hills NF for approximately 75% of our supply of timber. 

Similarly, many other sawmill owners across the country also depend on local national forests for an important percentage of their timber supply and share my concerns and anxieties about long-term management and health of the national forests. 

Case No. 1, the very first timber sale from the national forests, which was sold 

to Homestake Mining Company in 1899, was located in the Black Hills NF. Since 

then, the management of the Black Hills NF has been generally very successful. 

However, the last ten years have been challenging, to say the least. In 1999, Forest 

61

Service Chief Dombeck remanded the 1977 forest plan revision, a traumatic event 

that resulted in no new timber sales for most of FYs 2000 and 2001, and required 

two forest plan amendments and five years to fix the problems identified in the 

Chief’s decision. In total, the Black Hills NF spent 16 years completing a 10 to 15 

year forest plan. Since 2000, forest fires have burned 184,000 acres of the Black 

Hills NF, and a mountain pine beetle epidemic has festered out of control, affecting 

200,000 acres to date, and still killing over 100,000 new trees each year. 

Many other national forests have experienced similar, or worse, catastrophic forest fires and insect epidemics. A catastrophic mountain pine beetle epidemic has 

killed 2 million acres of lodgepole pine trees in Northern Colorado and southern Wyoming. These catastrophes have caused great harm to forest ecosystems, and therefore, cause great hardships to family-owned small businesses like mine. 

Both the acreage of forest fires and the number of trees killed by mountain pine 

beetle are a function of numerous variables. However, the most significant variable, 

and the one over which we have the most control, is the underlying condition of the 

forest. Simply put, the problem is there are too many trees competing for a limited 

amount of water. Reducing the risks of mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine isn’t 

rocket science. Dr. John Schmid, arguably the world’s leading researcher on mountain pine beetle has maintained a series of plots in the Black Hills for years. His 

bottom-line finding is that the duration and intensity of mountain pine beetle infestations are primarily a function of the number of trees in the stand -- the more 

trees, the higher the risk of mountain pine beetles. Conversely, thinned stands have 

a significantly lower risk of mountain pine beetles. 

Maintaining a Viable Forest Products Industry as a Management ToolA healthy 

forest products industry is critical to achieving long-term forest health objectives on 

the Black Hills NF, or any national forest. Further, the timber supply from the national forest makes it possible for our company to exist to manage timberlands for 

private landowners. We have a diverse, integrated forest products industry in the 

Black Hills. However, the forest products companies depend on the Black Hills NF 

selling the forest plan Allowable Sales Quantity (ASQ). Unfortunately, the Forest 

Service has fallen far behind achieving the Black Hills NF forest plan ASQ, with 

detrimental effects to both the Forest and the forest products companies. 

The single most important factor for the viability of existing industry infrastructure is supply of raw material from national forests. Our company relies on the 

Black Hills National Forest for approximately 75% percent of our sawtimber supply. 

Without a consistent supply, I cannot justify the investments necessary to keep 

these facilities on the cutting edge of technology, and expanding my operation into 

new product utilization avenues to better accommodate forest health programs, including small-diameter trees, becomes completely out of reach. 

We need the Forest Service to make up a significant portion of that accumulated 

ASQ shortfall. The annual growth on the Black Hills National Forest, and virtually 

every other national forest, is significantly higher than the annual harvest (see Attachment 1). Consequently the overstocking and mountain pine beetle risk are compounded each year by new growth, ultimately leading to even higher risks of mountain pine beetles and fires. 

This year, the forest products industry is facing the most challenging period since 

the Great Depression. Last month, the Western Wood Products Association (WWPA) 

predicted 2009 lumber demand of just 28.9 billion board feet, down from an all-time 

high of 64.3 billion board feet in 2005. Home construction and remodeling account 

for nearly 70% of U.S. lumber consumption. The WWPA forecast was for just 

432,000 new home starts in 2009, one-fifth of the 2005 level. 

Nationally the forest products industry employs more than one million people directly and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers in 48 states. Lumber, 

panel, and pulp and paper mills are frequently the economic hubs of their communities, making the industry’s health critical to the economic vitality of countless 

communities in every region of the country. Frequently, forest products companies 

provide some of the best, if not the only, full time, year round jobs in rural areas 

where unemployment often exceeds the national average. The overall effect has been 

to rob the wood and paper industry of economic value, threatening the viability of 

a key manufacturing sector while potentially threatening the long-term health of 

our forests. With the near total collapse of the nation’s housing market, our industry 

has suffered a disproportionate blow in the recent economic crisis. Unemployment 

in the forest products sector is now estimated at 250,000 to 300,000 jobs, or roughly 

20% of our workforce. Even in this reduced condition, the 1.08 million people in various segments of the wood and paper industry represent a larger share of U.S. employment than the automobile industry (828,500 as of November, 2008). 

The national forests can help sustain the industry through the downturn by being 

a reliable supplier of fiber, both for areas dominated by national forest timber and 

62

places where private landowners are reluctant to sell into fallen log markets. Losing 

infrastructure will harm all landowners and make the task of managing the national forests more difficult. I struggle constantly to find some measure of certainty 

and stability in the Forest Service’s long-term management programs. Similarly, 

each year the Forest Service faces the challenge of planning their programs without 

certainty about the funding levels they will receive from Congress. In essence, we’re 

trying to manage national forests for fifty to one hundred year rotations based on 

one-year appropriations, two-year Congressional cycles, and four-year Presidential 

cycles. 

Forest Planning

Incorporating long-term forest health strategies into forest plans is essential. 

There is no excuse for not incorporating long-term forest health strategies into every 

forest plan, yet many forest plans have been approved with scant attention to longterm desired conditions that will minimize the risks of fires and insect epidemics, 

especially when the planning was done during periods of above-average precipitation and below-average mountain pine beetle and fire activity. Over the past decade, 

the States of Wyoming and South Dakota, along with local counties, have prioritized 

their involvement in forest planning as Cooperating Agencies, and that has been a 

very positive development. 

Even the best forest plan has little real value if the necessary resources are not 

available for plan implementation. Adequate funding is a perennial issue. Compared 

to the costs of fire suppression, rehabilitation and restoration, preventative management is a bargain. I did a cursory analysis of the costs and revenues associated with 

a recent timber sale on the Black Hills NF that was designed specifically to reduce 

the risk of forest fires west of Rapid City. The net project cost, including NEPA and 

sale preparation expenses minus timber sale revenues, was $260 per acre. Compared to the $901 cost per acre for suppression and rehabilitation for the 2005 Ricco 

Fire, that investment of $260 per acre looks pretty smart. 

Project Implementation

On average, NEPA compliance represents about 50% of the Forest Service’s cost 

of analyzing, preparing and selling a timber sale. The Forest Service’s appeals process is still a cumbersome, time consuming and expensive means of resolving issues. 

If a decision is appealed and remanded, there is no process for the responsible Line 

Officer to quickly address and repair the flaws; instead, the process requires a new 

round of analysis, public review and comment, and another appeal period before the 

modified project can be implemented. This simply cannot happen in less than 6 

months. 

I am also concerned about the lack of a process that allows prompt salvage of 

dead trees following a fire or insect epidemic. Prompt salvage of dead trees is the 

common-sense response that most private landowners would make to utilize the 

dead trees and start the process of restoration. Salvage of fire-killed trees will also 

reduce the risk of a re-burn 10 or 20 years into the future, when dead trees have 

fallen to the ground and become additional fuel. However, salvage of fire-killed trees 

following a forest fire on the national forests is no longer a routine ′′next step′′. In 

contrast, all of the Forest Service’s actions to suppress a fire and implement emergency rehabilitation are designed to move quickly. One suggestion is to allow the 

Forest Service to consider salvage of fire-killed trees as part of the total response 

of fire suppression, rehabilitation, and restoration. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) is working well, although I am concerned that in some instances either the Forest Service is too cautious about using 

HFRA. The single most helpful feature of the HFRA is the Administrative Review 

process, which levels the playing field for the Forest Service, and significantly increases the incentives for parties to be a constructive part of the analysis and design 

process. I would like to see the HFRA Administrative Review process adapted for 

all projects. 

