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

80–079 PDF 2013

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT AND ITS

IMPACTS ON RURAL ECONOMIES AND 

COMMUNITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY,

AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 13, 2013

Serial No. 113–2

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel 

TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, AND FORESTRY

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 6 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

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

Walz, Hon. Timothy J., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 4 

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

WITNESSES

Tidwell, Thomas, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 82

McKetta, Ph.D., C.F., Charles W., Natural Resources Economist, Forest Econ 

Inc., Moscow, ID; on behalf of Society of American Foresters .......................... 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Sample, Ph.D., V. Alaric, President, Pinchot Institute for Conservation, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 37

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Kane, Kenneth C., President, Generations Forestry, Inc., Kane, PA; on behalf 

of Association of Consulting Foresters of America ............................................ 43

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

Schuessler, James, Executive Director, Forest County Economic Development 

Partnership, Crandon, WI ................................................................................... 55

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Rigdon, Phil, President, Intertribal Timber Council, submitted letter ............... 79

(1)

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT AND ITS 

IMPACTS ON RURAL ECONOMIES AND 

COMMUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, AND FORESTRY, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Thompson, Goodlatte, Rogers, 

Tipton, Crawford, Ribble, Noem, Walz, Negrete McLeod, Kuster, 

Nolan, and DelBene. 

Staff present: Brent Blevins, Debbie Smith, Lauren Sturgeon, 

Patricia Straughn, Suzanne Watson, Tamara Hinton, Anne Simmons, Keith Jones, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, John Konya, 

Merrick Munday, and Caleb Crosswhite. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. This hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry to discuss 

the National Forest management and its impacts on rural economies and communities, will come to order. 

Let me begin by welcoming everyone to the first hearing of the 

Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee of the 113th 

Congress. I particularly want to extend a warm welcome to our 

new Ranking Member, Mr. Walz. We are all honored to be able to 

serve with him and for his leadership to this Committee as well as 

the new Members of our Subcommittee. This Subcommittee has 

broad jurisdiction over a large number of issues and areas at the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture including forestry, an important 

topic for many of us here today. 

Forestry plays an important role in the rural economy. The forest 

product industry employs almost 900,000 people across the country 

not including jobs directly supporting the industry, and in 2012, 

the forest products industry had an economic impact approaching 

$190 billion. 

Our National Forests are capable of providing and sustaining 

these economic benefits but they need proper management in order 

to do so, which is the topic of today’s hearing, the management of 

2

our National Forest System and what impacts this management 

has on neighboring communities. 

The Forest Service manages more than 193 million acres of land 

across 41 states. Within those 41 states, there are over 700 counties containing National Forest land. These communities rely on us 

to be good stewards of these Federal lands. The people who live in 

those communities depend on well-managed National Forests to 

foster jobs and economic opportunity. These jobs can come from diverse sources such as timber, energy production or recreation. If 

these jobs disappear, so too do jobs that support those industries. 

If these disappear, then school systems and infrastructure in these 

communities are certainly threatened. 

Thus, effective management and Forest Service decisions have 

significant consequences on our constituents who live in and 

around our National Forests. When Congress created the National 

Forest System more than 100 years ago, it was designed so that 

the surrounding communities would benefit from the multiple uses. 

A share of the revenue from each forest’s activities has to be returned to the community in exchange for the fact that these lands 

were taken off the local tax rolls. Additionally, these forests would 

provide jobs to communities by harvesting timber, collecting natural resources or providing recreational opportunities. 

However, as timber outputs have declined over the last 25 years, 

we have seen the impacts on these communities. Unemployment is 

higher in these communities, and we have witnessed some of the 

most intense fire seasons in the last 50 years recently. I continue 

to be very troubled by the significant reduction in timber harvesting in the National Forests. Harvesting is a critical piece of 

management, and the Forest Service cannot effectively manage our 

forests without it. 

To his credit, Secretary Vilsack recognized these concerns, and 

last February he stated his goal for the Forest Service to harvest 

3 billion board feet annually by 2014. The Forest Service harvested 

more than 2.6 billion board feet last year, its highest total since 

2000. 

Now, I applaud these efforts and I hope that the agency will go 

further to see harvesting levels closer to the recommended sustainable cuts in each forest. However, I hope the agency does not make 

a shortsighted decision to reduce treatments to National Forest 

land in an attempt to meet the obligations of the sequester. Though 

it is a decision that may save a bit of money in the short term, it 

will only further impair the National Forest System that is already 

dangerously mismanaged, resulting in fewer jobs, more fire-prone 

forests, and communities struggling to make ends meet. Sequestration is an unfortunate approach to achieve deficit reduction but we 

must face reality: the Federal Government must shrink. We must 

utilize resources more efficiently and effectively. 

With any hope, these austerity measures will held remind us of 

just how critical forest management for both Federal spending and 

economic growth, and through better forest management we will 

spend less money fighting wildfires. Through increased timber harvests, we will see more revenues to the U.S. Treasury and our local 

communities, and I look forward to hearing today from Chief Tidwell as to how the Service will be managing this process. Today we 

3

are going to hear testimony about other ways the Forest Service 

can help promote rural economic health including energy production or by providing recreational opportunities in our forests. 

I want to welcome our panel of witnesses and thank them for 

sharing their perspectives today. I would also like to especially say 

thank you to Mr. Ken Kane, a constituent of mine who will be testifying later this morning. I look forward to a productive discussion 

on how we can be certain the Forest Service is doing everything 

within reason to produce a stronger rural America. 

I welcome Chief Tidwell back before the Subcommittee. He has 

been a great partner to work with as we share this common commitment towards healthy forests. We have enjoyed a good working 

relationship in the past, and I look forward to working with you 

to ensure that we have healthy and prosperous rural communities 

across America. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee this Congress. 

I particularly want to extend a warm welcome to our new Ranking Member, Mr. 

Walz, as well as the new Members of our Subcommittee. 

This Subcommittee has broad jurisdiction over a large number of issue areas at 

USDA, including forestry—an important topic for many of us here today. 

Forestry plays an important role in the rural economy. 

The forest products industry employs almost 900,000 people across the country, 

not including jobs directly supporting the industry, and in 2012, the forest products 

industry had an economic impact approaching $190 billion. 

Our National Forests are capable of providing and sustaining these economic benefits, but they need proper management in order to do so, which is the topic of today’s hearing: the management of our National Forest System and what impacts 

this management has on neighboring communities. 

The Forest Service manages more than 193 million acres of land across 41 states. 

Within those 41 states, there are over 700 counties containing National Forest land. 

These communities rely on us to be good stewards of these Federal lands. 

The people who live in those communities depend on well managed National Forests to foster jobs and economic opportunity. 

These jobs can come from diverse sources such as timber, energy production, or 

recreation. 

If these jobs disappear, so too do jobs that support those industries. If these disappear, then school systems and infrastructure in these communities are threatened. 

Thus, effective management and Forest Service decisions have significant consequences on our constituents who live in and around our National Forests. 

When Congress created the National Forest System more than a hundred years 

ago, it was designed so that the surrounding communities would benefit from the 

multiple uses. 

A share of the revenue from each forest’s activities was to be returned to the communities in exchange for the fact that these lands were being taken off local tax 

rolls. 

Additionally, these forests would provide jobs to communities by harvesting timber, collecting natural resources, or providing recreational opportunities. 

However, as timber outputs have declined over the last 25 years, we have seen 

the impacts for these communities. 

Unemployment is higher in these communities and we have witnessed some of the 

most intense fire seasons in the last 50 years recently. 

I continue to be very troubled by the significant reduction in timber harvesting 

in National Forests. 

Harvesting is a critical piece of management—and the Forest Service cannot effectively manage our forests without it. 

To his credit, Secretary Vilsack recognized these concerns. Last February, he stated his goal for the Forest Service to harvest 3 billion board feet annually by 2014. 

4

The Forest Service harvested more than 2.6 billion board feet last year, its highest total since 2000. 

I applaud these efforts and hope that the agency will go farther to see harvesting 

levels closer to the recommended sustainable cuts in each forest. 

However, I hope the agency does not make a short sighted decision to reduce 

treatments to National Forest land in an attempt to meet the obligation of the sequester. 

Though it’s a decision that may save a bit of money in the short term, it will only 

further impair a National Forest System that’s already dangerously mismanaged, 

resulting in fewer jobs, more fire-prone forests, and communities struggling to make 

ends meet. 

Sequestration is an unfortunate approach to achieve deficit reduction, but we 

must face reality: the Federal Government must shrink. We must utilize resources 

more efficiently and effectively. 

With any hope, these austerity measures will help remind us of just how critical 

forest management is for both Federal spending and economic growth. 

Through better forest management, we’ll spend less money fighting wildfires. 

Through increased timber harvests, we’ll see more revenue to the U.S. Treasury and 

our local communities. I look forward to hearing today from Chief Tidwell as to how 

the Service will be managing this process. 

Today, we will hear testimony about other ways the Forest Service can help promote rural economic health, including energy production or by providing recreational opportunities in our forests. 

I want to welcome our panel of witnesses and thank them for sharing their perspectives today. I’d also like to especially say thank you to Mr. Ken Kane, a constituent of mine, who will be testifying later this morning. 

I look forward to a productive discussion on how we can be certain the Forest 

Service is doing everything within reason to produce a stronger rural America. 

It is good to see Forest Service Chief Tidwell and I welcome Chief Tidwell back 

before the Subcommittee. 

We have enjoyed a good working relationship in the past and I look forward to 

working with you to ensure we have healthy and prosperous rural communities 

across America.

The CHAIRMAN. And now I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Walz, for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations 

on assuming the chairmanship. It has been obvious since you came 

to Congress, you have been a champion of rural issues, rural America, and done it in a positive, visionary way. I am very grateful and 

proud to be serving with you. 

I would also like to acknowledge one of my constituents who is 

here. Kevin Paap from Blue Earth County, Minnesota, is here. He 

is President of the Minnesota Farm Bureau. He often says he has 

a farm there where he raises corn, soybeans and boys, and I think 

that kind of sums up what we are about; trying to make the land 

productive, gain the wealth for the country and do it in a way that 

is managed for future generations, so Kevin, I appreciate that. 

Chief Tidwell, thank you for your service to this country. Thank 

you for being here and sharing your expertise on how we can correctly manage our forest resources. I of course represent Minnesota’s 1st District. That is the deep south of Minnesota down by 

Iowa. We as a state have vast timber resources, 16.3 million acres 

of forestland, 3 million of that is National Forest, 3.9 million is 

state forestland. Our Department of Natural Resources does a wonderful job. They are a front-runner in many of the management 

techniques that are being developed in forest fire suppression, so 

we are grateful for that. 

5

The thing I find most interesting is that the forest and timber 

industry, provides about $9 billion in economic impact to the state. 

I also represent the Mayo Clinic. That $9 billion represents about 

twice what the Mayo Clinic does, and they employ 40,000 people. 

I think that puts it into perspective, forest and timber is a huge 

industry. 

The interesting part is, it is not an all or nothing. Our recreational activities contribute an additional $11.6 billion. So you 

can have your cake and eat it too if we do it right in terms of managing these resources, using them correctly and still being able to 

have the multi-use that we want to try and get. 

My focus, much like the Chairman’s, is to ensure that Federal 

funding for state and private forestry is well spent and that our 

National Forests are managed in a way that meets that multipleuse mission. I would like today, to hear from some of you—Chief 

Tidwell, you may be the person to help me more with this—and get 

a clearer picture of what sequester is going to mean. I have been 

told that sequester is Latin for idiotic governance, and it may be 

true. My fear is that when you do indiscriminate, across-the-board 

cuts that if instead we could use smart money, we could save 

money in the long run. I want to hear how the Forest Service is 

making plans for that. 

So again, to all of our witnesses, thank you. I had a chance to 

read your testimony. I appreciate that there is a lot of expertise in 

this room today, so I want to hear where you are coming from, 

making sure we get this right, and certainly a renewable resource 

like our timber resources is one that this nation can put to good 

use both now and in future generations. 

Mr. Chairman, I again congratulate you and yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

Chief Tidwell and other distinguished witnesses, thank you for being here today 

to share your knowledge and expertise with the Subcommittee. 

I want to first of all offer my complete cooperation in listening and learning from 

your testimony today, and hope that you will feel free to contact me at any time 

to discuss any issue of concern to you. 

My interests are those of MN in general and Minnesota’s First District in particular. 

MN is home to nearly 16.3 million acres of forestland total; 3 million acres of National Forest land and 3.9 million acres of state forestland. 

Our DNR is a national forerunner in developing techniques to control and suppress forest fires. 

We have a robust forest products industry with annual value northwards of $9 

billion that coexists with an even more robust economically significant outdoors tradition with $11.6 billion yearly in consumer spending alone. 

My focus is to ensure that Federal funding for state and private forestry is wellspent and that our National Forests are managed in a way that meets the multipleuse mission of the Forest Service. 

I also understand that we all must adjust in this new world of sequestration, and 

would like to get a clearer picture of exactly how cuts to the Forest Service funding 

will impair program delivery on the ground. 

With that, I look forward to hearing your testimony and thank you again for your 

willingness to participate today. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

6

The chair would request that other Members submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

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

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and Ranking Member Walz for 

holding today’s hearing, the first Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee 

hearing this Congress. 

As we all know, the Committee will again try to write a new farm bill this year. 

The budget situation remains our biggest challenge. We need to make sure that all 

programs overseen by the Agriculture Committee are operating as efficiently as possible, free of waste and abuse. Today’s hearing will be helpful in giving us a better 

understanding of how forestry programs currently operate; maybe we’ll find some 

improvements that can be made in the next farm bill. 

Before the Committee begins farm bill consideration, it bears repeating that while 

there are significant challenges ahead of us, the more we can work together, the 

more smoothly the process will go. 

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding today’s hearing and look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. At this time I would like to welcome our first 

panel to the table, and our first panel is our Chief of our U.S. Forest Service, Mr. Tom Tidwell of the United States Department of 

Agriculture. Chief Tidwell, please begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you again for the opportunity to present the views of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding National Forest management and the benefits of public and private lands on rural economies and our communities. 

In my written testimony, I try to share many of the benefits of 

the National Forests, and in my remarks today, I am going to briefly highlight a few of those key points. 

The benefits of the National Forests and Grasslands without 

question are significant to this country and especially to rural 

America. For instance, in 2011, the various activities on the National Forests and Grasslands contributed over $36 billion to America’s gross domestic product and supported nearly 450,000 jobs. 

Now, recreation related activities, which support 166 million visits 

to the National Forests, support a little over 200,000 jobs and 

about $13.5 billion to the GDP. Forest products from the National 

Forests, they support another 42,000 jobs, another $3 billion to the 

GDP. Grazing, over 19,000 jobs. Minerals and energy production, 

about 56,000 jobs and $8 billion to the GDP. We administer 

160,000 mining claims and 2,600 mineral sale contracts. Returns to 

the Treasury on these lease rentals, royalties and bonus bids, 

ranges from $650 to $850 million a year. 

Now, especially in rural America, these benefits and associated 

activities are just essential to sustaining our communities. But in 

addition to the commercial activities, 20 percent of Americans rely 

on the drinking water that originates off the National Forests. Our 

forests in this country offset a significant amount of the carbon 

7

emissions in this country, and on the National Forests we estimate 

offsetting over four percent of those emissions. On the recreation 

use, it goes beyond just those numbers. I can’t stress enough that 

I think many of you can relate to how many people enjoy going out 

and recreating on their National Forests and Grasslands. It is 

where America plays. It is where they hunt, they fish. It is where 

their ride their horses, their motor bikes, their ATVs. 

In addition to these benefits, we also administer 74,000 use authorizations that help benefit the public and local communities 

such as 15,000 miles of transmission lines, 6,000 miles of energy 

pipelines, 1,600 mountaintop communications sites, and sir, I could 

go on and on about these benefits. 

But the other thing I wanted to point out is that through our 

state and private programs, we also help support private forest 

owners. In fact, we have a program with our Forest Stewardship 

program where we are helping private landowners with 20 million 

acres of private forested lands to provide them the technical assistance that they need to be able to manage their private forestlands 

and to keep those private lands forested. 

Now, all these benefits that I have been talking about, there is 

a threat to these benefits and it is something we have been very 

clear about over the last couple of years, about the number of acres 

that we feel need to have some form of restoration. We estimate between 62 and 85 million acres of our National Forests are in need 

of some form of restoration. When you think about the more than 

60 percent of this country that is in a moderate to severe drought, 

and that over the last 10 years we have had 45 million acres out 

West that have been affected by bark beetle—and we estimate 

there is another 80 million acres of trees that are projected to be 

at risk from severe mortality due to insects and disease—you add 

to that the threat of rapid escalation of the severe-fire behavior 

that we have seen over the last 10 years, and you understand that 

our National Forests, and the benefits that they provide, really are 

threatened right now. That is why we have moved to increase the 

rate of restoration on these forests, and I appreciate you acknowledging Secretary Vilsack’s support for us to be able to increase the 

amount of restoration work we are doing on these lands by 20 percent between last year and 2014. That includes the outputs, not 

only the streams that are restored, the miles of roads that are improved, it also increases timber output by 20 percent. It is just essential that we are able to maintain the resiliency and resistance 

of these National Forests so they can deal with the stresses—the 

stresses of drought, the stresses of insect and disease, and the natural disturbances that we are seeing significant increases year in 

and year out, whether it is wind storms, ice storms, whether it is 

flooding, whether it is fire. It is essential that we do what we can 

to help these forests to be as resilient as they can so they can continue to provide the benefits that we all rely on. 

I want to thank you for your time this morning and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]

8

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

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

to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding National Forest management and its benefits for public and private lands on rural economies 

and communities. 

The National Forests and Grasslands were established to protect the land, secure 

favorable conditions of water flows, and provide a sustainable supply of goods and 

services. National Forest System (NFS) lands are managed using a multiple-use approach with the goal of sustaining healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems while 

addressing the need for resources, commodities, and services for the American people. Rural and urban communities depend on the forests for a variety of resources, 

commodities, and services, but for the rural communities in particular, National 

Forest management can impact local economic and social conditions. With our many 

partners, the Forest Service is working to maintain the functions and processes 

characteristic of healthy, resilient forests and watersheds, and through delivery of 

our programs, maintain and enrich the social and economic environment of our local 

communities. 

Vegetation Management 

Our forests are important to all of us, and people understand that forests provide 

a broad range of values and benefits, including biodiversity, recreation, clean air 

and water, forest products, erosion control, soil renewal and more. Forests, which 

cover 1⁄3 of the country’s landmass, store and filter more than 1⁄2 of the nation’s 

water supply and absorb 20 percent of the country’s carbon emissions. Our mission 

of sustaining the health, resilience and productivity of our nation’s forests is critically important to maintaining these values and benefits. Restoring the health and 

resilience of our forests generates important amenity values. A study by Cassandra 

Mosely and Max Nielson Pincus has shown that every million dollars spent on activities like stream restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, forestry or road decommissioning generates from 12 to 28 jobs. Through implementation of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program—which relies heavily on stewardship 

contracting—the proponents of projects on NFS lands created or maintained 1,550 

jobs through 2011. 

The Forest Service is leading the USDA Wood to Energy Initiative, a partnership 

between five agencies, including Rural Development and the Farm Service Agency. 

This interagency effort is focused on creating value for woody biomass by creating 

energy, for heating buildings, manufacturing and producing electricity. The initiative is focused on economically viable uses of wood. For example, wood chips and 

pellets are about 1⁄2 the cost of fuel oil and propane for heating. The U.S. uses about 

25 billion gallons of fuel oil and propane at a cost of about $75 billion, most of it 

consumed in rural America. It is important to keep in mind that wood energy is 

just one more part of an integrated wood products industry that produces structural 

material, furniture, pulp and paper. Our goal is to use all the parts of the trees for 

the highest value we can so that landowners can effectively manage their land 

whether it is public or private. 

Unfortunately, it is estimated that there are between 62 and 85 million (high and 

very high fire risk) acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands in need of restoration. More than 60 percent of the contiguous United States is in a moderate or more 

severe stage of drought—with 20 percent of those areas experiencing exceptional 

drought conditions. In addition, insects and disease have weakened the resilience 

of America’s forests. Nationally, approximately 80 million acres of trees are projected to be at risk of severe mortality due to insect and disease. Over the past 10 

years in the west, approximately 45 million acres across all land ownerships have 

been affected by 20 different species of bark beetles. 

It is widely recognized that management of our forest resources has not kept pace 

with the ever increasing need for restoration. Organizations such as the National 

Forest Foundation, American Forest Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, the National Association of State Foresters, the Wilderness Society, U.S. Endowment for 

Forests and Communities, the Intertribal Timber Council, and the Western Governors Association have embraced an agenda to actively restore resilient landscapes 

and provide for community vitality. The Forest Service is striving to increase the 

number of acres that are restored by a variety of treatments annually. This increase 

would allow the Forest Service to increase the number of acres and watersheds restored across the system, while supporting existing infrastructure and jobs. 

9

The Forest Service recognizes the need for a strong forest industry to help accomplish forest restoration work; the best opportunity for reducing the cost of these restoration treatments is through timber harvest and stewardship contracting. 

The benefits of maintaining a robust forest industry flows not only to local communities but also to the Forest Service itself as the agency relies on local forest contractors and mills to provide the workforce to undertake a variety of restoration activities. The industry’s workforce is larger than either the automotive or chemical 

industries, currently employing nearly 900,000 workers. And the good news is that 

there have been recent upturns in the housing market and lumber prices, resulting 

in higher demand and prices for sawtimber. The capacity exists within current infrastructure to meet this increased demand for lumber through adding extra shifts, 

reopening mills, and efficiency gains. The higher demand and prices for timber will 

enable the Forest Service (FS) to complete more restoration treatments, especially 

under a stewardship contract. 

Stewardship contracting is a critical tool that allows the Forest Service to more 

efficiently complete restoration activities. Permanently reauthorizing stewardship 

contracting and expanding the use of this tool is crucial to our ability to collaboratively restore landscapes at a reduced cost to the government by offsetting the 

value of the services received with the value of forest products removed. In Fiscal 

Year 2012, 25 percent of all timber volume sold was under a stewardship contract. 

Stewardship contracting authorities, such as goods for services, funded watershed 

and wildlife habitat improvement projects, invasive species removal, road decommissioning, and hazardous fuels reduction activities. 

The Forest Service continues to be a leading agency in the Federal Government 

to preferentially select domestically harvested wood products in building construction projects while increasing its commitment to green building standards. All Forest Service building projects incorporate green building principals such as energy efficient, locally produced wood products, recycling and reuse of building materials. 

New building construction and major renovation projects for administration facilities or research laboratories over 10,000 gross square feet must be registered and 

certified using either the United States Green Building Council LEED rating system, or other accredited third-party certification systems. 

The Forest Service and USDA, as well as the forest products industry and resource management organizations, support a science-based approach of outlining the 

benefits of using wood and wood-based products in green building in the U.S. The 

inherent benefits of using wood go beyond economic gains. Conservation components 

such as increased forest productivity, cleaner air and water, and enhanced wildlife 

habitat will be realized as we actively manage our nation’s forests. The process of 

harvest, transport, manufacturing and use of wood in structures creates less gas 

emissions than other building products such as concrete or steel. (‘‘Life-cycle inventory and assessment research at the Forest Products Laboratory: Wood products 

used in building construction, U.S.D.A. Forest Service’’). 

The Forest Service provides a significant amount of value to the rural economies 

through its active management of rangelands. 95 million acres are within grazing 

allotments on National Forest lands, Grasslands or the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie, 

in 30 different states. Ten million private acres are within grazing allotments which 

are cooperatively managed, providing open space and un-fragmented wildlife habitat, connecting state, private, and Federal lands. 

To accomplish effective vegetation management, the Forest Service is fostering an 

efficient National Environmental Planning Act (NEPA) process by focusing on improving agency policy, learning, and technology. These NEPA process improvements 

will increase decision-making efficiencies, resulting in on-the-ground restoration 

work getting done more quickly and across a larger landscape. In addition to the 

Forest Planning rule, the agency has initiated a NEPA learning networks project 

to learn from and share the lessons of successful implementation of efficient NEPA 

analyses. The goal of this effort is to ensure that the Agency’s NEPA compliance 

is as efficient, cost-effective, and up-to-date as possible. Specifically we are looking 

at expanding the use of focused Environmental Assessments (EAs), iterative Environmental Impact Statement documentation (EISs), expanding categories of actions 

that may be excluded from documentation in an EA or an EIS, and applying an 

adaptive management framework to NEPA. Regarding technology, the Forest Service’s investments in Electronic Management of NEPA (eMNEPA) provide considerable cost and time savings, contributing to an efficient NEPA process by reducing 

the administrative workload. 

