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

74-271 PDF 2012

LOGS IN THE ROAD: ELIMINATING 

FEDERAL RED TAPE AND EXCESSIVE 

LITIGATION TO CREATE HEALTHY 

FORESTS, JOBS AND ABUNDANT WATER 

AND POWER SUPPLIES 

JOINT OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Monday, May 14, 2012, in Montrose, Colorado 

Serial No. 112-111 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Jim Costa, CA 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John Garamendi, CA 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

David Rivera, FL 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

John Garamendi, CA 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(V) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Month Day 2012 .......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 6 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dodd, David, Enviro Land Management, LLC, Whitewater, Colorado ........ 50 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52 

Downie, James S., Director, Vegetation Management and Ancillary 

Programs, Xcel Energy, Denver, Colorado .................................................. 46 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48 

Fishering, Nancy, Vice President, Colorado Timber Industry Association, 

Montrose, Colorado ....................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Ford, J.R., President, Pagosa Cattle Company, Inc., Pagosa Springs, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Georg, Clint, Partner, The Alden Group, LLC, Englewood, Colorado .......... 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Jiron, Daniel, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Golden, Colorado ..................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Robertson, Leigh, Grantwriter, Education/Outreach Coordinator, 

Uncompahgre Partnership, Ridgway, Colorado .......................................... 43 

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

Shoemaker, Sloan, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop, Carbondale, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Wilkinson, Gary, President, San Juan Trail Riders Association, Durango, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 53 

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

Additional materials supplied: 

Bavin, Brian, Montrose, Colorado, Comments submitted for the record ..... 71 

Emory, Ken, Montrose, Colorado, Comments submitted for the record ...... 72 

Frantz, Richard, Montrose, Colorado, Comments submitted for the record 72 

Ward, Bruce, Founder, Choose Outdoors, Statement submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 57 

White, David, Montrose, Colorado, Comments submitted for the record .... 72 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ENTITLED 

‘‘LOGS IN THE ROAD: ELIMINATING 

FEDERAL RED TAPE AND EXCESSIVE LITIGATION TO CREATE HEALTHY FORESTS, 

JOBS AND ABUNDANT WATER AND POWER 

SUPPLIES.’’ 

Monday, May 14, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittees on Water and Power, joint with the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Montrose, Colorado 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in 

Montrose Elks Civil Building, 107 South Cascade Avenue, 

Montrose, Colorado, Hon. Rob Bishop and Hon. Tom McClintock 

[Chairmen of the Subcommittee on Water and Power] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, and Tipton. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Subcommittee on Water and Power, and 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, will come to order. I 

want to welcome all of you to today’s hearing. I am Congressman 

Tom McClintock from Northern California. I am Chairman of the 

Water and Power Subcommittee. I am joined here today by Congressman Rob Bishop from Utah, the Chairman of the National 

Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, and we are here 

today at the request—in fact, I might say the insistence—of Congressman Scott Tipton, who is also with us today. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We are here today to take testimony on a 

hearing entitled ‘‘Logs in the Road: Eliminating Federal Red Tape 

and Excessive Litigation to Create Healthy Forests, Jobs, and 

Abundant Water and Power Supplies.’’ 

To begin today’s hearing, I would like to defer to our distinguished colleague, Congressman Tipton, for a few introductions. 

Congressman Tipton? 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Chairman McClintock. And I would also 

like to recognize and thank Chairman Bishop from Utah for being 

here as well. This is an important topic, I think, for all of us out 

of the Western states. 

Mr. Chairman, today we are privileged to have the Montrose 

High School ROTC, led by Cadet Lieutenant Zach Gibson, and they 

will be posting the colors and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

Gentlemen and ladies? 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Congressman Tipton. 

2 

We will now begin with 5-minute opening statements, beginning 

with mine. 

Today’s hearing has a ponderous title, but it is a national policy 

imperative. Eliminating Federal red tape and excessive litigation 

is, indeed, the only path to create healthy forests, jobs, and abundant water and power supplies. 

I again want to thank Congressman Scott Tipton for his leadership on these issues and for pressing to have this field hearing conducted today here in Montrose, a community that bears the wounds 

of the ‘‘greens gone wild’’ policies of recent years. 

An old forester—— 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. An old forester in my district summed up the 

problem we are here to assess very well when he said, ‘‘The excess 

timber is going to come out of the forest one way or the other. Either it is going to be carried out or it will be burned out, but it 

will come out.’’ 

A generation ago, we carried it out, and the result was a thriving 

economy and a healthy forest. But then a radical and retrograde 

ideology was introduced into our public policy, transforming sound 

forest management practices into what can only be described as benign neglect. The result is now clear and undeniable: economically 

devastated communities, closed timber mills, unemployed families, 

overgrown forests, overdrawn watersheds, jeopardized transmission 

lines, rampant disease and pestilence, and increasingly intense and 

frequent forest fires. That is the story of Montrose, Colorado and 

Saratoga, Wyoming, and of Quincy and Camino and Sonora, little 

towns in my district in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains, all 

once thriving and prosperous communities that have been devastated by these policies. 

When the mills in my district closed in 2009, the owner made it 

very clear that although the economic downturn was a catalyst, the 

underlying cause was the fact that two-thirds of the timber they 

depended upon was being held up by environmental litigation. Despite the recession, they still had enough business to keep the mills 

open and to keep those families employed if the environmental left 

had not cut off the timber that those mills depended upon. 

This is not environmentalism. True environmentalists recognize 

the damage that is done by over-growth and over-population, and 

they recognize the role of sound, sustainable forest management 

practices in maintaining healthy forests. No picture I have seen 

paints a more vivid case for returning to these sound and proven 

forest management practices than an aerial photo of the Fraser Experimental Forest in Colorado a few years ago that is often called 

the Red Hand of Death. 

The areas of that forest consigned to benign neglect forms a dead 

zone that looks like a red hand. Overgrown and unmanaged, bark 

beetles found it easy pickings. That is what the so-called environmental movement has done to our forests. It is surrounded by 

green, thriving, healthy forest in which excess timber was properly 

harvested, and the remaining trees had enough room to grow 

strong enough to easily resist the infestation all around it. 

Now, we are told there is not enough money for forest thinning, 

and yet we used to have no problems keeping our forests thinned 

3 

and healthy when we sold commercially viable timber. The problem 

is that if they take place at all, timber harvests today are restricted 

to small-diameter trees. I mean, can you imagine a fishery or wildlife policy limited to taking only the smallest juveniles of the species? 

Meanwhile, we know that of the $53 million of so-called stimulus 

funds allocated to the Forest Service in Colorado, only $16 million 

was allocated to address the bark beetle infestation, while the remainder went to such dubious projects as a bird tour road and 

solar panels. Fortunately, from what I have seen, the American 

public has awakened to the ramifications of these policies and has 

had a bellyful of them, and it is in the process of replacing the politicians responsible for them. I believe we are on the verge of a new 

era when proven practices and common sense will replace the ideological extremism that has dominated our forest policy for the past 

generation. 

I am particularly interested today in suggestions of what needs 

to be done legislatively and administratively to unravel the paralyzing tangle of litigation, over-regulation, and endless deliberation 

that have misguided our Federal agencies so far away from their 

public trust. 

I want again to thank Scott Tipton for his indefatigable leadership on this issue, and Rob Bishop, Chairman of the Subcommittee 

with direct oversight over our forests, for his efforts over many 

years to combat and correct these policies. I think that because of 

his steady leadership, we are now on the verge of being able to 

change those policies and produce a new era of healthy and thriving forests, as well as prosperous and secure forest communities. 

And with that, it is my honor to yield to the gentleman from 

Utah, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests, Mr. Bishop. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Today’s hearing has a ponderous title but it is a national policy imperative: 

‘‘Eliminating Federal Red Tape and Excessive Litigation’’ is indeed the only path to 

‘‘Create Healthy Forests, Jobs and Abundant Water and Power Supplies.’’ 

I want to thank Congressman Scott Tipton for his leadership on these issues and 

for pressing to have this field hearing conducted here in Montrose, a community 

that bears the wounds of the ‘‘Greens Gone Wild’’ policies of recent years. 

An old forester in my district summed up the problem we are here to assess when 

he said, ‘‘The excess timber is going to come out of the forest one way or another. 

Either it will be carried out or it will be burned out. But it will come out.’’ 

A generation ago, we carried it out and the result was a thriving economy and 

a healthy forest. But then a radical and retrograde ideology was introduced into our 

public policy transforming sound forest management practices into what can only 

be described as benign neglect. 

The result is now clear and undeniable: economically devastated communities, 

closed timber mills, unemployed families, overgrown forests, overdrawn watersheds, 

jeopardized transmission lines, rampant disease and pestilence and increasingly intense and frequent forest fires. 

That is the story of Montrose, Colorado and Saratoga, Wyoming, of Quincy and 

Camino and Sonora (little towns in my district in California’s Sierra-Nevada)—once 

thriving and prosperous communities that have been devastated by these policies. 

When the mills in my district closed in 2009 the owner made it very clear that 

although the economic downturn was a catalyst, the underlying cause was the fact 

that 2/3 of the timber they depended upon was held up by environmental litigation. 

4 

Despite the recession, they still had enough business to keep the mills open—– 

and to keep these families employed—if the environmental Left had not cut off the 

timber, those mills depended upon. 

This is not environmentalism. True environmentalists recognize the damage done 

by overgrowth and overpopulation and recognize the role of sound, sustainable forest management practices in maintaining healthy forests. 

No picture I’ve seen paints a more vivid case for returning to these sound and 

proven forest management practices than an aerial photo of the Fraser Experimental Forest in Colorado a few years ago that is often called the ‘‘Red Hand of 

Death.’’ The areas of that forest consigned to benign neglect forms a dead-zone that 

looks like a ‘‘Red Hand.’’ Overgrown and unmanaged, bark beetles found it easy 

pickings. That’s what the so-called environmental movement has done to our forests. 

It is surrounded by green, thriving, healthy forest in which excess timber was 

properly harvested and the remaining trees had enough room to grow strong enough 

to resist the infestation around it. 

We’re told that there isn’t enough money for forest thinning, and yet we used to 

have no problems keeping our forests thinned and healthy when we sold commercially viable timber. The problem is that if they take place at all, timber harvests 

are restricted to small diameter trees. Can you imagine a fishery or wildlife policy 

limited to taking only the small, juvenile of the species? 

Meanwhile, we know that of $53 million of so-called ‘‘stimulus funds’’ allocated 

to the Forest Service in Colorado, only $16 million was allocated to address the bark 

beetle infestation, while the remainder went to such dubious projects as a ‘‘bird tour 

road’’ and solar panels. 

Fortunately, from what I have seen, the American public has awakened to the 

ramification of these policies and has had a belly-full of them—and it is in the process of replacing the politicians responsible for them. I believe we are on the verge 

of a new era when proven practices and common sense will replace the ideological 

extremism that has dominated our forest policy for the past generation. 

I am particularly interested today in suggestions of what needs to be done legislatively and administratively to unravel the paralyzing tangle of litigation, over-regulation, and endless deliberation that have misguided our federal agencies so far from 

their public trust. 

I again want to thank Scott Tipton for his indefatigable leadership on this issue, 

and Rob Bishop, Chairman of the sub-Subcommittee with direct oversight over our 

forests for his efforts over many years to combat and correct these policies. I think 

that because of his steady leadership we are now on the verge of being able to 

change those policies and produce a new era of healthy and thriving forests as well 

as prosperous and secure forest communities. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you. Thank you, Congressman McClintock 

and Congressman Tipton. Thank you for the invitation to come 

here. I had a unique way of getting here last night, but thank you 

for the invitation anyway. It is great to be with you here in this 

historic building and see how you have renovated it to a very useful purpose. I thank you for having that opportunity. 

We all know that the Mountain Pine Beetle has turned much of 

Colorado, not to mention forests throughout the entire West, into 

simply a sea of dead and dying trees. We are almost on the 20-year 

anniversary of this problem, and we are also on the anniversary of 

20 years of the government’s failed forest policies that have allowed 

this native insect to reach epidemic proportions. It has impacted 

what is now 40 million acres nationwide. That is almost 20 percent 

of our national forest system that is affected by it. 

A sharp decline in forest management—and I should say because 

of aesthetic, not scientific reasons—has left these forests in an extremely unnatural and unhealthy state, the result of which has 

been a feeding frenzy for the beetle, but also dead trees for the rest 

of us. This is not a unique problem. We have had hearings this 

5 

year in South Dakota and California. We have visited in Montana 

and Oregon, my home state of Utah. The causes are all the same, 

and the solutions are all the same. You have to thin the trees. 

The problem involves the danger of falling trees that stop recreation, utility right-of-ways. They threaten our power grid. They 

threaten our water quality. They have catastrophic impacts on the 

communities. In this state they have led to fire, which has caused 

loss of property and, unfortunately, loss of lives, and left a landscape that is, bluntly, ugly. 

We can change courses, but if we do so, it will require that we 

are not impeded by inflexible regulations, impeded by frivolous 

lawsuits and appeals, and we have to have access to the areas, 

road access to our forest areas. There is also a unique and specific 

economic impact from all these decisions we have to make. 

In sum, as I am sure we are going to hear from the witnesses 

that we have here today, active management is better for the forests, and it is better for the taxpayer, and especially given the billions we are now spending on fire suppression, it is better for our 

Western communities that are forced to play host to this Federal 

Estate. 

I want to thank Representative Tipton for his leadership on this 

issue, inviting us and our Subcommittees to Montrose to see firsthand the impacts of this issue and the paths toward addressing it. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I thank 

them for showing up. 

With that, Mr. McClintock, I turn it back to you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

As many of you are witness to each day, the Mountain Pine Beetle has turned 

most of Colorado, not to mention pine forests throughout the West, into a sea of 

dead and dying trees. Sadly, decades of the federal government’s failed forest policies have in part allowed this native insect to reach epidemic proportions that have 

impacted over three million acres in Colorado alone. Bark beetles have so far 

claimed over 40 million acres nationwide—equal to nearly 20% of the National Forest System. 

A sharp decline in forest management has left these forests in an extremely unnatural and unhealthy state, the result of which has been a feeding frenzy for the 

beetles but only dead trees for the rest of us. 

These forest conditions present a multitude of challenges to beneficial use of our 

national forests. The danger of falling trees threatens access both for management 

and recreation, utility right-of-ways, and correspondingly the integrity of the power 

grid, as well as water quality and supply. These forests also impose an overwhelming risk of catastrophic to mountain communities in addition to compounding 

the aforementioned threat to multiple-use. 

Finally, and to be blunt, the sight of a dead landscape is simply unappealing to 

many who come to enjoy their public lands across the Rocky Mountain West. 

Fortunately, we are in a position to change course on this issue. Active, scientific 

forest management—when not impeded by inflexible regulations and frivolous appeals and lawsuits—can begin the process of restoring our forests. This epidemic 

was decades in the making and will not be curbed overnight, but it is important 

to ensure that our federal land managers have the flexibility to implement forest 

management projects and utilize our partners to maintain infrastructure that is 

necessary to ensure the long term health and productivity of the land and natural 

resources that have been entrusted to their care. In sum, and as I’m sure we’ll hear 

from some of our witnesses, active management is better for the forests, better for 

the taxpayer—especially given the billions now spent annually on fire suppression— 

and better for our western communities that are forced to play host to this federal 

estate. 

6 

I thank Representative Tipton for his leadership on this issue and for inviting our 

subcommittees to Montrose to see firsthand the impacts of this issue and the path 

towards addressing it. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

And now I am pleased to recognize our host today, Congressman 

Tipton. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I may, I would like to extend our thanks to the City of 

Montrose staff, which has been able to put this room together for 

us: Lisa DelPiccolo, the City Clerk; David Spear, the Records and 

Communication Manager; Jeff Sheets, the Information Technology 

Manager; Carolyn Bellavance, the Executive Assistant; and Bill 

Bell, the City Manager. I certainly thank you all for helping us put 

this together. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. TIPTON. Chairman McClintock and Chairman Bishop, I 

would like to thank you for convening today’s hearing and taking 

the time to be able to come to Montrose to hear from the constituents of the 3rd Congressional District and across the West on this 

critical issue. 

Properly managing our national forests is critical to Western 

economies and to our livelihoods; a healthy, natural environment; 

and affordable, reliable power and water supplies. Many of our 

Western national forests are currently threatened by unhealthy 

conditions, the bark beetle infestation that increases susceptibility 

to wildfire and damage wildlife habitat. These problems threaten 

lives and impact valuable jobs in the timber, energy and recreation 

industries, as well as countless indirect jobs in related industries. 

Increased fire risk also threatens Western water quantity and quality, and the generation and transmission of electricity. Through 

prudent forest management and the ability to access and actively 

manage timber resources, communities can support jobs that depend on valuable and viable timber industries. 

Effective forest management fosters healthy forests, protects 

against wildfires, and safeguards the natural beauty and tourism 

draw the Western states provide, while maintaining dependable 

water and power supplies. 

In 2010, Senator Mark Udall wrote the USDA Secretary Vilsack 

requesting that the Forest Service conduct a full review of the 

Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak to be able to determine what more 

can be done and what additional tools may be needed to be able 

to respond to the 2010 outbreak, and future outbreaks as well. 

I would like to thank Senator Udall for his continued attention 

and commitment to this matter. 

In the report produced in response to the Senator’s request, the 

Forest Service cites routine litigation of Forest Service action approving timber harvesting and active management, drought, lack of 

allocation of resources to timber management, limited access to 

areas due to the inability to provide access roads and Federal land 

designations such as wilderness which precludes forest treatment, 

7 

as the primary contributing factors to the rampant bark beetle outbreak. The report also highlights the commercial thinning to reduce stand density in advance of the outbreak did not keep pace 

with the rate of the bark beetle infestation spread. 

In Region 2 of the Forest Service, the timber industry has declined by 63 percent since 1986, according to the Forest Service report. It is time that we take active steps to be able to address the 

bark beetle epidemic and to partner with responsible stewards of 

our natural resources in the private sector who are willing to solve 

it. This will put people back to work. 

For far too long, short-term solutions have been put forward 

which fall far short of addressing the long-term problem and remedies are being applied to broad, sweeping infestations. The 2002 

Hayman fire, the largest in Colorado history, burned over 138,000 

acres, costing nearly $40 million in fire-fighting costs, destroying 

133 homes and forcing the evacuation of better than 5,300 individuals. This catastrophic event could very well happen again if our 

forests are left to burn; and, in fact, we are recently reminded of 

the dangerous risk of wildfire that Colorado faces. 

As the summer season approaches, the probability of wildfire increases even further. It is my hope that this hearing on the interconnected issues of forest management will help highlight the problems that led to these conditions and lead to solutions that will reverse some of the damage that has been done, and help avoid similar catastrophes in the future. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Scott R. Tipton, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Thank you Chairman McClintock and Chairman Bishop for convening today’s 

hearing and taking the time to come to Montrose to hear from constituents of the 

3rd Congressional District and across the West on this critical issue. 

Properly managing our national forests is critical to western economies and livelihoods, a healthy natural environment, and affordable, reliable water and power supplies. Many of our western national forests are currently threatened by unhealthy 

conditions and bark beetle infestation that increase susceptibility to wildfire and 

damage wildlife habitat. These problems threaten lives and impact valuable jobs in 

the timber, energy, and recreation industries as well as countless indirect jobs in 

related industries. Increased fire risk also threatens western water quantity and 

quality and the generation and transmission of electricity. 

Through prudent forest management and the ability to access and actively manage timber resources, communities can support jobs that depend on a viable timber 

industry. Effective forest management fosters healthy forests, protects against 

wildfires, and safeguards the natural beauty and tourism draw that western states 

provide while maintaining dependable water and power supplies. 

In 2010, Senator Mark Udall wrote to USDA Secretary Vilsack requesting that 

the Forest Service conduct a full review of the mountain pine beetle outbreak to determine what more can be done and what additional tools may be needed to respond 

to the 2010 outbreak and future outbreaks as well. I want to thank Senator Udall 

for his continued attention and commitment to this matter. In the report produced 

in response to the Senator’s request, the Forest Service cites routine litigation of 

Forest Service action approving timber harvesting and active management, drought, 

lack of allocation of resources to timber management, limited access to areas due 

to the inability to provide access roads, and federal land designations such as Wilderness which precludes forest treatment, as the primary contributing factors to the 

rampant bark beetle outbreak. The report also highlights that commercial thinning 

to reduce stand density in advance of the outbreak did not keep pace with the rate 

of the bark beetle infestation spread. 

8 

In Region 2 of the Forest Service, the timber industry has declined by 63% since 

1986 according to the Forest Service report. It is time that we take active steps to 

address the bark beetle epidemic and partner with the responsible stewards of our 

natural resources in the private sector who are willing to solve it, while putting people back to work. For too long, short term solutions have been put forward which 

fall short of addressing a long term problem, and small scale remedies applied to 

broad sweeping infestation. 

The 2002 Hayman Fire, the largest in the Colorado’s history, burned over 138,000 acres, cost nearly $40 million in firefighting costs, destroyed 133 homes and forced 

the evacuation of 5,340 people. This catastrophic event could very well happen again 

if our forests are left to burn and, in fact, we were very recently reminded of the 

dangerous risk of wildfire that Colorado faces. As the summer season approaches, 

the probability of wildfire increases even further. It is my hope that this hearing 

on the interconnected issues of forest management will help highlight the problems 

that led to these conditions and lead to solutions that reverse some of the damage 

that has been done, and help avoid similar catastrophes in the future. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Congressman. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Before I recognize today’s witnesses, I would 

like to urge those in attendance to submit their own testimony for 

the record, since we are obviously limited in how many witnesses 

we can hear today. You can do so by filling out your thoughts on 

the paper at the table, or please see one of our staff members on 

how to submit comments electronically. 

Could you guys raise your hands so people can see where you 

are? 

They are staff members. Oh, they are right over here. 

We will now hear from our panel of witnesses. Each witness’ 

written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so I 

would ask that witnesses keep their oral statement to 5 minutes, 

as outlined in our invitation letter to you and under Committee 

Rule 4(a). 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak, our clerk will start the timer, sort of like driving. 

When there is a green light, you have all the time in the world. 

When you have 1 minute left, there will be a yellow light, which 

means talk very, very fast. And when it turns red, for God’s sake, 

stop. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I would now like to recognize Ms. Nancy 

Fishering, the Vice President of the Colorado Timber Industry Association from Montrose, Colorado to testify. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY FISHERING, VICE PRESIDENT, 

COLORADO TIMBER INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, MONTROSE, 

COLORADO 

Ms. FISHERING. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and McClintock, 

and Subcommittee members. Thanks also for the support of Colorado Representatives Scott Tipton and Mike Coffman and our senators who have devoted time to our issues. 

My name is Nancy Fishering. I am an officer and board member 

of Colorado Timber Industry Association and have served since 

1996. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is your mic turned on, ma’am? 

Ms. FISHERING. Is it on now? 

Mr. BISHOP. That is better. 

9 

Ms. FISHERING. There you go. It said green. It still says green. 

Sorry. 

I am also a contracted timber project manager for the Montrose 

Economic Development Corporation, who recognizes the jobs that 

are at stake here in Montrose in the timber industry. 

I have worked in all seven of the national forests in Colorado, 

and as some of the comments of—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Ma’am, I am sorry. They are still having a hard 

time hearing. Can you pull that right up to your mouth? Now try 

it. 

Ms. FISHERING. Now? 

Mr. BISHOP. There you go. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I think we have it now. 

Ms. FISHERING. Can I get my green light to start all over? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, we will do that. 

Ms. FISHERING. Five minutes is not very long. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. FISHERING. Thank you. OK. 

I have worked in all seven Colorado national forests on behalf of 

or with the timber industry in Colorado. We have lost an estimated 

6 million acres of trees. Out of that 40 million, 6 million in Colorado have died in the past 10 years. Current insect flights right 

around the Montrose area are at some unprecedented levels. We 

have been partners, however, with the Forest Service to strategically try to tackle these issues. 

The good news from my point of view is we have had strong bipartisan support to keep a stable forest products budget line item. 

Thanks to you all for your support on that item. However, it is flat, 

and flat, as you know in today’s rising diesel costs and other employment costs, means we are actually going downhill in terms of 

having the allocation of funds that we need to do the work on the 

ground. 

We give credit to this region. We have been working very hard 

on the issues you all have raised. This region had the highest accomplishment in 2011 of all the regions in the United States, and 

this success occurred in spite of having the lowest, one of the lowest budget allocations for regions in the United States. 

We embrace some of the new authorities that have been given to 

us, such as stewardship contracting, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project. We participate as members in the collaborative network throughout Colorado. And while supporting all 

these new initiatives, I worry about this hodge-podge of laws that 

the Forest Service has to work under, which I believe affects their 

effectiveness. 

We believe the existence of mills is very important to keep the 

costs down and to get more acreage treated. We need you to know 

that the Montrose Sawmill has been out of work for the past four 

weeks due to a timber supply, not because it is not out there, but 

we have spring break-up problems where you don’t actually access 

the wood for certain times of the year. 

It is currently in receivership also due to the economy. It isn’t 

all because of Forest Service issues and the litigation that you 

10 

spoke to, but we are ready and poised to re-open the mill as these 

legal issues wind through the system. 

But we need to keep this mill and the other mills in Colorado, 

and to do that we need the skills of our loggers, and we need to 

find the efficient projects. We need a predictable, even supply of 

sawlogs. You would think with all the forest health issues there 

would be plenty, but actually right now we are looking at a potential not enough sawlogs to keep the mills open in Colorado. 

So for that reason, we have some suggestions. We would like to 

see an increase nationally on a Forest Service target for timber 

sales from 2.6 billion board feet to 3 billion board feet. This would 

allow to get us more of a—you need a budget, and then get the supply that the mills and the loggers need. 3 billion board feet sounds 

like a lot, but we have to keep in mind that there are 22 billion 

board feet growing every single year in our national forests. So we 

don’t begin to put a dent in the problem. 

We also need to salvage dead trees, but we can’t forget the green 

trees. The viability of an industry is when these trees stand dead 

for too many years, you need some green, good saw timber to mix 

in with the dead, or we don’t have an economical plan to go forward and to keep up with our investments. 

Regionally, we look at allocations. We need an equitable allocation across the United States and across the states, and within our 

states, because a mill can’t pick up and go every time a forest 

health bug goes in a different direction. The mill is in Montrose. 

It is fixed in one place. The mill in Delta is fixed in one place. We 

need to keep in mind the economics of how to keep the timber industry alive. 

Last, we have a whole list of small efficiencies that we know that 

could get us more timber tomorrow for not a lot more dollars spent, 

and would reduce the cost for the Forest Service. We have many 

non-essential projects that we do in a timber sale project. We have 

road packages and we have extra side work that we do, and that 

is good when there is an economy that can afford to support that. 