Definition of Biomass

My company is seriously exploring a partnership to construct and operate a $50 

million, 19 MW electrical co-generation facility adjacent to our sawmill in Spearfish, 

SD. The benefits of this facility include:

63

A. Increasing our nation’s supply of renewable energy, thus decreasing our dependency on foreign oil.

B. Utilization of slash from timber sales on the Black Hills NF and private 

timberlands. About 5,000 large slash piles are created each year, and most of 

those are burned during the winter months. That generates huge volumes of 

smoke and carbon, and frankly, wastes a resource.

C. 40 to 50 additional jobs for families in our local community.

I am very concerned about the RES (Renewable Electricity Standard) definition 

of Biomass. The RFS (Renewable Fuels Standard) definition inexplicably excluded 

nearly all federal fiber from counting toward renewable biofuels. Unfortunately, HR 

2454, the American Climate and Energy Security Act just approved by the House 

Energy and Commerce Committee is on the verge of repeating this mistake by disqualifying any fiber from Federal lands if it comes from a ′′mature′′ forest stand. 

This would exclude nearly all trees we harvest in the Black Hills. 

Similarly, jack pine and aspen forests in the Lake states, mixed oak stands in the 

Appalachians, and loblolly stands in the Southeastern US are all generally considered mature when harvested. This provision would be devastating and would have 

the effect of prohibiting most, if not all, Forest Service fiber from being counted as 

renewable biomass. Considering the unhealthy state of much of the Western forests, 

and the pressing need to develop additional capacity of renewable energy, this would 

be a mistake of historic proportions. 

My recommendation to the Congress is that slash and other biomass from a national forest timber sale, which conforms to applicable laws, including NFMA and 

NEPA, and the forest plan, should qualify under the RES. 

Biomass Crop Assistance Program

Title IX of the 2008 Farm Bill established the Biomass Crop Assistance Program 

to support the establishment and production of crops for conversion to bio-energy 

and to assist with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material, including woody biomass, for use in a biomass conversion facility. This program 

should help support forest products industries that also produce renewable energy, 

and these industries should qualify for the harvest and transportation assistance 

support provided by this program. Currently, USDA is still in the early phases of 

conducting a NEPA analysis on this program. I encourage the Administration to act 

quickly to complete the regulations and implement this program. 

HFRA Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program

Similarly, Section 203 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act authorized $5 million dollars annually for grants to offset the costs incurred to purchase biomass. 

That grant program would also be very helpful to my company, and other companies, in expanding utilization of woody biomass, and I urge the Congress to re-authorize and fund that grant program. 

Housing

The mortgage crisis and subsequent housing market crash helped create the current economic crash. Historically, rebounds in the housing economic rebounds have 

led our nation out of recessions and economic downturns. The $8,000 Home Buyer 

Tax Credit authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is 

helpful and important, but I would like to see the federal government do more to 

help. HR 1119, introduced by Rep Lincoln Davis, would expand homebuyer tax credit to all buyers, not just first time homebuyers, and expands it from $8,000 to 3.5% 

of the limitation determined under the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 

Act. As first time buyers are only about half of the housing market, the credit 

should be expanded to all purchases of primary residences. 

National Forest Advisory Board

In January 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture approved the formation of a National Forest Advisory Board for the Black Hills NF. Fifteen members were subsequently appointed to the Board based on familiarity with national forest issues, ability to represent a particular interest group, and demonstrated skill in working toward mutually beneficial solutions. 

The formation of the advisory board was one of the recommendations of an August 

2001 Forest Summit, convened by then-Senator Tom Daschle in Rapid City. Since 

then, the National Forest Advisory Board has become an integral part of the management of the Black Hills NF. The Board’s primary duty is to ′′provide advice and 

recommendations on a broad range of forest issues such as forest plan revisions or 

64

amendments, travel management, forest monitoring and evaluation, and site-specific 

projects having forestwide implications. 

This Advisory Board has made great contributions to management of the Black 

Hills NF through public airing and constructive discussion of contentious issues by 

a group representing diverse interests. I believe it could serve as a model for other 

national forests. 

Reforestation

Finally, I’m concerned about the reforestation backlog on the national forests. In 

April 2005, the GAO reported that national forest reforestation needs are accumulating because of the increased acreage affected by natural disturbances, i.e., forest 

fires and insect epidemics. The Congress should require the Forest Service to identify reforestation needs, and then develop a strategy to accomplish that reforestation. Reforestation would yield multiple benefits, including water quality, wildlife 

habitat, and carbon capture and sequestration. 

Conclusion

In summary, I want to thank you for the privilege of testifying here today. Management of the national forests is complex and sometimes contentious, and requires 

capable leadership. My company is committed to sustainable forest management, 

jobs, families and communities. As I said earlier, I’m the 3rd generation entrusted 

with running our business, and I started grooming the 4th generation years ago. 

Of all the variables I deal with, the one that keeps me awake most at nights is the 

long-term reliability of a national forest timber sale program. Again, I am honored 

that you asked me to testify today, and I would be delighted to work with Chairman 

Baca, Representative Lummis, and the Subcommittee in finding solutions to the 

many issues discussed here today.

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Neiman. Next, I have Mr. 

Smith. 

STATEMENT OF MATT SMITH, ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY OF 

AMERICAN FORESTERS, FALCONER, NEW YORK 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Thank you. Chairman Baca and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify to you today 

about something that I am more than a little passionate about. 

That is our nation’s forests. On behalf of the Society of American 

Foresters, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank you 

for your tireless work to improve the renewable fuel standard 

passed in the 2007 Energy Bill. My name is Matt Smith, and for 

the last 20 plus years, I have been a private forestry consultant in 

western New York and the Allegheny region of Northwest Pennsylvania. I have also spent the last 4 or 5 years working almost exclusively in the area of forest carbon and the voluntary carbon markets. 

It is an interesting point that when I received the call to be here 

today, which was about 6 days ago, I was in the woods working 

with a private landowner on a timber harvest, and it is an important point that I will come back to here at the end of my testimony. 

Forests are inseparably linked to American society and culture. We 

have heard a lot today about all that forests give us. They give us 

wood products, jobs, food, fuel, clean air, carbon uptake and storage, recreational opportunities, clean water, and a host of other 

benefits. The story of America’s forest contains many success stories, but it is not all that we hear about. We hear much about the 

challenges, and we have heard a lot about all of these challenges 

today. 

Catastrophic wildfires, invasive species, changes in land use, and 

climate change are challenges you may be quite familiar with. Although there are other challenges, the global economic crisis, the 

65

housing crisis, and foreign competition, as you have heard, are 

eroding our traditional wood product markets. The good news is 

new markets are evolving. However, we are running into regulatory and policy obstacles. We have a renewable fuel standard that 

needlessly restricts most woody biomass, a cap and trade bill that 

doesn’t recognize domestic forests, and an energy bill with a renewable energy standard that also restricts biomass, woody biomass. 

All of these provisions we are told are in place to protect forests 

when in fact if implemented they will harm them in the long run. 

In response to the growing concern about anthropogenic climate 

change and the diverse opinions that have existed and continue to 

exist on the issue, the Society of American Foresters assembled a 

team of professionals from across the country under the climate 

change task force, a group which I was proud to participate in. I 

think each of you have been provided with a copy of our full report. 