Our landscape-scale NEPA projects will also increase efficiencies. For example, 

our Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project on the Black Hills National Forest is 

implementing a landscape-scale adaptive approach for treating current and future 

pine beetle outbreaks. We are also implementing the Four Forest Restoration InitiaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
10

tive project in the Southwest for landscape-scale forest restoration projects. All of 

these efforts are aimed at becoming more proactive and efficient in protecting the 

nation’s natural resources, while providing jobs to the American people. 

Water 

Water is a vitally important natural resource flowing from America’s forests, 

which provides great economic benefit to many rural and urban communities. It is 

estimated that forests provide clean drinking water to more than 180 million people 

from coast to coast. Watersheds on National Forests and Grasslands are the source 

of 20 percent of the nation’s drinking water supply and over 50 percent of the water 

supply in the West. Many major urban centers, like Denver, Portland, Atlanta, and 

Los Angeles, depend on National Forests for their water. 

Water on the National Forests is an important recreational resource and rural 

areas near forest land often depend on tourist spending to help support their local 

economies. Water-based outdoor recreation is a major attractant since more people 

in the U.S. fish, 30 million, than play golf, 24.2 million, or play tennis, 10.2 million 

(The Economic Benefits of Protecting Healthy Watersheds, EPA 841–N–112–004). 

National Forests and grasslands contain more than 200,000 miles of fish-bearing 

streams—streams that support nationally renowned recreational fisheries and local 

jobs. 

Forest Service research helps maintain clean water important to communities by 

providing watershed management tools and educational programs. An example is 

the Stream Systems Technology Center which improves knowledge of stream systems and watershed hydrology by developing operational tools and technology, providing training and technical support, and identifying needs to secure favorable conditions of water flows. 

Recreation 

Recreation on the National Forests is extremely important for many communities. 

Over the past few years, the National Forests and Grasslands have hosted an average of nearly 166 million visits per year. Visitors engage in activities such as camping, picnicking, skiing, snowboarding, hunting, fishing, hiking, off highway vehicle 

and snowmobile use, viewing scenery and wildlife, scenic driving and visiting cultural sites and visitor centers. In connection with their visits, recreation visitors directly spend about $11 billion in communities near National Forests. With multiplier effects, this amounts to $13.5 billion and accounts for 47% of the Forest Service contribution to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (National Visitor Use 

Monitoring, 2011). 

The direct visitor spending, combined with the ripple effects in the nearby economies, sustains more than 200,000 full and part-time jobs (National Visitor Use Monitoring, 2011). The vast majority of these jobs are in gateway communities. These 

towns’ distinguishing feature is proximity to public lands; the vitality of their social 

and economic structure often depend on the management decisions being made on 

and for these public lands. 

Partnering with private sector businesses to develop and maintain ski areas on 

NFS lands has proven to be a particularly significant economic engine for gateway 

communities. Currently, 122 alpine ski areas are located on NFS lands, which together comprise over 60% of the downhill skiing capacity in the United States. The 

direct spending on downhill skiing and snowboarding by visitors to National Forests 

amounts to about $3.5 billion annually. With ripple effect, this translates to nearly 

a $5 billion contribution to GDP and represents approximately 4,000 full and parttime jobs. Moreover, many of these locations are expanding their summer activity 

offerings, further enhancing their importance to gateway communities. (National 

Visitor Use Monitoring, 2011). 

The number and diversity of our recreation opportunities and the quality of our 

recreation settings are the primary reasons visitors keep coming. Stable and robust 

visitation numbers provide desirable opportunities for a wide array of businesses. 

High quality natural resource settings are among the benefits that people seek 

when deciding where to live or retire. Gateway communities benefit from both. 

The operation and maintenance of many of our recreation sites and reservation 

system is dependent on user fees, such as campground fees. The agency collects 

about $65 million annually in user fees through the Forest Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which sunsets December 8, 2014. Ninety five percent of 

FLREA funds go back to where they are collected for the maintenance and operation 

of recreation facilities. The Forest Service is working with the Department of the 

Interior to reauthorize FLREA. A loss of this funding would create a burden that 

could not be made up with appropriated or other partnered funding and would have 

11

a direct impact on rural economies due to closures of recreation sites and loss of 

jobs. 

Special Uses 

The Forest Service manages approximately 74,000 special use authorizations. Special use authorizations allow for the use of NFS lands for numerous purposes to benefit the public such as energy transmission and communications infrastructure, renewable energy-related uses, public service facilities such as ski areas, resorts and 

marinas, as well as services such as outfitting and guiding. There are 180 types of 

special uses. 

The special uses program provides significant public benefits. Over 6,600 miles of 

energy-related pipeline and some 15,000 miles of transmission line rights-of-way 

cross NFS lands. In addition approximately 1,600 communication sites are located 

on NFS lands. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed dams provide enough power for some 15 million homes. Private businesses and nonprofit entities provide approximately 1⁄2 of the recreation opportunities on NFS lands, including 122 ski areas, 259 resorts, 77 marinas, 311 organizational camps, 230 concession 

campground operations, nearly 5,000 outfitting and guiding operations, and nearly 

1,000 recreation events each year. The agency also leases some 14,000 forest cabin 

lots. 

Forest Service special uses generate approximately $100 million in land use fees 

annually Special uses provide many benefits to the American public and are one of 

the many ways that NFS lands provide resources and services in areas such as energy, communications, and recreation. Special uses provide business opportunities 

for large and small companies, thereby supporting the national and local economies. 

Because ten percent of the continental U.S. is National Forest System land, the 

agency necessarily plays a critical role in energy development, energy transmission 

and communications. 

In addition, the public benefits greatly from this program by receiving recreation 

and other services which could not be provided by the Forest Service. 

Minerals, Oil and Gas 

Over 5 million acres of NFS lands are currently leased for oil, gas, coal, and phosphate mining operations. Our energy and minerals programs contribute to sustainable domestic energy production and support many jobs and socioeconomic benefits 

to the American people, while protecting healthy ecosystems. 

At any given time, the Forest Service administers operations on approximately 

160,000 mining claims and manages approximately 2,600 mineral material sale contracts. The value of energy and minerals production from these operations on NFS 

lands typically exceeds $6.5 billion per year, as calculated by the Forest Service and 

the Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 

Mineral receipts are derived from annual lease rentals, royalties on production, 

bonus bids for competitive leases, and mineral material sales. Of the total revenues 

received, between 25 and 50 percent—depending on whether production is from acquired lands or lands reserved from the public domain—are returned to the state 

or county of production. Federal royalties from oil and gas leases on NFS lands were 

$136 million in calendar year 2009. Returns to the Treasury each year from lease 

rentals, royalties on production, bonus bids, and mineral material sales on NFS 

lands typically range from $650 million to $850 million. The Forest Service is analyzing additional lands across the country which could be made available for leasing. 

Wildland Fire 

Within the United States, many states have recently experienced their largest 

and/or most destructive fires in history. Similar situations are happening on the 

global stage as well. 

Two primary factors are contributing to additional acreage being burned by 

wildfires: climate and vegetation. We can only expect climate-related drivers to increase. We are experiencing increases in the frequency of warm days and decreases 

in cold days. Heat waves are increasing in length, frequency, and/or intensity over 

most land areas. Researchers have shown a 78 day increase in the western fire season since 1970. Rising spring and summer temperatures across the west appear to 

be correlated to the increase in size and number of wildfires. Time of snowmelt also 

may be a factor. Scientists predict the western states will get hotter and drier by 

the end of the century. Fire seasons will grow longer and fires will increase. More 

and bigger fires will become the norm as climate continues to change. Key considerations to consider:

12

• In the absence of treatment, fuels continue to accumulate, setting the stage for 

future fires to be more extreme. In many areas fuels are at higher levels than 

historic norms.

• Where we are able to treat fuels and vegetation, we are able to reduce fire impacts. The Forest Service monitors when wildfires burn into treated fuels and 

the monitoring showed that, of almost 1,200 cases studied, 94% of the fuel 

treatments were effective in changing fire behavior and/or helping with suppression.

• The pace of our fuel management activities has not kept pace with the trends 

that drive fuel accumulation. Even with the increase in wildfire many areas are 

still accumulating more fuel than is being burned. Natural vegetation succession, drought, land use patterns, insect outbreaks, invasive species, and fire 

suppression—all contribute to accumulating fuel loads.

• New construction of homes in the wildland urban interface (WUI) greatly compound the fire management problem. About 1⁄10 of land area occupied by housing and about 1⁄3 of all housing units in the conterminous United States are located in the wildland urban interface.

• Severe fire may bring landscape conversions which can lead to reduced habitat 

for endangered and threatened species such as spotted owls, sage grouse, and 

cold water fish species. These type conversions will also have impacts on water 

yield and quality.

• The increased presence of wildfire is already having costly and serious impacts 

on public health with increased levels of smoke. As the fire seasons grow longer 

and fires increase, there will be increased impacts to local and state economies.

• Regional action plans are being developed with Federal, state and local cooperators to meet the goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy (Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes, Creating FireAdapted Communities and Responding to Wildfires) 

State and Private Forestry Programs 

The Forest Service works with a variety of partners to help private forest landowners conserve and manage their forest resources so the lands can contribute to 

local, rural economic growth and provide ecosystem services on which we all depend. 

Many rural economies rely on the proximity of forests and forestry sector jobs, and 

most of the nation’s forest land, about 2⁄3, is in private ownership. Through our National Woodland Owner Survey and other related studies, we attempt to better understand private and family forest owners—about 11 million of them—so we can 

continue to deliver appropriate tools and the types of technical assistance most 

needed. 

The Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, Community Forest, Urban and Community Forestry, Conservation Education, Forest Health Protection, and Cooperative 

Fire Protection Program first work to keep our state and private forests as forests 

in the face of increasing development pressures and other threats. These programs 

then work to protect these forests from harm while enhancing the benefits they provide. 

The Forest Stewardship Program is delivered directly to landowners through state 

forest agency partners, and a vast network of forestry technical assistance providers, forestry consultants, state forestry agencies, and nonprofit partners. Sustaining forest health on private ownerships through this program is thus vitally important, not only for the environment but also for the economic and social well-being 

of surrounding communities. Program funding is frequently leveraged locally to 

train professional consulting forester pools that landowners can then access. Assistance is provided primarily in the form of comprehensive long-term Forest Stewardship Management Plans. Currently, about 20 million acres of private forestland are 

being sustainably managed under these plans nationally. According to a study by 

the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO, 2009), the contribution of these 

managed acres to employment is significant: ‘‘On average, each 1,000 acres of privately-owned forest is responsible for the creation of eight jobs.’’ 

The program is also increasingly serving as a ‘‘gateway’’ through which landowners can gain access to a variety of assistance, programs, and incentives including USDA cost-share, state tax abatement, forest certification, and emerging ecosystem service and renewable energy markets. 

Our newly adopted Landscape Stewardship Approach is attempting to provide further access to emerging markets by creating economies of scale for smaller landowners. Landscape-scale plans also facilitate cross-program and interagency coordination, make more efficient use of limited resources, tie individual ownership objectives to landscape-scale resource management objectives, and help landowners unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
13

derstand how their actions contribute to broader landscape management efforts and 

their local economies. 

The Forest Health Protection Program (FHP) is helping states, landowners, communities and tribes combat insect pest, disease and invasive plant infestations that, 

if left unchecked, can have severe local and regional economic impacts. Restoration 

of bark beetle infested landscapes across rural western communities is one of the 

priorities of the Forest Service Western Bark Beetle Strategy. FHP also produces 

the National Insect & Disease Risk Map, which provides vital information on future 

risk to forests across all lands. In addition, on-going Aerial Detection Surveys are 

conducted to assess general and annual forest health conditions. Both of these information sources are essential to help Federal, state, and local land managers make 

better management decisions in the face of landscape change, potentially resulting 

in significant rural forest industry and related economic benefits. 

Forest Research and Development 

Forest Research and Development (R&D) serves the nation and communities with 

a variety of research efforts to better understand forests and their economic impacts. 

Forest Service R&D continues to adapt and reposition its programs as needed to address the needs of a rapidly changing society. The social, economic, and environmental forces driving the change have the potential to fundamentally change existing relationships among people, cultures, communities, political institutions, and the 

natural environment. Forest Service R&D is responding to these issues through six 

priority research Areas: (1) Forest Disturbance, (2) Biomass and Bioenergy, (3) 

Urban and Natural Resources Stewardship, (4) Nanotechnology, (5) Water Management and Restoration, and (6) Localized Needs Research. These priority research 

areas demonstrate Forest Service R&D’s commitment to remaining an interactive, 

vibrant, and visionary partner in addressing today’s critical natural resources problems with science and technology. This science and leadership service is a highly 

important investment for a world struggling with environmental change. 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) information provides the forest resource information needed to assess current and future opportunities and risks to maintaining healthy forests and vibrant rural communities. FIA data and information are 

updated annually for all 50 states. The information is used by states, forest landowners, forest planners and forest investment firms to plan silvicultural treatments. 

Investment decisions for development and location of wood based manufacturing facilities also access FIA information. We have also learned from assessments based 

on FIA information that urbanization is resulting in forest losses and that reduced 

demand for domestic forest products is impacting rural communities. 

Additionally, we continue to set priorities for fuels treatments around communities linked to restoration goals resulting in avoided costs to water, decreased insurance costs to owners, and decreased loss of infrastructure. Forest Service fire scientists, analysts, and technology transfer specialists put science in the hands of 

managers, decision makers, policy makers, homeowners and communities in the 

form of user-friendly software and data, real-time support of trained analysts on active wildfires, and educational material for schoolchildren. Smoke modeling tools 

have been developed to integrate meteorological data, cutting edge smoke science, 

and fire behavior predictions to help fire managers schedule essential prescribed 

burns to minimize these health impacts. The Wildland Fire Decision Support System assists fire managers and analysts in making strategic and tactical decisions 

for fire incidents by providing easier sharing of analyses. 

I-Tree, a peer-reviewed software suite, provides urban forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools to help communities strengthen their urban forest management and advocacy efforts by quantifying the structure of community trees and the 

environmental services that trees provide. 

The Forest Service is expanding the use of wood and a sustainable and environment friendly material by developing new materials and technologies at the Forest 

Products Laboratory. These new materials range from Nano sized particles that can 

be used in developing light weight and strong car bodies or a green substitute for 

petroleum based plastics and films to new construction materials and techniques for 

multiple story buildings. These new technologies use low value wood from restoration treatments to provide sustainable alternatives to non-renewable materials and 

create jobs in rural area. Forest Service studies show that using wood products for 

building materials, instead of fossil-fuel intensive alternatives, results in a smaller 

carbon footprint. 

The Forest Service also provides science-based information for community planning in recreation planning, including the social and quality of life benefits of recreation on communities and society, and the impacts of economic cycles on tourismdependent communities and the effects of changing land use and ownership patVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
14

terns, amenity migration, and labor markets on recreation businesses and management. 

In summary, the Forest Service continues to work toward accomplishing restoration objectives, providing information, research, and quality recreational experiences, all linked to healthy rural communities. I want to thank the Committee for 

its interest, leadership, and commitment to our National Forests and their surrounding communities. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief. Let me take the liberty of taking the first 5 minutes of questions. 

Chief, within your testimony, you noted, and specifically to 

wildfires, that climate change and vegetation were two issues, and 

I can see that it has been dryer, it has been hotter, and obviously 

if vegetation quite frankly is not managed, the undergrowth provides a tinderbox. Given the fact that we have known for some 

time we have had this trend of warmer summers, it seems to me 

the only real remediation to that is to be more aggressive with harvesting. Some of it is stewardship contracting, also green timber 

sales. I actually prefer that because that has to tie back into the 

local communities with dollars. So we need to use both tools. What 

have been the obstacles to using those tools to provide more wildfire prevention? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are correct. We recognize 

we need to be doing more, and one of the ways to reduce the 

threat, especially to our communities and to improve the effectiveness of our suppression activities is to get in there and reduce the 

amount of biomass, reduce the number of trees on these landscapes. That is one of the reasons why we have increased our rate 

of restoration, increased our rate of harvest, and especially with a 

focus on the areas around the communities and our wildland-urban 

interface. Each year over the last few years we have continued to 

increase the number of acres that were treated. There is strong evidence to show that when we do that, we definitely change the fire 

behavior and our firefighters are more successful. So we are moving forward with that. 

The challenge that we have is the amount of acres that need to 

be treated, and in the last few years, of the markets for a lot of 

the saw timber that needs to be removed and the smaller diameters, there is very little value in a lot of this timber that needs to 

be removed. And so that is one of the things that has slowed down 

the efforts, especially with stewardship contracting. There haven’t 

been as many receipts available. I am pleased to know that the 

prices especially for saw timber have been improving over the last 

year, so that is going to help us. 

The other thing that is really making a difference is these collaborative efforts across the country where people have come together and recognized the type of work that needs to be done on 

these forests so that there is more and more support for us to be 

able to move forward and to treat the areas that we need to treat. 

The thing that we have really changed over the last couple of years 

is to recognize we need to treat larger areas. The 500 acres, the 

1,000 acres, that is not enough, and that is why we put our efforts 

in the last couple years into doing analysis on tens of thousands 

to hundreds of thousands of acres at a time so that we can treat 

the amount of country we need to, to really make a difference. 

15

The CHAIRMAN. It seems like those collaborations are a way to 

leverage other monies obviously with different areas of government, so I congratulate you for including that as part of the strategy. 

You talked about the market, and the market is somewhat of an 

issue obviously, and I am a huge fan of our Forest Research Labs. 

These are scientists that are really doing tremendous work. I have 

had an opportunity to visit some of the laboratories and I know 

that the Forest Service is involved in looking at nanotechnology, 

and they are battling invasive species, they are looking at all different types of things. How well does the forest research look at developing other innovations? I have a bill that Mr. Schrader and I 

introduced last week, the Forest Products Fairness Act, and that 

is more of a marketing to make sure that our forest products are 

able to benefit from that BioPreferred label. That is about marketing and expanding, but obviously innovation, creating, looking 

for new markets for our forest products. How much is the Forest 

Service involved with that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank you for 

your support for finding ways to use more forest products, and 

whether it is in the BioPreferred markets or whatever, and I know 

that we are moving forward with trying to provide some additional 

flexibility, so I appreciate your support around the BioPreferred 

market opportunity. 

Our Forest Products Labs, they spend a lot of their time really 

looking at how we can not only improve the marketability of wood 

but actually to create new markets. The first one is our Green 

Building Initiative where we are trying to find ways to be able to 

create more buildings out of wood. For instance, they developed a 

product called cross-laminated timber, which is able to take a combination of the high-quality wood plus the lower-quality wood and 

put it together in a way that passes all the tests so that it is 

stronger than just a timber cut from a tree. This will allow us to 

be able to pursue wood buildings that go beyond four stories so 

that commercial buildings will be able to go five to six stories, 

which is common in Europe and where they are moving to in Canada. So that is one of the things that we are moving forward with. 

We do a lot of research in bioenergy to be able to find ways to 

make it more economically viable for us to use the small-diameter 

residual material that has no market like it for saw timber but it 

too needs to be removed, and so if we can defray the costs by converting that into usable, renewable energy, it is another way that 

will make it more economically feasible for us to get this work 

done. It also makes it easier for the mills to be able to have a cogen plant, that they can use the energy for their operations. USDA, 

with the Forest Service and Rural Development, have had a very 

successful program the last year to use a combination of loans and 

grants and expertise to be able to create more of a demand for bioenergy. 

The other thing we are working on is with biofuels, and we have 

a ways to go yet, but our scientists are now to the point that they 

can produce a gallon of fuel for about $6 to $7 a gallon. We know 

we need to get it down to about $4 a gallon before it will actually 

become economically viable, but it is one of the things that we are 

16

continuing to work on as just another way to help create more markets so that we can manage our National Forests. 

You mentioned nanotechnology, and of everything I have talked 

about, it probably has the highest potential, but we are still a ways 

away with that technology, but I wish I would have brought an example today. I could show you a sheet that looks like plastic to me 

that is made out of cellulose, made out of wood cellulose, and I will 

tell you, it is stronger and more durable than any piece of plastic 

that is sitting here on the desk right now. But that is the potential 

that we have in these other markets. That along with being able 

to maintain our wood products industry, to maintain the saw timber, the sawmills in this country, that is what it is going to take 

for us to be able to have the infrastructure to be able to do the 

work that needs to be done on our forests. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief. 

At this time I will yield to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chief Tidwell. 

Again, I am really pleased to hear you talking about this commitment on moving towards biofuels. In southern Minnesota we have 

a pretty advanced biofuels industry and most of us who have 

watched this understand that this is an ongoing process. We are 

still in the infancy, but again, it is about providing a broader portfolio of energy uses, and there are folks that want to collaborate, 

and I am glad to see that that is moving forward. 

Just a couple of questions here. In a February letter to the appropriators, Secretary Vilsack anticipated the effects of sequestration to the Forest Service fire management to be $134 million and 

the National Forest System to be $78 million. If you could verify 

those amounts and provide some details on how you are going to 

implement those cuts and what the impact will be on those programs? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, those numbers are correct, and I will talk 

first about the five percent reduction to our fire funding. That is 

both in our preparedness funds and also in our suppression funds. 

So it will result in a few, we are estimating maybe up to 500 less 

firefighters, 50 to 70 less fire engines this year. To put that in perspective, just the Forest Service alone, we usually provide around 

10,480 firefighters, so that would drop the number to just a little 

bit to 10,000. 

So we will start the year with a few less resources. However, we 

have the ability to move our resources around the country to be 

able to preposition the crews and fire engines where they are needed, ideally right before that part of the country starts their fire season. So we will be able to mitigate some of the impacts by just moving more of the resources around. 

Mr. WALZ. Do you save much money by moving firefighters that 

were there from another part to put them there? 

Mr. TIDWELL. No, sir, it increases the cost so the suppression 

costs will go up because when we move prepositioned resources, 

they are then charged to a suppression code, fire code, and so the 

suppression codes will go up so that we can preposition these resources, but we will respond and we are going to do whatever we 

need to to be able to respond to wildfires without any question. 

17

Mr. WALZ. Okay. I appreciate that. A question. We all talk about 

it is hotter, dryer, looking at some of these things. I am of the belief that that is probably the new normal. Should there be a new 

way of thinking about management based on that new normal, not 

based on historical past trends? Is that something that is being 

talked about and done? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, sir, you are correct. It is the new normal, and 

I would like to talk about it. Our fire seasons, they are warmer, 

they are dryer and they are longer, in fact, often 60 to 70 days 

longer today than just what they were 10, 15 years ago. And so 

that is what we are up against. That stresses the need for us to 

be able to do hazardous-fuels reduction so that when a fire does 

threaten a community, that the flames drop out of the trees, get 

on the ground so the firefighters can be successful. It also makes 

it safer for our firefighters because we will not put our firefighters 

at unnecessary risk. So it is essential that we move forward and 

not just on the public lands, but this is an issue for all lands and 

it needs to be done in conjunction with the work done on private 

lands. 

When I first started my career as a firefighter, it was seldom 

that we ever had to be worried about a fire threatening a building 

or a subdivision. Today it is seldom that we ever have a fire that 

we don’t also have to factor in keeping that fire away from the community. 

Mr. WALZ. And that is a combination of changes but also encroachment near these lands and buffers. Would you agree? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. People like to live next to these lands. I understand that, and we can do that in a way but they need to be 

able to treat the fuels on their private land in conjunction with us 

treating the fuels on the National Forests. 

Mr. WALZ. My final point, and I guess this is more to think 

about. I would kind of like to hear what you think. You are going 

to hear testimony after you, Chief Tidwell, from folks who are seeing a way of life disappear, who are seeing it more difficult to continue, and we are looking for ways to make sure that people have 

the opportunities to live in these areas and to do that. What are 

the factors do you think in addition to what the Forest Service is 

doing that are leading to those changes, in your opinion? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, it is probably a combination of things, but 

there is just no question that the economic benefits that come from 

the activities off the National Forests and Grasslands and how they 

can help sustain the local economies, and as you mentioned in your 

remarks, from recreation, it is across the board in this country. It 

is very important economic activity. And then the other part of it 

is to manage these lands. I mean, there are studies out there now 

that show for every million dollars that we invest in restoration activities, it creates another 12 to 20+ jobs. So we have those things 

going for us. 