But right now, we need to be boots on the ground. Loggers need 

to take all obstacles away because we have too many acres that we 

need to cover. 

We need to use more of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

where they have streamlined judicial review, which helps us not 

get bogged down in appeals that take the timber off the table. 

There is a newly authorized pre-decisional administrative objection process that got passed through the appropriations bill this 

year. However, it needs to be implemented yesterday if we are 

going to, again, cut into some of the obstacles that we have to getting timber projects up on the ground. 

We would like to see each—if you took every single timber 

project that has already been through collaboration, that has already been through the NEPA analysis, you would find more timber available tomorrow if you maximized every single one of those 

projects. 

I see my red light went on, so I just have to say thank you for 

the honor of being able to testify. A lot of details you just can’t get 

into in 5 minutes. 

Thank you. 

11 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fishering follows:] 

Statement of Nancy Fishering, Vice President, 

Colorado Timber Industry Association 

Thank you Chairmen Bishop and McClintock and subcommittee members. Thanks 

also for the support of Colorado Representatives Scott Tipton and Mike Coffman and 

our Senators who have devoted time to our issues. 

My name is Nancy Fishering. I am an officer and board member of Colorado Timber Industry Association and have served since 1996. I have also contracted to serve 

as the Timber Project Manager for the Montrose Economic Development Corporation which is a proactive community response to the Montrose sawmill receivership 

status. My background includes: 15 years working for the local sawmill currently 

in receivership, and two years working with my local governments to monitor the 

status and prospective purchase of the Montrose mill. My focus has been the retention of the jobs that have been held by many friends and former co-workers. I also 

have been a member of the various Colorado Forest Health Advisory boards and was 

honored to be appointed by three different Governors since 2001; and I have spent 

years working one-on-one with loggers and mills while problem solving on timber 

management issues on every National Forest in Colorado as well as collaborating 

with other public land agencies. 

Today’s hearing is important to our local community, our State of Colorado and 

to all who value the beauty and grandeur of the American West and the forested 

mountains that comprise our high country watersheds. Colorado forests provide 

abundant water through our headwater rivers which drain fully 1/3 of the landmass 

of the lower 48 states. We are sitting on the Western Slope of Colorado where 80% 

of the precipitation falls for the rivers in Colorado. This is truly an appropriate location for todays’ discussion, and we welcome you. 

Colorado’s forests have experienced incredible and unprecedented scale forest 

health issues over the past 10 years. Over 6 million acres of trees have died during 

this relatively short time. 

The numbers bear repeating since this state has been under siege since 2002: • 2002 over 1⁄2 million acres burned—the most in any year of Colorado’s recorded history; 

• 2002-present over 50% of pinyon killed in SW Colorado, and 1⁄4 million 

acres of subalpine fir died; 

• 1996 to 2011 cumulative insect damages including over 4 million acres 

of trees killed by MPB in CO and Southern Wyoming; over 1.1 million 

acres of aspen died, over 1⁄2 million acres of spruce killed by the Spruce 

bark beetle and another 600,000 acres of spruce defoliated by the Western Spruce Budworm. 

I would purport that no other single state has tackled so many different forest 

health issues in such a condensed period of time. 

I represent the folks who work in the woods, who process the wood, and who have 

the primary role of performing forest health projects as designed by our public land 

agencies. Public land agencies control management on 68% of the forestland in Colorado. Our forest products companies log burned trees, dead trees, and green trees, 

we thin trees, grind and remove woody biomass and protect public health and safety 

by removing hazard trees. We are pleased to be partners with the United state Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and our Colorado State Forest Service. We also recognize the important role played by our many collaboratives 

throughout the state who study, discuss and support the management efforts required by these forest health events. I personally have devoted untold hours working side by side with local officials, ranchers, miners, water boards, public utilities, 

local environmental groups, academia, and concerned citizens who care deeply that 

the issues are addressed. Our industry performs the work with diligence and stewardship of the land as a primary concern. For example, in 1994 this county was a 

sponsor and driving force to create the Public Lands Partnership which is nationally 

recognized and one of the oldest collaboratives still working on public land issues. 

After the forest health issues are discussed and defined, my priority is the ACTION. Today’s hearing is focused on ACTION because never before have we had so 

many management needs under such challenging budget and credit conditions. Fellow forest products companies have said to me that Colorado is the canary in the 

mine. The most important lessons that I have learned boil down to two essential 

concepts: economics of supply and efficiencies. 

Economics: Within Colorado we have a small but diversified forest products infrastructure. The mill in Montrose is the largest capacity mill in the state although 

operating under receivership poses operational challenges that have compromised 

12 

operating at maximum efficiency and scale. The Montrose mill and other family 

owned Colorado mills are primary processors of timber and have the capacity to create products that pay for logging thus reducing the costs of forest management. We 

also now have secondary processors such as our pellet mills and restoration forestry 

professionals who create value from older and smaller timber and biomass that 

must also be removed from the forests to mitigate risk of wildfire. 

The processors in turn purchase materials from the loggers who buy timber from 

federal projects and perform tasks under service contracts where public land agencies pay to for services such as hazard tree removal along roads, trails, and campgrounds. I am sincerely concerned about the trajectory of timber supply outputs 

since processors are ultimately dependent upon a steady, predictable supply of 

sawlog-quality timber that can be economically processed into marketable finished 

products. 

First, the good news. I am encouraged that the United States Forest Service 

(USFS) Forest Products budget line item has received strong bi-partisan support 

and has avoided cuts that would be devastating to our efforts. 

We give a quick kudos to Region 2 who had the highest accomplishment of all 

Regions within the USFS for 2011. This Region 2 success occurs in spite of having 

one of lowest overall budget allocations among all the regions in the US. 

I am encouraged that new authorities such as stewardship contracting and Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration have been added to the Forest Service toolbox. The strong collaborative network throughout Colorado has used these tools to 

design and add new management projects while avoiding costly appeals. I have supported the creation of each of these tools while simultaneously having concerns 

about the patchwork of laws that we continue to weave which may ultimately undermine effective agency response. Collaboratives have an outstanding track record, 

however the process is time consuming, compromise is often at play which reduces 

pace and scale and effects product mix, and many will never truly understand the 

urgency of action that is felt by our membership who have hard earned money at 

risk and ‘skin in the game.’ 

As we further pursue the USFS emphasis on collaboration, stewardship and Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) budgeting we request specific requirements for 

efficiency and sawlog outputs. The collective tool box must still be implemented in 

light of the need to offer economical timber sales within reach of existing mills 

which make wood available on a competitive basis (i.e.—don’t tie everything up in 

one Stewardship contract). Colorado remains uniquely at risk if this provision is not 

followed since so much of the Colorado forestland is under the jurisdiction of the 

USFS and essentially the only source of sawtimber. 

These attainments are important to the timber industry. We know that the existence of robust processing capacity is the best, most cost-effective tool for forest 

health and removal of the fiber. Why? Because the primary and secondary processors can purchase the timber, pay the loggers a living wage, add value, and then 

market lumber, pellets or energy at a profit. Without both profitable timber processing, the presence of skilled loggers, timber management options to dispose of the 

millions of dead trees are much more limited and expensive. 

The nearby Montrose sawmill is the largest capacity mill in the state and the mill 

that has processed the vast majority of conifer over the past 10 years is in receivership due to the devastating effects of the recession on the housing sector. In 2008 

Intermountain Resources had processed 90% of the beetle killed timber in Colorado 

according to USFS records. In order to maintain this vital element of the limited 

infrastructure left in Colorado, and to retain the skills of my colleagues, we need 

to be very aware of the economics of the myriad decisions and projects chosen to 

address forest health. We must find that ‘sweet spot’ of efficient projects, a predictable and even supply of sawlogs, correct costs, and profitable return in order to 

‘close the sale’ and entice the investment to keep this mill and the jobs it supports, 

and strengthen all Colorado companies that work in the forest. 

The industry constantly monitors project level issues that can overcome a timber 

contract purchaser. Our goal is to stay profitable and keep working so each and 

every issue must be addressed as we partner in the day to day operations to address 

forest health. 

A quick summary of issues we face include: 

• Need to maximize sawlog-quality material in every timber project from conventional timber sale contracts, to stewardship contracts, to service contracts, 

to Indefinite Duration Indefinite Quality (IDIQ) contracts. With adequate 

sawlog supply the various processors will complement each other rather than 

cannibalize each other. 

• Need road packages and stumpage fees that are designed at a scale affordable 

in today’s forest product markets. The following chart shows the recent hisVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
13 

tory of lumber markets which is a fundamental challenge as we treat forest 

health projects. 

• Steadily increasing acreage in roadless, wilderness, or wildlife habitat restricted areas such lynx management units decreases the acreage available 

for timber harvest or mitigation for the risks of catastrophic fires. In the case 

of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment there are implications that may restrict long term management of young regenerated stands that should be 

thinned to maintain vigor and health. 

• The Forest Service Appraisal system has shown increasing flaws and needs 

to receive a major adjustment to be accurate in today’s economy. A national 

team is currently being formed to study this important issue on viable pricing. 

• Many contracts continue to contain restrictive clauses that severely affect the 

economics of logging 

• The Forest Service lacks tools to quickly and efficiently make and implement 

decisions in response to bark beetle epidemics. Timing is critical since insects 

are moving at unprecedented rates. Fire funding and personnel are immediately available, but a similar mechanism is lacking for insect epidemics. 

• Expectations for industry to participate in forest planning takes an unconscionable length of time as in the case of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, 

Gunnison National Forest plan which first began in 1999 and has no closure 

as of this date. 

• Last a recent court case has essentially determined that forest logging roads 

are ‘point sources’ of pollution and must now comply with highly bureaucratic 

and costly processes that could seriously disrupt all timber forest health 

projects. 

Each of these issues receive attention and are works in progress with the Forest 

Service, but the patchwork of old laws and new laws and shifting priorities create 

a huge challenge and uncertainty for Forest Service staff as well as our industry. 

Since the early 2000’s, the Colorado Congressional delegation has been actively engaged on many of these fronts and have supported numerous pieces of legislation 

to assist this unwieldy system. We have not successfully passed many good ideas. 


74271.001.eps
14 

We all want a system that is rational, environmentally sound and one that is economically viable and sustainable. We fear the patchwork approach that adds laws 

while not removing antiquated processes designed for a different time. 

We are thankful that we have investors willing to build and operate in such challenging and often uncertain conditions. 

Within our industry we see several overriding disturbing trends at this vulnerable 

time in the recovery of forest products sector: 

The flat Forest Service budget and cuts in mutually dependent line items has resulted in a declining trajectory of outputs or sawlog supply for Colorado companies. 

This is a trend that can and should be addressed immediately. 

Our solution would be to rely on the historic tools of requiring definitive timber 

outputs. With the underlying bi-partisan support on timber management we can 

and should monitor timber outputs. 

Nationally, we ask for an immediate increase in Forest Service targets from 2.8 

to 3.00 BBFT. 

Keep in mind that 3 BBFT is a small target compared to the estimated 22 BBFT 

of annual growth on national forest timberlands. We are losing the battle of 

thinning the forests to reduce fuels. In a recent biomass conference we learned that 

for every ton of material removed from the forest, another 18.2 tons of material is 

simultaneously being regenerated. If one factors in the acres affected each year by 

insect and disease and this ratio goes up even further. Colorado was mentioned as 

the state with the highest ratios in any western state. 

In our view, immediately raising the timber targets is both logical and long overdue. 

As we add the restoration initiative as a Forest Service management priority, (but 

add no new funds) we need to identify sawlog outputs as a mandatory component. 

All contracts need to collectively contribute to a supply of merchantable timber. 

Even when forest health projects are targeted to remove hazard trees, small diameter, dead or dying trees and the unending supply of slash, we request a conscious 

decision to add a merchantable sawlog component. More sawtimber equals additional supply for mills, lower costs resulting in more acres of management. 

We further believe that sawlog outputs need to include both the salvage of dead 

trees AND the proactive management of our still green forests. Good forestry demands attention to both and the long term viability of industry will depend on it. 

Regionally we ask for a budget and resulting timber supply that will allow the 

Forest Service to address health issues equitably across the states. 

The mill in Montrose was purchasing logs from every national forest in Colorado 

while processing right here in Montrose. For this mill and the other mills in Colorado to survive for the long-term, supply must be balanced geographically. If we lose 

the projects nearest each mill infrastructure, in order to chase the newest forest 

health issue, then the cost-effective processing will disappear. These investments 

are fixed in bricks and mortar, and the mill owners have limited margins to purchase wood further and further afield. As their costs of timber management rise, 


74271.002.eps
15 

fewer acres will be treated. Recently mill owners have asked the Forest Service to 

add green timber to the forthcoming supply since standing dead timber slowly deteriorates and a green program will be essential to keep a sustainable industry—long 

term—in Colorado. 

Importantly we ask for efficiencies. We seek increased management opportunities 

when we maximize Forest Service authorities to operate more efficiently. 

Æ Suggestions here Suggestions here include: 

• improve streamlined project planning/analysis; 

• seek timber outputs that match the supply needs of infrastructure; 

• reduce non-essential costs on many of our projects. 

• use HFRA in order to benefit from streamlined judicial review; 

• implement the newly authorized pre-decisional administrative objections 

process as soon as possible; 

• implement each project to the maximum extent permitted under the 

NEPA analysis—several more trees per acre multiplied by the numerous 

projects within the state adds up to significant additional sawtimber and 

return per project; 

Quickly tapping into simple solutions such as these and others appearing in the 

recent FS report on ‘‘Increasing the Pace and Scale of Restoration’’ will allow instant 

results. We can increase management through economically rational, and ecologically sustainable projects that meet the needs of industry and the needs on the 

ground. 

I am very committed to the timber entrepreneurs who have put their valuable investment dollars on the line in order to operate in an extremely challenging economy. I don’t want to see one more job lost, or more shrinkage in a small but important industry. 

I am honored to testify, and I would be delighted to work with you to give additional detail to quickly enhance an efficient, environmentally sound forest health 

strategy. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I understand, Ms. Fishering. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And I apologize. I didn’t see a yellow light go 

off there. 

Ms. FISHERING. I didn’t either. Can I talk another 5 minutes? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. It is going to go from green to red, so hit the 

brakes. 

I would like to now recognize Mr. J.R. Ford, President of the 

Pagosa Cattle Company from Pagosa Springs, Colorado, to testify. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF J.R. FORD, PRESIDENT, 

PAGOSA CATTLE COMPANY, PAGOSA SPRINGS, COLORADO 

Mr. FORD. Thank you for inviting me here today. 

I am a small businessman in Pagosa Springs that manages large 

ranch holdings throughout the state owners. We have had the same 

problems that you guys all talked about in the forest on our own 

private land. In working on this for the last few years, we have 

come up with a solution using information that we took from a feasibility study from McNeil Technology that they did for us on timber supply and new upcoming technologies that are coming out to 

get rid of the biomass that had no market. 

We have also been working with the renewable energy lab on the 

ideas. We put together a group called Mixed-Conifer Working 

Group in Pagosa Springs that is made up of the environmental 

community in the Four Corners, industry, the government, local 

and state and Federal, and have come up with a description of our 

forests in which we think we can make them healthy. 

16 

All of our mills are gone. The land has been stripped of any mills 

that were there in our county. So we are 6 or 7 hours away from 

any site to be able to take sawlogs. 

So what we plan on doing, if we can get going forward with overcoming some of our log problems, is that we would like to be able 

to take everything that is 12 inches and smaller that needs to be 

thinned to make for a healthy forest and take that to wood chips 

at the point of harvest, chip that material, haul it off in hook-lip 

boxes to a site in which we would treat it from there. 

We would take larger material, the sawlog, the saw timber material that was 12 inches and larger. We would haul that to a small 

band mill sitting on the same site that the wood chips would be on, 

and take the slabs off the outside of it so that we could send off 

the cans and the squares, wholesale them out to whoever could actually take them to the next step of use. 

We would take all those wood chips, convert them into synthetic 

gas through an energy technology called gasification using technology out of Canada, and that synthetic gas we would convert to— 

we would take that synthetic gas, run it through an internal combustion engine, and we would make one-third the power for our 

small community. We use about 15 megawatts of power in 

Archuleta County. Thinning between 1,500 and 2,000 acres a year 

to a description that has been put together by the Forest Service 

or by government agencies, and with the environmental community 

in our neighborhood, we can take that material and produce 5 

megawatts of power in our community. 

But we do have some log problems. We have our logs that we 

have to get out of the way also, and one of them is timber supply. 

We need a long-term supply. If you expect private enterprise to 

step up and come up with some of this new technology, they have 

to know that they are going to have a long-term supply to be able 

to invest the large amount of capital that we are going to. 

So these stewardship contracts need to be spread out. They need 

to be longer than 10 years, some of them into 15, 20 and 25 years, 

so that a person who is getting ready to sign a long-term stewardship contract, or a long-term power purchase agreement like we are 

with our local coop, which they have stepped up to come to the 

table with a 15-year power purchase agreement, we know we need 

a 15-year supply from the Forest Service in which we can take 

those wood chips from the Forest Service and from the private and 

make this project work. 

The public support, we have broad public support in Archuleta 

County because what we have done is we have sized our project to 

our community. We are going to thin the forest and make it 

healthy within a 50-mile radius, and we are going to use those 

wood chips to make electricity and sell it in the same 50-mile radius. We don’t have the haul issues that a lot of other projects 

might have, and I think that is key. When you start getting over 

a 50-mile radius and you are hauling products other than logs, it 

is not profitable. 

Cancellation clauses are a big problem. We are getting ready to 

invest $22 million in our project, and the Forest Service wants to 

put a $250,000 cancellation cost. Our problem is, what happens 

17 

when you cancel? We are sitting there with a $20 million project 

with no supply. 

Two options that we see happening there is we see either going 

to the USDA, and on the USDA loan guarantees on the government side of that equation, there would be 100 percent non-recourse loan. So if the government does not supply the material, 

does not supply our acreage, then we turn around and we are not 

liable for the rest of that loan. On the producer side, it would be 

set up just like any other USDA loan guarantee. So that would be 

one side, or a universal cancellation clause at the Washington level 

at which you could have multiple, multiple, lots of stewardship contracts, and then they could turn around then and draw off of one 

large bonding issue up in Washington, instead of putting that burden on each independent district and the forest. 

Product other than logs. It needs to be totally removed. We are 

leaving too much of this material sitting on our forest floor and creating other health issues and other fire issues. If you can remove 

that and use it into the gasification technology that we are looking 

at, you broaden out your business plan and you are getting multiple uses from that. 

I am going to run out of my time. So stewardship contracts are 

something that I think need to be moved along. Right now, too 

much evidence is put on large landscape stewardship contracts, 

and there needs to be a pot of money put into these small, community-scale projects that have been designed by the local community. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ford follows:] 

Statement of J.R. Ford, President, Pagosa Cattle Company, Inc., 

Member, The Mixed-Conifer Working Group 

Hello, I am J.R. Ford and this is a great opportunity for me to speak to a joint 

oversight field hearing, thank you for the invitation. Today I am here representing 

a few organizations, as one often does in a rural community. These organizations 

are: Pagosa Cattle Company, Inc; Renewable Forest Energy, LLC and The MixedConifer Working Group. It is from my involvement with these organizations that I 

am here today to offer my insight (which hopefully will help). 

Pagosa Cattle Company, Inc: I have owned for over 21 years providing ranch management dealing with forest health, forest fuel reductions, river restoration, land 

restoration management, forest restoration and rangeland management. These management experiences have brought me to the task of starting up a company; Renewable Forest Energy, LLC which plans to build a 5Mwe gasification power plant run 

on woody biomass. The process for removal of biomass from the forest is at its 

prime. New European equipment options provide point of harvest mobile tree chipping at a fraction of traditional costs. However for both companies to be successful, 

securing a long term supply of material must be secured. Included with my written 

testimony is a presentation of the project(s) overview labeled as Exhibit A. 

Below is an outline of some of the stepping stones these organizations have taken. 

I will begin with the project concept and progress to the hearing today. 

• 2003—2009: The concept for forest thinning, locating the correct type of forest 

equipment as well as solidifying what would be done with the biomass removed. In our case the biomass will be used for a 5MWe gasification power 

plant. 

• August 2009—RFQ AG–82X9–S–09–0275 on Turkey Springs Biofuels Demonstration (TSBD) 288 acres. A test project was in order to determine if the 

forest health objectives were on track as well what are the cost estimates to 

perform the forest thinning. The designations and descriptions were met and 

the ‘‘pre-settlement’’ look could be achieved well within budgetary goals. The 

ground compaction studies were within the normal disturbance parameters. 

• October 2009—TSBD awarded to Pagosa Cattle Company 

• Fall 2009—Forestry equipment ordered from Sweden 

18 

• June 2010—Notice to Proceed on TSBD from Forest Service 

• November 2010—Public Tour of TSBD 

• This test project, along with all of our contracts, has been open to the 

educational impact studies, students, professors and industry professionals. All have visited and collected data to test the impact of likewise projects. 

• August 2011—TSBD complete—field data conclusive that project objectives could be met. 

• June 2010—Forestry equipment delivered—first Bruks mobile whole tree 

chipper in the U.S.A. from Sweden 

• June 2010—Private land contract on 1400 acres with the objective of forest 

health and biomass removal. 

• September 2010—Mixed-Conifer Working Group officially forms 

• ‘‘This second meeting of the Mixed-Conifer Working Group focused on the 

purpose of the working group and an understanding of USFS planning 

and NEPA related to timber sales and fuels projects.’’ http:// 

ocs.fortlewis.edu/mixedconifer/meetings.htm 

• For over 21 months local citizens, environmental groups, government & 

tribal agencies and various other vested parties have been meeting to 

present a collaborative presentation for the future health of the San Juan 

forest. People from all across the state have met with this group. Their 

educational website can be found at: http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/mixedconifer. 

This group helped design a sustainable sized community project(s) focused on ponderosa pine and mixed-use conifer forests health. 

• March 2011—Our interest in a long term stewardship contract is expressed 

directly to the Forest Service based on the TSBD outcomes along with the collaborative Mixed-Used Conifer Working group. 

• August 2011—RFP on Pagosa Long Term Stewardship Contract AG–82X9–S– 

11–9002 

• The PLTS contract not only allows the original vision of taking biomass 

to energy but also will help reestablish the logging industry in Southwest 

Colorado where it has been dormant for many years. 

• November 2011—Request for 60 day extension on all bid proposals for 

PLTS 

• January 2012—Request for 60 day extension on all bid proposals for 

PLTS 

• March 2012—extension deadline for PLTS 

• September 2011–2012 Hired Mountain Studies Institute to research: pine beetle reduction through the wood chipping process; increase in ground water 

supply due to additional infiltration; increase in tree hydration due to reduced 

trees stems per acre. 

• TODAY—a joint oversight field hearing entitled ‘‘Logs in the Road: Eliminating Federal Red Tape and Excessive Litigation to Create Health Forests, 

Jobs and Abundant Water and Power Supplies’’ 

The other organization that I am here representing is The Mixed-Conifer Working 

Group of which I am a charter member. The mission statement for the working 

group as taken from their website http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/mixedconifer is: ‘‘The 

Upper San Juan Mixed Conifer Workgroup is committed to collaborative approaches 

to improving the health and long-term resilience of mixed-conifer forests and the 

communities located near them in southwest Colorado. The Workgroup will focus on 

strengthening understanding, sharing knowledge and lessons learned, developing 

management approaches, initiating high priority projects, and monitoring results 

using an adaptive framework.’’ The Mixed-Conifer Working Group resource documents are listed here with links to the webpage: Working Definitions; Study of forest fragmentation on the Pagosa District by McGarigal and Romme; National Forest 

Foundation Grant for the Upper San Juan Mixed Conifer Working Group; Historical 

Range of Variability and Current Landscape Condition Analysis: South Central 

Highlands Section; Southwestern Colorado & Northwestern New Mexico; Mixed– 

Conifer Forests in Southwest Colorado: A Summary of Existing Knowledge and Considerations for Restoration and Management; All Vegetation Map; All Vegetation 

Map/w Roads; 2010 Forest Health Report—Colorado State Forest Service; Report 

from the October 2010 Mixed Conifer Workshop, report by the CFRI. The MixedConifer Working Group is a volunteer group comprised of 25% environmentalists, 

25% conservationists & local citizens; 25% industry professionals and 25% state and 

federal employees. Here are only a few of the participants; Colo. Div of Parks and 

Wildlife, Mountain Studies Institute, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Renewable Forest 

Energy, Colorado State Forest Service, Pagosa Ranger District (USFS) and the 

19 

Archuleta Office of Emergency Mgmt. Exhibit C to this written testimony is a briefing paper regarding this work group. 

Having the support of your community is a key factor for success with any project 

and the collaborative efforts of the organizations I represent here today are essential 

to public education on forest health in Southwest, Colorado. Gaining public support 

is important. All of these organizations enjoy the working relationships and are confident that the locals of the areas support the forest health interest. It is my recommendation that any intermountain west community that is interested in the 

health of their forest to create a similar working group. 

After two years participating with The Mixed-Conifer Working Group and over 21 

years experience managing large ranches; time has shown me that there is work 

to be done to get over the barriers that keep community sized forest health project 

streamlined and viable. The top nine obstacles with corresponding recommended solutions; as seen through my experiences with: the bidding process as contractor for 

Pagosa Cattle Company on USDA’s RFP (request for proposals) and the collaborative and educational processes of the Mixed-Conifer Working Group are listed 

below. 

1. GUARANTEE LONG TERM SUPPLY: Aligning the biomass supply with a 

local electrical cooperative and a sound business plan for private sector investors. Investors return on investment for our project requires a 15 year 

minimum alignment. 

• The current law should be amended to allow for stewardship contract 

time parameters to increase the span to up to 25 years. 

2. PUBLIC SUPPORT: There is a large need to educate the public as well as 

hold open meetings in order to gain the necessary support to understand and 

accept all that is needed to be performed in order to achieve a health forest. 

We describe the forest look as ‘‘pre-settlement’’ reducing the tree stems per 

acre in order to obtain many benefits. 

• From 21 months of meetings through The Mixed-Conifer Working Group 

which is made up of volunteer group comprised of 25% environmentalists, 

25% conservationists & local citizens; 25% industry professionals and 

25% State and Federal employees the public support has increased and 

become focused on a main goal of getting the forest healthy. • It is my recommendation that any intermountain west community that 

is interested in developing a sustainable solution to their forest health 

problems, create a similar working group. 

3. CANCELLATION CEILING/GOV. BONDING REQUIREMENTS: This is a 

crucial step in order to protect the contractor however the current bonding 

requirements inflate costs to unappealing levels. To protect contractors investment. 