If not, you will very soon. I would like to just summarize some of 

the key points that we learn by reviewing the body of available research on forests and climate. Forests and climate are inseparably 

linked. Dramatic changes to one will inevitably affect the other. 

Global warming is probable and forest management can mitigate 

its effects. Also, wood products from sustainably managed forests 

are not only renewable products, they are products that when used 

in place of fossil fuel intensive materials such as concrete and steel 

drastically reduce our countrywide greenhouse gas footprint. 

Biomass is a key renewable energy source for the future producing clean energy while increasing the ancillary benefits from 

forests. Wildland fires and land use change represent significant 

emissions of greenhouse gases globally, emissions that can be mitigated through sound sustainable management. And, lastly, forests 

sequester significant amounts of atmospheric carbon, amounts that 

can increase with delivered management activities. Our current administration stands at a unique opportunity in time. They stand 

poised to initiate clean energy and climate change programs that 

will define environmental policies on greenhouse gases for future 

generations. This opportunity will either embrace forests and its 

positive impact on the climate change issue or it will leave it behind. Much of what we will have to deal with in this new market 

opportunity for forests for the future will be determined today in 

today’s policy debate. 

We would like to leave the Committee with several action items 

to think about as you consider the testimonies given today. Regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act, we would like to 

encourage the Committee to consider ensuring the role today for 

forest offsets in cap and trade. Also, ensuring that early actors in 

today’s voluntary markets receive recognition in future Federal 

programs. Next, to ensure that investments and offsets in clean 

technology continue by guaranteeing a smooth transition from the 

voluntary market to the mandatory market. Next, to ensure the future for woody biomass by redefining woody biomass in current regulations. Next, to restore forest health on Federal and public lands. 

Public lands are destined on a trajectory to become possibly sources 

of CO2 through fires and decay versus the sinks that they could 

be. And, lastly, to encourage new and existing markets. 

66

And I just want to make a quick statement on that harvest I was 

on when I received the call to be here today. That forest was a 

thinning. Low grade products were removed from that forest to improve forest health. They were low value products in any market. 

But it was able to yield $14,000 to that landowner 1-1/2 years ago 

when I sold that timber. Today, if faced with the same management challenge that forest, that treatment, would not be applicable 

in a commercial setting. There is no market for the material we removed from that forest, a real impact and a real measure of what 

is happening with the erosion of our traditional forestry markets 

today. 

This is a very important issue for the SAF as well, having now 

approved the task force on understanding and improving global 

competitiveness in the U.S. forest sector, and the Society of American Foresters will keep you abreast of the findings. I would like 

to thank the Committee and the SAF for allowing me to share this 

information with you on its nation’s forests. It has been my extreme pleasure to be here with you today, and I look forward to 

your questions and comments. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW S. SMITH, CF, ACF, ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY

OF AMERICAN FORESTERS (SAF) 

Chairman Peterson, Chairman Holden, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on the important topic of our nation’s forests. On 

behalf of the Society of American Foresters, I would also like to thank you for your 

tireless work to improve the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) passed in the 2007 

Energy Bill. 

My name is Matthew Smith, I am a Private Consulting Forester, SAF certified 

forester, Member of the Association of Consulting Foresters, Adjunct Professor of 

Forestry at SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, NY, Sustainable Forestry Auditor, Member of the Chicago Climate Exchange Forestry Committee, and Director of Ecosystem Services at FORECON Inc. I am here today representing the Society of American Foresters for which I serve as Western New York 

Chairman, and member of the SAF Climate Change Task Force. 

The Society of American Foresters (SAF) is the national scientific and educational 

organization representing the forestry profession in the United States. Founded in 

1900 by Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the Forest Service, SAF was chartered 

to advance the science, education, technology, and practice of forestry for the benefit 

of society. Today SAF publishes several scientific peer-reviewed journals, certifies 

foresters and accredits forestry schools among other things. With over 14,000 members SAF is largest professional forestry society in the world. SAF members include 

natural resource professionals in public and private settings, researchers, CEOs, administrators, educators, and students. 

Our Forests

The United States is blessed with abundant forest resources. In fact the US holds 

approximately eight percent of the world’s forests, placing it among the top 4 countries in the world. The US forest base is estimated at some 755 million acres, and 

has been stable at this level for about the last 100 years. The US forests are dominated by private non industrial landowners, which combined own roughly 57% of 

the forests in the country. This forest base is however, dynamic, with about one million acres of forest lost to other land uses annually. Fortunately, these losses are 

typically offset by new forest establishment, such as abandoned agricultural land, 

in other regions. 

While America’s forests are fairly stable in area, they grow in volume, with 

growth exceeding removals over the past 50 years. Advances in forest management 

techniques along with natural factors have resulted in increased production from 

our forest base. In spite of this increased production of wood volume, US demand 

for forest products still exceeds annual production by 4.2 million cubic feet. As a result, the US imports approximately 36% of its wood products annually. The import 

of wood products to American shores raises key environmental concerns as much of 

67

this supply can come from regions without the environmental and sustainable qualities of wood that is grown domestically. 

Forests are inseparably linked to American society and culture. Forests give us 

innumerable benefits including; wood products, jobs, food, fuel, clean air, carbon uptake and storage, recreation opportunities, clean water, cultural benefits, open 

space, wildlife, biodiversity, scenic landscapes, and many more. Forests are unique 

as a natural resource because they can provide these values in concert with one another, on a renewable basis, through sound sustainable forest management. 

I’d like to illustrate the critical contribution forests make to America by taking 

a brief look at my home State of New York. When most people think of New York, 

they think of Time Square, Broadway musicals, and sky scrapers. Most people have 

little appreciation for how significant the forest resources in New York are, or how 

important they are to our state-wide economy. New York State currently has an estimated 18.8 million acres of forests (61% of land area), owned primarily by private 

landowners. These forests provide NY with over 55,000 jobs in rural communities, 

and have an estimated net economic impact of almost $12 billion dollars each year. 

Recently, with the downturn in housing starts, increased energy costs, and depressed wood product markets many of these jobs have been lost, resulting in a significant reduction in the economic contribution realized from the forest economy. 

The situation in New York is just an example of what is happening across the country. Forests, and the communities that rely on them, are under pressure from both 

human influence, and natural factors. 

Challenges for the Future of America’s Forests

The story of America’s forests contains many successes, including their abundance, diversity, ecological services, recreational opportunities, and vast array of 

wood products they produce. Many times, however, it is the challenges to our forest 

resources that we hear the most about, and understandably so. Catastrophic 

wildfires, invasive species, changes in land use (deforestation), climate change, global competition, and increased demand for traditional and emerging forest products 

are just some of the challenges we face. 

In the past five years, over 42 million acres of federal forests has burned in the 

US. In 2006 wildfires in the US burned nearly 10 million acres, cost $1.9 billion 

to suppress, and were 166% greater in extent than the previous 10-year average. 

Due to climate change and public land management practices, future fires are likely 

to be more severe, cost more to suppress, and have greater impacts on air and water 

quality, wildlife habitat and infrastructure. Current estimates show that 180 million 

acres of federal forests in the US are at an unnaturally high risk of catastrophic 

wildfire. At present, harvest levels on national forests are about one-eighth of the 

growth resulting in forests that are overly dense, unhealthy and prone to unnaturally severe wildfire. In Oregon, tree mortality on federal lands from insects, disease, and fire is reported to be six times the level of harvest. Though there is some 

debate, it is generally agreed that continuation of this situation will not lead to 

healthy, sustainable forests that store carbon and serve the national interests. In 

eastern Washington, federal forests will soon become a source of carbon emissions 

rather than a sink due to decay from insect and disease infestation and catastrophic 

wildfires. This picture is true of many of our federal forests, especially those in the 

West. 