The other thing that we have that has changed in just the last, 

I am going to say the last 5 years where I spent the majority of 

my career dealing with controversy and conflict about how the National Forests should be managed, and I can tell you today that is 

being replaced with just constructive dialogue about how and why, 

not should you or should you not. Because of that, I tell you, we 

18

are building support across this country where people are coming 

together. They want to work together. We are seeing it from communities that are willing to put their own money to help restore 

these lands because they recognize that if they can improve the 

conditions of that watershed, it is going to save the city more 

money, because when a flood occurs, there is going to be less impact. Folks are seeing that there is a connection to maintaining 

these lands with direct economic benefits. So those are the things 

that I think we can really start to turn this around. We just need 

to stay the course. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I am grateful for that, and our public land legacy is the envy of the world, so I appreciate the work you are 

doing, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hate to waste time in 

this hearing on a parochial issue, but apparently I have to since 

your staff has not been able to handle this for me. 

I have a church in my district called the Union Baptist Church. 

It has had a permit for a cemetery since 1954. It is less than 1⁄2

an acre of land. And as late as 2009, your Department confirmed 

their permit was still active. They have been mowing it, burying 

people there for years. They sold the plots. Not all of them have 

been filled yet, which is a good thing, but there are people that own 

them. They were recently notified in 2012 that their permit had 

been revoked. We contacted your office to try to clear this up, and 

we are not getting anywhere. My question to you is, are you going 

to be able to take care of the Union Baptist Church cemetery for 

them? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Congressman, I will personally look into that. This 

is a common situation throughout this country where we have 

cemeteries that are on National Forest System lands and we do 

have several different authorities that sometimes will help resolve 

this, so I will personally look into this and see if we can’t use one 

of our existing authorities to be able to address this, and I will get 

back to you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I appreciate it. I understand my staff has 

been in contact with your staff, and I understand that you may not 

be able to do a waiver but we could do a land swap. The aggravating part to me is, this is less than 1⁄2 an acre of land they have 

had for 70 years almost, had a permit on, and it is costing your 

staff more time than the land is worth to fuss over this. Just handle it. Let them swap land or whatever. And it is also ridiculous 

to come up to these folks 70 years later after they have already 

sold the plots and say well, you can’t bury anybody there when you 

have had permission to do it for all this time. So I would appreciate 

that and I look forward to hearing back from you. 

My second question is a little broader. It deals with sequestration. I have a huge National Forest in my district. I am very interested in what, if any, guidance you have been given by the Administration as to how you are supposed to handle the cuts in sequestration. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, the five percent is across the board, each of 

our appropriations, and so within each appropriation, we are lookVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
19

ing at how we can best minimize the impacts on operations. So I 

have asked each of my regional foresters and research station directors to provide me with their thoughts about how they are going 

to reduce their planned expenditures this year by five percent and 

then look at how we can work together to minimize those impacts. 

So we are in that process right now, but there will be impacts. The 

five percent for the National Forests that we look at with our trust 

funds, it is close to $300 million. And when I think about what I 

could do with an extra $300 million and if I take it right down to 

your forest what I could do if I could send an extra $3 or $4 million 

to that forest and how much more work they could get done, it is 

significant. So we are going to do everything we can to minimize 

but there will be reductions. 

The thing I worry the most about is with our staffing, that over 

the last 15 years our fire staff has increased significantly because 

of the fire seasons we have. At the same time, the rest of the workforce has reduced significantly, almost 30 percent from where we 

were in the mid 1990s. That is our foresters, our biologists, our engineers. It is the people who do our business, financial work, and 

so there is less capacity there. And so that is the thing we are really focused on is trying not to lose any more of that expertise because as we are trying to move forward to look at new ways to do 

our work, to be more efficient, whether it is improving the efficiencies of how we do our NEPA or how we are just doing our sale 

preparation for timber sales, it is essential that we maintain that 

expertise. Those are the people that I need. I need their thinking, 

their knowledge, their expertise. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I agree with that. My concern is, there has 

been some press reports that the Administration has given guidance to maximize the pain in the sequestration to demonstrate to 

the public these cuts are unreasonable. So I am glad to hear that 

you intend to minimize the effect of these cuts. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Secretary Vilsack has been very clear that he 

wants these cuts of course to be fair across the board but he expects us to do everything we can to minimize the impacts. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Thank you for yielding. 

Is there any consideration—I mean, there are certainly areas 

that sequestration, with the rate flexibility, why would we make 

cuts in areas that are revenue generators? And I go right back to 

timber sales and all that is necessary to make those happen. Those 

are bringing revenue in to the Treasury. That is great for the 

Treasury. It puts on somewhat of a projection hopefully maybe 

some day balance this budget and pay down this debt, but it is also 

good for the local communities. And I guess this is more of a statement than a question. I would just hope that as you look within 

whatever latitude you have. I mean, I used to manage rural hospitals. I never had a year where I didn’t have to cut maybe five 

percent. You know, it was just the way it was, given the economics 

of rural health care. But it just makes no sense in those areas that 

generate revenue to make significant cuts there. 

At this time we will recognize the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster. 

20

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much, Chairman Thompson and 

Ranking Member Walz for the hearing today. I am excited to join 

this Subcommittee and bring a New Hampshire perspective for the 

first time in 70 years, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here to advance commonsense solutions to create economic opportunity and support our rural communities. 

I also want to thank you, Chief Tidwell, for joining us today to 

discuss the work that you are doing in the Forest Service. I am 

honored to represent a district that includes the majority of the 

White Mountain National Forest, which is truly a national treasure. Having grown up skiing and hiking in the White Mountains, 

I can attest to the recreational opportunities, and certainly for us, 

tourism is our number one industry and we appreciate the role 

that you play. 

There is also tremendous opportunity in terms of the timber industry, and I am very excited to have recently visited the biomass 

plant in Berlin, New Hampshire, which is bringing back the forest 

services, and Secretary Vilsack was scheduled for a visit to New 

Hampshire today. I have just learned that that might have been 

canceled. But it is an interesting company, Pleasant View, where 

they have installed a biomass wood-fired boiler system to heat commercial greenhouses. So I would love to hear more from you about 

this wood-to-energy program that you are spearheading and opportunities for economic development in rural areas. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Congresswoman, thank you. You just provided an excellent example of the potential to be able to help folks 

to be able to move forward, and sometimes it is to be able to get 

loan guarantees or a grant to help defray some of the initial costs. 

And then the other key part of it is to make sure that the wood 

is available so that if after they make the investment, we have to 

be—before we even work with anyone, we make sure that there is 

the wood available, whether it is the pellets or the chips, to be able 

to continue that. The more that we can do this in various places, 

especially in the rural parts of this country, it really will help offset 

the costs of doing the work on the National Forests because it creates an additional market, and often that is the difference to make 

a timber sale viable or not if they can also make use of some of 

this low-value material, plus the benefit of renewable energy. 

So with USDA, basically our Green Energy Initiative, that is 

what is bringing Rural Development, Rural Utilities along with the 

Forest Service, and the NRCS together where we are really making 

a difference, and I tell you, I am so excited about this because what 

we have been doing on our own in the past just wasn’t getting 

much done. With the Secretary’s direction on this, we are really 

changing the amount of investment, and the example that you are 

seeing now is that we are getting many of those in place. So thank 

you for your support and your recognition of the potential there. 

Ms. KUSTER. Well, we look forward to many more of these programs in New Hampshire. 

I just had one other question, and this also relates to the sequester that has come up a couple of times and access to recreational 

activities. As you know, this is the time of year that families are 

planning their recreational activities over the summer, camping 

21

and hiking and using the new ATV trails that we have, and again, 

I share my colleague’s concern about senseless across-the-board 

cuts. Could you comment on the impact to the public about the closure of recreational facilities this summer, and are any steps being 

taken to alleviate those closures? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we estimate that we may need to close 

around 670 recreation sites, and once again, we manage over 

19,000 across the country and so what we are looking at are the 

areas that are low-use areas and whether it is a trailhead or maybe 

it is a boat ramp or maybe it is a small campground, but once 

again to really minimize the impact. So around 670 is what we estimate, and once again, as we move forward with this, we are going 

to try to find opportunities with more volunteer efforts or maybe 

working with the local community, that they would then take on 

maybe the maintenance to keep the place cleaned up, that sort of 

thing. So those are the things that we will continue to go forward 

with. But once again, there is going to be some impact but we will 

do everything we can to minimize it. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady and I now recognize the 

gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you 

holding this hearing, and Chief Tidwell, always a pleasure to be 

able to see you and I appreciate you taking the time to be able to 

come to our Subcommittee today. 

In your testimony, you noted that between 62 and 85 million 

acres of National Forest land are classified as high fire risk, and 

in Colorado, the Forest Service does partner with the state through 

the use of the Good Neighbor policy and authority to allow greater 

state input and discretion in hazardous-fuel treatment projects. Do 

you favor these types of frameworks that foster partnerships between the Forest Service and the state and local communities? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, I do. Colorado is a great example of where we 

have been able to use the Good Neighbor authority and for the 

state and the Forest Service to work together, and then you all 

have a long list of communities that have stepped up in your state 

that are also working with us in conjunction so that we can get 

more of this work done, create more jobs primarily to be able to improve these watersheds, so there is less of an impact from the next 

fire season. 

Mr. TIPTON. You know, I noted during some of your comments 

to the Chairman’s question in regards to be able to create some 

economic opportunity and concurrently to be able to increase the 

health of the forest that you had noted some of the carbon emissions that are offset by our National Forests. Has there ever been 

a study in terms of the carbon output when we do have a forest 

fire? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, there is. Our research scientists have done 

analysis on those events too. I mean, it is part of the cycle. But 

there is no question that if we can reduce the size of these catastrophic fires, we will in the short term reduce the amount of carbon emissions. It is one of the things, if we can change the fire behavior by thinning out these forests, we are still going to have fires 

22

but they are going to burn at a much lower intensity, thus release 

less carbon into the atmosphere. 

Mr. TIPTON. I know in our areas, that is going to be critically important for the air quality issues in terms of some other industry 

as well, the impacts that we had from the fires in Colorado this 

past year. I think we are pretty dramatic when we are talking 

about being able to get in, create some of these treatments. Are you 

a little concerned in terms of some of the management programs 

with road closures going on that it is going to actually impact that 

opportunity to be able to get in and treat some of the forests? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, before we make a decision on closing a road, 

it has to be a road that is not needed, so if there is a reason for 

us to be able to get in there to access, to be able to treat areas, 

especially around our communities, that is one of the factors that 

is factored into that decision. We do have more roads in the National Forests than we need or can afford to maintain, and they are 

impacting the water quality to the point where there are some 

places they restrict our ability to be able to manage some of the 

timber stands because of the amount of erosion that is coming from 

a road system that is no longer needed. So by making good decisions to close decommissioned roads that are no longer needed, it 

actually increases our ability to do more work but we need to factor 

that in. If we need access to be able to get that work done, we need 

to get in there and get that work done before we make a change 

in the access. 

Mr. TIPTON. And hopefully to be able to build in some flexibility 

into those rules as well to be able to address that, and you did note 

a number of the methods that are in process now to be able to create some of the economic opportunity. Are there specific changes to 

current rules on stewardship contracting that you believe would be 

beneficial? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, I will tell you, the first thing I believe is to 

get it reauthorized. I mean, it has been an important tool for us. 

We are doing about 25 percent of our work through stewardship 

contracts. We will always use our timber sale contracts but it is a 

tool where there is strong support across the board for that. It creates more jobs. So the first thing would be to get it reauthorized 

so that our folks know that we are going to be able to continue to 

have this authority. 

Mr. TIPTON. In your testimony I think that you explained very 

clearly the degree to which active forest management is actually 

necessary to be able to create healthy forests. In our district where 

we have one program going on in Pagosa Springs, we saw that the 

groundwater actually went up 15 percent after the forests were 

treated. The health of the trees returned within 2 weeks to be able 

to get in. But, it is very important, Colorado, with the public forest 

lands where they are interspersed with the state and the private 

lands as well, to be able to bring together a comprehensive approach to be able to deal with this patchwork that we are dealing 

with. We have introduced, as I know that you are aware, the 

Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire Act, which is going to be 

very important as we approach this coming forest firefighting season to be able to address and to be able to empower those states, 

those local communities to be able to play an active role because 

23

it is not only the urban interface with wildlands but it is also when 

we start to get into those deeper areas of the forest, how that impacts our water quality and ability to be able to address it. I hope 

that we are going to be able to count on your support to be able 

to push that forward. Thank you for being here. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back and now 

recognize the gentlelady from Washington State, Ms. DelBene. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chief, 

for being here today and for all the work that you are doing. 

I come from northwest Washington, and the Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest is located in my district, and about 

five million people come annually to just that particular area, and 

it is comprised of about 2,500 miles of roads. In the prairie rural, 

there is no one stop, it is people driving all over. We talked a little 

bit about roads before but when you look at the impact of roads 

and recreation together and how you factor that in and what you 

think the impacts on recreation might be, even if things are open, 

just physical availability to drive and get there in regions such as 

ours. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Congresswoman, it is essential that we provide access to these lands so that we can all enjoy them, if you are 

just out for a hike or for hunting or just for driving. So when we 

go through the process with the public to determine the set of 

roads that we need to be able to manage the National Forests and 

the set of roads and trails that they want to see on the land. We 

work together with the public to make that determination. There 

is no question that we do have some roads that either need to have 

major work done on them or be decommissioned because of where 

they sit in the watershed that they are impacting our water quality, so we can do that. Sometimes that means we have to realign 

that road. But we do have more roads on the National Forests than 

are needed, without any question, and they are affecting the water 

quality and so over the years we continue to make decisions about 

which roads we need to keep open and which roads need to be decommissioned, and also the maintenance standard. We are finding 

in the past we used to maintain a lot of our roads to a much higher 

standard than really what the public needed. I mean, today most 

people have a vehicle that has a little higher clearance, so we are 

finding that they are okay driving on a rougher road, as long as 

it is left open. We just have to make sure that there is good drainage on that road so it is not impacting the streams, the fisheries 

that are in that country. So those are the things that we look at 

to be able to find this balance between having a road system that 

we can maintain, that we can minimize the impacts to water quality and at the same time provide the recreation access, the management access that we need on our National Forests. 

Ms. DELBENE. So do you think that given the sequester and lack 

of funds that you will still be able to make the right tradeoff because you have more roads than you need to and not impact roads 

that you wish you were going to be able to keep open? 

Mr. TIDWELL. And once again, the five percent cut across the 

board is also going to have an effect on the planning that we do, 

and addressing the road maintenance, there is definitely going to 

24

be less, and it is something that we are going to have to factor that 

in. So there will be less roads that will probably be closed this year 

because of that, and I am concerned about the water impacts that 

can occur, so we are going to have to do our best to make the decisions to prioritize this money where it really will buy us the biggest 

benefit, and I have a lot of confidence in our forest staffs, that they 

can do the very best to make the right decisions. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. A slightly different question. There 

have been multiple definitions of biomass and also multiple definitions of sustainable and what that means. How do you view those, 

and are you working to help us clarify and come up with a common 

definition for terms like sustainability?

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, there are several definitions out there for 

biomass, especially when it comes to renewable energy. The 2008 

Farm Bill had a good definition that will work. I think it is important as you go through your deliberations to think about the benefits of being able to use wood off our National Forests for renewable 

energy; it will never be the driving reason why we are ever doing 

anything on the landscape. It is not to produce energy. But being 

able to make use of that renewable material for energy, it makes 

more sense than to pay somebody to pile it up out there in woods 

and then burn it, because that is our option. So it one of the things 

I would encourage you to be careful in your deliberations about is 

that we need to think about what it takes to maintain healthy forests. The benefit: healthy forest equals clean water, healthy forest, 

equals clean air. Healthy forests provide the habitat for our species, provides for viability. So we need to be able to have the tools 

to be able to do that, and if we can offset the costs of managing 

these forests through renewable energy, it is a good thing to do. We 

need to do it the right way, but I can tell you from my view, that 

will never, ever be a driving purpose of why we are doing any activity on the National Forests is to produce energy from biomass, 

but it is a byproduct that can really help us to be able to do the 

management that these lands need. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady and now would recognize 

the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Tidwell, I appreciate you being here today. I represent the 

1st District of Arkansas, and the State of Arkansas has a strong 

forest product industry. I am sure you know that. But we are always looking for ways to strengthen the industry and create new 

market opportunities and job creation and so on, and I am equally 

concerned that we have well-managed and healthy forests, both national and private forests. Several of my constituents have expressed some concerns about LEED standard, the system that sets 

standards for building construction, and obviously one of the primarily wood markets. My question is, they believe that this disadvantages wood. Does the U.S. Forest Service use the LEED system for the buildings that they have? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We use the LEED system and then a couple other 

systems to be able to measure the sustainability of our buildings, 

and I agree with you, the LEED standard does not fully factor in 

the benefits of wood and so it is one of the things we are also lookVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
25

ing at other standards to be able to show that the buildings that 

we are building not only meet the LEED certification but other certifications where we can stress the benefits of wood. We think that 

is a better way to go forward. The challenge we have is, the LEED 

standard is by far the best known around the world, and it is valuable to have that certification on a building but it doesn’t fully factor in the benefits of wood, and so that is why we try to use other 

certifications so that we capture that benefit, the lifecycle of having 

wood in our buildings. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Given the importance of wood in the marketplace 

for construction, do you think that there ought to be some revisiting of that standard to try and accommodate wood products in a 

more competitive way? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We would like, yes, to have that certification revisit the use of wood and to fully factor in the lifecycle of wood 

products in buildings. For instance, the carbon that is sequestered 

in the lumber that is in a building should be part of what is considered to help promote the use of wood. I think that green building 

material is wood. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. I am going to switch gears on you 

a little bit. My district in Arkansas is home to Blanchard Springs 

Caverns, the St. Francis Unit of the Ozark-St. Francis National 

Forest. I am sure you are familiar with both of those. And they are 

huge tourist attractions. I know that St. Francis Unit is working 

with the Arkansas Parks and Tourism on the completion of a visitors center. Mississippi River State Park, I know that you have 

supported that and appreciate that. All that has a huge impact on 

our local economy, and that said, with the sequester possibly resulting in closure of 670 recreational sites, can you elaborate on 

what your plan is or what the guidelines would be for determining 

whether a recreation site might be closed? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The direction we will be giving is to once again 

minimize the impact to the public, so we will be looking at those 

lightly used recreation sites, whether it is a picnic site, whether it 

is a small campground or maybe a boat ramp that just doesn’t have 

a lot of use, and there may be another facility a few miles down 

the road. Also, once again, we will work with our local communities 

to see if there may be an opportunity for a volunteer group or 

maybe for a county or the city that would want to take on managing and maintaining that facility so that it can stay open. So 

those are the things we are going to look at, but there is just no 

question that there is going to be some impact but we will do everything to minimize, and I want to keep that in perspective. We 

have over 19,000 recreation sites on our National Forests and so 

we are talking around 670 spread across 42 different states. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. And has there been any kind of analysis 

done to measure the potential impact on those communities? Do 

you have anything in writing that you might be able to provide the 

Committee? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I can just share with you, we estimate that it will 

result in probably a loss of about 1.6 million visits. I mean, that 

is the capacity, the use that occurs on these lower-developed sites. 

As we move forward with that, and before we actually make the 

decision to close a site, we are going to be working with our comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
26

munities and we will keep Members of Congress informed so you 

are aware of that, but that is the only information I have at this 

time. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate your being here. 

I am out of time, so I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back and now 

will recognize Mr. Nolan, from Minnesota. You are going to pass? 

Okay. We will recognize the gentlelady from South Dakota, Mrs. 

Noem. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Chief Tidwell, it is 

good to see you today. Thank you for coming. I have a couple of 

questions I want to visit with you about, but one of them is regarding grazing permits. 

As you know, one of the responsibilities of the Forest Service is 

to maintain and manage our National Grasslands as well, and you 

do that in cooperation with many of our producers who are having 

trouble with grazing permits because they are trying to get out 

there and maintain existing structures. It may be to water their 

cattle, fences that currently exist, and apparently with this Administration there has been a change. If they are going to disturb any 

kind of soil, they are facing some challenges in actually doing that 

work to make sure that that maintenance can happen. I am wondering if you will help me with this. This is a situation that didn’t 

exist previously. It is really challenging for them to go out and 

graze their cattle, get water to them when the Forest Service is 

blocking any kind of maintenance to those structures. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Congresswoman, I will need to meet with you and 

to get a little more information on this. You know, grazing is part 

of multiple use and our record is very strong that we are doing everything we can to be able to maintain that, and we want the 

ranchers to maintain their improvements. I mean, the more water 

developments that we have, the more options we have, less impact, 

and so I will need to follow up with you and get a little more information so I can address that issue for you. 

Mrs. NOEM. Yes, let us do that. I know specifically when it comes 

to disturbing the soil, so if it is putting a fence in, repairing a 

fence, fixing a water system where they may need to put a new 

pipe in the ground, that is where they running into the problem. 

So I appreciate your effort to help me on that. 

The second thing I wanted to talk about is the mountain pine 

beetle response project that we have in the Black Hills, which I feel 

is very needed and necessary, and I want to thank you for your 

support. Secretary Vilsack recently came out and said due to sequestration, there was going to be a reduction in board feet harvested, 420 million board-feet reduction in timber outputs, and I 

was wondering, were you consulted on that number when it was 

put forward on what the reduction would be? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That number is produced with a five percent reduction and it costs us about $65 a thousand board feet to put up 

a sale, and so you just factor that across and it comes up to be that 

level of reduction. 

The other thing I need to stress is that 50 percent of our budget 

that we get each year is committed to dealing with ongoing timber 

sale contracts or with personal use for folks that want to be able 

27

to have access to firewood and some fixed costs. So you have 50 

percent of the budget that is available for preparing the next year’s 

work or getting the contracts out late this year. So five percent of 

that 50 is really a ten percent reduction, and so those are the 

things that are factored into that number. 

The other thing I want to stress is that our goal of getting to 3 

billion board feet with a 20 percent increase by 2014, that is a 

stretch goal. We are budgeted for 2.4 billion but we made the commitment through some of the efficiencies that you have been so 

supportive of; I believe we can get to that 3 billion. 

Mrs. NOEM. Can you use carryover funds? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I will tell you, I am going to use every flexibility 

I have to be able to continue to move forward, but it does result 

in five percent less funds, and I can use the Black Hills Forest as 

a good example. Five percent of our forest products is about $17 

million. You know the difference if we can send an extra $2 million 

to the Black Hills what we can get done with that. So that is the 

challenge that we have is to be able to work with this, to minimize 

the impacts and still be able to go forward and get the work done. 

I just want to be on record to thank you for your support for the 

work that is going on in the Black Hills, and especially from the 

State of South Dakota. To me, that is a model of really what we 

want to get done. 

Ms. NOEM. Is that something you think could go nationwide? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is what we are moving forward with, the idea 

that they can do it on the Black Hills, to have one EIS to cover 

248,000 acres so that we can get in there and do the work we need 

to, to maintain the forest health, we ought to be able to do that 

everywhere. But, it takes somebody to lead out, it takes support 

from people like yourself to be able to encourage our folks to be 

able to take that risk, and we are really excited now to be able to 

move forward with that decision. 

Ms. NOEM. Thank you. One more thing I want to touch on while 

I have 20 seconds left, I want to thank you for your investigation 

into the collapse of our sheep industry that we have seen in South 

Dakota and the prices, so I appreciate you pursuing that for us. I 

know in Idaho, a recent court decision maintained and ordered forest management decisions to protect some of the big horn sheep 

habitat, and that is impacting their domestic sheep industry as 

well. Now, is that something that is going to stay isolated to Idaho? 

We are not going to look at that kind of a decision being spread 

nationwide and impacting our sheep industries across the country, 

will we? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we look at every situation separately. We 

have also in the State of Wyoming had a different outcome, working with the State of Wyoming to address the same problem. I 

think there are different solutions to this problem of being able to 

find a way so that domestic sheep grazing can continue along with 

maintaining our big horn sheep. There are a lot of folks who like 

the big horn sheep, whether to hunt or just go out and look at 

them, but we have to find a way to be able to do both, and from 

what we have been able to work out in the State of Wyoming is 

maybe a better approach than where we ended up in Idaho, but we 

28

still want to move forward in Idaho to be able to do everything we 

can to maintain our sheep industry. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Now it is my honor to 

recognize a gentleman who was a former Member of this Subcommittee, and my first 2 years in the chair, he had my back at 

my side. Now he has still got my back with his picture behind me. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte is not currently a 

Member of the Subcommittee but has joined us today, and I have 

consulted with the Ranking Member and we are pleased to welcome him to join in the questioning of witnesses today. Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is an 

honor to be back on this Subcommittee. In fact, when I served as 

Chairman of the Subcommittee that then had jurisdiction over forestry, we did not have near as much interest and representation 

from people all over the country in forestry issues. In fact, the 

Chairman of the full Committee told me that he had a town in his 

district in west Texas that was called No Trees, Texas, and so he 

gave me a lot of latitude on forestry issues, so I really appreciate 

your extending that to me. 