• Establish a universal stewardship contract cancellation ceiling fund at 

the Federal level to help alleviate the regional bonding burden. 

• Contractors can look to the USDA loan guarantee program. If their program had 100% guarantee on the government side of contract default. 

4. POL: Total removal and utilization of all POL (products other than logs) 

within a Forest Service contract. Reduce fuels loading in order to protect 

WUI (Wildland Urban Interface). 

• Whole tree chipping at point of harvesting. 

• New gasification technology is available. Gasifying all woody biomass by 

chipping all POL for gasification in a power plant to produce electricity. 

5. IMPLEMENTATION: It has been our experience that the Forest Service regularly shares information regarding the opportunities for grants to initiate 

studies, or education research tied to biomass utilization. 

• It has been our experience that the Forest Service has not set aside funds 

for actual implementation of biomass utilization contracts. 

• If the Forest Service has a heightened concern in the unknown biomass 

market then it would be my recommendations that smaller community 

scaled forest health projects are funded. This will created awareness and 

field data results to quantify future biomass contracts. 

6. HAUL DISTANCE: The Forest Service does not appear to take into account 

the significance of the cost transportation of forest products, like biomass for 

product from source to plants. This is contrary to knowledge that hauling of 

conventional forest products, like sawtimber, is typically the most expensive 

aspect of converting standing trees to products. 

• Reduce the haul distance of forest products. It is our recommendation to 

limit the distance to approximately 50 miles or less from contract area. 

7. VALUATION OF FOREST PRODUCTS. Currently, the Forest Service assumes trees in the small sawtimber range (beginning at 8’’dbh up to 12’’ dbh) 

20 

have substantial value in the market place. Current market conditions do 

not reflect this assumption. 

• We feel that the best economic way to restore local forests around WUI 

(Wildland Urban Interface) is for stewardship contracts to contain a price 

for the POL (products other than logs) removal service and the 12’’ dbh 

and larger should be sold as sawtimber by the ton at market rates. 

• Basically stating that 8–12’’ dbh material should be considered POL. 

8. BALANCE: We have found that the Forest Service prefers to fund large 

scaled ‘‘landscaped’’ projects instead of community scaled forest health 

projects. 

• Finding a balance to both large and community scaled projects is our recommendation. Bigger landscaped projects do not always mean better 

value. Creating and implementing community scaled forest health contracts will help build sustainable communities and contract completion. 

9. TIME VALUE: Amount of time and investment that a contractor spends 

working on a Forest Service stewardship contract all the while not knowing 

if the Forest Service has the capability to fund the project. 

• Secure and reserve funds for community scaled forest health projects. 

In closing it is my intent to create a commercial viable business in which total 

forest product removal (sawtimber and POL) is achieved, leaving no residual fuels 

on the forest floor—as currently too much biomass (all) is left on the forest floor increasing fire risk. This business plan has been modified to ensure that all the Forest 

Service needs to create a health forest with minimal ground disturbance is achieved 

while creating industry in a rural community. This last bid process with the Forest 

Service has proved a little frustrating as a private sector business holding financial 

investors interests while working out all the contractual details has proven difficult, 

but that is why we are all here today at this hearing. I hope that we will leave the 

hearing today with concrete ways to change the current laws surrounding the USDA 

FS stewardship contracting process. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I would now like to recognize Mr. Clint Georg, 

Partner of the Alden Group from Englewood, Colorado to testify. 

STATEMENT OF CLINT GEORG, PARTNER, 

THE ALDEN GROUP, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 

Mr. GEORG. Chairman McClintock, Chairman Bishop, Congressman Tipton, thank you for inviting me to be here today. 

I have the same issue as Ms. Fishering. Can you hear me now? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. 

Mr. GEORG. I’m a member of a group of investors who own a 

sawmill property in Saratoga, Wyoming. The Saratoga Mill has 

been idle since 2002 and is one of the only two large sawmills left 

in this region, the sawmill here in Montrose being the second one. 

Our group intends to reopen the Saratoga sawmill, but the success 

of this venture will be dependent on reversing the impact of policies and regulations that have decimated the Colorado sawmill industry in the past few decades. 

Having viable sawmills is beneficial to the region in many ways. 

First, these two sawmills provide the forests in Colorado with the 

only large, commercially viable means to help alleviate the impact 

of the massive insect infestations and reduce the potential for massive wildfires. 

Second, operating sawmills are necessary for the long-term 

health of Colorado’s uninfected forests as a means active forest 

management required to enhance the forests’ future resilience to 

fire as well as numerous types of insects and diseases. 

And third, these sawmill operations provide a meaningful economic driver for the area. Simply put, operating these sawmills 

uses the free market forces to help remedy a pressing need in ColoVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
21 

rado and Wyoming, as well as provides support for the long-term 

health of the vast forests in this region. 

A viable sawmill industry in Colorado will require three things: 

first, a stable supply of timber sales from the United States Forest 

Service. The supply must be geographically close to the sawmills, 

in sufficient quantity to support the needs of those mills, and it 

must be sustained at those levels on an ongoing basis beyond the 

current need of removing infected trees. This is largely a matter of 

resource allocation. For example, we believe doubling the volume of 

timber sold from the Northern Colorado area is necessary to support the Saratoga Mill at efficient production levels. 

It is my understanding that doubling the timber sales in this 

area requires adding just 11 people to the current staff. The U.S. 

Forest Service should prioritize timber contract processing to 

achieve this staffing level. The payback would be revenues from direct payments for the timber sold, the reduced costs of stewardship 

contracts, and the potential savings from reduced wildfire risks. 

The commitment for long-term access to this timber is necessary 

to justify the long-term nature of these investments and additional 

investments such as those that hold great promise using bio-mass 

and other means. But those investments are not justified without 

a stable, long-term supply of timber. 

Second, the timber sales must be economically viable. Viability is 

determined by the composition of the timber being sold and the 

performance requirements under those contracts. Lodgepole pine, 

the type of tree most widely infested, has relatively low commercial 

appeal, so the timber contracts must be written in a way that harvesting is not cost prohibitive. 

And third, the industry must comply with current environmental 

regulations, but it needs protection from malicious environmentalist actions such as those that destroyed the timber industry 

in other parts of this country. 

To understand this, we need look no further than Arizona where, 

in 1996, an environmental group won a court injunction that temporarily shut down logging on all national forests in Arizona and 

New Mexico. As a result, the Arizona timber industry is now largely extinct. Since then, Arizona has had the five largest forest fires 

in its history. For more than a decade, that state’s government has 

desperately been trying to find financial incentive and other means 

to reestablish the Arizona timber industry but has been unsuccessful. It simply is not economically feasible to replace what was lost. 

In Colorado, what remains of the timber industry must be viewed 

as a precious resource for the state. It needs to be protected, because if this industry, and in particular if these two mills are lost, 

like in Arizona, they will not be replaced. 

There is an opportunity for the last two large sawmills in this 

region, using effective private enterprise, to aid in the near and 

long-term timber management needs of Colorado and Wyoming. 

For this to happen, it is essential for the U.S. Forest Service to provide an adequate, long-term, stable supply of timber under economically viable terms. It is also essential that the timber industry 

be provided protection from an unreasonable use of environmental 

laws and regulations such as those which has destroyed other regional timber industries. 

22 

Thank you for your invitation to speak at this hearing. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Georg follows:] 

Statement of Clint Georg, Partner, The Alden Group, LLC 

Dear Chairmen McClintock and Bishop and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for prioritizing your time to learn about the needs of the remaining timber industry in this region. Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this hearing. 

I am a member of a group of investors who own the sawmill property in Saratoga, 

WY. The Saratoga mill has been idle since 2002 and is one of only two large sawmills left in this region—the mill in Montrose is the other one. Our group intends 

to reopen the Saratoga sawmill, but the success of this venture will be dependent 

on reversing the impact of policies and regulations that have decimated the Colorado sawmill industry in the past few decades. 

Having viable sawmills is beneficial to the region in many ways: 

1. These two sawmills provide the forests in Colorado with the only large, commercially viable means to help alleviate the impact of the massive insect infestations and reduce the potential for devastating wildfires. 

2. Operating sawmills are necessary for the long-term health of Colorado’s 

uninfected forests as a means of active forest management required to enhance the forests’ future resilience to fire as well as numerous types of insects and diseases. 

3. These sawmill operations provide a meaningful economic driver for the region. This can be measured in the value of products produced from the timber, the hundreds of jobs for sawmill employees, loggers and truck drivers, 

and the positive impact to all the small businesses and communities that directly and indirectly benefit from the economic activity of the timber industry. To the extent that fires are reduced, there is also an economic benefit 

to the public—for instance the combined costs of just three of the large fires 

in Colorado since 2002 has exceeded $500 million. 

Simply put, operating these sawmills uses the free market forces to help remedy 

a pressing need in Colorado and Wyoming as well as provides support for the longterm health of the vast forests in this region. 

A viable sawmill industry in Colorado will require three things: 

1. A stable supply of timber sales from the USFS. The supply must be 

geographically close to the sawmills, in sufficient quantity to support 

the needs of those mills and it must be sustained at those levels on an 

ongoing basis beyond the current need of removing infected trees. This 

is largely a matter of resource allocation. For example, we believe doubling the 

volume of timber sold from the Northern Colorado area is necessary to support 

the Saratoga mill at efficient production levels. It is my understanding that 

doubling the timber sales in this area requires adding just 11 people to the current staff. The USFS should prioritize timber contract processing to achieve 

this staffing level. The payback would be revenues from direct payments for 

the timber sold, the reduced costs of stewardship contracts, and the potential 

savings from reduced wildfire risks. The commitment for long-term access to 

this timber is necessary to justify the long-term nature of these investments 

and additional investments such as those which hold great promise for using 

bio-mass from the forest for generating clean-renewable energy. But those investments are not justified without a stable, long-term supply of timber. 

2. The timber sales must be economically viable. Viability is determined 

by the composition of the timber being sold and the performance requirement under those contracts. Lodgepole pine, the type of tree most 

widely infested, has relatively low commercial appeal, so the timber contracts 

must be written in a way that harvesting is not cost prohibitive. 

3. The industry must comply with current environmental regulations, 

but it needs protection from malicious environmentalist actions such 

as those that destroyed the timber industry in other parts of the country. To understand this, we need look no further than Arizona where in 1996 

an environmental group won a court injunction that temporarily shut down 

logging on all national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. As a result, the Arizona timber industry is now largely extinct. Since then, Arizona has had the 

five largest forest fires in its history. For more than a decade, that state’s government has desperately been trying with financial incentive and other means, 

to reestablish an Arizona timber industry but has been unsuccessful—it simply 

is not economically feasible to replace what was lost. In Colorado, what reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
23 

mains of the timber industry must be viewed as a precious resource for the 

state. It needs to be protected, because if the industry, and in particular if 

these two mills, are lost, like in Arizona, they will not be rebuilt. 

There is an opportunity for the last two large sawmills in this region, using effective private enterprise, to aid in the near and long-term timber management needs 

of Colorado and Wyoming. For this to happen, it is essential for the U.S. Forest 

service to provide an adequate, long-term stable supply of timber, under economically viable terms. It is also essential that the timber industry be provided protection from an unreasonable use of environmental regulations such as that which has 

destroyed other regional timber industries. 

Thank you for your invitation to speak at this hearing. Your leadership is a critical component in the future of this industry. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

FOLLOWING IS INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE STATEMENTS 

ABOVE: 

HISTORY OF THE COLORADO TIMBER INDUSTRY 

A once vibrant industry, built up over a century, has been decimated due to the lack 

of access to Colorado’s abundant timber resources. 

To understand the current crisis facing the forests in Colorado, it is helpful to review the history of the Colorado timber industry. The Colorado timber industry 

began in the 1860s when vast tracts of virgin forests were harvested to support mining, railroads and housing development in the state. Following World War II, with 

strong housing markets and public policy encouraging timber production on National Forests, timber harvests for industrial products in the Four Corners States 

increased from about 700 million board feet (MMBF, Scribner log scale) annually 

during the early 1950s to a peak of approximately 1,000 MMBF in the late 1960s. 

During the 1970s and 1980s, harvest volumes dropped somewhat with harvests 

during the late 1980s averaging about 850 MMBF annually. Timber harvests from 

the region dramatically declined during the 1990s, caused largely by decreases in 

the harvests from National Forests caused by litigation related to threatened and 

endangered species and reduced Federal budget levels. 

This litigation caused the USFS to dramatically reduce the volume of timber sold 

in the Colorado from the high in the 1960s down to an average of just 40—45MMBF 

per year from 2003–2007. The reduced supply of timber could no longer support the 

needs of the timber industry and the effect in Colorado was dramatic; two oriented 

strand board mills closed, one in Olathe and the other in Kremmling; a large sawmill in Walden closed in 1994; three of Colorado’s largest multi-national mills closed 

in 2001 and 2002; a large independently-owned mill at South Fork closed in 2001 

(after 50 years of operation); and nine other medium-sized mills and dozens of small 

mills have closed their doors since 1982. 

Unfortunately, timber management in the Colorado forests is dependent upon an 

active timber industry for timber stand improvements using treatments that harVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY

74271.003.eps
24 

vest wood products. With the majority of local mills closing, the industry has reduced capacity to harvest timber (logs can only be economically shipped short distances). Consequently, over the years, the Colorado forests have experienced increased stand density and an accumulation of ladder-fuels; conditions that have directly led to the large-scale wildfires and insect epidemics now facing the state. 

Today, if we do not count the two dozen very small operators with 10 or fewer 

employees, there are just two medium sized and one large operating mills in Colorado. Moreover, the large sawmill in Montrose is financially troubled and operating 

under receivership. A second large sawmill in Saratoga, WY is well located to service the northern Colorado forests (where the heaviest concentration of beetle killed 

pine is located), but has been idle since 2002 when it was shut down due to a lack 

of logs. 

THE ROLE OF THE USFS IN THE COLORADO TIMBER INDUSTRY 

The United States Forest Service manages the vast majority of timber in Colorado 

and controls the destiny of the Colorado sawmill industry. 

Any discussion of the Colorado timber industry requires a discussion of the USFS. 

Nearly 68 percent of Colorado’s forests are in federal ownership and nearly threequarters of the state’s high-elevation, commercially attractive species such as 

spruce-fir, lodgepole pine and aspen are located on USFS lands. In contrast, the majority of the Colorado forests controlled by private lands are low elevation species. 

This creates a situation where even modest size lumber operations in the state cannot survive without purchasing timber directly or indirectly from the USFS. Of 

course, this was conclusively demonstrated by the failure of so many Colorado timber operations discussed above over the years when the USFS dramatically reduce 

the amount of timber sales. The 40–45 MMBF of timber sold annually in 2003-2007 

was clearly inadequate to support a healthy timber industry as the single remaining 

large sawmill in Colorado, and the one just north in Saratoga, Wyoming, both require 40 MMBF annually to operate even a single shift (and to operate efficiently, 

should run multiple shifts). 

Currently the restrictions on timber sales in this area appear to be primarily an 

issue of funding and resource allocation. With a tightening federal budget, fiscal allocations to the region are projected to fall and the volume of timber projected to 

be sold in this region in the coming years is expected to be only a fraction of the 

timber that could be sold, as identified by the USFS in its internal forecasts. 

Fortunately, the amount of funding necessary to spur the Colorado timber industry appears to be fairly modest, particularly in light of the benefits. To understand 

the funds needed, it is helpful to understand the process the USFS has to go 

through to prepare a timber sale. 

PROCESS TO PREPARE USFS TIMBER SALES 

An understanding of the process and resources required by the USFS to prepare a 

tract of timber for sale. 

Before committing to a timber sale at a particular site, the Forest Service is required to analyze virtually every environmental impact that might result from making that sale and to document in detail the results of those analyses. The process 

requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in the 

case of programmatic Land and Resource Management Plans, the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA). Several of the key documents developed for a typical timber sale are the environmental assessment, biological evaluation, decision notice, 

and ‘‘Finding of No Significant Impact.’’ The process involves the work of trained 

foresters, wildlife experts, hydrologists and archeologists and can take 1.5 to 3 years 

to complete. 

Historically once this work was done and the decision to go forward with the sale 

was made, the process entered an appeal phase where the public could enter an appeal of the decision. Recently, this has been changed to an objection phase which 

is intended to streamline the process, but historically this phase has taken 1 to 5 

years when caught up in litigation. 

Once the objection process is over, the Forest Service identifies the particular 

stand(s) of timber for the sale, puts a boundary around the unit, marks the trees 

if required, measures the trees, notes defects and other characteristics that help define the volume and other specifics of the sale. This field process takes about six 

months to a year. The rest of the process is office work that can be done in a matter 

of weeks. All told, the process typically takes about 3 to 3.5 years to complete. 

The primary limiting factor of increasing the amount of timber sales, in light of 

the process required to prepare the timber sales, appears to be an issue of resource 

allocation or funding levels. The resources are primarily the staff required to preVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
25 

pare the timber sales. In the northern region of Colorado, the USFS employs six 

foresters, two wildlife experts, an archeologist and a hydrologist and perhaps one 

other individual in preparing the current level of timber sales. The Saratoga sawmill could process nearly double the annual amount of timber in the sales that are 

projected to be prepared by this team for the Medicine Bow—Routt, Arapahoe—Roosevelt and White River Forests over the next several years. Doubling the level of 

timber contracts would require doubling, or adding eleven people, to the staff to prepare those sales. The cost of this increased staff could be offset by the revenue generated from those contracts, the reduced cost of stewardship contracts as well as the 

potential cost reductions from the reduced risk of fire in the logged areas. 

The second factor influencing an assured timber supply to the industry is the current inability of the USFS to make long-term commitments on the volume of timber 

sold in out years. The USFS service develops a five year forecast of timber sales 

in the region. Execution of this plan is dependent on a number of factors, but the 

primary factor is the allocation of resources which is an annual event. The annual 

nature of the funding helps to discourage any investment in the industry in this region because meaningful investments typically require multi-year paybacks. The 

USFS and industry need to find a means of a multi-year commitment for the timber 

supply in order to incentivize addition investments. 

POINT NO. 1: A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR AN ACTIVE AND 

HEALTHY TIMBER INDUSTRY IN COLORADO IS THE ALLOCATION 

OF ENOUGH FUNDING FOR THE USFS TO OFFER A SUFFICIENT 

NUMBER OF TIMBER CONTRACTS TO SUPPORT SAWMILL OPERATIONS IN THE REGION. 

BENEFITS OF THE SAWMILL INDUSTRY TO COLORADO 

And active sawmill industry in Colorado benefits the people, economy and 

environment. 

An active timber industry in Colorado, supported by an appropriately increased 

volume of USFS timber sales, provides a number of benefits to Colorado and the 

forests in the area. First is the economic impact to the state. 

Today Colorado, a state rich in timber supply, imports more than 90 percent of 

the wood products consumed in the state from other states and countries. Increasing 

timber harvests in the state can be used to spur economic growth measured in the 

products produced from those timber harvests, the hundreds of jobs for sawmill 

workers, loggers and truck drivers and all the direct and indirect benefits to the 

communities and small businesses supporting the economic activity of the timber industry. 

As an example, I recently spoke with the mayor of a small town that previously 

had a small operating sawmill. After that sawmill closed in 2009, families left town 

to find work and there was a 40% drop in the number students attending the local 

school. Without a means to replace those jobs, the mayor expects that the town will 

need to close the school. If that happens, the mayor has told me that it will be hard 

to get young families to move there—effectively a death sentence for the town. This 

is a scenario that has been repeated across the country since sawmills represent an 

industry often better suited to rural areas rather than to big cities. 

Point No. 2: Colorado and the region have an opportunity to spur economic 

growth with a resurgence of the timber industry in the state. 

In addition to providing economic advantages, the timber industry is essential to 

maintaining a healthy forest. Today, increased public support for the timber industry in our area is largely the result of the widespread devastation caused by the 

mountain pine beetle. 

Mountain Pine Beetle Devastation 

Mountain pine beetles have been part of the natural cycle in Colorado forests for 

eons, however the extent of the current infestation and the amount of destruction 

it has wrought is unprecedented. The scope of the infestation was due in large part 

to the high density and lack of age diversity of the forests. In Colorado, mountain 

pine beetles attack mature ponderosa and lodgepole pine. In nature, periodic fires 

and other devastating events thin forests and create an age diversity that limits the 

impact of a pine beetle outbreak. Where fire is suppressed, timber harvesting creates the same advantageous environment. However in Colorado, years of fire suppression and years without a vibrant sawmill industry produced a situation in many 

of the high country forests of dense, mature, eight inches in diameter or larger 

lodgepole pine; precisely the habitat in which mountain pine beetles thrive. When 

the epidemic started, there were not the natural age barriers to slow it and the high 

density of the forests meant the beetles could quickly spread. 

26 

The impact on the state of the pine bark beetle should not be understated: 

There is an economic impact to the state in reduced recreational activities such 

as hiking, camping and skiing due to: scenery changes; reduced wind protection; and 

safety hazards from falling dead trees. 

For individual landowners with affected trees on their properties, the financial 

impact includes: property value reductions; erosion issues from increased water 

yields; and wood and tree branch disposal challenges. 

And of course, the impact of mountain pine beetle killed trees results in an increased potential for wildfire which may result in: loss of life and property; reduced 

real estate values; changes to tourism-based economies; long-term costs of water 

supply and reservoir clean-up; and safety hazards from falling dead trees. 

Wildfires 

Two notable Colorado fires are the Fourmile Canyon fire in 2010 and the Hayman fire in 2002. The Fourmile Canyon fire burned 167 homes, cost $10 million dollars 

to fight and resulted in $217 million in property damage. The Hayman fire was the 

largest fire in Colorado history and burned 138,000-acres. 

The costs of these fires are large by any standard but, according to The Western 

Forestry Leadership Coalition, a State and Federal government partnership, an accounting of costs should include: suppression costs; other direct costs (private property losses, damage to utility lines, damage to recreation facilities, etc.); rehabilitation costs, indirect costs (lost tax revenues, business revenue and property losses 

that accumulate over the longer term); and additional costs (these included hard to 

quantify cost such as extensive loss of ecosystem services, aesthetic and scenic beauty, wildlife existence value, the economic cost of the loss of human life are included 

here). 

With this full accounting, the economic cost to the state for the 2002 Hayman fire 

was $208 million, the 2002 Missionary Ridge fire was $153 million and, of course 

the total cost of the 2010 Fourmile fire canyon fire greatly exceeded the $227 million 

of direct costs. 

It is widely accepted that the lack of forest management has resulted in a heighten danger of these massive fires and that more can be expected. Unfortunately, fire 

danger increases again in approximately 15 to 20 years when the trees killed by the 

pine bark beetle rot and fall down, adding woody material to the young trees and 

other fine fuels growing on the forest floor. A fire in this arrangement is difficult 

to suppress and will pose additional safety hazards to firefighters. Severe wildfires 

of this type burn at higher intensities and for longer durations which can be very 

detrimental to plant communities, soils, and watersheds. 

There is no practical way to stop a large scale mountain pine beetle epidemic once 

it has begun and to lessen wildfire hazard it is critical to reduce the number of 

dead, dry trees as well as infected trees that will eventually die. Removing these 

trees has often meant that the property owner (including the USFS) has paid to 

have the trees removed. 

The most cost effective removal of these trees, and the only practical method on 

a large scale, is to have a commercially viable means of harvesting and selling the 

timber. There have been a number of articles in the media highlighting various companies trying to make use of the beetle killed timber including companies making 

wood flooring, furniture, log cabins and heating fuel. There has also been, in one 

case, $76 million of federal grant money invested in trying to use wood chips from 

beetle killed trees as a source for cellulosic ethanol that would break America’s ‘‘addiction to oil’’. Unfortunately the ethanol experiment failed without solving the issue 

of how to operate on a commercially viable scale and all the other commercial efforts 

in the state for timber usage only equal a fraction of the capacity of either the 

Montrose or Saratoga sawmills. 

The USFS, facing a dwindling commercial timber industry and needing to remove 

vegetation and perform other activities to promote healthy forest stands, reduce fire 

hazards, or achieve other land management objectives, was granted authority in 

2003 to issue Stewardship contracts for forest management. This authority, which 

expires in 2013, is being used by the USFS in Colorado and Wyoming to pay private 

companies to provide forest management and remove infected trees from critical 

areas. 

One of the benefits of stewardship contracting is that some of the cost of treatment is offset with the value of the logs removed in the course of the work. Having 

an outlet for these logs increases the value of the logs and will ultimately reduce 

the USFS Stewardship contracting costs. Currently, the largest insect infestations 

are in Northern Colorado, a relatively long distance from the sawmill in Montrose. 

Once the Saratoga sawmill is operating, the value of the logs in this area will increase and the USFS will be able to pay less for Stewardship contracts. 

27 

The Montrose mill and the Saratoga mill are each capable of processing 40 MMBF 

of timber annually on a single shift. Operating at multiple shifts, these two large 

sawmills will only harvest a small portion of the Colorado forests—even operating 

on two shifts, a sawmill of this size would take more than a thousand years to treat 

all the timber in Colorado—but these sawmills offer the only large scale method of 

processing timber and they do so while paying for the timber. This benefits the 

USFS both directly through revenues from timber sales and indirectly through the 

reduced cost of stewardship contracts in the area. In all, these sawmills provide a 

cost effective means of removing infected trees in the Colorado and Wyoming region. 

Colorado Spruce and Ponderosa Pine Forests 

It must be noted that although the mountain pine beetle continues to be Colorado’s most damaging forest pest, this is not the only significant threat to Colorado’s 

forests. The same beetle is also attacking an increasing amount of ponderosa pine 

forests; 275,000 acres in 2011 alone. Also, the spruce bark beetle, the second greatest insect threat to the state, is causing extensive mortality in Colorado’s spruce forests and as of 2011 had already infested 262,000 acres of Engleman Spruce. Controlling the impact of these infestations, similar to lodgepole pine infestations, requires 

removal of the timber and emphasizes the importance of an active sawmill industry 

servicing the state. 

Point No. 3: Large sawmill operations provide a cost effective means of 

timber management that is not matched by other commercially viable 

options. 

Long-term Forest Management 

When faced with widespread infestations now prevalent in Colorado, there is a 

clear and pressing need for removal of as much infected timber as possible. However, ongoing timber harvests in sustainable quantities are also necessary for the 

long-term health of the forest. 

Forests, left completely without human intervention, are subject to a pattern of 

natural disturbances resulting from wildfires and windstorms and have adapted to 

these periodic cycles. Lodgepole pine is an example of one species adapted to this 

cycle. High-severity fire is the primary type of disturbance shaping the structure of 

lodgepole pine. The fires clear large areas of tree cover and help control disease and 

insect pests, and expose mineral soil seedbeds. The lodgepole pine cones open as a 

result of the high heat from these fires and release their seeds to grow and regenerate the forests in the now-cleared area. Natural wildfires typically burn sections 

of the forests and help maintain varying age distributions that also control the 

spread of invasive insects and disease. 

