[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REFORESTATION PROBLEMS ON NATIONAL FORESTS: A GAO REPORT ON THE
INCREASING BACKLOG
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-970 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Vice Chair Islands
George P. Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Grace F. Napolitano, California
Carolina Tom Udall, New Mexico
Chris Cannon, Utah Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Jim Costa, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Dan Boren, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Rick Renzi, Arizona Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Jay Inslee, Washington
Devin Nunes, California Mark Udall, Colorado
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Dennis Cardoza, California
Thelma Drake, Virginia Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Cathy McMorris, Washington
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
GREG WALDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Chris Cannon, Utah Dan Boren, Oklahoma
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Jay Inslee, Washington
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Mark Udall, Colorado
Jeff Flake, Arizona Dennis Cardoza, California
Rick Renzi, Arizona Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Cathy McMorris, Washington ex officio
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, April 27, 2005........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Udall. Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico.............................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Franklin, Dr. Jerry, College of Forest Resources, University
of Washington.............................................. 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Kane, Kenneth, Society of American Foresters, Kane,
Pennsylvania............................................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Nazzaro, Robin, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. Government Accountability Office...................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Schlarbaum, Dr. Scott, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and
Fisheries, University of Tennessee......................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Shepard, Ed, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and
Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Additional materials supplied:
Anderson, Dale E., President, Pennsylvania Forest Industry
Association, Letter submitted for the record............... 62
The Forest Foundation, Statement submitted for the record by
Michelle Dennehy........................................... 63
Sexton, George, Conservation Director, Klamath Siskiyou
Wildlands Center, Letter submitted for the record.......... 66
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON REFORESTATION PROBLEMS ON NATIONAL FORESTS: A GAO
REPORT ON THE INCREASING BACKLOG
----------
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Walden, Gilchrest, Peterson,
Renzi, Brown, Tom Udall, DeFazio, and Herseth.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear
testimony on ``Reforestation Problems on National Forests: A
GAO Report on the Increasing Backlog.''
Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member may make opening statements. If any other
Members have statements, they can be included in the hearing
record under unanimous consent.
That we are celebrating our 131st Arbor Day this Friday
reminds us that tree planting and reforestation are issues near
and dear to the American people. As Europeans initially
migrated to our continent, a typical consequence of that
settlement was deforestation, primarily as a consequence of the
conversion of forests to cropland. The large majority of
Americans during the first three centuries of our history were
farmers. Between 1850 and 1910, Americans cleared more than 190
million acres of forests for crops and pasture, while using
wood for cooking and heating, home construction, and fence
building.
During that time, lumber production grew at twice the rate
as the population. By 1850, more than 90 percent of the
Nation's energy came from wood. In addition, during the 18th
century, virtually all iron produced in the country was smelted
using wood charcoal. By 1900, over 15 million acres of forest
land were needed just for the production of railroad ties and
trestles. Without exaggeration we can say that America was
built on wood--but not without cost. Forest depletion in the
East was rampant. One traveler wrote in the early 1800s that he
passed only about 20 miles of woodland on the 240-mile trip
between Boston and New York. Over time, the resulting impacts
on wildlife populations and water quality became painfully
obvious.
Much of America's conservation movement sprouted out of the
growing awareness of the economic and environmental impacts of
deforestation. Names such as Fernow, Roosevelt, and Pinchot and
other organizations such as the American Forestry Association
and the Boone and Crockett Club encouraged the reforestation
and productive management of private forest lands through tax
incentives and financial assistance, promoted forest research
and the creation of college forestry curricula, helped adopt
wildlife conservation laws and promoted the protection and wise
use of forests through the creation of Federal forest reserves
and the establishment, exactly 100 years ago, of the United
States Forest Service. By the 1920s, the 300-year loss of
American forest land had virtually stopped. Today, even with
the large increase in population, we have about the same number
of forested acres than we did in 1920.
Even with these successes and even though our knowledge of
forestry and reforestation has grown significantly in the last
100 years, we still find that important issues need to be
addressed. Once again, the GAO has aptly assisted our committee
in understanding the essential aspects of this subject through
the report it is issuing today. In particular, the estimated
backlog of reforestation and timber stand improvement needs,
primarily on national forests, is addressed in this report. The
main reason for today's hearing, therefore, is to shed light on
how the backlog is determined, why it is increasing, and how
reforestation is funded and potential solutions for addressing
reforestation and timber stand improvement concerns.
