[Senate Hearing 107-930]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-930
DECLINE OF OAK POPULATIONS IN SOUTHERN STATES CAUSED BY PROLONGED
DROUGHT AND THE RED OAK BORER INSECT INFESTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION AND RURAL REVITALIZATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 5, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-218 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
MAX BAUCUS, Montana MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
ZELL MILLER, Georgia PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BEN NELSON, Nebraska WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE, Minnesota MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Mark Halverson, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
David L. Johnson, Chief Counsel for the Minority
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Keith Luse, Staff Director for the Minority
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Decline of Oak Populations in Southern States Caused by Prolonged
Drought and the Red Oak Borer Insect Infestation............... 01
----------
Thursday, September 5, 2002
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., a U.S. Senator from Arkansas,
Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural
Revitalization,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.............. 01
Carnahan, Hon. Jean, a U.S. Senator from Missouri................ 04
Crapo, Hon. Michael, a U.S. Senator from Idaho................... 03
----------
WITNESSES
Thompson, Tom, National Forest System Deputy Chief, accompanied
by Charles Richmon, Supervisor of the Ozark-St. Francis
National Forest................................................ 06
Panel I
Crouch,``Jim'' James R., on behalf of the Ouachita Timber
Purchasers Group, Ozark-St. Francis Renewable Resource Council,
Mark Twain Timber
Purchasers Group, and the American Forest and Paper Association 21
Krepps, Robert L., Administrator, Forestry Division, Missouri
Department of Conservation..................................... 23
Shannon, John T., State Forester of Arkansas, on behalf of the
National Association of State Foresters........................ 17
Simon, Scott, Director of Conservation, Arkansas Chapter, The
Nature
Conservancy.................................................... 19
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission.............................. 67
Crapo, Hon. Mike............................................. 36
Crouch, ``Jim'', James R..................................... 78
Hutchinson, Hon. Tim......................................... 47
Krepps, Robert L............................................. 84
Ozark Woodland Owners Association, Inc....................... 54
Shannon, John T.............................................. 70
Simon, Scott................................................. 73
Thompson, Tom................................................ 42
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Project Proposal; Restoring Forest Ecosystem Health in the
Wildland/Urban Interface on the Bayou Ranger District -
Ozark-St. Francis National Forest.......................... 88
Senate Agriculture Subcommittee to Hold Hearing Examining Oak
Tree Mortality, News from U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln..... 109
DECLINE OF OAK POPULATIONS IN
SOUTHERN STATES CAUSED BY
PROLONGED DROUGHT AND THE RED OAK BORER INSECT INFESTATION
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural
Revitalization, of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in
room SR-328-A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Blanche L.
Lincoln, Chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present or submitting a statement: Senators Lincoln,
Hutchinson, and Crapo.
STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL REVITALIZATION, AND A U.S.
SENATOR FROM
ARKANSAS
Senator Lincoln. The Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on
Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization will be called
to order.
I would like to thank all of you for coming this morning to
talk about the forest health problem that is really ravaging
the entire Ozark Highlands. As I mentioned earlier, the fact
that the House Committee is having a hearing this very morning
as well, with Secretary Veneman and Norton testifying about the
health of our forests is indicative of the fact that we do have
a problem and that people are beginning to see in their own
States some of the incredible concerns that we have over the
health of our forest.
Again, I would like to thank all of you all for joining us.
Senator Carnahan, we are delighted that you are here, as well.
I am going to begin with my opening statement and then pass
it over to Senator Crapo. Thanks for coming, Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Lincoln. I appreciate all that you do.
The health of this Nation's forest, both private and
public, is in the forefront of our minds. We have the seemingly
annual fires throughout the West, forest insects and disease
outbreaks throughout the Nation, and now the prospect of losing
all of the oaks in the Ozarks. The situation is particularly
pronounced in my home State of Arkansas and throughout the
Ozark Highlands of Missouri and Oklahoma.
Growing up in Arkansas and traveling through the Ozark
Mountains, I have become accustomed to seeing a very vibrant
oak and pine forest. However, we are now finding large brown
bare patches developing among the trees, an all too vivid
indication of the epidemic of oak decline and the mortality
sweeping through the Ozark Highlands.
Oak decline is a natural occurrence in older forest or in
areas where trees are stressed by things such as old age,
overpopulation of the forest, poor soil conditions, or the
effects of several years of severe drought. Under normal
conditions, oak decline is not necessarily fatal to the trees
or to the forest.
However, these conditions have allowed insects such as the
red oak borer to flourish throughout the forest and has led to
an epidemic of oak mortality throughout our forests. In fact,
many estimates now suggest that potentially up to one million
acres of red oaks have been affected in the Ozark Highlands,
and it is important to note that this epidemic has not been
long in coming. It was only first discovered in the late
1990's. I am concerned that this epidemic will lead to a
complete loss of red oak from the Ozark Highlands and cause
long-term changes to the health of the forest ecosystem.
It is also important to remember that the epidemic has not
been limited to just public land. Private forest landowners and
homeowners throughout the Ozarks face the same problem.
The past several years of extremely dry summer conditions
have weakened trees throughout our region. We are going to
discuss this morning the extent of this epidemic in Arkansas as
well as what, if anything, we can do to mitigate the effect
this is having on our forest ecosystem.
Left unchecked, this epidemic of oak mortality could
completely rob the Ozark Highlands of our oak forest and have
effects on everything from our timber industry to forest
tourism, wildlife populations, as well as causing extreme fire
danger. We all too readily remember the fuel left on the floor
of our forest after our ice storm of a couple of years ago.
The Arkansas delegation has worked together before to
respond to disasters within our forest and I expect this to
continue as we address this new epidemic. Most recently, we
worked to gain directly finding, as well as an exemption from
NEPA, to aid mitigation efforts following that massive ice
storm I just mentioned.
We are also in the midst of debating the Interior
Appropriations Bill on the floor this week and one of the
topics being debated is that of the forest health and how to
address and hopefully mitigate against the problem of fire,
insect, and disease. Many of us here have worked for some time
on drafting provisions that would hopefully allow us to quickly
address these problems and I hope we will be successful.
I also believe that the president echoed this sentiment
during August and it is good to have the Administration's full
support in this endeavor.
Through our witness testimony this morning I hope to gain a
full grasp of the extent of oak mortality in the Ozarks, what
the full effects of this epidemic will be, as well as what can
be done to mitigate against it.
I would like to yield now to our ranking member on the
subcommittee, a good friend and colleague both in the House and
here in the Senate, and someone I have certainly enjoyed
working with, to make any opening remarks. Senator Crapo.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO. A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator Lincoln.
I appreciate your holding this hearing and certainly agree
with your comments about the need we have to address forest
management in a proper manner and the opportunity we will have
in the next few days to do so.
I appreciate your hearing this hearing. Oak mortality is an
important discussion and it is timely to be discussing the
forest health, as you said, as the Senate considers the
Interior Appropriations Bill, and the repercussions of an
unmanaged forest.
I just want to take a few moments to mention the concerns
we have in Idaho. Although it will not be with the same
species, this is a very similar issue, just to show that this
is not just a local issue, one part of a regional issue, one
part of the country.
Oak decline in the Ozarks Highlands reflects many of the
problems we face across this country. The contribution to the
fuel load, the impact it will have on recreational
opportunities, the effect on wildlife and the repercussions to
local economies are all repercussions of the oak.
We do not have the red oak in Idaho and so we do not have
the red oak borer in Idaho. We do have the Douglas fir and the
Douglas fir bark beetle and the mountain pine beetle for the
pines. The outbreaks of these insect infestations follow much
the same course as the red oak borer.
In Idaho, we went from 33,000 acres affected in 1996 to
122,000 acres in 2000. The trees stressed by drought, root
disease, and other insects increased the susceptibility of even
healthy trees to these beetles, which then leads to epidemic
populations.
In another similarity, loss of the Western white pine and
the risk that it poses to Idaho's forest is a potential outcome
with the red oaks in the Ozarks. Like red oaks, the Western
white pine is an economically, environmentally desirable
species. The white pine, which by the way is Idaho's State
tree, once dominated the forest ecosystems in the Northwest.
Passive and inactive management have resulted in a dramatic
decline in the abundance of this pine.
In 70 years, we have lost 90 percent of this important
species. The combination of factors that decimated the white
pine has resulted in a species shift where the Douglas fir and
other less fire resistant species have increased in abundance.
This shift to a more densely populated species, compounded by
the overgrowth, has resulted in a change to the ecosystem that
lends itself to increasingly high risks.
The United States has seen that the loss of the Western
white pine and its replacement by less desirable species has
had on the economic impact in rural communities. Wildlife loses
habitat and increased catastrophic wildfires, and similar
outcomes could be the result of the decline of the oaks in the
South.
I want to show a map just very quickly. This map is 2 years
old. The red on this map is probably more intense today, if a
current map were to be provided. This Forest Service risk map
from 2000 shows that 70 million acres of forest land are at
risk of mortality from insect and disease. It is more
distressing when you consider the fact that about one-third of
our nation's land is composed of forest, as is shown by the
gray. Yet, that red is taking over and is growing every year.
This is an issue that touches Americans in every walk of
life. Already this year, we've seen 6.3 million acres affected
by wildfires and the suppression costs are reaching $1 billion.
This devastation follows the 2,000 fire season where 8.4
million acres burned with a suppression cost of $1.36 billion.
Sadly, these costs and these outcomes were not unexpected.
Fires are a natural part of a healthy ecosystem and provide
numerous benefits. In an unhealthy forest, these fires can burn
with an intensity and size that is destructive with all of the
impacts that we have previously discussed. They also present a
significant safety risk and cause economic loss that hits most
communities very, very hard.
Madame Chairman, I have more that I would like to submit
for the record, but I would just like to tell you that I look
forward to an interesting discussion with regard to these
witnesses that we have today and hopefully gain a better
perspective on the level of the problem we have.
I can certainly tell you that we, in Idaho and in the
Pacific Northwest, though we do not have the same species and
the same insects, certainly share your concerns and hope that
we will be able to work together to find a common solution to
the problem for the entire country.