Although wildfire is a key part of the ecology of many forest species, the control 

of wildfire that is necessary to protect human life, communities, watersheds, and 

fish and wildlife resources means that these forest types must now be maintained 

by other measures. The Society of American Foresters recommends that clear cutting be used in the development and care of these types of forests since clear cutting 

closely resembles the natural process and is the preferred means of assuring of 

prompt (or successful) regeneration. Clear cutting is also the preferred method of 

harvesting lodgepole pine for commercial uses as lodgepole pine has low commercial 

appeal and other types of harvesting are cost prohibitive. In the past, and perhaps 

still today, there has been much public confusion about clear cutting and its effects 

on the environment. The purely visual impact of a clear cut commonly leads to negative perceptions that manifest an array of misconceptions about sustainability, impacts to soil, water and wildlife, and the compatibility of timber management with 

recreation. 

Good forest management requires different types of timber harvests; in 

uninfested, healthy spruce forests, thinning is the preferred approach while in 

healthy lodge pole pine forests, clear cutting remains one of the best methods to create conditions conducive to regeneration. 

While today the focus for helping keep Colorado’s remaining timber industry alive 

is understandably because of the very visible impact of the mountain pine beetle, 

there should be equal concern about encouraging this industry to harvest timber 

from our green forests as a means of maintaining the health of those forests for the 

future. Conversely, if those forests are left to rely only on natural processes, we can 

expect insects, diseases and fire to return in the future and have negative impacts 

on our forests. 

28 

POINT NO. 4: Healthy forests require an active timber industry and should 

be encouraged even in areas not currently affected by the mountain 

pine beetle. 

Basics of operating a sawmill in today’s economic environment 

For sawmills to be financial feasible, timber must be available in a commercially 

reasonable manner. 

The sawmill industry in general is facing significant economic challenges. In the 

ten years from 2000 to 2010, the number of operating sawmills in the western 

United States dropped from 287 mills to just 170, a 40% reduction. The decline was 

due to many factors including a dramatic decrease in lumber prices following the 

housing burst and escalating fuel prices which have a major cost on hauling the logs 

to the sawmills. 

The economics of operating sawmills is also greatly affected by the timber characteristics. Both of the large sawmills, in Montrose and Saratoga, are stud mills meaning they primarily produce 2X4 studs for framing timber. Studs can be produced 

from lodgepole pine or Engelmann spruce, with lodgepole pine being the predominate species now available because of the insect infestations. Unfortunately, 

lodgepole pine is also a species with relatively low economic value. It is typically 

a smaller diameter tree and that results in relatively more waste when processed 

into lumber. Spruce, on the other hand, is typically a larger diameter tree and generates relatively more lumber for the volume of timber used. 

In Colorado, the value of both lodgepole pine and spruce will diminished as they 

die and the longer they remain dead in the forest. A tree killed by the pine bark 

beetle starts drying out and as it does, the sun and other factors cause it to dry 

out unevenly. This creates cracking (or ‘‘checking’’) and twisting (‘‘spiraling’’). Both 

these conditions reduce the amount of lumber that can be recovered from a particular volume of timber. The longer a tree remains in the forest, the more deterioration can be expected. Finally, after a period of time, (the actual timeframe depends on various factors, but could be about 5 to 7 years) the trees will be too deteriorated to be of economic value for the sawmills. Furthermore, if the weakened 

stand of trees are blown down by high winds, the timber cannot be economically recovered. The mountain pine beetle is infecting nearly all the lodgepole pine in the 

state, so there is a limited window of years where the sawmills will be processing 

dead timber. In the long-run, the sawmills will need to operate using predominantly 

green sources of timber. 

A further complication is the lack of universal acceptance of beetle kill lumber. 

Although the mountain pine beetle does not affect the structural integrity of the 

timber, beetle-killed pine has a distinctive blue stain that can affect its acceptance. 

As an example, in 2009, Big Horn Lumber, a midsized sawmill operating in Laramie, WY closed citing a lack of market for blue stained pine. In another example, 

Lowes and Home Depot, have declined to carry beetle killed lumber in their stores. 

The USFS, in preparing the timber in this region for sale will have a great impact 

on the sustainability of the sawmills. The USFS can make these timber sales more 

attractive to the sawmill operators by including a higher percentage of spruce or 

not-yet-dead lodgepole pine, or larger diameter trees. Other factors affecting the 

value of the sale include the cost of the timber (the ‘‘stumpage’’), the costs for road 

maintenance, slash deposits and the requirement to remove trees that are not large 

enough to meet minimum logging size (Product Other than saw Logs—POL). 

POL is a major concern for the future of the sawmill industry. The method specified for removing POL will impact the value of the sale particularly if the terms 

of the sale require the loggers to remove this product from the forest. In some cases, 

there are economic uses for the POL, such as pellets and fence posts, but material 

to be removed and processed is expensive to transport relative to the value of the 

product and in Colorado there is simply not enough demand for the POL and it becomes a liability for the sawmill. As an example, for one recent sale that we analyzed, the cost of removing the POL was several times more expensive than the actual cost of timber and this made that contract uneconomical to bid (we were not 

the only ones to reach this conclusion, that contract received no bids). 

It is important to note that there appears to be a clear push by the forest service 

and others to find a use for POL. In some cases this push has led to a hope that 

new technologies will use bio-mass such as POL to help manage forests. In fact 

there are technologies such as co-generation and biomass gasification that have the 

promise of using a significant amount forest material such as the POL or sawmill 

by-products to produce clean energy. However, these processes only operate profitably in conjunction with sawmills, not independent of sawmills. We believe there is 

an economically viable possibility of building a biomass gasification or co-generation 

operation that is supported by the sawmill operations, but only after the sawmill 

29 

operations are back running profitably and only after a long-term source of timber 

is assured. 

Finally, it is also important to understand that the chance of bringing either one 

of these two sawmills up and operating efficiently is not without substantial risk 

to the investors. Before the Saratoga sawmill can be restarted, and perhaps before 

the Montrose sawmill is transferred out or receivership, the investors will need to 

have a sufficient supply of timber, on economically viable terms under contract from 

the USFS. 

POINT No. 5: For the timber industry to survive in Colorado, the USFS 

contracts must be prepared in a way that is financially feasible for the 

sawmills. 

ENVIRONMENTALIST THREATS TO THE COLORADO TIMBER 

INDUSTRY. 

While environmental laws have effectively helped protect the environment from 

abusive practices, they have also been used to decimate the timber industry to 

the detriment of the very forests they were intended to save. 

Undoubtedly the greatest single cause for the demise of the timber industry in 

the Rocky Mountains has been the impact of the environmentalist movement. The 

environmentalist movement of the late 1960’s began when a controversy developed 

over the practice of clear cutting and terracing on steep slopes. The final result of 

the controversy was passage of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 

(NFMA) which set guidelines for clear cutting. 

The seventies also saw passage of The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

signed into law January 1, 1970, which mandated that the environmental impacts 

of proposed Federal projects be comprehensively analyzed and The Endangered Species Act of 1973 which provided for protection of rare, threatened, and endangered 

animal and plant species. A watershed event occurred on August 7, 1986, when the 

U.S. Forest Service acted to protect the northern spotted owl from decline and extinction by limiting timber sales in mature portions of National Forests where the 

animals live. 

Combined, a long series of governmental actions and court decisions stemming 

from these environmental policies resulted in a reduction of more than 75 percent 

of the timber harvested annually from public lands. Perhaps the clearest example 

of the impact of the environmental movement, and a warning of what could yet happen in Colorado, is the case of the Arizona timber industry. 

The Arizona Timber Industry 

For much of the 20th century, a variety of factors combined to interrupt the historic fire cycles over much of Arizona’s native forests. This resulted in forests overstocked with small diameter trees, creating a ‘‘ladder fuel’’ situation, which placed 

millions of acres of Arizona forestland at risk for catastrophic fires. Similar to what 

is now happening in Colorado, the increasingly destructive cycle of insects, diseases, 

and wildfire in Arizona’s ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper forest ecosystems poses 

a significant risk to personal health, animals, watersheds, and property. 

In the 1980s, Arizona had an active timber industry that helped maintain the 

heath of the forest and the industry harvested an average of 400 million board feet 

of timber annually. However beginning in the 1980s, a Tucson-based environmental 

group, the Center for Biological Diversity, charged that the U.S. population of Mexican spotted owls had shrunk to just a few thousand because of logging in the oldgrowth ponderosa pines. The group ultimately won a 1996 court injunction that temporarily shut down logging on all national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. Within a few years, applying more legal pressure on behalf of all affected species, it 

forced the Forest Service to reduce logging by 70 percent and limit the harvest to 

trees less than 16 inches in diameter. Years of legal battles had greatly diminished 

the Arizona timber industry and by 1996 it was largely extinct and the amount of 

timber harvested from Arizona forests was almost exclusively fuel wood. 

‘‘We squashed the timber industry and the Forest Service, and dictated the 

terms of surrender’’ in the Southwest, said Kieran Suckling, the director of 

the Center for Biological Diversity. 

But environmentalists’ celebrations were cut short by a 2002 conflagration: The 

Rodeo-Chediski fire burned 467,000 acres (732 square miles), destroyed 400 homes 

and cost more than $43 million to fight. This was the largest fire in Arizona history 

until 2011, when the Wallow fire consumed 538,000 acres in eastern Arizona, destroying 32 homes and costing more than $79 million to suppress. 

Three more of the largest Arizona fires, the Cave Creek Complex (2005)—244,000 

acres, Horseshoe Two (2011)—222,954 acres, and Willow (2004)—120,000 acres have 

30 

all occurred subsequent to the demise of the Arizona Forest Industry. In total, those 

five fires consumed nearly ten percent of all of Arizona’s forests (equivalent to more 

than 2 million acres if in Colorado). Decades of reduced logging coupled with active 

fire suppression had made Arizona’s famous 2.4-million-acre ponderosa pine belt the 

most overgrown and flammable thickets in the West. 

According to the Arizona’s governor office, the Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002 (along 

with a smaller fire in 2003), elevated awareness about forest ecosystem conditions 

and wildfire risks in Arizona. However, by that time it was also recognized by the 

Arizona agencies that the only cost effective management technique was to involve 

the timber industry—an option no longer available to the state. Even Kieran Suckling, the director of the Center for Biological Diversity, the very person and organization that had done so much to destroy the timber industry, recognized the need 

for harvesting timber and in 2009 signed a deal with entrepreneur Pascal Berlioux 

to try and restart a timber industry in Arizona. 

Berlioux’s company, Arizona Forest Restoration Products, hoped to do restoration 

work on at least 600,000 acres over 20 years, cutting only trees that are smaller 

than 16 inches. In turn, the Center for Biological Diversity promised not to file lawsuits against this work, and to defend the effort in court if other groups sued. Unfortunately, despite collaborative efforts by the State of Arizona, the USFS and others, 

reestablishing a timber industry has thus far proven to be too great a challenge. 

Berlioux has since shied away from making the $250 million investment that he estimated would be required to establish a timber operation in Arizona and no new 

mills are being built in this area. 

Without the prospect of reestablishing an active sawmill industry and in an effort 

to ‘‘create a viable, sustainable industry that is an effective tool in restoring and 

maintaining healthy forests’’, the state sought to use government and financial incentives to create a new, different kind of timber industry using new technology and 

new products that lacked legitimate markets. Perhaps predictably, these efforts 

have failed and instead the USFS in Arizona is paying for forest management under 

stewardship contracts at a rate of about $420, on average (and sometimes as much 

as $1,000) for each acre treated. 

The obvious lesson from Arizona is that under the existing laws, the public, and 

specifically environmentalist groups, can use litigation and other methods to destroy 

the timber industry. Once lost, the industry cannot be expected to be reintroduced 

into a region, even with coordinated support and financial incentives from the USFS 

and state and local governments. To this point, the sawmill equipment in Saratoga 

was idled and left in place; something that is fairly unusual. If this equipment had 

been liquidated (as was the equipment in the Big Horn mill in Laramie) and had 

to be replaced, there would be no conceivable economic justification for restarting 

the mill. 

At this time, the USFS is operating timber sales in Colorado with what it calls 

‘‘social license’’. This means the public generally supports efforts to harvest trees 

that have been insect infested. The Colorado public has a high degree of awareness 

of the impact of beetle killed pine because, among other reasons, a) the dead trees 

are very visible around highly trafficked areas such as the I–70 corridor and around 

ski areas such as Steamboat Springs and others, b) there have been many news articles in print and on television regarding beetle-killed pine, and; c) the increasing 

frequency and severity of large forest fires in the state over the past few years has 

heightened the awareness of the danger of large tracts of dead trees. 

As a result of this awareness, the USFS generally has social license to conduct 

timber sales in the areas where structures and other human development meet or 

intermingle with undeveloped wildland; wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas. What 

is less certain is the USFS’ social license to operate timber sales in non-WUI areas. 

It will be important to have timber sales in the non-WUI. First, nearly 20% of 

Coloradoans live close to nature, surrounded by that wilderness high-risk space and 

the state’s population is projected to blossom in the next 30 years—with much of 

the growth expected to occur in those woodsy areas. Moreover, active timber sales 

in non-WUI areas are required to maintain the forest health in those areas. In particular, the spread of insect infestation of the Colorado spruce forests cannot be stymied without the ability to harvest infected timber in non-WUI areas. In addition, 

essential water supplies are at risk from falling trees because of the damage 

wildfires can cause to watersheds. Within the heart of the outbreak in Colorado and 

Wyoming, in non-WUI areas, are the headwaters for some of the rivers supplying 

water to 13 western states. 

Dead timber that is not harvested is subject to massive blow downs in the coming 

years. At the very least, this will impede the rate of regeneration in those forests. 

What is more, for those blow downs that catch fire, the conflagrations will burn hotVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
31 

ter than fires in standing timber and will destroy nutrients in the soil necessary 

for regeneration. 

There is a great deal that is unknown about the long-term impact of the massive 

kill-off of the forests in Colorado, but there is much to be concerned about in untreated areas. The long-term consequences of the outbreak will be most dramatic in 

untreated areas where the shift in tree species composition will influence timber 

and water production, wildfire behavior, wildlife habitat and other forest attributes. 

The ability of environmental groups to limit timber harvest to WUI areas, to the 

detriment to the long-term health of the forests, is a situation that, if unchecked, 

can easily destroy the remaining timber industry in this region. Political leadership 

will be required to find a solution allowing sawmills long-term access to timber harvests from national forests in Colorado, both in WUI area and in non-WUI areas. 

Point No. 6: Environmental activism has been a significant influencer on 

the decline of the timber industry, ultimately to the detriment of the 

FORESTS. 

Point No. 7: A regional timber industry should be viewed as a highly beneficial asset that once lost, is unlikely to be reestablished due to the high 

cost of investment and the uncertainty of long-term returns. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Georg. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Dan Jiron, a regional forester 

of the Rocky Mountain Region for the U.S. Forest Service from 

Golden, Colorado to testify. 

STATEMENT OF DAN JIRON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN REGION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, GOLDEN, 

COLORADO 

Mr. JIRON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for the 

opportunity to come, and thank you, Mr. Tipton, for convening this 

hearing. 

The Forest Service recognizes the need for a strong forest industry to help accomplish forest restoration work. A vibrant industry 

can provide both workforce and the know-how to undertake mechanical treatments and other restoration activities. Maintaining a 

viable industry is vital to Colorado. A loss of this industry would 

significantly impact our ability to accomplish forest health and reduce safety and health issues associated with dead and dying trees. 

There have been some successes. We have two CFLR projects 

here in Colorado. One is right in our backyard, on the Western 

Slope. The Uncompahgre Plateau Collaborative Forest Restoration 

Project in 2011 provided 63 direct jobs and 124 total jobs. In this 

project, we have treated over 10,000 acres and produced 6.5 million 

board feet. 

As members of the Subcommittee are well aware, the West is experiencing a beetle epidemic, and that is occurring all over the 

Rocky Mountain region in Region 2. Bark beetles have killed over 

40 million acres of conifers in the western U.S. since 2000. 

The Chief of the Forest Service has committed to spending $101 

million on bark beetle work throughout the western regions for 

Fiscal Year 2012. The Rocky Mountain Region’s share is $33 million. Regionally, we have prioritized our forest health efforts focusing on safety, resiliency and recovery. In 2012, we expect to accomplish nearly 16,000 acres of fuel reduction, hazard tree removal, 

and noxious weed work. 

Timber volume to sell in 2012 within the region is slightly up 

from last year. We are at approximately 193 million board feet for 

32 

Fiscal Year 2012, and that compares to 189 million board feet in 

2011. This year we plan to sell 91 million board feet in Colorado, 

compared to 82 million board feet in 2011. 

Stewardship contracting is one tool that helps us to acquire restoration services by offsetting the value of the services received 

with the value of products removed with a single contractor agreement. 

In addition, we have a front range long-term stewardship contract over on the other side that was awarded in 2009, and it was 

one of only three such contracts in the nation. This is a new way 

of doing business for the Forest Service, which will reduce treatment costs and facilitate the utilization of low-value products. We 

are currently exploring additional opportunities for long-term stewardship contracts within the region. 

The region continues to work with partners and permittees to address threats to infrastructure, including power lines, roads and 

communities. In an effort to streamline our NEPA, the region developed a large-scale power line EIS that covered the three forests 

that were most heavily impacted by beetle mortality. We are committed to working closely with power line companies where they 

are interested in more aggressively treating the transmission corridors. 

I would also mention in South Dakota we have taken several 

steps in NEPA to assist us to move faster and more efficiently, and 

the Black Hills has been a leader in helping us to carry out work 

related to restoration. 

Here on the West Slope, the last two large sawmills in Colorado, 

Intermountain Resources and Delta Timber, are here. Market declines in the last five years and a regional focus on mountain pine 

beetle had left the timber industry with some high-priced contracts 

sold prior to the market decline. The region has worked diligently 

over the last several years to provide forest industry relief where 

possible, and to promote healthy forests through active management. 

In August of 2011, Forest Service Chief Tidwell authorized that 

contracts awarded prior to July 1, 2008, meeting certain conditions, 

could be mutually canceled. In total, nine purchasers benefitted 

from this authority regionally, and seven benefitted within Colorado. 

The Forest Service will continue to strive to adapt and improve 

our ability to meet our mission of sustaining the health, diversity 

and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands for present 

and future generations. Our goal is to employ existing industry, expand local business opportunities, and create jobs. Doing so will require working closely with our partners, including Congress and 

local governments. 

I thank you for your time and availability and look forward to 

answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jiron follows:] 

Statement of Daniel (Dan) Jiron, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain 

Region, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman McClintock, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Bishop, 

and Members, thank you for the opportunity to come before these subcommittees. 

I would also like to specifically thank Colorado Congressman Tipton and Colorado 

33 

Congressman Coffman for requesting this field hearing. I am the Regional Forester 

for the Rocky Mountain Region, consisting of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. Thank you for inviting us here today. 

Nationally 

Today, people understand that forests provide a broad range of values and benefits, including biodiversity, recreation, clean air and water, forest products, erosion 

control and soil renewal, and more. We have national forests in 42 states and Puerto Rico that comprise a land area of nearly 193 million acres. Our mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands 

for present and future generations. The Forest Service does this through working 

with numerous federal, state, tribal, and local partners, citizens, and industry. 

The Forest Service also recognizes the need for a strong forest industry to help 

accomplish forest restoration work. A vibrant industry can provide both the manpower and the know-how to undertake mechanical treatments and other restoration 

activities. Forest industry also lowers the cost of restoration to the taxpayer by recovering value from forest products. The Forest Service is committed to increasing 

the number of acres being mechanically treated by 20% over the next three years. 

This increase would allow the Forest Service to increase the number of acres and 

watersheds restored across the system, while supporting jobs and increasing annual 

forest product sales to 3 billion board feet of timber. A critical part of this effort 

is building public support for forest restoration and management activities. 

In January 2012 the Chief announced the Accelerated Restoration Initiative to increase the pace and scale of restoration and improve both the ecological health of 

our forests and the economic health of forest-dependent communities. An additional 

benefit of this restoration work is job creation. For example, through implementation of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (including the use 

of stewardship contracts), the proponents of projects on national forest lands anticipate creating or maintaining 1,550 jobs. The benefits of maintaining a robust forest 

industry flows not only to local communities but also to our public lands because 

the agency relies on local forest contractors and mills to provide the work force to 

undertake a variety of restoration activities. In addition, a study has shown that 

for every 1 million dollars spent on activities like stream restoration or road decommissioning 12 to 28 jobs are generated. 

Two CFLR projects are here in Colorado. The Uncompahgre Plateau Collaborative 

Forest Restoration Project was estimated to have provided 63 direct jobs and 124 

total jobs in FY 2011. In FY 2012, it is anticipated to leverage funds in the amount 

of $430,300 to complete more resource management. As a result of implementing 

this project, 2,218 acres were restored, 893 acres were reforested, 1,828 acres of forest vegetation were improved, 2,871 acres of wildland-urban interface hazardous 

fuels acres were treated, 3,065 acres of non-wildland-urban interface hazardous 

fuels acres were treated, and 6.57 million board feet (MMBF) were sold. 

In addition, restoring the health and resilience of our forests generates important 

amenity values. Healthy, resilient forests and grasslands are magnets for outdoor 

recreation, with more than 170 million visits per year to the National Forest System. These visits lead to jobs and economic opportunity. 

In order to accomplish the hundreds of thousands of acres of natural resource 

projects we do across the country each year, we continuously strive to increase efficiency in our National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The Agency has 

initiated a NEPA learning networks project to learn from and share the lessons of 

successful implementation of streamlined NEPA analyses. The goal of this effort is 

to ensure that the Agency’s NEPA compliance is as efficient, cost-effective, and upto-date as possible. Specifically we are looking at expanding the use of focused environmental assessments (EAs) and iterative environmental impact statements (EISs), 

expanding categories of actions that may be excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, and applying an 

adaptive management framework to NEPA. Our landscape-scale NEPA projects will 

also increase efficiencies by analyzing across broad swaths of land, avoiding repetitive NEPA analysis. 

Beetle Epidemic 

As the members of the Subcommittees are well aware, the West is experiencing 

a beetle epidemic, and this infestation is changing the way our forests will look in 

the future. Susceptible tree and stand conditions combined with recent droughts and 

rising temperatures have contributed to significant forest mortality. Bark beetles 

have killed over 40 million acres of forests in the western United States since 2000. 

The beetles causing most of this mortality are native insects, including mountain 

pine beetle, western balsam bark beetle, fir engraver, spruce beetle, and DouglasVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
34 

fir beetle. The mountain pine beetle outbreak in the central Rocky Mountains is 

larger than any previously recorded outbreak in the Region, affecting over 6.6 million acres in Colorado and Wyoming. Damage was most widespread and dramatic 

in dense, aging, homogeneous lodgepole pine forests that dominate many mountainous areas of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah. Some of these outbreaks are occurring at higher elevations than in the past. Most notably, high-elevation whitebark pines have been killed on sites previously thought to be too cold 

for serious beetle outbreaks. These changes in beetle activity are related to warmer 

winter temperatures that have led to quicker development and higher survival rates 

for over-wintering insects. In Colorado, we are experiencing an epidemic of high beetle populations and susceptible hosts because: 

• Warming results in higher beetle numbers and survival. 

• A lack of two weeks at minus 40 degree C in winter means more beetles survive the winter. 

• Warming allows for beetles to move up the hill and attack higher elevation 

lodgepole pine and other species of pines like whitebark. 

• Warming and drought cause trees to be less resilient. 

The Chief of the Forest Service has committed to spending $101.4 million on bark 

beetle work throughout the western regions in FY 2012. The Rocky Mountain Region’s share is $33 million. 

The Region has focused initial efforts on most heavily impacted areas around the 

White River, Routt and Arapaho Roosevelt National Forests. We are now 

prioritizing our forest health efforts across the entire region focusing on safety, resiliency and recovery. 

Within the bark beetle area, the Region has worked with partners to address 

threats to the infrastructure, including powerlines, roads and communities. For example, the Forest Service developed the large-scale powerline EIS that covers the 

3 national forests most heavily impacted by beetle mortality. The Region remains 

committed to working closely with the powerline companies where they are interested in more aggressively treating the transmission corridors. 

Forest Management and Restoration Program including Stewardship 

Contracting 

Timber volume that the Forest Service anticipates offering in 2012 within the Region is comparable to previous years—approximately 193 million board feet (MMBF) 

in FY2012 compared to 189 MMBF in FY2011. The amount of timber sold in the 

last five years within Colorado averaged 98.5 MMBF annually. 

Stewardship contracting has increased greatly in Region 2 over the last 12 years, 

and it is an integral part of the forest management program, particularly for the 

treatment of low-value dead or dying vegetation caused by insect epidemics, or other 

low-value hazardous fuels. This tool helps the Forest Service to acquire additional 

restoration services. Stewardship contracting allows the Forest Service to offset the 

value of the services received with the value of forest products removed pursuant 

to a single contract or agreement. 

In FY2011, Region 2 awarded 44 stewardship contracts for the treatment of 

13,100 acres. Since the authority was originally enacted in 1999, the Region has 

awarded more than 196 stewardship contracts and task orders treating more than 

70,500 acres. 

Through stewardship contracts, Region 2 has been incorporating more biomass 

into sales to encourage utilization in pellets, bioenergy, biochar or other nontraditional products. For example, the Front Range Long-Term Stewardship Contract 

was awarded in 2009, and includes biomass utilization through pellets, decorative 

bark, horse bedding, and other forest products. We are entering into the fourth program year of the 10-year contract. This is a new way of doing business for the Forest Service, which will reduce treatment costs and facilitate the utilization of lowvalue products. 

Mills and the Economy 

In its efforts to restore the health and resilience of our national forests, the Forest 

Service faces some obstacles—the lack of industrial capacity, the economic downturn, high transportation costs, and low product values. These are the main factors 

that contribute to high treatment costs, which limit the use of stewardship contracts 

and affect the economics of timber sales within the Region. 

Delta and Montrose are home to the last two large sawmills in Colorado—Intermountain Resources and Delta Timber. 

Market declines in the late 2000’s and a regional focus on mountain pine beetle 

treatments have left the timber industry holding high priced contracts sold in the 

early to mid 2000’s. Many of the remaining contracts were ineligible for relief measVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
35 

ures afforded to the industry in the 2008 Farm Bill. Any loss of the timber industry 

negatively impacts the Forest Service’s ability to battle the beetle epidemic and reduce fire risks associated with this epidemic. 

