U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–846 PDF 2009

HEARING TO REVIEW FOREST RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT IN NORTHERN WISCONSIN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, 

OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

July 20, 2009, Appleton, WI

Serial No. 111–26

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, 

Pennsylvania 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

FRANK KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,

Ranking Minority Member 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

NICOLE SCOTT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND

FORESTRY

JOE BACA, California, Chairman 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, 

Pennsylvania 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska,

Ranking Minority Member 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

LISA SHELTON, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 3

WITNESSES

Higgins, Jeanne, Forest Supervisor, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 

Eastern Region, U.S. Forest Service, USDA, Park Falls, Wisconsin ............... 4

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

Supplemental material ..................................................................................... 16

Frank, Matthew J., Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

Madison, Wisconsin .............................................................................................. 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18

Supplemental material ..................................................................................... 25

Schienebeck, Henry, Executive Director, Great Lakes Timber Professionals 

Association, Rhinelander, Wisconsin .................................................................. 35

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

Dixon, Kathrine, Staff Attorney, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Chicago, Illinois .......................................................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Supplemental material ..................................................................................... 49

Johnson, William E. ‘‘Bill,’’ President, Johnson Timber, Hayward, Wisconsin .. 73

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75

Zimmer, Gary, Senior Regional Wildlife Biologist, The Ruffed Grouse Society, 

Laona, Wisconsin ................................................................................................. 78

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Bartz, David P., Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin ............................................................ 94

Connor, Gordon P., President, Nicolet Hardwoods Corp., Laona, Wisconsin ..... 96

Gehlhoff, Wendy, Director, Florence County Economic Development Commission, Florence, Wisconsin ..................................................................................... 101

Guthrie, Steve, Woodlands Manager, Nicolet Hardwoods Corporation, Laona, 

Wisconsin .............................................................................................................. 105

Harrison, Steward P., and Schwantes, Michael J., Partners, Timberland 

Power Company, a division of Creative Energy and Data Solutions, LLC, 

Green Bay, Wisconsin .......................................................................................... 106

Hogue, Richard R., Clam Lake, Wisconsin ............................................................ 114

Kariainen, Steve, Resource Manager, Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Hayward, Wisconsin ................................................................................................... 115

Leach, Ph.D., Mark K., Bro Professor of Regional Sustainable Development 

and Associate Professor of Biology, Northland College, Ashland, Wisconsin . 116

Nehrbass, Christopher, Werner, Shahla M., and Uram, Eric, John Muir Chapter, Sierra Club, Madison, Wisconsin ................................................................. 119

Ouellette, MD, John J., private land owner, Madison, Wisconsin ...................... 123

Quast, Kimberly K., Chair, Wisconsin Consulting Foresters, Rosendale, Wisconsin .................................................................................................................... 124

Waller, Donald M., Professor of Botany and Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin ................................................ 126

Zemke, Elroy, President, and Jane Severt, Executive Director, Wisconsin 

County Forests Association, Tomahawk, Wisconsin ......................................... 134

The Nature Conservancy, Madison, Wisconsin ..................................................... 136

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW FOREST RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT IN NORTHERN WISCONSIN 

MONDAY, July 20, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, 

OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Appleton, WI 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., at the 

Radisson Paper Valley Hotel, 333 W. College Avenue, Appleton, 

Wisconsin, Hon. Joe Baca [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Baca and Kagen. 

Staff present: Jamie W. Mitchell, Lisa Shelton, Brent Blevins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA WISCONSIN 

Mr. BACA. I would like to call the meeting to order at this time. 

This is a hearing of the Subcommittee on Department of Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry to review the forest resource management in northern Wisconsin. That’s why it will come 

to order at this point. I’ll begin with a little bit of an opening statement. 

I had an opportunity to talk to Matt a little bit, and besides 

being head of the cheese country and dairy country, forestry is very 

important in Wisconsin as well. 

I happen to hear you’ve got quite a few golf courses in the area 

as well. I wish I had a little bit more time. I would have loved to 

have gone to play. I know that Matt said that he played on Saturday. 

But I’m pleased to be here with my good friend and colleague, 

Dr. Steve Kagen, to examine forest resource management here in 

Wisconsin. I appreciate his leadership and vision, and I state his 

genuine concern for the district and involvement in the Agriculture 

Committee as well. He has been very instrumental in assuring that 

we had the hearing here, and his persistence and ‘‘stick-to-ity’’ is 

to make sure that I did not fade away and not come to Appleton, 

Wisconsin. And there was a time that I was tempted to say maybe 

we should cancel the hearing, but he came back and said, look, I 

care about this area, forestry is an interest that we have to look 

at, it impacts not only Wisconsin, but it impacts the nation, too. So 

I really want to thank Dr. Kagen for his invitation and being persistent and having this hearing here this morning as we begin to 

2

hear about the forest product industries and the forest communities here in the heart of the dairyland. 

This is not the first time I’ve been here. As I stated to some of 

you earlier, I’ve had numerous trips back in the 1970s to the 1980s 

that I used to come into Appleton and then play ball in Kimberly, 

so I used to stay right here. I played a lot of the fast pitch, because 

they had the International Softball World Tournaments that were 

held here in Kimberly, so I came back here to play ball during my 

younger age, which is only a few years ago. As we are maturing 

in age right now, we lose sight and count of how old we are. But 

I do remember coming out here and playing ball here in Wisconsin. 

And during that period of time, I had an opportunity to also play 

a little bit of golf, and I enjoy the golf that I played out here. 

By way of introduction, I’m from San Bernardino, California, just 

outside of the L.A. area, about 35 miles east of L.A., and we have 

the San Bernardino National Forest that borders my district. And, 

of course, it provides, like anything else, recreational opportunity, 

economic benefits, and it creates a high quality of life for residents. 

And this is what we care about not only in here, in this area, but 

in the Inland Empire. And as a Californian and as an American 

I know it’s critical that we find concrete solutions to the many hazards facing the future of our forests. And this is why we’re having 

this hearing: to look at—attempt to look at dynamic environments. 

Forests are part of ongoing policy discussions and challenges, 

issues like climate change. Similarly, Federal forest policies must 

be flexible enough to meet these challenges. And I state they must 

be flexible enough to meet these challenges. Ultimately, we, in Congress, must work to find solutions to the questions that plague 

American forest policies, and that means collaborating in a partnership and coming together. And I think when we can come together as a region, as a state, as a nation, we can begin to address 

a lot of our problems. 

Questions that we’d like to look at is how do we best limit the 

devastating impact of invasive pests on our forests? What balance 

do we strike between development and forestland preservation? 

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

and maintain our forests to ensure that continued protection a success? How can we best work with business, labor, and communities 

to ensure the survival of timber-related industries during these 

times of economic difficulties? And that’s one of the things we 

heard this morning before the hearing. How do we manage it? And 

how do we control the resources? How can we utilize America’s forests and better protect the health of our water resources as well? 

I’m sure today’s hearing will be very instructive and effective to 

evaluate our current forestry policies in this country, so I look forward to listening and learning from these excellent witnesses on 

their views of forests right here in Wisconsin. 

I want to thank you and your staff, Dr. Kagen, and everyone who 

has been here in putting this hearing together, and thank you for 

being persistent and having courage and caring about your district 

and about the nation. 

With that, I’d like to turn it over to Dr. Kagen for an opening 

statement. 

3

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KAGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM WISCONSIN 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Chairman Baca, for holding this hearing 

and thank you to the staff for not having the customary clock up 

here with the five-minute limit. I understand that I’ve got five minutes; is that correct? Somebody is keeping time somewhere, that’s 

how government works. 

We have talked about having a hearing on the issues that are 

facing the forestry for sometime, and I’m really, really glad to welcome you to Wisconsin. Again, it’s appropriate that we are having 

this hearing here at the Paper Valley Hotel because the name itself 

reflects just how important the paper and forestry industry is to 

my district and to our continued economic success. While many 

parts of the country can boast of their forests, very few states have 

both the breadth and depth of forestry that we take for granted 

here in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has over 16 million acres of 

forestland which nearly encompasses half the state. It also has a 

diverse mix of both private and public forest that includes the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet, National Forest, over ten million acres of 

private forestland held by 360,000 private landowners and state 

and county forests. 

This diversity means that the challenges and promises facing 

Wisconsin’s forests are reflective of the issues surrounding forests 

nationwide. Even though all forests are not the same, sometimes 

management of these forests is one size fits all. I can tell you as 

a physician if you have asthma and allergies, every patient has a 

unique set of circumstances that they bring to the table, so is that 

also true with our national forests. Each one has unique problems 

and situations. 

Northeast Wisconsin has always been known for its extensive 

forests, which have played an important role in the housing and 

paper industries. And now, as our country moves towards greater 

energy independence, the forests of northeast Wisconsin have the 

potential to meet our nation’s needs for renewable energy. I think 

it’s very important that Congress continue to support the renewable energy activities of northeast Wisconsin. 

While this is a time of great promise for the forest industry, it’s 

also a time of extreme struggle. We have seen paper industries 

struggle under the weight of subsidized foreign competition, illegal 

paper being dumped into our domestic markets. Timber sales have 

slowed along with the housing market and the credit crunch which 

has affected all of Wisconsin and the entire nation. But it’s not only 

about our financial markets and the credit crunch. It’s about having sales. It’s about having contracts. No business person, no business owner in their right mind, would be looking to take out more 

debt at a time when they don’t have the sales they need to even 

pay back the debt they might encounter themselves. 

I look forward to listening to the witnesses assembled here today 

as they speak about how we manage our forests here in Wisconsin. 

I look forward to learning what lessons we can share with our colleagues on the Agriculture Committee and in Congress more generally. 

As we look to craft policies that help our forests meet their full 

potential today as well as the future generations, I also look forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\DOCS\111-26\52846.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
4

ward to discussing what challenges are facing Wisconsin forestry. 

While Congress may not be able to solve all these challenges, and 

perhaps Congress shouldn’t be looked to for all the solutions, it is 

crucial that we are cognizant of the realities that face the forestry 

industry. 

So thank you again, Chairman Baca, for convening this Congressional hearing here in northeast Wisconsin. I look forward to the 

testimony we’re about to hear. 

Mr. BACA. Again, thank you very much for bringing Washington, 

D.C., to Appleton and setting history right here in Appleton and 

having the first hearing here. 

With that, I’d like to begin with the first panel that we have. I’m 

going to have Dr. Kagen introduce each of the panelists. The panelists will have five minutes. There’s a light in front of you that will 

go on. We turned it off for you just to make sure we allowed you 

the additional time. But there’s a light in front of you and it will 

go from the green to the yellow and then the red which means that 

you’ll be able to end your testimony. But your testimony will be 

taken and it will be recorded, and for anybody else that didn’t have 

an opportunity to speak this morning, you’ll have five legislative 

days to submit your testimony, and it will be part of the record. 

With that, Dr. Kagen, I’d like you to start by introducing each 

of the panelists, and then we will start with the first one and then 

you’ll have five minutes. 

Mr. KAGEN. Let me begin by thanking you for coming here to the 

Paper Valley Hotel to present testimony to the United States Congress. And first up we have Ms. Jeanne Higgins, Forest Supervisor 

of Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Park Falls, Wisconsin. 

Next up will be Matt Frank, who we have come to know very 

well as Secretary of Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources. 

And I would say that he’s from Madison, but I get to see him everywhere in the state, so I’m not sure where he’s from. 

So, Ms. Higgins, if you’d begin. 

STATEMENT OF JEANNE HIGGINS, FOREST SUPERVISOR, 

CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST, U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE, EASTERN REGION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PARK FALLS, WISCONSIN 

Ms. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Kagen, thank you very much 

for taking the time to come to northern Wisconsin and talk about 

forest resource management. As evidenced by the attendance here 

today, issues facing our forests and forest resource management 

are important to many of us. Your presence and interest is greatly 

appreciated. 

With that, it’s an honor for me to speak before you today. I am 

Jeanne Higgins, Forest Supervisor for the Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest, Wisconsin’s only national forest. We more affectionately refer to it as the Cheq-Nic or the Che-Ni or 

Chequamegon-Nicolet will be a mouthful. But that forest is comprised of over 1.5 million acres across northern Wisconsin in 11 

counties and 65 townships. These forests are composed of land that 

was once logged over, burned over, and abandoned. And in the 

1930’s the Forest Service acquired the land. Since then, the 

5

Chequamegon-Nicolet and numerous partners have worked hard to 

create the landscape we see today. 

However, we must acknowledge we had challenges in managing 

forests in these landscapes. These challenges are not unique to 

Wisconsin. However, I believe Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to 

provide leadership to successfully tackle these challenges. So what 

is the role of the Forest Service and, specifically, the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest? 

Those of us who are responsible for managing this public trust 

must ensure we maintain a sustainable forest. In doing so, the 

Land and Resource Management Plan is a key instrument in our 

success to meet this obligation. We must also look and work across 

the landscape to ensure forest sustainability. Our relationship with 

our partners and other stakeholders is critical to our collective success in addressing the challenges. We must also have the appropriate tools to respond to these challenges and other dynamic situations that affect the sustainability of our forests. 

Management of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is 

guided by the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan, more 

commonly known as ‘‘the forest plan.’’ The forest plan is set up to 

ensure sustainable forests to provide what we as society desire. 

This includes the products we value, the wildlife that live here, and 

all of the other amenities and resources we use in our forests. It 

provides a balance of the demands that we place on our forests. 

The primary goal of the forest plan is to provide guidance to land 

managers to maintain a sustainable forest and developed through 

strong public involvement. 

When the plan was revised there was strong interest and active 

engagement process for many stakeholders, many of whom are here 

today. The plan represents what people value most about their forests, such as clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, wood products, 

and outdoor recreation. Sustainable forest management has renewed and recovered healthy ecosystems and provided significant 

contributions to the nation’s well-being. The Chequamegon-Nicolet 

as we know it today is the result of over 80 years of intensive restoration efforts. So managing these diverse landscapes cannot be 

done alone or only within the confines of the national forest boundary. The assistance of our partners in working collaboratively with 

other landowners is critical. Collaborative relationships are essential to sustainable forests. It is imperative that dialogue continue 

to occur to discuss issues that we face managing these forests. No 

one entity can work alone to resolve the challenges we face, such 

as nonnative invasive species, climate change, and parcelization of 

private forestland. 

Forests are dynamic, and appropriate tools are needed to be able 

to respond quickly to situations and events that could impact the 

long-term sustainability of forest resources. As land managers of 

this national forestland, we use a wide range of tools that are 

available to us to make management decisions. These tools are critical for assisting us to manage these public lands in a balanced and 

sustainable way. For example, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

being utilized to rapidly respond after the quad-county tornado in 

2007. The tools we have available also assist us to work with many 

partners to accomplish work that benefits the forest as well as local 

6

communities. The tools such as community wild park protection 

plans and stewardship contracting are important to our success. 

These are just some of the challenges we face, but as I mentioned 

earlier, we are in a position to provide leadership. We have dedicated staff on the Chequamegon-Nicolet to address these challenges. These folks are very committed to our work of managing 

the national forest. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I look forward 

to questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Higgins follows:]

7

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF MS. JEANNE HIGGINS, FOREST SUPERVISOR, 

CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST, EASTERN REGION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PARK FALLS, WISCONSIN


111026009
8


111026010
9


111026011
10


111026012
11


111026013
12


111026014
13


111026015
14


111026016
15


111026017
16

SUBMITTED MATERIAL OF MS. JEANNE HIGGINS, FOREST SUPERVISOR, 

CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PARK FALLS, WISCONSIN


111026085
17

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much for sticking with the time tables. 

Mr. KAGEN. That was very good. Mr. Frank? 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW J. FRANK, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, MADISON, WISCONSIN 

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen, thank you so 

much for holding this hearing in Appleton and in Wisconsin today. 

We are just honored to be here with you. I appreciate, in particular, Congressman Kagen, your focusing Congressional attention 

on this very important issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming 

back to Wisconsin. Appreciate it. 

It’s appropriate we are here in Appleton. Appleton has been a 

National Arbor Day Foundation winner of Tree City USA for 25 

years, including 17 growth awards. Has one of the most progressive 

urban forestry programs in Wisconsin. And I think it’s appropriate 

that we are here not only in your home area, Congressman Kagen, 

but in this city that is really committed to urban forestry. 

I really appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the significant value—ecological, economic, and social—that 

Wisconsin’s forests provide to the people of Wisconsin and the nation. These values stem from our abundant and sustainably-managed forest resource; leadership in providing certified wood on public and private lands; successful programs that promote the sustainable management of our privately-owned forests; a large pulp 

and paper industry, number one in the country, and diverse solid 

wood businesses; strong tourism and outdoor recreation base that 

includes the connection between our forests and high quality water 

resources, including more than 15,000 lakes; abundant habitat for 

diverse wildlife; leadership in research and innovation in renewable energy; and active protection of the forest resource from fire 

and invasive species. 

Our forests provide these values through the hard work of many 

partners. The state works closely with our governmental partners. 