[The prepared statment of Senator Crapo can be found in the
appendix on page 36.]
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Without a doubt,
we all recognize that not only do we have forest health issues
in Arkansas but Idaho, Montana and California have some real
difficult problems that they are going through.
We are hoping that today's hearing will bring to light not
only the critical problems that our forests across the country
are facing, but some of the ideas and the ways that we can look
to mitigate some of those problems.
Senator Carnahan has requested to testify before the
committee this morning, and we are delighted that she is here.
She and I are both aware of this problem that this epidemic has
caused in both of our states.
We are very pleased to have you before the committee,
Senator Carnahan.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN CARNAHAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Carnahan. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman, and
I thank you for your leadership in convening this hearing, and
certainly Senator Crapo for his words and his commitment to
this problem, as well.
As you know, oak decline is a serious issue in Missouri. I
want to thank you for inviting Robert Krepps, Missouri's Chief
Forester, to testify today. He has been working hard to manage
oak decline in Missouri for many years. I believe his testimony
will be valuable to this subcommittee.
Although we cannot outwit Mother Nature and halt oak
decline, by working together we can at least mitigate its
impact. Mismanagement of our forests many decades ago is the
prime culprit behind the thousands of dead trees that we see
today.
Fortunately, we now know how to prevent the mistakes of the
past. A diversity of trees is integral to good forest
management in Missouri's Ozarks. Although beautiful and stately
in their own right, it is clear that oaks must share the forest
with other species of trees.
Today's foresters and responsible land stewards have the
capability to manage our woodlands in a sustainable and
profitable manner. When they do, wildlife, jobs and natural
beauty are all protected.
Beyond learning from the past, we must also plan for the
future. Action taken today will determine what our forest will
look like at the turn of the century. A comprehensive and
immediate response to oak decline is essential to Missouri and
other states' suffering.
I am pleased that several government agencies and other
stakeholders have taken important steps to access and respond
to the decline. We must make sure that public agencies and
private stewards of the land share best management practices.
The need for a coordinate response between State, local and
Federal agencies working closely with the private sector cannot
be overemphasized.
In Missouri the Department of Interior, the U.S. Forest
Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, the Missouri Department of
Conservation, and several other agencies manage land affected
by oak decline. In addition, 85 percent of Missouri's 14
million forested acres are owned by the private sector. We must
acknowledge and cultivate the private sector that is so
essential in forest management.
Government agencies must also be a party to and not a
hindrance in these efforts. Missouri's 500 sawmills and over
34,000 jobs that depend on the wood industry are now being
jeopardized by oak decline. Sadly, a majority of these jobs are
in counties that do not share in the prosperity of the 1990's.
Many of these counties have unemployment rates among the
highest in the State. We must do all we can to protect these
jobs in our rural areas. This hearing is certainly an excellent
step.
My home is in the Missouri Ozarks, an area that is
unparalleled in beauty and serenity. In fact, as I look at
these photos displayed here today, I feel very much at home.
They could have been taken anywhere on the land on which I live
in Phelps County, Missouri.
Our stately forests are blemished by thousands of acres of
dead oak trees that mar the landscape. The decline of our oaks
threatens one of Missouri's most vibrant industries, tourism.
Families from across Missouri and the world vacation in
Missouri because of our scenic outdoors. They come to enjoy our
clean streams, our lush forests, and abundant recreational
opportunities. Sportsmen rely on the acorn-lined forest of the
Missouri Ozarks to supply food for deer and turkey and game
species.
Declining oak populations will almost surely lead to
profound changes in wildlife populations. Responding to and
changes in wildlife population is key to Missouri's tourism
industry and rural lifestyle. Thousands of Missourians rely on
tourism dollars for their livelihood. Tourism contributes $12.5
billion to Missouri's economy every year. These jobs, like
those in the wood industry, must be protected.
I look forward to reviewing the testimony of today's
hearing and I hope that the experts that you have convened will
help us to understand what must be done to promote the long-
term health of our forests. Missouri's picturesque and
bountiful forests are among our State's most precious
resources. Their protection is worthy of our best efforts.
Again, thank you, Madame Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify today.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Senator Carnahan. We appreciate
you bringing not only the interest of the people of Missouri,
but your personal experiences as well. That is very important.
I know that the committee welcomes you behind the dais, if
you would like to join us, if you have time that permits.
Senator Carnahan. I may have to go, but thank you.
Senator Lincoln. Absolutely. We appreciate it. Thank you
very much, Senator Carnahan.
Senator Carnahan mentioned there are so many different
aspects of how this epidemic affects our forests and other very
important things that come from our forests, not just the
forest itself but the acorn crops and the wildlife that are
supported. Even those that are passing through. I know in
Arkansas we support a tremendous population of neo-tropical
migratory birds that come through and use our forests as a
stopping over place.
We are happy to welcome our first panel of witnesses this
morning. We begin with Tom Thompson, who is the Deputy Chief of
the U.S. Forest Service and Charles Richmond, who is the
Supervisor of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest in
Arkansas.
I understand that Mr. Thompson will deliver the oral
testimony and then both of you will be available to answer
questions; is that correct? Great. We look forward to your
testimony. Mr. Thompson.
STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM DEPUTY CHIEF,
ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES RICHMOND,
SUPERVISOR OF THE OZARK-ST. FRANCIS NATIONAL
FOREST
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Madame Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before
you this morning. I am Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief of the
National Forest System, Forest Service. I am here today to
provide the Administration's comments on the oak mortality
situation in Arkansas.
Accompanying me is Charles Richmond who is the Forest
Supervisor on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest.
Certainly, as has already been spoken of this morning, the
health of some of our forest and rangelands are deteriorating
and they are stressed to the point that insects, disease and
wildfire kill literally millions of acres of trees each year.
In response, Federal, State, tribal, and local governments
are making concerted efforts to restore our forests and
rangelands to healthy conditions. These efforts include
reforestation, restoring fish and wildlife habitat,
revegetating riparian areas, thinning, and prescribed burning.
Additionally, the President's Healthy Forest Initiative
will further existing efforts and establish a framework for
protecting communities and the environment through local
collaboration and restoration projects. The Initiative would
provide for active forest management, including removal of
diseased and infested trees, thinning of forests to reduce fire
risk, biomass removal and utilization and other tools that will
meet long-term ecological, economic, and community objectives.
The President's Healthy Forest Initiative will also help to
expedite active forest management activities which are often
complicated by procedural delays and litigation. It will allow
us to effectively maintain healthy forests and address forest
health problems, including oak mortality in the Ozark/Ouachita
Highlands in Arkansas, and do this in a timely manner.
Forest Service surveys indicate that oak mortality has
impacted well over 1 million acres of oak forest in the Ozark/
Ouachita Highlands of Arkansas. Factors such as advanced age,
steep mountain slopes, poor rocky soil conditions, and
overstocked forests set the stage for oak mortality. Drought
and defoliation add additional stresses to the trees.
Secondary agents such as insects and disease attack highly
stressed trees that eventually succumb and die. In Arkansas'
episode of oak mortality, several years of extreme drought and
unprecedented population of red oak borer beetles contribute to
that problem. The mortality is not associated with the pathogen
that causes sudden oak death that was originally found in
California and Oregon.
Preliminary data from the Ozark/St. Francis National Forest
suggests that as many as half of the red oaks on National
Forest System lands are currently dead or dying. The increased
amount of dead trees results in excessive fire danger,
increased threats to life and property, and compounds other
forest health problems.
The Ozark/St. Francis National Forest in Arkansas is
severely impacted with over 300,000 acres of the forest's 1.2
million acres affected. The Ouachita National Forest in
Arkansas, the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri are
affected as well, but to a lesser degree.
The impact on private lands, which constitute 78 percent of
the forested area in the interior highlands, is thought to be
less severe and much more difficult to estimate.
Mortality of Northern red, black, and Southern red oaks
became particularly evident in 1999 following 2 years of severe
drought. White oaks, hickories, and other species are affected
as well, but to a lesser degree.
A third year of drought in 2000 greatly made the problem
more complex and mortality increased. Oak borer populations
have exploded to unprecedented levels in the past 5 years. In
2001, limited sampling in Arkansas found an average of over 400
insects per tree. These numbers are vastly greater than any
numbers previously recorded, which were four to six insects per
tree.
You can see by the oak bore here how devastating that can
be, when they get that number of trees.
Oaks are extremely important to this part of the country.
Ecologically, the oaks are a source of food for squirrels and
bear and turkey and deer. A lot of non-game animals, small
mammals and birds depend on acorns for food.
Economically, the red oaks are a highly desirable hardwood
species used for furniture, cabinets, flooring and other
building projects. Widespread loss of red oaks could severely
impact the social fabric of the Ozark Highlands through job
losses, reduced game populations, scenic quality, and tourism
opportunities.
According to forest inventory data in the recent Ozark/
Ouachita Highlands assessment, 25 percent of the board foot
volume in the interior highlands is red oak, a total volume of
something like 13.8 billion board feet. In timber terms alone,
the dollar value of trees at risk exceeds $1.1 billion.
We have a strategy in place that has been worked on from an
interagency standpoint, the State and Federal organizations.
That strategy includes five key components: public safety,
public awareness, inventory assessment, management strategies
for prevention and suppression and restoration and research.
In looking at the situation overall, I guess the short-term
challenges are certainly to provide for the safety of forest
users and create a healthy environment for future forests to
grow and flourish. Oaks thrive in a forest that is managed, one
that is free from excessive fuels, that incorporates natural
and manmade activities in order to sustain healthy ecosystems.
The long-term challenges that we face include development
and implementation of strategic management actions founded on
sound science that will result in healthy, resilient forests
for generations to come. We are working to address both the
short and the long-term challenges and will be able to do so
even more effectively and efficiently under the President's
Healthy Forest Initiative.
This concludes my statement and Mr. Richmond and I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found in the
appendix on page 42.]