And Chief, we are delighted to have you with us here today and 

we thank you for your efforts with our National Forests. I have a 

lot of forestland in my district. In fact, probably 2⁄3 of my district 

is covered in forests and about 1⁄2 of that land or 1.3, 1.4 million 

acres of National Forest land is in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, so in some respects it is like lot a western 

district in southwest Virginia. The George Washington National 

Forest has been leading an effort to do an update of their plan, and 

this has already been a multi-year process. What can you tell us 

about the effects of sequestration on further delays in that plan? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Congressman, we are going to do what we 

can to minimize those impacts and especially with the forest plans 

that we have started to be able to complete those. I look at that 

five percent reduction. It will affect new starts. But I feel it is essential we move forward and finish these plans that we have started. The public has spent a lot of time working with us and it is 

essential we get those completed as quickly as we can. So it will 

probably reduce the start of some new plans on the forests but we 

will maintain our efforts that we have ongoing. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So we should expect a plan some time in the 

near future on the GW? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The last release of the draft George Washington 

National Forest Plan caused concern among many since the plan 

had a ban on horizontal drilling. I think that is questionable 

whether there are any recoverable resources in the George Washington National Forest but there is a lot of concern about the precedent that this would set for other forest plans in other parts of the 

country. There are lots of National Forests that have extraction of 

natural gas and oil as a part of multiple-use purpose of our forests, 

and I am very concerned about the precedent that might be set 

there. And horizontal drilling is actually a very environmentally 

sound way to extract resources because it involves drilling fewer 

29

wells and then using lateral drilling efforts to extract from a broad 

geographic area with minimal impact on the surface, and there are 

environmental issues with regard to that but they are addressed 

well in many places, and I just want to get some assurance from 

you that the Forest Service will look for other ways to ensure the 

environmental soundness of these efforts than simply a blanket 

ban on horizontal drilling in one of our forests. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Now, what you see in the draft plan reflects what 

the forest has heard from the communities, and it is driven by a 

concern, sometimes of the unknown about horizontal drilling along 

with the fracking that is now becoming a—we are seeing more and 

more of that. But you are right, we have been doing this type of 

oil and gas operations in this country for decades, and we know the 

industry knows how to do it correctly. 

I think there is some opportunity to provide some reassurances 

to the public along the lines of the rule that the BLM is proposing 

that would require for the proponents or the oil and gas companies 

to disclose what chemicals they are using to ensure that flow-back 

off of these wells is contained either into a pond or some type of 

a container so it doesn’t pollute surface waters, to ensure that the 

well casings are designed correctly and implemented correctly. I 

think some of those reassurances, those are the sort of things I 

think will help our communities understand that this type of operation can be done in a way that is environmentally sound. I think 

that is the thing that we want to continue to work on to really address what is the concern when we hear folks say, ‘‘Well, we don’t 

want you to allow any horizontal drilling.’’ We need to really think 

about, ‘‘Okay, what is the real concern and then is there a way that 

we can address that concern so that they feel better.’’

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you. I am glad to hear that. I agree 

with that, that there are legitimate environmental concerns and 

you need to have a good regulatory process—disclosure of the 

chemicals used in the process are certainly good—but a blanket 

ban on a technology that is good and actually used correctly is environmentally very sound is a mistake. I would hope that the future plans would reflect something that would be compatible with 

all the different forest plans and the need to have this multiple use 

in our forests where it is appropriate, and as I say, so far it hasn’t 

been done in the George Washington National Forest. I don’t think 

we should set a precedent here that would create a difficult situation across the country. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to participate today. 

The CHAIRMAN. My pleasure. Thank you. 

Chief, I just want to follow up on Mr. Goodlatte’s line of questioning and then bridge that to one final question. Obviously we 

know what the sound science is in terms of oil and gas production, 

horizontal drilling, hydro fracking. Certainly, if you run into those 

folks who are just not confident because they don’t know, this is 

new to them, invite them to the Allegheny National Forest. You 

know, it was an oil and gas—it was not just timber rich, and we 

have some of the best timber. We are real, real proud of the timber 

that is there. That is why we need good management. We don’t 

want to lose that hardwood cherry to something else. It is one of 

30

the most, I understand—despite its size, it is one of the most profitable for us for the Forest Service and the country. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, it is. 

The CHAIRMAN. But it was an oil and gas field as well, those that 

exist concurrently as well as other multiple uses, and so I want to 

help make your job easier. So you get these doubters. If they want 

to come visit the Allegheny National Forest, I will be glad to join 

them in the forest. Any time I can get the time to spend in the 

ANF is a good day for me, so I just extend that as a resource for 

you, because it is not a matter of possibly can be done. Let us not 

talk about in terms of speculation because we have been doing for 

decades in the Allegheny National Forest, you can’t find a more 

beautiful place to—I am a little biased obviously—to visit and to 

spend time. 

I know that one of the biggest problems we have, and this is my 

opinion, I am not expecting you to go on the record with this and 

weigh in on it. I do have a follow-up question I am looking for an 

answer from. You know, the biggest problems we have, the biggest 

threats that we have to healthy forests and therefore healthy rural 

economies, rural communities are the lawsuits by environmental 

groups. They have had—environmental groups unfortunately have 

had a completely contradictory outcome on our National Forests. 

With all the actions and the lawsuits that they file, they have actually created unhealthy forests, because I know that that has really 

stood in the way of a lot of the management practices the Forest 

Service knows that are based on sound science to keep our forests 

healthy and therefore our rural economies. 

As a part of that, the Federal Government in a broader sense has 

contributed to that. We have allowed the Equal Access to Justice 

Act to be abused. You know, that was originally designed to help 

those who have a stake in the game, those folks who are property 

owners where the Federal Government was impinging upon their 

rights, their property. You know, obviously the Federal Government has the resources of every pocket of every taxpayer in this 

country, rather a lot of pockets, maybe not so deep but a lot of 

them. And that is why the Equal Access to Justice Act was created. 

It has been hijacked, I believe, by groups who now use it to fund 

very specific purposes and missions, and they are not key stakeholders. They don’t have direct interest in terms of ownership of 

property. Do we know how much the Forest Service has paid from 

agency budgets in attorney fees? And not just our agency, not just 

the Forest Service. I know the Justice Department gets involved 

with this. They have a lot of lawyers over there. But do we have 

any idea of how much has been paid in attorney’s fees through the 

Equal Access to Justice Act in the last 5 years to environmental 

groups dealing with grazing decisions or, quite frankly, forest decisions? I know we were into a battle that there was—after three appeals by the Forest Service and others—I hope they finally given 

up on in terms of infringing on the subsurface property owners’ 

rights up in the Allegheny National Forest. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you what the Forest Service has paid out in EAJA fees, and it averages about $1.2 million 

a year. We can actually provide you the last 5 years. I don’t have 

31

the information from the Department of Justice but we can provide 

that, but that is on average. It has been about $1.2 million. 

For me the solution is our collaborative efforts because I see time 

after time where people, because of their concerns, they would turn 

to litigation. Those same people today are sitting at the table working with industry, working with the county commissioners to find 

ways for us to be able to move forward. I will tell you, that is what 

we are going to continue to focus on, and the more that we can do 

that and reduce some of these conflicts, the better off all of us are. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess one of the indicators to monitor that is to see if that $1.2 million decreases at all. I hope it does. 

Chief, thank you so much for your testimony today and for being 

with us, and thanks for your leadership with the U.S. Forest Service. It is greatly appreciated. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And now I will ask that the four panelists on the 

second panel to please make your way up to the table, and we will 

prepare for our second panel. 

Just brief introductions. I want to welcome our second panel of 

witnesses to the table. We are going to be joined by Dr. Charles 

McKetta, Natural Resources Economist, Forest Econ Inc., out of 

Moscow, Idaho, on behalf of the Society of American Foresters; Dr. 

V. Alaric Sample, President, the Pinchot Institute for Conservation 

based here in Washington, D.C.; Mr. Kenneth Kane, a constituent 

of mine who is President of the Generation Forestry Incorporated 

of Kane, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the Association of Consulting 

Foresters of America; and Mr. Jim Schuessler, Executive Director 

for the Forest County Economic Development Partnership in 

Crandon, Wisconsin. It looks like we are all seated. Gentlemen, you 

had a chance to watch—there are the lights there, the green, the 

yellow, the red. So each of you will have 5 minutes for your testimony. All Members have a copy of your written testimony, just so 

that you are aware. 

Dr. McKetta, please begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. MCKETTA, PH.D., C.F., NATURAL 

RESOURCES ECONOMIST, FOREST ECON INC., MOSCOW, ID; 

ON BEHALF OF SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS 

Dr. MCKETTA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Charlie McKetta. I am a Professor 

Emeritus from University of Idaho and a consulting Natural Resources Economist. Today I represent the Society of American Foresters with 1,200 forestry professionals who are members. They all 

believe in sound management and stewardship of the nation’s public and private forests, and so we would all like to see the Federal 

forests restored to health and contributing efficiently to serve natural and local interests. 

Our question is, how can National Forests use known economic 

linkages between them and natural resource communities to mutual advantage? I am kind of a gearhead, so what I will do is, I 

will share some of my findings that will help identify complementary economic opportunities from forest restoration. I gave similar 

testimony last March to the United Nations because they are trying to use forestry for economic development as well. 

32

The first point is that the National Forests have some economic 

power, and the resolution of region and local, when the Forest 

Service acts, it changes the markets for resources and it changes 

the market for the labor and the community services, even though 

it does so unintentionally. The trade linkages in these societies 

means that these ripples get distributed across economies. We have 

the technology to be able to identify and predict where the ripples 

will lay. 

I have studied the market and community effects of forest policy 

changes since the early 1970s. We have specialized techniques that 

allow us to do this, and with few exceptions what we have found 

since the 1990s is forest policy changes from the National Forests 

generally have negative economic effects. However, four impact 

analyses that we have completed all set in Oregon most recently 

are starting to demonstrate positive opportunities. I looked at the 

Bureau of Land Management western Oregon plan, and we found 

that when they were going to increase timber supplies 200 million 

board feet a year that their 75 percent fund returns to the ONC 

trust counties would be significant. They would accrue in patterns 

that we could predict, and they could almost offset their expected 

sunset losses of the Secure Rural Schools Act funds but that varied 

a lot by county. The most interesting finding was in Portland, Oregon, which thought it was not a timber community until we 

showed that it was the trade center for 34 timbered counties in 

four states. People don’t know their linkages to forests. 

Our 2012 Oregon report, we found out why the timber industry 

had contracted and how much it had contracted. There is still a 

major sector, about $12.9 billion a year, and they are recovering. 

Some counties have as much as 30 percent of their economic base 

tied directly to timber. The National Forest is a big player acreagewise, about 60 percent, but a small power production-wise, only 

about 12 percent of the harvests across Oregon. There are bottlenecks to recovery in mill capacity, labor and public timber supplies. 

The more interesting one is our analysis of forest restoration in 

northeast Oregon. We found that there is about 1.4 percent of the 

eastern Oregon land being updated and restored, and the gains do 

go across in those regions but they vary a lot by region but they 

also by what is done. They ranged from 15 jobs for million dollars 

spent to 132 jobs per million dollars spent between a watershed 

project or a stewardship project, and we found that the National 

Forests are dependent on private labor machinery and markets to 

succeed. There are avoided costs of about $1.40 in fire losses for 

every $1 of recreation—excuse me—of restoration spent, and there 

is avoided costs in unemployment of about $16,000 per job formulated. But to scale up, you need expanded acceptability, expanded 

activity, more efficient National Forest projects and get rid of the 

bottlenecks in private infrastructure and the markets for biomass. 

I am available for questions or clarifications on these points, so 

on behalf of the Society of American Foresters, thank you for this 

opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McKetta follows:]

33

1Dr. M. Henry Robision is founder of Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. (EMSI). Moscow, 

Idaho. 2Dr. Daniel Green is principal of Economic Modeling Systems (EMS). Moscow, Idaho. 

3 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531). 4Forest Econ Inc. 2007. Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR). Background analyses for 

Chapter 4: The affected environment. Subcontract to Mason, Bruce & Girard for Bureau of Land 

Management. 5O&C Lands Act of 1937 (P.L. 75–405) Oregon & California Railroad revested lands to be 

managed by BLM with returns to O&C counties. 6 NWFP 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Overview. Regional Ecosystem Office. www.reo.gov. The 

NWFP reduced National Forest timber harvests 90% and to a lesser extent reduced other public 

harvests. 7Forest Econ Inc. June 2012. The 2012 Oregon Forest Report: An economic assessment of Oregon’s forest and wood products sector. Subcontract to Mason, Bruce & Girard for Oregon Forest 

Resource Institute.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. MCKETTA, PH.D., C.F., NATURAL RESOURCES

ECONOMIST, FOREST ECON INC., MOSCOW, ID; ON BEHALF OF SOCIETY OF

AMERICAN FORESTERS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Charles W. McKetta. I am Professor Emeritus from the University of Idaho and a 

consulting Natural Resources Economist. I am here today to testify on behalf of the 

Society of American Foresters (SAF). 

The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with more than 12,000 forestry professionals across the country in all segments of the profession, believes in sound management and stewardship of the nation’s public and private forests. The Society of 

American Foresters (SAF) and the USDA Forest Service (USFS) share goals. We’d 

all like to see Federal forests restored to health and operating efficiently to serve 

national and local interests.

I am here to address a narrow set of questions:

1. ‘‘What are the economic linkages between natural resource-oriented communities and nearby National Forests?’’

2. ‘‘How can National Forests recognize those linkages to the mutual advantages of the agency and resource economies?’’

The first is a technical question that I answer for specific projects on a regular 

basis. The second is inferential. From the numerous analyses that we have done, 

I’ve generated a set of personal insights that might be helpful to your Committee. 

What do I bring to the discussion? The Society of American Foresters knows 

that I have worked on market and community effects of Federal forest policy 

changes since the 1970s. I did this while forest research station economist at University of Idaho and since 2002 as a natural resource economics consultant in cooperation with two regional economists, Dr. M. Henry Robison,1 and Dr. Daniel 

Green.2 They invented the spatially disaggregated input-output modeling process 

that we use to estimate policy effects at multiple economic resolutions. We have generally found, with few exceptions, that since the Endangered Species Act (ESA),3

National Forest policy change effects on western natural resource community economies have been negative. However, one project in 2007, and two of our 2012 impact 

analyses, all set in Oregon, demonstrate that future interactions could be more positive in three ways. 

1. Unilateral resource supply augmentation: The Western Oregon Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) districts are charged with a community economic 

development objective. Their W. Oregon plan Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) 4 would have increased resource flows from BLM trust lands 

to improve 75% fund returns to 18 O&C 5 trust counties. Our work found that 

the pre-NW Forest Plan 6 forest industry had contracted significantly, but that 

total job and income and county revenue gains could still accrue in new patterns to many of the O&C counties. 

2. Integrated resource supply augmentation: We quantified Oregon’s forest 

sector economic linkages last year.7 We found that national economic recovery 

is stimulating Oregon’s forest-based industries, fueling recovery of the state’s 

economy. This increases demands for Federal timber (and for other forest ecosystem services). We were able to show where bottlenecks to recovery exist (in 

existing mill capacities, lack of skilled labor, and public timber supply) and how 

relaxing such constraints could increase secondary economic benefits. 

3. Individual restoration project selection to enhance economic development: Our analysis of E. Oregon National Forest restoration projects for OrVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
34

8Forest Econ Inc. November 2012. National Forest Health Restoration: An economic assessment of forest restoration on Oregon’s eastside National Forests. Subcontract to Mason, Bruce 

& Girard for Oregon Department of Energy. 9Sustained Yield Unit Act of March 29, 1944 (58 Stat. 132; 16 U. S. C. 583–5831). 

10 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347). 11 USDA Forest Service. 1993. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 

www.icbemp.gov.

egon Department of Energy 8 quantified how three specific types of National 

Forest restoration projects differentially stimulated local jobs, incomes, and tax 

flows. We also showed differential gains per unit of public expenditure and a 

lack of private manufacturing capacity for using the increased availability of 

undifferentiated Federal forest biomass. 

Start by replacing dated resource community constructs: Much as concepts 

of forest health and ecosystem management displaced commodity production in Federal forestry, rural community economic health has replaced the old concept of forest-dependent community stability. Almost by definition, rural resource communities are small, specialized, and resource dependent. The model is that a few service sectors import commodities to service one or two dominant export sectors. These 

are open economies so multiplier effects may occur elsewhere up regional trade hierarchies. Community specialization makes their economic vitality subject to any external economic pressures that affect their dominant sectors. This happens to agriculture, grazing, mining, timber, or recreation-specialized communities. They are 

also sensitive to local pressures that affect the resources that they need in production. 

There is a useful analytical corollary that is often ignored in forest policy formulation. It is popular to categorize rural resource communities as being dependent on 

National Forests for the resource base they utilize. Conversely, to make forest restoration work, National Forests are also dependent on the labor, services, capital 

and infrastructure that can be found in these communities. This is what ecologists 

call symbiosis. In an economic symbiosis, mutual well-being is equally important to 

both organisms. National Forest policies that ignore resource community economic 

health could be self-defeating. Policies focused on complementary moves are more 

likely to achieve mutual goals. 

Scale and resolution matter: As in ecology, economic effects vary by the resolution scale. An organization’s share of an economy dictates the extent of its influence. 

In perfect competition any one actor is too small to affect outcomes. At a national 

economy scale, the National Forest System is small. Failures of intentional forest 

community stabilization efforts as far back as 1944 9 demonstrated that intentional 

National Forest actions are insufficient to buffer them from boom-bust national economic cycles. 

At higher geographic resolutions, e.g., multi-county regions, coordinated National 

Forests’ economic powers become influential. When the USFS acts, it changes markets for resources, labor, and community services. By affecting related sectors such 

as recreation, timber or water, trade linkages to other regional sectors mean whole 

regional economies can be affected. Those economic ripples are predictable. Whether 

such influences would be positive or negative depends on the nature of the policy 

change. Regional economic responses to the NW Forest Plan demonstrated that single agency policy changes can radically change the vitality of linked sectors and undermine the economic health of the communities that house them. Negative effects 

have declined. Now we are finding that positive responses to changed forest policy 

are becoming plausible. 

National Forests as local monopolists: At the scale of individual community 

economies, a National Forest is usually economically dominant with many market 

powers. There is also a parallel social dominance caused by higher salaries, better 

education, and job security that is a peripheral complicating factor. We focus on just 

their exercise of economic power and typically find it to be both ‘‘unintentional’’ and 

‘‘inept.’’ As such, National Forests’ economic influences on open rural economies can 

be erratic and counter-productive. 

I say ‘‘unintentional’’ because the power to reengineer nearby economies has rarely been a conscious objective of National Forest decision-makers. Impacts analyses 

are made as required for NEPA 10 changes, but typically these have small influence 

on selections of preferred alternatives. The 1993 Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project (ICBEMP) 11 was a singular coordinated exception that affected 

24% of the National Forest System land base. ICBEMP analysts rationalized that 

National Forest ecosystem management changes could replace lost private timber 

jobs and incomes with preferred amenity recreation and retirement-based equivalents. The Association of Oregon Counties asked us for more realistic estimates, 

35

12McKetta and Associates. 1993. NE Oregon responses to Wallowa-Whitman timber harvest reductions. Chapter 3: Distribution of economic effects. For county commissioners of NE Oregon. 13Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500, P.L. 

106–393). 14McKetta and Associates. 1996. Market effects of National Forest timber harvest reductions 

and projected NC Idaho mill closures and market effects. Report to the Idaho Governor’s office. 15 Forest Econ Inc. August 2000. Predicted wood products responses to Forest Service planning 

alternatives in SW and west-central Idaho. Subcontract to Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. 

for the SW Idaho Forest Ecosystem DEIS. 16 Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests. 17 Emerald Forest Products sawmill, Emmett, Idaho. 18Sherman Anti-trust Act (July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7). 19Lyle Watts, 1947. Statement of the U.S. Forest Service Chief on the 1944 Sustained Yield 

Unit Act of 1944. 20 Voltaire, Jean, 1832. ‘‘)vres de Voltaire, Volume 48’’. Lefe`vre, (also Uncle Ben to 

Spiderman 2002). 

alarmed because the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. was quickly reducing timber harvests. 

Our projections of NE Oregon mill closures 12 accurately predicted the order and 

magnitude of job and income losses. We found few new non-commodity opportunities. Two decades later, few replacement jobs materialized, the collateral damage to 

commodity economies was compensated only to the extent of previous 25% fund payments,13 while both local economic vitality and forest ecosystem health declined. 

I say ‘‘inept’’ for two other reasons:

1. USFS non pecuniary decision criteria, such as achieving ecosystem function, 

do not maximize its own profitability, but redistribute potential gains (and 

losses) to others. Other actors game against generally predictable USFS market 

distortions. I used my own 1994 predictions of tripled timber prices in NC 

Idaho 14 to profit from buying my own private forest. My neighbor paid for a 

new tracked excavator when a widespread National Forest road removal project 

sucked up all the private earth-moving equipment within a 300 mile radius. For 

2 years few private forest roads were built in the vicinity. 

2. Often unintended (and potentially self-defeating) feedback loops with nearby 

private labor and capital resources can impede the agency’s own internal objectives. Our two studies for the SW Idaho Forest Ecosystem Management DEIS 15

showed how three coordinated National Forest 16 timber program changes would 

close seven of eight mills without creating compensating non-timber jobs. Six 

years later, when the same National Forests wanted to increase ecosystem restoration harvests, private wood collection and processing infrastructure had disappeared. We calculated the present value of risky, dispersed, and low-quality 

Federal raw material flows and predicted little new private investment in wood 

processing capacity. The one attempt to build a new mill with Federal stimulus 

funds failed.17 The point is that, at local scales, National Forest decisions could 

have incorporated the predictable reaction patterns of associated private decisions. Such a process might have stabilized the balance of public projects and 

supporting private infrastructure to mutually improve long-run outcomes. 

Private monopolies are illegal18 because of their power to extort wealth and erode 

economic efficiency. Government monopolies are used in special cases, but are regulated to harness and direct that power to achieve social objectives. In the unusual 

case of the National Forests, that economic power is generally overlooked. The Forest Service used to characterize its monopoly power as of the ‘‘benevolent type,’’ 19

but have since avoided the terminology. However, ‘‘With great power comes great 

responsibility.’’ 20 Forest restoration projects could be designed to complement local 

economic development, but the process would require explicitly integrating social 

preference and value criteria into National Forest planning decisions. As analysts, 

we have to measure the extent that National Forest actions affect economic linkages 

to make accurate policy response estimates. We try to avoid the moralities of how 

that power is ultimately exercised. 

Focus on the economic linkages: Policy impact analyses are simpler for competitive functional economies. For National Forest-dominated open economies, we 

have to adapt our effects estimation process to reflect the dominance. We typically 

look at six factors that determine the potential influence of any particular economically dominant National Forest.

1. The direction of the Federal policy shift and the signs of its various 

linkages: This can be complicated and counterintuitive. For example Federal 

36

21 January 1, 1969 amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 966). 22Dr. Charles McKetta. 1996. Economics of log export restrictions. U of Idaho white paper for 

the Idaho Governor’s Office. Forest Econ Inc. Subcontractor to Economic Modeling Specialists 

Inc. 23Forest Econ Inc. 2006. School fire proposed salvage sales economic analysis. For USDA Forest Service Umatilla National Forest.

log export restrictions,21–22 had positive effects for domestic log users, but negative effects of similar magnitudes on shippers and private timber growers. 

2. The economic dominance of the agency and the size of its changes:

This varies by the type of change and the public market share. We’ve found 

small Federal harvest changes that caused a large price and local job effects, 

and large recreation changes that dispersed small job effects over a large spatial 

matrix of access routes.

3. The availability of local private infrastructure, its technical flexibility, and its financial resilience: Local private sectors have to accommodate Federal policy changes. The only part of a typical random length sawmill 

that effectively uses undifferentiated ecosystem management biomass is boiler. 

Woody biomass hauling requires both transportation capital and a viable end 

user. Even logging and restoration equipment may be specialized. Large fire expenditures are good examples of insufficient local services. Fire has become big 

business in the West, but little of that spending is retained locally either for 

control or rehabilitation spending. We examined one fire salvage project23 where 

local contractors had long gone bankrupt, so all the contractors and their equipment came from 300 miles away at higher cost. As transients they left an extremely limited local economic footprint. 