Federal, we have an excellent relationship with Jeanne Higgins 

and the U.S. Forest Service here. Our other state partners, county 

partners, county foresters, municipal levels of government, as well 

as myriad other partners including landowner groups, environmental and conservation organizations, universities, businesses, 

our tribes, and countless others. We cannot achieve success working independently, but there is much we can do and accomplish 

working together. To that end, the Federal Government is a key 

partner in a number of ways, which I hope to be able to discuss 

with you more this morning. 

Wisconsin’s 16 million acres of forestland covering nearly half of 

Wisconsin’s landscape significantly enhance the quality of life in 

our state. Wisconsin’s forested acreage has been steadily increasing 

for the better part of a century, and provides an array of benefits 

that accrue to us all, even if we often are unaware of their origin. 

Our forests are often overlooked as part of our strategic infrastructure. In fact, forests are a strategic national resource that we must 

work together to protect and sustainably manage. Our forests work 

day in and day out to produce an array of benefits, many of which 

18

accrue to the public at large, not just the forest owner. These benefits include clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, flood control, 

carbon sequestration, wood products, jobs, renewable energy, displacement of fossil fuels, settings for recreation and tourism, and 

scenic beauty. Trees and forest also play a role in conserving energy, reducing floods, and enhancing the quality of life in our cities, 

villages, and towns. 

Our pulp and paper and solid wood industry is a key industry in Wisconsin and in the country contributing roughly $20 billion in 

value to our economy. Wisconsin leads the nation in the production 

of paper and in the value of forest product shipments. Over 1,300 

wood product companies employ over 68,000 people with an annual 

payroll of over three billion representing 13 percent of all manufacturing employment in the state. And I might add that Wisconsin 

recently went into first place in the number of manufacturing jobs 

per capita of any state in the country. We are now at about 19 or 

20 percent of our economy. We remain second only to California in 

total employee wages from the forest products industry. In addition, we have $13 million tourist industry with forest-based recreation, which also adds another $5 billion in economic output to the 

state. 

There are some critical issues that I hope we have a little more 

time to discuss this morning. We need to invest in our nation’s forests. I think the Federal Government does have an important role 

to play there. We have some thoughts about how the Federal Government can help us control invasive species. I think one of the 

areas that we really need to focus on is looking at the interstate 

movement of firewood, and we can talk more about that. Certainly 

investing in our forests through programs like the Forest Legacy 

Program or the Forest Stewardship Program, supporting our urban 

and community forestry programs, also depend, in part, on Federal 

funding. Focusing on the area of forest fire protection, making sure 

that the Forest Service has adequate funding to fight the fires so 

they don’t have to take money out of other parts of their budget. 

I applaud Congress for taking some steps in that direction to address that issue in the current budget. Climate change and energy 

are also very, very important issues. We have an enormous opportunity here to be a leader. Governor Doyle has made Wisconsin—

has positioned Wisconsin as a national leader in the development 

of clean and renewable energy, and bioenergy is an important part 

of that, and our forests are a key asset in terms of developing that. 

It looks like I’m over time. And I hope that we have a little bit 

more time to talk about some very big and complex issues. But, 

once again, thank you so much for coming here. We look forward 

to working with the Committee and with Congress. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:]

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF MR. MATTHEW J. FRANK, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, MADISON, WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: 

Good morning and welcome to Wisconsin. I appreciate this opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss the significant value — ecological, economic and social — Wisconsin’s forests provide to the people of Wisconsin and the nation. These values 

stem from our:

• abundant and sustainably managed forest resource;

19

• leadership in providing certified wood on public and private lands;

• successful programs that promote the sustainable management of our privately 

owned forests;

• large pulp and paper industry and diverse solid wood businesses;

• strong tourism and outdoor recreation base that includes the connection between our forests and high quality water resources, including more than 15,000 

lakes;

• abundant habitat for diverse wildlife;

• leadership in research and innovation in renewable energy;

• active protection of the forest resource from fire and invasive species.

Our forests provide these values through the hard work of many partners. The 

State works closely with our government partners - Federal, state, county and municipal - as well as myriad other partners including landowner groups, environmental and conservation organizations, universities, businesses, tribes, and countless others. We can not achieve success working independently, but there is much 

we can and do accomplish working together. To that end, the Federal Government 

is a key partner in a number of ways, which I will outline. 

Wisconsin’s Abundant Forests

Wisconsin’s 16 million acres of forest land, covering nearly half of Wisconsin’s 

landscape, significantly enhance the quality of life in our state. Wisconsin’s forested 

acreage has been steadily increasing for the better part of a century and provides 

an array of benefits that accrue to us all, even if often we are unaware of their origin. Our forests are often an overlooked part of Wisconsin’s strategic infrastructure; 

in fact, forests are a strategic national resource that we must work to protect and 

sustainably manage. Our forests work day in and day out to produce an array of 

benefits, many of which accrue to the public at large, not just the forest owner. 

The benefits we derive from forests include clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, 

flood control, carbon sequestration, wood products, jobs, renewable energy, displacement of fossil fuels, settings for recreation and tourism, and scenic beauty. Trees 

and forest also play a role in conserving energy, reducing floods, and enhancing the 

quality of life in our cities, villages and towns. 

Wisconsin’s traditional bio-economy — pulp & paper and solid wood — collectively 

contribute $20.5 billion in value to our economy. Wisconsin leads the nation in the 

production of paper and in the value of forest product shipments. Over 1,300 wood 

products companies employ over 68,000 people with an annual payroll of $3.1 billion 

representing 13% of all manufacturing employment in the state. We remain second 

only to California in total employee wages from the forest products industry, which 

in Wisconsin is the number one employer in 23 counties and either second or third 

in an additional 15 counties. Wisconsin has a $13 billion tourism industry with forest-based recreation estimated to add an additional $5.5 billion in economic output 

in Wisconsin. 

Relationship with USDA Forest Service (USFS)

Wisconsin DNR has a positive working relationship with the USFS, working in 

collaboration across all three branches of the agency. 

With over 1.5 million acres, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) 

covers nearly 10% of Wisconsin’s forest land and 30% of the forested public land. 

Intermingled with our State (1.1 million acres) and County forests (2.4 million 

acres), the CNNF shares the joint responsibility for providing the full array of benefits I outlined above. These include raw materials that support jobs and local communities, forest-based recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat and so on. We 

value our very positive working relationship with CNNF Forest Supervisor Jeanne 

Higgins and her staff. She recognizes that the CNNF sits within a broader landscape of public and private forest lands and many communities. We work together 

to collectively address both challenges and opportunities, some of which I will outline here this morning. 

WDNR also has a long-standing collaborative relationship with the USFS research, particularly initiatives supported through the USFS Northern Research Station and the Forest Products Laboratory, which we are proud to host here in our 

state. Long-term field research such as that done on the Argonne Experimental Forest, studies on issues such as old growth, and the Forest Inventory & Analysis (FIA) 

program are among those research programs important to us here in Wisconsin. The 

Lab has for decades been a major contributor in advancing the efficient use of our 

renewable forest resources and remains a critical player as we move forward as a 

20

nation to address opportunities such as those associated with renewable, homegrown bioenergy. 

The branch of the USFS that we interact with the most is State & Private Forestry (S&PF). This is not surprising given that private forests comprise more than 

two-thirds of our forest land and are owned by more than 300,000 individuals. The 

USFS S&PF program provides Wisconsin approximately $2 million annually to help 

support our efforts to provide an array of public benefits from our private and community forests. Funding for private forest stewardship, urban & community forestry, Forest Legacy, forest health, and several cooperative fire initiatives are an important component of our program to protect and enhance the public values that we 

derive from our forests. Furthermore, S&PF provides a conduit for effective crossstate collaboration on forestry issues, enhancing the effectiveness of efforts to maximize the delivery of goods and services from forests across the country. 

S&PF programs have supported our work to address destructive invasive species, 

address how to effective engage the next generation of family forest owners in whose 

hands lies the future of our private forests and the benefits they provide us, design 

and implement efforts to mitigate the hazards facing communities at high risk from 

wildfire, assess the extent and health of the trees and forests in our communities, 

and conserve large blocks of private forest land at risk of being subdivided and fragmented. To elaborate briefly on just one of these, through our partnership with the 

USFS, we have used Federal Forest Legacy funds to help acquire conservation easements on more that 100,000 acres of working forest lands, including the Wild Rivers 

Legacy Forest in Northeast Wisconsin. The final phase of this project is in the FY’10 

budget as proposed by President Obama and passed by the House. These easements 

protect environmentally important forestlands threatened by conversion to non-forest uses while also providing a wide array of public benefits, including exceptional 

water resources and valuable settings for public recreation. 

The Federal investment in S&PF is has been declining, just as recognition of the 

value of our forests as a strategic national asset has been increasing. For example, 

the allocation of forest stewardship funds, which support efforts to keep our most 

vulnerable forests in forest and managed well for the long-term, is scheduled to be 

reduced by 45% for Wisconsin. This seems at odds with the direction I believe we 

need to be headed if we are to realize the full potential of our forests both ecologically and economically. 

Before shifting gears, I want to close by reiterating our opposition to the proposed 

merger of USFS Region 9 and the Northeastern Area, which was in a recent Federal 

Register notice. We strongly support increased collaboration among all three 

branches of the USFS in the East. However, the proposed merger is not an effective 

way to accomplish that and it fails to recognize the need for the agency to increase 

its focus on the compelling Federal interest in the protection and sustainable management of the nation’s forests, not primarily the National Forests. The air and 

water purified by our forests, and the carbon they sequester, does not vary by ownership; it varies by how the land is treated. We ask that the USFS be a committed 

partner to work across our forests and in our communities to maximize how our forests best serve us all. 

Wisconsin a Leader in Providing Environmentally Sustainable Wood

Over the last decade, third-party forest certification has taken root as a credible 

public assurance that forests are well-managed. During this time Governor Doyle 

recognized the important role of Wisconsin forests in his original 2003 ‘‘Grow Wisconsin’’ plan. He directed the Department of Natural Resources and the Council on 

Forestry to explore opportunities to certify land in DNR administered programs to 

build the supply of verified, sustainably produced source material. The Department 

moved quickly to complete forest certification and, as a result, we now have nearly 

six million acres of State Forest, County Forest, other state lands and private land 

enrolled in the Managed Forest Law program that are third party certified via the 

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and/or the 

American Tree Farm system. A growing number of manufacturers are marketing 

products made from certified wood and paper because the associated trust is very 

good for business. The concentration of certified forests in the Lakes States has especially helped Wisconsin’s paper makers weather the recession and poises them for 

a more rapid recovery. 

A continuing key to this success is that nearly half of Wisconsin forestlands are 

recognized by leading international and North American forest certification programs. That compares to only about 12% of forests nationwide, making Wisconsin 

and our neighboring Upper Great Lakes states a distinct forest certification ‘‘hub’’. 

Last year Wisconsin completed FSC certification of more than 42,000 small private 

estates covering over 2,000,000 acres, a record no one else comes close to anywhere 

21

in the world. This was accomplished through our Managed Forest Law program, giving Wisconsin the largest group of certified family-forest owners under both Forest 

Stewardship Council and the American Tree Farm System. But we are not satisfied 

with these accomplishments. 

So what’s missing from the certification picture? Quite prominently, our National 

Forests. The CNNF has 1.5 million acres here in northern Wisconsin ready and willing to engage in forest certification. I encourage Congress and the Administration 

to provide leadership in bringing certification to Federal lands and to expand forest 

certification for small family forests. Outside of the Managed Forest Law program, 

Wisconsin has another 8 million acres of small land ownerships that need USDA 

technical forestry assistance and land management incentives that could enable 

their land to be certified. Certification is also one of several tools that we can use 

to ensure future bio-fuel and carbon sequestration programs are implemented in a 

manner that balances environmental, economic and social needs. 

Maintaining our Industrial Base in a Global Economy

Although we continue to lead the nation in paper production, the paper industry, 

along with others aspects of our forest produces industry, is under stress due to foreign competition, high energy costs and high fiber costs that have reduced companies’ competitive position in the global marketplace. Although jobs have declined in 

this sector over recent years due to the global economy, we still have approximately 

35,000 jobs in the pulp, paper and printing sectors alone. The pulp and paper industry is restructuring globally and must add products and streamline operations to regain a competitive advantage. We must also work together to maintain a vibrant 

cadre of professional loggers who play a key role in achieving sustainability on the 

ground and getting product to market. 

The future health of the industry directly affects Wisconsin’s economy; however, 

it also affects our ability to sustainably maintain forests. Our robust industry has 

provided an incentive to keep forest land forested and managed sustainability, and 

encouraged landowners to undertake activities to ensure the long-term capacity of 

their forests to provide an array of benefits, including feedstock for industry but also 

such things as recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, and clean air and water 

that benefit the public as a whole. As a result, the loss of industry is not only a 

detriment to Wisconsin’s economy, but also to the health of our environment and 

quality of life in our state. 

Climate Change

In 2007 Governor Doyle signed Executive Order 191 creating the Global Warming 

Task Force. One of the missions given to the task force was to advise the Governor 

on ongoing opportunities to address global warming locally while utilizing an appropriate mix of fuels and technologies in Wisconsin’s energy and transportation portfolios. In addition to sequestering carbon, Wisconsin’s forests can provide a feedstock 

for generating renewable energy. By displacing fossil fuels, our forests reduce our 

collective carbon footprint. 

Governor Doyle has also been a leader in the Midwest Governors Association process to develop a strategy for addressing climate change. Both the Wisconsin and 

MGA processes have resulted in recommendations that should influence how we 

proceed on climate change legislation nationally. To that end, Wisconsin has been 

active in advocating that Federal climate legislation account for the positive role forests can play. 

Climate Change will have an important effect on the future of the 1.7 billion tons 

of carbon stored in Wisconsin’s Forests. Our forest ecosystems will likely be changed 

by a warming climate and but also have a role to play in mitigating the extent to 

which that warming does occur. I appreciate the efforts of the House to pass H.R. 

2454 with provisions that for the most part recognize the important contribution of 

forests to addressing climate change. First, the bill provides for the use of forest biomass as a renewable energy resource. Substituting this fuel for traditional sources 

in energy generation provides an avenue for energy producers and manufacturers 

to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Second, this bill includes provisions for 

forest offsets. Under these offsets, tree planting and forest conservation can act as 

a low cost means for Wisconsin’s greenhouse gas emitters to meet their reduction 

obligations while implementing more efficient systems. 

This same bill also provides assistance to states in working to protect sensitive 

forest ecosystems that will be put at risk by a changing climate. There was a positive change made in the version that passed the House to ensure some adaptation 

funding is available to address forests, however, given the critical role that forests 

play ecologically and economically, the percentage directed to forests remains low. 

Should the Senate decide to increase adaptation funding for forests, I encourage 

22

your support for that when it goes to conference. For our part, Wisconsin has created the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI), of which the 

DNR and University of Wisconsin are partners. WICCI is already working to model 

the impacts of a changing climate of our forests and recommend adaptation strategies to reduce the detrimental impacts on our most sensitive forest species. Furthermore, this same group is working with the USGS to compete for the creation of a 

Federally funded Midwest Area Science Hub in the State that would study the impacts of climate changes on natural systems in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. 

A Leader in the Green Economy

Since coming into office, Governor Doyle has led efforts to make Wisconsin a leader in the development of clean and renewable energy, advancing energy efficiency 

and moving Wisconsin toward energy independence. He wants our energy to come 

from the Midwest, not the Middle East. Governor Doyle has set a goal of generating 

25% of electricity and transportation fuels from renewable sources by 2025, capturing 10% of the emerging bio-industry and renewable energy market by 2030, and 

becoming a national leader in groundbreaking energy research. Governor Doyle has 

identified our forests and farms as one key component of Wisconsin’s energy future. 

Last year Governor Doyle committed $50 million to build the Great Lakes Bioenergy 

Research Center. The synergy that is being created between the research center, the 

University of Wisconsin and the USDA Forest Products Lab positions Wisconsin to 

be the national leader in developing innovative solutions to meet our energy needs, 

from increasing biomass yields to working renewable energy solutions into the state, 

national, and global economies. It is important that we continue to see Federal investment in this area if we are to achieve the goals outlined by both President 

Obama and Governor Doyle. 

Pulp Mills as Biorefineries

Wisconsin’s large pulp and paper industry positions the state to take advantage 

of the existing infrastructure to add production of renewable energy at a large scale. 

The pulp and paper industry uniquely enables the state to be a significant producer 

of not only pulp and paper, but bioenergy, bio-chemicals and bio-feedstocks as well. 

As integrated ‘‘biorefineries’’ the mills could extract energy and other bi-products 

from wood while also making their traditional products. This has the potential to 

significantly increase their revenue stream from the same wood they currently bring 

into the mill. As a result, adding renewable energy to the products produced at our 

existing pulp mills would help keep the industry competitive globally while also 

helping Wisconsin achieve Governor Doyle’s targets for renewable energy production. 