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, your complete
statement will be included in the record. We appreciate it very
much, and we appreciate your service.
I want to particularly say how much we appreciate what Mr.
Richmond does in Arkansas. He does a fine job and he is great
to work with.
In your long service in the Forest Service, Mr. Thompson,
have you ever seen a forest health issue as bad. Is this oak
mortality epidemic evident in other parts of the country? How
are they similar?
Mr. Thompson. Well, it is certainly a classic example of
all the factors coming together at the wrong time. The age of
trees, site conditions, and the extreme drought and the
conditions brought on tremendous explosion in populations. It
is not uncommon when you get a very mature forest, and one that
is not able to withstand the kind of stress that exists here.
Certainly, in the National perspective, this red oak borer,
but more importantly just the entire oak decline, is one that
is tremendously troubling. It is very similar, however, to the
stress that Senator Crapo was alluding to with regard to
whether it is the mountain pine beetle or the spruce bark
beetle or the Douglas fir, where you get conditions where trees
are stressed, you get drought, and you get very mature trees,
you get these kinds of outbreaks.
Senator Lincoln. When I first came into Congress in 1992,
we both came into the House in the same year, in 1992, I
remember one of my first official tours of the national forest
in Arkansas, and I took my father along, who knew every tree
and every trail and every inch of that forest. When we got back
I asked him, I said did they show us all of it? Did they show
us everything we needed to see?
He said well, they showed you most of it. There are a few
things that you did not see that you probably should have. He
said but what so many people do not understand is that the
forest, although it is beautiful and there are some healthy--
and as you mentioned the age of the trees--some old stately
trees, he said a hundred years ago this was pastureland. If you
want to keep it healthy and you want to keep the forest growing
and healthy, and you want to maintain those stately trees and
you want to maintain them consistently, you must manage the
forest.
That is something that is important for us to look at at
this point, as we are seeing the age of these trees
consistently reaching the same situation. Like you said, almost
a textbook situation of all of these conditions coming together
at one time. We have to be very cognizant of that.
The severe oak decline, it is not just a disaster waiting
to happen.
Over a million acres of red oaks will be impacted just
during this year throughout just Arkansas and Missouri.
Can you give us an indication of how the National Forest
Service, on a national level, is going to make oak mortality a
priority?
Mr. Thompson. The challenge that we have at this stage is
the state of the forest and the epidemic is so advanced and so
great, the most important thing that we can do is provide the
public safety, to make sure that people are aware of the
problem and understand the problem, to look at management
strategies that will allow us to treat those acres where we can
do removal of trees. The area is so large that it is obvious
that you cannot treat it all.
Then there are some research questions that need to be
answered and continue to look at these factors and how they
interplay. Certainly it takes a tremendous amount of
interagency cooperation and work. Prioritizing our efforts,
though, our principal focus is on public safety, making sure
that we remove those trees that present a hazard to
campgrounds, homes, highways, trails, those kinds of things.
The trees, when they get that kind of riddling in them, are
very weakened and certainly do pose a threat.
In the longer term, the approach that we have to take, and
this is not unique to Arkansas but across the country, is to
remember the role of management and active management in the
treatment of our forests. We probably have better science,
better information, more knowledge and more professional
ability to do active management then we ever have done, and do
it in an environmentally sensitive way.
Where we have failed to do that over time, or conditions
have extremely worsened, we find ourselves behind the curve.
You just cannot catch up with it in a couple of years. What
happened in the last four or 5 years in Arkansas is an example
that we should learn from and we should be looking for places
where we can prevent that from happening.
At this stage, what we can do is just basically deal with
the situation as best we can and try to restore oak where we
can, and make sure that in the longer term it is a part of the
ecosystem.
Senator Lincoln. Well, I go back to my first question, and
that is have you ever seen anything that has happened as
rapidly or as quickly? Your answer there indicates that these
things have happened very quickly and it is something that we
have to make sure that we do not let happen again.
Mr. Thompson. Tremendous impact, tremendous devastation.
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Richmond, just a couple of very quick
questions. When were the conditions of the oak decline first
detected on our national forest?
Mr. Richmond. About 1999, we noticed that we had
approximately about 20,000 acres and we called our
entomologists and experts in and we talked a lot about oak
borers and oak mortality. At the time, we thought that we would
continue to lose some trees but it would not be this
significant.
In 2001, 2 years later, we had over 500,000 acres on the
Ozark National Forest. As you said, it did spread very quickly.
Hopefully, we are sort of peaked out. We have had a very wet
summer and hopefully we can get around this thing in the next
few years and at least slow it down. We probably can.
Senator Lincoln. If we assume that the root problem is too
many trees per acre, what do we need to actually restore the
ecosystem to a healthy condition? What progress do you think
that we could expect on that?
Mr. Richmond. As Deputy Chief Thompson mentioned, we do
have a strategy that has five elements. I can prioritize those
very quickly for you that will answer that question.
No. 1 is the public education. We just have to have public
acceptance for management on the Ozark National Forest. We will
spend a lot of time during the next few years working with our
public, taking them on tours, showing them the situation and
what we plan to do. That is critical.
Safety, we have 1,800 miles of roadways that have thousands
of standing dead oak trees that will fall across those roads,
will be a safety hazard. We have hundreds of miles of
recreation trails, dozens of recreation campgrounds, picnic
areas. We are going to work very hard in the next few years to
try to take those trees down and reduce that safety hazard.
Then probably more to answer your question, our management
strategies to restore the oak forest. There are a number of
things that we must do in the next few years. One is to remove
some of those standing dead oak trees out in the forest to
allow light to the ground, so that oaks can grow and replace
the dead stands.
Then thinnings. We need to get out ahead of this epidemic,
out in areas where we do not have oak borer, and thin those
forests so they are healthier and can withstand an insect
attack. They can compete better for moisture and be healthier.
We have to do those thinnings out in the areas that are not
affected now.
We also need to get our age class distribution out on the
forest more evenly distributed. Currently we have 60 percent of
our forest that is 80 years or older. That is not a healthy
situation. We need some more of the forest in earlier age
classes.
Prescribed fire is a tool that we have to increase greatly
on the forest. Currently, we are burning about 30,000 acres a
year. That probably needs to be up around the 100,000 acre a
year mark, so that we can reduce the competition of those other
species so that the oaks can get a head start and replace those
dead trees.
Then we are going to have several thousand acres of actual
planting of red oaks that we will have to do, although that is
very costly and we will not be able to do that except on the
more productive sites.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you very much. Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln.
Mr. Thompson, in your testimony you indicated that there
was something like a billion dollars in value at risk here in
the oak forests. You also, both of you, have stress the
importance of active management in the forest. Senator Lincoln
indicated that one of the problems is too many trees per acre.
The question that I have with regard to that is there are
groups who believe--at least out in the West, and I assume they
would have the same position in the South, that we should not
do anything in the forest, that we should not log the forest
period.
The question I have is does this notion of active
management or the management strategy that you are talking
about for the red oak, does it include logging?
Mr. Thompson. Most certainly. From the standpoint of
removing, whether it is for fire or for insect and disease, and
they are many times, unfortunately, connected. When you have
insect and disease, you have dead material and then you have a
fire hazard which is just much greater than it was before. If
you do not remove material in some way, you always will have
the fire risk, and that is virtually across the entire country.
Getting the amount of biomass down so that when you do have
a fire, a natural fire occurs, that the intensity of that fire
does not damage the site so that you lose productivity over
decades and decades and decades, you have to remove the amount
of material that is on the ground.
That, in turn, adds to what the Forest Supervisor was
talking about, with regard to allowing the diversity of ages to
come in, which hence creates more of a self-protective
mechanism in the forest, to where younger trees withstand the
attacks. You may lose some old trees, but there is not enough
old trees that it carries the kind of epidemic that we are
seeing here.
Those kinds of systems are the same in pine stands all
across the West. It is using the tools that we have,
recognizing that you are not going to do it every place.
Certainly where you have high value for scenic, high value for
harvesting of a product where we have very suitable ground, it
is very important to manage with all of the tools that you
have. Mechanical treatment, whether it be commercially or
through stewardship contracts and other ways, is an approach
that we need to take.
Senator Crapo. Does the extent of the harvesting or the
thinning that you were talking about here, for management
purposes, for the health of the forest and for the safety
concerns, does that allow for viable economic benefit to the
private sector in terms of those who would come in and conduct
the thinning and the management activities? In other words, is
there another objective that can be achieved here? Or are we
talking about such a small scale that it really does not matter
economically?
Mr. Thompson. When you look at these factors, the key is a
sustained program, a sustained program. That is the key as far
as prevention, as well. It does not do any good to throw a lot
of effort to it for a few years and then let it get out of
balance again.
From an economic standpoint, the tools that we have and the
needs that we have to use people that can remove material and
make a marketable product out of it, you have to sustain that
over a long period of time. If you cannot come up with a
program that goes on for years and years and years, then you
have not got a viable program or a solution.
You lose the capability to treat, too. There is only so
many ways to do it and you need to sustain those folks that do
that work.
Senator Crapo. In the current debate that we are having
here in Washington, there are some who are saying well OK, if
we need to get in and do some management in the forests, then
we should do it just in the areas around the urban communities
to protect them from the fire risk.
I personally believe that that ignores the much broader
issues that we are talking about here, but I would like to get
your opinion on that. This issue is not just limited to areas
close to urban communities, is it?
Mr. Thompson. The insect and disease problems certainly do
not. From a fire standpoint, obviously there are priority areas
where you can treat, through that wildland/urban interface. The
issue still goes beyond that. If you have to prioritize where
you would treat first, certainly for fire purposes, it would be
in the wildland/urban interface.
Again, there are other issues as well. Watersheds, huge
watersheds and domestic watersheds go quite a long ways from
the wildland/urban interface and are very important to protect,
as well.
Senator Crapo. I would like to take time to ask one more
question, if I could.
Senator Lincoln. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. About 2 years ago I went into an Idaho
forest with our forest supervisor and they showed me an
infestation of several different things. There was an insect
infestation as well as a disease that was hitting the trees. In
this particular section of the forest, the Forest Service was
proposing some thinning activities that would need to be
conducted to help address these disease and insect infestation
problems.