While reforestation issues, like all forest issues, are
complex, most Americans have learned the importance of keeping
our national forests forested--for wildlife, for water quality,
for scenic beauty, and all the other values that growing,
diverse forests provide. I look forward to hearing what the
GAO, the agencies, our visiting forest professionals, and
others have to offer on this important subject.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
That we are celebrating our 131st Arbor Day this Friday, reminds us
that tree-planting and reforestation are issues near and dear to the
American people. As Europeans initially migrated to our continent a
typical consequence of that settlement was deforestation, primarily as
a consequence of the conversion of forests to cropland. The large
majority of Americans, during the first three centuries of U.S.
history, were farmers. Between 1850 and 1910, Americans cleared over
190 million acres of forests for crops and pasture, while using wood
for cooking and heating, home construction and fence building.
During that time, lumber production grew at twice the rate as the
population. By 1850 more than 90% of the nation's energy came from
wood. In addition, during the 18th century, virtually all iron produced
in the country was smelted using wood charcoal. By 1900, over 15
million acres of forest land were needed just for the production of
railroad ties and trestle. Without exaggeration we can say that America
was built on wood---but not without cost. Forest depletion in the East
was rampant. One traveler wrote in the early 1800's that he passed only
about 20 miles of woodland on the 240-mile trip between Boston and New
York. Over time, the resulting impacts on wildlife populations and
water quality became painfully obvious.
Much of America's conservation movement sprouted out of the growing
awareness of the economic and environmental impacts of deforestation.
Names such as Fernow, Roosevelt, and Pinchot and organizations such as
the American Forestry Association and the Boone and Crockett Club
encouraged the reforestation and productive management of private
forest lands through tax incentives and financial assistance, promoted
forest research and the creation of college forestry curricula, helped
adopt wildlife conservation laws and promoted the protection and wise-
use of forests through the creation of federal forest reserves and the
establishment, exactly 100 years ago, of the Forest Service. By the
1920s, the 300-year loss of American forest land had virtually stopped.
Today, even with the large increase in population, we have about the
same number of forested acres than we did in 1920.
Even with these successes and even though our knowledge of forestry
and reforestation has grown significantly in the last hundred years, we
still find that important issues need to be addressed. Once again, the
GAO has aptly assisted the Committee in understanding essential aspects
of this subject through the report it's issuing today. In particular,
the estimated backlog of reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs, primarily on national forests, is addressed in their report. The
main reason for today's hearing, therefore, is to shed light on how the
backlog is determined, why it's increasing, how reforestation is funded
and potential solutions for addressing reforestation and timber stand
improvement concerns.
While reforestation issues, like all forest issues, are complex,
most Americans have learned the importance of keeping our national
forests forested, for wildlife, water quality, scenic beauty and all
the other values that growing, diverse forests provide. I look forward
to hearing what the GAO, the agencies, and our visiting forest
professionals have to offer on this important subject.
______
Mr. Walden. I now recognize my friend from New Mexico, Mr.
Udall, the Ranking Minority Member, for any statement he may
have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
welcome our witnesses and am looking forward to hearing from
them today about reforestation issues on our public lands. In
anticipation of Arbor Day, there could not be a more
appropriate time for this Subcommittee to look at
reforestation.
In April 1885, J. Sterling Morton, the founder of Arbor Day
and a resident of Nebraska, delivered the following address to
the schoolchildren and townspeople of Nebraska City to mark the
first official Arbor Day, and I quote: ``Each generation of
humanity takes the Earth as trustees to hold until the court of
death dissolves the relation, and turns the property over to
successors in trust. To each generation, the trust involves the
duty of at least permitting no deterioration in the great
estate of the family of man. During the continuance of the
temporary trust, comprehending thus the dependence of animal
life upon contemporaneous plant life, it must be conceded that
we ought to bequeath to posterity as many forests and orchards
as we have exhausted and consumed.''
There is not a more basic act of stewardship and
conservation than planting a tree. Trees root us in the earth
while they grow to provide shelter and shade. Forests provide
clean water, wildlife habitat, and places of recreation and
refuge for all of us.
Given our link to the forests, I am troubled by the recent
GAO report indicating a growing backlog of reforestation needs
on our national forests. Over time, the Forest Service
estimates of reforestation needs have fluctuated significantly.
For example, after having a significant backlog, the Forest
Service in 1985 declared that the reforestation backlog had
been virtually eliminated. However, in March 2004, the agency
again declared that it had a backlog of about 900,000 acres of
land in need of reforestation.
I am concerned that, like previous GAO reports, this GAO
report again finds that the Forest Service lacks sufficient
data to accurately quantify reforestation needs. I also draw
attention to previous GAO reports and attention from Congress
about the use of the various funds for reforestation projects.