In addition to producing energy from wood used to produce value-added products, 

opportunities exist to utilize biomass from the forest that is not used by existing 

industry. The department estimates that our forests contain over 600 million dry 

tons of biomass in our forests. Our forests already provide nearly 600,000 tons of 

wood for energy production today, and another 1.2 million tons of currently unutilized wood are available to use in energy production. This is all in addition to wood 

that might be used to produce energy prior to being pulped for the production of 

other products. 

In order to ensure that our forests can sustain the production of woody biomass 

for energy, the Wisconsin Council on Forestry initiated a public process to develop 

Biomass Harvest Guidelines designed to assess the how material can be removed 

from the forest in a manner that will maintain the ability of the forest to provide 

the array of other public benefits long into the future. We were one of the first 

states in the nation to put such guidelines in place to ensure the array of values 

from our forests can be sustained. 

Strategic Choices

Policies that promote bioenergy should be crafted in a manner that allows existing 

industry to compete on a level playing field. Using wood for energy clearly helps us 

meet identified targets for renewable energy, thereby reducing our carbon footprint 

and increasing our use of ‘‘home grown’’ energy. On the other hand, to the extent 

that using wood for energy displaces using that wood for traditional products (e.g., 

pulp & paper, solid wood products) there is a significant drop-off in economic value. 

Our forests can provide both traditional forest products and increased energy; we 

simply must be thoughtful to chart a course that will enhance both existing and new 

industries. 

It is also important not to lose sight of all the different renewable energy products 

that can be produced from wood, such as transportation fuels, syngas, electricity and 

heat. We should strive to use wood in a manner that maximizes the energy return 

to the U.S. from investment in the forest. 

23

As an important step, the RES and RFS definitions must acknowledge wood as 

an important source of renewable energy. That energy must be extracted in a manner that is sustainable long-term. We believe sustainability can best be determined 

at a state level, as evidenced by our development of Biomass Harvest Guidelines. 

The RES definition in H.R. 2454 as passed by the House acknowledges forests to 

a greater degree than previous versions, however, the final version should more 

clearly recognize the contribution that can occur on Federal lands and have provisions for states to outline clear sustainability guidelines. 

Forest Fire Protection

An expanding Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in Wisconsin and elsewhere, continued droughts, warming climate, and an increasing forest health crisis have created a difficult situation and stressed forest fire management capabilities to protect 

communities and the forest resource. In Wisconsin, as in the eastern United States 

generally, the states have the majority of forest fire protection responsibilities, 

equipment and personnel. We collaborate closely with local fire departments and our 

Federal partners both in-state and out-of-state when called upon to provide aid to 

other states. In these difficult budget times we will continue to work with our Federal partners to see what we might do to further streamline the protection of people, 

property and natural resources in Wisconsin from forest fires. 

At the Federal level, there is a continued need to advocate for a solution to the 

ever increasing impact of emergency fire suppression costs on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) constrained budgets. Fire 

suppression costs for the agencies have exceeded $1 billion every year since 2000. 

In 2009, the Forest Service will spend over 50% of its budget on wildland fire suppression. 

This increase has placed sustainable forest management efforts at risk on both 

public and private lands. Unless this diversion of funding is successfully addressed, 

state forestry agencies will not be able to successfully address national priorities 

and objectives. Extraordinary emergency fires should be treated the same way as 

other disasters and should not come at the expense of all other USFS and DOI priorities and programs. To that end, I appreciate the overwhelming bipartisan support 

shown in the House for the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act (H.R. 1404). The bill is currently being considered in the Senate 

and we strongly advocate its passage as introduced in S. 561. I hope you will join 

me in urging action by the Senate and quick turnaround in conference so that President Obama can sign the FLAME Act into law this year. 

Invasive Species

Invasive species pose a major challenge to our forests. The Emerald Ash Borer 

(EAB), for example, has been found in two locations here in Wisconsin since last 

August. The DNR, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer 

Protection (DATCP) and the University of Wisconsin (UW) and UW Extension are 

working closely with Federal agencies — USDA Forest Service and Animal Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to implement a cooperative EAB program. This 

program is focused on delimiting existing infestations, detecting new finds, testing 

management options and conducting outreach and education. Using EAB as an example of extraordinary invasive species impacts to our forests, the entire ash resource equating to more than 760,000,000 ash trees are at risk, as are 20% of the 

trees in our communities. Federal grant funds are a key source of support for detection and management of this pest. Using a competitive grant from USFS S&PF, we 

will be conducting workshops for municipalities and forest landowners in the fall of 

2009, helping these communities cope with this destructive pest. DNR is also supporting two research projects using funds from this same competitive process in an 

effort to learn more about EAB and how we might most effectively detect and manage it. 

On DNR-managed properties, we continue to enforce our firewood rule that restricts the distance that firewood can originate from to 50 miles from the property. 

While this is important, we believe action is also needed at a Federal level. We 

strongly advocate development of a national program to regulate the movement of 

firewood, which has been found to be a common vector for a number of destructive 

pests. We would like to see this move forward quickly, working with state forest 

health program leaders, state plant regulatory directors, environmental, forestry 

and forest industry groups, the firewood industry and other affected parties. The 

Federal Government plays an important role in managing these invasives, which 

know no political boundaries, to coordinate and lead in the detection, monitoring 

and long term management of priority invasives. Likewise, investments in research 

are critical to develop new tools to respond to invasive species. 

24

Looking Ahead

Our forests, like those throughout this nation, are a strategic asset that provide 

a large array of benefits both today and, if managed well, long into the future. In 

order to do so, we need to be thoughtful in how we approach use of our forests to 

best maximize the positive outcomes - ecologically, economically, and socially. We 

face many critical challenges that we will need to work cooperatively with out partners, including our Federal partners, to address, locally, regionally and nationally. 

The DNR looks forward to continuing to work with you to help accomplish this. 

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss these issues with you and would be glad to 

take any questions you might have. 

25

SUBMITTED MATERIAL OF MR. MATTHEW J. FRANK, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, MADISON, WISCONSIN


111026086
26

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Matt. 

And don’t be intimidated by the lights. We are intimidated ourselves when we are back in D.C. When time expires and all of a 

sudden we either got a one-minute or two-minute or five-minute 

question and answer or presentation. It seems like the light comes 

on all of a sudden, you are trying to rush through to get everything. But hopefully, Matt, I’m sure that we’ll be able to hear some 

of the other concerns or areas that are very important. 

With that, then, we will begin with some questions and answers 

hopefully from both myself and Dr. Kagen to both you and your assistants that are here, too. We will have five minutes ourselves. 

And I’ll start with Ms. Higgins. 

I’m a big baseball fan, as you heard before, and especially interested in what I have in terms of the Forest Service and the Forest 

Product Laboratory in Madison, what it’s doing to solve the crisis 

of broken bats. Can you provide me with an update in terms of 

what’s going on there? 

Ms. HIGGINS. I’d be happy to. Our Forest Products Lab in Madison took on the challenge of trying to understand why bats were 

breaking as frequently as they have. We have——

Mr. BACA. They’re not cork bats, right? 

Ms. HIGGINS. And I think what the Forest Products Lab found 

is that maple bats have been utilized a little bit more frequently 

in recent years than ash bats, and maple bats have had a tendency 

to break and splinter. So they did their magic, went into their laboratory and figured out what exactly was causing the bats to break 

and came out with actually nine points for Major League Baseball 

to consider in terms of manufacturing and utilizing bats. And so 

those have been forwarded to Major League Baseball, and I understand they have been adopted in terms of how to manufacture bats 

so that they don’t break. So I’m going to be watching to see how 

many of those bats break as I watch. 


111026087
27

Mr. BACA. Maybe they should come from the forests right out 

here. 

Ms. HIGGINS. We have a lot of maple here in northern Wisconsin. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Can you tell me what you are doing in 

your forest resource management practice to anticipate and incorporate the effects of climate change? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Climate change is something we should all be concerned about. We are currently undertaking vulnerability and mitigation assessment to understand how best to adapt our forests to 

adapt to climate change, and we are working with our partners 

across the state to understand how we can respond. 

Mr. BACA. You mentioned in your testimony the tools for management. Can you elaborate a little bit more about managing the 

forests, about the kind of tools? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Well, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act has been 

a very important tool for us to be able to respond quickly to events 

that occur in the forest such as the quad-county tornado which hit 

four counties in northern Wisconsin in 2007, and it impacted 8,000 

acres of national forest system land and essentially leveled it. We 

were able to respond quickly to do the environmental analysis, 

much quicker than our normal processes, which allowed us to get 

in and salvage timber and begin to restore that forest after that 

tornado within a matter of months. So we were very appreciative 

of that tool to allow us to be able to respond as quickly as we were. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. You mentioned the use of emergency rate 

redeterminations we’ve added to the farm bill for certain timber 

contracts. With the country in such difficult economic times, is 

there any additional authority you could use to help local timber 

producers? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Well, certainly the tools that we have, which include contract term extensions and rate redeterminations, I think 

have been a tremendous help. I would encourage you to ask that 

question of the second panel members as to whether or not there’s 

any additional help that they could use. We have heard that the 

tools that we have been able to use have been very helpful in these 

times. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. In California, water is always a major concern for a lot of us, especially for those of us in southern California 

versus the northern portion. You mentioned water resources in 

your testimony, but I wondered if you could expand on your comments by explaining how Wisconsin watershed fits into the larger 

regional water resource picture? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Well, normally, and the Chequamegon-Nicolet is no 

different, we are at the headwaters of many of our nation’s waters, 

and so it’s an important role for the national forests, and specifically the Chequamegon-Nicolet, to provide clean water. Our challenge is not necessarily so much about water quantity but it is 

about water quality. Actually, certainly water quantity has been a 

bigger concern here in northern Wisconsin with the drought that 

we’ve had over the last several years, but our focus on the national 

forest is trying to reduce sedimentation from roads, trying to ensure that we restore streams and rivers that at one point in time 

were actually used as a transportation source to haul logs—to 

transport logs from the headwaters down to the mills, and in that 

28

process we modified habitat in our streams. So our work has been 

focused on restoring streams and reducing sedimentation. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. I know my time has expired, but I want 

to ask Matt, you mentioned firewood. Could you elaborate a little 

bit more on the interstate transport of firewood? 

Mr. FRANK. Yes. Well, invasives, I think, is one of the major challenges to long-term forest health in not only Wisconsin but across 

the country. We have an excellent program within Wisconsin to 

deal with this challenge. DNR works very closely with the Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection. We have a lot 

of good local partnerships. We work with the Federal and county 

forest folks who do this work. I think where we could use more 

help and attention from the Federal Government in looking at the 

interstate movement of firewood. That is one of the vectors that 

has been identified, scientifically, as how invasives will move 

across state lines. 

And up until the last year, we did not have emerald ash borer 

in this state. We have not been able to prove exactly how it got 

here, but the strong suspicion it is from the interstate movement 

of firewood. And the states—we like to do as much as we can on 

our own, we don’t like to go to the Federal Government to ask for 

help on all things, we know there’s a responsibility we have, but 

this is an area where the Federal Government really can play a 

role. We would like to see the Forest Service, through USDA and 

also APHIS, focus on this and really work in partnership with the 

states to design a system that will prevent the spread of invasives 

through the interstate movement of firewood. It’s a hole in the system, and I don’t think it’s a hole that just the states can address. 

I think we gotta work with Federal Government on it. 

Mr. BACA. Matt, can you please provide some examples of how 

you have used the Federal, state, and private forestry funding to 

protect and sustain forests in Wisconsin? 

Mr. FRANK. Well, absolutely. The Forest Legacy fund, Federal 

Forest Stewardship funds have been absolutely essential in us protecting and preserving forested land in Wisconsin. We are fortunate 

in this state that the people of Wisconsin have committed to a 

strong state stewardship fund. I think we have a model for the nation, one of the best ones in the country. Governor Doyle has been 

a huge supporter of that fund. We recently got it reauthorized for 

another 10 years with additional money. Under that program we 

set aside over 500,000 acres for public use and enjoyment for generations to come. 

We are able to be successful in that program because we leveraged dollars, state taxpayer dollars, with other sources. One of 

those sources is the Federal Legacy Act, which has allowed us to 

acquire, for example, Willow flowage. We have, I think on the current Congressional list, there is the Chippewa flowage acquisition 

and Wild Rivers acquisition. We are able to acquire additional 

lands because the Federal Government makes those dollars available. We are very pleased that there’s additional Legacy Act funding in the Administration’s budget that’s before Congress. 

We’d like to see, as we move along here, to see a greater commitment to the stewardship side of the budget as well. Those dollars 

from the Federal Government help us work with private landVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-26\52846.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
29

owners to work on sustainability and certification, good forest management. Those are also important dollars. We are not asking the 

Federal Government to pay for all of it, but those partnership dollars are really important to our efforts. 

Mr. BACA. One last question, then I’m going to turn it over to Dr. 

Kagen. What is the State of Wisconsin doing to improve the timber 

market? 

Mr. FRANK. Well, that—it has been very difficult in the timber 

industry with the state of the national economy. With what’s happened in the housing market, wood products in general, it has been 

a very tough few years, and I think you’ll probably hear from some 

folks on the second panel who will talk about that. One of the 

things we are trying to do is we are working with our loggers to 

try to ameliorate the impacts of this downturn. We’ve had contracts 

that we’ll enter into them to harvest wood on state properties. It 

may be that given the market the way it is, it just doesn’t make 

economic sense to be able to get that wood out on the market because the prices are too low. We’re engaging in a variety of practices to try to work with our loggers so that they aren’t hit too hard 

by that, and we have engaged in a number of things. 

I think, obviously, number one, a turnaround in the national 

economy will be helpful across the board. If you can get the housing part of the economy moving again and people building homes 

and buying furniture and all the things that our wood products industry supports, that will be helpful. But, second, I think key strategic investments that will help the health of our forest economy 

in the future are real important. Getting money in from the Federal Government to support things that—we are very happy that 

the Department of Energy has made a grant to the University of 

Wisconsin to be a leader in researching cellulosic ethanol. That 

kind of research, those kind of investments, can really benefit our 

forest and our economy strategically in the long run. As we move 

to research and develop commercial uses of cleaner renewable energy from our forests, we have the opportunity, I think, to really 

add to the underlying strength of that economy, one that would 

grow beyond what we have now with the paper and wood products 

to have other economic values for our forests. 

The second part of that is under the climate change bill to make 

sure we have a strong forestry and agricultural offset program that 

takes advantage of the fact our forests and our ag lands can be carbon sinks, as we’re trying to get reduced greenhouse gases. Waxman-Markey, it’s important that that bill, as it goes through the 

Senate, contain a strong offset program. We think that will benefit 

our forests as well and give it even greater economic value because 

it will encourage forest to stay in forest. So there’s a range of Federal policies, I think, that ultimately impact that economic future 

of our forests. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you, Matt. I’ll turn it over to Dr. Kagen for 

some questions. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, again, for 

your testimony, Mr. Frank. You mentioned a couple things that interest me. Cellulosic ethanol, biotechnology, the University of Wisconsin has been leading the way. In many respects, Wisconsin in 

its forward thinking has been leading the way, but if we don’t 

30

sustainably manage and harvest our national forests, what’s the 

point of investing in cellulosic if we can’t then begin to level the 

playing field and allow this activity to take place? Do you have a—

can you make a comment about the harvesting of our hardwoods 

in our national forests? 

Mr. FRANK. Yes, Congressman. I believe that the national forest 

has come up with a very strong plan. The plan was approved in 

2004. It was a management plan that we applaud the Forest Service for getting input from many partners. Wisconsin DNR had 

input. There were a lot of stakeholders that had input into that. 

We firmly believe that you can grow our economy with clean and 

renewable energy and do it sustainably. I think there’s a good 

groundwork for this in our national forest with that forest management plan; we’d like to see it implemented. And, yes, we think that 

we should give some consideration, at least here. Now, this is 

where you may, as you look at this issue across the country, it may 

differ by national forests. Congress Baca and Congressman Kagen, 

you may hear different things in other parts of the country. Here 

we do believe that there are parts of the national forest that the 

Forest Service could responsibly and sustainably harvest, and that 

should be part of the equation. And we hope that Congress will 

work with the Federal agencies and continue to work with us on 

looking at that. 

Mr. KAGEN. You also mentioned the idea of certification, and 

maybe you could speak to this importance of having certified forests. What difference does it make to educate other Members of the 

Agriculture Committee in Washington? Can you make some comments about the certification, the value of having certified forests 

and certified woodlands? 

Mr. FRANK. Absolutely. We’ve been very committed in Wisconsin 

to sustainably certifying our forests, and just late this last year, we 

just introduced another two million acres into a third-party certification program which is, I think, one of the largest private entries 

into the program—in any program in its history. We have a big—

Governor Doyle made a big commitment to this on our state lands 

when he first came in 2003. We’ve got our state lands certified. 

We’ve made progress with our private lands. We’d like to see our 

national forests be part of that program. 