4. The sensitivity of the community economic structure in four dimensions:

a. Dispersed rural communities are low on regional transactional hierarchies, 

i.e., they are naturally specialized as resource-linked sectors (e.g., resorts, mill 

towns, transportation services). They have to react to changes in both directions—national economic and local forest policy changes. This pushes the limits of resilience.

b. Decisions in nearby National Forests can dominate large sectors of small 

undiversified adjacent economies. Actions of the Forest Service can effectively 

control private decisions that are forest linked.

c. Local effects leakages can be high and distributed spatially along trade 

hierarchies. By looking at linkages across the functional regional economy of 

N. Idaho, we found one case of direct job losses from a hinterland mill closure 

that were smaller than secondary job losses in the regional trade center 60 

miles away. However, the smaller absolute losses were a huge percentage of 

a small population, compared to a larger absolute job loss in a more diverse 

economy 15 times larger.

d. Socioeconomic demographics are important. We often find working middle 

class compression, while entitlements households and retirees have expanded. 

Labor and equipment trade linkages often jump adjacent communities.

5. The nature of policy change: Rural subfunctional economies can adapt, 

but success depends on predictability, being within the limits of societal resilience, certainty of the response environment, and sufficient time to mitigate adjustment costs. Adjustment is a concern whether the effects are negative or 

positive. A rule of thumb is that a standard deviation change in a short period 

is likely to generate socioeconomic crisis. Spreading even large certain changes 

over longer time spans stimulates economic evolution within a set of survival 

parameters.

6. Linkages mutate: One of our toughest messages to local community leaders 

is that National Forest policy reversals do not return economies to historical 

patterns. The corollary is that intentional social reengineering can cause new 

and sometimes unexpected economic responses.

Ecosystem management and resource community health are complementary: A prime purpose of ecosystem management is to improve forest health and 

ecosystem function. Why? Because healthy forests produce lots more human benefits 

such as carbon sequestration, water quality, wildlife habitat, wood products, reduced 

risks of fire and disease, recreation opportunities, and aesthetics. Notice that these 

objectives can be simultaneously produced. With the exception of wilderness and 

some ESA species habitat protection, there are very few mutually exclusive benefits. 

37

24 National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94–588). 25 IMPLAN is a widely used economic impact estimation input-output model currently marketed by Minnesota IMPLAN Group. http://implan.com. 26Forest Econ Inc. June 2012. Economic effects of woodland caribou habitat designation in N. 

Idaho. Report to the Idaho State Snowmobile Assn. 27Four Forest Restoration Initiative includes coordinated ecosystem restoration and industrial 

development efforts involving the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests. www.fs.usda.gov/4fri.

In private forests, such complementarity means increased profitability, although 

public forests have non pecuniary objectives, complementarity increases net social 

benefits. 

Economic linkages to surrounding communities are also typically complementary. 

Except for a few exclusive destination resorts, we have found that rural timber sectors and recreation sectors typically complement each other, enabling communities 

to have some diversity and larger service sectors. This construct recognizes a more 

complex potential for resource-based communities. 

National Forests are aware of these linkages: Both NEPA and NFMA 24 re- quire economic impact analyses. To that end, the Forest Service underwrote the 

IMPLAN 25 model development, and their specialists use this well-regarded tool. 

Most forest plans have plausible economic effects estimates for every alternative. 

We have often been hired by affected parties and counties to check or augment these 

estimates. Up to now a crucial disclaimer to our clients has been that that job and 

income effects arguments rarely sway National Forest choices between alternatives. 

We are recently seeing a change in that relevance. Our privately funded N. Idaho 

caribou policy effects study 26 was used by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to justify 

reducing designated habitat acreage on the Panhandle National Forest. 

A take-away message: The National Forest System already has the technology 

and the professional capability to combine both forest restoration needs and surrounding economy improvements into project and forest planning decision processes. 

Decision criteria could include facets of economic development as complementary (or 

win-win) joint outcomes do exist. However, for this to succeed, and to expand the 

idea nationally, cooperative private activity and investment has to be made politically acceptable, profitable, and less risky. In the end, each National Forest would 

need the political will, authority, and budget to recognize local public expectations 

and allocate public resources as credible long-run product flow guarantees. 

National Forests need an effective public interface to integrate their operations with local communities: In our experience, National Forest public information offices and public meetings function more as barriers to access than providers of useful data and insight. Recent National Forest experiments with collaborative working groups may mitigate this problem. For example, the Four Forest 

Restoration Initiative (4FRI) 27 organizes many stakeholders around an explicit goal 

of restoring forest ecosystems. Increased 4FRI wood supplies are also expected to 

attract private investment and 300 new processing jobs. In our Oregon studies, we 

had positive experiences with similar collaborative working groups. Their overhead 

costs appear high, but we have not yet explicitly studied their cost-effectiveness. 

I am available for questions or clarifications of these points. On behalf of the Society of American Foresters, I thank you for this opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. McKetta, thank you. I apologize for the pronunciation of your name. There is only one thing we come into this 

world with and leave with, and that is our name, and I hate screwing them up. Thank you for your testimony. 

Dr. Sample, go ahead and proceed whenever you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF V. ALARIC SAMPLE, PH.D., PRESIDENT, 

PINCHOT INSTITUTE FOR CONSERVATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. SAMPLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most of my testimony 

will be submitted for the record so I just want to sort of cut to the 

chase here. 

We have talked a little bit about stewardship contracting this 

morning, and one of the things that I would suggest to you and the 

other Members of this Committee is, the enactment of permanent 

authority. Reauthorization of existing authority for stewardship 

contracting is probably the single-most effective thing that ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
38

gress can do to strengthen this relationship between National Forest management and the communities that depend on those forests 

and provide a lot of support for those forests. 

The relationship between communities and the National Forests 

is very much like the symbiotic relationship that we see in nature. 

We have two entities that depend on one another to the extent that 

if one fails, the other is not going to survive very long, and up until 

the early 1990s when the timber sale program was significantly reduced on the National Forests, there were a lot of activities—watershed protection activities, road maintenance, which goes along 

with that, wildlife habitat improvement. There was a large range 

of things including hazardous-fuel treatment, which we referred to 

a number of times here today, and all of these were accomplished 

through requirements that were in the government’s contracts that 

they issued to the timber sale operators. With a decline in those 

timber sales, a lot of those things didn’t get done, and the first 

thing that really sort of hit the wall was road maintenance, and 

what happened was, a lot of these roads began to erode and contribute sediment and debris into streams, in many cases the very 

streams where the Forest Service was under court order to protect 

habitat for endangered fish species. 

Stewardship contracting was something that was developed to 

really address that, and it began with a small number of pilot 

projects. Eventually Congress authorized 83 different pilot projects. 

All of those were monitored very closely with multi-party monitoring teams at the community level. In 2003, based in part on the 

success of those early pilot projects and the reports that were developed and submitted annually to Congress on what was happening with those convinced Congress to go ahead and authorize 

that across the National Forest System and also extend that authority to the Bureau of Land Management. That was 2003, and 

that authority expires September 30 of this year. 

I won’t repeat a lot of what the Chief covered in his testimony 

but this has been an extremely effective way for the Forest Service 

to work with the kind of small businesses that really characterize 

most of this capacity that we have for doing forest management 

that exists in rural communities. You know, the multiyear aspect 

of this gives them an opportunity, and frankly their bankers an opportunity to have the confidence to invest in equipment that tends 

to be very expensive, but also to invest in employment and in training of those employees and to develop and maintain the kind of capacity at the local level that the Forest Service itself needs in order 

to do these sustainable forest management activities. 

We have talked a lot about timber but there is a lot more that 

goes on in these stewardship contracts. In fact, timber is—actually 

merchantable timber is a very small part of that. We have had allusions here this morning to the effects of climate change, this 

warming and drying trend in the interior West but also actually 

even heavier precipitation, more of that coming in the form of severe storm events in the northeastern region of the United States, 

so it is not just about drought, it is about the role of these forests 

in flooding mitigation, stormwater management, protecting water 

quality and water supply. 

39

I will stop there and yield the rest of my time to my fellow witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sample follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF V. ALARIC SAMPLE, PH.D., PRESIDENT, PINCHOT INSTITUTE

FOR CONSERVATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Al 

Sample. I am a forester and President of the Pinchot Institute, a nonpartisan conservation think-tank based here in Washington. This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Pinchot Institute’s dedication by President John F. Kennedy at 

Grey Towers National Historic Site, the former home of Gifford Pinchot-first chief 

of the U.S. Forest Service and twice Governor of Pennsylvania. The Pinchot Institute is a non-lobbying scientific and educational organization, so my statement here 

today is on my own behalf as an expert witness, and is not intended to reflect any 

policies or positions of the Pinchot Institute. 

The relationship between communities and forests has parallels with the symbiotic relationships that we see in Nature—two entities that depend upon one another to the extent that when one fails the other cannot long survive. Sustainable 

forest management cannot take place where there is no local capacity, usually in 

the form of small businesses, to actually carry out the work of forest management—

from reforestation, to ecosystem restoration, to maintenance of transportation systems for protection of water quality and aquatic habitat. Likewise, these community-based enterprises cannot survive for long when there is not a reasonably reliable stream of project work to sustain local capacity and expertise. When actions 

are needed to protect the ecological integrity and resilience of forests, resource managers have no one to whom they can turn to actually perform the work. 

Resource managers on National Forests all across the country faced this situation 

in the early 1990s, in connection with the reduction in timber sales to expand protection for endangered species habitat. Stewardship activities for watershed protection, wildlife habitat improvement, and hazardous fuels treatments that had once 

been accomplished by incorporating them into the government’s requirements in 

timber sale contracts were no longer being accomplished. Resources and environmental quality began to degrade. One particular problem was that forest roads that 

no longer received regular attention began to deteriorate, allowing sediment and debris to get into streams, damaging aquatic resources including spawning habitat for 

a number of threatened or endangered fish species. 

Starting with a single pilot project on the Flathead National Forest in Montana, 

the Pinchot Institute worked with the U.S. Forest Service and local community 

groups to test the concept of a ‘‘stewardship end-results contract’’—a multi-year contract that could encompass a wide variety of land management and stewardship activities. The long-term nature of the stewardship contract gave local businesses—

and their bankers—the confidence to continue to invest in costly equipment, as well 

as in local employment and training. To the Forest Service it gave assurance that 

key resource management activities would be accomplished to high standards of performance, accountability, and efficiency, and within a specific agreed upon timeframe. 

Congress subsequently authorized the Forest Service to conduct additional stewardship contracting pilot projects, 83 in all, the results of which were watched closely by local, multi-stakeholder monitoring groups, in a process facilitated by the Pinchot Institute. Each year the monitoring results were compiled nationwide, and 

summarized in an evaluation report delivered to Congress, as required by the temporary legislative authority. Based in part on the successes described in these annual reports, Congress acted in 2003 to expand the legislative authorization for 

stewardship contracting to all National Forests across the country, and extend the 

authority to Interior’s Bureau of Land Management as well. 

This legislative authority is set to expire this year, and I come before this Subcommittee to ask for your support and leadership in renewing this authorization. 

In a 2011 letter to Members of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, 

six former chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service noted that ‘‘stewardship contracting authority has provided public land managers with an important tool in achieving forest management objectives, and increasing and diversifying job opportunities in 

rural communities.’’ They further stated that:

‘‘Treatments authorized under these contracts promote healthy forests, reduce 

wildfire hazards, increase watershed resilience, and increase business and job 

opportunities. Stewardship contracting encourages collaboration and long-term 

40

commitments among agencies, contractors, local communities, and other interested stakeholders. Organizations across the ‘political spectrum’ collectively 

agree that stewardship contracting authority extension is needed at this time 

to support public land management agency activities. Between the FY 1999 and 

FY 2010 Fiscal Years, the Forest Service has awarded approximately 854 contracts, resulting in thousands of acres of better managed forests and the establishment of jobs, expanded forest products markets, and improved watershed resiliency. Successful collaborative efforts across the nation have relied on this authority as a cornerstone of agreements for future planned activities in major watersheds.’’

Mr. Chairman, and Members of this Subcommittee, these assertions are backed 

up by the detailed results from more than 10 years of multi-party monitoring, evaluation, and reporting on stewardship contracts across the country. I would submit 

to you here today that the enactment of permanent legislative authority to extend 

the use of stewardship contracting on the National Forests and BLM lands is the 

single most important and effective step that Congress can take to support the positive, constructive, and mutually supportive long-term relationship that exists between these Federal public lands and the local communities that play a critical role 

in their sustainable management. 

Appended to my statement is additional statistical information pertaining to the 

accomplishments under stewardship contracts, and the positive effects on income 

and employment in rural communities. Also in the appendices is information based 

on the results from studies by the Pinchot Institute on biomass energy development 

as it relates to the sustainability of forests, including the National Forests. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear today before this Subcommittee. I would like to submit the balance of my statement for the record, and 

I would be pleased to address any questions you or the other Members may have. 

APPENDIX 1

September 19, 2011

Hon. JACK REED, Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

United States Senate, United States Senate, 

Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski,

As the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies considers the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget for the United States Forest Service 

(USFS) and the Department of the Interior, we as retired USFS Chiefs request your 

support for extension of the Stewardship Contracting authority as part of FY 2012 

appropriations process. First enacted as a pilot program in the FY 1999 Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, and then reauthorized for 

another 10 years within the 2003 Omnibus Public Lands bill, Stewardship Contracting authority has provided public land managers with an important tool in 

achieving forest management objectives, and increasing and diversifying job opportunities in rural communities. 

Although initial use was limited, now more than a decade after this authority was 

provided, stewardship contracting is rapidly becoming the contracting ‘‘tool of 

choice’’ throughout the USFS. Treatments authorized under these contracts promote 

healthy forests, reduce wildfire hazards, increase watershed resilience, and increase 

business and job opportunities. Stewardship Contracting encourages collaboration 

and long-term commitments among agencies, contractors, local communities, and 

other interested stakeholders. Organizations across the ‘‘political spectrum’’ collectively agree that Stewardship Contracting authority extension is needed at this time 

to support public land management agency activities. 

Between the FY 1999 and FY 2010 Fiscal Years, the Forest Service has awarded 

approximately 854 contracts, resulting in thousands of acres of better managed forests and the establishment of jobs, expanded forest products markets, and improved 

watershed resiliency. Successful collaborative efforts across the nation have relied 

on this authority as a cornerstone of agreements for future planned activities in 

major watersheds. 

We urge the Subcommittee to extend Stewardship Contracting authority through 

inclusion in the FY 2012 appropriations process. It has provided many successes to 

Federal agencies and rural communities alike. Extending this authority will continue to build on successes already achieved while expanding positive impacts to our 

National Forests and other public lands. 

41

1 Interior Appropriation Act of 2003 Sec. 323 of P.L. 108–7 (16 U.S.C. 2104. Note, as revised 

February 28, 2003 to reflect Sec. 323 of H.J. Res. 2 as enrolled) the Consolidated Appropriations 

Resolution, 2003, amended P.L. 105–277, Sec. 347. 

Thank you for consideration of this request. 

Sincerely,

R. Max Peterson F. Dale Robertson Jack Ward Thomas 

Chief, Forest Service Chief, Forest Service Chief, Forest Service 

1979–1987 1987–1993 1993–1996

Michael P. Dombeck Dale N. Bosworth Abigail R. Kimball 

Chief, Forest Service Chief, Forest Service Chief, Forest Service 

1997–2001 2001–2007 2007–2009

APPENDIX 2

Restoration Needs in the National Forest System 

According to data provided by the Forest Service, 43% of the National Forest System (82 million acres) is in need of restoration. Over the past 10 years, 18 million 

acres of National Forests have seen widespread tree mortality associated with bark 

beetle damage. Before the 2012 fire season began, the Forest Service cited 65 million acres of National Forests as being at very high risk of severe wildfire. In 2012 

alone, over 9.2 million acres of the country burned in wildfire according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, mostly on Federal public lands. 

The Role of Stewardship Contracting Authorities 

Stewardship End-Results Contracting concepts have been around in one form or 

another for approximately 20 years. In 1998, Congress authorized a pilot program 

for the Forest Service to develop a small number of Stewardship End-Result Contracts and Agreements to:

1. More effectively involve communities in the stewardship of nearby public 

lands, and

2. Develop a tool in addition to the timber sale program that could more effectively address the complexity of forest ecosystem restoration.

The pilot effort concluded early with Congress passing legislation1 in 2003 that 

removed the cap on the number of projects, extended Stewardship Contracting authorities to the Bureau of Land Management, and offered a 10 year authorization 

to the agencies to use stewardship authorities through September 30, 2013 to: ‘‘perform services to achieve land management goals for the National Forests and the 

public lands that meet local and rural community needs.’’ 

Stewardship Contracting in the Context of National Forest Restoration 

The Pinchot Institute has annually monitored 25% of active Stewardship Contracting projects nationwide since 2005. Conclusions from this monitoring include:

• Ten of the 500 active Forest Service stewardship contracts are 10 year landscape scale projects, including the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, White 

Mountain Stewardship Contract, and Front Range Stewardship Contract discussed below. Landscape-level and multi-year contracts are realizing efficiencies 

and have enabled some contractors to make investments toward accomplishing 

ambitious programs of restoration work.

• From 2010 to 2012, non-Federal partners provided funding in 40–48% of stewardship contracts or agreements.

• Significant multi-year investments of private funds are being leveraged in Forest Service Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) 

projects, and stewardship contracts and agreements are critical to the success 

of these landscape-scale restoration projects.

• Stewardship contracting and CFLRP is resulting in private investments being 

made that are focused on processing the byproducts of restoration treatments, 

benefiting rural economies and reducing the cost of restoration work.

Front Range Stewardship Contract. In Colorado, insect and disease has devastated more than 1.7 million acres of forest on the Front Range over the last 

15 years, with some areas seeing tree mortality as high as 80%. The Front 

Range Long-Term Stewardship Contract covers a 1.5 million acre landscape 

reaching south of Colorado Springs to the Wyoming border. The local business 

42

holding the contract, West Range Reclamation, suggests that they have ‘‘built 

our business around stewardship contracting.’’ In doing so, West Range Reclamation has treated approximately 5,000 acres in 2012, creating at least 52 

jobs. After receiving a USDA Forest Products Laboratory Grant they also began 

manufacturing new value-added products, tapping into 19 markets including 

mulch, wood chips, post and poles, shavings for animal bedding, kitty litter, and 

wood pellets, adding significant value to the raw material removed and reducing 

treatment costs below $300/acre in some places.

White Mountain Stewardship Contract. According to contract holder Future Forest LLC., the White Mountain Stewardship Contract has reduced restoration 

costs by 36% and created 226 direct jobs and 96 indirect jobs through a host 

of small scale businesses. Economic reports for the project state $30 million in 

government expenditures and $40 million in economic return. Future Forest 

LLC. is a partnership between WB Contracting and pellet manufacturer Forest 

Energy Corp, harnessing the ingenuity of the private sector to link restoration 

work on the public lands with new thermal energy markets, supporting biomass 

utilization. 

Need for Market Development for Expanded Biomass Utilization 

Public and private investments in local biomass utilization capacity are important 

to reducing the per-acre cost of restoration treatments. Federal investments through 

USDA and DOE loan guarantee programs, and grant programs like the Forest Biomass Utilization grants and Community Wood Energy Program authorized in the 

2008 Farm Bill contribute to improved stability in rural economies. 

For example, the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest recently entered into a 

1,000 acre, 10 year stewardship contract with Confluence Energy, a pellet manufacturer in Kremmling, Colorado, which will supply a new 11.5 megawatt power plant 

backed with a USDA loan guarantee. In Arizona, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative is underway with the Forest Service entering into their largest 10 year stewardship contract to date designed to restore 300,000 acres. Pioneer Forest Products 

based in Montana received the award, with plans to create 900 jobs and build an 

advanced biofuels plant in Winslow, Arizona. 

Given long-term electricity market projections, due in large part to low natural 

gas futures, the prospects for biomass fueled electric power remains dim in most 

places. However, densified products (compressed wood logs, bricks, and pellets) and 

direct conversion of biomass to thermal energy for space heating and industrial 

process heat remain promising. Roughly 1⁄3 of U.S. energy consumption is thermal 

energy for heating and cooling spaces and for industrial processes. Using biomass 

as a fuel source has tremendous potential to offset costly consumption of petroleumbased heating fuels in rural communities while supporting forest restoration objectives. 

For instance, in Oregon, the Oregon Department of Energy and USDA Forest 

Service have recently made investments to expand thermal energy markets in communities adjacent to National Forests in Eastern Oregon. Investing in these locations makes sense because these communities are adjacent to National Forests in 

need of restoration and are currently without access to natural gas, making woody 

biomass systems very competitive to fossil fuel alternatives, i.e., propane and heating oil. Since 2008, at least ten small-scale biomass thermal installations have been 

installed in Eastern Oregon, ranging from a hospital to a small industrial complex. 

On-farm uses of wood fuel are promising as well. Food production and packaging 

uses significant amounts of process heat, and in many places biomass is well suited 

to supply this energy. For example, consider that the average poultry house consumes about 6,000 gallons of propane per year at a cost of $2.04/gallon or $12,240 

per year. If the poultry house is heated with wood chips costing $60/ton, the poultry 

house needs 40 tons of wood chips annually, costing $2,400, saving the poultry grower $9,840 annually per poultry house. The payback period for converting heating 

systems to biomass from heating oil and propane is usually short, as has been the 

case in Vermont where school projects predictably break even in 8–12 years. As an 

added benefit, the grower would see improved flock health and productivity due to 

reduced in-house air moisture associated with propane heat.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you, Dr. Sample. 

Now it is my pleasure to once again introduce a constituent of 

mine, a consulting forester and a friend from the Pennsylvania 5th 

District, from Kane, Pennsylvania, Kenneth Kane, who—I have always been an admirer of Ken’s involvement in the community, not 

just knowing the forest industry but 30 years as a school board 

43

member and involved in every good cause that there is in that part 

of our Pennsylvania. So Ken, I am pleased to recognize you for your 

testimony for 5 minutes, and welcome to Washington. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH C. KANE, PRESIDENT,

GENERATIONS FORESTRY INC., KANE, PA; ON BEHALF OF 

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING FORESTERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. KANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. 

Members of the Committee, I am here today on behalf of the Association of Consulting Foresters of America. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to offer the consulting foresters’ perspective on the National Forest management and its impact on rural economies and communities. 

The Association of Consulting Foresters offers services to private 

landowners, forest management consulting services. We manage in 

45 states about 75 million acres. Essentially, the Association of 

Consulting Foresters are the boots-on-the-ground foresters for the 

private landowner. Our services are wide and varied. It is a pleasure to offer a national perspective from our association because we 

have members across the landscape. 

The primary issues that we would like to address is, there is 

pressure from local taxing entities on school districts, counties and 

townships that are adjacent to National Forests. There is a significant and growing problem caused by insects, disease and fire coming from delayed management on the National Forests, and response to salvage operations from natural disasters such as 

wildfires and storms is slow and the resulting change in forest composition reduces wildlife habitat. 

From a local perspective, I am going to share with you the problems faced by a small community such as Kane on the Allegheny 

Plateau. What the Allegheny Plateau is, is 16 million acres of timber primarily forest type that is a unique forest type, comprised 

mostly of cherry, ash, tulip poplar, 16 million acres on the entire 

globe. That is a pretty unique ecosystem. The small community of 

Kane was developed to develop those resources, and you can see 

when they were developed in the early part of the 20th century, the 

harvesting was quite intense, and it was harvested by local barons 

such as the Central Pennsylvania Lumber Company and Collins 

Pine, and they used railroads to access the timber, and the harvesting, as you can tell, was pretty intense. And those railroads 

today provide recreational access, hiking trails, off-road vehicle 

trails and different things, so there is quite an opportunity there. 

The Weeks Act provided the Allegheny National Forest to be established in 1923, and what you are seeing before you is what the 

condition of the National Forest was in the area called Little Arno 

in 1927. The next slide is 1928. That is the first harvest on the 

ANF. The next 70 years through the series of slides will show you 

the growth and development of that forest, how different silvicultural treatments and just by leaving the forest to grow over a period of years will create a very mature and healthy forest system. 

You will notice that in the slides from 1988 to 2008 the change 

in the forest hasn’t been as significant as the previous 60 years. 

That is because the forest is approaching maturity, and that maturity causes a risk for blow-down, and the productivity of the forest 

44

when it should be higher has dropped, and from 1985 to 1994 the 

forest produced about 60 million feet of timber a year. We don’t 

want to talk about extraction. We would like to talk about acres 

treated, but we have the volumes to talk about, so we have to stay 

with that subject. 

But since then it has tipped over, and when it should be developed and managed for local communities to support our schools and 

townships, it has tipped over, and the delayed response has reduced the amount of revenue from that forest to create a habitat, 

as you see in the next two slides, similar to what it looked like 

when it was established. So management on this forest and the 

value of this forest at one time provided essentially more money 

than the entire Region 9 needed to operate its entire budget came 

from the Allegheny. 