A thinning sale proposal was put forward and went through a
very extensive public process where concerns were brought
forward, the proposal was modified several times. Then it was
let out. It was then immediately challenged in court.
I went into that same forest with the forest supervisor
again just a month or so ago. Nothing has happened there. The
forest is in even worse condition, it is more of a red spot on
this map now.
What happened was that the litigation was brought by people
who did not participate in the whole process, as the whole plan
and proposal was being developed and put together. Issues were
raised that had never been raised before.
About 90 percent of the proposal was approved by the court,
but there were a few procedural things that were really--the
Forest Service was willing to drop them to get on with it, but
they were sent back to handle. They just decided to drop the
whole thing because now it was too late.
Even though there pretty much was no problem, even after
the court review, with what they were doing, the management in
this particular case did not occur and the forest is now being
lost. There are things we are going to be able to do hopefully,
but they do not know really what to do because they are going
to get in the same cycle again.
My question is is there a solution that you can see to this
problem? What can we, as policymakers, do to help us get past
this litigation paralysis that we face today?
Mr. Thompson. The President's Healthy Forest Initiative
will identify a number of those areas legislatively. There also
are a number of things that we can do administratively.
Ultimately it comes back to again what the Forest Supervisor
was talking about with regard to public awareness and
understanding of these issues.
We are in a world where choices need to be made and there
are consequences to those choices. The fire season of this year
and the past year, as we have seen the consequences of some
choices that were made that maybe were not the right choices.
We have had devastating losses. We have had loss of life,
tremendous loss of resource and tremendous loss of capability
to product clean water and wildlife and recreation.
The solution is building the public awareness and support
for active management. The national forest public lands across
this country, whether they be State, Federal or local, as I
said before, we have tremendous scientific knowledge. We have
tremendous capability professionally to manage. It is a time to
try to pull together and understand that in the public
interest, some choices need to be made. Active management is
one of those.
Building the kind of support that we need is going to take
some time, rebuilding some trust, and understanding the
consequences. In Arkansas, you have a very visible evidence of
the consequences of not being aware of the situation overall,
and everybody looking at it and loving the beauty for years but
not recognizing the consequences of not doing something in some
places.
Obviously, disturbance elements are going to continue in
our forest. There are disturbance systems. With the knowledge
we have, there are things we can do about it. That is what the
Healthy Forest Initiative is all about, and we certainly look
forward to working with the Senate and the House in trying to
come to some better futures I guess, and better approaches in
how we deal with the very problem that you have explained.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Senator Crapo.
Just to build on his question, I have read through the
President's Healthy Forest Initiative and many of the points
that you make and that are made in that initiative are points
that have been championed by many of us here in Congress for
some time. Knowing how long it does take us to get legislation
passed here, we do not work at breakneck speeds oftentimes.
You talk about parts of the initiative that the
Administration can accomplish without the passage of new laws.
I am assuming you mean this educational process, of better
awareness that can be brought to the public. How much of that
has been started? Really what parts of that will help our oak
mortality problem in the Ozarks? I mean, are we too far gone?
What type of educational initiatives have you started and how
quickly are they going to be in place?
Mr. Thompson. In addition to the education, there are a lot
of other things we can do administratively that will help with
the problem.
Senator Lincoln. Without requiring us to pass laws.
Mr. Thompson. Right, but there are elements on both sides
that would be helpful. Administratively, looking at
streamlining of our procedures and the Chief of the Forest
Service spoke up here months ago about process, predicament and
how we can move through some of those process. Through
streamlined processes on an interdepartmental interagency
manner, so that we do not spend all of our money and all of our
energy just going in circles on process, whether that be for a
National Environmental Policy Act, trying to figure out ways to
do consultation on the Endangered Species Act better and more
efficiently, looking at ways to streamline those processes are
probably some of the greatest ones.
One of the other areas that we can do better at is
improving our ability to manage complexity in projects at the
ground level, of helping our managers to understand when you
have enough information to make a decision and get on with
making decisions in a more timely basis.
One that I talk about an awful lot is the prevention side.
Prevention of more process, looking and examining everything
that we do to make sure that we do not already have that
information. We have a perpetual kind of just keep adding more
and more to that, and that is very, very difficult.
The public awareness is one that uses the examples that are
showing up in Arkansas and Idaho, using the examples that we
see from the fires of this summer, and understanding the
connectivity between what we do and what the result of that is
the public can understand that. The public understands it
better today than they did before the 2000 fire season. They
understand it better this year than they did even after that.
Senator Lincoln. Is the streamlining of those processes
within the Agency, that is currently occurring?
Mr. Thompson. We are working very hard. We have been for
several years on some of those. We have stepped up our efforts
and we are focusing on it very intensely right now to overcome
some of those process issues.
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Richmond, I know you will understand
the educational part of that, which if it has not already
occurred, will occur rapidly in Arkansas. Our home state
university is up in the Northwest corner of our state and
everyone travels to the football games and they go through the
Ozark Forest. It is part of the joy of going to the football
game is seeing the trees and the forest on their way to the
university.
I am sure that we are already bracing ourselves in the
office for the calls we are going to get about what they see in
comparison to what they have seen over the past couple of
years. Some of that education will happen whether we initiate
it or not.
I am aware, Mr. Richmond, of the press release that you put
out last week, detailing that you are beginning a program to
remove infested oak trees within the Ozark National Forest that
pose an immediate hazard to health and welfare of visiting
public. Mr. Thompson has mentioned that obviously safety was
the very first, and you had mentioned that as well.
Have you already seen an impact to the forest tourism in
Arkansas?
What should we be telling the traveling public who venture
out into our forest?
Mr. Richmond. I do not know that we have had a great
reaction from the visiting public yet. We probably will have
that as these trees definitely begin to fall and are blocking
highways and that sort of thing. We need just to be telling the
public that there are consequences to management and----
Senator Lincoln. Or lack of.
Mr. Richmond. Or lack of. As the Deputy Chief mentioned, we
have an excellent opportunity, an excellent demonstration to be
able to show people that.
Senator Lincoln. I know in our particular instance, the red
oak borer is a 2-year cycle, so we talk about how quickly this
has happened, and I am assuming we will also see how quickly
some of that destruction and some of those safety problems will
occur as those red oak borer, go into cycle in 2003 again, do
they not?
Mr. Richmond. The insects will emerge from the trees in
2003. At that time, we do not know whether the epidemic has
slowed or is continuing and is----
Senator Lincoln. Or is escalating. Thank you.
Did you have any further questions?
Senator Crapo. No, I do not have any further questions.
Senator Lincoln. We are delighted to have been joined by my
colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, if you would like
to ask some questions of our panel or make a statement or
however you want to proceed.
Senator Hutchinson. Why do we not just continue. I
apologize for being tardy. We had a meeting on Iraq at the
Pentagon and that is the only thing I would have missed this
for. Just go ahead.
Senator Lincoln. OK. You do not have any questions?
Just one last question in terms of educating the visiting
public and those that are actually using the forests. What
about land owners? What actions, maybe you might indicate to
us, Mr. Richmond, what actions are being taken or do you think
you will be taken to educate land owners and motivate them to
do something about the problem? They normally do work very well
with our State foresters and I am assuming that is the case
with this.
Mr. Richmond. State Forester John Shannon can probably
answer that when he is up here in a few minutes, but we have
worked very closely with him and his employees in his agency.
We have put out several brochures, question and answer sheets
for those that call in. We have had a lot of requests, and his
department has been answering calls almost daily about what to
do and they have actually been going out and helping, assisting
private land owners to both identify the insects and also come
up with management strategies for their lands.
Senator Lincoln. Thanks. Just in conclusion, Mr. Thompson,
you mentioned something about watersheds earlier. In looking at
what we are dealing with, and I will be asking the second panel
the same thing here, is there anything particular you want us
to know or that you think is very important to be made public
about the effects that this epidemic will have on municipal
watersheds as well as the potential for the species issue which
you also mentioned very briefly, the threatened or endangered
status as a result of the epidemic and what it may cost, both
for us locally, but also on a national level?
Mr. Thompson. In general, it is, again, the connectivity
between an insect and disease epidemic like this, the change in
structure, the increase in susceptibility to fire, and then the
effects of that to a watershed or to a viewshed, a scenic area,
those kinds of things. In the forest, everything is connected,
and when you have something like this that puts a tremendous
change to the system, it is basically going to affect
everything there. It is going to affect wildlife species, it is
going to affect water, it is going to affect certainly the
recreation values that are in the forest.
Dealing with that, those extreme shifts, is going to be
difficult, and there will be certainly some major short-term
impacts. Hopefully, through restoration activities, the species
diversity can be maintained and we can keep oak in the system
and doing well and future generations will be able to again
enjoy the beauty and the value that comes from that diversity
in the forest. It is going to take some hard work to restore
and it is going to take some concentrated, sustained effort to
keep the forest healthy.
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Richmond, do you have any comment on
particular watersheds or species that could be affected in
Arkansas?
Mr. Richmond. The wildlife situation, the species, is
probably the largest issue for us. Watershed-wise, these trees
will be replaced, but they will be replaced with species other
than oak if we do not do the restoration. That leads us to the
species question, and in the Ozark Highlands, there are so many
species that just have to have the lakes and the mass crop that
those oaks provide. That is where we are going to see the
largest impact if we cannot restore the oaks in those
landscapes.
Senator Lincoln. We thank you both very much, gentlemen,
and Mr. Richmond, thank you again for the service that you
provide to Arkansas.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you.
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Thompson, we appreciate your work, as
well.
As these gentlemen are exiting, I would like to call the
second panel.
Senator Hutchinson. Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Lincoln. Yes?
Senator Hutchinson. Could I ask unanimous consent that I
have a statement to put in the record----
Senator Lincoln. Without objection.
Senator Hutchinson [continuing]. A couple of questions. I
am not sure what was covered and what was not, so if I can just
put those questions in the record for the panel.