Commercial harvest utilizing a viable timber industry is the most efficient means 

to economically treat stands and restore landscapes, while supporting local economies. The Colorado forest industry provides the ability to actively manage vegetation and fuels on National Forest System lands, including salvage of dead and dying 

timber, and proactive treatments to maintain forest health and resilience, with the 

bonus of treating more acres at a lower cost. Employing existing industry, expanding local businesses, and creating local jobs maintains and increases capacity for 

managing the many acres of treatment identified in landscape restoration plans and 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans through a sustained workforce and stewardship capacity in loggers, foresters, saw millers, and truck drivers. Unfortunately, 

these critical land management partners and tools have greatly diminished in other 

regions and states. 

The Region has worked diligently over the past several years to provide timber 

industry relief where possible and to promote healthy forests through active management. We have had challenges of course, and I am well aware that the largest 

mill in the state is still in receivership. 

On August 2, 2011, Forest Service Chief Tidwell authorized the mutual cancellation of certain contracts awarded prior to July 1, 2008. The timber prices paid by 

purchasers prior to the forest products economic decline were higher than the market could bear in recent years. This authority allowed purchasers to mutually cancel 

sales that were no longer economically viable, and provide for continued operation 

of more economically viable timber sales. In total, nine purchasers benefitted from 

this authority regionally and seven benefitted within Colorado. The result is a more 

financially viable industry and maintenance of local jobs, to allow forest management to continue into the future when the market recovers. The Region is evaluating the reoffer potential and developing timelines to reoffer this volume as quickly 

as possible, where viable. 

In summary, the Forest Service will continue to strive to adopt and improve our 

ability to meet our mission of sustaining the health, diversity and productivity of 

the Nation’s forests and grasslands for present and future generations. Doing so will 

require working closely with our partners, including Congress and local governments. 

It is my hope that the information that I have provided covers the interests of 

the Subcommittees with regard to the Forest Service. I thank you for your time and 

availability, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

That concludes my prepared statement. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Jiron. 

At this point I am pleased to turn the gavel over to the distinguished Chairman of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, who will conduct the remainder of the 

hearing. 

Congressman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

That is not in the script. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, it is right here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. But we have other testimony to hear. 

Let me go back to our next witness. Mr. Shoemaker, I would like 

to recognize you, the Executive Director of the Wilderness Workshop for Carbondale, Colorado, to testify. The same rules, 5 minutes, please. 

STATEMENT OF SLOAN SHOEMAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WILDERNESS WORKSHOP, CARBONDALE, COLORADO 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, 

Chairman McClintock, Representative Tipton. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you today. 

36 

I am the director of a local grassroots, community-based, nonprofit conservation organization over in Carbondale, Colorado, over 

the hill from here, and I think today, though, I will speak mostly 

from my experience as the vice-chair of the Colorado Bark Beetle 

Cooperative, which is really most relevant to the issues today. 

I have been with the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative, which is 

a broad, diverse, multi-stakeholder collaborative effort that is 

based in the bark beetle theater over in the 10 counties of Northern Colorado, and it has been self-charged with raising awareness 

about the bark beetle issue starting back in 2006, 2005, when there 

is a famous story about a state legislator who took a bark beetle 

down to the State Legislature in a little vial and he said, ‘‘I’m here 

today to talk about beetles,’’ and the response was ‘‘I don’t understand what a band from England in the ’70s has to do with anything in Colorado.’’ 

The point is that there wasn’t a lot of awareness about the scale 

and the intensiveness of the bark beetle epidemic. 

The Bark Beetle Cooperative has done a great job of raising 

awareness about the scale and the impact that the beetle epidemic 

has had on Northern Colorado, and we have done a great job of 

hammering out agreement across a broad set of stakeholders in 

terms of what the priorities are for addressing those impacts. The 

priorities we identified were protecting life, property, critical community infrastructure, communities, and water supplies. 

We took that broad agreement, which was full spectrum—Nancy 

was at the table, other representatives of the timber industry, and 

some very conservative county commissioners from Grant and 

Jackson County—and we all came to agreement, and we took that 

agreement to Washington, D.C. and were successful in getting a 

whole bunch of money and attention focused on Colorado and addressing impacts to beetles. Something on the order of $70 million 

has resulted from our efforts to build agreement and focus attention on mitigating the impacts to Colorado. 

Fortunately, all that agreement has created a bunch of NEPAready projects that are on the shelf, but only about a quarter of 

those NEPA-ready projects have actually been accomplished. In 

other words, the hold-up there is not agreement, it is not litigation 

or appeals. It is funding to get the projects done. As we heard, the 

lodgepole pine has little market value, and that is a challenge because somehow we have to get these priority life-safety mitigations 

accomplished, but it is hard to do without any funds, and I think 

we would like to see more funds flow to the Forest Service to enable this mitigation work to get done. 

One thing we are focused on also is building what is called a 

zone of agreement. The Governor’s Forest Health Advisory Council 

chartered a group called the Lodgepole Pine Zone of Agreement 

Group to come up with a broad set of principles that outline where 

the agreement is, where the consensus is on how to address 

lodgepole pine. Principally, the purpose of the study was to agree 

on a set of forest management goals and objectives and means of 

achieving them that could be mapped, and wood volume and type 

can be quantified, laying the basis for wood supply certainty. That 

is a quote from the Governor’s Forest Health Advisory Council’s 

charter to the Lodgepole Pine Zone of Agreement Working Group. 

37 

The point is we recognize that you need a certainty of wood supply in order to make an investment decision and to scale up for the 

capital investments, and our contention is that the best way to do 

that is to pull together local collaborative processes, like the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative or the Ponderosa Pine group down in 

Southwest Colorado, or what we will hear from the Uncompahgre 

Partnership group up next, to hammer out what that agreement is, 

and within that zone of agreement you can actually map, then, 

where the wood is, what kind of wood it is, and what kind of value 

it is. That, then, can lay the road map for providing the certainty 

in wood supply over a long period of time. 

I think, in short, collaboration is the grease that can get things 

going. Collaboration is the grease that can get wood products out 

of the wood, into the market, and creating jobs and feeding our 

economies. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shoemaker follows:] 

Statement of Sloan Shoemaker, Executive Director, Wilderness Workshop 

Chairman McClintock and Chairman Bishop, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. 

My name is Sloan Shoemaker and I am the Executive Director of the Wilderness 

Workshop based in Carbondale, CO, just over the pass from where we sit today. 

Wilderness Workshop was founded immediately after the passage of the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 and has since successfully advocated for Congressional designation of 

nearly 500,000 acres on Colorado’s Western Slope. 

But because ecosystems don’t stop at wilderness boundaries, the Wilderness 

Workshop actively engages in the discussion about how the matrix of public lands 

beyond wilderness areas are managed. Our interest is simple—protect the ecological 

integrity of public lands so that the innumerable benefits and ecosystem services 

that flow off of them will continue to undergird the healthy communities and strong 

economies of Colorado’s central mountains. 

That’s why I’ve been engaged with the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative since 

2006. I am currently the President of the CBBC non-profit corporation and vicechair of the Steering Committee. CBBC is a policy level collaborative addressing the 

ecological, social, and economic impacts of the mountain pine beetle outbreak. CBBC 

is comprised of a broad spectrum of stakeholders including the timber industry, forest energy industry, conservation organizations, local government, emergency management, USFS, BLM, Colorado State Forest Service, utilities, private property 

owners, water managers, wildlife managers, interested citizens and more. 

Collaboration is the grease 

CBBC has worked hard to hammer out agreement on priorities for treating the 

affects of the bark beetle epidemic. Those priorities include the protection of life, 

property, communities, critical community infrastructure and water supplies. This 

broad, diverse stakeholder agreement unified the Colorado Congressional Delegation 

behind these mitigation priorities and effectively leveraged agency attention and 

new resources to the state of Colorado. Below is a summary of increased funding 

resulting from CBBC and partners efforts from 2006 to 2010: 

• $12,000,000, Department of Defense via Senate Interior Appropriations Committee 

• $44,550,000, Department of Agriculture via FS 

• $10,000,000, ARRA funding 

• $42,882, National Forest Foundation 

• $50,000, Donations from CBBC members 

• $5,000,000, State of Colorado through passed legislation 

• $300,000, County cost sharing grants 

• $50,000, Colorado State Forest Service revolving loan fund 

CBBC is proud to have raised public, congressional and agency awareness of the 

significant impact that bark beetles are having on our mountain communities. And, 

CBBC is proud that this awareness has translated into chainsaws running in the 

woods to mitigate those impacts. The hard work we’ve done to build consensus has 

leveraged nearly $70,000,000 worth of on-the-ground work that has reduced the hazVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
38 

1 Review of the Forest Service Response: The Bark Beetle Outbreak in Northern Colorado and 

Southern Wyoming. A report by USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and Rocky Mountain Research Station at the request of Senator Mark Udall, September 2011 2 Ibid. 

ards facing our communities, created jobs, and supplied wood to the wood products 

industry. Yet, there’s still a long way to go—as of the end of 2011, less than a quarter of the NEPA ready mitigation work has been accomplished. 

This point bears emphasis. This mitigation work—215,380 WUI acres, 3700 miles 

of roads, 1300 miles of trails, and 460 recreation sites—has cleared NEPA with no 

appeals or litigation. So after three years of an all-hands-on-deck effort, why does 

75–79% of this urgent mitigation work remain unfinished? There’s not enough 

money to get it done. 

What about the market? 

The best and brightest minds in Colorado have been struggling for years to figure 

out how to get this wood to pay its way out of the forest. But, as a 2011 report 1

states: 

Dead standing trees and most green standing trees in the Colorado and 

Wyoming outbreak area have little or no commercial value due to size, condition, accessibility or marketability. In fact, they have negative value because they must be removed at a cost. p. 10 

The economic recession and downturn in the housing market have killed demand 

for structural wood products. And, the longer the beetle killed lodge pole pine 

stands, the more defective it becomes, even further reducing its already marginal 

value. These issues are exacerbated by trade agreement issues with Canada which 

has been dumping its wood products on U.S. markets. Several pellet mills have 

sprung up to seize the opportunity this vast wood supply seemingly presents. But, 

they have limited capacity and... 

...utilization of large quantities of biomass material is still years away. The 

benefit/cost ratio for converting municipalities to biomass-fueled heat or 

power does not favor use of biomass when compared to natural gas because 

natural gas costs less at this time. p. 12 2

The bottom line: there isn’t a market solution for mitigating beetle kill hazards 

in a timely manner. It must be paid for with public funds. There’s more NEPA 

ready work on the shelves, indeed several years worth, than there is money to pay 


74271.004.eps
39 

3 Colorado Governor’s Forest Health Advisory Council, Lodgepole Pine Zone of Agreement 

Working Group Report. April, 2010. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute. 

for it. These means that even the triaged, highest priority human health and safety 

related tree removal isn’t getting done at the necessary pace due to lack of funds. 

It’s ironic that this hearing is titled ‘‘Logs in the Road.’’ The CBBC’s collaborative 

efforts to build consensus around mitigation priorities cleared the road for the USFS 

to launch a vast hazard tree mitigation effort across the three national forests in 

the beetle theater. The USFS calculates 25 acres of tree mitigation per road mile 

making this a 92,500 acre linear clearcut. In a previous day, clearcutting 92,500 

acres across 3 national forests would be tangled up in appeals and litigation for 

years. But this NEPA sailed through. Unfortunately, only 600 miles have been 

treated to date and the agency is struggling to find the funds to keep moving forward. Given that an estimated 100,000 trees are falling per day in Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming, there will literally be logs in the roads...not as a result 

of excessive litigation or red tape...but due to lack of funding. Downsized government has come home to roost. 

Industry and Zones of Agreement 

Though today’s economics work against a robust timber and wood products industry in Colorado, it is critical that industry remain viable and at the table as it will 

play a key role in on-going forest management. Colorado will never be a major timber production state. Our growing seasons are too short and our wood quality is too 

poor to ever support a massive timber program. However, there is room for appropriately scaled industry. In fact, industry is essential to helping meet mitigation and 

restoration goals. But, how much industry is enough? 

One promising way to answer that is to work within the collaborative framework 

to identify a zone of agreement (ZOA). Industry needs certainty upon which to build 

a business plan. The ZOA can provide that certainty. If all stakeholders can agree 

on a set of forest management goals and objectives and the means of achieving 

them, that agreement can be mapped and wood volume/type can be quantified, laying the basis for wood supply certainty. Industry can then scale and invest appropriate to this supply over the long term. 

The recently disbanded Colorado Governor’s Forest Health Advisory Council chartered the Lodgepole Pine Zone of Agreement Working Group in April 2010. ‘‘The underlying purpose...is to help the FHAC better understand what wood supply would 

be available to sustain wood industries in the LPP zone over the long-term, not just 

during the period of salvaging standing dead trees.’’ 3 Due to time and resource limitations, the LPP ZOA group stopped short of a fine filter quantification of wood supply across the LPP zone. However, it did develop a process framework for converting 

the philosophical ZOA into an operational ZOA using Summit County as a case 

study. 

While this approach may seem time intensive and unwieldy, sometimes we have 

to go slow to go fast. The most valuable lesson learned from the numerous 

collaboratives around the state is that time invested upfront to build trust, deepen 

communication, explore differences and hammer out agreements expedites projects 

to the ground and creates the climate of certainty necessary to sustain a robust but 

appropriately scaled industry. Effective collaboration can improve the rate of implementation more effectively than trying to reduce environmental reviews and public 

involvement. The formula is simple; develop locally-relevant science within a solid 

collaborative process thoroughly supported by local agency and community leadership to arrive at a strategy that does not result in appeals or litigation—science, 

collaboration, and leadership. 

Protecting water supplies 

Millions of people rely on water from watersheds now dominated by beetle killed 

lodgepole pine trees. Given how vast the epidemic is and how few resources are 

available to address its impacts, a strategically targeted approach to protecting 

water supplies is imperative. The first order of business is to treat hazard trees that 

threaten to fall on or block water delivery infrastructure. This infrastructure is 

readily locatable and hazardous trees that threaten it can be readily identifiable and 

treated. Hazard tree removal also reduces fuel loading around infrastructure to reduce or eliminate direct impacts from wildfire. 

A larger and more worrisome threat is posed by the risk of massive post-fire debris flows. This threat isn’t restricted to beetle killed forests. Any fire dependent forest will eventually burn, posing the same debris flow hazard to reservoirs and the 

water supply system. Again, because of the scale of the potential problem and the 

40 

4Front Range Watershed Protection, Data Refinement Work Group. Protecting Critical Watersheds In Colorado From Wildfire: A Technical Approach To Watershed Assessment And 

Prioritization, Executive Summary, February 2009, p. 2. 5Western Bark Beetle Strategy—Human Safety, Recovery and Resiliency, U.S. Forest Service, 

July 11, 2011, p. 4 6 Ibid. p.4 

fact that predicting where the next fire will be is impossible, a targeted and strategic approach that will give the most bang for the buck is warranted. 

A group of scientists, land managers and water suppliers was convened in the fall 

of 2007 to examine ways to protect Front Range water supplies. The Data Refinement Work Group was formed with the purpose to ‘‘identify and prioritize those watersheds that provide or convey water used by communities and municipalities. This 

identification of watersheds will, in turn, assist in prioritizing watersheds for hazard 

reduction treatments or other watershed protection measures.’’ 4 Four components 

were identified to assess watershed risks. They are: 

• wildfire hazard 

• flooding or debris flow hazard 

• soil erodibility 

• water uses ranking 

These layers are then overlain to develop a composite hazard ranking. 

This watershed assessment methodology identifies and prioritizes sixth-level watersheds based upon risks to water supplies posed by debris flows and increased 

sediment yields following wildfires that could have impacts and is intended to be 

the first phase of the process. It results in the identification of Zones of Concern 

that warrant a closer look. Because the data is too coarse at the 6th level watershed 

scale, the next step is convening local stakeholders with expert knowledge of the watershed to focus at a finer scale on these Zones of Concern. This will result in identification of specific treatment areas, methods and priorities for on-the-ground 

projects. Having been fairly widely vetted, there’s general consensus and comfort 

that this strategic approach to water supply protection has great merit, especially 

in time when resources are few and priorities must be identified to yield the most 

efficient use of the very limited resources available. Because this methodology is scientifically sound and enjoys broad support, resulting projects are likely to be 

uncontroversial and the biggest barrier to implementation is likely to be funding. 

How did we get here and what happens next? 

No discussion of the bark beetle epidemic is complete without reflecting on how 

we got here and looking forward at what future forests might look like. 

Across vast acres in the West, even-aged stands of pine forests have formed 

as a result of years of fire suppression and large-scale, intense logging at 

the turn of the century. Many of these tree species life histories are fireadapted, and lodgepole pine, for example, naturally regenerates in the presence of fire. These homogeneous and overly dense forests have provided an 

extensive food source for beetles, and they have responded with large population build-ups. In addition, climate change has resulted in warmer winters that have not been cold enough to reduce beetle populations. This phenomenon, combined with multi-year drought, has allowed beetles to proliferate at higher elevations and latitudes and has resulted in more beetle 

generations per year in some areas.5

This intersection of macro-scale factors has allowed the beetle outbreak to cross 

a threshold, blooming into an epidemic at a scale impossible to stop. It seems each 

successive generation must relearn this lesson. 

Forest managers threw everything they had at the spruce bark beetle outbreak 

on the Flattops in the 1940–50s to no avail. The mountain pine beetle got a head 

of steam in the 1970s and managers tried to cut their way ahead of it, again to no 

avail. Some long time Forest Service personnel relate that they’ve been fighting the 

beetle and losing their entire careers. When the public first started becoming aware 

of the current epidemic, the cry went up to fight the beetle and do everything in 

our power to stop it. ‘‘Six or eight years ago, we were under a lot of public pressure 

to stop the beetles from spreading further,’’ says Steve Currey, director of bark beetle operations on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests in Colorado and Wyoming. ‘‘Now people understand that this thing is too big, and really impossible to 

stop.’’ 6

The beetle killed LPP forests are routinely referred to as devastated but this characterization misunderstands what is actually happening. While the millions of acres 

of dead LPP are visually arresting, this isn’t an ecological disaster. LPP is an early 

successional species that co-evolved with this sort of disturbance and consequently 

41 

7 Rocca, Monique E. and Romme, William H., Beetle-infested forests are not ‘‘destroyed,’’in 

Frontiers in Ecology. The Ecological Society of America, publisher. P. 71. 8 Bark Beetles and Fire: Two Forces of Nature Transforming Western Forests. Fire Science 

Digest, Issue 12. February 2012. p.6. 9 Cohen, J. D. (2000). Preventing disaster, home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. 

Journal of Forestry 98(3): 15–21. 

regenerates quite well. The beetle attacked the larger, overstory trees killing many 

but not all. Mortality has been heterogeneous, with isolated pure LPP stands showing 100% mortality while others retain a significant amount of surviving large canopy trees. These survivors lay the foundation for a structurally diverse, mixed age 

class future forest. 

The beetles have selectively killed the larger trees, whereas most smaller 

trees and saplings have survived. Often obscured by the red crowns of the 

larger dead or dying trees, small trees usually are at least as abundant in 

a surviving understory as dead trees are in the overstory. All of these diverse stand structures are grouped together, however, in the reported acreages of ‘‘destroyed’’ forest.7

Further, shade tolerant species like Engelmann Spruce, sub-alpine fir, and Douglas fir have established in the understory of what from a distance look like homogenous LPP forests. Also, aspen trees are now showing up in places where previously 

there was a homogenous stand of LPP. With the removal of a live overstory, these 

suppressed understory species are released and thriving on the newly abundant resources (water, sunlight and nutrients) available to them. This advanced regeneration is the future forest already established, ensuring that future forests will be 

much more heterogeneous and diverse than the one it’s replacing. 

Whole books could be written about future fire behavior in the beetle killed LPP. 

There’s understandable concern about fire severity and rate of spread in the vast 

dead LPP forest. But, researchers are demonstrating that it’s much more complicated than the simplistic equation that dead trees equal greater fire hazard. 

Studies show that wind, temperature and humidity have a greater impact of fire 

behavior than the structural changes wrought by beetles. ‘‘It’s important to remember that nobody is saying beetle-killed forests won’t burn,’’ Turner says. ‘‘They will 

burn perfectly well. The point is that they will burn no more severely than a comparable green forest.’’ 8 The point is that local ecological context and climatic conditions the day of burn matter and broad generalizations serve no purpose. In any 

case, the fact remains that the highest probability for surviving wildfires lays in 

treating the fuels within 40 meters or so of structures at risk.9 If I was a local fire 

chief, I’d be more focused on educating residents in my district about the common 

sense measures they can take to protect the Home Ignition Zone than the condition 

of fuels in the backcountry. 

CBBC has chartered a special Future Forests Committee tasked with developing 

a nuanced understanding of the variability in numbers, sizes, and species of surviving trees and the species diversity and distribution of natural regeneration to get 

a handle on what future forests will look like if left alone. Armed with this understanding, the committee will then initiate a dialog with local communities to explore 

what their vision for future forests is. Comparing that vision to the trajectory forests 

are naturally on will reveal areas of conflict where desired future conditions diverge 

from the forest’s trajectory. This will then inform where forest management actions 

in the mid- to long-term must occur to reset the forest trajectory towards the desired 

future condition. 

Is NEPA a log in the road? 

A 2003 GAO report to Congress found that only 3% of hazardous fuels reduction 

projects in 2001–02 were litigated affecting only 100,000 acres of the 4.7 million 

acres authorized by NEPA decisions in those years. 

A 2010 GAO report to Congress found that only 2% of hazardous fuels reduction 

projects in 2006–08 were litigated affecting only 124,000 acres of the 10.5 million 

acres authorized by NEPA decisions in those years. 

Congress recently attached a rider to the FY12 omnibus spending bill that the 

President signed into law requiring a fast-track process that limits citizen participation by applying the streamlined HFRA pre-decisional objection process to every 

project implementing a Forest Plan. The rider provides: 

FOREST SERVICE PRE–DECISIONAL OBJECTION PROCESS 

SEC. 428. Hereafter, upon issuance of final regulations, the Secretary of 

Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall apply section 105(a) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 15 

6515(a)), providing for a pre-decisional objection process, to proposed acVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
42 

tions of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing 

land and resource management plans developed under the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et 

seq.), and documented with a Record of Decision or Decision Notice, in lieu 

of subsections (e), (d), and (e) of section 322 of Public Law 102–381 (16 

U.S.C. 23 1612 note), providing for an administrative appeal process: 

Provided, That if the Chief of the Forest Service determines an emergency 

situation exists for which immediate implementation of a proposed action 

is necessary, the proposed action shall not be subject to the pre-decisional 

objection process, and implementation shall begin immediately after the 

Forest Service gives notice of the final decision for the proposed action: Provided further, That this section shall not apply to an authorized hazardous 

fuel reduction project under title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.). 

This is an extreme fix for what is apparently more a problem in lore than reality. 

This is especially troubling because NEPA is essentially conservative in intent—it 

seeks to hold the government accountable to its citizens. Insulating government 

from review just means making government less accountable. Further streamlining 

of NEPA has the perverse effect of allowing government bureaucrats in DC to get 

away with whatever they want with less public oversight and accountability. 

NEPA allows everyone to participate, gives everyone a voice, and opens the courthouse door to all who would hold the government accountable. And, NEPA isn’t biased towards one side or the other and provides the opportunity for everyone to 

have a voice based on the study process required by NEPA. While the conservation 

community is well known for its skillful engagement in the NEPA process, here are 

two examples of where miners successfully navigated the NEPA process. 

This year, an individual uranium prospector filed suit against DOI for putting 1 

million acres of lands off-limits to mining near the Grand Canyon. He didn’t even 

have a lawyer. What he had was NEPA, which permitted him to provide comments 

to the agency showing why he thought uranium mining could occur without harming the environment. And it gave him rights when he thought BLM had broken the 

law. While I don’t agree with the substance of his suit, I will defend his right to 

intervene in the process. What could be more American than a single individual trying to hold the government accountable? Should we make it even harder for him— 

and for others—to do so? 

Another mining interest used the NEPA process to challenge and enjoin a uranium leasing program they felt wronged by. A key point to the NEPA injunction 

issued by Judge Martinez on the DOE uranium leasing program is that the problems at the lease sites and the narrow analysis carried out by private contractors 

were brought to the DOE’s attention in 2006. Instead of taking public input seriously, DOE kept its head in the sand and is now addressing these issues pursuant 

to court order and oversight. Judge Martinez agreed that DOE failed to comply with 

NEPA which never would have happened if the public was denied the right to appeal and litigate. From the conservation community’s perspective, there are a few 

key factors at play that result in project level NEPA delaying on-the-ground action. 

The lengths entrenched agencies go to avoid disclosure of serious problems is a real 

culprit. Litigation does not succeed unless an agency truly botches the job. 

Outsourcing the job to government contractors with deep ties to industry is also a 

key failure. Our federal agency experts should be doing the analysis, not industry. 

Further, agencies can be their own worst enemies, turning a simple NEPA process 

into an analysis black hole. Our experience suggests that this results from agencies 

trying to make appeal proof NEPA documents for controversial or unjustifiable 

projects. As discussed above, a more effective and efficient way to avoid appeals and 

expedite projects to the ground is through upfront collaboration to build the agreement that allows projects to sail out the back end uncontested. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

We will next hear from Ms. Leigh Robertson, who is a grant writer for the Education Outreach Coordinator, and this is why I got 

the gavel now, so I can pronounce this word. Uncompahgre? 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Uncompahgre. 

Mr. BISHOP. Fine, OK. Uncompahgre. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. You don’t have that word in Utah, I’m sorry. 

The Uncompahgre Partnership from Ridgway, Colorado. 

43 

You have 5 minutes, ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF LEIGH ROBERTSON, GRANTWRITER, EDUCATION/OUTREACH COORDINATOR, UNCOMPAHGRE PARTNERSHIP, RIDGWAY, COLORADO 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Thank you, Congressmen, for this opportunity 

to testify. As you mentioned, I represent Uncompahgre Com, a nonprofit that promotes forest health in ways that provide positive impacts on local economic, cultural and ecological values. We are also 

a partner in the Western Colorado Landscape Collaborative, along 

with local offices of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Western Area Power Administration, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association. 

Our local collaborative is working hard to improve the resiliency of 

our forests, and I would like to share some information about this 

valuable model. 

To give an example, in July of 2002 the Burn Canyon Fire 

charred over 30,000 acres. The Forest Service made plans for a salvage logging sale in the canyon after the fire. Environmental 

groups were concerned about the potential for ecological damage 

from logging operations. By discussing the issues and working together, various interested parties were able to come up with a winwin solution. This included developing a multi-party monitoring 

partnership to determine the impacts of salvage logging. This 

stopped appeals by environmental groups of two other timber sales 

within the canyon and helped two small, local timber companies 

stay in business. As a result, harvesting and processing of wood 

products resulted in an estimated return of over $1,460,000. In addition, logging, trucking and sawmill businesses spent over 

$770,000 in the region for goods and services. 