In 1998, the GAO reviewed the Knutson-Vandenberg Reforestation
Fund and found that up to 30 percent of the fund was being
charged to indirect expenses.
I look forward to hearing hard numbers from the Forest
Service today about where the money is being spent out of the
various reforestation funds and specifically the Knutson-
Vandenberg Fund. I would also like to draw attention to the
importance of prioritization of reforestation projects and the
use of ecological principles in reforestation. Our
understanding about the dynamic nature of forest ecosystem has
evolved since the days of tree plantations. I look forward to
hearing the testimony of Dr. Jerry Franklin about these issues.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall of New Mexico follows:
Statement of The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome our witnesses and
am looking forward to hearing from them about reforestation issues on
our public lands.
In anticipation of Arbor Day, there couldn't be a more appropriate
time for this subcommittee to look at reforestation.
In April 1885, J. Sterling Morton, the founder of Arbor Day and a
resident of Nebraska, delivered the following address to the school
children and townspeople of Nebraska City to mark the first official
Arbor Day:
``Each generation of humanity takes the earth as trustees to
hold until the court of Death dissolves the relation, and turns
the property over to successors in trust. To each generation
the trust involves the duty of, at least, permitting no
deterioration in the great estate of the family of man during
the continuance of the temporary trust. Comprehending thus the
dependence of animal life upon contemporaneous plant life, it
must be conceded that we ought to bequeath to posterity as many
forests and orchards as we have exhausted and consumed.''
There isn't a more basic act of stewardship and conservation than
planting a tree. Trees root us in the earth while they grow to provide
shelter and shade. Forests provide clean water, wildlife habitat, and
places of recreation and refuge for all of us. Given our link to
forests, I am troubled by the recent GAO report indicating a growing
backlog of reforestation needs on our national forests.
Over time, the Forest Service's estimates of reforestation needs
have fluctuated significantly. For example, after having a significant
backlog, the Forest Service in 1985 declared that the reforestation
backlog had been virtually eliminated. However, in March 2004 the
agency again declared that it had a backlog of about 900,000 acres of
land in need of reforestation.
I am concerned that like previous GAO reports, this GAO report
again finds that the Forest Service lacks sufficient data to accurately
quantify reforestation needs. I also draw attention to previous GAO
reports and attention from Congress about the use of the various funds
for reforestation projects. In 1998, the GAO reviewed the Knutson-
Vandenberg Reforestation Fund and found that up to 30% of the fund was
being charged to indirect expenses. I look forward to hearing hard
numbers from the Forest Service today about where the money is being
spent out of the various reforestation funds, and specifically the
Knutson-Vandenberg Fund.
I would also like to draw attention to the importance of
prioritization of reforestation projects, and the use of ecological
principles in reforestation. Our understanding about the dynamic nature
of forest ecosystems has evolved since the days of tree plantations. I
look forward to hearing from the testimony of Dr. Jerry Franklin about
these issues.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you, and thank you for your fine opening
statement.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland. Do you
have any comments?
Mr. Gilchrest. No. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady from South Dakota?
Ms. Herseth. No. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. OK. Then we will ask our first panel of
witnesses to come forth. Today we have Ms. Robin Nazzaro,
Director of Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, as our first witness. We appreciate your
participation here. I guess I am supposed to swear you in. So
why don't we go ahead and do that.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Walden. Thank you. We certainly welcome you back to our
committee and appreciate the work of your fine agency in
evaluating these issues and look forward to hearing your
testimony before our Subcommittee. So welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN M. NAZZARO, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Nazzaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program within the
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.
Last March, the agency reported to this Subcommittee that
it had a backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing
reforestation. Reforestation, whether it is achieved by
planting trees or letting them naturally regenerate, is
critical to restoring and improving the health of our national
forests after timber harvests as well as after natural
disturbances, such as wildland fires, outbreaks of disease, or
insect infestations.
The success of reforestation efforts often depends upon
subsequent timber stand improvement treatments such as removing
competing vegetation to allow seedlings to survive. In some
parts of the country, without active intervention, it may take
decades for disturbed land to return to a forested condition.
In other parts, trees may naturally return soon after a
disturbance, but the type of regrowth may not be consistent
with the Forest Service program objectives such as improving
wildlife habitat, enhancing recreational opportunities, and
ensuring timber production.