Senator Lincoln. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchinson can be found
in the appendix on page 47.]
Senator Lincoln. I am very delighted that our second panel
has taken time out of their schedules in Arkansas and Missouri
to join us this morning. We have with us John Shannon, who is
the Arkansas State Forester, Jim Crouch of the Ouachita Timber
Purchasers, Scott Simon of the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, and
Robert Krepps of the Missouri Department of Conservation. Mr.
Krepps, I hope you do not feel outnumbered by the Arkansans
here on the panel, but we are very delighted to have everybody
here from our neck of the woods in this country.
The committee has also received written testimony from the
Ozark Woodland Owners Association and the Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission that we will insert into the hearing record at
the appropriate place.
[The prepared statement of the Ozark Woodland Owners
Association can be found in the appendix on page 54.]
[The prepared statement of the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission follows can be found in the appendix on page 67.]
Senator Lincoln. Gentlemen, we are all delighted you are
here. We would like to ask you to try to limit your testimony
to around 5 minutes, but please rest assured that your entire
statement will be included in the record of the committee.
We can just start with Mr. Shannon. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN T. SHANNON, STATE FORESTER OF
ARKANSAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE
FORESTERS
Mr. Shannon. Thank you, Senator. It is great to see you
again, and thank you so much for inviting the National
Association of State Foresters to be here. Today, I will try
not to wear my Arkansas State Forester hat and I will try to
speak on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters.
It is meaningful to me as an Arkansan that both of you are
here. We appreciate it more than we can tell you. Thank you for
being here and for calling this hearing.
Senator Crapo had to step out, but he is right. Forest
health issues are much broader than the Ozark Highlands. It is
a significant issue from Idaho to Florida. He could look at
that map. There are too many red spots. State foresters are
interested in all those issues, but in Missouri and Arkansas
and Oklahoma, this oak mortality issue is of acute interest to
us.
I am going to focus on one aspect, and that is the wildfire
danger that has increased because of this oak mortality. You
have heard it before, so I will skip through it quickly. The
trees, the oaks in the Ozarks, are generally really old. The
acres are generally way overcrowded. The sites are generally
very poor, very thin soils, very droughty soils. Red oak borer
is as natural as rain. It is a native species in the Ozarks. It
is not going away, even if we want it to.
We had a drought in 1998. We had a drought in 1999. In
2000, we had a knock-out punch of a drought. All those
conditions combined are terrible if you are a red oak, but they
are really good if you are a red oak borer, really good. The
population of red oak borers just skyrocketed.
The numbers are--and we are not sure about the numbers, it
is one of the problems we have now--at least half a million
acres of dead oak trees. I would say the number, including
private land, is probably closer to a million acres of dead oak
trees. I tried to do a little homework last night, a little
arithmetic. How many trees are we talking about? I am confident
to tell you tens of millions of dead oak trees.
As you drive through neighborhoods around here and see
folks have stacked a rack or a cord of oak firewood waiting for
the winter, there is a reason they choose oak. It really burns
hot. It really burns a long time. Now we have at least half a
million acres of that stuff stacked up in the Ozarks. I would
like you to understand the risk of wildfire has significantly
increased. On average, we believe the fuel loading has
increased approximately 350 percent. Now, if you have a 350
percent increase in the fuel loading, the old ways we fought
fires and the equipment we used just is inadequate.
Not only has the fuel loading tremendously increased, but
the type of fuel has changed. We were talking about hardwood
leaves back 5 years ago. Now, we are talking about big, heavy
oak timber. It is a whole different fuel type. Those fires burn
a lot hotter, burn a lot longer. The acreage will be much
bigger, and those types of fires are much more dangerous for
civilians and for fire fighters.
I will bet you I am not the only supervisor of forestry
employees in this room who have had one of his employees killed
fighting a wildfire, and I am telling you, that is a very
traumatic event for an agency to deal with, and we have been
through it in Arkansas. Twenty people have been killed out West
this summer--we ought to do what we reasonably can do to reduce
the risk of wildfire.
That brings me down to two recommendations, and these are
captured, Madam Chair, in my written comments. Missouri,
Arkansas, and Oklahoma have to upgrade their fire fighting
equipment. Arkansas has started. We just committed about
$800,000 to upgrade our equipment, and that is totally
independent of whatever this committee may do. My two
colleagues and I believe that the three States combined need
approximately $2.4 million worth of equipment upgrades.
Now, I remember Senator Everett Dirksen and I remember what
he might have said about $2.4 million, and it is real money. It
is not like the $1.3 billion that has been spent out West this
summer. I mean, it is pocket change. Understanding that the
Federal budget is terribly tight, there are ways we can share
this cost, and some of the State foresters disagree on just how
we should share the cost.
I recommend, and this is more of a personal recommendation
now, that the Congress and the States split the cost, that the
three States proportionally come up with a total of $1.2
million and that the Congress help us with $1.2 million, a 50-
50 cost share, dollar-for-dollar, and we will get that
equipment in the field and we will put out the fires. We will
do the work.
I know there are some States, like Oklahoma, that will have
a terrible time even meeting that 50-50 match, and they have
recommended that the match be in-kind, such as our time,
keeping record of our time on fire fighting. Either way, we
really do need help from Congress on gearing up for these
wildfires.
The second recommendation I have, Madam Chair, is we rely
on volunteer fire departments in rural Arkansas very, very
heavily, especially throughout the Ozarks. These are poor
communities, and often the only fire fighting equipment they
have is Federal excess personal property, which means worn-out
military trucks that the State forestry agencies acquire, bring
to Arkansas, our home States, repair them so they operate,
renovate them so they are available for fire fighting, and we
give those trucks to the fire departments.
Well, the priority for screening that Federal excess
property changed several months ago and that source of fire
fighting equipment has dried up. Congressman Ross has drafted a
bill that his staff is still working on that will help restore
the priority that fire fighters have just in the spring, and if
you folks in this committee could work with Congressman Ross on
getting that bill passed, it would be very helpful.
I appreciate so much being invited here today. Thank you.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Shannon. We appreciate what
you do.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon can be found in the
appendix on page 70.]
Senator Lincoln. Scott Simon, thank you for joining us and
what the Nature Conservancy does. We certainly enjoy working
with the Nature Conservancy.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT SIMON, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION, ARKANSAS
CHAPTER, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Simon. Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Thank you for inviting
us. Good morning, Senator Hutchinson. My name is Scott Simon. I
work with the Nature Conservancy. I am their Director of
Conservation. I am here with Joe Fox this morning, who is our
forester.
The Conservancy, as you may know, is an international
nonprofit conservation organization. We work on protecting
species throughout the world through private action and working
with public agencies.
The Ozark Mountains are really a center of biodiversity
within North America and the United States. The Ouachita system
and the woodlands and savannahs that occur there are the
largest last remnant of a system that used to occur from
Oklahoma to the Eastern seaboard. There are about 150 species
of animals and plants that occur there and nowhere else in the
world, so it is a really special place.
Early explorers, like Henry Rose Schoolcroft and Joseph
Mudd, as they traveled through the Ozarks, described an area of
very open woodlands and savannahs, much like this picture here,
free of understory brush and an open, diverse, herbaceous
layer, and it was a system mostly maintained by fire. Native
Americans, annual and biannual, set fires for a variety of
purposes.
Over the years, the system has changed, and about 80 to 100
years ago, the Ozarks were cut, and over time, many of the
fires were suppressed and the system looks like this middle
picture here, the Ozarks that we love now. The new woods are
much denser. Historically, when the woodlands were maybe 18 to
30 trees per acre, currently, we see stem densities, on
average, of 300 to 1,000 trees or saplings per acre, which is
really a staggering increase, and those trees and stems are
trying to compete for the same amount of nutrients, water and
soil moisture and everything that has always historically been
available to them.
Many of the oak trees--a mature and healthy oak tree, white
oak, will live to 250 or 300 years old, a red oak, 125 to maybe
150 years old. This stressed system is vulnerable to outbreaks
like the red oak borer, exacerbated by droughts, and so that in
our opinion, the root cause of the current situation is simply
too many trees per acre, as you describe.
The effects, the long-term effects are concerning because
there is nothing in the post-glacial record that indicates that
the Ozark forests have had these sort of changes of this
magnitude and rapidity and we are worried that many of the
wildlife species and the rare species that occur only there and
nowhere else may have difficulty adapting as the forest changes
from predominately oaks to maples, ashes, and other species.
What do we do? Historically, this group of folks here, we
have the knowledge and experience to address this cause and
return sustainability to the forest. In the long term, it is
restoring fires ecologically and safely and of a frequency that
the system has adapted to. In the short term, it is using
mechanical thinnings and fire in combination to reach a lower
stem density that is sustainable.
There are several examples of ongoing projects that have
shown positive results. The Forest Service in the Ozark
National Forest, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
Missouri agencies, the Nature Conservancy, and the Heritage
Commission have all worked on projects like this, using
prescribed fire and ecological thinning with good results. The
Forest Service has some proposed projects. One is an example
that we have submitted with our testimony that is about 54,000
acres in the Bayou Ranger District, and it is projects like
this that we think are an example on what to do on a scale
significant enough to restore the system to sustainability.
We think that the three things that are needed to help
facilitate this is there needs to be a Federal funding priority
to help ensure that these projects are funded. Second, as the
Forest Service staff mentioned and that you mentioned, Madam
Chairman, ensuring that the process is streamlined so that
these projects can move through quickly. Third, ensuring that
new projects are encouraged so that we can start working on
other areas, particularly in front of the existing infestation.
It is clear that the changes that are happening in the
Ozark forests are a threat not only ecologically, but also
economically to the people that depend upon it, and that the
major causes are fire suppression, leading to overly dense
woods, and we know what to do about it. We have the technical
experience and the history to be able to address it.
The Nature Conservancy strongly encourages the use of
prescribed fire and ecological thinnings to achieve a more
sustainable density, and although the national forests in our
public lands throughout the country have many needs, ecological
sustainability, we feel, really must be the priority, because
all of our other uses fall from this.