In 2006, almost eight percent of US forests (58 million acres) were at significant 

risk to insects and disease, either natural or introduced. This issue continues to be 

of significance nation wide, perhaps most significantly with the spread of Mountain 

Pine Beetle in the Western US. In New York we are also battling infestations of 

foreign pests such as Sirex Wood Wasp, Asian Long Horned Beetle, Hemlock Wooly 

Adelgid, and potentially the Emerald Ash Borer in our forests. The impacts of a 

warming climate on insect and disease pathogens is largely unknown. It is believed, 

however, that forest pests held in check by winter low temperatures may spread as 

the average temperature increases. 

Perhaps the greatest challenge our forests face is forest loss to alternative land 

uses. As our US population grows, it is estimated that approximately 44 million 

acres of private forestland in the US could experience drastic increases in housing 

density in the next three decades. As has been stated above, the host of values presented by forests are significant, however these benefits are only realized if the forests stay as forests. Frequently, forest loss can be attributed to a failure to recognize 

all of the values presented by the forested property. 

Hand in hand with keeping forests intact is having healthy and integrated markets for forest products and services. Landowners are much more likely to keep and 

manage their forestland if they have value as forests. This key component to preventing forest conversion is often overlooked and/or misunderstood by Congress. 

68

Emerging markets, such as ecosystem services, renewable energy and carbon offset 

projects, could also help to keep forests forested by adding an additional revenue 

stream to landowners. At the moment, however, we have a Renewable Fuels Standard that needlessly restricts most woody biomass, a cap and trade bill that doesn’t 

recognize domestic forests and an energy bill with a Renewable Energy Standard 

that restricts woody biomass. All of these provisions, we are told, are in place to 

‘protect’ forests. To be perfectly clear, these policies will only harm our domestic forests and leave foresters with fewer options to manage forestland for the benefit of 

society. 

Meeting the needs of a growing global demand for forest values in the face of 

these challenges is a reality we face for the future. As our population grows and 

spreads into the rural areas of our country, and as the impacts of a warming climate 

are realized, these pressures will increase exponentially. These challenges can only 

be addressed with thoughtful, deliberate, sustainable forest management. 

The SAF Climate Change Task Force Report 2009

In response to the growing concern about anthropogenic climate change and the 

diverse opinions that exist on the impact it would have on forests, the SAF assembled a group of 12 experts from across the country to form the SAF Climate Change 

Task Force. The group was assembled in 2007 and was charged with reviewing the 

body of available research on climate change, clean energy, forestry, and carbon sequestration. The objective for this group was to inform its membership and the public by summarizing the most current and best available research in the form of a 

Task Force report. The report was completed in 2008 and was published early in 

2009. The end result is a very comprehensive and current presentation of the 

science of climate change as it impacts and is impacted by forest resources and the 

role forests play in the global climate budget. The findings of the report are summarized below. 

Forests are shaped by climate. Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes 

have the potential to dramatically impact forests nationwide. Climate is also shaped 

by forests. This interrelationship means that dramatic change to one will somehow 

influence the other. Climate change has the potential to transform entire forest systems, shifting forest distribution and composition. 

Wood products from sustainably managed forests can be replenished continually, 

providing a plentiful and dependable supply of both trees and wood products. Substituting wood for fossil fuel-intensive products can substantially improve environmental performance and store carbon in wood products while also supporting other 

ecological services, such as clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, and recreation. 

Life Cycle Inventory analysis reveals that when wood products in construction are 

used instead of steel, concrete, brick or vinyl materials, the wood products store 

more carbon and use less fossil energy. 

Green House Gas (GHG) emissions can be reduced through the substitution of biomass for fossil fuels to produce heat, electricity, and transportation fuels. Biomass 

can also be used to produce a wide range of plastics and chemicals traditionally 

made from fossil fuels. Product substitution involves the use of biomass to replace 

products that would emit more GHG per functional unit. While some of the increasing need for sustainable electric power can be met by renewable energy sources such 

as solar and wind, biomass is the only renewable that can meet our demand for carbon-based liquid fuels and chemicals. 

Wildland fires are a major contributor to national and international GHG emissions. The EPA has estimated that wildfire emissions in the lower 48 states and 

Alaska released an average of 105.5 million metric tons/year (range: 65.3 to 152.8) 

of carbon dioxide into the air from 2000 to 2005. Active forest management to improve forest health and reduce hazardous fuels can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions while also enhancing wildlife habitat, recreational and scenic values, and reducing the threat of wildfires to communities and critical infrastructure. This management can also contribute to the health of rural communities and economies by 

providing family-wage jobs. 

Land use change from forests to non-forest use releases carbon and other GHG’s 

stored in forests. No other anthropocentric activity, besides energy production, releases more carbon emissions globally: 150 billion tons or 33 percent of the total 

emissions between 1850 and 1998. While this is mostly an international problem 

and U.S. forestland area has remained relatively stable since the 1920s, forest land 

use and carbon policies need to encourage the retention and enhancement of 

forestland. Again, healthy and diverse markets will play a large role in preventing 

forestland loss. 

Managed forests are unique in that they contribute to GHG reduction while simultaneously providing essential environmental and social benefits including clean 

69

water, wildlife habitat, recreation, forest products, and other values and uses. The 

important metric is net carbon uptake and storage. Forests of all ages and types 

have remarkable capacity to sequester and store carbon. Enhancement of this capacity depends on active, informed forest management. 

Market-based instruments encourage environmentally sound behavior through 

market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control 

levels or methods. When well designed and implemented, these instruments will create incentives that alter the producer’s pollution control strategy in ways that benefit the producer while meeting pollution reduction policy goals. Market-based climate change policy instruments provide economic incentives that promote innovation in the development of pollution abatement technologies because it is always in 

the entity’s best interest to do so. 

It seems surprising that society currently seems reluctant to embrace forest conservation and management as part of the climate change solution. Time is of the 

essence and the forestry profession must transmit a clear, urgent message to society 

that global warming is probable and forest management can mitigate climate 

change effects. History has repeatedly demonstrated that the health and welfare of 

human society is fundamentally dependent on the health and welfare of a nation’s 

forests. Society at large, the U.S. Congress, and state legislators must not only appreciate this fact, but also recognize that the sustainable management of forests 

can, to a substantial degree, mitigate the dire effects of atmospheric pollution and 

global climate change. 

A Unique Opportunity in Time

Ours is an exciting time to be working in the environmental field. The increased 

environmental focus generated by concerns centered on climate change is creating 

increased opportunities in the area of forestry. New products such as biomass and 

bio-fuels, voluntary greenhouse gas reduction (cap and trade) programs for forest 

offsets, and the development of ecosystem markets for forest based services such as 

water and biodiversity are transforming how we view and value our forests. The 

capture and recognition of these new products and services from forests stand to 

have significant positive impacts on forests and forestry in the US. 

The emerging markets for forestry derivatives like carbon credits and biomass are 

proven to have significant positive impacts on climate change. The realization of income streams from these products holds huge potential to alleviate financial pressures to change forest land use, incentivize the expanded use of sustainable management practices on private lands, create jobs and stimulate economies in rural 

areas, and also to expand the ecosystem services provided by forests nation wide. 

It is important however to recognize that these benefits can only be realized if Congress and the Federal Government allow forests to fully participate in these programs and markets. 

Our current Administration stands poised to initiate clean energy and climate 

change programs that will define environmental policies on greenhouse gases for future generations. This opportunity can either result in increased opportunities to 

embrace forests and their benefits for the future, or create barriers to their contribution to the climate change problem. Much of the future for forests in the realm of 

climate change programs will lie in how policies for these programs are designed 

today. 