It’s important for two reasons. Number one, it helps grow our 

economy. More and more the marketplace is looking for that certification to say, we want to know that you are committed to sustainable management. You’ve got catalog companies like Patagonia 

that want to make sure that the paper that they’re printing their 

catalog on is coming from sustainable forests. That’s just one example. We are seeing that more and more in the marketplace. We’re 

seeing consumers demand it. We’re seeing companies down the 

supply chain demand it. So it’s important, we believe, for our economic future to have that sustainable imprint or that certification 

imprint. 

The second reason it’s important is because it also says—it also 

means something very important for our environment. As we harvest and manage our natural resources, we are committed to doing 

that sustainably, and private landowners who are certified are 

31

making that commitment. So certification is important both for a 

strong economic reason and for an environmental reason. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much. There was a group that 

couldn’t be here this morning, that’s the Menominee Tribal Enterprises, and we are very fortunate to have here in Wisconsin I think 

the only virgin forest in America that remains. And they do 

sustainably manage and harvest their woodlands and their forests, 

and they are a certified forest. 

And to that end, Ms. Higgins, is the national forest certified? 

Ms. HIGGINS. No, we are not. 

Mr. KAGEN. Is that a problem? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Well, certainly, as you heard from Secretary Frank, 

there would be some benefits certainly to the State of Wisconsin 

and to the economies in Wisconsin if we were certified. 

Mr. KAGEN. Is there a process in place? 

Ms. HIGGINS. There has been an evaluation of the certification 

process, and the Chequamegon-Nicolet was one of six national forests where there was a test completed related to the certification 

process. That testing process helped the agency determine what 

sort of issues were at play in terms of becoming certified. And we 

are currently as an agency in discussions with the certifying bodies 

about what it would take to actually certify the national forest. 

Mr. KAGEN. Is there any roadblock that you feel is in the way 

of the certification process that you need Members of Congress to 

be working on or is this something you can work through on your 

own. 

Ms. HIGGINS. Well, I believe it’s something the agency can work 

through. Although, certainly further information about the challenges of the national forest becoming certified would be, I think, 

of benefit to you to understand a little bit better. 

Mr. KAGEN. Secretary Frank also mentioned the forest management plan, and you have such a plan. And how is that plan being 

carried out? Have you met your goals for harvesting? What percent 

of the harvest have you met. 

Ms. HIGGINS. The 2004 Land Resource Management Plan, as I 

mentioned, is a balance of providing lots of benefits. If we were to 

fully implement our plan, we would be treating about 20,000 acres 

a year of our vegetation, which could supply up to 131 million 

board feet of timber per year. We were currently treating about 

half of that, which is allowing us to supply about 70 to 80 million 

board feet per year. 

Mr. KAGEN. This concerns me very greatly, because without 

those board feet coming out of the national forest, you are not really feeding the mills and the arts that are in close proximity. It really hurts our economy, wouldn’t you agree? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Well, certainly we have been able to sustain the 

level between 70 and 85, and so we have been able to maintain a 

sustainable level of timber to the markets. Could more help our 

local economies? I would expect most people would agree that to be 

true. 

Mr. KAGEN. So you’d be in agreement to opening up the national 

forest to additional harvesting? 

Ms. HIGGINS. Well, certainly our forest plan allows for that and 

would be sustainable up to that level that I mentioned before. 

32

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much. Does that red light really 

mean anything? You are on the record. 

Mr. BACA. I am on the record. It’s supposed to mean something. 

We go beyond the time limit. And we have additional time. 

Mr. KAGEN. Let me go back to Secretary Frank and ask about 

the Stewardship Program and what other programs you think Congress should be investing into to assess Wisconsin’s forest economy? 

Mr. FRANK. Well, I do think we talked about the Forest Stewardship Program, Forest Legacy Program, very, very important. I 

would like to bring up an issue I alluded to in my opening remarks, 

and that is the issue of fire suppression. This is an important issue 

all over the country. And I know, Chairman Baca, we were talking 

just a little bit about the challenges that California has. We also 

have challenges in this state. It’s been very dry, as Jeanne mentioned, and we have more fires here, and we move quickly to try 

to put those out. But I think one of the things we’d like to see in 

the Federal budget is to have more dedicated funding within the 

Forest Service budgets to fight fires. What’s happened in the past 

is there hasn’t been enough money appropriated initially, and then 

the agency is looking for where do they get money to fight fires. 

Well, they then look to other parts of the budget, and they have 

to take money out of there. Well, so, the dollars ultimately end up 

supporting the fire efforts, which is critical, but then you are kind 

of taking money away from other strategic areas of the budget. So 

that’s an area that, as I mentioned, I think this current legislation 

before the Congress and the budget makes a step in the right direction. We’d like to see it go even further. But have that dedicated 

funding. 

If you look at a map of the United States in general, and you 

look at the number of forest fires we’re having, certainly in the 

West we know that, we’re seeing a greater incidence of forest fires. 

We need to acknowledge that and make sure that we have enough 

money to get the job done. 

The second thing I think we could do in terms of that is to better 

coordinate state efforts and Federal efforts in fighting fires. We 

have a lot of cooperation. I know we send fire fighters to California 

to help California out once in a while, and we do this across state 

lines, but we think there’s even greater opportunity to get efficiencies in fighting forest fires by a greater collaboration between 

state and Federal authorities. And I think this is a challenge, it’s 

going to get greater before it gets less. And I think it’s an area that 

we’ve got some good cooperation, but I think we can even do better. 

Mr. BACA. Excuse me, if I could——

Mr. KAGEN. One more question. 

Mr. BACA. In the same vein, then you can ask an additional 

question. On the same subject matter of fighting fires, on the 

equipment that we have, is the equipment coming from us or are 

we outsourcing part of it to fight fires in the areas? Are we getting 

some—if it means helicopters, airplanes, or something that comes 

in from Canada or some other place? Matt? 

Mr. FRANK. We do, Congressman, we do use Federal dollars to 

help purchase fire fighting equipment, and it helps us in a couple 

ways. Federal dollars help us upgrade our fire fighting equipment 

33

that we have in the forest division within the DNR. These are big 

pieces of equipment that we have to basically modify and retrofit 

specifically for the purpose of fighting fires. We have people in our 

agency who actually know how to do that. It’s a very specialized 

kind of work. We get Federal dollars to do that. And I can tell you 

with budgets being the way they are, we are maintaining a level, 

but you’re looking at an infrastructure in that equipment that’s 

getting older and older, and then you look at the question of how 

long has this equipment been out there? It’s been 18 years. Can we 

get another 2 years out of it or do we replace it? Those are the 

kinds of decisions you make. So Federal support for that is important. 

The other thing is the money that we get from the Federal Government flows through the DNR and we, in turn, then get that 

money out to local fire fighting agencies. We couldn’t do the work 

we do fighting fires in Wisconsin without coordinating with the 

Federal Government, as well as working with local units of government. Townships, municipalities, local fire crews, they come out, 

and they work with us in helping put out forest fires, and those 

Federal dollars are passed through to them. So that’s another important funding source that we need to support. 

Mr. BACA. I agree with you. I just wanted to make sure that we 

had all the equipment, that we’re not always outsourcing to other 

entities to provide for the safety of our forests as well. I know in 

California sometimes we are outsourcing, much of it comes outside 

the area, and there’s a concern that our fire fighters, our forest fire 

fighters have the kind of equipment that they need to prevent any 

casualties. I’m sorry to interrupt you, go ahead. 

Mr. KAGEN. No, I appreciate the line of questioning. And my concern is, I’m sure everyone in this room and everyone in this country is aware, in these challenging economic times, asking Washington for additional funding may not be very successful for you. 

So I would come back to the key word, which is prevention. It 

works pretty well in healthcare, and it must work pretty well in 

the management of our forests. But is it true, is it your understanding, that by harvesting the woods is a manner in which to 

prevent forest fires? 

Mr. FRANK. Certainly sustainable forestry management includes 

as a component trying to—you know, if you do have a forest fire, 

so that you don’t have a catastrophic forest fire. 

Mr. KAGEN. Doesn’t that also mean that our national forestland 

here in northeast Wisconsin is at risk of suffering from a forest fire 

because it is not being—you are not meeting your goals of harvesting 100 percent of the trees you’ve intended to under the plan 

for 2004. 

Mr. FRANK. I think I would be hesitant to say there’s a direct 

correlation. I think sustainable management——

Mr. KAGEN. Would you agree that we would be reducing the risk 

by following the plan. 

Mr. FRANK. Yes. I think a good sustainable forest plan, whether 

it’s national forest or state forest or a private forest, one of the factors you take into account is forest fire prevention. And I think 

that is——

34

Mr. KAGEN. Jeanne, would you like to comment? Would you like 

to comment on that? Would you also agree that by meeting your 

goals in the 2004 management plan, you could reduce the risk of 

forest fire in the forest. 

Ms. HIGGINS. Yes. Yes, I concur. The statistic that I think is important to recognize in the national forest, that we have over 

350,000 acres that’s within the wildland urban interface. There’s a 

lot of private land within the boundaries of the national forest, so 

it is very important that we fully implement our plan so that we 

can reduce that risk. 

Mr. KAGEN. My final question would be, I’m looking for an explanation as to why you have been unsuccessful in meeting your goals 

from the 2004 plan. What’s holding you up, the process? Is it people? Is it funding? Is it just bad weather. 

Ms. HIGGINS. We have a highly dedicated staff of people on the 

national forest that they’re very dedicated to their work, so I don’t 

think it’s the people that work on the national forest. Certainly we 

have been—many of our decisions have been in litigation the last 

several years, and so in terms of fully implementing the plan, a 

portion of that has been challenged. 

Mr. KAGEN. Would it be fair to conclude then if we are putting 

our—is it true that we’re putting our national forest at greater risk 

of fire because of a litigious process? If it’s not the people and it’s 

not the weather, I’m looking for, what do you think. 

Ms. HIGGINS. Well, I believe that our—being able to fully implement the plan is certainly going to help reduce that fire risk. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Ms. Higgins, I have an additional question, it’s probably along the same lines, how closely are you working with the state, county, and private foresters to limit the spread 

of an invasive species like the emerald ash borer. 

Ms. HIGGINS. We have a very good cooperative relationship with 

the state and our other Federal partners, too, in terms of trying to 

reduce the spread of insects and disease. And we have several of 

those that affect our forests. But in terms of the greater risk, I 

think we probably all agree right now that emerald ash borer, 

which is on our doorstep, could have a fairly significant impact on 

our forests. And so we have worked closely to put together closure 

orders to prevent firewood from being transported. Our efforts have 

been around prevention and education associated with the possible 

effects emerald ash borer could have if it is transported across the 

state. 

Mr. BACA. And, Mr. Frank, can you answer that, because that 

also goes right back to the original question that we were talking 

about fire fighters or fires in our forests, because that also has an 

impact if we don’t deal with the insects that we have in the area. 

In our area we have the bark beetle. 

Mr. FRANK. Definitely. The thing about our forests is forests are 

themselves and part of an ecosystem. All of these issues are interrelated, so. And I appreciate your tying these issues together in 

that fashion. I think a good—a good, strong sustainable forest management plan deals with invasives, deals with fire protection, deals 

with economic harvest, and brings all those things together in a 

way that makes sense. So, yes, I think dealing with the invasives 

35

issue is important. And I’ll tell you, it’s important even if the trees 

ultimately don’t burn down. When you look at—we have 760 million ash trees in Wisconsin. Twenty percent of our urban forests in 

Wisconsin are ash. If that invasive pest ends up attacking all of 

those—so far we are doing the research, but it’s always fatal to the 

tree right now. Once you’ve got it it’s fatal to the tree—that has 

a tremendous impact on our forest for all sorts of reasons. So this 

invasives issue is of great concern, and I think it’s something that 

we need to strengthen. And I think we need to think about more 

than just education. 

It’s difficult for us to—we work cooperatively with Illinois, for example. We love it when people from Illinois come up and camp in 

our forests, but we encourage them to buy firewood up here. We’ve 

got to look at the commercial transfer of firewood across state lines. 

You know, you can now go in stores and buy firewood from a lot 

of places. Firewood could be ending up in Wisconsin not just from 

Illinois but halfway across the country. You’ve got 13 states with 

emerald ash borer right now. This is an area that we think needs 

more attention, and we need to have a more coordinated Federal 

policy looking at this issue. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. I know that we’ve run out of time, but 

hopefully you’ll submit some kind of written statement, both of you, 

in reference to the endangered species that may impact our forests 

as well, what can be done, or what changes need to be done, as we 

address that area, because I’m very much concerned. Although I 

am a Democrat, I’m very much concerned with its impact in California in some of the habitats that are listed in areas that have a 

lot of growth and development. And how do we protect the environment? And what about endangered species? I hope we can address 

those sometime in the future. 

Mr. BACA. With that I want to thank the first panelists for being 

here this morning. Thank you very much for your expertise. 

Mr. KAGEN. The second panel is Henry Schienebeck, Executive 

Director, Great Lakes Timber Professionals, Rhinelander, Wisconsin; Kathrine Dixon, State Attorney, Environmental Law and 

Policy Center, Chicago; Butch Johnson, Bill Johnson, from Johnson 

Timber, Hayward, Wisconsin; and also joining us is Gary Zimmer 

with the Ruffed Grouse Society. If you would come up and take a 

chair. 

We will begin with Henry Schienebeck. You may start the clock 

now. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY SCHIENEBECK, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES TIMBER PROFESSIONALS

ASSOCIATION, RHINELANDER, WISCONSIN 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. I’ll just apologize right up front; loggers are 

just used to doing a job until it’s done. 

My name is Henry Schienebeck, I’d like to offer the following testimony on behalf of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association in regards to forest resource management in northern Wisconsin. First of all, we’d like to take this opportunity to thank the 

Committee, especially Congressman Kagen, for acknowledging the 

importance of the forest products industry to society and the need 

to find a reality in management of that resource. 

36

The forest products industry has long been a viable source of revenue for the State of Wisconsin as well as the entire nation for well 

over 100 years. Like many of the members our organization represents, I’m a third-generation logger with a great amount of passion for the timber industry and the people who work in that industry both directly and indirectly. In order for us to remain in 

business for generations to come, we understand that—we understand more than most the need to maintain healthy sustainable 

forests. We support multiple-use forests, and we also agree there 

should be parts of the forest that should remain untouched and 

unmanaged and managed only by nature itself. We understand the 

need to balance all the marvelous things nature has to offer with 

a forest product industry which has been a backbone of this nation 

since its beginning. 

The forest products industry is the second largest industry in Wisconsin generating over $26 billion for the state’s economy. From 

2005 until the present time, Wisconsin forest products industry has 

lost over 24,000 jobs in all sectors from harvesting trees to manufacturing of paper, paperboard, and furniture. Over 38 percent of 

those jobs have been lost in the elimination of 16 paper mills since 

2002. Several reports show that the lack of available stumpage is 

one of the major reasons for job loss in Wisconsin and the United 

States as a whole. Raw material to make paper, lumber, furniture, 

and a variety of other products has been hampered severely by the 

lack of available timber, especially from the Federal forest. Because 

of the lack of timber being offered for sale in Federal forests, more 

pressure has been put on county, state, and private lands to support industry with raw material. Because of the unnecessary lack 

of raw material from Federal forests, the cost of that raw material 

has been driven high enough to put Wisconsin and the United 

States at a competitive disadvantage in the world economy. And 

that alone has put over 92 major companies out of business in region nine. 

Nationwide the Federal forest—or the Federal Government owns 

597 million acres of land of which 107.7 million acres are included 

in wilderness designation, and that excludes all harvesting and 

most recreational activities. Over 100 million additional acres of 

Federal land are in designations that exclude harvesting trees as 

a tool to maintain forest health, leaving about 389 million acres. 

By comparison, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest encompasses just over 1.5 million acres of which 1.3 million acres are 

forested. Of that 1.3 million acres, 446,000 acres, or a full 1⁄3, are 

placed in designations that exclude timber harvesting. On the remaining 854,000 acres, the growth rate is in excess of 150 million 

board feet per year, which should be removed to maintain a 

healthy forest. The current management plan calls for removal of 

131 million board feet per year, and of that 131 million board feet 

an average of only 85 million board feet have been removed over 

the last five years. In other words, just over 50 percent of sustainable harvest have been removed from the Chequamegon-Nicolet. By 

comparison, the State of Wisconsin as a whole has harvested an average of 69 percent of its current annual growth. And to put that 

in perspective, 20,000 board feet of timber provides enough raw 

material to sustain one job in the forest products industry. Over 

37

the last five years the amount of timber that went unharvested 

could have provided 4,400 jobs for Wisconsin alone. 

For the above reasons, the forest products industry is at an alltime low in Wisconsin and the United States. In order to get help 

the forest products industry—in order to get help to get our industry moving again in a timely fashion, we would offer the following 

suggestions: 

First, once the forest management plan is agreed on, let the Forest Service implement the plan without interruption. We find it inconceivable that tens of thousands of dollars are spent on a draft 

and then a final management plan only to have them litigated once 

they are put into action. In our opinion, there are millions of dollars being spent tying up the legal system on issues that could 

most likely be worked out in face-to-face meetings with other 

groups and industry. 