With that, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify
and share our time with you and thank you much for inviting us.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Simon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon can be found in the
appendix on page 73.]
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Crouch, we appreciate your being here
very much and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. ``JIM'' CROUCH, ON BEHALF OF THE OUACHITA
TIMBER PURCHASERS GROUP, OZARK-ST. FRANCIS RENEWABLE RESOURCE
COUNCIL, MARK TWAIN TIMBER PURCHASERS GROUP, AND THE AMERICAN
FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Crouch. Madam Chairman, it is real pleasure to be here,
and Senators, it is great to have you here too. I know you
would not be anywhere else if you could possibly be here.
I am Jim Crouch. I do represent the people that buy this
timber in Missouri and in Arkansas and also today I am here
representing the American Forest and Paper Association.
We firmly believe that active management, based on sound
science with local decisionmaking, is the way to go about
restoring the health of our national forests. We do recognize
very quickly that without some significant changes in the
existing procedural requirements associated with NEPA appeals
and litigation, that the Forest Service cannot take the timely
action that it needs to take.
The Forest Service predicts that the oak mortality crisis
will impact over a million acres of national forest. About a
billion board feet of valuable oak will likely die, fall down,
rot, and as our State Forester says, probably burn.
Unfortunately, what is happening is much more serious than
anything that we have ever seen before. Instead of a few bugs
per tree, there are literally thousands of bugs in some trees.
The mortality is very widespread. It is not localized.
In 1986, the Forest Service approved new forest management
plans for all three of these forests. The plans did provide for
thinning the overly dense stands of immature trees and it
provided for the harvest and the replacement of mature trees
with new forest. For a various number of reasons, these three
forests fell way behind, and if you look today, they have
actually accomplished less than half of the work that those
forest plans called for.
The Forest Service's failure to carry out the plans,
coupled with the drought, has contributed greatly to the
current crisis. Because of the widespread mortality, there is a
major shift occurring in the composition of our forests. The
dominant and predominant trees in the oak forests are mostly
shade intolerant. The mid-story and understory is made up of
maple, hickory, black gum, and other shade tolerant species. If
nature is allowed to take its course, the new forest will
change. It will be mostly maple, ash, black gum, hickory, that
type of thing. It will be quite different from what we have
today.
Today, I believe that the Forest Service is at a fork in
the road and must choose between whether it is going to restore
the forest, which we call active management, or whether it is
going to let nature have its way, which is passive management.
Under the active scenario, the Forest Service would accelerate
the restoration activities immediately using good science and
using local decisions. The activities would include harvesting
the dead and dying trees, followed by the silvicultural
treatments needed to restore the oak forests.
Under the passive scenario, which is what I am afraid will
happen if there is not action from this body, the Forest
Service would let these overstocked and overmature stands
decline and die. The Forest Service would accept the losses and
the increased risk of catastrophic fires. The oak forest would
be replaced with maple.
If the decision is to restore the forest, there is a
limited window of opportunity. Dead and dying oaks lose their
commercial value quickly and the risk of catastrophic fire
increases as the trees die out and the falling branches
accumulate on the forest floor. The agency must have new ways
to comply with the key environmental laws if they are to get
the job done quickly. There must also be a major increase in
funds.
The forest industry strongly recommends that the Forest
Service choose active management and immediately launch a major
restoration effort. The restoration of the land should be
completed within 5 years of any harvest. The affected lands
that are classified as suitable for timber management should
retain a major oak component. Congress must either grant
exceptions from the environmental laws and regulations or they
must authorize some type of streamlining similar to what we saw
recently in the Black Hills. Congress must provide new money.
There is not enough money within the agency today to do these
kinds of things and do their normal day-to-day work.
In conclusion, the forest health crisis affecting the
Ouachita and the Ozarks is acute. It is not unique. Due to
decades of fire suppression, and more recently passive
management, our national forests are rapidly approaching
ecological disaster. We encourage you to find as many ways as
possible to expedite the efforts of the Forest Service to use
active management and local decisionmaking.
With that, I want to thank you again for the very, very
important job you are doing by holding this hearing and I know
it will take a lot of action on your part, but we know you will
do it. I will be glad to answer questions at the appropriate
time. Thank you.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Crouch.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crouch can be found in the
appendix on page 78.]
Senator Lincoln. Before we move to our Missourian, I also
want to note that there is another Arkansan that has joined us.
Congressman John Bozeman is in the back of the room and we
appreciate very much your joining us, John. Thanks for your
interest and input in this issue.
Mr. Bozeman. Thank you for holding the hearing.
Senator Lincoln. Absolutely.
Mr. Krepps, thank you so much for joining us and
representing Missouri. We would love to have your testimony
now.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. KREPPS, ADMINISTRATOR,
FORESTRY DIVISION, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Mr. Krepps. Thank you, Senator Lincoln. I am Bob Krepps and
I am here today representing the Missouri Department of
Conservation and the State of Missouri as the State Forester.
The continued decline of forest health and the increasing
mortality of red and black oak in Missouri and other States in
the Ozark Highlands are very important issues to me as a State
Forester, as they are to the Federal Government through the
National Forest System. Businesses and citizens depend upon the
forest resources of our State. I appreciate the attention of
the subcommittee and am gratified by your efforts to become
better informed on this issue.
Factors such as site conditions that have been described
here by the other folks providing testimony, including advanced
tree age, drought, and insects and disease, are a few of the
many factors that affect our oak forests. In my testimony, I
would like to briefly describe the impacts on recreational use
of lands affects by oak decline and mortality. While my
comments are focused on Missouri, they certainly apply to all
the States within the Ozark Highlands.
Oak decline is most severe on ridge tops, south- and west-
facing slopes, and sites within thin, rocky soils. These site
conditions describe much of the forest land around some of the
most important and popular recreation areas in Missouri and
certainly other areas in the Ozark Highlands.
Much of Missouri's tourism industry is centered in the
forested areas of the State, areas such as Lake of the Ozarks,
the Branson area, Table Rock Lake, the Ozarks National Scenic
Riverways, and the Mark Twain National Forest. Tourism is very
important in Missouri. Tourism is Missouri's third-largest
industry. It generates more than $12.5 billion annually for the
State's economy and provides one of every 14 Missouri jobs.
As travelers choose to travel into Missouri, one of the
first impacts the visitors will notice will be the amount of
dead and dying trees on the landscape. Visual impact will be
very noticeable as trees die and deteriorate across the
landscape. In some areas, large expanses of dead trees will be
noticeable for several years. In other areas, factors such as
fire will further impact the forest views. Changes in the
scenic beauty of the forest can contribute to losses in tourism
and recreation.
How does this occur? Well, dead and declining trees located
in areas receiving high recreational use are considered hazard
trees due to the real danger of falling limbs and trees.
Recently, I saw a photograph of an oak tree laying across the
top of a camper trailer. Needless to say, the individual that
was in the trailer at the time the tree landed on it was
extracted safely, but the trailer was flattened to the ground.
It gives you an idea of what some of the potential hazard is.
Hazard trees combined with multiple targets, such as
people, structures, and vehicles, greatly increase landowner
liability. Hazard tree removal along roads, within campgrounds,
parks, picnic areas, and hiking trails can be very expensive
and time consuming. Often, managers are faced with a decision
to remove the trees at a very high cost or close the facility
to protect the public.
On private land, and the trailer that I referred to was in
a private campground, on private land, the reality is probably
nothing will be done to reduce those hazards until something
occurs to get private landowners' attention.
Another primary recreational use of the Ozark Highlands is
hunting of abundant wildlife, such as white-tailed deer, wild
turkey, squirrel, raccoon, and other species. Many of these
species depend upon acorn production as a major food source. As
oak decline increases, a reduction in mast acorn production
will occur, with the result being decreased populations of many
wildlife species, which equates into decreased hunting
opportunities.
In the State of Missouri, for example, as our quail
population has declined, we have also noticed a shifting of
attention by hunters to other species or quitting entirely,
quitting the outdoor pursuits. We have a concern that this will
carry over into the future, as well.
I guess, in summary, the overriding question, the
management of oak decline and mortality, must be what are our
objectives in managing the forest? In Missouri, we actively
manage the State forest land, which includes harvesting and
thinning where needed. On private lands, we encourage land
owners to improve the vigor of their forests by thinning young
stands and harvesting mature stands. We are actively using the
provisions of programs in the Farm bill, such as EQIP, for
forest health management on private lands. That is not without
some prioritization and emphasis on those areas, and certainly
there are conflicting laws that we work with that affect how
effective we are in application of those on private lands.
I guess what we do today will affect what our oak forest
looks like at the end of the next rotation, and I certainly
hope that our children and grandchildren will look back with
pride at the efforts we put forth today.
I guess a couple of things to dovetail into some of the
other testimony, probably the most important thing we can do
right now, that Congress can do, the Senate and the House, is
to take a look at the myriad of laws that guide the
implementation of programs on the national forests. Many of the
laws conflict or give opportunities for inconsistent management
practices. We need to work to get the National Forest System so
they have the tools to rapidly respond to situations such as
the oak decline situation that we are facing in Missouri. I
would like to see more cooperative management projects
encompassing Federal, State, and private lands.
I appreciate the opportunity of being here this day and
look forward to working with this committee in the future.
Thank you.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Krepps.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krepps can be found in the
appendix on page 84.]
Senator Lincoln. This is obviously a very immediate problem
that needs our immediate attention and we will be continuing to
call on you and others across the country to look at what is
the best way that we can deal with it.
Just a couple of questions and then I will pass it over to
my colleague. Mr. Crouch, I have always praised the Forest
Service for making our forests what they are today and have
enjoyed working with them. I noticed in your testimony you
talked about how the Forest Service has done their job almost
too well in some ways. What should the Forest Service do to
restore the oak ecosystem devastated by our oak mortality, what
we are seeing here? Do you have any specific ideas that you
would suggest to the Forest Service?