Action Items for the Committee

1. Ensure a role for all forest offsets in Federal cap and trade 

Numerous bills have been proposed on climate change over the past few years. 

Most recently the American Clean Energy and Security Act was approved by the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Act, however, did not recognize domestic forestry offsets. 

As legislation moves forward, attention must be paid to the role of terrestrial offsets from forestry projects. Forest offsets provide low cost, measurable, real carbon 

reductions to cap and trade systems. Forests provide these climate benefits with 

unequalled ancillary benefits such as clean water, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities--benefits not realized by any other offset type. Moreover, forests can provide these benefits now. Domestic offset projects allowed in any Federal cap and 

trade program must include opportunities for afforestation, reforestation, forest 

management, and harvested wood products (long-lived wood products). Further, the 

Federal Government must develop credible, accurate, and economically viable opportunities to recognize the important contribution forestry projects make to the climate change program. 

70

2. Ensure that early actors in qualified voluntary programs are recognized 

With the development of voluntary GHG reduction markets and programs in the 

US, has come an age of innovation, investment, and development for terrestrial offsets such as agriculture and forestry. Millions of tons of carbon dioxide have been 

sequestered in and traded from independently verified terrestrial offsets in the US 

and abroad. These early actors have not only led the way with early climate change 

actions, but they have developed innovative new technologies and processes to quantify, produce, and report carbon instruments in this new industry, to the benefit of 

all. Current language in the American Clean Energy and Security Act would significantly limit the recognition of these early actors. 

3. Ensure that investments in offsets and clean technology continue 

The American Clean Energy and Security Act includes provisions for a list of approved offsets to be developed at a later date by the Environmental Protection Agency (possibly out as far as 2012). The impact of this provision will likely result in 

slowed or no investment in the offsets sector as developers and owners of offset 

projects wait to see if their actions will be recognized in the Federal program. The 

SAF encourages the Committee to push for a comprehensive listing (including forestry and agriculture) of approved offset types and programs as soon as is possible 

in order to maintain growth and investments in this industry. 

4. Encourage Woody Biomass Energy 

As the House Agriculture Committee is well aware, the definition of ‘renewable 

biomass’ in the Renewable Fuels Standard passed in the 2007 Energy Independence 

and Security Act must be corrected. This prescriptive, restrictive definition serves 

as a disincentive to restore forest health in many areas and only hampers efforts 

to reach renewable fuels mandates. The SAF recently submitted testimony with the 

House Agriculture Committee on this problem and that testimony is attached. Further, the most recent version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act includes a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) of which the definition of biomass is 

overly restrictive, especially on federal lands. Attached to this testimony is the 

SAF’s most recent letter to the House Energy & Commerce Committee explaining 

the problems with the definition. 

5. Encourage existing and new markets 

Without markets, whether they’re traditional or emerging, foresters cannot manage forest land. With the plethora of challenges facing domestic forests-wildfire, insects & disease, conversion, climate change-forests across the nation will need to be 

managed by professional foresters to conserve their many values and ensure they 

provide these values for future generations. Congress must be thoughtful about the 

laws it passes and must avoid perverse and unintended consequences. 

6. Restore Forest Health on Federal and Public Forests 

Our vast public forests, much like private forests, can be either a sink for CO2 

or a source of CO2. The deplorable state of forest health on public forests, especially 

in the West, indicates that most of these lands will soon become of a source of CO2 

through emissions from wildfires and decay. This problem also adversely affects 

wildlife habitat, water quality, aesthetic values and costs the Federal Government 

billions of dollars each year. The current law, regulations and case law governing 

federal forest management does not allow federal land managers to solve this problem. Congress must act to provide the authorities needed to appropriately deal with 

this problem. 

Closing

I would like to thank the Committee and The Society of American Foresters for 

allowing me to share with you this information on our nation’s forests, its challenges, and opportunities for the future. It has been my extreme pleasure to be here 

with you today. I look forward to your questions and comments.

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith, and I appreciate 

each and every one of the panelists. I know that we went a little 

bit longer on the 5 minutes, and the reason I did that is because 

you were patient enough to wait and so we needed to be patient 

enough to hear your comments as well, so I appreciate that very 

much. I want to thank all the panelists for being here and for being 

patient and waiting until we were done voting. Now we will begin 

with the process of asking some of the questions. And I will begin 

71

myself by asking Mr. Bentz a question first. Thank you for your 

testimony today. I am intrigued by your findings on energy ecosystem service market, and in my area in southern California we 

have a significant problem with water, pollution through the form 

of perchlorate contamination. Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive 

that can be found in some of the well heads due to defense constructions that occurred at one time in San Bernardino County. 

Can you explain for the Subcommittee in greater detail what the 

role of the forest watershed play in water purification? 

Mr. BENTZ. Forests have a huge impact in purifying the water. 

When the water goes into the soils, first of all, the trees, the root 

systems, hold the water there and uptakes the chemicals. It helps 

clean it out. So forests maintain the soils in place so the soils don’t 

move and again provide cover, and so they do contribute tremendously to clean water. Also, they provide shade. They maintain 

temperature of the water along our streams so that our repairing 

areas are really critically important for maintaining water quality 

and having forests in those repairing areas is also very important. 

Mr. BACA. Along the same line, is there a feasible way that this 

type of purification can stop contamination from harmful chemicals 

like perchlorate? 

Mr. BENTZ. I am not aware of that. No, sir. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. Under the renewable energy market it seems 

to be an emerging opportunity to supplement the declining traditional timber market. How do you see this playing out for the family forest owners? 

Mr. BENTZ. In the renewable energy component? 

Mr. BACA. Yes. 

Mr. BENTZ. The renewable energy component allows these lower 

value woods to find the market. We are seeing markets for pulpwood and some of these other byproducts going away as our paper 

industry declines, and so having these renewable energy markets 

available allows landowners to sell these lower value woods into 

these things, so it is an extremely important economic resource for 

the family forest landowners. 

Mr. BACA. Mr. Koehn, the Federal Government currently requires flood insurance in certain areas, also participation in some 

agricultural commodity programs require insurance. Do you think 

the high cost of firefighting suggests that we might want to examine requiring fire insurance in certain fire prone areas? 

Mr. KOEHN. I believe that there is some communities in this 

country that do have the requirement for fire insurance in some of 

the fire prone communities. I don’t think that is a national requirement. I think that is done at the state and local level, so there is, 

I believe, in some cases an example for that. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. Do you believe that the national standards for 

long-term forest health, even ones that might pre-empt current 

state laws are necessary? 

Mr. KOEHN. It depends on which practice and piece of statute 

that we are talking about. 

Mr. BACA. All right. What can we do at the Federal level to ensure that our states, local governments implement long-term forest 

health strategies to minimize the risk of fire, insects epidemics, 

and prevent harmful greenhouse gas emissions? 

72

Mr. KOEHN. Well, on a fire front, as long as we continue to have 

the support and the resources that we have from partners like the 

U.S. Forest Service, state fire assistance funds and helps the states 

provide those kinds of assistance when the fire whistle blows and 

they need yellow shirts from back east or other states, those things 

are important. Your other question about, forgive me, help me, beyond the fire was—you had a second part to your question. I am 

sorry. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. The second part, what can we do at the Federal 

level to ensure that our states and local Government implement 

long-term forest health strategies to minimize the risk of fire and 

insect epidemics and prevent harmful greenhouse gas emissions? 

Mr. KOEHN. All right. As far as the insect and disease go, and 

the same thing with fire, well-managed forests are more resilient 

than forests that are not well managed, so if a forest is growing 

vigorous and doing well, its potential to withstand catastrophic 

fires improve, and its potential to withstand insect and disease infestations is improved, so a rigorous, well-managed forest is probably the best preventative way to deal with some of those issues. 