Another example is the Uncompahgre Plateau Collaborative 

Forest Restoration Program. By involving local stakeholders early 

on in the planning process, environmental concerns were addressed, and there were no appeals of the NEPA document, which 

has resulted in several stewardship contracts. This environmental 

assessment has led to over 29,000 hundred cubic feet of timber to 

local mills and has provided 229 part- and full-time jobs. 

In addition, we’ve worked with partners such as WAPA and TriState when planning forest treatments. This has resulted in larger 

and more effective treatments that reduce the likelihood of 

wildfires destroying power lines and the associated disruption of 

power and communication to thousands of people, property damage, and possible loss of human life. These treatments also improve 

wildlife habitat and forest diversity. So far, over 2,000 acres of 

power line treatments have been accomplished. 

Currently, the Forest Service and local partners are planning for 

the next phase of the CFLR project. The NEPA document for the 

Escalante Project Area will cover approximately 142,000 acres. 

There are a number of benefits to planning for large landscapes 

such as this: the ability to implement many forest treatments 

under one NEPA document, which provides for greater efficiency 

and coordination. Wildlife, recreation, industry and environmental 

concerns can all be effectively addressed and resolved up front with 

stakeholders. The more profitable treatments, such as logging of 

44 

spruce trees, can help offset the costs of ecosystem restoration 

treatments, such as the thinning of small-diameter pine trees, 

which are not profitable to log commercially. Money can be leveraged among several partners, and projects can be planned to keep 

naturally ignited fires compartmentalized between treated areas 

and existing roads. 

While we have been able to work successfully within existing environmental regulations, we do see other areas that could be improved. This includes increasing the authority of local land managers to move on projects and collaborate with other partners, and 

other items mentioned in my written testimony. We encourage 

Congress to keep supporting collaboration, such as through continued funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program. The CFLR Program not only encourages local stakeholder 

involvement, but also promotes sharing of knowledge among the 

various projects across the U.S., which improves efficiency. 

I would also like to mention that the collaborative work we are 

doing with Tri-State and WAPA is so unique that the transmission 

forum members from Canada, the United States and Mexico will 

be meeting this September in Montrose to learn about this effective 

model. This kind of partnership between the utilities, Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife, Uncompahgre Com, the BLM and Forest Service can only continue to grow if collaboration is encouraged and 

supported in the Federal agencies. 

I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Robertson follows:] 

Statement of Leigh Robertson, Education/Outreach Coordinator, 

Uncompahgre/Com, Inc. 

Congressmen, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

My name is Leigh Robertson, and I represent Uncompahgre Com, a nonprofit that 

promotes forest health in ways that provide positive impacts on local economic, cultural and ecological values. We are also a partner in the Western Colorado Landscape Collaborative, along with local offices of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Western Area Power Administration and 

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association. 

Our local collaborative is working hard to improve the resiliency of our forests, 

and I would like to share some information about this valuable model. 

To give an example, in July of 2002 the Burn Canyon Fire charred over 30,000 

acres. The Forest Service made plans for a salvage logging sale in the canyon after 

the fire. Environmental groups were concerned about the potential for ecological 

damage from logging operations. By discussing the issues and working together, 

various interested parties were able to come up with a win-win solution. This included developing a multi-party monitoring partnership to determine the impacts of 

salvage logging and preventing one timber sale located on steep land that would 

have required the construction of new roads. This stopped appeals by environmental 

groups of two other timber sales within the canyon and helped two small, local timber companies stay in business. As a result, harvesting and processing of wood products resulted in an estimated return of over $1,460,000. In addition, logging, trucking and sawmill businesses spent over $770,000 in the region for goods and services. 

Another example is the Uncompahgre Plateau Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program (CFLRP). By involving local stakeholders early on in the planning process, environmental concerns were addressed, and there were no appeals of 

the NEPA document which has resulted in several Stewardship contracts. This Environmental Assessment has led to over 29,000 ccf of timber to local mills and has 

provided 229 part and full-time jobs. 

In addition, we’ve worked with partners such as the WAPA and Tri-State when 

planning forest treatments. This has resulted in larger and more effective treatments that reduce the likelihood of wildfires destroying power lines and the associated disruption of power to thousands of people, property damage, and possible loss 

45 

of human life. These treatments also improve wildlife habitat and forest diversity. 

So far, over 2,000 acres of power line treatments have been accomplished. 

Currently, the Forest Service and local partners are planning for the next phase 

of the CFLR project. The NEPA document for the Escalante Project Area will cover 

approximately 142,000 acres. There are a number of benefits to planning for large 

landscapes such as this: • The ability to implement many forest treatments under one NEPA document, 

which provides for greater efficiency and coordination • Wildlife, recreation, industry and environmental concerns can all be effectively discussed and resolved up front with stakeholders • The more profitable treatments, such as logging of spruce trees, can help offset the costs of ecosystem restoration treatments, such as the thinning of 

small diameter pine trees—which are not profitable to log commercially • Money can be leveraged among several partners, and • Projects can be planned to keep naturally-ignited fires compartmentalized between treated areas and existing roads. 

While we have been able to work successfully within existing environmental regulations, we do see other areas that could be improved. These improvements could 

include: • Getting federal budgets to the local field offices before the end of the current 

fiscal year. • Increasing the authority of local land managers to move on projects and to 

collaborate with other partners, • and other items mentioned in my written testimony. 

We would encourage Congress to keep supporting collaboration, such as through 

continued funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. The 

CFLR Program not only encourages local stakeholder involvement, but also promotes sharing of knowledge among the various projects across the U.S., which improves efficiency. 

Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. 

Further suggestions for things that could be improved: • Currently, collaborators can only request federal funds 30 days before they 

will be used. It can be very hard to predict when funds will be needed due 

to factors such as weather and contractor’s schedules. It would be helpful if 

the local forest supervisor had the ability to extend that time up to 90 days. • Ongoing changes in policies and new regulations can have a dramatic effect 

on local offices—reducing efficiencies, morale and employee production. • The Forest Service often values timber too high, which can prevent local contractors from bidding on timber sales. It makes more sense to listen to the 

local timber industry reps and see what price is economically feasible. If the 

Forest Service keeps the valuation a little lower, industry contractors can bid 

up the price. 

• The recently added additional layer in the state BLM organization causes less 

efficiency and hinders local managers in moving effectively to meet their land 

management objectives. We’d rather see that money going to add more fieldlevel employees. 

• Additional regulations imposed on collaborators (in formal participating 

agreements) increase costs for these organizations. This makes it very challenging in this economy. 

Other Comments: 

• We don’t see any need to circumvent the NEPA process. Logging of beetlekilled trees could have detrimental environmental affects in some areas, so 

the process provides necessary safeguards. If planning efforts include stakeholders in the early stages, appeals can often be prevented. 

• The collaborative approach mentioned above, e.g., involving stakeholders and 

working across large landscapes is also effective in other areas, such as coordinated weed management and the Colorado Plateau-wide native plant program. 

• In addition to the Forest Service, the BLM has been an important partner 

in this process, e.g., many power line treatments were conducted on BLM 

land. 

• Another critical component of our success has been the use of the various 

funding sources in implementing programs across agency boundaries to benefit our broad landscape approach to healthy public lands. 

• We applaud your efforts to get out to local communities to hear the issues 

of concern, since each locale has their own specific challenges. As you can see, 

the need to log beetle-killed pine to improve forest health isn’t an issue on 

the Uncompahgre Plateau. Here, pine trees aren’t even a species that local 

46 

loggers and mills want to buy. Spruce is the tree that is economically feasible 

to log and mill. That said, we are doing all we can to: 

Æ improve forest resiliency to minimize future outbreaks of insect infestations and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires, and 

Æ provide local jobs, recreational opportunities, and move towards ecosystem health in a collaborative, science-based manner. 

We encourage Congress to continue supporting this effective approach. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, and I will say Uncompahgre properly 

from now on, because I will never say it again. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Thank you. 

We will next turn to Mr. Downie, who is the David—no. Yes, Mr. 

Downie, one page too soon. The Director of the Vegetation Management and Ancillary Service Program for Xcel Corporation, from 

Denver, Colorado. 

STATEMENT OF JIM DOWNIE, DIRECTOR, VEGETATION 

MANAGEMENT AND ANCILLARY SERVICES PROGRAM, XCEL 

ENERGY, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. DOWNIE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective. Public 

Service Company of Colorado is the largest investor-owned utility 

in Colorado, with approximately 1.7 million customers. In Colorado 

we have approximately 4000 miles of electric transmission lines, of 

which 760 are on U.S. Forest Service lands. 

My remarks will focus on the ongoing efforts by Xcel Energy to 

maintain its electric transmission rights-of-way as required by the 

Colorado PUC and in compliance with Federal regulators to better 

ensure the safe, reliable delivery of electricity while taking into 

consideration the Forest Service’s efforts to ensure forest health, 

and the very real challenges of both Xcel and the Forest Service 

face every day in advancing these efforts. 

To put the utility issue in perspective, it is important to understand that, although utility corridors make up less than 1 percent 

of acreage involved in the current MPB epidemic in Colorado, the 

impact of one tree coming into contact with electric lines starting 

a fire, or a wildfire damaging or destroying transmission lines 

could have far-reaching consequences for many residents of Colorado and perhaps other states. 

We have long worked in partnership with the Forest Service to 

perform vegetation management around electric facilities located 

on Federal lands and more recently with collaborative groups like 

the CBBC. 

Despite this, challenges remain. There are three main operational challenges, all with ties to overall forest health. First is 

NERC implemented the Vegetation Management Standard in 2007 

in response to the 2003 Northeast blackout. Essentially, this standard has a zero tolerance for tree-related outages. The most practical and cost-effective way for us to ensure that doesn’t happen is 

to remove all incompatible vegetation from rights-of-way. 

But essentially, the issue is we have FERC and NERC saying 

don’t have any tree outages, and sometimes the Forest Service and, 

more importantly, their critics saying that we want trees there, 

maybe to screen the lines so you can’t see it and that kind of stuff. 

47 

So we have competing Federal mandates and inconsistent policies 

impacting national lands. Our progress on Federal lands has been 

inconsistent, ranging from removal of incompatible vegetation to 

limited removal. 

The second issue is, beginning in 2008, the impact of unprecedented levels of mountain pine beetle activity left thousands of 

dead trees within striking distance of our facilities. We have managed that very successfully. We have removed about 200,000 trees 

in the last several years. They were all hazard trees, and we greatly appreciate the assistance the forest has been able to provide regarding this, but we are all frustrated by legal and regulatory constraints that prevent us from performing this work more efficiently, 

effectively and safely. 

The last issue is the bark beetle infestations have brought about 

an awareness of the potential for radiant heat that can damage 

and destroy transmission structures. In the MPB epidemic area 

alone, 76 percent of our transmission structures are made out of either wood or aluminum, which obviously are very sensitive to heat. 

Some transmission lines are more critical than others, with many 

providing electricity to hundreds of thousands of customers. 

In the event of a fire, transmission lines can be short-circuited 

by smoke. This is usually a short-term problem. However, if a fire 

completely destroys structures, the loss of the lines ability to serve 

electricity can be long-term. In other words, it is out of service until 

we can repair it or rebuild it. Losing multiple structures or more 

than one transmission line at the same time from fires can create 

an even greater challenge for our customers. 

We are keenly aware that the challenges facing our company are 

occurring in the context of a much larger one the Forest Service 

faces with regard to forest health. We are most appreciative of the 

leadership shown by the Forest Service to address the situation, 

and we also are very appreciative of the leadership shown in the 

Congress by the two committees represented here, as well as Senator Udall and his tireless efforts on the matter. 

In seeking to address the situation in the long term, it has become clear to us that existing Federal laws are a significant barrier 

to enabling the Forest Service and utilities like us to work together 

in a comprehensive way to address the two main challenges, which 

are again trees coming in contact with the lines and the potential 

for wildfire damage. 

The moment we step onto lands outside the rights-of-way, we 

face a significant legal challenge. The property is owned and managed by the Forest Service, and the utilities are not the stewards 

of these lands. The challenge is that such lands are now impacting 

our infrastructure, which is critical to the health, safety and welfare of our modern society. Although we do not have the legal control for these areas outside our permits, some have argued that 

utilities like ours should somehow be responsible for the conditions 

that were created by events wholly outside of our control. 

In sum, the laws and regulations governing forest management 

do not provide flexibility for the Forest Service and companies like 

ours to effectively and efficiently and safely address forest health/ 

fuels treatments in areas immediately adjacent to our rights-of-way 

and sometimes on the right-of-way. One needs to look no further 

48 

than right here where, as Ms. Robertson and Mr. Jiron have noted, 

there are some great projects and great success stories with WAPA 

and Tri-State working on Forest Service lands and leaving a really 

great end product. 

Because of that common interest, addressing this matter in such 

a way where we can access these areas in a swift but limited manner, without shouldering extensive liability, we believe should be a 

priority. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to share our views. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Downie follows:] 

Statement of James S. Downie, Director, 

Vegetation Management & Ancillary Programs, Xcel Energy 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee 

Good Morning, My name is James S. Downie. I am the director of vegetation management and ancillary programs for Public Service of Colorado, which is an Xcel Energy company. Today I am representing Xcel Energy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective. 

Company Overview 

Xcel Energy is an investor-owned electricity and natural gas company with regulated operations in eight Midwestern and Western states. Based in Minneapolis, 

Minn., we provide a comprehensive portfolio of energy-related products and services 

to approximately 3.4 million electricity customers and 1.9 million natural gas customers through our four wholly owned utility subsidiaries (Public Service of Colorado, Northern States Power –Minnesota; Northern States Power-Wisconsin; Southwestern Public Service). 

In Colorado, we are the largest investor owned utility with approximately 1.7M 

residential, commercial and industrial customers. 

In Colorado we have approximately 4000 miles of high voltage overhead electric 

transmission lines that serve large load centers, of which 760 are on U.S. Forest 

Service Lands. Statewide we have approximately 10,000 miles of distribution lines 

that serve primarily residential customers, of which 134 are on U.S. Forest Service 

lands. 

My remarks will focus on the ongoing efforts by Xcel Energy to maintain its electric transmission rights-of-way as required by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and in compliance with federal regulators to better ensure the safe, reliable delivery of electricity while taking into consideration the Forest Service’s efforts to ensure forest health—and the very real challenges both Xcel Energy and the Forest 

Service face every day in advancing these efforts. To put the utility issue in perspective it is important to understand that, although utility corridors make up less than 

one percent of acreage involved with the current mountain pine beetle epidemic in 

Colorado, the impact of one tree coming into contact with an electric line starting 

a fire, or a wildfire damaging or destroying high voltage transmission lines could 

have far reaching consequences for many residents of Colorado and perhaps other 

states. 

Vegetation Management on Public Lands: Opportunities, Challenges And 

Barriers 

We have long worked in partnership with the Forest Service to perform vegetation 

management around electric transmission and distribution facilities located on federal lands and more recently with collaborative groups like the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative (CBBC). 

Despite this, challenges remain on the relatively small footprint utility corridors 

make within the total acreage of the Forest. There are three main operational challenges, all with ties to overall forest health: 

1. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) implemented 

the Vegetation Management Standard (FAC–003–1) in 2007 as a response to 

issues highlighted by the 2003 Northeast Blackout, which was initiated by 

transmission lines sagging into the tops of trees. This Standard generally 

sets a ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ for any tree related outages from trees located within 

the existing right-of-way on lines >200kV. The most practical and cost-effective way to meet both the letter and spirit of this Standard is to remove all 

incompatible vegetation from these rights-of-way and implement a long-term 

49 

integrated vegetation management approach to this work that is environmentally responsible and sustainable. Xcel Energy has a program designed 

to accomplish this task and hundreds of thousands of incompatible trees 

have been removed from our rights-of-way in all eight states in the past five 

years, on both private and public lands. However, due to competing federal 

mandates and inconsistent policies impacting national lands, our progress on 

federal lands has been inconsistent, ranging from complete removal of incompatible vegetation to limited removal. 

2. Beginning in 2008 the impact of unprecedented levels of bark beetle activity 

left thousands of dead trees within striking distance of our facilities. Xcel 

Energy has successfully used emerging technologies such as LiDAR and near 

infrared imagery to better manage this threat, both on and off the right-ofway, removing approximately two-hundred thousand hazard trees on both 

electric distribution and transmission facilities in the past several years. We 

greatly appreciate the assistance the Forest has been able to provide regarding this issue to date. However, we are all frustrated by legal and regulatory 

constraints that prevent us from performing this work more efficiently, effectively and safely. 

3. Bark beetle infestations have brought about an awareness of the potential 

for radiant heat that can damage and destroy transmission structures in the 

event of a wildfire and thus highlights two needs from our perspective: 

a. Reducing ground fuel load within 50–60 feet of wood and aluminum 

structures and maintaining it below an acceptable threshold. 

b. Reducing the potential for damage to structures from crowning fires by 

reducing crown closure on portions of the forest adjacent to these structures. 

We note that the above measures are estimates and they cannot guarantee that 

facilities will not be damaged by radiant heat in the event of a fire. 

Of particular concern to us is that approximately 76 percent of the structures 

located within the current mountain pine beetle epidemic area are constructed 

of wood and aluminum. In addition, we recognize that the threat of radiant heat 

damage from wildfires may exist outside the epidemic area. 

Some transmission lines are more critical than others, with many providing electricity to hundreds of thousands of residential, commercial and industrial customers. 

In the event of a fire, transmission lines can be short-circuited by smoke. This 

is usually short-term problem. However, if a wildfire completely destroys structures, 

the loss of the lines ability to serve electricity can be long-term (i.e. out of service 

until the line is repaired or rebuilt). For example, during the 2002 Hayman fire 

Public Service Company lost one structure on a 230kV line near Cheeseman Reservoir. Because of the remote location, terrain and access restrictions it took about 

a week to replace this structure and get the line back in service. Losing multiple 

structures or more than one transmission line at the same time from fires could create even greater challenges to serve our customers. 

We are keenly aware that the challenges facing our company are occurring in the 

context of a much larger one the Forest Service faces with regard to forest health 

and fuels treatment work. We are most appreciative of the leadership shown by the 

Forest Service to address the situation and we also are very appreciative of the leadership shown in the Congress, both by the two committees represented here as well 

as Senator Udall and his tireless efforts on the matter of bark beetle infestation 

across Colorado. 

Indeed, but for the collective leadership of the Congress and the agency, the situation would no doubt be considerably more dire than it is today. 

In seeking to address the situation in the long term, it has become clear to us 

that existing federal laws are a significant barrier to enabling the Forest Service 

and utilities like us to work together in a comprehensive way to address two main 

challenges. First is the reduction of the ever present potential for hazard tree contact and wildfire damage risk to electric facilities throughout the state of Colorado. 

Second is the ability for utilities to efficiently and effectively ensure compliance with 

federal regulations. 

Here is why: we are issued permits to access the rights-of-way, for the purposes 

of maintaining our lines, including the sometimes limited removal of incompatible 

vegetation. In short, with the permits, we have the authority to manage those portions of Forest Service lands to some degree. 

However, the moment we step onto lands outside the rights-of-way, we face a significant legal challenge—the property is owned and managed by the Forest Service 

and the utilities are not the stewards of these lands. The challenge is that such 

lands are now impacting our infrastructure, which is critical to the health, safety 

and welfare of modern society. Although we do not have the legal control for these 

50 

areas outside our permits, some have argued that utilities like ours should somehow 

be responsible for the conditions that were created by events wholly outside of our 

control. 

The challenge we face, however, as alluded to earlier, is that such a situation creates potentially significant liabilities for us and our customers—while at the same 

time limiting our ability to efficiently and effectively address potential threats. The 

result: we are not in complete control of our own destiny in terms of providing electricity service, yet we and our customers could well be punished for it through higher costs and lost electricity supply should a fire on public lands destroy or damage 

our lines. 

To be clear, we recognize that the Forest Service, too, is often limited to where, 

and how often, they can get to these areas due to a number of factors, not the least 

of which is limited resources. 

In sum, the laws and regulations governing forest management do not provide 

flexibility for the Forest Service and companies like ours—and our contractors—to 

effectively, efficiently and safely address forest health/fuels treatments in the areas 

immediately adjacent to our rights of ways and sometimes on the right-of-way (e.g. 

use of mechanized equipment which in some areas is welcomed and other areas 

shunned). The potential impacts of this are clear. 

For utilities, the Forest Service and collaborative groups like the CBBC there is 

a real intersection of protecting the public interest here. 

Because of that common interest, addressing this matter in such a way where we 

can access these areas in a swift but limited manner, without shouldering extensive 

liability, we believe should be a priority. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the chance to share our views. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. BISHOP. We now turn to Mr. Dodd, who is with the Enviro 

Land Management from Whitewater, Colorado. 

You are still with us even though you don’t have a name tag. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID DODD, ENVIRO LAND MANAGEMENT, 

LLC, WHITEWATER, COLORADO 

Mr. DODD. OK. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, 

Chairman Bishop and McClintock and Representative Tipton. We 

really appreciate you being here. It is really a breath of fresh air 

to get someone on the same side that we have been on for the last 

20 years. 

My name is David Dodd. We own DDI Equipment. We started in 

1978 in Steamboat Springs. We started out selling forestry equipment, and then we later moved to Grand Junction. 

In 2001, we seen that the forestry sawmills were closing and 

there was a real negative impact on the ability to obtain sawlogs 

from the Forest Service. So we started a company called Enviro 

Land Management, and that company was designed to go in and 

service. At the time, we thought because of the lack of management 

on the U.S. Forest Service ground, that there was going to be an 

opportunity to go in and actually be paid to work and service, 

which we are right now, the thinnings and the removal of product. 

So at this point in time, we have about 15 full-time employees, 

and then we have, maybe in peak season, which we are approaching now, we might have 25. We have a modest fleet of equipment 

with fellers, bunchers, forwarders, log trucks and chip trucks. 

Right now we also have four current contracts with the Forest 

Service. We are just closing in on finishing a 3,000-acre fuels mitigation project in Arizona. Then we have a project at Vail and Summit County and Steamboat Springs. 

51 

These types of projects are expensive for the Forest Service and 

for landowners, which is part of what we do is do mitigation for 

private, which we used to do probably 50 percent. Now it is down 

to 10 percent because of the economy. So 90 percent of what we do 

is government agencies. 

The logs that you are seeing this morning on our truck out there 

was what we called POL, product other than lumber. A big portion 

of the forest that we do treat is not exactly sawlogs. That came off 

a project which is 100 acres in Summit County, and all of those 

logs coming off of that project are what we call POL, product other 

than lumber, or product that is real difficult to find a place to do 

something with, like Mr. Ford mentioned, that is a good place to 

go. 

In our opinion, the sawmill here in Montrose and the opportunity 

in Saratoga is huge because there are not a lot of places to take 

timber, even in a multi-state region, right now. 

We provide about 200 to 300 loads of logs to Montrose a year, 

which is a small percentage of what the total needs are, but it is 

very important to us to have that opportunity. It also helps reciprocal when we go to bid jobs, that we know we are going to have 

some money to help pay for that project with better sawlogs. 

Although most of our projects we have to remove the POL as well 

as the sawlogs, so it actually becomes sort of a liability to us unless 

we can find a place to take that material. A couple of years ago we 

were doing a job in Eagle and we had—it was a private landowner, 

and he was very meticulous and wanted everything off of the 

ground, and we had to take 100 loads. We had to chip all the logs 

with the undesirable material, the slash and undesirable logs, and 

we took 100 loads to the dump in Eagle County and had to pay 

them to take the loads. 

So there is a big opportunity that we could use to do something 

with that material, although the real tough part about any of that, 

with the mill and the POL, is that people that want to make an 

investment have to have assured that they are going to be able to 

have a sustainable supply of timber. 

We did have an OSB mill, an OSB plant—that is oriental strand 

board—in Olathe, and that went by the wayside around 2004 or 

2005. Those places are exactly what we need in this area to handle 

a big volume of material. We looked at what is going on in Arizona 

right now, which was brought up earlier. They are allegedly—it is 

pretty out there for public information, but they have a $300 million contract to deal with cleaning up the forest, which is 30,000 

to 50,000 acres a year, and it is my understanding that they are 

negotiating with an OSB plant right now to facilitate that. 

Anytime you talk about a 10-year stewardship or long stewardships, in our opinion, you had to have—I am color blind, by the 

way, so if I go over—you have to have a place to go with material. 

We looked at 10-year stewardship contracts and we declined to try 

to bid on those because you had to put a lot of time and effort into 

trying to find some place to deal with that material, just like Arizona. They have a 10-year huge contact, but you have to have a 

plan. And to take a plan, somebody on Wall Street or any bank, 

anybody else, is that, OK, show me how you are going to pay back 

the money. And, oh, by the way, the Forest Service could cancel the 

52 

clause because they could have an appeal from an environmental 

appeal that could stop the project. So it is not the Forest Service’s 

fault. 

Wrap it up? 

Mr. BISHOP. I need you to finish, yes. 

Mr. DODD. OK. Again, thank you for the opportunity, and we 

really appreciate you guys’ interest in helping us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodd follows:] 

Statement of David Dodd, Enviro Land Management, LLC 

Thank you Chairman Bishop, Chairman McClintock, and Representative Tipton 

for your interest in national forest management and the opportunity for me to testify this morning. 

My name is David Dodd. We have owned and operated DDI Equipment in Grand 

Junction since 1979. We specialize in sales and service of forest vegetation management equipment, and we have worked with dozen of sawmills, loggers, and forestry 

contractors throughout Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and South Dakota. We also 

own a company called Enviro Land Management LLC (ELM) located in Whitewater, 

Colorado, just south of Grand Junction. ELM was started in 2001 to offer services 

in forestry and fuels mitigation. We are considered the pioneers of the industry and 

have a modest fleet of equipment, including feller bunchers, skidders, forwarders, 

wood grinders, log trucks, and chip trucks. We normally employ 15 people with up 

to 25 during our peak season. 

We have 4 current projects with the U.S. Forest Service—a 3,000 acre fuels mitigation project that we are just completing near Prescott, AZ, and three roadside 

hazard tree removal projects in Summit County, and near Steamboat Springs and 

Vail, CO. We have a very good rapport with the U.S. Forest Service and the Colorado State Forest Service, and we enjoy working with both. 

These types of projects are very expensive to the landowner, in some cases private 

landowners but most often the U.S. Forest Service. As long as there are adequate 

markets, forestry projects that include trees meeting sawlog standards makes a tremendous difference in the project economics, either reducing the cost to the landowner or allowing more acres to be treated. 