My testimony summarizes the results of our report being
released today on, one, the reported trends in Federal lands
needing reforestation and timber stand improvement; two,
factors that have contributed to these trends; and, three,
potential effects of the trends that the Forest Service
officials have identified.
As shown on the chart on the screens, the reported acreage
of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand
improvements has been generally increasing during the past 5
years. It might be a little hard to see, but the top line, the
blue line, is the timber stand improvement needs, and the
bottom red dashed line is the reforestation needs.
Mr. Walden. Can you just tell me over what period that is?
Ms. Nazzaro. It is a 10-year period starting 1994 to 2004.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Ms. Nazzaro. So you will see the biggest increase that we
have identified is after the year 2000.
While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to
identify these relative trends, we found that the data are not
sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency's
specific treatment needs to establish priorities among
treatments or to estimate a budget. Our reasons for concern
include the fact that Forest Service regions and forests define
their needs differently. Further, the differences in data among
locations are compounded because the reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs reported are a mixture of actual needs
diagnosed through site visits and estimates. In addition, some
regions do not systematically update their data to reflect
current forest conditions or review their data's accuracy.
Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the
agency is implementing a new data system to better track its
needs. However, while helpful, taking this action alone will
not resolve the data problems we have identified without making
changes to agency policies and practices to standardize how
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are defined,
reported, and validated.
According to Forest Service officials, the need for
reforestation since 2000 is mainly the result of the increasing
acreage of land affected by natural disturbances such as
wildland fires. However, funding sources to pay for such needs
have remained relatively stable rather than rising in step with
the increasing needs. In the past, the need for reforestation
resulted primarily from timber harvests, and the timber sales
produced enough revenue to pay for most of the related
reforestation.
Regarding the need for timber stand improvement, agency
officials said that these needs are increasing in part because
managers in some forest regions do not emphasize these
treatments. They believe that reforestation treatments, which
generally must be completed within 5 years after harvesting
trees, are more important that timber stand improvement
treatments. Another reason for the reported increase in the
acreage needing timber stand improvement is that high-density
planting practices used in the past to replace harvested trees
are creating the need for thinning treatments today.
If future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs
continue to outpace the Forest Service's ability to meet these
needs and treatments are delayed, agency officials believe
their ability to achieve forest management objectives such as
protecting wildlife habitat may be impaired; treatment costs
could increase; and forests could become more susceptible to
fire, disease, and insect damage. While Forest Service
officials express concern about these potential harmful effects
of delaying projects, the agency has not adjusted its policies,
practices, and priorities to reflect this concern and the
current environment of constrained budgets.
In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of
Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take
several actions to improve the agency's ability to identify its
needs for reforestation and timber stand improvement and ensure
funding for the most critical projects. In commenting on a
draft of our report, the Forest Service agreed with our
findings and recommendations and stated that it was preparing
an action plan to address the recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to respond to any questions that you or members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazzaro follows:]
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss several issues related to
the reforestation and timber stand improvement program within the
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. Last March, the agency
reported to this Subcommittee that it had a backlog of nearly 900,000
acres of land needing reforestation. Reforestation, whether it is
achieved by planting trees or letting them naturally regenerate, is
critical to restoring and improving the health of our national forests
after timber harvests, as well as after natural disturbances such as
wildland fires, outbreaks of disease, or insect infestations. The
success of reforestation efforts, as well as the overall health of the
forests, often depends upon subsequent timber stand improvement
treatments, such as removing competing vegetation to allow seedlings to
survive. In some parts of the country, without active intervention, it
may take decades for disturbed land to return to a forested condition.
In other parts, trees may naturally return soon after a disturbance,
but the type of regrowth may not be consistent with the Forest
Service's program objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat,
enhancing recreational opportunities, and ensuring timber production.
My testimony summarizes the results of our report being released
today on the (1) reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation
and timber stand improvement, (2) factors that have contributed to
these trends, and (3) potential effects of these trends that Forest
Service officials have identified. 1 In conducting our
review, we analyzed Forest Service data for 1995 through 2004,
interviewed agency officials at all levels, and visited four regions
with the largest reported reforestation or timber stand improvement
needs. We focused on the Forest Service's reforestation and timber
stand improvement program because this program, which covers 155
national forests, is the largest one administered by a federal land
management agency. In 2004, for example, the Forest Service reported
reforesting more than 150,000 acres nationwide, while the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior, which has
the second-largest program, reported reforesting less than 20,000
acres. While our work included a limited review of BLM's program, my
testimony today centers on our findings about the Forest Service's
program because we found no significant issues to report concerning
BLM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and
Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs, GAO-05-374
(Washington D.C.: April 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and
timber stand improvement has been generally increasing since 2000,
according to Forest Service officials and data reported to the
Congress, as well as other studies. Much of the increase in
reforestation needs occurred in western regions, where needs associated
with natural disturbances, such as wildland fires, began to increase
dramatically in 2000. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently
reliable to identify this relative trend, they are not sufficiently
reliable to accurately quantify the agency's specific treatment needs,
establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data
are limited in part because Forest Service regions and forests define
their needs differently, and some do not systematically update their
data to reflect current forest conditions or review their data's
accuracy. Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the
agency is implementing a new data system to better track its needs.