We also probably could support and would advocate for funding for 

APHIS for early detection for insect and disease. I am in a state 

that has been struggling for the last couple of years with emerald 

ash borer as many other states are, and if we had not had the opportunity for early detection the problem would be much worse. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. Thank you. I have additional questions for the 

rest of you, but I am going to pass and call on the other Members, 

but I am going to ask one yes or no answer. Based on what I heard 

today from both the deputy secretary as well and from all of you 

in some sense or another, do you think that we should have a hearing in biomass? 

Mr. KOEHN. Yes. 

Mr. BENTZ. Yes. 

Mr. MCPEEK. Yes. 

Mr. MONAGHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. Thank you. With that then, I will go to Ms. 

Lummis to ask the first question. You have 5 minutes. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the presence of 

the former Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I would defer 

the questions that I have to him for the time being, but I would 

like to ask a couple later. 

Mr. BACA. Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was very generous. I was prepared to wait on you but if you don’t—first of all, 

I want to thank you all for your testimony. I find it very helpful. 

I am in concert with most of you who believe that we need to have 

fair consideration of our forest products in terms of any renewable 

fuels standard and policy, so I am a supporter of Congresswoman 

Herseth Sandlin’s legislation that would change those provisions to 

allow woody biomass to be counted in that program. 

Mr. McPeek, I am a member of and have been a supporter of The 

Nature Conservancy for many, many years, and like many of the 

things that you do. I was concerned, however, about a statement 

that you had in your statement regarding the biomass putting too 

73

much pressure on—I want to quote you directly, but I can’t put my 

finger on it right now, too much pressure on our national forests, 

and I wonder if you could cite for me some examples of that. Virginia as a whole is 62 percent forested, and my district it is an 

even higher percentage, closer to 70 percent of all of the land in 

my district is forested. About half of that is in our national forest, 

about half of it is in private land ownership. The half that is in private land ownership produces about 96 or 97 percent of the forest 

products, both for the paper mills. I have four of those in my district, and we have a lot of hardwood lumber production as well. 

And the national forest, which comprises 50 percent of the forest 

land, produces somewhere between 3 and 4 percent of the wood 

products. Where is it that you see that a program to generate 

greater biofuel production from forest products would put undue 

pressure on our national forest land? It seems like right now whatever undue pressure may exist on private forest land. I wonder if 

you might——

Mr. MCPEEK. First, thanks very much for your support over the 

years. We greatly appreciate it. We are not against a real energy 

standard that includes woody biomass at all. It is really just a matter of having the necessary sideboards to not have incentives to 

clear native forests on private land and have sustainable practices 

on public land. Sustainable forest management also creates a sustainable industry if we manage the forests. Unsustainably, the industry won’t be able to sustain itself either. So in terms of the 

overall climate change issue the cap on greenhouse gas emissions 

is the best approach to dealing with that issue. We have not taken 

a position on the renewable energy standard but if there was one 

all we would recommend are those sideboards that prevent those 

kinds of——

Mr. GOODLATTE. But wouldn’t putting a cap on greenhouse gas 

emissions raise the cost of a wide variety of energy sources and 

those that are potentially more greenhouse gas friendly, and since 

trees grow by absorbing carbon dioxide presumably they are more 

friendly than other types of sources of energy. But I am in favor 

of increasing production of all sources of energy because I think we 

have a very serious risk that we are already starting to see right 

now as oil prices start to climb again of pricing ourselves out of 

being internationally competitive without greater domestic production of energy. But a part of that production to me should be biomass production from forest products. And I wonder if some of the 

other panel members would like to comment on that. Do you think 

that simply putting a cap on CO2 emissions is the best way to address this problem as opposed to increasing the production of energy from forest products? 

Mr. MONAGHAN. If energy provides a market to landowners, I 

think it is proven that landowners will do the right thing and respond to those market incentives by doing a better job of forest 

management. I don’t see it as anything but a win-win situation. I 

have never seen a situation where you take a market incentive 

away from someone and they respond by making a positive action 

in the future. They are more likely to reinvest in sound forest management if they have a market incentive for doing so. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Bentz. 

74

Mr. BENTZ. Right now we think the forests are sequestering 

about 10 percent of our carbon nationally, and we believe that with 

active management of our forests that that number could be doubled to as much as 20 percent, so we actually see a lot of room to 

improve our forest management and our carbon sequestration at 

the same time providing all these benefits as well. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The current Waxman-Markey bill dealing with 

climate change makes no mention of domestic forest offsets. I wonder if some of you might comment on the benefits of domestic carbon offsets in a cap and trade system and how do we ensure that 

these offsets are real? Mr. Koehn, is that something you are familiar with? 

Mr. KOEHN. I can speak to that in the sense that some of the 

things that we do in forestry don’t always meet the same kind of 

rigor that you require for a tradable credit but we do believe that 

there should be some allowance in programs for credit for landowners who do undertake some of these projects but maybe not 

have the rigor that is required for something that might be traded 

on the Chicago climate exchange or something like that, so it is difficult with the accounting to demonstrate that in some cases, but 

we believe that some of these positive aspects should be recognized 

in some other forms of programs that we could offer through state 

and private forestry programs. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodlatte. At this time, I 

would like to call on the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Childers, 

for 5 minutes you are recognized. 

Mr. CHILDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I am directing 

this to everyone, and anyone feel free to jump in but specifically, 

Dr. Monaghan, you are familiar with certainly our district. Northern Mississippi has a lot of sawmills. We have a lot of forest land. 

And I am a relative new member of Congress. Apparently, the timber sellers in Canada, this is having a negative impact on us, and 

I have some of the most sophisticated sawmills. They are really remarkable in north Mississippi, specifically one in Tippah and Grenada County that I am thinking about. I take that at face value 

when they tell me this is happening to them, but what can Congress do to help our timber sellers, if you will, which would ultimately help our mills as well in the market? What can Congress 

do that they are not doing already? 

Mr. MONAGHAN. Well, the Canadian lumber agreement settlement in the past few years looked at that situation very closely 

with regard to competition or what we would call unfair competition from other countries. So a promotion of fair and even trade is 

obviously one of the things that was discovered that there were certain situations where the Canadian Government was subsidizing 

some of the industries up there so it created unfair situations. But 

as far as what we could do in the future in a situation like that, 

one of the primary things, of course, is to look at any situation that 

comes along as an opportunity to provide markets for forest landowners, and because if they have a market that means that somewhere along the line those industries, those sawmills, other buyers 

of wood products, are in a favorable situation as well. 

75

So I think just fair competition and promoting free enterprise 

would do the job. If we try to artificially support our forest industries and our forest—the private forest landowners, it is hard to 

maintain that through artificial incentives, but for certain we need 

to be fair about any new programs, any new legislation, any new 

tax policy. We need to be fair and make sure it doesn’t create a disincentive. 

Mr. CHILDERS. Thank you. The Canadian lumber agreement, if 

that is its proper name, was supposed to do that, and can I just 

ask you all this, are we—by the way, Mr. Chairman, I would just 

like to say that I am proud to have Dr. Monaghan here because 

very rarely do we have anybody who talks like I talk. He comes in 

here——

Mr. BACA. I noticed that accent. 

Mr. CHILDERS. I appreciate him being here. Are we not doing our 

part on that agreement? Are we not enforcing our own agreement, 

do you think? 

Mr. MONAGHAN. I honestly can’t answer that. 

Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Neiman. I was going to you with that question. I saw you reaching for the mic, so thank you. 