Second, Congress should fully fund the forest management plans 

once they are implemented. If it is the mission of this Committee 

to get the economy back on track, then it is imperative that the forest products industry can count on a constant supply of raw material to manufacture. It would simply be impossible for any company 

to create a business plan for investing in a new business or grow 

an existing one knowing that raw material may not be available on 

a continuous basis. 

Third, Wisconsin forests have been dual certified by FSA and SFI 

to supply industry with sustainably harvested fiber. We would suggest that the Forest Service be certified as well, or possibly use the 

Master Logger Program to harvest Federal timber in support of the 

industry to provide sustainably-managed products to the world 

economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schienebeck follows:]

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF HENRY SCHIENEBECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT

LAKES TIMBER PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION, RHINELANDER, WISCONSIN

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:

My name is Henry Schienebeck and I would like to offer the following testimony 

on behalf of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association in regards to forest 

resource management in Northern Wisconsin. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee and especially Congressman Kagen for acknowledging the importance of the Forest Products Industry to society and the need to 

find a reality in management of this resource. 

The Forest Products Industry has long been a viable source of revenue for the 

State of Wisconsin as well as the entire nation for well over 100 years. Like many 

of the members our organization represents, I am a third generation logger with a 

great amount of passion for the timber industry and the people who work in that 

industry both directly and indirectly. In order for us to remain in business for generations to come, we understand more than most the need to maintain healthy sustainable forests. We support multiple use forests and we also agree that they should 

be parts of the forest that should remain untouched and managed only by nature 

itself. We understand the need to balance all the marvelous things nature has to 

offer with a Forest Products Industry that has been the backbone of this nation 

since its beginning. 

The Forest Products Industry is the second largest industry in Wisconsin generating over $26 billion dollars for the states economy. From 2005 until the present 

time, Wisconsin Forest Products Industry has lost over 24,000 jobs in all sectors 

from harvesting of trees to manufacturing of pulp, paper, paperboard and furniture. 

38

Over 38% of the jobs have been lost in the elimination of 16 paper mills alone since 

2002. 

Several reports show that a lack of available stumpage is one of the major reasons 

for job loss in Wisconsin and the United States as a whole. Raw material to make 

paper, lumber, furniture and a variety of other products has been hampered severely by the lack of available timber especially from Federal Forests. Because of 

the lack of timber being offered for sale on the Federal Forest, more pressure has 

been put on county, state and private lands to supply the industry with raw material. Because of the unnecessary lack of raw material from Federal Forests, the cost 

of that raw material has been driven high enough to put Wisconsin and the United 

States at a competitive disadvantage in the world economy. That alone has put over 

92 major companies out of business in Region 9. 

Nationwide the Federal Government owns 597 million acres of land of which 

107.7 million acres are included in wilderness designation which excludes all harvesting and most recreational activities. Over a hundred million additional acres of 

Federal forest land are in designations that exclude harvesting trees as a tool to 

maintain forest health leaving about 389 million acres for other uses. 

By comparison the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) encompasses 

just over 1.5 million acres of which 1.3 million acres are forested. Of that 1.3 million 

forested acres, 446,000 acres or a full 1⁄3 of the forested acres, are placed in designations that exclude timber harvesting. On the remaining 854,000 acres, the growth 

rate is in excess of 150 million board feet per year which should be removed to 

maintain a healthy forest. The current CNNF management plan calls for removal 

of 131 million board feet per year. Of that 131 million board feet an average of only 

85 million board feet per year have been removed over the last five years. In other 

words just over 50% of the sustainable harvest growth has been removed from the 

CNNF. By comparison the state of Wisconsin as a whole harvested an average of 

69% of current annual growth. To put that in perspective, 20,000 board feet of timber provides enough raw material to sustain 1 job in the forest industry. Over the 

last five years the amount of timber that went un-harvested could have provided 

4,400 jobs for Wisconsin alone. 

For the above stated reasons the forest products industry is at an all time low 

in Wisconsin and the United States. In order to help get the Forest Products Industry moving again in a timely fashion we would offer the following suggestions:

• First, once the forest management plan is agreed on, let the Forest Service implement the plan without interruption. We find it inconceivable that tens of 

thousands of dollars are spent on draft and final forest management plans only 

to have them litigated once they are put in to action. In our opinion there are 

millions of dollars being spent tying up the legal system on issues that could 

most likely be worked out in face to face meetings between industry and other 

groups of interest.

• Second, Congress should fully fund the Forest Management plans once they are 

implemented. If it is the mission of this Committee to get the economy back on 

track, then it is imperative that the Forest Products Industry can count on a 

constant supply of raw material to manufacture. It would simply be impossible 

for any company to create a business plan for investing in a new business or 

grow an existing one knowing raw material may not be available on a continuous basis to support the project.

• Third, Wisconsin forests have been dual certified by FSC and SFI to supply industry with sustainably harvested fiber. We would suggest that the Forest Service be certified as well or possibly use the Master Logger Program to harvest 

Federal timber in support of the industry to provide certified products to the 

world economy.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. Ms. Dixon. 

STATEMENT OF KATHRINE DIXON, STAFF ATTORNEY, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Ms. DIXON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen. 

I am Kathrine Dixon, staff attorney with the Environmental Law 

& Policy Center, which is the Midwest’s leading public interest environmental advocacy organization. Thank you for your invitation 

to testify before you today on forest resource management in northVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-26\52846.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
39

ern Wisconsin. Your leadership on this issue is greatly appreciated, 

and we are very glad to be part of the discussion. 

For the past eight years, ELPC attorneys and policy advocates 

have partnered with members of the Wisconsin scientific and conservation community to push for restoring balance to forest management in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. In recent 

years, the balance, the Federal forest management and the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet, has tipped heavily in favor of logging to the 

detriment of other uses and values. In short, the Forest Service has 

simply proposed too much logging, too fast, in too many of the 

places that are most important for wildlife habitat, clean water, 

and recreation. 

My written testimony discusses three primary areas of concern 

that must be part of future forest management in Wisconsin. 

First, Forest Service must take steps to reduce landscape fragmentation. Recent studies published by University of Wisconsin 

Professor Don Waller show that severe fragmentation of Wisconsin’s forestlands is seriously impacting both plant and animal species across the state. The Forest Service must implement a policy 

of sharply reducing roads and other fragmenting features. It must 

also take active steps to preserve large patches of interior forest 

and create movement borders to expand habitat options. 

Second, the Forest Service must do more to ensure viable populations of native and desired nonnative plant and animal species. 

Scientific evidence demonstrates that populations of several of Wisconsin’s species are dwindling at an alarming rate in 

Chequamegon-Nicolet. Forest Service must set enforceable target 

population numbers for each of the species that it manages. It 

must also make a serious effort to determine the impacts of its 

management practices on sensitive species through rigorous monitoring and analysis. 

Third, the Forest Service must begin to take climate change into 

account in forest planning. New evidence shows that the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet is storing carbon dioxide at a rate that far 

exceeds its size as a percentage of the nation’s forested land. Forest 

Service must adopt management practices that are designed to 

maximize this carbon sequestration potential, which is not only 

good for the environment, but could also be good for the Wisconsin 

economy when the carbon market becomes a reality. 

Forest Service must set a standard for forest management that 

addresses these three concerns based on the best available scientific evidence and silvicultural knowledge. 

However, before we can think about developing and implementing new policies, Forest Service must take a fresh look at existing logging proposals. The Forest Service has proposed 17 major 

timber sales since 2002, adding up to over 150,000 acres. Our coalition of supporters is not opposed to logging. We appreciate the Forest Service’s mandate to managing its land for multiple uses, but 

the amount of logging proposed in the Chequamegon-Nicolet is not 

environmentally responsible, nor is it sustainable over the long 

term. This trend must change. 

With new agency leadership being put in place, there is an opportunity to craft new policies that account for the full range of resources that the Forest Service must oversee. But, in the meanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-26\52846.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
40

time, we cannot lose important resources based on old and outdated ideas. Once trees are cut, they cannot be stuck back in the 

ground like matchsticks. We need a chance to step back and reassess. The LPC and our colleagues have presented the Forest Service with reasonable middle ground proposals for modifying each of 

their major logging proposals in ways that would allow significant 

amounts of logging to go forward, while also preserving the most 

important ecological areas. These proposals are grounded in good 

science and in an intimate knowledge of the resources at stake. We 

are calling on the Forest Service to adopt these proposals now so 

the important resources are not lost while we begin the process of 

developing a new long-term approach that factors in many of the 

recommendations made before the panel today. 

Thank you for your interest in this topic. We look forward to 

working with you, with the Forest Service, and with the other people in this room today on policies that protect Wisconsin’s natural 

lands and their many values. I’m happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dixon follows:]

41

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF MS. KATHRINE DIXON, STAFF ATTORNEY, ENVIRONMENTAL

LAW AND POLICY CENTER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS


111026001
42


111026002
43


111026003
44


111026004
45


111026005
46


111026006
47


111026007
48


111026008
49

SUBMITTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY MS. KATHRINE DIXON, STAFF ATTORNEY, 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS


111026043
50


111026044
51


111026021
52


111026022
53


111026023
54


111026024
55


111026025
56


111026026
57


111026027
58


111026028
59


111026029
60


111026030
61


111026031
62


111026032
63


111026033
64


111026034
65


111026035
66


111026036
67


111026037
68


111026038
69


111026039
70


111026040
71


111026041
72


111026042
73

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ E. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, 

JOHNSON TIMBER, HAYWARD, WISCONSIN

Mr. JOHNSON. On behalf of my family’s business, Johnson Timber 

and Flambeau River Papers, I’m pleased to submit the following 

statements for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen, on behalf of our 358 employees, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 

talk about the future of our industry and the role national forests 

can play in that future. 

We are members of the American Forest & Paper Association. 

AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest products industry, representing forest landowners, pulp, paper, paperboard, 

and wood products manufacturers. Like our fellow AF&PA members, we produce products essential for everyday life from renewable and recyclable resources that sustain the environment. 

The next paragraph goes on about Wisconsin. I think we’ve heard 

enough about that from previous speakers, so I’ll skip over that. 

We are leaders in efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to increase the use of renewable energy. Between 2000 and 2006, 

AF&PA member companies reduced their greenhouse gas emissions 

intensity by 14 percent. Our recycling efforts help prevent the 

emissions of 21.1 metric tons of CO2 from landfills, and managed 

forests and forest products store enough carbon each year to offset 

approximately ten percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. 

We are also the leading producers and users of renewable biomass energy. We produce 28.5 million megawatt hours annually, 

enough to power 2.7 million homes. In fact, the energy we produce 

from biomass exceeds the total energy produced from solar, wind, 

and geothermal sources combined. Sixty-five percent of the energy 

used at AF&PA member paper and wood products facilities is generated from carbon-neutral renewable biomass. 

At Flambeau River Paper, we have taken the steps to make us 

the first completely fossil fuel-free pulp and paper mill in North 

America. By purchasing biomass more efficiently for our biomass 

boiler, we have reduced our consumption of coal and natural gas 

by over 60 percent since we purchased the mill in 2006, and by the 

end of August—excuse me, by the first of August, we expect to become 100 percent free of coal at our facility. Further, within three 

years we anticipate we will be the first fully functioning integrated 

biorefinery pulp mill producing approximately 18 million gallons of 

cellulosic green diesel from forest residuals. This will reduce our 

carbon footprint by approximately 140,000 tons per year while employing an additional 40 people directly at our facilities and an additional 125 indirectly who are in the woods. 

Companies like Flambeau River Papers and our sister companies 

in the wood and paper industries are big businesses, employing 

hundreds and in some cases tens of thousands of people. But we 

are a large business that creates and sustains and, in turn, depends on dozens of small businesses. When we acquired Flambeau 

River Papers in 2006 and took the steps to reopen the mill, Governor Doyle estimated that this would help sustain 300 small logging businesses whom we rely on to supply—that we rely on to 

74

supply the 140,000 cords of pulp that we continue to use annually. 

The national forests of Wisconsin, particularly the ChequamegonNicolet, rely on these small businesses to help them achieve their 

management objectives. We consume approximately 13,000 cords of 

Forest Service fiber at Flambeau River Papers, and in addition to 

that in the future we would require, the company estimates, we’d 

procure about 38,000 additional cords. 

The interdependence of businesses such as ours, small logging 

contractors, and national forests becomes even more important during difficult economic times. Before we entered the paper business, 

Johnson Timber was one of the leading innovators in chip supply 

for the paper industry, as well as supplying peeled logs to the sawmill industry in the state. The economic downturn that the rest of 

the economy has been experiencing in recent months came early to 

our industry, and has had a profound and lasting impact. Since 

2006, nationally, the wood and paper products industries have shed 

over 300,000 jobs, almost a quarter of our work force. Paper and 

lumber production have both declined by well over 20 percent in 

the recent years, with the housing market remaining extremely depressed. 

This depression in the market for lumber has made the economics of our industry, which are always difficult, even more precarious. That makes it critical that policies which are intended to promote biomass utilization are carefully crafted to ensure that the existing wood and paper industries receive fair and equitable treatment. 

We applaud the leadership shown by the Agriculture Committee, 

in particular you, Congressman Kagen, as it was a full Committee 

Chair, Chairman Peterson from Minnesota, in pressing for positive 

changes to the American Climate and Energy Security Act of 2009 

which recently passed the House. In particular, we strongly support the inclusion of language that clarifies that any mill residues 

from wood, pulp, or paper product facilities will qualify as renewable biomass for the various components of the legislation, including the renewable electricity standards, the renewable fuels standard, and the cap and trade portion of the bill. Without this key 

change, wood and paper products facilities would be faced with the 

need to purchase carbon offsets for all the renewable biomass that 

we burn. In other words, renewable biomass, such as spent pulping 

liquor, would be treated the same as coal or pet-coke. Further, 

without the expansion of the RFS definition, the cellulosic green 

diesel we plan on producing at Flambeau would likely not qualify 

as renewable fuel. 

I see I’m over time, but I just want to make one more point before I’m done. 

We are greatly surprised and disappointed to learn, however, 

that the version of the bill brought to the floor included a new provision, Section 553, which would allow the Administrator of the 

EPA, with the concurrence of the Department of Agriculture, to 

modify the definition of renewable biomass after a one-year study. 

We believe this provision is an open invitation for the EPA to revert to the overly-restrictive definition included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which has, in essence, excluded 

all fiber from Forest Service lands and will only allow the wood 

75

fiber from existing plantations on private lands to qualify as renewable biomass. 

As an example, by relying exclusively on wood from existing 

plantations, the RFS definition would exclude all aspen acreage, 

whether on Forest Service, state, or private forestlands. This would 

exclude fiber from aspen forests on over 6.9 million acres in Minnesota, 2.8 million acres in Wisconsin, and 3.4 million acres in 

Michigan, not to mention tens of millions of acres of aspen in the 

mountain west. The definition would potentially exclude 118 million acres of mixed pine/hardwood forests in the eastern and southern U.S. As well. 

You have the rest of my testimony, and I appreciate the opportunity that you have given me today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ E. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, JOHNSON

TIMBER, HAYWARD, WISCONSIN

On behalf of my family’s business, Johnson Timber and Flambeau River Papers, 

I am pleased to submit the following statement for the record. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen, on behalf of our 358 employees, I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today to talk about the future of our industry and the role the 

National Forests can play in that future. 

We are members of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). AF&PA 

is the national trade association of the forest products industry, representing forest 

landowners, pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products manufacturers. Like our 

fellow AF&PA members, we produce products essential for everyday life from renewable & recyclable resources that sustain the environment. 

The forest products industry accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total 

U.S. manufacturing output and employs approximately a million people with an estimated annual payroll exceeding $50 billion. Here in Wisconsin, we employee more 

than 60,000 people, with a payroll of more than $3.7 billion, producing some $18 

billion worth of wood and paper products and paying more than $235 million in 

State and local taxes. 

We are leaders in efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to increase the use of 

renewable energy. Between 2000 and 2006, AF&PA member companies reduced 

their greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 14 percent. Our recycling efforts help 

prevent the emission of 21.1 million metric tons of CO2 from landfills, and managed 

forests and forest products store enough carbon each year to offset approximately 

10 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. 

We are also the leading producer and user of renewable biomass energy. We 

produce 28.5 million megawatt hours annually, enough to power 2.7 million homes. 

In fact, the energy we produce from biomass exceeds the total energy produced from 

solar, wind, and geothermal sources combined. Sixty-five percent of the energy used 

at AF&PA member paper and wood products facilities is generated from carbon-neutral renewable biomass. 

At Flambeau River paper, we have taken steps that will make us the first completely fossil-fuel free pulp and paper mill in North America. By purchasing biomass 

more efficiently for our biomass boiler, we have reduced our consumption of coal and 

natural gas by over 60% since we purchased the mill in 2006, and by the end of 

August we expect to become 100% free of coal. Further, within 3 years, we anticipate we will be the first fully functioning integrated biorefinery/pulp mill, producing 

approximately 18 million gallons of cellulosic green diesel from forest residuals. This 

will reduce our carbon footprint by approximately 140,000 tons per year while employing an additional 40 people directly and an additional 125 indirectly. 