So we have an opportunity as I hear concerns of sequester, if we 

put the money to the Allegheny to truly do what could be done 

there, we could stimulate the Federal budget to help offset some of 

the Forest Service challenge to the future, because by supporting 

the forest and sound management, which is good science, it also 

supports the local communities. The one thing I would ask as we 

talk about stewardship is if we could consider putting some of that 

stewardship money back into those local communities, put it back 

into the 25 percent fund, because then we would stimulate local 

communities. I haven’t even addressed the diverse resources of oil 

and gas in our region, which is also the bridge that we have to the 

future of America’s energy independence. 

But I thank you for the privilege to be here, and on behalf of the 

Association of Consulting Foresters and my new company, it is a 

privilege. I welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kane follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH C. KANE, PRESIDENT, GENERATIONS FORESTRY, 

INC., KANE, PA; ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING FORESTERS OF AMERICA

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of all 

members of the Association of Consulting Foresters (ACF), thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and offer a consulting forester’s perspective on 

National Forest management and its impacts on rural economies and communities. 

ACF is the national association for consulting foresters whose primary work is 

consulting to the public. Our members manage more than seventy-five million acres 

of private forestland in 45 states. 

I have been an Association of Consulting Foresters member in good standing since 

1989, and have been a practicing forest resource manager since 1983. I am President of Generations Forestry, Inc., located in Kane, Pennsylvania. 

From a national perspective, many of our clients and other landowners have significant problems when they own forests adjacent to National Forests.

• There is pressure from local taxing entities, School Districts and County Governments to make up for their lost share from National Forest timber sale proceeds,

• There is a significant and growing problem caused by insects and diseases coming from non-managed National Forests,

• The response to salvage operations from natural disasters such as wildfire and 

storms is slow; and

• There are resulting changes in forest composition and reduced wildlife habitat.

From a local perspective, I am going to present to you the problems faced by my 

local community. Kane, Pennsylvania is a small, rural community located in Northwestern Pennsylvania, on the Allegheny Plateau, at the eastern edge of the Allegheny National Forest. The Town of Kane and surrounding area was settled to deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
45

velop the diverse natural resources of the region. The vast timber resource was harvested utilizing the access provided by railroads in the early twentieth century. 

The abundant amount of timber harvesting on the Allegheny Plateau by the Central Pennsylvania Lumber Company, the Collins Pine Company and other timber 

barons of the era created an environment for the natural reproduction of a unique 

Allegheny hardwood forest. The Allegheny hardwood forest type consists of black 

cherry, white ash and tulip poplar, with sugar maple, red maple and some oak. This 

unique forest type only exists on 16 million acres in the world. 

During September 1923 the United States established the 500,000 acre Allegheny 

National Forest under policies established by the Weeks Act of 1911. The Weeks Act 

authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase ‘‘forested, cut-over or denuded 

lands’’ for the purposes of watershed protection and timber production. 

In the seventy years following the establishment of the Allegheny National Forest, 

many activities took place to promote the goals of the Weeks Act. The forestry activities were successful to the point that the Allegheny National Forest watershed 

supplies water to most of the communities downstream and consistently produced 

over 60 million board feet of timber from 1983–1995. 

Since 1995 the timber harvest on the Allegheny National Forest has declined to 

a low of less than 15 million board feet from 2000–2005. The harvest level over the 

past 2 years has increased to 30 million board feet. 

The Collins Pine Company retained their land on the Allegheny Plateau. Collins 

Pine obtained International Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification in 1995. 

The FSC third party certification assures sustainability of the resource environmentally, socially and economically through a series of international standards. Collins Pine currently owns 120,000 acres and sustainably harvests the same volume 

as the Allegheny National Forest on less than a quarter of the acreage. 

The long-term impact of the lower harvest on the Allegheny National Forest has 

created a significant biological and economic impact on the region. The biological impact is a conversion of the unique Allegheny hardwood forest type to a more common Northern hardwood timber type that consists of tree species such as American 

beech, hard maple and hemlocks, which contain less diversity of flora and fauna and 

are more susceptible to invasive insect and disease attack. This conversion typically 

occurs through major blowdown from wind events. 

The economic impact of the lower harvest has led to a decline in the local hardwood lumber industry. Since 1995 the hardwood industry in the Allegheny National 

Forest region has declined over fifty percent. In the Kane area alone nine sawmills 

have closed, costing over 100 jobs. 

The reduced harvest has affected local townships and schools through the loss of 

revenue of the 25% Fund, under which 25% of the revenue from National Forest 

timber sales is returned to the state. The revenue to the local townships and school 

districts has declined 75%. This decline includes revenue provided through the 

Rural and Secure Schools Act. As a School Director of the Kane area school district 

for nearly thirty years, I have watched the Forest Service revenue decline from over 

6% of our total budget to less than 1% this year. With increased mandates on public 

education, this impacts the quality of education for our children. The Kane area 

school district was forced to establish a National Forest allocation fund with money 

raised from increased taxes on an already stressed rural economy to mitigate the 

extreme impacts this has to our schools. 

The challenge for the future is to prevent the continued biological conversion and 

the economic decline in the Allegheny National Forest region. 

The wind event/blowdown experienced on the Allegheny National Forest is also 

experienced in National Forests throughout the South. In the West, the threat to 

under managed National Forests is catastrophic fire. 

In order to maintain a healthy relationship between rural communities and National Forests, the National Forests should be managed using sustainable methods. 

This will assure the long term health of the National Forest, rural communities, the 

forest products industry and the adjacent private lands. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee’s attention to this important issue. This concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

46

ATTACHMENT


11302001.eps 11302002.eps
47

1927


11302003.eps 11302004.eps
48

1928

1938


11302005.eps 11302006.eps
49

1948

1958


11302007.eps 11302008.eps
50

1968

1978


11302009.eps 11302010.eps
51

1988

1998


11302011.eps 11302012.eps
52

2008

Mature Black Cherry Blowdown


11302013.eps 11302014.eps
53

Typical Blowdown Event

Forest Structure Change of Blowdown


11302015.eps 11302016.eps
54

Susceptible Mature Northern Hardwood Forest


11302017.eps
55

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kane. 

Now I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin for the purpose of 

an introduction. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real privilege for 

me today to introduce a fellow Wisconsinite. Jim Schuessler serves 

as the Executive Director of the Forest County Economic Development Partnership, a public-private partnership in northern Wisconsin that works to improve the standard of living and quality of 

life for the citizens of Forest County. Jim holds a Bachelor of 

Science degree from the University of Wisconsin-Platteville. After 

receiving his degree, he spent 2 decades in television and ultimately served as Executive Vice President of the Broadcast Group. 

After selling the group in 2002, Jim purchased a tourism-based 

business in northern Wisconsin. He successfully operated that business until he joined his current organization in 2011 to give back 

to his community. With all due respect, Mr. Schuessler, you have 

been giving back to your community for much longer than that, 

and I appreciate that. 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Thank you. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Jim and his organization have done important work 

for the people of northeastern Wisconsin. I am looking forward to 

hearing his remarks and the perspective he will provide. Jim, 

thanks for being with us today. 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Thank you, Congressman Ribble. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schuessler, we look forward to your testimony here. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES SCHUESSLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FOREST COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP, 

CRANDON, WI 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Chairman Thompson, thank you. Distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jim Schuessler and I 

serve as Executive Director for Forest County Economic Development Partnership. The stakeholders of FCEDP include the City of 

Crandon, the Forest County Board of Supervisors, the Forest County Potawatomi Community and Foundation, the Forest County 

Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Commission, the Sokaogon 

Chippewa Community, and the Wabeno Chamber of Commerce. 

Our mission is to foster an increased and diversified tax base and 

improve standard of living and quality of life for all the people of 

Forest County. 

I know I am not the first person to appear in this place and tell 

you all is not well in our National Forests. However, let me relate 

from an economic perspective 120 year view in about 5 minutes, 

the good, the bad and the opportunity. 

After the cutover and failure of forests, then farms, Forest County had a few choices. Number one, they could do nothing. Number 

two, they could work with the Wisconsin Conservation Commission 

reforester. Number three, Federal forest. In November of 1927, the 

board voted 17 to 2 against Federal forest. They received a lot of 

outside pressure, and the board relented and opened the matter to 

a countywide referendum. On March 14, 1928, Mr. L.A. Kneipp of 

the United States Forest Service appeared in Crandon for a presentation to the electorate. He promised a lot—jobs, low-cost material 

56

and revenue sharing, a lot of other things too. Just days later, the 

electorate voted by nearly a 3 to 1 margin and bet the farm on the 

United States of America. 

In the decades that followed, the United States Forest Service 

delivered on all their premises. These people are heroes. Citizens 

and industry thrived. Connors Leona Mill became the number one 

producer of hardwood in the world. In the 1980s, the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest alone output 150 million 

board feet per year. 

Then the bad: the lawsuits, the underfunding. Raw material production declined sharply. As a result, a once thriving economic 

cluster began to crumble. Tribal communities and towns are getting creamed. An economic disaster has occurred in the National 

Forest. Today, over 4,000 direct jobs in forest products have been 

lost in the Chequamegon region alone. Outmigration has cost the 

lost of future generations. All of this is outlined in my exhibits. 

The Leona School District located in a Norman Rockwell-type 

town is on the brink of collapse, which will fuel a domino effect 

over the entire region. Declining demand for forest products? Hardly. Local industries could add additional shifts if the raw material 

were available. As a matter of fact, American imports of Canadian 

wood pulp and pulpwood have increased 50 percent over the past 

10 years. Exhibits H, I, and J display the significantly high unemployment rate in the counties of the Chequamegon vis-a`-vis the rest 

of the state. 

Landscape-level sustainable forestry must be restored within the 

National Forest. In the Chequamegon alone, it is conceivable $100 

million could be added to the United States Treasury over the next 

forest plan. In addition, another $30 million to local governments. 

Imagine the impact to our economy. 

Movement toward the allowable sale quantity will result in over 

4,000 jobs in the region of the Chequamegon. The harvest levels 

would still be well below those of the 1980s. Four thousand jobs is 

an auto plant, folks. I know Dr. Benishek is chairing another subcommittee this morning, but somebody please pass along to him 

that within the Ottawa, there is an environmentally friendly auto 

plant ready to be unveiled there as well. 

Some of our National Forests are disaster areas. This is not a 

slam to the current Chief. It is a crisis that has been decades in 

the making. However, the United States Forest Service desperately 

needs a crisis manager to support his efforts. This crisis has clobbered the local economy and will kill schools, and without a Hurricane Sandy type sense of urgency and focus, it is going to happen. 

And while Secure Rural Schools is appreciated as we emerge from 

this crisis, we don’t need social welfare. The jobs are there, the demand is there. A hundred million to the Treasury. Somebody 

please tell—Congressman Ribble, when you get back to the Budget 

Committee, please let them know we have $100 million for them, 

another $30 million to local government, thousands of jobs. 

Remember the old question, if a tree falls in the woods, does anybody hear it. We can really update that today. If thousands of jobs 

are needlessly lost in the National Forest, is anybody willing to listen and do something about it? 

57

1Forest County Board Minutes, November 15, 1927. 

2 Rhinelander Daily News, Editorial, November 27, 1927. 3 Antigo Journal, Editorial, November 24, 1927. 

I look forward to your questions, and please know that FCEDP 

is ready to partner and assist in repairing the ecological and economic disaster by developing jobs and restoring a beautiful, wellmanaged National Forest. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schuessler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES SCHUESSLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOREST

COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP, CRANDON, WI 

Chairman Thompson and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, my name is James Schuessler. I serve as Executive 

Director for the Forest County Economic Development Partnership (FCEDP) in Forest County, Wisconsin. The stakeholders of FCECP include the City of Crandon, 

Forest County Government, Forest County Potawatomi Community and Foundation, 

The Forest County Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Commission, The SokaogonChippewa Community, Wabeno Chamber of Commerce and four business sector representative including Laona Machine, Laona State Bank, Wolf River Valley Seeds 

and Northern Lakes Service, Inc., and Link CPA Service LLC. FCEDP is a public 

private partnership and also includes the invited resources of the Wabeno, Crandon 

and Laona School Districts, Forest County UW Extension and Land Conservation, 

the Laona District of USFS, USDA Blackwell Job Corp., the Town of Armstrong 

Creek, Nicolet Technical College and the Crandon Public Library. 

The mission of FCEDP is ‘‘To foster an economic environment that promotes an 

increased and diversified tax base, an improved standard of living and quality of 

life for all the people of Forest County.’’ As a native of Northern Wisconsin I certainly embrace the beauty of our land, cultural diversity, and traditions that have 

helped establish a thriving economic cluster built around masterfully managed 

timberlands. 

I know that I am not the first to appear in this place and let you know that all 

is not well in our National Forests. What I will do that is different from other testimony is share a story from a public, private partnership point of view about the 

economic impact of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest on our local economy. 

And, I will offer what the immediate economic future portends, if unchecked, and 

finally suggest some solutions. 

Our local story begins after what is locally called the forest cutover at the turn 

of the 20th Century. The idea locally for economic prosperity was forests and then 

farms. This formula failed however due to poor soils and harsh climate for agriculture production and the farms failed leaving the land largely barren. 

By the mid-1920 the discussion turned to reforestation of the hundreds of thousands of acres in Forest County. The Wisconsin Conservation Commission offered 

to work with the counties on re-establishing forests on the cutover lands. Private 

companies owned by the Connor and Goodman families acquired substantial tracts, 

in our area, beginning the development of sustainable forest practices and pioneering the practice of selective harvesting of northern hardwoods. I must note that 

these family driven forests remained intact and managed under selective harvesting, provided millions of board feet of timber to support our economy, up until 

the late 1990’s, when they too began to be parceled and fragmented. 

Back in 1927, the United States Forest Service offered to take northern Wisconsin 

lands as part of a Federal Forest. After consideration, the Forest County Board 

voted on November 15, 1927, by a vote of 17–2, to keep the lands and work with 

the State Conservation Commission.1

Immediately, voices were raised outside the county criticizing the decision. An editorial in the Rhinelander Daily News condemned the Forest County Government 

and demanded that they immediately ‘‘get the cutover lands back into their best 

use—forestry.’’ 2 Another from the Antigo Journal urged the Forest County Board 

to reverse their decision in part by saying ‘‘Langlade County will join in when they 

are asked, but they have not been contacted by the Forest Service.’’ 3 By the way, 

Langlade County never was asked, and today their county owned lands provide 

nearly $2 million annually to their county budget. 

Due to this outside pressure, the Forest County Board reviewed their previous decision and after debate voted to turn the matter to the electorate of the county in 

a referendum. 

58

4Forest County Republican ‘‘Federal Forest Hearing Held at Crandon Last Week,’’ published 

Thursday, March 22, 1928. (Exhibit A)

On March 14, 1928, Mr. L A Kneipp, employee of the United States Forest Service, appeared in a packed Circuit Court Room in Crandon to present his case as to 

why the lands should be turned over for the Federal Forest Program. According to 

local printed news accounts, Mr. Kneipp outlined the case for why the voters should 

choose the Federal Forest. He stated that at present timber was being harvested 

four to six times faster than it could grow. He stated that the primary purpose of 

Federal Forests was to restore forests, put forestry on a business basis, to carry on 

research in timber production, and to produce timber. He went on to state that the 

United States promised the following: 4

1. Restoration

2. Plant trees where needed

3. Prevent fires

4. Practice selective cutting

5. Cover every acre with forest

6. Conserve and develop wildlife

7. Get the forest on a sustained-yield basis

8. Maintain stable wood-using industries

9. A supply of good lumber at a cheap price

10. 25 percent of the gross receipts to be used by the counties for schools and 

roads

Just days later the voters of Forest County voted, by nearly a 3 to 1 margin, to 

turn the lands over to the United States for Federal Forest purposes. Within the 

next 10 years, 396,500 Forest County acres were turned over to the United States 

Government—54.3% of the county’s total land base. 

To put it mildly, the citizens of Forest County ‘‘bet the farm’’ on the promises 

made by Mr. Kneipp, as well as a future tied to the forest product industry. 

For decades, the United States Forest Service set out and delivered upon every 

promise that they made back in March of 1928. The Civil Conservation Corps rolled 

through northern Wisconsin forests helping reforest and establish the infrastructure, some of which is still producing timber today. This program operated successfully for decades, developing tremendous resources, jobs, and valuable commodities 

for a growing nation. The research done on the Argonne Experimental Forest, located in Forest County, provided the basis for sustainable northern hardwoods forest management practices still in use today among industrial and other managed 

hardwood forests. 

It is no accident that, through the success of the National Forest program, a family owned sawmill, utilizing the forests of Forest County became the largest hardwood sawmill in the world by the 1940’s. 

All told, a thriving economic cluster built around masterfully managed 

timberlands was developed in places in and around National Forests not limited to 

but including CNNF, Superior (MN) and Ottawa (MI). At its peak, the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) produced 159 million board feet of 

timber in a single year. 

The forest management practices in place within the CNNF from its formation 

until the 1980’s followed sustainable forestry practices and mirrored forest policy as 

inspired by the March 1903 speech of Theodore Roosevelt. Prosperity began to decline in the 1980’s due largely to the unintended consequences of uninformed groups 

that slowed down forest management with lawsuits, all of which they eventually 

lost but many of which have caused a dramatic devaluation of the standing timber. 

According to employees of the USFS, funding for the timber sale program began to 

decline, causing annual declines in the rate of forest treatments within the National 

Forest. (Exhibit B) These unintended consequences also caused a strain on industrial forest lands that have been overharvested to make up for the dramatic decline 

of National Forest timber stand management. 

Currently, USFS timber sales have gone ‘‘no bid’’ as a result of the declining quality of standing timber, sales that are too large for small businesses, improper estimates, and onerous rules. 

With the sharp decline in level of forest stand improvements in the CNNF, over 

4,000 direct jobs have been lost in and around the eleven counties of the CNNF. 

(Exhibit C) Sawmills and processing plants have closed. Others operate sporadically and a tremendous outmigration of families has occurred in the past 20 years. 

59

The Laona School District, ground zero for this tragedy, is on the brink of collapse. (Exhibit D) Laona’s soul was ‘‘sold to the USFS’’ in 1928, and only 17% of 

its entire land mass is taxable. When the CNNF was operating at appropriate management levels, this mill town built around Nicolet Hardwoods, Inc. and WD Flooring, LLC was running multiple shifts and provided major employment to the region. 

Today, a 140 year legacy, including four generations of selective harvesting with 

eight rotational selective harvests of family-owned company timberlands appears to 

be at an end due to lack of raw material. Monday, I drove through their lumber 

yard—which should at this point of the season have been completely inaccessible 

due to the 2.5 million board feet of raw material normally stockpiled by spring 

‘‘break-up’’—instead, there was only another 2 weeks of work. (Exhibit E) The 

plant will likely close due to lack of hardwood saw-log and it appears that employees 

will be laid off and out of work. 

Today, the Laona School district has the 5th highest mill rate in the state. Two 

years ago, the proud residents actually voted for a 3 year funding referendum to 

keep the school operating for 3 more years. Taxes on a home in Laona is roughly 

double that of Wabeno, located about 10 miles south. Laona can be considered one 

of our nations Norman Rockwell towns, and because of its dependence on the National Forests it is at ground zero for economic impact due to the decline of forest 

stand improvements on National Forests. 

In 2014, if voters in Laona reject a new referendum, the school will likely close. 

That will trigger a ‘‘domino effect.’’ Wabeno will likely be on the hook for the debt 

of their neighbor’s school as they will be asked to take on the students of the neighboring district and this will drive Wabeno’s mill rate through the ceiling. 

Wabeno’s low mill rate is largely fueled by waterfront homes in the southern part 

of the district, south of the Forest county line, in Oconto County. Oconto County voters will likely realign and move to a neighboring White Lake or Suring School District. Wabeno’s financial structure will see the same issues faced by Laona and their 

financial structure implodes. And who suffers? In the end it is the children and families of the rural American Norman Rockwell Communities. 

As an economic development practitioner I can tell you that there is no recipe to 

solve this problem—lose your school, lose your town. The grocery store and other 

small family owned business close. Health care options diminish. Usually, the town 

is left with a c-store on the highway, and remaining residents have to travel 10 

miles for a dozen fresh eggs, fresh fruits and vegetables, and, considering where 

people like me hail from—a hunk of great Wisconsin cheese. 

Shrinking demand for fiber? Hardly. All this is happening at a time when imports 

of Canadian wood pulp and pulp wood have increased 50% over the past 10 years. 

(Exhibit F) 

At the time Forest County accepted the offer of Federal Forests, other counties 

such as neighboring Marinette County declined their offer. As a result, in the northern half of Wisconsin we have many counties, void of National Forest, with very successful forest management programs. 

Like the USFS, these counties manage their lands for multiple uses and abide by 

all regulatory guidelines. All Wisconsin counties that manage their forests have 

fully-certified forests, standing up to very stringent standards and practices. As a 

result, their timber is generally more valuable. 

Attached, is a comparison of Wisconsin’s top eleven forest-managed counties that 

do not have National Forest versus the performance of the eleven county CNNF 

managed by the USFS; in essence, Wisconsin’s own National Forest versus the 

USFS’ CNNF (Exhibit G) 

I am aware that the declining level of forest stand improvements on the National 

Forest are not limited to the Forest County or the CNNF, but the local story is 

where I concentrated my attention for this discussion. A similar impact has been 

felt across the eleven counties of the CNNF. From 1990, when management was 

much more prevalent, to 2010, after the dramatic decline, unemployment grew disproportionately in the eleven CNNF counties (Exhibit H) versus the top eleven 

counties with managed forests that did not turn land over for Federal Forests. (Exhibit I) In 2010, Wisconsin’s overall unemployment rate stood at 8.5% quite close 

to the 8.8% of the eleven county managed-forest counties in the north. The eleven 

counties of the CNNF were 16% higher than the county managed-forest counties 

and 20% higher than the state as a whole. (Exhibit J) 

Even more startling is the loss of the future that the eleven counties of the CNNF 

face. A comparison of 1990 Census to 2010 reveals that these eleven counties have 

suffered double-digit declines with the demographics of children (0–17), and the people aged 18–44, largely the families who have children. (Exhibit K) Over this same 

period of time the other 61 counties in Wisconsin grew in these two key demographics. When the jobs decline, people tend to go elsewhere. 

60

So where is the opportunity? It is in our National Forests. An additional 60 million board feet in the CNNF alone would provide over 3,000 direct jobs, and according to North Central Wisconsin Work Force Development, over 4,000 jobs total. This 

would still have the CNNF below the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) outlined in the 

current Forest Plan, and 20 million board feet below the annual delivery achieved 

in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Over 4,000 jobs—that is an environmentally friendly 

automobile plant, folks. Representative Benishek—I have good news for you. By my 

calculations, you have another auto plant within the Ottawa National Forest adjacent to the Chequamegon-Nicolet to our north waiting to be unveiled as well. (Exhibit L) 

But please remember, the value National Forest timber has already declined dramatically due to decline of forest stand improvements and regenerative treatments. 

Here is a photo, taken last Thursday, of what was thought to be saw-log in the Ottawa that is until it was harvested. (Exhibit M) The timber has over-matured, and 

is now worth about 90% less than had it been harvested when it should have been 

about 20 years ago, according to trained foresters. This contractor will lose money 

on this contract. He has stated that his firm will no longer bid on USFS projects. 

This is another reason why USFS sales go ‘‘no bid’’, when it rarely, if ever, occurs 

on county or private timber sales. 

The upside is tremendous. Setting aside the auto plant in the Ottawa for a moment, and just focusing on the one in the CNNF, the benefit is remarkable. (Exhibit N) 

In just one National Forest alone, the economic impact is startling. (Exhibit O) 

How do we get this done? For one thing, we are Americans, and armed with a, sort 

of Conservation Correction Corps of USFS foresters, tribal forest professionals, and 

state and county foresters we should quickly determine priorities, salvage, and 

begin producing forest treatments on projects that are ‘‘on the shelf’’ with completed 

National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) completed forest stands. 

Where will the product go? For one thing, processors (those not already gone) that 

have been choked by skyrocketing raw material costs will get some relief from reduced commodity prices. It is very likely that we can keep a few more domestic 

paper mills, for example, from closing if they know that the raw material prices they 

have been paying will likely ease. 

Just last month, Wausau Papers announced that they would be closing their mill 

in Bemidji, Minnesota. One of the chief reasons cited for the closure was increased 

production in Asia. Certainly manipulated foreign currency and questionable foreign 

labor practices cause problems for American industry. But considering the state of 

management within the National Forests here in America, should we not get our 

own house in order—for the sake of American jobs and American industry? 