In our opinion, the industry’s largest challenge is markets for forest products. The 

Montrose sawmill (Intermountain Resources) is the best option for sawlogs. Our 

company delivers 200 to 300 loads per year to Intermountain Resources, which is 

a small percentage compared to the mill’s total needs, but critical to our business 

and the economics of the projects we work on. The sawmill is a critical part of the 

ELM business plan as we work on projects from government agencies and private 

individuals. 

These projects also require us to remove products other than logs (POL). With better markets, POL could be a great resource, but now it is a great liability. Depending on the contract, we have to remove down to a 3’’ top, and lop and scatter or 

pile for burning the unmerchantable slash, limbs, tops, and cull material. A biomass 

co-generation power plant is in the planning stages near Gypsum, CO, and that 

could be a tremendous outlet for the slash and unmerchantable small material. One 

of their biggest issues is the need for an assured supply of raw materials at the 

right price. 

Our goal now is to do everything we can do to help Intermountain Resources survive, for the health of our business and for other logging and forestry contractors 

who depend on that mill. We continue to provide equipment, parts and service to 

a number of other contractors, and those jobs are critical both for the work they accomplish in the woods and for the jobs and economic benefits to local communities 

in western Colorado. 

In Arizona, we believe the best option for small diameter trees is an oriented 

strand board (OSB) plant. That is under consideration in Arizona as we speak. The 

biggest challenge has been, and will be, a sustainable supply of raw materials, and 

whether the Forest Service can offer a predictable, sustainable supply, especially 

with the constant threat of appeals and litigation. 

I understand the challenges with the federal budget, but in the long-run, it makes 

a lot more sense to do proactive work in our forests to reduce the potential for catastrophic fires and beetle epidemics, while simultaneously providing jobs and economic benefits in our local communities. 

In closing, I want to thank you for the privilege of testifying here today. Managing 

the national forests is complex and I appreciate you taking the time to hold this 

53 

hearing to learn more about the issues and potential solutions. Our company is committed to sustainable forest management, jobs, families and communities. I would 

be delighted to work with you and your staffs in finding solutions to the issues discussed here today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. That is my fault for not watching, either. But I have never heard the color blind excuse used before. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. That is good, that is good. 

Our final speaker, our final witness, last but not least, is Mr. 

Gary Wilkinson, who is the President of the San Juan Trail Riders 

Association in Durango. 

Mr. Wilkinson. 

STATEMENT OF GARY WILKINSON, SAN JUAN TRAIL RIDERS 

ASSOCIATION, DURANGO, COLORADO 

Mr. WILKINSON. Thank you, Chairmen McClintock and Bishop, 

and Congressman Tipton, for providing me the opportunity to testify at today’s field hearing. 

My name is Gary Wilkinson. I have been involved in the motorsports industry for almost 45 years. I co-owned and managed Handlebar Cycle, a motorsports business, for 27 of those years. My 

business grew from a small operation to one that supported 10 

families. 

I am a native of Colorado and have lived in Durango since 1963. 

I am the second of four generations of the Wilkinson family who 

have had the privilege to enjoy OHV recreation on the public lands 

in Colorado. I am the president of San Juan Trail Riders, which is 

a 400-plus member organization dedicated to promoting responsible 

OHV recreation, and I currently serve on the Colorado State Parks 

OHV Subcommittee. 

Colorado offers unique opportunities for motorized recreation 

throughout much of the state. The sport and the industry have enjoyed an increase in popularity by both residents and non-residents. Off-highway vehicle and snowmobile-based recreation contributes to the state’s economy via the purchase of vehicles, expenditures incurred while on recreational trips, maintenance of vehicles, purchasing accessories, and other expenditures that support 

their activities. 

A recent study conducted by the Lewis Berger Group gives us the 

best available data. According to that study, motorized recreation 

enthusiasts were estimated to have generated in excess of $1 billion in direct gross sales during the study period. Motorized recreation in Colorado is directly or indirectly responsible for over 

12,000 jobs and $370 million in labor income and $107 million in 

indirect business taxes. 

My family, and the local OHV groups that I have been involved 

with, have been active partners with the U.S. Forest Service for 

decades. We maintain trails and encourage a ‘‘stay the trail’’ ethic. 

It is important to note that the OHV community in Colorado has 

fully supported the 2005 policy limiting us to designated routes. 

The 2005 Travel Rule was originally promulgated to address 

unmanaged OHV use. Instead, the agency has used the rule to 

make landscape-level changes to the existing road and trail infraVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
54 

structure. This is in addition to a steady stream of legislation, litigation, and other agency initiatives over the last three decades that 

has closed thousands of miles of roads and trails and eliminated 

tens of thousands of acres of snowmobile opportunities. Conversely, 

many millions of acres have been set aside for the exclusive use of 

non-motorized visitors. 

Recently, several travel plans completed by the San Juan National Forest have followed a very distressing pattern. First, 

through the process to eliminate cross-country travel, the agency 

closes a significant percentage of the existing OHV opportunity. 

Once final, the environmental community steps in and seeks to 

close even more via litigation such as in the case in the Rico/West 

Dolores area, where a lawsuit threatens to close 14 different trails 

that I personally have ridden for more than 40 years. Lawsuits, in 

my opinion, don’t protect the environment. This sort of litigation is 

part of the problem with public lands management today. 

The problem isn’t limited to United States Forest Service lands. 

Proposed BLM LRMP’s for the Colorado Valley and Kremmling offices proposes closing 40 and 60 percent of the trails in those respective offices. They assert somehow that there will be zero economic impacts from these closures, which I find illogical. 

The motorized community is deeply committed to improve the 

recreational experience for all public land users and to protect our 

natural resources. Colorado’s OHV registration program brings in 

around $4 million a year. These funds are made available to address a variety of land use issues and further demonstrate our commitment. 

Numerous studies, including one on wilderness prepared for Congress by Utah Representative Bill Orton, state that most citizens, 

including the elderly, children, most handicapped, and the poor, are 

almost entirely excluded from use and enjoyment of Federally managed lands by limiting vehicle access and facilities. A 2001 BLM 

study shows that a major reason for the increase in popularity of 

OHV use is an aging population who find OHV recreation an enjoyable way to visit public lands. 

I do support managing some areas as primitive where vehicles 

are not allowed. However, Colorado has a plethora of areas that are 

set aside for the exclusive use of people who prefer non-motorized 

recreation. Those of us who prefer or because of limitations are required to use vehicles for access and recreation are being squeezed 

into smaller and smaller areas with each passing year. 

According to a presentation U.S. Forest Service officials recently 

submitted, the total agency-wide acreage affected by the beetle kill 

since the outbreak began in 1996 is 41.7 million acres. You have 

heard that here today. Specifically in Region 2, some 10.7 million 

acres have been affected. Here in Colorado, the agency estimates 

some 6.6 million acres are affected. Over the next 10 years, they 

estimate that an average of 100,000 trees will fall daily as a result 

of the bark beetle epidemic. Beetle-killed trees now threaten thousands of miles of roads, trails and developed recreation sites. Our 

communities are also at risk as, in addition, beetle-killed forests 

now threaten essential water supplies and an estimated 550 miles 

of transmission and distribution power lines. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Wilkinson, I need you to sum up now. 

55 

Mr. WILKINSON. OK. While many in the U.S. Forest Service seem 

to acknowledge the problem, an overburdened regulatory system 

delays any real action. When, in the rare circumstance, the agency 

does complete the necessary analysis, the litigious environmental 

groups step in. These well-funded and philosophically driven 

groups seem to oppose even modest fuel reduction programs. These 

problems need solutions. 

I believe that it is imperative that you become more involved in 

the processes which will ultimately determine the health and wellbeing of our public lands, while ensuring that they are fairly managed for all users. I am convinced that for us to have sustainable 

forests, we must demand that the decisions made by our public 

land managers be based on proven science, not ideology and perception. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:] 

Statement of Gary Wilkinson, President, 

San Juan Trail Riders Association, Durango, Colorado 

Thank you Chairmen McClintock and Bishop for providing me the opportunity to 

testify at today’s field hearing. 

My name is Gary Wilkinson I have been involved in the motorsports industry for 

almost forty five years. I co-owned and managed Handlebar Cycle from 1980 to 

2007. Handlebar Cycle grew from a more or less mom and pop operation to a business that supported 10 families when I sold the business in 2007. I am currently 

employed at Handlebar Motorsports where I am the general manager. 

I am a native of Colorado and I have lived in Durango since 1963. I am the second 

of four generations of the Wilkinson family who have had the privilege to enjoy 

OHV recreation on the public lands in Colorado. I am the president of San Juan 

Trail Riders which is a 400 plus member organization dedicated to promoting responsible OHV recreation and I currently serve on the Colorado State Parks OHV 

Subcommittee. I also hike, mountain bike, and in past years have enjoyed hunting 

and fishing in ‘‘Colorful Colorado.’’ 

Economic importance of Off Highway Vehicle and snowmobile recreation 

Colorado offers unique opportunities for motorized recreation throughout much of 

the state. This is mainly due to the vast amount of appropriate terrain for off-highway motorized recreation. As such, the sport and industry of motorized recreation 

has enjoyed an increase in popularity in the state by both residents and non-residents. Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) and Snowmobile based recreation contributes to 

the State’s economy via the purchase of vehicles, making expenditures while on recreational activity trips (day and overnight), spending money to operate and maintain vehicles, purchasing other accessories needed while riding (clothes, safety 

equipment), and making other expenditures for items that support their activities 

(food and fuel, etc.). 

While most tourism and recreation economic impact studies under-represent the 

impact of OHV and Snowmobile recreation, the most recent (2009) study by the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, conducted by the Louis Berger Group,gives us 

the best data to date. According to that study, which surveyed the economic activity 

in the 2007–08 season, motorized recreation enthusiasts were estimated to have 

generated over $784 million in total direct gross sales for motorized recreation 

throughout the year. This direct spending generated an additional $243 million in 

downstream gross sales due to additional economic activity. Motorized recreation in 

Colorado is directly or indirectly responsible for over 12,000 jobs and $370 million 

in labor income and $107 million in Indirect Business Taxes. 

Decades of road, trail and snowmobile closures—a critical mass has been 

reached 

My family, and the local OHV groups that I have been involved with, have been 

active partners with the USFS for decades. We’ve been involved in maintaining 

trails and encouraging a ‘‘Stay the Trail’’ ethic—even when the USFS allowed us 

to go anywhere, anytime! It is important to note that the OHV community in Colorado has fully supported the 2005 policy limiting us to designated routes. 

56 

Sadly, it has not worked out as advertized. The 2005 Travel Rule was originally 

promulgated to address ‘‘un-managed’’ OHV use. Instead, the agency has used the 

rule to make landscape level changes to the existing road and trail infrastructure. 

This is in addition to a steady stream of legislation, litigation and other agency initiatives that, over the last 3 decades, has closed thousands of miles of roads and 

trails and tens of thousands of acres of snowmobile areas. Conversely, many millions of acres have been set aside for the exclusive use of non motorized visitors. 

Recently, several travel plans completed by the San Juan National Forest have 

followed a very distressing pattern. First, through the process to eliminate cross 

country travel the agency closes a significant percentage of existing OHV opportunity. Once final, the environmental community steps in and seeks to close even 

more via litigation such is the case in the Rico/West Dolores area where a law suit 

threatens to close 14 different trails that I personally have ridden for more than 

thirty years. The problem isn’t limited to USFS lands. Proposed Bureau of Land 

Management, LRMP’s for the Colorado Valley and Kremmling offices proposes closing 40 and 60% of trails in those respective offices. They assert somehow, that there 

will be zero economic impacts from these closures. These are just horrible plans 

which will result in huge negative impacts to those communities 

This sort of litigation is part of the problem with public lands management today. 

When planning doesn’t go exactly the way someone or a group prefers they can easily mangle the process via lawsuits. The motorized community is deeply committed 

to improve the recreation experience for both motorized and non motorized users. 

We work with our public land managers and stake holders to improve trail opportunities and protect our natural resources. We have a strong OHV registration program which brings to the table more than 4 million dollars each year. This money 

is made available in the way of grants. These grants fund all aspects of trail maintenance. It is too bad that the environmental groups won’t work with the motorized 

community to provide trails for all users instead of filing frivolous lawsuits. Lawsuits don’t protect the environment. Working cooperatively with trail users will. 

Regulations that limit access harms the elderly and disabled 

According to numerous studies, including a comprehensive study on Wilderness 

prepared for Congress by Utah Representative Bill Orton,, most citizens including 

the elderly, children, most handicapped, and the poor are almost entirely excluded 

from use and enjoyment of federally managed lands by limiting vehicle access and 

facilities. The Bureau of Land Management’s National Management Strategy for 

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands shows that a major reason for 

the increase in popularity of OHV use is an aging population who find OHV recreation a enjoyable way to visit public lands. And, if I may speak for my family, I 

would implore the Subcommittee to recognize that, without vehicle access, my family is essentially locked out of vast areas of Colorado’s public lands. 

I will not say that I do not support managing some areas as ‘‘primitive,’’ where 

vehicles are not allowed. In fact, I have supported this type of management where 

it is appropriate. However, Colorado has a plethora of areas that are set aside for 

the exclusive use of people who prefer non-motorized recreation. Those of us who 

prefer, or are required to use vehicles for access and recreation are being squeezed 

into smaller and smaller areas. Each year, more and more of Colorado’s scenic 

backcountry is available to those healthy enough to hike long distances. 

Lack of effective response to the Bark Beetle outbreak questions the ability 

of the agency to properly manage its lands 

According to a presentation our local USFS officials gave to the OHV community, 

the CITE HERE the total agency wide acreage affected by bark beetle (all beetles) 

since outbreak began in 1996 is 41.7 million acres. In Region 2 (Colorado, Wyoming, 

South Dakota, Nebraska), some 10.7 million acres have been affected by bark beetle 

(all beetles) since outbreak began. Here in Colorado the agency estimates some 6.6 

million acres are affected. The agency estimates that over the next 10 years, an average of 100,000 trees will fall daily as a result of the bark beetle epidemic. 

Visitors to USFS lands are affected not only by the visual impacts. Falling trees 

pose serious risk to human life and the infrastructure our rural communities rely 

on. Dead trees across the state have created heavy fuel loading which can result 

in intense, so-called ‘‘fatal wildfires.’’ Beetle-killed trees now threaten thousands of 

miles of roads, trails and developed recreation sites. Our communities are also at 

risk. Beetle-killed forests now threaten essential water supplies and an estimated 

550 miles of transmission and distribution power lines. 

It is worthwhile to note the agency’s own review of the Bark Beetle Outbreak in 

Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming identifies Wilderness and Roadless as a 

contributing factor to the out-break and as a limiting factor as to how the agency 

57 

can respond. Only a tiny fraction (less than 15%) of beetle-killed areas are open to 

any sort of active management to address the situation. This is because budgetary 

and regulatory limitations—such as prohibitions on entering roadless areas and designated wilderness areas preclude those efforts. And yet, Colorado’s new Roadless 

Rule increased ‘‘upper tier’’ roadless areas to 1.4 million acres from the previous 

550,000acres. 

To recreationists, this problem needs a solution. While many in the USFS seem 

to acknowledge the problem, an overburdened regulatory system delays any real action on the ground. When, in the rare circumstance, the agency does complete the 

necessary ‘‘analysis,’’ the litigious environmental groups step in. These well funded 

and philosophically driven groups seem to oppose even modest fuel reduction programs. Often they oppose any and all efforts to remove excessive fuel loads. 

In closing while I don’t claim to be an expert in forest health I am convinced that 

for us to have sustainable forests we must demand that the decisions that are made 

by our public land managers be made based on proven science not ideology or probability. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. BISHOP. To all of those who have come distances to provide 

information and testimony here, we thank you very much for your 

testimony. Your written testimony will obviously always be included in the record, as well as the oral testimony, your answers 

to questions here as well. 

Once again, we appreciate the input you have in here. I want you 

also to know that if there may be—just so you keep this in mind— 

additional questions for witnesses, we will ask you to respond to 

them in writing if we don’t have enough time to go through this 

here. 

We have a time when we must end this meeting, so I want to 

make sure that Mr. Tipton gets the opportunity first to have his 

questions asked and answered. We will go through several of those 

potential rounds. So I will turn to him for 5 minutes to ask some 

questions. 

Representative Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did I mention I am color 

blind? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TIPTON. I would like to, with unanimous consent, submit for 

the record a statement by Mr. Bruce Ward, who is the Founder of 

Choose Outdoors and the White House Champion of Change for 

Rural Colorado. 

Mr. BISHOP. No objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward submitted by Mr. Tipton 

follows:] 

Statement of Bruce Ward, Founder of Choose Outdoors 

and a White House Champion of Change for Rural America 

The smoke is gone, but the fear remains. We have lived in Denver’s ‘‘wildland 

urban interface’’ for decades because of our love of Colorado’s beauty, but now the 

yearly ‘‘fire watch’’ causes us pause as we hold our breath hoping the forest around 

us doesn’t burn. The most recent fire—the Lower North Fork –claimed at least three 

human lives, 27 homes, over 4,200 acres 

The obvious question; Who is to blame? We should also ask—why are we suffering 

such fire catastrophes? Is this the truth behind Smokey The Bear’s accusation— 

‘‘only YOU can prevent Forest Fires!’’ 

The Good News? We reduce or prevent future fires by promoting forest health. 

The Bad News? We may have to give up the easy answers of either blaming one 

person for ‘‘setting’’ each fire, and that there is nothing we can do to prevent these 

58 

fires. Understanding the cause and addressing it gives us the ability to stop tragic 

fires. 

We need to stop thinking that trees live forever; like all living things they have 

finite life spans. This radical idea of recognizing the cycle of life means forest health 

is contingent on new trees. This requires us to challenge our belief that cutting trees 

is not ‘‘environmental’’ or ‘‘green’’. The old ethos of ‘‘Let nature take its course,’’ and 

‘‘in 500 years the earth will have healed itself’’ must be seen as flawed. 

The problem has roots from when the West was being settled and clear cutting 

was considered expedient and necessary. We were more focused on creating a civilized west. The unintended consequence of endless fire suppression is now manifesting itself. Native Americans commonly set fires every Spring knowing it kept the 

trees and animals within stronger and saw fire as a tool used extensively prior to 

the white man’s encroachment and restrictions. 

The documented excesses of tree harvesting without environmental limits in the 

19th and 20th Centuries created a culture that reacted by believing that cutting any 

tree was sacrilege, using products made from trees wasteful and uneducated. Tree 

Killers should feel guilty about their role in hastening the destruction of our planet. 

We know many trees in nature would have life spans not much longer than the 

longest living human—yet we protect geriatric trees whose very nature is turning 

them toward fire and replacement. We can see the effects all around us as nature 

pushes to return to a balance allowing new trees to replace the old, the time has 

come to dispel that well intentioned but wrong environmentalist mantra that forbids 

‘‘killing trees’’ and realize that interfering with nature is what creates the problem. 

Now is the time to embrace a new environmentalist culture that embraces planting 

new trees, that enjoys wood products from local sources because they come from renewable resources, provide jobs to rural economies, and most importantly bring our 

environment back into balance. 

Undersecretary of Agriculture Harris Sherman asked for my help to increase the 

awareness of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and engage the private sector solutions to deal with millions of acres of pine trees dying and turning brown—our own 

potential ‘‘Katrina of the West’’. I reached out to stakeholders who shared their 

views that on the complexity and unprecedented magnitude of the epidemic. 

I found caring citizens who were using ‘‘Rocky Mountain Blue Stain’’ wood; a community of environmentalists, lumberman, builders, lumber yards, pellet mills, furniture makers working together to take our blue wood and turn it into products that 

would help the forest heal. But even these efforts struggle against the mistaken belief that using wood is somehow bad. 

The time is now to change decades of outmoded public perception that the only 

good forestry goal is to let our forests age, and how sustainable forestry is married 

to utilizing wood products in order to plant and grow new trees. 

Mr. TIPTON. With regards to a statement that he had made that 

the beetle infestation is potentially the Katrina of the West. And 

with unanimous consent, I would like to submit that for the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. It is already in. 

Mr. TIPTON. This question I think I would like to have for all of 

our panelists, and it is pretty simple and straightforward. Just a 

yes or no I think will probably suffice. 

Do you think that the bark beetle infestation, the threat of forest 

fire here for the West, is an emergency? 

I will start with Ms. Fishering. 

Ms. FISHERING. Yes. 

Mr. FORD. Yes. 

Mr. GEORG. Yes. 

Mr. JIRON. Yes, qualified. 

Ms. ROBERTSON. Yes. 

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes. 

Mr. DOWNIE. No question. 

Mr. TIPTON. No question. 

I think that is. It has been interesting listening to some of the 

testimony, that we all recognize that this is a genuine threat. 

59 

Mr. Jiron, you and I were just down in Chimney Rock, had the 

opportunity to be able to tour, and noted how healthy the forests 

are. Your forest rangers pointed out to me the spacing between the 

trees, said this is a healthy forest. 

I would like to go ahead and ask, what are some of the inhibitions that we are seeing—and, Mr. Jiron, I might start with you— 

that are inhibiting the Forest Service from fulfilling that mission 

of creating healthy forests? 

Mr. JIRON. Our desire, like everyone has spoken here, is to always do more. We have been able to increase the amount of timber 

output and coming up with new ways of doing business. We are 

looking at a series of stewardship contracts, including that area 

around Chimney Rock, which would help. We are also looking at 

continuing our work in green timber sale contracts. 

Mr. TIPTON. Are you seeing regulatory and legal concerns that 

are inhibiting you as well? When we hear Mr. Downie speak about 

conflicting regulations between FERC and the Forest Service management as well? 

Mr. JIRON. We are always concerned about those challenges 

when they come up. Our job at the end is to make sure that we 

are implementing the laws and policies that Congress passes, and 

then—— 

Mr. TIPTON. So there are those challenges? 

Mr. JIRON. We do have challenges. But when we do find those, 

we are always looking ourselves what else can we do within our 

current authorities to be more efficient. I mentioned just very briefly in my comments on the Black Hills, for example, we have been 

able to try some very effective NEPA efficiencies on the Black Hills, 

working with collaborative groups, working with citizens in South 

Dakota, and it has been effective. 

So we do have those challenges. We look forward to always looking at ways to resolve them. 

Mr. TIPTON. As you all know, the commercial viability of our timber projects, and by extension the ability of the Forest Service to 

be able to partner with private industry to address the bark beetle 

epidemic on an effective scale, depends in large part in terms of the 

timber industry contacts. 

Mr. Ford, in your testimony you mentioned the need for 15- to 

25-year stewardship contracts rather than the current maximum of 

10 years. Why is that timeframe necessary, and what other aspects 

of timber contracts would be helpful to properly merge the market 

needs of the timber industry with the safety and forest health that 

the public needs? 

Mr. FORD. Well, the length of time is important for the amount 

of investment dollars that have to be put up. You can’t ask a private enterprise to come forward with, as in our case, $22 million 

and then limit the time amount that you are going to give a supply. 

It is pretty simple. If you want to go to your bank, you want to go 

to your investors with any kind of business plan, you are going to 

have to have a timeline in which you can pay back the investment, 

and 10 years is not adequate for the size of the projects that we 

are looking at. 

Another problem that we have come up against is that there 

seems to be a misconception of the value of timber in that 12, 13 

60 

inches and smaller, and I don’t care if it is ponderosa pine or 

lodgepole pine or others. There seems to be too much of a value put 

on that, when it is a product actually that we are all looking for 

ways to dispose of. I think we are going to have to bring the products other than logs up to a higher amount, and that is what is 

going to have to get paid for in a service contract, and then industry will pay by the ton, or however you sell it, the products that 

are larger than that. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you for that. 

Ms. Fishering, could you maybe speak—we are running short 

here on time, but which laws and some of the regulations and inconsistencies are still holding back progress? 

Ms. FISHERING. I would still say you spoke to or we heard about 

the efficiencies that we are trying to get to. There has been a new 

report called ‘‘Increasing the Pace and Scale of Restoration.’’ The 

problem with me is it doesn’t go fast enough, it is still not big 

enough. Saw timber has to be a bigger component of it, or it is not 

cost effective. You heard us numerous times today say there is not 

a good enough supply. As Mr. Jiron mentioned, we have 91 million 

board feet that should be put on the market this year. 

The reason I say that, when you put it in context, you open a 

mill in Saratoga and you get Intermountain and Montrose operating at full capacity, those two alone could use the 90 million 

board feet. What happens to every other single supplier like the 

biomass users that are trying to grow their industry? What are you 

going to do with the little mills in the rest of the state? You have 

Delta Timber right down the street. That is another 9 million 

board feet need per year. We are not going to be there, and you 

are sitting there with tons of problems. 

You need a bigger capacity industry, do more merchantable trees 

per acre, and you have a recipe that you might get past some of 

the laws, and the speed. South Dakota is a great example. It is 

going to take 18 months to do that environmental impact statement. It is going to give them great new authority, such as doing 

adaptive management. We look forward to it. We are working with 

the Forest Service. But those are laws making it take 18 months. 

The bugs move faster than 18 months. 

So we do need some efficiencies and speed. 

[Laughter.] 

[Applause.] 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. We will come back with another round for you. 

Mr. McClintock, do you have some questions for our witnesses? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dodd, it used to be that lumber companies would bid for timber on Federal lands. They would pay the Federal Treasury to purchase that Federal timber. Now it seems the Federal Government 

has to pay you to remove timber from the public lands. How is it 

that tending our forests has gone from a profit-making venture 

that relieves Federal taxpayers of their burdens to a costly one that 

actually burdens those same taxpayers? 

Mr. DODD. In the late ’90s, in the mid ’90s, the Forest Service 

would put up timber sales, and when they would do that, they were 

subject to appeals. And basically, in my industry, a lot of the people 

61 

thought, well, this is the Forest Service’s fault because they won’t 

put up enough sales. 

I guess in my logic I was thinking, well, why should they put up 

sales when they are only going to be appealed, and the only one 

you are putting money into is the environmentalists’ pocketbooks 

and the lawyers of the environmentalists? So why put up the sale 

when it was going to be appealed and it wasn’t going to do anything anyway? So that was the biggest problem. 

Then the mills wanted a sustainable supply. I know LP, Louisiana Pacific, had the OSB plant here, and they did about 60 million a year in board feet, and they said that they wanted to stay 

but they had to have that guarantee. There is no way the Federal 

Government could give that guarantee when a Federal judge at 

any point in time, like Judge Mickey in the mid ’90s, did that to 

Arizona and New Mexico. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And since this has occurred, how has the 

health of our forests trended? 