Companies like Flambeau River Papers and our sister companies in the wood and 

paper industry are big businesses, employing hundreds, and in some cases, tens of 

thousands of people. But we are a large business that creates and sustains, and in 

turn depends on, dozens of small business. When we acquired Flambeau River papers in 2006 and took steps to reopen the mill, Gov. Doyle estimated that this would 

help sustain 300 small logging businesses whom we rely on to supply the 140,000 

cords of pulp wood we consume annually. The National Forests of Wisconsin, particularly the Chequemegon-Nicolet, rely on these small businesses to help them 

achieve their management objectives. We consume approximately 13,000 cords anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-26\52846.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
76

nually of Forest Service fiber at Flambeau River, and we harvest an estimated 

38,000 cords annually for other operations. 

The inter-dependence of businesses such as ours, small logging contractors, and 

the National Forests becomes even more important during difficult economic times. 

Before we entered the paper business, Johnson Timber was one of the leading 

innovators in chip supply for the paper industry, as well as supplying peeled logs 

to the sawmill industry. The economic downturn that the rest of the economy has 

been experiencing in recent months came early to our industry and has a profound 

and lasting impact. Since 2006, nationally, the wood and paper products industries 

have shed over 300,000 jobs, almost a quarter of our workforce. Paper and lumber 

production have both declined by well over 20% in recent years, with the housing 

market remaining extremely depressed. 

This depression in the market for lumber has made the economics of our industry, 

which are always difficult, even more precarious. That makes it critical that policies 

which are intended to promote biomass utilization are carefully crafted to ensure 

that the existing wood and paper industries receive fair and equitable treatment. 

Biomass Energy

We applaud the leadership shown by the Agriculture Committee, in particular by 

you, Congressman Kagen, as well as full Committee Chairman Peterson from Minnesota, in pressing for positive changes to the American Climate and Energy Security Act of 2009 which recently passed the House of Representatives. In particular, 

we strongly support the inclusion of language that clarifies that any mill residues 

from wood, pulp, or paper product facilities will qualify as renewable biomass for 

the various components of the legislation, including the Renewable Electricity 

Standard, the Renewable Fuels Standard, and the cap and trade portion of the bill. 

Without this key change, wood and paper products facilities would be faced with the 

need to purchase carbon offsets for all of the renewable biomass that we burn. In 

other words, renewable biomass, such as spent pulping liquor, would have been 

treated the same as coal or pet-coke. Further, without the expansion of the RFS definition, the cellulosic green diesel we plan on producing at Flambeau River would 

likely have not qualified as a renewable fuel. 

We were greatly surprised and disappointed to learn, however, that the version 

of the bill that was brought to the floor included a new provision (Section 553) 

which would allow the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, with 

the concurrence of the Department of Agriculture, to modify the definition of renewable biomass after a one year study. We believe this provision is an open invitation 

for the EPA to revert to the overly restrictive definition included in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, which in essence excluded all fiber from 

Forest Service lands and only allowed wood fiber from existing plantations on private lands to qualify as renewable biomass. As an example, by relying exclusively 

on wood from existing plantation, the RFS definition would exclude all aspen acreage, whether on Forest Service, State, or private forest lands. This would exclude 

fiber from aspen forests on over 6.9 million acres in Minnesota, 2.8 million acres 

in Wisconsin, 3.4 million acres in Michigan, not to mention tens of millions of acres 

of aspen in the Mountain west. The definition would potentially exclude 118 million 

acres of mixed pine-hardwood forests in the Eastern and Southern U.S. as well. 

We believe a preferable approach would be to keep the a simpler definition of renewable biomass, such as the one used in the 2008 Farm Bill, with the addition of 

reasonable sustainability requirements such as a written harvest or forest management plan developed by a credentialed forestry professional, or adherence to a forest 

management or wood procurement certification system. As members of AF&PA, 

Johnson Timber and Flambeau River Papers are both committed to the principles 

of sustainable forest management and are 3rd Party Certified by both FSC and SFI. 

Since 1995, all AF&PA members must subscribe to the principles of the Sustainable 

Forestry Initiative® (SFI), which sets rigorous forest management standards that 

are reviewed by external partners from conservation groups and research organizations. With over 226 program participants and 156 million acres of certified well 

managed forests, the SFIr program ensures that America’s forest and paper companies are committed to sustainable management. We believe this standard, and other 

forest management programs such as the American Tree Farm System, can help assure the Congress and the American public that wood-based biomass energy will be 

a sustainable part of the forest economy. 

We continue to believe that promoting the development of renewable energy must 

be accomplished while providing adequate safeguards to ensure that new mandates 

do not create undue economic or environmental harm. With that in mind, we recommend that the Committee include a comprehensive study of the impact of renewable energy mandates on both economic and environmental factors, with a provision 

77

allowing a waiver from all or part of the renewable electricity standard if it is necessary to prevent economic or environmental harm. We have attached specific language which we believe would accomplish these objectives. 

We are concerned that the current legislation unnecessarily restricts the use of 

wood biomass from Federal public lands. As this Committee has heard recently from 

the Administration, between 60 to 80 million acres of National Forests are densely 

stocked and at risk of catastrophic fire. The current version of ACES restricts harvesting of renewable biomass from a number of categories of Federal lands, most 

of which are not open to commercial activities under most circumstances. While we 

believe these restrictions to be mostly redundant, the provision prohibiting the removal of biomass from ‘‘old growth’’ and ‘‘late successional stands’’ is particularly 

damaging. While it is an improvement over the version of the bill that was approved 

by the Energy & Commerce Committee, it fundamentally misunderstands modern 

forest management and creates the opportunity to inadvertently, and unnecessarily, 

exclude fiber from legitimate timber sales, particularly from aspen forests here in 

Wisconsin. 

Many forest types, including Aspen, lodgepole pine, and many mixed hardwood 

stands in the Eastern U.S. are not harvested until the stand has reached biological 

maturity. The term ‘‘old growth’’ is highly controversial and many forest plans adopt 

differing definitions, and differing goals regarding the development and retention of 

old growth. In our view, all byproducts of legitimate hazardous fuels reduction 

projects or any Forest Service timber sale which complies with the extensive projections required under existing law should qualify as renewable biomass. 

National Forest Management

As I noted above, the management of many Lake States forests types, such as 

aspen, jack pine, spruce, and paper birch, thrive with periodic harvest. Many of 

these species are regenerated through periodic cutting, after which a new stand 

grows from the root system of the old stand. Keeping a diverse forest landscape not 

only supplies the raw materials needed by our industry, but it provides a diversity 

of habitat types which help insure abundant wildlife populations. Grouse, deer, and 

other game thrive in managed forests, helping to support another key element of 

the Wisconsin economy. 

The National Forests of the Lake States are among the best performing in the 

Nation in terms of achieving timber supply goals. Unfortunately, the ChequamegonNicolet sold only 64% of it’s Allowable Sale Quantity in 2007, and performance in 

the last two years has not improved greatly. Even more unfortunately, this is far 

above the National average for the Forest Service: The average national forest region sells only 40% of the allowable sales quantity. 

We have appreciated the support that the Congress has shown for the National 

Forest timber sale program in the last several years. It is important for Congress 

to find a way to more fully integrate the hazardous fuels reduction program, which 

has received almost $1 billion in the last 18 months, with forest management 

projects which produce merchantable wood fiber. Doing so would allow the Forest 

Service to free up management funds for regions such as the Lake States which 

could easily offer more volume for sale. 

Recent Controversies

In the last several weeks, several old controversies, including what to do with the 

roadless areas in National Forests, and how to best manage the process for revising 

forest plans, have resurfaced. I realize that some of these controversies are being 

forced upon the Administration by active litigants and other activists who oppose 

active management of the National Forests. I’d urge this Committee not to replay 

the old controversies which have led to such a precipitous decline in the management of the National Forests, reducing timber harvest levels by more than 80 percent in the last two decades. The relatively modest management program that is 

taking place on the National Forests should not be subjected to endless appeal, debate, and delay. Large scale, wholesale revisions of forest management policies will 

do nothing to keep our forests healthy and even less to help keep our workers in 

the woods. 

Conclusion

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. America’s wood, 

paper, and forest industry is critical to the resilience and health of our forests and 

our economy. We have a long and proud history of commitment to sustainable forest 

management, and we have been blessed with abundant forest resources. I thank you 

for your efforts to ensure that the management of these forests will remain a conservation achievement which future generations should emulate.

78

Mr. BACA. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Zimmer. 

STATEMENT OF GARY ZIMMER, SENIOR REGIONAL WILDLIFE 

BIOLOGIST, RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY 

Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen, I’m a 45-year 

resident of northern Wisconsin. I live in Congressman Kagen’s 8th 

Congressional District and can still throw a rock from my house to 

the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. I am also a senior regional biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society. The Ruffed Grouse 

Society is a nonprofit wildlife conservation organization dedicated 

to improving the environment for ruffed grouse, American 

woodcock, and other forest wildlife. 

Man’s disruptions of natural disturbance regimes is arguably the 

single greatest threat to sustaining healthy forest ecosystems 

across the United States. We can’t turn the clock back a century 

or more, but we can learn from past mistakes and recognize the 

critical role periodic disturbance plays in shaping our forested landscapes. 

The virtual elimination of fires in the east has not only complicated efforts to sustain aspen, birch, oak, and some pine forests, 

it has hampered the establishment of important young forest habitats and associated forest wildlife. Young forest habitats are dominated by a dense growth of shrubs and small trees that are free 

to flourish when the canopy of a mature forest is removed by fire, 

mechanical treatment, or some other disturbances. Young deciduous forest habitats less than 20 years old have declined by 41 percent over the past two to three decades in the eastern United 

States. Between The 1960s and 1993, Wisconsin has lost about 1.5 

million acres of Aspen forests, about a million acres between 1980 

and 1993 alone, as these forests converted to mid to late successional species. 

Today, due to man’s intervention, fire’s no longer allowed to play 

its natural role in removing old aspen to make way for a new aspen 

forest. Therefore, the only means available to ensure long-term forest health and ecosystem integrity in some communities is through 

periodic mechanical disturbance. Currently, most aspen forests in 

Wisconsin that have not already been regenerated are overmature, 

unhealthy, and extremely susceptible to death and conversion. 

Once this conversion occurs, it will be virtually impossible to restore these aspen communities. Over 81 percent of the aspen forest 

communities in the eastern U.S. Grow in the Great Lakes region. 

This region provides the only realistic opportunity to conserve 

these critical components of biological diversity. 

These habitats support a suite of wildlife species that do not 

exist in mature forests or exist only at very low population densities. Wildlife that rely upon young forest habitats include the 

ruffed grouse and American woodcock, two important game species 

pursued by almost one million sportsmen and women each year in 

the eastern U.S., and many nongame wildlife that require the protection from predators afforded by thick, young forest habitats. Researchers have documented that of 187 species of neotropical migratory songbirds that breed in the Midwest, more than half use 

shrub, sapling, or young forest habitats to some degree during the 

breeding season. As these habitats decline, so do these and many 

79

other wildlife species that have been depending on young forest 

habits. It is estimated that 78 percent of the continent’s goldenwinged warbler population is in the upper Midwest, a bird the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service considers a species of ‘‘highest conservation priority.’’ It appears likely that these forests include some of 

the main sources of golden-winged warbler populations in the entire U.S., and some of the last opportunities to halt the downward 

decline. 

Of major concern to my constituents is the inconsistent management of our forests. Limited funding, as well as management tied 

up for years by appeals and lawsuits, hamper agency efforts to follow the approved forest plan on the 1.5 million acres in the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet. The process to revise the original 1986 plan 

began in 1996 and took 8 years to complete and approximately 2 

years to finalize the appeal process. Since then, nearly every vegetative management project proposed for implementation on the forest has been appealed and/or litigated, with close to 2 years of harvests tied up in the legal limbo. Not since 1989 has this forest met 

its forest plan annual goals for aspen regeneration. The cumulative 

loss of young forest habitat across the forest is, in part, the reason 

that species like the American woodcock, brown thrasher, goldenwinged warbler, loggerhead shrike and veery are listed as species 

of greatest conservation need in Wisconsin. 

I encourage this Committee to work with the Forest Service to 

get forest plan implementation back on schedule, reduce the ability 

of groups or individuals to tie up management activities for years 

and years at little cost to them, but at a very high cost to those 

that live and work in the city or the forest and to the taxpayers 

of this great nation. We are seeing mills close, schools being forced 

to consolidate, and multigenerational family businesses going 

under while a renewable natural resource in our backyard is off 

limits. It is a shame to see mills in northern Wisconsin having to 

haul in wood products from Canada or overseas in order to stay in 

business when ample resources exist only a few miles away that 

has been managed sustainably in the past. 

These forests provide some of the last opportunities to maintain 

essential young forest habitat as an important part of the biodiversity of our northern forests and meet the social and economic demands of society. We urge the Committee to consider these important factors in shaping the future of our forests. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zimmer follows:]

80

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF MR. GRAY ZIMMER, SENIOR REGIONAL WILDLIFE

BIOLOGIST, THE RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY, LAONA, WISCONSIN


111026018
81


111026019
82


111026020
83

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. I thank each of the panelists 

for being here. 

I begin by asking the first question to Henry Schienebeck. In 

your testimony you mentioned the need for certifying Federal forests sustainable. Could you please explain some of the benefits and 

features of the certification, particularly in the Master Loggers Program? 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Well, the certification program has basically 

enabled us to kind of stay in business during some of these troubling times. The public is requiring that, and this goes beyond forestry now. I mean, they are even asking that potato seeds be certified. They want to know where the fiber is coming from. They 

want to know that it’s sustainably managed and sustainably harvested. And that has helped us be able to sell timber to some of 

the mills that are doing business in more than one country. 

And the Master Logger Program is a fairly new program, and 

there’s a group of loggers in Wisconsin right now, we have 52 master loggers and another 12 to 15, I believe, that are going through 

the process. And what that group does is they basically go through 

a third-party certification. And I believe Maine has the most master loggers, the program originated there. They have 142, I believe, 

at this time. But what we do is we go through a third-party certification process. In other words, for all aspects of timber management, from on the ground to business practices to ensuring that we 

are following all the qualifications, which is best management practices, for logger BMPs are you doing the job, are you not running 

up the woods, are you aware of invasive species, are you aware of 

exotic species and those types of things, and they be sure that it’s 

a full package of protection. And that’s something that we promote. 

All of our members are trained, but the master loggers can take 

it to the next level. And it’s just a little bit more of a program that 

says that you are willing to put your business in an audit, that you 

are going to pass that audit, and that you are well aware of what’s 

going on for the whole package when it comes to management. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. In your testimony you indicated, and I’ve 

heard a couple of different figures, that 20,000 jobs have been lost. 

What impact has it had on the quality of life in the area? 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. It’s basically loss of a whole industry in a village or town. In the Village of Butternut where I live we had three 

mills there at one time. We’re down to one. Actually, you could say 

we’re down to half of one, because most of the people there are laid 

off and they are looking for other things to do and going off. I 

know, that in different areas of the country, there’s not much going 

on there, either. Like Mr. Johnson said, that paper mill was shut 

down, that involves a couple of counties in our area. That’s the Village of Butternut and the City of Park Falls. I mean, it’s a twocounty business. There were 300 some jobs there. When that was 

shut down for the period that it was, it was like a ghost town. 

Downtown businesses were closing up because they are so dependent on that paper mill. And those aren’t just $9 jobs, they’re good 

paying jobs. They are livable wage jobs that put money back into 

the community. I mean, we’ve lost two schools. We just had a twoschool consolidation again. And luckily, we were able in Butternut 

to not have that right now, but it’s going to come. Eventually they 

84

are going to run out of money if we don’t do something about it, 

and we live right on Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. 

Mr. BACA. Maybe Mr. Johnson, you can answer that question or 

elaborate on it, because not only does it impact, when you have a 

loss of jobs, not only in school but the quality of life in the area, 

but the revenue. And, then, also, does it impact the population of 

those communities, too, as well that means as we’re going right 

now, we are going to be going through the Census that is coming 

right before us, and so the loss of jobs also will impact the Census 

and the amount of Federal dollars or dollars that will be coming 

back to the cities and counties in the state. Could you elaborate? 

You mentioned that over 300,000 some thousand jobs were lost because of the timber market. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. As Mr. Schienebeck mentioned, in 2006, when 

the mill that we purchased went bankrupt, before we bought it, 

there was definitely an economic impact felt throughout the not 

just Park Falls, Price County, Ashland County region but the entire northwest Wisconsin. The fact is we were going through the 

process of putting together the plan to purchase the mill. We invited the University of Minnesota-Duluth School of Business to put 

together an economic impact study of a mill closure of that size in 

northwest Wisconsin, that lost 300 jobs, and what that has on the 

economy, and what it showed is about a $200 million impact not 

just to the county but really to northwestern Wisconsin. 