Mr. NEIMAN. I have had a real struggle the last number of years 

watching the whole interaction. It appears to be a one-way street 

when you look at how we deal with the Canadian Government. I 

think it has been very unfair. We have watched two judges from 

Canada picked with one from down here to make decisions. Millions of dollars passed back the year before last to the Canadian 

Government. I think our Government got $1 billion and they got 

$5 billion or $6 billion. There has just been a number of issues that 

really disturbs me. I wish you could just figure out ways to make 

it fairer and balanced. Canada has a whole different philosophy. 

They continue to do everything possible, including labor incentives 

and discounts on their stumpage, just endless benefits. It is a 

whole different philosophy and in turn it is our responsibility as a 

Government from my end to hold them accountable and create the 

tariffs that balance that out. Otherwise, they have an extreme advantage not counting when you look at what the exchange rate has 

done. We have watched the exchange rate this year drop from our 

dollar to $1.30 down to $1.18 and back up. They have a lot of advantages that can really hurt our industry. 

Mr. CHILDERS. So we are not doing our part? 

Mr. NEIMAN. You are correct. 

Mr. CHILDERS. My time has expired. Thank you all. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Since Ms. Lummis yielded to 

the past Chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, I am going to call on Ms. 

Lummis to ask her questions. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. My questions are 

for Mr. Neiman, and thank you all for waiting for us during our 

voting time. As was pointed out earlier, Wyoming being 97,000 

square miles, the 9th largest state in the country, one sawmill in 

the entire state and it is Mr. Neiman’s. What are the biggest factors, Jim, in forcing the forest products industry to struggle so 

much when we have this vast renewable resource? 

Mr. NEIMAN. I think you can go to one basic area and the inconsistency or the lack of supply of national forest timber from all forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
76

ests is the biggest. You can then drop down to a number of different reasons, increased NEPA cost to the forest, litigation, appeals. It just goes on and on, the different things that stymied the 

Forest Service. It is like our courts have control over our decision 

making process on the forest. If you look at Wyoming as a whole, 

you had a mill in Dubois, Wyoming, you had one on Laramie, you 

had one in Saratoga, you had one in Newcastle, you had one in 

Riverton, you had one in Sheridan. They are all gone. 

The problem goes back to the improper lack of applying true 

science. A lot of this started in the 1960’s and 1970’s with the 

misperception of clear cutting. A lot of those forests were shut 

down with the perception that clear cutting is bad and lodgepole 

needs to be clear cut if you study the science. So what does Mother 

Nature do with fire and with bugs? It clear cuts. It is an even age 

stand, so we got to allow the foresters—we got to get the science 

down to the lowest possible level we can to make the decisions. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. With regard to your co-generation facility that is proposed, can you expand on how a co-gen facility at 

your sawmill would improve forest management in the Black Hills 

National Forest? 

Mr. NEIMAN. If I look at it from the big picture, the Black Hills 

National Forest produces about 5,000 slash piles a year. That ends 

up being a hundred and some thousand tons, bone dry tons, of carbon if you want to look at it in terms of carbon, that they burn and 

it costs them between $1.5 million and $2 million to burn those 

piles. Then they have to treat those slash piles for weed treatment 

from 5 to 10 years because it has changed the soil type. We could 

go in and grind those piles up at no cost to the Forest Service, turn 

that into energy and have renewable energy in our case, supply 

steam to Black Hills State University, which is really excited about 

being a green college. The benefits go on and on. When you look 

on the private side, private lands, what that can do to help ranchers, it is the same identical benefit. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. I also want to ask what actions are 

needed at the Federal level to move forest management plans to 

prompt removal of dead and dying trees from beetle kill or fires? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Is that question for myself? 

Ms. LUMMIS. Yes, for you, Mr. Neiman. 

Mr. NEIMAN. You need prompt action. You need a process, particularly in ponderosa you sometimes have 2 months to get in and 

remove those before the bugs have got in and bored in. We have 

less time in ponderosa, so it is critical to take action. But the real 

solution is to figure out how to get ahead of the bugs within the 

forest. You can prevent that by getting in and doing proper management. 

Ms. LUMMIS. And can the forest products industry help with 

that? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Sure. Right now in the Black Hills, that forest is 

growing about 150 million a year, the annual growth. The ASQ is 

about 83. We just got back up. We need a capacity of between 120, 

130 million. We are begging for more wood. So, otherwise, we got 

to go to Montana and Nebraska and the economy will not allow it. 

We have had to curtail because of the additional cost. Our working 

circle has shrunk. We would beg to move into higher cuts and move 

77

in quickly, remove the bugs, and thin around the area. You got to 

keep in mind that bugs are endemic to every forest. They don’t just 

appear. The forest becomes unhealthy and creates an epidemic by 

the multiplication of the bugs, but you got to recognize bugs are endemic to every forest nationwide so by proper forest health we can 

help and it helps our companies too. 

Ms. LUMMIS. And, Mr. Chairman, so slash piles can be either 

burned and produce more carbon with no benefit to the economy 

or they can be used to produce products that augment the nation’s 

renewable energy resources, is that true? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Yes. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Well, I am delighted that we have had this array 

of testimony today, and, Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate your 

holding this hearing. Thank you so much. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. I know that we have gone 

around. Is there any pressing time on your part because I know 

that somebody had to leave earlier, and, if not, we would like to 

ask if there are additional questions. I know I have some additional 

questions I would like to ask. If there are any other Members that 

want to ask additional questions, we can turn around and ask, but 

since we have not completed—hearing that there is no one pressing 

to leave, we will keep you here a little longer. I have a question 

for Mr. Smith. First of all, thank you very much for the informative 

testimony, and thank you very much for the six additional points 

that we will look at too as well. It is something that I wrote them 

all down so hopefully we can look at these points. 

But as you mentioned earlier, I am well aware of the devastation 

caused by wildfires, but I was surprised by your testimony to learn 

about how major contributors they are to greenhouse gas emission. 

How do you think that we best get across to society and to mainstream America the message that forest conservation and management are critical steps in helping stop negative effects of climate 

change? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question. Forests are part of 

the answer for climate change, but without management forest can 

end up being a net source through wildfire and decay. Education 

and an appreciation for the impacts of our activities on the forest 

landscape seems to be the knowledge gap that we are missing with 

the general public. Folks have lost their attachment to the forest 

and have lost an appreciation for what we look for from the forest 

and what occurs when we stop management. I have listened very 

closely to your opening comments, Mr. Baca, about what can we do 

to safeguard our forest fighters, what can we do about the wildfire 

issue. The answer to me is clear: Loosen the reins of the U.S. Forest Service and allow them to continue to manage the forest, thin 

the forest, and maintain it in a healthy condition. 

This is the only way to curtail the deep budgets that we need to 

fight wildfire and the risks we take in the loss of homes and the 

loss of life through firefighters. But in the climate change issue, 

this is all tied together, create markets for renewable fuels, create 

markets for things like carbon credits, do things to strengthen our 

traditional markets, and you have the tools you need to manage 

the forests in a way that contributes positively to the issue of climate change. 

78

Mr. BACA. Okay. The next question I have, and, thank you, being 

from the west I have seen the firsthand devastation of the bark 

beetle. You mentioned in your testimony several other pests that 

are attacking the eastern forests. I haven’t spent enough time in 

other areas so could you please compare the pest destruction in the 

forest to those in the west? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, what is happening in the east is not at the 

scale and not at the magnitude of what is happening with the 

mountain pine beetle, but what we have are invasive pests that 

enter our ports, enter our shores from other places. They come in. 

They have very few natural predators, and unchecked they are allowed to exploit some of our resources. One of the most substantial 

right now, one of the primary concerns in the Lakes States and 

western New York, Northwest Pennsylvania is, of course, the emerald ash borer, an insect for which we have no real practical control, 

but one that is having an enormous economic impact. It focuses on 

our white ash and green ash resources, and if you are a baseball 

fan that is important to you. Ash is the primary species that we 

use to make baseball bats and a variety of other products that are 

important to every day life. 