Mr. Crouch. I really do, Senator, and I would like to just
emphasize what you just said and what the National Forest
Deputy Chief said. There is no question that within the agency,
there exists a tremendous knowledge base and a tremendous
ability and willingness, in fact, to do the things that need to
be done to keep these ecosystems healthy. As you can imagine,
in recent years, the agency probably has been as frustrated as
many of us on the outside have been and a lot of things have
not happened, and that is what I pointed out.
On the Ozark and the Ouachita and the Mark Twain, they have
had management plans now for the last 20 years almost that
basically said you need to thin these young stands, you need to
harvest the old trees, you need to use a commercial program as
much as you can to save taxpayer dollars, and yet they have
been challenged almost every time they try to do these things.
That is why we talk so much about we have to do something
with some of these laws that are really just bottlenecks, and
it is not that the majority of the people are using them. It is
a handful of people. I often wonder, in a democracy, how do we
get to vote on these kinds of things rather than letting one
individual completely stop it?
To answer your question more specifically, I believe that
the Forest Service on all three of these forests should
immediately recognize the emergency, start a salvage program,
maybe not use that word, but start a harvest program that will
harvest as much wood as the forest industry can assimilate,
recognizing that a lot of the infrastructure has disappeared in
recent years, and at the same time begin to prescribe burn,
begin to do timber stand improvement work trying to favor these
oaks so that these future stands that we do have will have a
significant component of red oak in it.
I do not really hear or see much about any money to
increase these programs, and obviously, supervisors like
Charlie Richmond cannot do it out of the goodness of his heart.
There is going to have to be some significant money flow in
order for him to be able to do these bigger programs.
Senator Lincoln. Right. Well, I can always remember my
father telling me that too much of anything can be hazardous,
even chocolate if you eat too much of it. Well, if there is one
thing we have come to understand about our forests, it is that
the diversity of those forests is very important, both in age
as well as in species.
Mr. Simon, in your testimony, you talk about the need to
better reintroduce fire back into the forest ecosystem, and
larger land owners, such as the National Forest and State
lands, or even very large private land owners, this might seem
practical. I am just curious, how would that apply to our
smaller land owners? Is fire really a viable management tool
for smaller land owners? We talk about the use of fire as a
management tool on both public and private forest lands. I just
wonder, how viable a tool is it for small land owners?
Mr. Simon. Yes, ma'am. It is a viable tool for smaller land
owners and the State with several agencies offers prescribed
burn courses and technical assistance, as does the Nature
Conservancy with land owners that are in priority areas on how
to plan for prescribed burns and execute them and monitor to
see if they got the results and objectives that they meant to
achieve when they started.
Senator Lincoln. One of the other things you mentioned was
the root problem of too many trees per acre.
Mr. Simon. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Lincoln. In restoring the ecosystem to a healthy
condition, if you look at, say, going in with selective
cuttings, I was reading that a man was quoted as saying after a
couple of years or better, the dying trees are good for nothing
but just firewood. If you do go in with that cutting, how
quickly or how important is regeneration of the trees from the
stump in terms of--that is possible, is it not?
Mr. Simon. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Lincoln. Is that healthy?
Mr. Simon. The way that we have looked at it is trying to
identify what the desired condition would be for the stand or
the forest so that it is sustainable and then using whatever
methods are available. If it is regeneration from a stump to
allow the red oak to continue or increased light to allow more
red oaks to get on the floor, are both viable options.
Senator Lincoln. Well, my question was, if you encourage
regeneration from the stump the concern I would have is that
you still have the same amount of root systems per acre as you
would previously, so I know it is taking less nutrients from
the soil, but does that matter at all?
Mr. Simon. Yes, ma'am. Thanks for educating me on that. It
would not necessarily address the issue of too many stems per
acre and that in some way, we would need to thin those, and
probably the best way to do it is with prescribed fire,
allowing the things that are most adapted to the Ozark
Highlands and the weather that we have to survive and the
things that do not to be thinned by fire, yes.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you. Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Hutchinson. Yes. Thank you, Senator Lincoln. I have
not yet thanked you for calling the hearing, and I very much
appreciate you doing this. This deserves attention and I regret
we do not have more members here. I know it is a very busy time
after everybody getting back, but this is a very important
subject and thank you for calling the hearing today.
It seemed to me, listening, and I did not hear all the
testimony of the first panel, but that there is a general
consensus around two things. One is we need more money in this
issue, and the second is that we need to streamline the process
and clear out the kind of regulatory obstacles that cause a
kind of paralysis in moving. There may be nuances as to where
the money ought to go and how it ought to be prioritized, but
everybody seems to agree we have to make a Federal commitment
in resources and we need to change the way the process works.
After the ice storm, when was it, 2 years ago, the terrible
ice storm, and in trying to move the Forest Service to quick
response and action in dealing with the threat that resulted
from the downed trees and branches and so forth, I was struck
with the degree of regulatory obstacles there are in trying to
move anything forward. It was not the Forest Service's fault,
it was this enormous process that made it difficult to move
quickly in responding, and we are seeing the same thing in the
oak mortality issue.
In listening, John, your emphasis was, of course, on the
danger of wildfires. This is what we heard about after the ice
storm, was that with the increased fuel, that we faced a
greater, much greater intensified risk of wildfires. What would
be the nature of the kind of fires we would face? I know they
burn longer and hotter, the hardwoods, but compared with what
you see in the West, we have never had those kind of fires in
the Ozarks or the Ouachita, but what could we expect if nothing
is done?
Mr. Shannon. I am often glad I am the State Forester of
Arkansas and not one of those Western States. The climates are
different. More than just the weather climate, the business
relationship with the Forest Service is different in Arkansas.
It is cooperative. Folks get along. They work together. I do
not think we can anticipate the types of fires they have out
West. We can anticipate more difficult fires than we usually
have in Arkansas.
You were very helpful, sir, after the ice storms by helping
us--I know you did all the heavy lifting, helping Arkansas get
some money for fire fighting equipment in South Arkansas, and
Senator Lincoln helped us receive an EDA grant. Donna Kay
helped us receive an EDA grant to keep our air tankers in the
air fighting the fires, very effective.
We have been lucky since the ice storm and lucky so far in
this red oak borer that the weather has cooperated. We have
upgraded our fire fighting equipment and we do have air tankers
in the air getting to those fires quickly.
Senator Hutchinson. It seems to me the finance scheme that
you kind of proposed, laid out, I do not know if that is the
exact way it ought to work, but they are pretty modest amounts,
and for the good that could do and the dollars it could save in
the long run, it would seem to me that would be a very
worthwhile investment.
Mr. Shannon. Bob Krepps and I come up here to Washington a
few times a year and it is the only time we hear the figure
``billions.'' We do not deal with billions. We do not deal with
millions. State foresters deal with hundreds of thousands of
dollars to rebuild our fire fighting. I really think this is a
partnership, Senators, where we could make a dollar go a long
way, and especially with the Federal excess personal property.
If I can give you my 1-minute stump speech on that, the
State foresters are the ones who acquire the equipment, and
there is none available in Arkansas. It is all out of State.
They bring it back to Greenbrier. We repair the equipment. We
renovate it for fire fighting. We get it out to the fire
departments for free. We track it in our inventory forever, and
when that equipment is finally just flat worn out, we haul it
back to Greenbrier, we sell it, and the money goes to GSA. Now,
the Arkansas Forestry Commission does not want a nickel, and
the volunteer fire fighters do all that work for nothing. You
talk about a good Federal program and getting a big bang for
the dollar. To reduce, to lower the priority for the fire
fighters in screening that equipment just really kicks the
teeth out of work that is really valuable for our country.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you.
Mr. Shannon. Yes, sir.
Senator Hutchinson. Mr. Simon, I am curious in what your
response would be to what Mr. Crouch said, because both of you,
it seemed to me, were advocating that we cannot just let it go,
that we need to have an active response to the oak borer
crisis. You mentioned prescribed burns and you used the term
thinning. Mr. Crouch used the term harvesting. Is there a
conflict there, or do you see that those are consistent in what
you would advocate as the proper response to the increasing
amount of dead oaks that we have?
Mr. Simon. Senator, I would think that in any alternative,
prescribed fire would be necessary to maintain sustainable
density and that the differences between thinning and
harvesting are probably dependent on what you are using to
achieve your desired future condition and how, in my eyes, a
thinning is something that leaves an open stand. Thinning, I
guess, is a type of harvesting.
Senator Hutchinson. Jim, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Crouch. Scott is absolutely right. When the stems are
real small, obviously, the best and easiest way to do it would
be with a prescribed burn. Once they get to be middle aged,
like a lot of us are, then obviously you can do it commercially
and prescribed burn would not necessarily be the right tool.
Then eventually, when it becomes mature, you want to replace it
with a young, vigorous stand. I really do not see that we are
saying anything different there, Senator.
Senator Hutchinson. Mr. Krepps.
Mr. Krepps. I would say we need all the tools in the
toolbox. We need to keep all of our options open and put what
fits for a particular piece of ground in place, whether it be
prescribed burning or thinning. We just need to keep our
options wide open on that.
Mr. Crouch. Let me say one thing John Shannon did not say
that he meant to say and he forgot to say.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Crouch. All the money that came out of the ice storm
for equipment in Arkansas essentially went to South Arkansas.
Most of the oak problem is in North Arkansas, and what he is
talking about is replacing some of that small, old equipment up
there with some bigger stuff similar to what he bought for
South Arkansas so he can push these big snags around.
Senator Hutchinson. Just to sum it up, I know my time is
probably way over and you have been indulgent, but I am
curious, because you talked about the danger to the species
with the transformation of the forests----
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir.
Senator Hutchinson [continuing]. You gave us a little
history lesson on the way it was, which was very interesting.
It was not originally oak and hardwoods, right? Or was it just
the density that was different?
Mr. Simon. Sir, based on the historical accounts, much of
the Ozarks was oak woodlands and savannahs with pine in
scattered areas and then denser forests maybe on the slopes and
in the bottoms, so a mix.