Mr. DODD. It went way downhill. I mean, right now we have 

such a problem that it is not just a matter of when; it is going to 

happen anytime. In fact, we predicted this was going to happen. 

One of the things that really spurred our interest was in ’99 we 

had a 20,000-acre blowdown in Steamboat Springs, tons and tons 

of timber up there, and we had mills in Saratoga and Montrose, 

and they only put up about 1 percent of that. A lot of people think 

that is what precipitated the beetle outbreak because the trees, 

when they are dying, put out the pheromones, and then it just multiplied from there. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So what has happened to our forests and what 

has happened to our forest economy is not because we have been 

struck down by some mysterious act of God. These are all acts of 

government, are they not? 

Mr. DODD. Absolutely. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And I guess the good news is that acts of government actually are within our power as a people to change if we 

summon the political will to do so. Is that your sense of it? 

Mr. DODD. Absolutely. Only in America will you have the government that pays, that actually gives grant money to environmental 

groups, and these same environmental groups sue the government. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And I want to point out, that is exactly the 

kind of nonsense that needs to come to a screeching halt. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And frankly, I would challenge the Republican 

majority in the House to bring that to a halt. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You can’t blame the Senate or the President 

for that. All appropriations originate in the House. It doesn’t get 

spent unless we say it gets spent, and perhaps we need to be held 

accountable for the damage that is being done by these grants of 

taxpayer money to groups that are in direct opposition to the interest of the taxpayers. 

[Applause.] 

62 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Jiron, you have mentioned that while we 

have increased our yield of board feet from 189 million board feet 

to 193 million board feet, that sounds very impressive until we look 

at the written testimony that Ms. Fishering has provided us, which 

shows a catastrophic decline in timber harvest measured from the 

1970s or ’80s, so let me put this to you directly. 

You have submitted this as a great achievement, going from 189 

million board feet to 193 million board feet. How does that compare 

with what we were harvesting in the 1970s and ’80s? 

Mr. JIRON. Thank you, sir, for the question. I am not sure that 

I am submitting it as a great achievement, rather progress forward 

from working within authorities that Congress has given us, like 

long-term stewardship contracts, collaboration. Certainly, conditions have changed since the 1970s, but we are using the authorities that we do have to try to increase it. We recognize the economic conditions. We have done things like cancellation of contracts to help operators. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But the point I want to emphasize is this is 

not some great step forward. It is not even an incremental step forward compared with the catastrophic decline in timber sales that 

has occurred over the past 20 years. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. To our friends here, this is actually an official 

hearing. I realize you have a great deal of passion. We are also on 

a time limit. If you approve of what we say, it cuts into the amount 

of time we can ask questions. So please don’t like anything we say. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Don’t dislike anything we say, either. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. We would appreciate it if you would maintain that 

decorum. 

Before I ask any other questions, I am going to yield to Mr. Tipton for a second round. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up 

a little bit. 

As we went down the line, every person noted that we have a 

bark beetle infestation challenge, an emergency literally in this 

state; the threat of fire, the threat that that is going to have literally on our environment, the threat that it is going to be having 

on our businesses. 

Ms. Robertson, glad to hear about the collaborative processes 

that you have been able to work through. 

I would like, though, to ask Mr. Ford, because part of the solution is common sense, win-win situations where we can get in and 

harvest some of this timber to be able to make the treatments, and 

also create jobs, and also create energy, perhaps, for this country. 

So, Mr. Ford, can your business model, the biomass plant that 

you are proposing down in Pagosa Springs, is this a model that can 

be replicated elsewhere? 

Mr. FORD. We tried hard to make this a model that can be 

wrapped around a 50-mile radius of any small community that 

would like to see the forest come to a healthy standard around 

there. It would be easy to reproduce. You could reproduce it in 

areas that already have an existing timber saw timber market. You 

63 

wouldn’t have to have a small mill at that point, or if you need to 

add that component to it, you also could do that. 

The 50-mile radius is also key because for the small coops that 

are in these mountain states, that is about the max they want to 

buy power in the chunks that they are from us. So the 5-megawatt, 

the 50-mile radius is all key numbers. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Jiron, I would also like to be able to go back to some of the 

visit that we had down in Pagosa Springs, some of the issues that 

we are seeing as we drive throughout the West Slope, particularly 

in Colorado; in fact, our entire state. We have a variety of different 

designations on our land. As I travel through our district, 54,000 

square miles of Colorado, I see people who love their state, care 

about the environment that they live in and want to be able to protect it, and I think that is part of the Forest Service mission as 

well, to be able to protect the landscape that we see. 

But the recent report, the report that I mentioned in my earlier 

question, noted that only 25 percent of the bark beetle outbreak 

area was accessible due to designations, and it was inhibiting the 

Forest Service’s ability to be able to effectively allow the opportunity to be able to treat these areas. 

So I am curious. What impact do designations have? Are we inserting the win-win philosophy, the common sense value, when we 

have the real threat that every person on this panel noted is a 

threat to the State of Colorado, to our environment, to our water, 

to our tourism, to the ability to be able to create jobs by not allowing access into some of these areas to be able to treat? 

Mr. JIRON. Thanks for that question. It is a compelling one. I 

think that designations play a part in management. We have been 

dealing with that issue of some kind for decades, and we do have 

to think about how something is designated as we formulate management plans to do it. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, though, a lot of the work that 

we have had to do in the immediate last few years related to bark 

beetle has been emergency work. Much of that work has had to 

occur in wildland-urban interface, near communities, nearest to 

communities. Those areas tend not to have as much designation or 

some kind of sanction from Congress. 

So we have been able to use our authorities both in the national 

forest system and state and private forestry to be able to use those. 

As we go further into it, we may have to work through challenges. 

But as many on the panel have mentioned today and as all of you 

have acknowledged, there is a great deal of work to do. 

So I haven’t bumped into it as much in terms of management. 

We may run into that, and we will deal with that as we go. But 

again, a lot of the emergency work is around communities and private landowners and that sort of thing. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK, thanks. 

Ms. Fishering and Mr. Dodd, a big concern I have is it is about 

jobs and the economy. We want to be able to do things sensibly. 

We want to make sure that we are doing it right. We want to be 

able to create those win-wins. 

But you have worked in this part of Colorado for years and have 

obviously been integral to the timber industry in this area, which 

64 

we have seen as really suffering. But also, you know the effects 

that this is having on our larger community as well. 

What impacts have you seen that the decline in the timber industry have had on our ability to create, to sustain jobs, to be able 

to create a healthy community, and to be able to provide for our 

children’s future? 

Ms. FISHERING. I don’t want to go ad nauseam about merchantable saw timber, but you can’t have a sawmill if you only use small 

diameter. The emphasis—and it is a challenge for the Forest Service because the forest health, public health and safety is key in our 

state with falling trees because of bark beetle. However, the trees 

falling on the roads aren’t typically good, merchantable saw timber. 

So, therefore, we are creating a tension between the needs of getting biomass out of the forests and what is economically effective 

to keep the 100 jobs at the Montrose mill. 

The allocation of dollars, I brought that up. Keep in mind that 

this region is truly the second lowest funded region in the country. 

It didn’t have the extra money when we had the bark beetle attacks coming. We had to deal with—we got extra campground 

money, extra road maintenance dollars. We did not get one extra 

dollar for timber management dollars, which kind of ties their 

hands behind their back. That is where I talk about conflicting 

laws. 

Right now, there is a new algorithm. It is an algorithm out of 

D.C. that cuts hazard fuel treatment dollars to this region of Colorado. That took $400,000 right out of the budget of this forest right 

here, but we got an extra $400,000 from the new authority, but we 

are not gaining any traction. 

So without that right allocation of dollars, all of our hands are 

tied even if we come to all the agreement in the world. But we 

need saw timber, and people who are the collaborators often don’t 

understand a tree this big is a whole lot different than a tree this 

big. This species is different than that species. There is a lot of 

devil in the details. 

But we are working on it. We meet with these folks regularly. 

But allocation of dollars is going to be huge. Algorithms that get 

unintended consequences are killing jobs in Colorado. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Allow me to ask a couple of questions, if I might, first of all to 

Mr. Georg. Especially if you are talking about reopening a plant, 

all the time in D.C. we are hearing that one of the reasons that 

forest timber sale programs are in decline is because there is simply no market for it. If this is the case, why is your group trying 

to reopen a sawmill? 

Mr. GEORG. That is a very good question. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right into the microphone. 

Mr. GEORG. Is that better? Can you hear me now? How about 

now? OK. 

It is a very good question. One of the conditions—we have not 

opened the mill yet. It is our intent to open the mill. One of the 

things we need before we open the mill is a supply of saw timber, 

and it is important to note that it is saw timber. We have purVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:28 May 13, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\74271.TXT KATHY
65 

chased our first timber contract, but we realize before we open this 

mill we need to acquire a number of contracts. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is there a market for your product? 

Mr. GEORG. I am sorry. Yes, there is a market. Lodgepole pine 

can be used for studs. It will not be appropriate for places like 

Home Depot and places like that, but there is a wholesale market 

for lodgepole pine, and we can use it. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. Then let me go to Ms. Fishering 

again, if I could. 

One of the testimony that was given in here by a different witness says that litigation has only affected a very small percentage 

of hazardous field projects, which may be true for hazardous field 

projects, but is there any value—what has been your experience 

with litigation on projects that offer sufficient material to keep 

those mills running? 

Ms. FISHERING. Our history in Colorado very specifically is we 

had those issues in large scale in the ’90s, and that is what led to 

the lowest supply of saw timber in the history of this region, and 

Representative McClintock spoke to that, and it was by 2001 that 

most of the big mills closed, leaving ours as the only one, and the 

collaboration has helped us avoid the litigation. 

What it does do, the one downside of collaboration is it is compromise, compromise, compromise, sometimes to get to that sweet 

spot where everyone agrees, and what I see being lost is saw timber. So we decide, oh, we won’t work here, we won’t get you quite 

as much as you could get. We need them to understand economics 

because that is, right now, a handicap for us in Colorado. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. So in addition, they are compromising you 

out of existence. What about land designation such as the wilderness habitat restrictions? How does that limit the land base for the 

management? 

Ms. FISHERING. I still believe we can strategically target areas. 

We have some very good examples. I think of the Upper Blue, 

where we sat down with everybody in the room, and this is more 

power and water because we are trying to protect the reservoirs, 

the City of Denver, and we found plenty of acreage that we needed 

to treat that was on suitable land. 

The problem is so big, there are plenty of acres even with some 

of the restrictions. There are some areas we can’t be strategic. But 

you talk to our power companies. We try to find the most fire risk 

location, and we have been able to find suitable acres to get that 

done. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Mr. Wilkinson, I think I probably know this 

from your testimony, but is there sufficient balance, in your opinion, with how the Forest Service manages for multiple use? 

Mr. WILKINSON. No, there is not, in my opinion, and I think too 

much of the decisions or too many of the decisions are based on, 

as I said, ideology and not on hard science. 

If I could follow up to Ms. Fishering, I don’t claim to be a forest 

health management expert, but I can tell you when we increase our 

roadless, upper tier roadless to 1.4 million acres from 550,000 

acres, it is going to have an effect on our ability to manage those 

forests. I believe that is a key contributor. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

66 

Mr. Jiron, if I could ask you a couple of questions in a minute 

or less. What kind of beetle treatments are you able to implement 

in wilderness areas? 

Mr. JIRON. In wilderness areas, we are limited to what we can 

do to any non-mechanized treatment, open trails and things like 

that. 

Mr. BISHOP. In the 2011 regions report, you said the commercial 

access on large scales that would support a long-term supply of 

wood to industry is difficult outside of the WUI and at-risk communities. Can you elaborate on what you mean? What are the reasons 

that make this difficult? In 20 seconds or less. 

OK, now it is 24. 

Mr. JIRON. Much of our resources have had to go into wildlifeurban interface based on the level of beetle infestation to protect 

communities. 

Mr. BISHOP. Did that answer my question? Why is it difficult outside of those areas? 

Mr. JIRON. Because we have had to invest a lot of our resources—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So that is the prioritization you are using. 

Mr. JIRON. Correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. I see. 

Mr. JIRON. The prioritization. 

Mr. BISHOP. My time is up. 

Mr. McClintock, do you have some more questions? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

defer to Mr. Tipton on some issues involving transmission that are 

critical to the work of the Water and Power Subcommittee. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Chairman McClintock. 

Mr. Downie, I did want to follow up with you. How does losing 

transmission lines to wildfire or falling trees present an economic 

and a public risk? Can you talk about that a bit? 

Mr. DOWNIE. To some degree. Obviously, transmission operations 

itself is not my expertise. But to give you an example, I think 

somebody mentioned the 2002 Hayman fire, and we lost just one 

structure on a 230 line by Cheesman Reservoir, and it took us a 

week to get that structure rebuilt due to terrain issues, but also access issues and those types of things. So that is kind of ominous 

if more structures are lost or more than one line was affected. 

Mr. TIPTON. So it is economic and it is a safety risk if you aren’t 

allowed to get in and treat; correct? 

Mr. DOWNIE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. Right. Mr. Downie, the ability to be able to get in 

and use equipment, you talked in your testimony originally about 

if you got a foot off of your right-of-way, you may have had some 

issues, but assuming you can stay in your right-of-way, is the ability really to be able to get in trucks to be able to make these treatments, is that critical to the delivery of transmission and to keep 

those lines up and going? 

Mr. DOWNIE. Yes, in some cases. In our testimony we were referring to mechanized equipment, essentially equipment that can 

masticate dead trees very effectively. In our issues there, again it 

is an inconsistent thing. In some parts of the forest, it has been 

welcomed. In other areas, it has been shunned. Some areas we are 

67 

told that we need to do NEPA and that kind of stuff in order to 

use it, other areas we don’t. So it has been very inconsistent. 

But when we are dealing with a dead forest, as somebody said, 

kind of falling down around our ears, we hesitate to put our contractors at risk with hand crews to fell those trees when we can 

take a piece of mechanized equipment like, for example, a slash 

buster, which is a track hoed vehicle with a masticating head on 

it, and a tree falls on that, you don’t have too much of an issue. 

But we can get the work done much more efficiently, effectively, 

cost-effective and safely. You can’t use it everywhere because it is 

restricted by slope and access, and unfortunately in some areas the 

time has now passed for us to really take advantage of it because 

there was such an urgent issue for us to get those trees dealt with, 

we just went ahead and did it by hand. 

Mr. TIPTON. So it is a matter of public safety. Maybe you could 

explain just a little bit to us—and I will be happy to yield back, 

Chairman McClintock, if you had any other questions—but what do 

you need to more safely manage the transmission lines that run 

through government? We were talking about conflicting regulations, the ability to be able to get in, timeframes. What would really help accelerate this for you? 

Mr. DOWNIE. I think the Forest Service needs more flexibility, 

and examples of that would be, for example, again, we are talking 

about a relatively small footprint here when we are talking about 

utility lines. How about something like a categorical exclusion from 

some of this stuff so that we can go in and deal with those three 

operational issues that I described in our testimony so that we can 

just go in and get it done? 

We also need to have the liability issue dealt with. We weren’t 

the cause of the dead forest adjacent to our line. It is not our property. So we see us as needing some relief from a liability perspective on that issue. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Georg, about how long does it take the Forest Service to prepare an average timber sale? 

Mr. GEORG. My understanding is it takes about 3-and-a-half 

years on a normal timber sale. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, after a tree gets infected by beetles and 

dies or is killed by fire, how long does the tree remain marketable 

for higher-value products like 2x4s? 

Mr. GEORG. You are asking me a question I am not sure of. But 

my understanding—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Dodd or anyone who is in the business? 

Ms. Fishering? 

Mr. DODD. Anytime between 3 and 6 years. It depends. 

Ms. FISHERING. And I think it is higher than that. There are all 

sorts of—you can evolve to different kind of products at a certain 

stage because the tree continues to check during the winter, which 

means cracks into the trees, so you get less and less saw timber. 

But the plan at the sawmill in Montrose was to change product 

mix over time so we would be able to be a factor and to be helping 

on using those trees for at least 10 years. It depends on geography 

and it depends on weather. But 3 to 6, if we said that, we would 

68 

be closing our doors to most of the mills in Colorado. We are finding a good way of staying in business using that wood. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The concern I am trying to explore is that just 

the bureaucratic delay alone in preparing the sale consumes a 

great portion, if not the entire portion, of the salvage time that you 

have to go in and get that timber for high-value products. 

Ms. FISHERING. Which is why we support using the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act, which shortens that time period for a conventional timber sale. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, but then you have the litigation that follows on top of that. That is the problem in my area. We have had 

tremendous forest fires, enormous volumes of fire-killed timber 

that is still salvageable. But once we get through the bureaucratic 

process, then the litigation starts, and the litigation has no chance 

of success but it is able to delay the process enough so that we 

can’t salvage any of that timber, which is simply insane. 

Ms. FISHERING. True. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me ask a couple of final questions, if I might, 

Mr. Jiron, if I may of you. How many acres do you treat with stewardship contracts versus traditional timber sales? 

Mr. JIRON. With stewardship contracts, since 1999 we have treated about 70,500 acres. So it is a good portion of our work, but we 

still use traditional timber sale contracts for the balance. 

Mr. BISHOP. Give me a reference point to what ‘‘good portion’’ 

means. 

Mr. JIRON. If I can submit for the record, I can get back with you 

a number for that. 

Mr. BISHOP. We have heard from—I would appreciate it if you 

would. 

We have heard from a few of our witnesses talk about how the 

timeframe for allowing timber harvests exceeds the timeframe for 

when the beetle-killed trees can be produced for a high-value product. Is it even possible within our current authority to correct this 

discrepancy and allow trees to be harvested in a timely manner? 

Mr. JIRON. We share that concern. In South Dakota we have 

been looking at NEPA efficiencies that have increased the time 

that we have been able to get to a decision and move on with the 

project. I am looking at trying to transfer those efficiencies to elsewhere in the region just to help us be able to move faster so we 

are doing all we can within the statutory authority we have. 

Mr. BISHOP. So the answer was no, you don’t have the authority 

to move this timeline. 

Mr. JIRON. We are using all the authority that we have right 

now. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. So I am making the assumption that if it 

is still slow, then you need more authority to move the timeline forward. 

Mr. JIRON. Well, there—— 

Mr. BISHOP. And I am not trying to put words in your mouth. 

I think that is a summation of what took place. 

Chief Tidwell sent a communication out very recently which simply said, ‘‘When appropriations are reduced for parts of our mission, production and services will also be reduced.’’ I recognize it 

69 

is difficult, and you oftentimes have dangerous jobs that you and 

your land managers do on the ground, and we appreciate the work 

the agency is doing to address this epidemic. But this fiscal crisis 

is actually a reality, and the bottom line is this problem is not 

going to be solved with more Federal funds coming in for the problem. Sometimes I wonder if even the priorities are straight. The 

last time you had stimulus money that came to Colorado for this 

issue, you got $53 million. Only $16 million was put toward this 

problem. Others went to some more aesthetic kinds of situations. 

I will give you the last—do you have other questions from either 

of you? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. Then I will actually give you the last chance to address one of the concerns I have. 

This is not a new issue. We have been over 20 years with this 

issue. The solution is not new. We all know what it is. I don’t care 

what the problem is, whether it is drought or climate change or 

management practices, the solution is to thin trees. We all know 

that, and we are not doing it for over 20 years. We are flat-out not 

doing it. And that is why the frustration I have as we start to look 

through new aspects and new concepts, and we are starting to try 

other words that sound good. ‘‘Collaboration’’ is the new word. 

‘‘Transparency’’ was the old word. It still means we are not doing 

it. We know what we need to do, and we are flat-out not doing it. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. BISHOP. No, wait. I told you, you can’t like anything I say. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Senator Udall asked for a study that came out of the 

Rocky Mountain research department. It was actually last September, and I just read it over the weekend, and I am very much 

concerned about what I flat-out have read in here, that when we 

are talking about what areas have been treatable so far, we are 

talking about, like, 18 or 12 percent of the roads that have done— 

12 percent of the roads mitigated for hazardous trees, 12 percent 

of the trails mitigated for hazardous trees, 61 percent of the recreation sites, 18 percent of the wildland-urban interface. We are not 

coming even close to where the problem is, and we still all know 

what the problem is. 

And then the conclusions of this report are scary to me. They 

say, ‘‘The factors that limited access to many areas for treatment 

to maintain forest stands, which include slopes, adjacency to inventory roadless areas, prohibition of mechanical treatment in designated wilderness, are still applicable today, and they haven’t 

changed at all.’’ And then, ‘‘Owing to terrain, budgetary, economic, 

regulatory limitations that also deals with things like our social license’’, which means lawsuits, ‘‘as well as roadless policies, owing 

to that, active management will be applied to a small fraction, 

probably less than 15 percent of the forest areas killed by the 

Mountain Pine Beetle.’’ 

The problem is—I am sorry. I get this sense of frustration in 

here. This is not new. We know what the solution is. There is no 

new solution. I am very frustrated that we are actually not moving 

70 

forward in a way that solves the problems, and if we did so, we 

would solve some economic problems at the same time. 

So I will give you—once again, don’t like what I say, please. I 

went over 12 seconds. I will give you another minute if you would 

just like to respond to that in summation. 

Mr. JIRON. We are absolutely committed to increase the amount 

of thinning and work that goes on in national forests. I know, we 

know that communities are benefitted by this, watersheds are benefitted by this, that it reduces the amount of taxpayer funding in 

catastrophic fire costs. So we will continue to use everything we 

have to be able to increase this work. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that, and I think that is a fair summation. My problem is everything we have ain’t good enough, and we 

have to do more, and I don’t care whether that is a directive from 

Washington or it comes from the grassroots up. Somewhere along 

the line, I think that is what my colleagues have said here as well. 

What we have been doing for 20-plus years is not good enough and 

we have to change that way. 

With that, I want to thank our witnesses for their valuable testimony. As I said earlier on so you would be prepared for it, members of the Subcommittees here and not here may have additional 

questions for the witnesses. We ask you to respond to these in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 business days to receive 

any kind of responses that you may have or additional written testimony if you would like to add that to it. 

I would also like to thank those who have been here in attendance. It has been a respectful audience. I told you, we are running 

under the rules of what would happen if this were back in Washington, D.C. So when I said you can’t like or dislike what we say, 

I am sorry, but you can’t, and I appreciate the way you have held 

on this topic, which is a very significant and important topic, and 

an emotional topic as well. 

Mr. Tipton, I would like to yield to you if you would like to say 

one last word before we bring this Committee to a close. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank everyone in attendance, particularly our panel for taking the 

time to be able to be here today. I know for many of you, that is 

time away from work, and that is something that is critically important. 

You know, just out on the road, we have a logging truck that is 

parked with a load of logs, and this is something that I think 

Chairman Bishop and Chairman McClintock have spoken to very 

eloquently. 

It is not brain surgery to be able to create healthy forests, and 

that is ultimately what we want to be able to do. One thing that 

we often don’t think about, particularly in a year like this, is we 

are looking up on the Sneffels Range and we are seeing our snow 

shed starting now to be able to evaporate. Those trees are actually 

part of what helps protect our water. So we need those healthy forests to be able to do that. 

Our logging industry has actually played a very critical role in 

terms of job creation and those healthy forests. So I applaud those 

efforts, applaud J.R.’s concept of being able to take some of these 

downed and dead timber and to be able to turn it into usable 

71 

energy and to be able to create jobs right here in the 3rd Congressional District. 

I thank all of you for your time because this is a passionate issue 

and an emotional issue at a variety of different levels. But as I listened to the testimony that went through, we do have that common 

ground of people that care about this state. I believe what I have 

been able to hear are sensible ways of just good common sense 

through the Forest Service to be able to address some of these 

issues. We look forward to being able to work with you to help be 

able to facilitate the fulfillment of your mission, and that is healthy 

forests and helping industry to be able to create jobs and be able 

to get people back to work. 

I will close. There is one other component that we have not 

talked about. Congressman Bishop, you and I visited on this at 

length at times, but this is also about education for our children 

as well, when we are talking about secure rural schools, our ability 

to be able to get in and harvest. So the multiple benefits that we 

can see I think are critically important. 

I certainly want to thank my two counterparts for taking the 

journey down to one of the most beautiful parts of the entire world 

here in Montrose County and for being with us, and thank you for 

your efforts, and all of our staff here as well. 

Mr. BISHOP. You had to bring in the education part. You knew 

I am a school teacher, didn’t you? You had to bring that in. 

What I also want you to do is, if you would thank the Montrose 

High School ROTC for the very professional way in which they did 

the Color Guard for us, or the posting of the colors, I appreciate 

that. 

And once again, for all of you, thank you for allowing us to come 

here and visit you in Montrose. 

If there are no objections heard, this Committee hearing will be 

in adjournment. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

Constituent Feedback 

Brian Bavin 

1009 Tiyoweh Trail 

Montrose, CO 82403 

trailriderbob@yahoo.com 

970–240–8546 

Comments: 

1) All roadless areas should be eliminated if they have not 

been designated official as wilderness as of now. This would 

allow the USFS and BLM to properly manage these areas. 

2) Potential tax incentives or subsides to the development of 

chipping and/or politicizing of products other than logs in 

order to facilitate the use of these sustainable resources for 

the production of energy. 

72 

Constituent Feedback 

Ken Emory 

2551 Silver Way 

Montrose, CO 82401 

mountainjeeper@aol.com 

970–596–5111 

Comments: 

We need to be able to get access into WSA’s and wilderness areas 

to manage for wild fires. All of our public lands are controlled by 

some federal agency. Each year more and more of our public lands 

are being closed for recreation, mining, logging and other areas 

that are creating job losses for local communities. However, each 

year more and more citizens are wanting to use their public lands, 

which should provide positive economic impacts, but it can also 

cause over use in some areas. Over 20% of Colorado mountains are 

designated wilderness. We need to manage our public lands not 

close them off forever for all future generations. 

Constituent Feedback 

Richard Frantz 

512 E. Main St 

Montrose, CO 

CWTS@montrose.net 

970–249–9008 

Comments: 

Rep. McClintock asked why it costs money to government to harvest trees when it used to be a profit center for the government. 

His question was never answered, I would like to hear that answered. 

Constituent Feedback 

David White 

PO Box 1611 

Montrose, CO 

Dsw77@aol.com 

970–252–4531 

Comments: 

1) Please note that any discussion of biomass or using wood 

chips for power generation will run straight into Obama’s 

Executive Order on mercury and air toxins standards that 

allows the EPA to not only shut down coal fired power 

plants that might also burn biomass but the timber industry due to its onerous regulations via the EPA! 

2) Note in testimony by Mr. Jiron that $33 million is available 

to treat 16,000 acres when Ms. Robertson stated that 30,000 

acres were destroyed in the Burn Canyon fire. Something is 

wrong with this picture!! 

Æ