So we have the same types of things happening throughout the 

country, in the South, in the West, and in the East, and these are 

important issues. They are important issues that we need to consider as we have legislation enacted to try to filter these things before they get to our shores because once they are here, they are 

very problematic to deal with. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. I am a baseball fan. In fact, 

we have our baseball game coming up on June 17, but we use aluminum bats. But for major league baseball that is a concern that 

we really have right now because all of the bats are wooden bats, 

and most of the professional baseball players prefer wooden bats. 

Have they addressed that problem or that problem, has it come to 

their attention at this point? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, one of my clients is——

Mr. BACA. It affects the quality of the kind of bat that you also 

produce. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, there are very few trees that make a major 

league quality bat. The specifications for a major league quality bat 

are very high. One of our clients is Louisville Slugger. We have 

managed some of their lands in Pennsylvania and New York for a 

very long time. This is, of course, of paramount concern to them, 

but there is very little right now that we can do about it. There 

are eradication procedures to try to take the affected white ash out 

of the environment and destroy it in an effort to curtail the spread 

of the insect, but right now nothing really has been all that effective. So it is one of very high concern, and something we are working very hard to take care of. 

Mr. BACA. That is something that we can look at. The next question I have for you, Mr. Smith, too as well, many critics say that 

the forestry offset simply pay landowners for some things that are 

already being done for forest carbon is hard to measure. How can 

we create forest offset projects that provide bona fide climate benefits? 

79

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for going there. I was hoping 

we would end up in this place. I am very passionate about what 

should happen in the realm of forest offsets. Private landowners 

make decisions every day of what to do with their resource. Outside of regulatory requirements, they make free will decisions, free 

will decisions that are either to the benefit or to the loss of society 

when it comes to ecosystem services like carbon sequestration. The 

climate change benefits from a well-managed private sector forest 

are not guaranteed, so commitments on the part of a private forest 

landowner specifically to manage their forest sustainably and in a 

way that accrues carbon over time is additional and is an additional climate change benefit that we have not had to date. 

This is the cornerstone argument for why managed forests 

should be allowed in the Waxman-Markey legislation, but it is very 

problematic that it leaves the determination to what eligible offset 

is until later to be determined by the EPA. This is problematic. 

There have been hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the voluntary carbon market to date, investments that will significantly 

slow down, if not stop, if this community doesn’t know what will 

be allowed in Federal regulation in 2012 or whenever it decides to 

take effect. So forests are important, forests are real. Foresters 

have been measuring the forests and measuring volume change in 

the forests since the profession began. 

We can quantify how much carbon is sequestered by forests, we 

can make an argument for additionality, and we can make provisions for permanence. They are a real and strong contributor and 

produce low cost emission reductions and are available today. Not 

tomorrow, they are available today. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Ms. Lummis, do you have any additional 

questions you want to ask? 

Ms. LUMMIS. You know, I do have one, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. And I learned this just over the break. I have always thought 

when it came to NEPA and FLIPMA that local governments were 

supposed to receive the opportunity to cooperate with the Federal 

Government with regard to land planning. That is not the word 

that is used in the law. That is the word that is used in the rules. 

The law says coordinate with local and state government, not cooperate, coordinate. And so they are supposed to be on equal footing, not have state and local governments cooperating with what 

the Federal Government wants, and I didn’t even know that. I am 

embarrassed that I didn’t know that until now. So my question is 

for Mr. Neiman. Would you talk about the involvement of state and 

local governments in forest planning and forest management, and 

how that is working out? 

Mr. NEIMAN. One of the primary reasons we have been at least 

partially successful in the Black Hills is the attempt both on South 

Dakota’s side and the Wyoming side to get cooperating agency status. That has been instrumental in helping us have a voice at the 

state level from both states and with local communities, so that has 

been very, very critical. One other thing that I would suggest that 

could happen in other areas that could help out a bunch, a number 

of years ago it was in early 2000, 2001, and this was with the lockup of our forest. Our first drop was in 1997 and again we went 

down to zero in 2002 with forest lawsuits. And at that time, SenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Sep 28, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-16\52331.TXT SGINA
80

ator Daschle implemented the National Forest Advisory Committee 

which brought environmental communities and all working groups 

from around the Black Hills, off-road riders and different interest 

groups to the table to settle issues instead of it being a national 

decision. So both cooperating agency status and that national advisory Committee appointed that time that is now a very effective 

group, working group. If you ever get a chance, I will introduce you 

to someone if you come up to the Black Hills. The pride they have 

now sitting down with The Nature Conservancy, different groups 

that are involved there, it is really rewarding to hear that they 

take ownership and have an involvement in the success of the 

Black Hills. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish all of the forests 

were managed as well as the Black Hills National Forest. I am not 

saying that there aren’t problems there too, but it is certainly an 

example of how things can be done better than in the BT and some 

of the other forests that I have seen. Thank you very, very much. 

Mr. NEIMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are proud to recognize, as I stated earlier, that over close to Nemal the first U.S. Forest Service 

timber sale of all the 150 some national forests started there so we 

are proud to state that we are also the oldest managed forest. 

Mr. BACA. Also, thank you. Thank you very much for the statement too. I know that we have all been—I got one more set of questions, and I am going to ask Mr. McPeek. Again, thank for your 

testimony. As you mentioned in your testimony, the 2008 Farm Bill 

included important progress in policies related to forestry conservation, access to water and water conservation, the two areas near 

and dear to my heart, with the ever worsening drought situation 

in southern California. What is your opinion is the best way for us 

to expand the progress made in the farm bill so that we can best 

utilize water resource capacities or capabilities of America’s forest? 

Mr. MCPEEK. Mr. Chairman, I should probably get back to you 

if that is okay with a more detailed answer on that. I think we can 

give you some pretty good ideas about that. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. 

Mr. MCPEEK. I am not prepared to do that today. 

Mr. BACA. All right. What we will do then is for any Members 

that are here and those that are not here, we will ask them to submit a statement. But at this time, I would like to just basically 

thank all of you for participating in today’s hearing and your 

thoughtful testimony. Your knowledge and your research will be 

used by Congress to find out the best policy to preserve, protect, 

and properly utilize America’s forests. And again we have come up 

with some ideas. I think we all agree that maybe we should have 

a biomass hearing, so I think we will go in that direction. Again, 

I want to thank each and every one of you. I want to thank the 

Members for being here today. With that then, we will adjourn. 

But before we adjourn, I would like to state under the rules of the 

Committee, the Committee record of today’s hearing will remain 

open for 10 calendar days to receive additional materials, supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any question 

posed by Members. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry is adjourned. 

Thank you very much. 

81

[Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

82

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY MATTHEW S. SMITH, CF, ACF, ON BEHALF

OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS (SAF)


11116004
83


11116005
84


11116006
85


11116007
86


11116008
87


11116009
88


11116010
89


11116011
90


11116012
91


11116013
92


11116014
93


11116015
94


11116016
95


11116017
96


11116018
97


11116019
98


11116020
99


11116021
100


11116022
101


11116023
102


11116024
103


11116025
104


11116026
105


11116027
106


11116028
107


11116029
108


11116030
109


11116031
110


11116032
111


11116033
112


11116034
113


11116035
114


11116036
115


11116037
116


11116038
117


11116039
118


11116040
119


11116041
120


11116042
121


11116043
122


11116044
123


11116045
124


11116046
125


11116047
126


11116048
127


11116049
128


11116050
129


11116051
130


11116052
131


11116053
132


11116054
133


11116055
134


11116056
135


11116057
136


11116058
137


11116059
138


11116060
139


11116061
140

Æ


11116062