I’m trying to remember the employment figures that were lost 

due to that, but I can tell you driving through Park Falls from February 16 of 2006 when it was announced that the mill was closing 

through July 25, 2006, when we purchased the mill, took ownership, in the City of Park Falls, about 3,000 people, there was well 

over a quarter of the homes that went up for sale. Being a school 

board member in Hayward, I certainly know the impact of losing 

the facilities and whatnot, and the stress that it can cause on the 

school district is tremendous. Thankfully, Park Falls was one of the 

lucky areas that someone was able to come in and resurrect the 

mill and put 307 people back to work there. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Ms. Dixon, thank you for being here today 

and for your ongoing work. You represent an important voice in the 

process of public policy. I know that you and the local timber community don’t always agree, but like Congress, policy is made like 

sausage; it’s an unpleasant process with good results. 

Your testimony mentioned fragmentation as a priority for you. 

Do I understand correctly that this refers to the patchwork of the 

forest parcels in the state? 

Ms. DIXON. That is correct. And I would just respond to your earlier comment about not seeing eye to eye with the timber community. I don’t think that’s entirely true. It’s not the logging community that we have issues with. We certainly don’t. We recognize logging is an important part of Wisconsin’s economy. It’s necessary, 

it’s appropriate in many circumstances and in appropriate 

amounts. The Forest Service and the forest managers are responsible for setting those amounts. And it’s our opinion, and the opinion of our scientists, clients, and colleagues, that some of the timber proposals that have been issued are in places that are important for key habitat for wildlife, for clean water, and other recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-26\52846.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
85

reational opportunities. So I would just clarify that it’s not an issue 

with the timber community, it’s just an issue of appropriate 

amounts and appropriate places. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Along the same lines, access to water and 

water conservation are two areas dear and near to my heart with 

the ongoing drought situation in southern California. What is, in 

your opinion, is the best way for us to best utilize the water resources of America’s forests. 

Ms. DIXON. Best utilize water resources? 

Mr. BACA. Yes. 

Ms. DIXON. I think water is a key issue, particularly in Wisconsin. There are a number of—there are thousands of lakes in the 

state, there are private—there are people that enjoy using those 

lakes for recreation, for fishing, trout fishing and so on, so I think 

maintaining access, use, and quality of those water resources is of 

optimal importance. I believe that management of forestlands has 

a lot to do with the quality of our water resources in Wisconsin. 

As Jeanne Higgins testified in the earlier panel, one of the major 

issues associated with logging is sedimentation of water resources. 

And I think I may have mentioned in my written testimony that 

over half of the trout streams in the Chequamegon-Nicolet currently fail to meet temperature standards for brook trout, which require cold water conditions. Our scientists have told us that some 

of those impacts are a result of management practices not necessarily in recent days, but the forest management plan indicates 

that Wisconsin’s water resources were heavily impacted by—

through the cutover period by excessive sedimentation. So we recognize that as a problem, and we believe that the Forest Service 

is taking steps to address that problem, and we support their efforts. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Mr. Zimmer, what can we do to best promote the regrowth of young forest habitat. 

Mr. ZIMMER. We have to address the need that’s out there. Currently the Chequamegon-Nicolet, if you go with the current management level, is harvesting, and if we continue that harvest over 

the next ten years or so, we are at lower levels than ever has been, 

aspen levels, in historic times. We need to increase that because we 

have the suite of species and a lot of species that are indirectly related. Even species like the northern goshawk, which relies on species for prey that utilize young forest habitats, like snowshoe hare 

and ruffed grouse are the top two prey species. There is that 

interlink that is needed, and we need to maintain that habitat 

across our forest spectrum, and in those places we can do it. 

From our standpoint, the people that I work for, we have a big 

desire for hunting ruffed grouse and woodcock, and Wisconsin, the 

U.P. of Michigan, and northeastern Minnesota are the three best 

places left in the United States to hunt ruffed grouse and 

woodcock. So our folks are seeing that every October. Come join us 

in the October, we will take you on a hunt, but also come and see 

the license plates of the visitors to the national forest and the state 

and county forest in northern Wisconsin. It’s remarkable how much 

tourism is in the pursuit of just those two species every October. 

Mr. BACA. I may take you up on that as long as I can go golfing. 

Mr. ZIMMER. We can work that in. 

86

Mr. BACA. I know that we are running out of time, but, Mr. 

Johnson, you mentioned biomass. In June, the Subcommittee held 

a hearing on the future of the forest. At that hearing nearly every 

witness emphasized the need for a broad and workable definition 

of renewable biomass in both renewable fuel standards and the renewable electricity standards. As a result of that hearing, I worked 

with Mr. Peterson, as did Dr. Steve Kagen, to a get sensible definition in the climate change bill, and I am pleased with those results. 

The definition of renewable biomass, as it passed the House, has 

two important pieces. 

The first is the definition for private land. Mr. Waxman, the 

Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, agreed to include the farm bill definition for private lands, and this is a broad 

definition that is already in the law. 

The second piece is for Federal and public lands. The definition 

that was passed in the House permits the use of forest biomass in 

a sensible way. I realize these definitions are not perfect. 

With that, I’d just like to ask if there are any suggestions on the 

best way that we can construct the legislative language, I would 

appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions or ideas that you 

may have in that area. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you want them now or written? 

Mr. BACA. Well, we don’t have enough time for it all right now. 

But I would appreciate it, if you can, just make a short comment 

on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think the thing that we really need to address as we’re going forward and in talking definitions and other 

things, is we are trying to promote or to build a new industry. Especially in these tough financial times that we are in, to get a new 

industry off the ground like the biorefineries or biofuels or renewable energy projects is tough. And one of the top things they are 

always asking, how long is your feedstock supply agreement? And 

without a solid definition moving forward, that allows us to utilize 

the natural resources that we have sustainably, be it private, be it 

a Federal forest, that we are ensured a supply for at least ten to 

20 years for the financial community, we will never get the funding 

to get these projects off the ground. And it’s important, as we push 

through with legislation, with policy, that we keep in mind that 

these projects are only as good as the feedstock that’s going to be 

supplying them. 

And a wide definition, one that certainly allows time to implement and to secure the feedstock be it from private or governmental forests or field or whatever the case may be in terms of 

feedstock, is one that I think we need to address and continue to 

push forward to ensure that feedstock in the industry. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll start off by just making a comment or two about how important the forestry industry 

is not just to Wisconsin but to our entire country. We cannot become a stronger nation, a nation that’s independent of foreign 

sources of energy, without a successful method of sustainably managing our forestlands all across the country, whether or not they 

are county, state, or Federal or private forestlands. It is critical 

that Congress get it right. And you’ve also noticed in this room how 

87

important a few sentences are in a piece of legislation. So that’s 

why you have experts like physicians on the Agriculture Committee. We have to have a secure nation. We can get a strengthened national security by having a successful process of sustainably 

managing our forestlands. I think everyone would agree with that. 

In this room, we have tremendous assets of institutional knowledge, people who have been living and growing up in the forest, not 

just for their own generation, but for several generations. We have 

tremendous talent and knowledge that if we can harness this and 

really begin to work together on some of these problems, we can 

lead the way here in Wisconsin and northern Illinois. We can lead 

the way in terms of making certain that we have sustainable practices not just in the forests but also on our farms, because we have 

the definition now, the trees are an agricultural product. 

It’s very important as well that the forest industry be successful 

to mitigate climate change. Now more than ever we understand the 

interconnectivity. As an allergist I would say that if you are a tall 

man in China and you sneeze, well, there’s an American person 

here that has it on the back of their neck. What they are doing 

with their environment affects us here. That’s why 42 percent of 

the mercury in our waterways, in the Great Lakes and our northern lakes and streams, came from dirty coal in China. 

Most importantly, in today’s economic stressful time, we cannot 

afford to waste any of the trees or branches or debris that fall in 

any forestland anywhere. We have to be very efficient and must 

not waste anything. And I’ll remind all of you that, you may already be aware of this, but I’ll remind you that I’m aware of it, and 

that is about the carbon cycle of our planet. The global carbon cycle 

has to do with where this carbon is located. Well, in our soil, there 

are 3,195 gigatons of carbon. In the plants we have 654 gigatons. 

And every year we put into the atmosphere, apart from man’s contribution, 58 gigatons of carbon. And because of the photosynthesis 

that takes place in our plant life, in our trees, in our forestlands, 

we take out 58 gigatons as well. So what we have to do is reach 

a balance. 

There was a balance until mankind, in the recent centuries, 

began to kick in seven gigatons of carbon every year due to anthropogenic effects of emitting the fossil fuel carbon. What we have to 

do now is mitigate that. And the best way to do it is to manage 

our soils and our forests in a sustainable way. 

So let me just get a head nodding or a raising of the hands of 

the panel to see if we can’t agree on one thing, and the one question I have is, wouldn’t you all agree that we need to do everything 

possible to maximize the carbon dioxide retention in plant life? 

Would you all agree? And isn’t it also true that younger——

Mr. BACA. They have to respond. I mean they nodded their 

heads. Would you, for the record. 

Mr. KAGEN. Let the record reflect there was a lot of head nodding 

going on, and it wasn’t because they are falling asleep. It’s not Congress, after all. 

So if we all agree that it’s really paramount for the survival of 

our climate, for the survival of our human species and our economy 

and our national defense, our national—strength of our national security, we have to remove as much carbon dioxide as soon as posVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Jan 04, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-26\52846.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
88

sible, isn’t it a fact, we will start with Henry and move down the 

line. Isn’t it a fact that younger trees, rapidly growing trees, take 

in more carbon dioxide than older trees? 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. Ms. Dixon. 

Ms. DIXON. I would actually disagree. That has been common 

knowledge until recently. Studies that have recently come out as 

early as September, I believe it was 2008, and I have copies of the 

paper with me if you’d like to see it, there’s a study——

Mr. KAGEN. If you could make those studies available. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’d agree. 

Mr. ZIMMER. I’d agree. 

Mr. KAGEN. Isn’t it—doesn’t it just make common sense that we 

have to have a rebirth and a regrowth and a replanting of our forests in order to replant them and grow our forests anew, don’t we 

have to sustainably harvest tree life that exists? Would anyone disagree with that statement. 

Ms. DIXON. I’d agree that harvesting can be done sustainably, absolutely. But as I mentioned, there are studies showing that older 

trees actually continue to sequester carbon indefinitely. So I would 

echo the comments made by Secretary Frank in the earlier panel 

that carbon sequestration benefits actually would create an incentive for leaving more older trees standing, and that’s the position 

that’s taken by the Environmental Policy Center. 

Mr. KAGEN. So we have some disagreement. I look forward to 

making sure we come with some better, more stable agreements—

more sustainable agreements in the future. 

My question to Ms. Dixon is, who do you believe is best able to 

manage the forestlands, someone who’s closest to the farm, or 

someone who’s further away? 

Ms. DIXON. I absolutely agree that the Forest Service is the expert agency, they have the expertise. There are many, many knowledgeable people on the Forest Service staff that have dedicated 

their lives and their careers to managing Federal forestlands. 

Mr. KAGEN. So you’d agree people closest to the tree farm, the 

people closest to the forest, might have better knowledge of what’s 

going on on the ground. 

Ms. DIXON. I would agree in general. I agree that the policies, 

however, are set at a higher level, and it is to some extent——

Mr. KAGEN. Which leads me to my next question, that is, which 

specific sections of the 2004 Forest Management Plan do you and 

your organization specifically disagree with? And if you don’t have 

time at the moment, perhaps you could itemize that in a written 

response. 

Ms. DIXON. Yes, I’m happy to submit specific written responses. 

Mr. KAGEN. I’d appreciate that very much. 

Ms. DIXON. Absolutely. 

Mr. KAGEN. Henry, any other comments? You mentioned three 

things that were important. And I really used to enjoy meeting people because they put their hand out in the vertical position. But 

now when they come up to me and I’m a Member of Congress, they 

go for the horizontal position. You mentioned funding, full funding. 

How difficult would it be, do you think, for Congress to fully fund 

89

the forest plans, to make sure that we have the funds necessary 

to carry out the job of keeping a healthy forest. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. I wouldn’t think it would be that difficult because anytime you start to manage the forest, you are bringing 

money back into the system. It’s not like we’re asking for something for nothing all the time and saying, hey, just give us a pot 

of money and we’ll go until it’s gone and then we’ll come back for 

more. We’re looking at value added. With biomass and everything, 

we’re looking at creating more income and generating revenue from 

that with the add-on product and making the country—and, actually, by the time, I would imagine, if you’d figure out how many 

barrels of oil we don’t have to buy and how many things that are 

attached to that barrel of oil, the savings could be huge. 

I mean, we look at the forest and, obviously there has been mistakes made in the early 1930s and stuff with the cutout and everything. Our point of view is basically, I think, we have changed all 

that. I don’t think we are over-harvesting because all you have to 

do is drive around on the roads. Go to northern Wisconsin. We 

have more trees throughout the whole country than we have ever 

had before. I mean, scientifically or not, the evidence is there. The 

trees are standing. We are cutting. We have been able to support 

the industries we have so far. Could we do better? Absolutely. We 

could create more jobs, and we can still——

Mr. KAGEN. And could you respond to the written testimony of 

Ms. Dixon and her group about irresponsible logging projects? 

What do you think that means, and do you have any response to 

that comment and that opinion. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. I’m not exactly sure. I didn’t read that testimony. But irresponsible logging, I think, is a thing of the past. We 

have gone through more training in the last 15 years as loggers. 

It’s required every year that you continue your education and 

training, and that’s forest management, that’s safety, that’s value 

of timber that you are cutting, how to get the most value out of 

that product. It’s best management practices for water it’s basic 

species training. All those things we are continually putting classes 

on, from that to the economics part of it. How do you sustain your 

industry, how do you sustain your business, by accounting practices 

and those types of things as well. But it’s not all about the money, 

it’s about ensuring that that forest is there. I mean, I’m third 

generational, a lot of the members are fourth, and my two sons 

chose to go somewhere else because they didn’t see the future. 

Mr. KAGEN. Ms. Dixon, what do you think are the responsible 

logging projects? How do you define that. 

Ms. DIXON. Let me just respond for a quick second to Mr. 

Schienebeck’s comments. It’s not the loggers themselves, as I mentioned earlier, it’s not the loggers themselves we have issues with. 

We don’t believe that the loggers in Wisconsin are doing things irresponsibly. We appreciate the amount of training that they go 

through and the amount of expertise that they have in their field. 

The issue for us is the amount of logging that is proposed by the 

Forest Service. 

Mr. KAGEN. Except there are more trees now than we’ve had before, so if we are cutting too many down——

90

Ms. DIXON. I think that’s generally true. My written testimony, 

however, explains, or at least gives examples, of two specific timber 

sales that we were able to come to an agreement with the Forest 

Service over, and there were very specific areas of those timber 

sales where our scientists, clients, and colleagues determined that 

if logging occurred in those areas, it would have environmental impacts to species, habitat, and to clean water. Of the 6,000-acre timber sales, specifically I’m thinking of the Boulder timber sale, 

which is located on the Nicolet side of the forest, of the 6,000-acre 

project, we agreed that the Forest Service would defer maybe 1,500 

acres of those. So it’s a small percentage. 

We look at the specific timber projects project by project and 

stand by stand, and if there are—there are usually generally significant amounts of the project area where it’s appropriate to log 

and necessary, and that’s fine for us and our clients, but there are 

often some stands where we believe that logging should not happen. And we have had numerous discussions with Forest Service 

leadership at that specific level. So that’s all that we are talking 

about here is really portions of larger projects. 

Mr. KAGEN. Finally, Mr. Johnson, if you have any other additional comments at this time, I’d appreciate hearing them now. I 

thank you and your family for employing more people than less 

people and doing it in a sustainable way, making certain that the 

economy around you will continue to grow, and I really appreciate 

what you’ve been doing. Any other final comments. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I guess the one thing that I would caution Congress and the state and others on is as we move forward 

and look at renewable electricity standards, portfolio standards, 

and everything else is to really have a strong understanding of the 

feedstocks that we are looking at. If we are looking at woody biomass as a feedstock to go into a renewable fuel standard, electricity 

standard, whatever the case may be, I just urge the Congress to 

remember that woody biomass is a finite resource and there is 

truly a best use of wood out there. And while we have a great traditional industry going and potential great industry coming up 

with biofuel plants and others, do we really want to start putting 

a finite resource into old technology, such as old electric-generating 

facilities, 25, 30, maybe 35 percent efficient facilities, when we can 

find new technologies, new industries that are coming on board, 

such as a biofuels plant or others, that are coming on board making transportation fuel, waxes, electricity, natural gas replacements, as long as they have a steam house, and be able to utilize 

70 to 80 percent of the thermal efficiency within that woody biomass instead of the 25, maybe 35 percent. 

As I said, it is a finite resource, and I just urge this body to find 

the best use of wood available and not just throw it because a number sounds good or a goal sounds good. 

Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Zimmer. 