A wonderfully executed government program that produced a tremendous economic cluster is being pulled under. The value of an asset owned by the taxpayer 

is losing value and the skilled personnel are available to fix this—now. 

While I’m certain that the current Chief’s years as a forester serve him well in 

normal times, these are not normal times. Let me introduce you to a few retired 

USFS employees that would help correct the picture. The crisis created by lack of 

sustainable forest management is crippling rural communities that believed the 

promises of L.A. Kneipp and the United States Government he represented. Let us 

keep true to the ideals that inspired the development of our National Forests; people 

such as Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s charge to the Society 

of American Foresters is included in this presentation. (Exhibit P) 

Although this disaster has been at least 2 decades in the making, it is in fact a 

Federal disaster. Call it Katrina or Sandy. At the local level we are told that Congress is to blame and there is need for more Federal money for timber sales. The 

most educated forester on Earth is not necessarily a gifted crisis manager. I suggest 

that we bring in a crisis manager that can get this fixed. As the successful manager 

Lee Iacocca said—lead, follow or get out of the way. This is not meant as political 

and is geared more toward personality, but I wonder what Governor Christie of New 

Jersey or Governor Nixon of Missouri would say to someone that said they needed 

more money when at the same time maintaining they are not in business to make 

money? 

‘‘Secure Rural Schools’’ financial assistance is appreciated to keep our schools 

alive in the near term. But, we don’t need social welfare. The real fix is to recreate 

the local jobs and a revived forest economy through effective forest management. 

Your action can return the rural forest economy to sustainable and successful levels, 

similar to the 1970’s and 1980’s. 

Once again, thank you for allowing me to provide testimony and comments as you 

consider National Forest Management and its Impacts on Rural Economies and 

Communities. Laona, Forest County, northern Wisconsin, and America can’t wait. 

61

To summarize, from a local economic development perspective and from a national 

perspective, the formula for revitalizing the National Forest Economies are. (A.) Declare the National Forests a Disaster Area. (B.) Hire a crisis manager in each of 

the districts across the Forests in the United States. (C.) Inventory lost production 

over the past 20 years and salvage harvest and implement forest health treatments 

on the backlog of NEPA approved forest land. (D.) Demand USFS implementation 

of the current ASQ on all National Forests above and beyond the salvage harvests 

and forest health treatments. 

Ultimately this is no small matter at all. I am amazed and puzzled that such a 

meaningful, profound and simple solution has surpassed the great minds of the decision makers in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture 

and our great bureaucracy. And instead a small but dedicated group from an American apple pie and lemonade town stands before you to a call for action. The sustainability of tribal communities is on the line. With all due respect ladies and gentlemen, enough is enough. We are tired of the excuses. We are tired, angry, suffering 

and the regional economy has been needlessly fractured. 

So, simply put; implementation of this strategy across all National Forests will 

pull local, regional and the national economies out of the mire of the Wall Street 

and housing crush. And, the most amazing thing of all! Every dollar invested 

in this strategy will return $3 to the United States Treasury! 

I look forward to your questions and the Forest County Economic Development 

Partnership is ready to partner and assist you to make the National Forests a thriving and vital national economic resource engine once again. When you review my 

written testimony, consider that I am speaking on what I know about the impact 

of one United States Forest economy. And, on behalf of other forests, consider the 

impact of honoring the commitment to salvaging the backlog of timber, providing 

forest health treatments and fulfilling ASQ on all the National Forests. May God 

bless this great country.

62

EXHIBITA


11302018.eps

Ie eer_ "adJ.ag:. 

l.~Ort.­

trlbut.-

.. IUDg. C<>-opworka. 

clase 

lIIl8 0' c laasea 

lip thia 

~­e yea.r ee tbJa 

roblem 

a"Dd Ita 

«"arona lito the Unlt.d Sbt.e. now:' 

Mr. L . A. K.,efpp eDJph_flUtd. "Th. 

£arlner I. • poorly paId cl__ of 

people. One _v8nth of the land now In Larrna ahould not be tarm- ed.'· 

The United State. .,.... been 

buUt upon our areat .tore of nat.-

ural wealth. We are bavlnsr to .d. Just our econooUc _)letem to Rlf\et 'OU-J' new condition.. '-ad t.hat 1,_ -p:roducfn8' nothIng c an.nj)t c ontinue 

to pay taxell. 

Remedy PropCNlad 

In M,ion.aota the condJUone 

h.ave become very crIU,c.'. In one instance the tax r .... ~.ch.d 290 

milia. In another c .... e tbe rate waa 11-2 mille. .f>. COQlnUt\ •• appointed. to study toto ramedl.l m .aaauroa tor that d ,latrict r ecom- mended that the northe rn countl •• , be abolt.had and that th. area be 

cont.rolled by the .t.at.e ••• territory, 

L. A . Kneipp told For •• t county 

f'oUte it wa. up to them to d.eeJde 

the pr0iP"am. tbey w18hed. to 1'oUow . If you ...-Ia b to make thla • reeon tb are •• decide 'upon t.hat. Thta., bow. e~ade e , eve:r. h_ t.he disadvantage 0'1 sup-

: plek~ 'I plying only teJDfor.ry employ- d meot. I'f you. ...... n priv.t. owner- Viit-:u .bip of foreata. decide upon t.hat. a U t.he eount;)/' ,.. prerared to re'for_ Stroud _t Ita thouaanda 0 a c rea or cu~ MiJlelO' I over land, t.he,lJn.ft.ed 8ta~. b •• no .ted 0;( place her'40~ It the .tate la pre...,..,... . ed to rela_.t tbi. are., ~ United 

States ha. no pl8.C;e . he.... U-tbe 

it. Vld. private OWDe:r&. th.e county, or the 

[JeT. T. state f. not p .... pared to do t.hl_ 

MeAJ:' b -U: wo.rtb whlle ror the United 

Ne.I.ILa. State. 1-0 C;OIlHl 1:0' • J"uatlnea.t;l0na of a Fed.r.l ..Foree .. 

H . 

M oney la .ppropria.ted. y.ar1.y au, . to ear..,. 00 the _ olek. 

a:rpeau, 2 . 2~.OOO eerea are to be pu ....... 

cha_d.1.a t.beN). ttu-ee countJ_. lhe'1tb eore cd. I STade , a . Tbt. area ftj'preMnt& & V~ 

leg. ·ot -.one, of ~ and ayat.ma or DU..oagement. 4. A corpa 0'1 111101Ul. win be bpt. bulJY. ... . What WUJ the UnJted S~tea DoT ·1. RMto.,.~~~ 

2. "Plant. tree." _het:!lt Deeded.. 

3, Pn-ve.nt fire.. ' . 

.... . ,,!:ract(ee ..,leetlve euttlDIir. 

5. COve .. evel[Z" acre -.ft.h 'fo .... t. 

~ __ • 6 , Cone....... &Da- develop wIld 

- LU.. .• 'I 

'1. Get. the 'fo~at' •• on a au_ 

taf-..cl yield ~fe. ' 

a. Ma.iotaio .tabt. _oocl--uaiollf" 

I.duaki_. . " 

WUt. WUI lb. Coonty a.tT 26% cd u.. ____ ipq frotD 

the .... of" timber aDd otUr J~ _ ...... d to u.. _atll' to 

aernlee .. 

~ S 

ot 

" U 

t. 

.... 

V , 

, 0 ' B 

{; 

D C, 

'" 0 

C- S . 

U 

A 

AD 

I. 

e. 

T 

.. 

B S ' 

C 

.. to 

, 

... 0 ' 
63

EXHIBIT B 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Sold Volume FY86–FY12, by Fiscal 

Year

EXHIBIT C 

The decline of over 80,000,000 BF per year has resulted in significant job 

loss in and around the eleven counties of the CNNF over the past 2 decades


11302019.eps 11302020.eps
64

EXHIBIT D 

The decline in harvest, and fewer jobs is having an impact on local school 

enrollment and funding

EXHIBIT E


11302021.eps 11302034.eps
65

EXHIBIT F 

While timber harvesting declines on the National Forest, we send more dollars to Canada . . .

EXHIBIT G


11302023.eps 11302024.eps
66

EXHIBIT H 

While imports increase, unemployment levels have skyrocketed in the 11 

CNNF counties

EXHIBIT I 

Unemployment remained much lower in the top 11 counties that manage 

county timber without CNNF acreage


11302025.eps 11302026.eps
67

EXHIBIT J 

The unemployment rate within the 11 counties of CNNF exceeded that of 

the state overall and the top 11 counties managing timberlands without 

National Forest

EXHIBIT K 

Our future has been harmed by job loss and outmigration within CNNF 

counties


11302027.eps 11302028.eps
68

EXHIBIT L 

Ottawa National Forest Harvest Volume FY87–FY11, by Fiscal Year

EXHIBIT M


11302029.eps 11302035.eps
69

EXHIBIT N 

What is the annual opportunity in the CNNF?

EXHIBIT O 

What is the opportunity in the Northwoods?


11302031.eps 11302032.eps
70

EXHIBIT P


11302033.eps

"And now fi.st and 'Mamostyou can nave. a fford to fo.gat for one moment 

wllat is the object of OUt lo.est po.Jicy. Tl\atobjeciis nOllO preurva the 

10'UIS bacau",lhayara beautiful, though Ihal is good in itself, no. bacausa 

they ara rafuges 'or Iha wild craa turas oftha wildarness, Ihough that. loo.is 

good in It!Ia lf, but the primary object 01 Our foresl polic, as oftha land policy 

olthe Uni'ad SUl1es, is Iha milking of pros perous homn. It js Pllrt of lha 

trllditional policy of home making in o ur country. Every Othll' conlideralion 

comes as secondary. You yourselves hava gOllo keeplhis practical objact 

baloreyour minds, 10 remamberlhataloreslwhich contribute s nothing to 

the wealth . progress orsafaty oflhe couotry is of no [mar.slto lhe 

Gove rnment and should ba of little intel8st to the foraslel. Your attention 

must btl d"ectedto the prestlrvllllon offoleSt5, not es an endin itself, but"s 

a me ans of p.eserving-..nd inote""jog lhe prosperity ofthe netion." 

P,.I",*",_R_fr"",o 

.peed> 1<> ...... ~ 01Il10 Iodotyof _I" F"'" !ero, W.,lIInglDn DC.. N'fC~21. ,~ 
71

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Schuessler. I am going to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ribble, for 5 minutes of 

questioning. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your flexibility this morning with what is turning out to be a very hectic day 

for this Budget Committee Member as well as a Member of the Agriculture Committee. 

Mr. Schuessler, thank you again for coming. I want to thank all 

the panel for spending some time. I do have a couple of questions 

for both you and Mr. Kane this morning. I just to want to read a 

quote from your written testimony: ‘‘It is no accident that through 

the success of the National Forest program, a family-owned sawmill utilizing the forest of Forest County became the largest hardwood sawmill in the world by the 1940s.’’

Mr. SCHUESSLER. That is correct. 

Mr. RIBBLE. What has happened to that sawmill? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Well, it is a travesty, and there are still people 

working there today, but if you take a look at Exhibit E, I took a 

couple shots on Monday morning, and I apologize for the darkness 

of it and the snow. We had snow Sunday night. 

Mr. RIBBLE. It is Wisconsin. 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. And it is Wisconsin in March. We had snow, 

and then of course, the time change kind of hit me there, so it was 

a little bit early in the morning. But this is—the Connor Mill has 

a 400 acre lot in the Town of Leona, right in the center. You know, 

originally it was the company town. They should have, by the time 

of breakup, about 2.5 million board feet. Now, I am not a forester. 

Some of you guys that come from that area can probably tell me, 

but I am told that is about 2, maybe 3 weeks of work. Two and 

a half million board feet can’t be found anywhere. The product just 

isn’t there. People are going to be out of work. The layoffs have already started. 

Mr. RIBBLE. The trees are there, aren’t they? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Absolutely. They are tipping over. 

Mr. RIBBLE. In your testimony, you also noted that the decline 

in timber harvesting in Wisconsin has resulted in roughly 4,000 job 

losses in the 11 National Forest counties. I am interested in hearing about how you arrived at that figure. Additionally, you noted 

that at its peak, Wisconsin National Forests produced 159 million 

board feet of timber in a single year. Do you believe we can ever 

accomplish that again? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. I will take them in order. First of all, I am 

blessed by being surrounded by skilled foresters and silviculturists 

in my region. It is not my background. There are a few people, a 

couple people, Dick Crowsey, who is a very seasoned veteran and 

a retired United States Forest Service, and a second person who 

was a retired United States Forest Service person got together and 

really put together using today’s technology how many board feet 

equals a job, and they came to the conclusion looking at the technology that exists today and the things that we use out in the 

woods that about 20,000 board feet equals a job. So taking from 

that the fact that we are down over 80 million board feet in the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, we have lost over 4,000 direct jobs. 

72

Could you repeat the second question? 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes. The second question was regarding the 159 million board feet that was being harvested. I wanted to know if you 

think we can ever get back to that. 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. I can’t imagine, and I can tell you that Forest 

Service employees can’t imagine it. I was up in the Washburn 

about a week ago meeting with the Regional Forester up there, a 

very dedicated employee who is doing some great things on stewardship that we would like to bring back to the east side of the 

Chequamegon. I related to her, and her experience, as I understand it, goes back to the 1980s, and when I related to her the kind 

of harvesting levels that existed back then, she couldn’t even fathom it. So it has really become—it has really moved outside the 

DNA. Allowable Sale Quantity, ASQ, is something that is not 

looked at. It is just sort of this number that is out there, and so 

it is going to require a remarkable change in thinking to take folks 

back to those times. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Certainly the demand is there, though, and I can tell 

you, as someone who has spent my entire life in construction, it 

troubles me greatly that I see so much imported timber from Canada while we have foresters not working in Wisconsin. 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. And skyrocketing prices. 

Mr. RIBBLE. This is a problem. And Mr. Kane, thank you for 

coming. I really enjoyed the photos of Pennsylvania. What a beautiful place that you live, almost as beautiful as northern Wisconsin. 

That is good to see. 

In your testimony, ‘‘There is a significant and growing problems 

caused by insects and diseases coming from non-managed National 

Forests.’’ I am curious about the words, non-managed National Forests: What do you mean by that? 

Mr. KANE. Part of the National Forest System is wild areas, scenic areas and natural areas. Just outside the community of Kane 

is the Tionesta Scenic Area. It is a 500 acre area of old growth consisting primarily of beech. The beech is decadent because of the 

beech scale nectria complex, which is a whole other story that I 

won’t go into, but in 1991, it was identified that a native insect, 

the elm span worm, population was just growing out of proportion 

because of that beech ecosystem created the perfect habitat for elm 

span worm development. We pointed out to the Forest Service because it was a natural area, they couldn’t do anything about it. In 

1992, it spread outside. It is kind of a ripple of a stone in a smooth 

pond. It went outside that area, and the Forest Service still was 

unable to do anything about it. In 1993, it was larger and encompassed essentially the entire Allegheny Plateau. We had to pull ten 

different organizations, consulting forests to compete with each 

other daily. Five sawmills to compete with each other daily formed 

a consortium. We sprayed over 100,000 acres in 1994 at a cost of 

over a million dollars for something that could have been stopped 

in 1992 for ten percent of that investment. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. KANE. That is the prime example. 

Mr. RIBBLE.—could you yield another 30 seconds? 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

73

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you. I just want to follow up on that, because 

the American people, if they were listening to this, would be surprised by this. We have the Forest Service to manage them. Are 

there regulations that are preventing them from taking care of this 

or is it something outside stopping them? Because it defies belief 

that they wouldn’t want to stop it. 

Mr. KANE. Ironically, there are regulations. They can’t operate in 

the natural area. There are regulations that prevented them from 

getting the bulls eye, but when it had spread out, it was a natural 

insect with minimal experience because it always collapsed, but because we provided the right habitat at the right time, a natural insect became quite the crisis. The ironic part, in 1994 the Forest 

Service also had a spray program for the elm span. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you very much for your testimony today. 

Thank you to the panel. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize Mr. 

Walz, the Ranking Member, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for your testimony. It is very insightful and very helpful. 

Dr. McKetta, I was especially interested in your work of this 

linkage issue to regional communities and trying to understand 

that, listening to what you say and what Mr. Schuessler says, you 

had a quote, Dr. McKetta, ‘‘economic power of the national Forest 

Service is unintentional and inept in some of the ways, and it was 

a monolithic entity.’’ My question, I guess, to the both of you is, Dr. 

McKetta, first, do you anticipate with changes to the Forest Service 

as you heard that we would return to the historical patterns and 

those economics? Because in many of these communities, they are 

very undiversified, if what I am hearing is correct, if the Forest 

Service policies have decimated communities based on that, how do 

we—is there a guarantee that if we change those rules that we will 

go back to historical patterns? 

Dr. MCKETTA. In fact, one of the hardest messages that I have 

to give my clients is that the historical pattern is something that 

we will never return to. Particularly if you look in the western 

states, we have seen concentrations of industry, a movement of 

labor away from the forests so that what happens when the forest 

does need labor, it often has to jump those communities. It has to 

jump for equipment and infrastructure as well. The Forest Service 

has always had a capability of measuring the impact of their actions. Although they do not recognize their monopoly powers in 

these small areas, they have modeling that does show the impacts. 

However, we very rarely see that as a primary criterion in the forest planning process. It is only recently that we have started to see 

in the forest restoration activity, and my experience is limited to 

the Northwest where we are starting to see intentional connections 

of stewardship projects to particular groups within the impact 

areas to mutually benefit from those kinds of investments. In order 

to expand that, the Forest Service could expand its activities a little bit but not to its historical levels because it is now constrained 

by things that didn’t exist in 1980. 

Mr. WALZ. That data would be valuable to someone like Mr. 

Schuessler, because I don’t know if I am interpreting right. Is it 

your contention, Mr. Schuessler, that the policies that you deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
74

scribed as a catastrophe that is happening with the Forest Service, 

if they were doing things differently in your mind, you would see 

a resurgence approaching historical economic growth? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Absolutely. A great part of that economic cluster that feeds that industry still exists. It just deteriorates as years 

go by. So a lot of those people have gone to the city, they have gone 

elsewhere, but really, their home is back where they come from, 

and a lot of them would return if the jobs were there. 

Mr. WALZ. Today if you had the magic wand, what three things 

would you do? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. I think the first thing I would do is hire a crisis 

manager to come in and do an assessment of the harvesting that 

could immediately take place. Remember, harvesting is ultimately 

a regenerative treatment. We can’t get the undergrowth if we don’t 

get that old stuff out of the way. 

Mr. WALZ. And you don’t believe they are doing that? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. It doesn’t exist. I was in the Ottawa last 

Thursday, again, not a forester, not a silviculturist, but what I saw 

there, and I have it in one of my exhibits here, I took a shot of row 

of logs that had been cut out of there. It is supposed to be saw log. 

It is a junkyard. It is all overly mature. I am told 20 years ago this 

would have been wonderful saw log, and the problem is, some of 

these things, the pulping mills, they are over 30 inches. They 

should have been kept as a legacy tree because the pulping mills 

won’t even take them. It is literally junk out there. 

Mr. WALZ. What is your belief of why that doesn’t happen? Why 

hasn’t it happened? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Well, for one thing, we are not sustainably 

managing those forests fast enough. I think Dr. Benishek would be 

livid if he saw what I saw last Thursday because it is in his own 

backyard. 

Mr. WALZ. Do you think they are ignoring it or they don’t have 

the right data or they are choosing to make a decision that is detrimental to the local community? What is your assessment of why, 

with their expert opinion, they are not doing that? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. The Forest Service tells us that they are underfunded for putting those regenerative treatments out there, and 

certainly the lawsuits had a lot to do with it. People had—these 

unintended consequences of these lawsuits ended up slowing down 

these timber sales and the treatments couldn’t take place. 

Mr. WALZ. My final question. Dr. McKetta, you talked about 

needing political will. What do you mean by that, the political will? 

Dr. MCKETTA. When I look at the potential versus the actual restoration job, right now the example we have is from eastern Oregon, about 1.4 percent of the forest is being treated. There is difficulty matching the output of the Forest Service to the people who 

would utilize it and finding the labor. If this was expanded and you 

had some kind of a contracting structure which would allow a simultaneous expansion of the private infrastructure because nobody 

is going to invest in something that is uncertain. You need a symbiotic relationship, as Dr. Sample pointed out, in the planning process to look at the Forest Service objectives and intents and the private sector reactions to that so that they can be coordinated to joint 

benefit. 

75

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Schuessler, is this what your crisis manager 

would do? Is that what you envision them doing? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. Well, I thank you all for your testimony, and 

I am grateful for you bringing your expertise to us. 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I thank the Ranking Member, and I 

will proceed with my 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. Kane, within your written testimony, one of the things that 

really jumped out at me is when you said Collins Pine, which owns 

120,000 acres, in the same basic geographic area where the Allegheny National Forest is located, that Collins Pine sustainably harvests the same amount as the Allegheny National Forest on 1⁄4 of 

the acreage, and I was wondering if you could explain that a little 

bit. How is that possible? 

Mr. KANE. It is really interesting. I was actually went to Collins 

Pine to get permission to use that testimony before using it, and 

a little background of Collins Pine. Teddy Collins was one of the 

original timber barons of the Allegheny region, and he didn’t sell 

his land to the National Forest. It is a great story, but they called 

him Ten Percent Teddy, and when the National Forest bought that 

land, they were paying 50¢ an acre, and Teddy Collins wanted 55¢, 

and he by God wasn’t going to sell it. So his land, a lot of his land 

is contained within the boundaries of the Allegheny, and in 1995 

Collins Pine Company obtained FSC certification. Those that aren’t 

familiar with it, it is an international certification to assure that 

lands are managed sustainably both economically, socially and environmentally, and their allowable cut and they are currently harvesting on that land equal to what the Allegheny National Forest 

is producing with a forestry staff of nine people and it is because 

their forest—T.D. Collins didn’t overharvest his forest and the family is really unique. It is interesting if you research them. They are 

great people, and they are very much committed to sustainability, 

and they are currently harvesting that because it is a mature resource, and they are trying to balance their age classes. If you look 

at the Allegheny National Forest in their 1985 plan, they had a desired future forest condition. The 2005 plan is further away from 

that desired future forest condition than what the 1985 plan was, 

and with the reduced harvest, every year they fall farther and farther behind. That is why I use the slides, hopefully that the picture 

would speak 1,000 words showing that my last slide looked very 

similar to what the structure of the forest was in 1927 because it 

is in need of management. 

If we could fund the Allegheny adequately, use the stewardship 

program because it appears that the unfounded lawsuits against 

the Allegheny for their silvicultural activities, they are completely 

unfounded. They have not been significantly successful at all in 

their challenges to the Allegheny. In fact, the Allegheny has prevailed in essentially every lawsuit against the environmental challenge, and if they could just use the money that is available and 

reinvest that money into the Federal system, it could be extremely 

sustainable and support the local economies through the 25 percent 

fund. It doesn’t seem, from a boots-on-the-ground forester, that 

complicated because we have to do it on private ground every day, 

76

but that is the story of Collins Pine. Their forest is mature and 

they are capitalizing on it today to regenerate it in the future. 

There are other detailed challenges there but the big, broad-brush 

approach, it is working for them. It is sustainable, and they are 

being monitored. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you. 

Dr. Sample, outside of the general reauthorization, are there 

ways that we can improve upon stewardship contracting activities 

on Forest Service and BLM lands? 

Dr. SAMPLE. I think there are, and not just on the western lands 

that have been sort of a primary focus here but because they are 

long-term contracts and because they span across a lot of different 

kinds of activities from road maintenance to streamside zone restoration. There are a lot of things that small businesses that are 

typical in these rural communities can do and they can plan their 

activities over the 5 year, 10 year life of that contract so that they 

can continue to invest in capacity. Reauthorizing the Act that 

passed in 2003 would be the way to do that because it spanned 

across the National Forest System also included BLM lands, so I 

think that would be what I would recommend, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Schuessler, if Forest County had a chance to vote again on 

its countywide referendum to turn over its forests to the Federal 

Government, do you think they would do that again? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. I don’t believe that they would. I think it would 

be a dramatically different outcome. 

The CHAIRMAN. You pointed out in your testimony that there 

were major issues such as declining quality of standing timber 

costs, onerous rules. Can you discuss some of the rules that are 

detrimental to the industry and how each may affect different regions? 