Senator Hutchinson. The species mix that we have now, did
that develop in the course of the last 100 years or so and is
that why it is important that the hardwoods stay, that we
restore oak where we have had these forests so damaged, 400,000
or 500,000 acres already?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. Even after the cut of about 100 years
ago, many of the pieces were all still in place and they have
lasted this long, so there was still a predominance of oak with
some pine, though the pine may have decreased on the sandstone
ridges.
Senator Hutchinson. You all are agreeing that if nothing is
done, the oak stands, the oak predominance disappears and that
we go to an ash, maple, softwood kind of mix that is going to
forever change the ecology of that Ozark Highlands, is that
fair?
Mr. Simon. Yes. We all agree on that, based on what is
coming up in the understory.
Senator Hutchinson. How long does it take to--and you all
may have covered all of this, but a restoration program like
that with the extent of damage that we have, how long a process
is that?
Mr. Crouch. I would answer it this way, Senator. It depends
on the situation on the ground. There are, in fact, young
stands today that can be thinned and saved that will not
experience this mortality. There are other stands that are
essentially 100 percent dead, and this is where you heard the
Forest Service talk about maybe reintroducing oak back into
them. There are other stands where you have enough oak left
that you can either cut the tree down that is there and get the
copus from it, or you maybe can even prescribe burn in some
cases and get some back.
You have, as the State Forester here said, a lot of
different situations, but the agency has the expertise to deal
with that. You could be often in good shape with a healthy span
in 10 years, or it could take a long, long time. It just
depends on the circumstances. That is where the expertise comes
in that these folks have and they have to have the direction
and money to do those kinds of things.
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. I would say, although it is going to
vary a little bit onsite conditions, the last picture on the
right shows a restoration area after approximately 5 years and
it probably looks something like this, and that would involve
one thinning and two prescribed burns. On an area that has not
been extensively grazed, there is still a lot to work with.
Arkansas is blessed with really resilient communities and they
respond with that sunlight. If it has been heavily grazed, it
may take a little bit longer as more species seed in. I would
say between five to 10 years, you could go from very dense,
minimal herbaceous understory, heavy fuel loads, with a few
burns and some thinning to an open stand that is sustainable.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you. That is very helpful. I was
just looking at the time line of the oak forest in the Ozarks
and realizing that oaks have been there since 1000 B.C. It
would be such a shame not to be able to try and take advantage
of the management tools we have to maintain them.
How safe is it to say, or how realistic is it that the
younger oaks that Mr. Crouch mentions, if we do not do anything
about the older and dying trees, how likely are the smaller
trees to not survive?
Mr. Simon. Overall, without fire, they would be out-
competed by the maples, the ashes, and the gums, just because
they are more adapted to heavy shade and no fire.
Senator Lincoln. Has it been our experience in the forestry
industry that if we change the landscape, that the species
itself would retreat to its normal condition, because the red
oak borer is indigenous to Arkansas. If we work to return the
landscape, then is it safe to say that the red oak borer would
retreat to its normal existence?
Mr. Simon. Yes, I think so. I mean, a lot of us in the
conservation community and the land management community talk
about complex systems, that maybe we cannot understand all the
nuances, but we operate under a simple premise that if we try
to establish the conditions that we think are most healthy,
that the rest of the wildlife species or animal species would
fall into place. That under an open stand, the red oak borer
would decline to its normal range of populations, and the same
with other wildlife species that may be threatened.
Senator Lincoln. We have had some experience with that.
Mr. Simon. We have had some experience with that. The
Conservancy's experience is probably more with rare species, so
that as we restore the habitat type of plant community or a
forest back to a certain system, some of the rare species will
increase because they are used to that place and the way it
looks.
Senator Lincoln. We talked about one of the easiest
solutions that we can provide is technical assistance to
private forest land owners. In our recently enacted farm bill,
we included for the first time permanent funding for technical
assistance to private forest land owners. To our State
Foresters, both John and Robert, how can you apply that Forest
Land Enhancement Program and the sustainable forestry outreach
initiative funds to the problem of the Ozark oak decline and
mortality?
Mr. Shannon. We can apply it directly. The Forest Land
Enhancement Program cost share money, the State foresters and
the local stewardship committees have a lot of flexibility on
how to use those funds and we can certainly set aside a
significant portion of those funds for the Ozark oak mortality
problem. It will be a direct help.
Senator Lincoln. That is our intent.
Mr. Krepps. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are already
looking at the provisions and have already started implementing
this past fiscal year through the EQIP program, recognizing the
FLEP program will be coming on board. We are having quite a bit
of success. We worked very closely with the Natural Resource
Conservation Service in highlighting the forest health issue
and have directed a number of our projects specifically in the
oak decline area, working with private land owners.
We were a little concerned as we started into that process
that many land owners would not recognize the need. With a
minimal of sell, we have had a lot of folks come forward and it
is pretty gratifying to see the interest in implementing forest
health measures on private land through those programs, so we
are very encouraged.
Senator Lincoln. Well, that was our intent. Our intent was
to help enhance what you could do and providing private land
owners that ability, and with your ability.
Just to ask the entire panel, and any or all of you may
have a perspective, what effects will this epidemic have on our
watersheds? I asked our first panel, and I am very curious to
know in terms of our watersheds and also what potential for
species falling into threatened or endangered status as a
result of this epidemic. Is there anything you all may have to
add to that?
Mr. Shannon. I will jump into the watershed issue, Madam
Chair.
Senator Lincoln. Please.
Mr. Shannon. There are several values from a good,
vigorous, healthy Ozark forest and one of those is watershed
values and providing water qualities that really are the envy
of the nation. We are talking high-quality water out of the
Ozarks.
Millions of those trees die. Then you get a fire through
there that could be hot enough to really reduce it all to ash
and even burn some of the soil and those watersheds are at
risk, a true risk of heavy runoff, heavy siltation. I am not
sure how far it will reach down to municipal water supplies,
but it will certainly hurt the water quality in all those
creeks in the Ozarks. I would say the oak borer followed by
wildfires is a significant risk, and we have seen that out
West.
Mr. Simon. Yes, ma'am. I agree with Mr. Shannon. If there
was a heavy wildfire, that it could threaten, because of the
increased erosion, some of the watersheds, because the historic
grassy layer is not there to hold the soil.
Regarding some of the species, the Ozarks are so rich in
species that only occur there, and numerous dozens of federally
listed species, there is a possibility, although I would have
to get back to you on which ones, whose populations could
decline significantly, that only are dependent on the oak
ecosystem that could potentially be listed if somebody
petitioned it, both terrestrial species and in some of the
watersheds that are threatened. Many of the six rivers that
flow just off the Ozark, the Boston Mountains themselves each
have an endemic crayfish or a fish or a mussel that might only
be known from that river and nowhere else in the world, so it
is a possibility.
Mr. Krepps. I guess from my perspective, certainly, the
impact on the neotropical migrants, as has been mentioned here,
as well as the mussels and the aquatic life potentially are
going to be affected through this process.
As far as without fire what is going to happen, I guess my
perspective is that we are going to have vegetation out there.
The other species will colonize and grow rapidly on the site to
fill the gap. Certainly, we need to do everything we can to
enhance the maintenance of our oak component in this forest.
Senator Lincoln. Just in closing, there has been much
debate here in Congress related to preserving old growth trees.
This epidemic has affected almost solely older trees. Given the
background of the debate about old growth forests, how does it
make the job of addressing this epidemic of oak mortality in
the Ozarks different from other forest health issues or
situations throughout our country and how is that challenge
different on private lands?
Mr. Crouch. I will talk just a little about the National
Forests. You know, the old growth, it depends on whose
definition you are using for old growth because these lands
here, as beautiful and as pristine as they look, oftentimes are
truly the lands that nobody wanted. If you look at most of
them, the Ozark, for example, the Ouachita was put together in
the very early 1900's. There was part of that land that was so
poor and rough that it was never even homesteaded. It was
public domain.
If you move up to Missouri, it was put together basically
in the 1930's out of land that had been farmed, burned, grazed,
cut, and nobody wanted and was out of taxes.
If you consider this old growth, we can grow you any amount
of it you want for 70, 80, 90 years, it is quite different from
old growth in the West.
Mr. Shannon. A whole different picture of old growth out
West and old growth in the Ozarks. For whatever you want to
call old growth in the Ozarks, red oak borers are not too
interested, really, in what we call the trees. They are taking
care of the old growth right now.
Senator Lincoln. Bob.
Mr. Krepps. We have to go back to something that Jim Crouch
said here a minute ago. It depends upon how you define old
growth. When I look back into the history of the Missouri
portion of the Ozark Highlands, it was cut over about 80 or 90
years ago. It was burned repeatedly up into the 1940's and
early 1950's. My agency and my department was formed to try to
resolve the massive annual burning that occurred. It is hard to
place that all in context with an old growth forest. What we
have here is a result of 80 or 90 years of mismanagement and
mistreatment of the land.
Mr. Simon. I agree with all that. At some level, we are
blessed because Arkansas's systems are so adapted to
disturbance, like fire, that old growth that may be relevant
and capture the image and the issues in another part of the
country, for us, the picture might be the trees plus all the
other species so that we have all the pieces of the puzzle and
the system can be sustainable. I would say it is not--old
growth does not frame the issue for us, it is diversity in
Arkansas.
Senator Lincoln. In all of the education I have on this
issue, diversity of the forest has clearly been the one issue
that has come out most prominent in my mind as being the most
viable tool for sustainability, without a doubt.
I want to thank all of you, all of our witnesses who have
come to Washington this morning. All of your testimony has been
very beneficial and will help the committee address this
epidemic in both the coming days on the Senate floor as well as
coming months as we continue to work toward healthier forests
throughout this nation.
The committee will keep the record open for 10 days for
additional submissions to the record. Also, if members have
additional written questions for witnesses, they may submit
them during this time and we will forward them to the witnesses
for written response and hope you will make yourselves
available for answering any of those written questions. They
will appear in the final hearing record.
We appreciate very much your input and we look forward to
working with you in the days to come. The committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 5, 2002
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
September 5, 2002
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-