Mr. ZIMMER. What I would just like to say is having lived in the 

north woods for all my life, basically, I see a proud people, hardworking people, that spend days and days—I know loggers, and I’m 

not really a logger. I cut some wood for firewood and things like 

that. I see guys that get up at 3 o’clock in the morning to get out, 

work most of the day, come back tired, just to make ends meet, at 

91

the night. They don’t want to go on unemployment, and they won’t 

if they can help it. We have the natural resources up there. The 

national forest, 1⁄3 of it, as you heard from Mr. Schienebeck’s comments, 1⁄3 is hands-off already. Only 1⁄2 of the remaining forested 

land out there is even or only 1⁄2 of the goals are being met on the 

remaining portion. Let’s put that forest to work for these people so 

they can and I can raise a family and raise it the American way. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KAGEN. Amen. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much. I appreciate each and every 

one of the testimonies. I know that we’ve got a lot of work ahead 

of us as we look at the challenges and the solutions. And I appreciate the fact, just even the last few statements that were just 

made about the outdated equipment and looking at new technology 

and looking at how we preserve our environment at the same time, 

how do we create jobs and maintain jobs in the area and allow people to put food on the table and enjoy their quality of life. These 

are real people that are being affected. These are people that have 

lost their jobs, don’t have a job, can’t feed their families right now, 

but are relying upon the forest for jobs, whether they are loggers 

or have any other kind of job, or whether they work with Mr. Johnson’s timber factory. 

One final statement that I have before I turn it over to Dr. 

Kagen to give his closing remarks, how can state, Federal, and the 

private entities best work together? Because I think that’s what Dr. 

Kagen said, how do we all come together and how do we work together in looking to solutions to the problems we have. What is impact not only in the 21st Century, but how it will impact our future 

in terms of the community? Any final comments you have on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Me directly? 

Mr. BACA. Anyone. Federal, state working together. We all need 

to work together, and private entities as well. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think a relationship—as you know, as we look 

at litigation and some other things, we heard in the room before 

this hearing from the gentleman, I can’t remember which county 

he’s from, county forester, Marinette County, or I can’t remember 

which it was, but talking about some of the counties here in Wisconsin passing resolutions to say, let us maybe help manage our 

Federal forests. And I’ll tell you, the state and county foresters and 

the work that they do is absolutely tremendous. And possibly to 

help some of this litigation that we see coming forward, maybe a 

partnership between Forest Service employees, county foresters, 

state foresters, come together as a group before litigation is pressed 

and go over it, almost to have the county and state portion come 

in as a third party to look at it until there’s forest certification on 

the national forest. Maybe that would be a way around some of this 

costly litigation that costs taxpayers money, costs businesses 

money because our timber is tied up and they can’t harvest it to 

produce the product they need. Cooperation to find solutions to 

problems that really don’t need to be there I think would be the 

greatest thing, and a great working relationship to find ways 

around this. 

Mr. BACA. Ms. Dixon, from your area. 

92

Ms. DIXON. Absolutely, I agree that there should be greater coordination among Federal, state, and county forest managers. I 

think you may have noticed from my written testimony, Wisconsin 

landscape is fragmented not only by roads and other features but 

in ownership, and greater coordination among those various forest 

owners would really help the process of managing Wisconsin’s 

forestlands overall more sustainably. 

There are many forest managers in Wisconsin, the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands being one, Menominee Indian Tribe 

being another, that manage their forests in a historically sustainable way, and I believe all parties would benefit from having all 

those forest managers talking together more. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. I guess I would say let’s start looking at the 

big picture. We are in a world economy, not the United States economy, and I think that, obviously, we are doing a good job of managing our forests now. Can we get better? Absolutely. But if we 

weren’t doing a good job, we wouldn’t have to sit here and talk 

about it because nobody cared, there wouldn’t be anything there to 

talk about. So that’s just kind of a simple, straightforward thing 

that, yes, we are doing a good job, we can do better. But when we 

look at the world picture, what we have here and what we can promote, that we are sustainably harvesting versus Brazil or somewhere where they are illegally clear-cutting their rainforests, or 

doing things like that, I think we can promote that, because we do 

have the technology, we do have the skill, we have the workforce, 

and we need to have the product out there to be a world player. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. 

Mr. ZIMMER. Just kind of a touch-up for Mr. Schienebeck’s comments there. We have, across the board, you’ve heard some of the 

evidence today, state, county, Federal, consultants, foresters, things 

like that, we have some of the best experts in the world right here 

to manage our forests. Let’s let those experts do the right job and 

get it done. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Before we adjourn, I’d like to ask Mr. 

Kagen for closing remarks. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, I’ll be the contrarian, as I won’t be quite my 

normal self. I’ll be brief, how’s that. I want to thank Chairman 

Baca for allowing Congress to come here to northeast Wisconsin. I 

think it’s very important that the voice of northeast Wisconsin, particularly in our timber and lumber industry, our forest industry, 

get back to Washington. I feel like quoting one of my favorite poets, 

Walt Whitman. In one of his poems there was this line that said, 

‘‘I’m the grass, let me work.’’ We’ve really got to get back to working and taking common-sense solutions and getting everybody back 

at work. It’s really about the success of our economy. We can protect our environment, we can secure our nation and harvest our national forests all at the same time. It will be great for the health 

of our forests, great for the health of our county and the health of 

our people. I look forward to working with other Members of the 

Agriculture Committee. 

And I’ll say one other comment. In my early 21⁄2 years of experience being a Representative of the people, I’m very proud of some 

of the institutions who have more than three letters in Washington, like the USDA. I really believe that they are the closest 

93

people that can best manage and help to manage our farmland, including our forests. I look forward to working with them and making certain that we get full funding of programs that need full 

funding and make certain that we eliminate waste wherever possible. But in this economic time we can’t afford to allow any waste 

to occur in our healthcare system, in our economy, and certainly 

not in our forestlands. And thank you again, Chairman Baca, for 

allowing this hearing to take place. Thank you all for participating. 

I look forward to working with you. 

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

working together becomes very important to a lot of us as we look 

at the challenges and solutions, both the private and the public sector, and working with our educational institutions; whether it’s 

community college or a state college or university, and looking at 

the kind of research that we need to do to see where we are today 

and where we need to be tomorrow. 

With that I’d like to thank each of the panelists today for your 

expertise and your knowledge and sharing information as we look 

at the many challenges we face in our economy, and the environment. With that I want to thank you. I want to thank Dr. Kagen, 

again, a special thanks for hosting this hearing and making history 

right here in Appleton by bringing Congress here. 

And with that, I’d like to just state that before we adjourn, under 

the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional materials and 

supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by any Members of this hearing. The Subcommittee on 

Department Operations and Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry is 

now adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

94

95

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF DAVID P. BARTZ, STURGEON BAY, WISCONSIN


111026045
96


111026046
97

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY GORDON P. CONNOR, PRESIDENT, NICOLET HARDWOODS

CORP., LAONA, WISCONSIN


111026047
98


111026048
99

ATTACHMENT


111026049
100


111026050
101


111026051
102

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY WENDY GEHLHOFF, DIRECTOR, FLORENCE COUNTY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, FLORENCE, WISCONSIN


111026052
103


111026053
104


111026054
105


111026055
106

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY STEVE GUTHRIE, WOODLANDS MANAGER, NICOLET

HARDWOODS CORPORATION, LAONA, WISCONSIN

Dear Mr. McGourty and Mr. Mitchell: 

I am writing to ask for your support in improving the management of the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. The CNNF has greatly reduced the amount 

of timber available for sale in the past 10 years. Currently the CNNF is harvesting 

less than half of the timber volume in their allowable harvest plan. This translates 

to a huge loss of revenue to local communities from direct Forest Service payments, 

and a significant reduction in the wood needed to sustain our forest industry. 

Wisconsin communities within the national forest boundary are being shorted 

over $5 million annually in direct payments from the Forest Service that would be 

paid if the national forests were managed sustainably. This is placing an unfair tax 

burden on property and business owners who cannot continue to make up this deficit. 

Last year the CNNF failed to harvest 88 million board feet of timber available 

for harvest in their management plan. That shortfall is exporting the demand for 

timber to private lands that are unable to supply the volume needed to sustain Wisconsin’s forest industry. Over 7500 jobs have been lost in the paper industry since 

2000. Nineteen large sawmills have closed in the last 5 years, and 23% of our logging contractors have gone out of business in the last 10 years. 

I understand the public pressure and the politics involved with managing our national forests. Certainly the long term health of our forests is the ultimate desire 

of most people concerned. A great deal of public and professional involvement went 

into writing the harvest plan for the CNNF. I strongly feel that getting the Forest 

Service to follow that plan is the best way to maintain a healthy forest and all of 

the benefits it provides. 

I thank you for the interest you have taken in our national forests and our industry. Your help in improving the harvest level on the CNNF would be greatly appreciated. If there is anything I can do to help in that regard please let me know.

Sincerely, 

Steve Guthrie, Woodlands Manager 

Nicolet Hardwoods Corporation 

[REDACTED] 

107

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY STEWARD P. HARRISON AND MICHAEL J. SCHWANTES, 

PARTNERS, TIMBERLAND POWER COMPANY, A DIVISION OF CREATIVE ENERGY AND

DATA SOLUTIONS, LLC, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN


111026056
108


111026057
109

APPENDIX I


111026058
110


111026059
111


111026060
112


111026061
113


111026062
114


111026063
115

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY RICHARD R. HOGUE, CLAM LAKE, WISCONSIN

United States Forest Service 

Great Divide Ranger District 

P.O. Box 896, 10650 Nyman Avenue 

Hayward, WI 54843

14 December 2008

ATTN: Twin Ghost Project 

Dear Sir or Madame: 

I find it ironic that this fall, shortly after the completion of a survey of the Federal 

land which abuts my private property; that a cut is scheduled for the second growth 

old growth northern hardwood forest on the land immediately surrounding my land. 

Until the latest survey some of this property was under my purview since no one 

knew where the actual boundary lines were for many years. But shortly after this 

survey, which took some of the forest away from me, most of the north boundary 

line abutting my private land on the Federal side is scheduled for a select cut in 

areas identified as 384/014, 384/034 and 384/015. These areas have scattered, mature, and healthy Red Oak, Sugar Maple, and a basic mix of a northern hardwood 

forest. The same applies to the southeast inside corner, 395/005, butting up to my 

private property and a portion of which fell under my purview-again because neither 

the U.S. Forest Service nor I knew where the property line lay. 

These designated areas have large healthy Red Oaks, Large Sugar Maple, and a 

mix of northern hardwood species throughout them. The trees are not dense. 

The areas mentioned above are a second growth forest well over 100 years old. 

I remember during the early 1990s there was a similar select cut on the south side 

of Christy Lake; mainly the Red Oaks were cut. I called to inquire regarding it and 

I was told this select cut was to regenerate the Red Oaks. Well, I see little if any 

regeneration of the Red Oaks in that cut. I question cutting healthy acorn bearing 

Red Oaks to ‘‘regenerate’’ Red Oaks because I have seen it fail. I assert that it is 

just a ploy the USFS uses to promote the interests of industry. Some years after 

the 1990s select cut I tried to get Barry Paulson a Great Divide Ranger to come 

with me and visit the site on the south side of Christy Lake to see how it was a 

failure-he never did come to see. 

There are many species which require mature trees to survive without stress. The 

areas I have identified are doing just fine by allowing Nature to take its course. Nature certainly does not need the USFS to interfere. Allowing trees to live life with 

the natural elements-in my eyes is the very correct way--especially in the areas I 

have mentioned around my property. Again they are second growth old growth forests, well over one-hundred years old. Why are they not documented as second old 

growth forest and be done with it? All the USFS does is identify them as areas to 

be select cut! Are you afraid someone like me who realizes the value of Nature in 

and of itself will question the validity for such cuts? You made no attempt to state 

the actual age of the trees or the density of the areas or the age of any of the Twin 

Ghost Project and very possibly in the Cayuga or Twenty Mile projects. It does 

make a difference to the public, which you seek comment from. It is like leaving 

out a piece of the puzzle. 

This whole Twin Ghost Project has come about much too quickly and I take that 

view. The comment period is also during the holiday season and it may not be getting the full attention it needs from the public. There needs to be a much longer 

public comment period, even until after the holidays, when a new president of the 

United States of America may greatly change the present practices of the USFS. 

The timing of this cut is also suspect because District Ranger Connie Cheney and 

some of her staff have been harassing me in other ways ever since the ATV signing 

fiasco for which they were responsible. They handled the ATV road signing issue 

so poorly when they were supposed to work cooperatively with the Spider Lake 

Town Board, the town Comprehensive Land Use Committee and the citizens of the 

Town of Spider Lake. The entities were to agree first, BEFORE any ATV use signs 

were installed. However the USFS did not honor this commitment. They have made 

myriad other mistakes such as leaving FR 671 as an ATV use road, even when they 

knew of my official written complaints regarding its being left open to ATV traffic. 

I have called them on each of their missteps and now, just to show me, they have 

planned a project to select cut trees in second growth old growth forest right up to 

my property line. 

Leaving the pencil straight perfect trees for the next cut may not be the answer 

to forest health that the USFS thinks it is. Nature’s natural selection works just 

fine. 

116

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Truly,

Richard R. Hogue 

005N FR 208

Clam Lake, WI 54517

[REDACTED] 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY STEVE KARIAINEN, RESOURCE MANGER, LOUISIANA

PACIFIC CORPORATION, HAYWARD, WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: 

Thank you for having the recent hearing in Appleton to address forest management issues in northern Wisconsin. Although I could not attend, I wish to submit 

the following: 

For the last 30 years I have worked in forestry and wood procurement for Louisiana Pacific Corporation in Hayward, Wisconsin. Over that time I have witnessed 

a significant improvement in both the practice of forestry and the public’s perception 

of forestry. As you know, logging is a very important and highly visible aspect of 

forest management. 

During my career I have had the pleasure of working with hundreds of different 

logging contractors and wood suppliers. I have developed a deep respect and admiration for loggers, as they epitomize the independent, entrepreneurial spirit that has 

been such an important part of our American heritage. Logging has evolved over 

the years to become much less dependent on brawn and much more dependent on 

brains. Modern logging machinery is very productive, yet is light on the landscape. 

Today’s loggers require extensive training in both equipment operation and in environmental protection. 

In spite of all of the advancements in the logging profession, I am very concerned 

that the logging profession in Wisconsin is at risk. Because loggers are generally 

family businesses in rural communities, the risk extends to those families and communities. 

There is no physical shortage of timber in Wisconsin. According to USFS FIA data 

we have almost twice as much timber volume in Wisconsin today as we had fifty 

years ago. But each year in Wisconsin we lose almost as much timber to natural 

causes as is harvested. In other words, there is a tremendous opportunity to make 

more timber available, thereby making all of the businesses and communities that 

depend on the timber more stable and secure. 

Timber harvested from Wisconsin forests has traditionally been used primarily for 

pulpwood and for logs. We are already seeing increased demand for wood fuel in 

some areas, and there is good reason to believe the demand for wood fuels will grow 

in proportion with increased investments in woody biomass technology. 

Failure to address the growing wood fuel demand with additional wood fiber supply will place both traditional and emerging wood users in jeopardy. It will also put 

undue strain on the loggers and truckers who deliver wood from the forest to the 

mills for processing. 

I ask that you support efforts to require all national forests to develop harvest 

plans consistent with their long-term biological capability (allowable sale quantity 

or ASQ) and to provide the funding support to ensure the plans are implemented. 

For example, our Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is one of the most productive of all national forests, yet has only harvested 53% of ASQ from 2005 through 

2008. Managing the national forests to their full potential will help to ensure a 

healthy future for Wisconsin’s forests and for the family businesses and rural communities that are such an important part of the fabric of life in Wisconsin. 

Thank you. 

Steve Kariainen 

Resource Manager 

Louisiana Pacific Corporation 

[REDACTED] 

117

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY MARK K. LEACH, PH.D., BRO PROFESSOR OF REGIONAL

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY, NORTHLAND

COLLEGE, ASHLAND, WISCONSIN


111026064
118


111026065
119


111026066
120

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY CHRISTOPHER NEHRBASS, SHAHLA M. WERNER, AND ERIC

URAM, JOHN MUIR CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB, MADISON, WISCONSIN


111026067
121


111026068
122


111026069
123


111026070
124

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY JOHN J. OUELLETTE, M.D., PRIVATE LAND OWNER, 

MADISON, WISCONSIN


111026071
125

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY KIMBERLY K. QUAST, CHAIR, WISCONSIN CONSULTING

FORESTERS, ROSENDALE, WISCONSIN


111026072
126


111026073
127

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY DONALD M. WALLER, PROFESSOR OF BOTANY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON, MADISON, WISCONSIN


111026074
128


111026075
129


111026076
130


111026077
131


111026078
132


111026079
133


111026080
134


111026081
135

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY ELROY ZEMKE, PRESIDENT, AND JANE F. SEVERT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WISCONSIN COUNTY FORESTS ASSOCIATION, TOMAHAWK, WISCONSIN


111026082
136


111026083
137

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, MADISON, WISCONSIN

Æ


111026084