Mr. SCHUESSLER. Well, if I understand you correctly, how is the 

management of the National Forest impacting the other regions, 

one thing I can outline for you, I did a chart, and it is one of my 

exhibits there, is we had counties like your gentleman that 

wouldn’t sell to the Federal forest back in the 1920s. They made 

the wiser choice in the long run, and the reason is, as the chart 

reveals—and that is why I really believe that there is $100 million 

within the Chequamegon alone to be had just to the Federal Treasury by managing at the sustainable levels that those counties are 

currently doing. So you take the 11 counties, the 11 top counties 

that don’t have National Forests and you put them head to head 

with the Chequamegon-Nicolet, there are actually fewer acres in 

those top 11 counties but it is about a 3 to 1 margin in return as 

far as revenue coming out of those counties, and no one is clearcutting their forests unless it is a poplar stand or aspen stand 

where that is the kind of regenerative treatment that you do. This 

is sustainable management taking place. 

And I guess the other thing I would add to that is, a couple of 

the counties, for example, wood counties, they really don’t have the 

benefit of the northern hardwoods that we have within the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet. If I had the three counties that have a little 

bit of National Forest like Langlade and Oconto to it, Oneida, it 

changes the number dramatically. It is probably well in advance of 

77

$100 million using those because of those species that exist within 

northern Wisconsin. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. McKetta, based on your studies, do you believe that the Forest Service does an adequate job of accounting for its economic impact on a community by its management decisions, and if not, what 

do they need to consider? 

Dr. MCKETTA. We use a different technique so that we get different answers than they do, but they developed a very useful system called IMPLAN that does the accounting. It is the incorporation of that accounting into the planning process that seems to 

where the breakdown is. 

The CHAIRMAN. With IMPLAN, your testimony indicated that 

that economic model is utilized in NEPA and NFMA planning processes. You know, from your analysis, how are the IMPLAN outputs 

used in decision making? 

Dr. MCKETTA. If we look at what these generate, all of these 

modeling processes give us a physical perturbation or a biological 

perturbation and then we can tell you jobs and income, and our 

system will tell you where the jobs and income. IMPLAN does a 

mix but it doesn’t tell you directly how to increase that or decrease 

that. That is up to the planning process itself. 

One of the things that I have had to tell my clients regularly is 

that jobs and income do not seem to sway the resource allocation 

decision itself. There has been, in my experience in the last year, 

two instances where it appears to have changed, where the job and 

income effect seems to influence the preferred alternative. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, and thank you to all four of you 

on the second panel for your experience and your testimony, coming today to help us, prepare us to make better decisions. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member to make any closing remarks 

he has. 

Mr. WALZ. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on 

assuming this. You are the right person for this job, and I am 

grateful. It is a good first hearing. 

Thank you to all four of you. It is good stuff to think about. You 

are a great resource for us. Please use our office now as things 

come forward to make sure we are being contacted. 

I would just highlight and give a thank you. I don’t know if the 

four of you noticed, but Chief Tidwell came and listened to all of 

your testimony and stayed through this whole hearing. I can tell 

you from being around here, that is an unusual and a very appreciated gesture and it shows his concern. I think it bodes well for 

the future on this. I am optimistic, as I said. Again, this is a legacy 

that is the envy of the world. We get things right. We can get it 

right again, and I am seeing it in my state that it doesn’t have to 

be an either/or. You can manage these forests, you can have economic gain off those. We can look to the future on biomass and 

value-added products, at the same time keeping that legacy of outdoor usage. So thank you all for being part of it. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Ranking Member, and once again, I 

thank all the panelists. You know, the Chief put an emphasis on 

the importance of collaboration, working together, and we have a 

lot of expertise here just in this room, so I know the Subcommittee 

78

is committed to continuing to look at forestry issues, and we all 

share the same goals. So thank you so much to everyone. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from witnesses to any 

question posed by a Member. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and 

Forestry is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

79

SUBMITTED LETTER OF PHIL RIGDON, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL

Hon. GLENN THOMPSON, Hon. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, 

Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, 

and Forestry, 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, 

and Forestry, 

House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C. 

Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Walz:

The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) hereby submits this statement for the Subcommittee’s hearing record of the Subcommittee’s Hearing on ‘‘National Forest Management and its Impacts on Rural Economies and Communities,’’ held Wednesday, 

March 13, 2013. 

The ITC is a thirty-seven year old national association of Indian tribes and Alaska 

Native organizations holding more than 90% of the 18 million acres of tribal 

forestland held in Federal trust, as well as over four hundred thousand forest acres 

in Alaska. The ITC’s purpose is to advance the understanding and management of 

Native American forests and natural resources. Along with other forestland owners, 

tribes and Alaska Natives share a collective stake in the health, utilization and sustainability of our nation’s forests. 

Our forests are an integral part of our homelands. We have cared for them over 

countless generations, relying upon them for cultural, spiritual, and physical sustenance, as well as providing a source for governmental revenue and jobs for the local 

community. A number of tribes have sawmill operations, which can be the last such 

facilities across wide areas. The Federal Government also has fiduciary obligations 

to protect and perpetuate the health and productivity of tribal forest resources. Beyond the borders of our reservations, federally reserved tribal rights and interests 

often apply to neighboring public lands. 

The inability of the Forest Service to manage National Forests has severely impacted the economies and well being of forest-dependent tribal communities. We 

have long expressed concern over administrative paralysis that grips the Forest 

Service and prevents it from providing the care required to maintain the health and 

productivity of the forests. The inability to actively manage National Forests has 

created conditions that severely threaten lands and resources held in trust for Indians by the United States. Potential for catastrophic loss of life and property resulting from disease, insect infestation, invasive species, climate change and wildfire are 

great and growing. The inability of the FS to harvest forest products has contributed 

to the loss of management, harvesting, transportation and processing infrastructure 

essential to our ability to generate income and employment to care for our lands 

and communities. Ecological functions are deteriorating, diminishing tribal opportunities to benefit from tourism or development of enterprises that utilize non-traditional forest products or produce renewable energy. Our ability to practice our cultures, religions, and traditions, to protect water, fish, wildlife, and plants so we may 

continue to exercise reserved rights and to continue our lifeways by fishing, hunting, 

trapping, and gathering foods and medicines is being adversely affected. Tribes 

share many of the forest issues, concerns, and responsibilities that apply to other 

forestland owners. The inability of Federal agencies to manage the forests entrusted 

to their care poses potentially devastating consequences for tribes, states, and other 

neighboring forestland owners, and is prompting the tribes, like the states, to pursue alternatives to address this growing problem. 

On this occasion of the Subcommittee’s hearing on the management of National 

Forests and its impact on local economies, the ITC seeks to provide the Subcommittee with a brief overview and update of tribal perspectives on similar issues. 

These comments seek to introduce the Subcommittee to ITC activities that are now 

still in process and are pending final reports:

(1) A review of impediments to implementation of the Tribal Forest Protection 

Act, which seeks to facilitate tribes performing forest health projects on neighboring Federal public forests;

(2) The ITC Anchor Forest pilot project, which seeks transboundary cooperative 

forest management to preserve forest health, productivity and infrastructure; 

and

(3) Imminent completion of the third statutorily mandated report of an Indian 

Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT–III). IFMAT–III is an indeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
80

pendent comprehensive decadal review of the status of Indian trust forests and 

forestry, and is the only such review of Federal forests. 

(1) The Tribal Forest Protection Act 

The Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA, P.L. 108–278) was enacted after a series 

of devastating wildfires came off of Federal public forestland onto Indian reservation 

land, burning thousands of acres of tribal forests, destroying homes, disrupting vital 

ecological functions, and trapping and killing reservation residents. Tribal lands 

have close to three thousand miles of common boundary with National Forests. The 

TFPA seeks to facilitate tribal efforts to carry out fuels and forest health treatments 

on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands that pose threats to tribal 

trust lands or reserved rights. Tribes propose the projects, and while their acceptance is at the discretion of the local US Forest Service or BLM, the TFPA intends 

that the two agencies give the proposals special consideration. Implementation, however, has been a disappointment. Only six TFPA projects have been successfully implemented on Forest Service lands since the TFPA was adopted in 2004. The consideration of proposals has been extremely slow, often taking years, frustrating both 

the tribes and the Forest Service, which, with its extensive common border with 

tribal land, has received most of tribal TFPA proposals. 

To identify impediments to the Act’s success, the ITC, working in collaboration 

with the Forest Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, has been conducting an investigation into the TFPA’s implementation. The final report is expected out in the next 

few weeks, and while not yet final, it appears that points of difficulty include a lack 

of training on the TFPA and Federal-Indian relationships, inadequate agency funding for tribally proposed projects, frequent staffing turnover, and the cost and legal 

hurdles posed by Federal administrative processes. It is hoped the TFPA report and 

its findings and recommendations can provide information helpful to improving the 

TFPA’s effectiveness. Stewardship Contracting is one of the tools available for TFPA 

projects, and the TFPA provides limited authorities similar to the ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ 

authorities for Colorado and Utah and under consideration for expansion to other 

western states. 

(2) The ITC Anchor Forest Proposal 

The ITC is undertaking a pilot project to explore the concept of Anchor Forests 

as a means to try to maintain healthy working forests on the landscape. Economic 

benefits from harvest of wood products are essential to address forest health problems on Federal lands, sustain stewardship practices on private, tribal, and state 

forests, defray costs of management, and provide environmental services. Anchor 

Forests are intended to provide a foundation to foster collaboration and cooperation 

across ownership boundaries and among diverse interests. For regional planning 

and development, Anchor Forests support the capacity to mount and focus financial 

resources for investments in infrastructure and ecological functions by identifying 

regional needs, opportunities, and priorities. 

Anchor forests are large, contiguous areas of land with four major characteristics:

1. A reasonable expectation for sustainable wood commodity production as a 

major management objective; and

2. Production levels sufficient to support economically viable manufacturing, 

processing, and work force infrastructure within accessible transportation; and

3. Long-term management plans, supported by inventory systems, professional 

staff, and geographic information systems; and

4. Institutional and operational capacity for implementation.

The first two characteristics center on the relationship between commercial activities and the ability to care for forests. Anchor Forests are intended to be capable 

of sustaining production levels of forest products at a scale necessary to maintain 

at least a minimal level of competition (∼200 MMBF) within viable transportation 

distance (∼60 mile radius) of processing facilities. Because of long-term commitments to stewardship on relatively large blocks of land, Indian forests are prime 

candidates to be recognized Anchor Forests. Participation in an Anchor Forest is voluntary. 

The ITC initiated a pilot study to evaluate Anchor Forest prospects with the assistance of the US Forest Service. This ITC/USFS Anchor Forest Pilot Project in 

Washington State is expected to be completed in late 2014, but we will be continually gathering additional information on the Anchor Forest proposal while the Pilot 

Project is underway. The on-going goal is to establish working Anchor Forests and 

evaluate both their creation and operation. Anchor Forests are also being examined 

by a group of independent forestry experts in the third decadal assessment of the 

status of Indian forests and forestry, IFMAT–III. 

81

(3) IFMAT–III 

Section 3111 of the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (P.L. 101–

630, 1990) requires that every 10 years the Secretary of the Interior provide for an 

assessment of Indian trust timber resources and its management, to be conducted 

by a team of independent experts. Each report of an Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT Report) is to include examinations, with findings and recommendations, of eight statutorily identified tasks, and is be delivered to the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Committee on Natural Resources, Indian 

tribes and the Administration. The Interior Department has contracted with the 

ITC for the assembly of the assessment teams and delivery of the reports. The first 

IFMAT Report was completed and delivered in November 1993, the second in November 2003. Congress held oversight hearings on both reports. The third assessment has been underway for more than a year and is expected to be completed this 

June 2013. 

The IFMAT report is the only regularly scheduled independent review required 

for any Federal timber land, and as such is unique and valuable, particularly as the 

reports accrue over time. In addition to its value to the tribes and the Federal trust 

management of Indian forests, the report’s discussion, findings and recommendations include required comparisons to Federal public forests that could cast an informative light on Federal public forest management. 

As Congress considers Federal public forest policy, arrangements that might be 

struck regarding the management or disposition of Forest Service lands with states, 

other governments, or private parties, including such proposals as ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

management authority, leases of Federal public lands, Federal forest land ‘‘trusts’’, 

or any form of Federal land title transfer, must fully recognize and respect tribal 

interests and implications for tribal economies. Fiduciary obligations to protect the 

health and productivity of lands and resources held in trust for Indians by the 

United States must be honored, as must duties to prevent adverse impacts on Tribal 

treaty rights and other reserved rights and interests on Federal public land. 

The ITC’s testimony submitted last Congress to the House Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands for its July 20, 2012 

hearing on H.R. 6089, the Healthy Forest Management Act of 2012, remains relevant today:

‘‘The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is concerned over the potential for H.R. 

6089 to adversely impact tribal rights and interests. While ITC shares concerns 

regarding the need to undertake active management of lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, state assumption of significant Federal administrative and programmatic functions must be 

constrained to ensure that management fully complies with requirements of Federal statutes, regulations, judicial decrees, and fiduciary responsibilities towards 

Indian tribes. Our concerns are multi-faceted, including the need to preserve the 

opportunity for tribes to initiate projects to protect trust properties under the 

Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA, P.L. 108–278, 25 U.S.C. 3115a), protection 

of cultural and archeological sites, respect for the exercise of religious freedoms 

and the conduct of ceremonies, and protection and preservation of tribal treaty 

and other reserved rights.’’

Conclusion 

The ITC urges the Subcommittee, perhaps in conjunction with the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation or Indian 

and Alaska Native Affairs, to hold further hearings on the comprehensive status of 

our nation’s forests, concerns regarding their economic and ecological viability, and 

potential initiatives that are needed to sustain their health and productivity. 

Such a hearing could take testimony from tribes, states, Federal tribal and public 

forest land managers, academic experts, NGOs, and private parties on numerous 

similar or overlapping interests:

• All the parties’ concerns about the declining health of Federal public forests;

• The Tribal Forest Protection Act, current Good Neighbor Authority, Stewardship Contracting, and other management alternatives;

• The Anchor Forest Pilot Project, its similarities to, and differences with, the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, and other Federal, state 

and private collaborative forest management efforts,

• Various land disposition ideas, wherein the idea of Federal forest trusts for 

states could be compared and contrasted to experience with the Federal trust 

for tribal forests, and

82

• The IFMAT–III report, with its detailed examination of the status and management of tribal forests held in Federal trust and its comparisons with Federal 

public and private forests, and other contemporary reports and evaluations on 

Federal forest management.

The ITC is actively engaged in a variety of activities generally parallel to those 

being explored by Federal agencies, states, NGOs, and other parties. We appreciate 

the opportunity to inform the Subcommittee of the ITC’s undertakings, and hope our 

efforts will be of interest and assistance to the Subcommittee as it considers current 

Federal public forestland issues. 

Sincerely,

PHIL RIGDON, President. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Thomas Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 

Questions Submitted By Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 

Pennsylvania 

Question 1. In 2011, you indicated the Forest Service restored 3.7 million acres 

with various treatments across the National Forest System. Can you provide the 

Subcommittee with 2012 numbers? 

Answer. Just over 5 million acres were restored on NFS lands, including watershed, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, range habitat restoration; noxious weed 

treatment, reforestation, timber harvest, and hazardous fuels reduction.

Question 2. Chief Tidwell, can you offer us a detailed breakdown of the cost to 

do a timber sale? Can you explain the cost breakdown and if you believe there are 

any ways to reduce this cost? 

Answer. Typically, timber sale costs at the field level average $100 per thousand 

board foot. This cost includes all costs associated with NEPA (environmental analysis and consultation with other Agencies); timber sale preparation work, including 

unit delineation, marking and cruising; sale appraisal, package preparation, and 

sell; and sale administration. 

This cost, adjusted for inflation, has decreased by 28% since 1998 as we continue 

to explore ways to reduce these costs. In an effort to further reduce these costs, the 

FS’ Forest Management Service Center formed a taskforce to review processes, regulations and policy and develop a set of recommendations to reduce sale preparation 

costs and improve efficiencies.

Question 3. Given ample opportunity, can you explain why USDA did not inform 

the Committees of Jurisdiction that the Secure Rural Schools program is subject to 

the sequester and that states would have to return money that had been previously 

disbursed? 

Answer. The Office of Management and Budget notified Congress of the estimates 

of sequestrable and exempt budgetary resources as required by the Sequestration 

Transparency Act of 2012 on September 14, 2012. The sequestrable budget authority for the Secure Rural Schools, Payments to States accounts are included in the 

Forest Service Permanent Appropriations, Mandatory funds. 

When it became clear that the sequester would apply, we notified Governors and 

Congressional Committees of that fact and the steps needed to implement the sequester. 

Questions Submitted By Hon. Kurt Schrader, a Representative in Congress from Oregon 

Question 1. The Forest Service uses U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED 

standards in the construction of many new buildings and major renovations of existing buildings. Unfortunately, the LEED system, the more widely used green building rating system, discriminates against wood. As the lead agency in the Federal 

Government with expertise in wood products and an understanding of the connection between robust markets and healthy forests has the Forest Service provided 

comments to the USGBC recommending they change their LEED standard to provide due credit to wood as a recognized green building material? 

Answer. Yes. In a March 31, 2011 letter to Forest Service Leaders, Chief Tidwell 

affirmed the Forest Service’s commitment to encouraging sustainable building conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN

11302036.eps
83

struction and emphasized that it is the goal of the Forest Service to increase our 

ability to support the use of sustainably grown, domestically produced wood products, including wood from the National Forests. 

In May 2011, the Forest Service officially changed its policy to include Green 

Globes and other third-party green building certification systems in addition to 

LEED. Green Globes permits certified products from Forest Stewardship Council 

(FSC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), American Tree Farm System (ATFS) 

and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) to be counted towards green building 

certification. The Forest Service’s Southern Research Station currently plans to attain Green Globes certification of a new office and training center planned for Research Triangle Park, NC. 

In December 2011, the Forest Products Laboratory published Science Supporting 

the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in 

Green Building Construction. This report summarizes the scientific findings that 

support the environmental and economic benefits of using wood and wood products 

in green building construction. It addresses a general lack of recognition that wood 

is a renewable resource, helps mitigate climate change, promotes healthy forests 

and is a green construction material. The report also:

• Provides solutions to advance wood as a green building material, including:

» Scientific advancement in the area of life cycle analysis

» Development of new technologies for improved and extended wood use

• Outlines benefits in helping achieve USDA objectives, including:

» Creating domestic jobs

» Bolstering the competitive position and long-term economic stability of the 

wood industry

» Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil

• Offers recommendations on how to accomplish:

» Research and development—life cycle analysis

» Technology transfer—carbon and green building benefits of typical wood 

structures

Forest Service continues to preferentially select wood in building construction 

projects while maintaining its commitment to green building standards. The Agency 

has incorporated a significant amount of LEED-certified wood past construction. 

New agency buildings currently being planned will consider pursuing green building 

rating under GBI Green Globes or other American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)-accredited third party certification systems. 

Examples of prominent wood-use in Forest Service buildings completed after 2011 

include:

• Camino Real Ranger Station, Carson National Forest, Penasco, NM

An 8,500 square feet building that prominently features locally milled wood 

products in the architectural design. Besides reusing wood salvaged from demolition, the building incorporated wood in framing, sheathing, doors and windows, interior and exterior trim. Other wood products incorporated in the building include i-joists, glulam, SIPS, lumber trusses, locally milled columns, 

beams, ceilings and fixtures.

• Wood Products Insect Laboratory, Starkville, MS

A $1.1 million 4,729 square feet project incorporating FSC-certified framing 

lumber, casework, wall and ceiling panels as well as 81⁄4′′ R–33 SIPS panel with 

FSC-certified plywood skin in the roof system. It is estimated that approximately 25% of the building was constructed using wood products.

• Corvallis Forest Science Laboratory and Siuslaw National Forest HQ Office, 

Corvallis, OR

A $4.1 million 9,700 square feet project with wood exterior, wood interior paneling, glulam and wood fixtures.

• Angeles National Forest Supervisor Office, Arcadia, CA

A 24,500 square feet 2 story wood frame building with wood exterior and 

wood trusses in its roof system.

All Forest Service building projects also incorporate green building principles such 

as energy efficient, locally produced wood products, recycling and reuse of building 

materials. As noted above, the Research Triangle Park Forestry Science & Assessment Center, a $1.6 million 8,000 square feet facility planned for FY14 is being deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:57 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-02\80079.TXT BRIAN
84

signed to achieve Green Globes Certification (2 Globes) and feature extensive use 

of wood instead of masonry. Approximately 45% of the building is expected to be 

constructed of wood or wood products. The building design process will also evaluate 

if cross laminated timbers (CLT) are a viable option for constructing this facility.

Question 2. As you are aware, the 9th Circuit Court’s decision against the State 

of Oregon and Tillamook County with respect to forest roads, if allowed to stand, 

would require Federal, state, tribal and private landowners to secure point source 

permits under the Clean Water Act for forest roads. Could you share your views on 

the impact on the U.S. Forest Service—National Forest System—both from a cost 

and forest health perspective, if this decision is allowed to stand? 

Answer. On March 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 

1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC),

No. 11–338, 568 U. S. (2013)). The Court held that the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations do not require National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from logging roads into navigable waters of the United States. In addition, on December 7, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency revised its Phase I stormwater regulations to clarify that 

stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges 

associated with industrial activity and that an NPDES permit is not required for 

these stormwater discharges. With these two actions, stormwater discharges from 

logging roads would not require NPDES permits. 

Questions Submitted By Hon. Gloria Negrete McLeod, a Representative in Congress 

from California 

Question 1. I understand from my California Agricultural Commissioners the U.S. 

Forest Service in every activity that is subject to the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process is very costly and redundant. Can you tell me what the percentage is of NEPA analysis and other environmental documentation costs compared to 

the actual on-the-ground activities that improve forest health for California and the 

nation? 

Answer. We do not track NEPA analysis and other environmental documentation 

costs compared to actual on-the-ground activities. Generally, based on a 2007 study, 

the agency spends approximately $365,000,000 a year on NEPA and related environmental analysis. 

To accomplish more effective vegetation management, the Forest Service is fostering a more efficient National Environmental Planning Act (NEPA) process by focusing on improving agency policy, learning, and technology. These NEPA process 

improvements will increase decision-making efficiencies and public engagement, resulting in on-the-ground restoration work getting done more quickly and across a 

larger landscape. In addition to the Forest Planning rule, the agency has initiated 

a NEPA learning networks project to learn from and share the lessons of successful 

implementation of efficient NEPA analyses. The goal of this effort is to maintain 

decision making transparency for the public and ensure that the Agency’s NEPA 

compliance is as efficient, cost-effective, and up-to-date as possible. Specifically we 

are looking at expanding the use of focused Environmental Assessments (EAs), 

iterative Environmental Impact Statement documentation (EISs), expanding categories of actions that may be excluded from documentation in an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and applying an 

adaptive management framework to NEPA. 

Our landscape-scale NEPA projects will also increase efficiencies. For example, 

our Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project on the Black Hills National Forest is 

implementing a landscape-scale adaptive approach for treating current and future 

pine beetle outbreaks. We are also implementing the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) project in the Southwest, as well as other landscape-scale forest restoration projects such as the 5-Mile Bell project in Oregon. The Draft EIS for the first 

4FRI area covers about one million acres. All of our efforts are aimed at becoming 

more proactive and efficient in protecting the nation’s natural resources, while providing jobs to the American people.

Question 2. Can you tell me if this same NEPA process is used by other resource 

agencies (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife, Army Corp of Engineers)? Are each of these agencies completing their own 

NEPA, separately? In the current year, Congress and the President provided the 

Department $14 million of funds for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program that 

would be used to protect lives and property, while also creating jobs and repairing 

the nation’s infrastructure. We understand that OMB has blocked the distribution 

of the funding to NRCS. 

85

Answer. Generally, the same NEPA process is used by other resource agencies, 

with some variations. Each agency complies with NEPA separately; however in 

cases where there are joint decisions to be made, they cooperate to conduct one environmental analysis. In regards to the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, your inquiry was forwarded to Natural Resource Conservation Service for a response.

Question 3. I understand that in Lake County, Oregon the U.S. Forest Service has 

joined with BLM to streamline the NEPA process for multiple Federal agencies to 

conduct multiple activities. I congratulate you for such endeavors. Can you tell me 

about other activities in California and throughout the nation that the U.S. Forest 

Service is engaged with that continue to streamline the NEPA processes? 

Answer. The Forest Service is continuously improving the NEPA process. Current 

efforts include technology applications to speed public comment analysis, project file 

management, publishing environmental documents to the internet, and managing 

mailing lists. We have focused our NEPA training on key skills for managing the 

process, including team management and decision making. We are also improving 

our documentation in environmental assessments and environmental impact statements (EIS). Recently, an EIS was prepared on the Black Hills National Forest to 

make a decision on treating bark beetles on over 250,000 acres (3 to 6 times larger 

than typical EISs on the Black Hills NF).

Æ