However, while helpful, taking this action alone will not resolve the
data problems we have identified without making changes to agency
policies and practices to standardize how reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs are defined, reported, and validated.
According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs are
accumulating because of the increasing acreage of land affected by
natural disturbances--such as wildland fires, insect infestation, and
diseases. In the past, reforestation needs resulted primarily from
timber harvests, and timber sales produced enough revenue to pay for
most of the related reforestation needs. Since 2000, however, needs
have been resulting mainly from natural disturbances, and funding
sources to pay for such needs have remained relatively stable rather
than rising in step with the increasing needs. For timber stand
improvement, agency officials said that needs are increasing in part
because managers in some Forest Service regions do not emphasize these
treatments. They believe reforestation treatments--which generally must
be completed within 5 years after harvesting trees--are more important
than timber stand improvement treatments. Another reason for the
reported increase in the acreage needing attention is that high-density
planting practices, used in the past to replace harvested trees, are
creating needs for thinning treatments today.
If future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue
to outpace the Forest Service's ability to meet these needs and
treatments are delayed, agency officials believe their ability to
achieve forest management objectives, such as protecting wildlife
habitat, may be impaired; treatment costs could increase; and forests
could become more susceptible to fire, disease, and insect damage. For
example, forest management objectives could be impaired if an area
previously dominated by forests became dominated by shrub fields,
compromising wildlife habitat, recreation, and timber value. While
Forest Service officials expressed concern about these potential
harmful effects of delaying projects, the agency has not adjusted its
policies, practices, and priorities for the reforestation and timber
stand improvement program to reflect this concern and the current
environment of constrained budgets. Forest Service officials did
acknowledge the need to make such changes.
In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture
direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take several actions to
improve the agency's ability to identify its reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs and ensure funding for its most critical
projects. In commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service
agreed with our findings and recommendations and stated it was
preparing an action plan to address the recommendations.
Background
Historically, the Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand
improvement program focused on maximizing timber production. Now,
however, the program is intended to achieve a variety of objectives,
such as improving wildlife habitat, maintaining water quality, and
ensuring sustainable timber production. To achieve these objectives
after timber harvests or natural events that damage forests, Forest
Service staff identify sites needing reforestation and plan specific
treatments. For reforestation, staff either plant seedlings or allow
the sites to regenerate naturally as existing trees reseed the area.
The latter approach sometimes requires the sites to be prepared by
removing unwanted vegetation that could compete with young seedlings.
As with reforestation, Forest Service staff identify areas of a forest
needing timber stand improvement and plan specific treatments. These
treatments are intended to provide better growing conditions for trees
and include activities such as removing competing vegetation and
thinning forests when trees are too crowded.
In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber
stand improvement backlog affecting 3.3 million acres of forested
lands. To address this backlog, the Congress included a provision in
the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requiring the Forest
Service to annually report the estimated funding needed to prevent the
recurrence of a backlog on lands available for timber production.
2 The Forest Service primarily uses moneys generated from
the sale of timber to reforest areas where timber has been harvested,
whereas it relies primarily on annual appropriations to reforest areas
affected by natural disturbances. In 1980, the Congress created the
Reforestation Trust Fund, which is funded through tariffs on imported
wood products, to provide dedicated funding for reforestation and
timber stand improvement treatments and to help eliminate the backlog.
In 1985, the Forest Service declared that it had virtually eliminated
the backlog reported in 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Shortly after the Forest Service reported its backlog, the
Congress enacted the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
Act of 1974, requiring the Forest Service to annually request funds for
an orderly program to eliminate backlogs in all Forest Service
renewable resource programs. This act was amended by NFMA, which
contains more specific direction to address the elimination of
reforestation backlogs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service's implementation, management, and oversight of
the reforestation and timber stand improvement program are
decentralized. Its headquarters and 9 regional offices establish policy
and provide technical direction to 155 national forest offices on
various aspects of the program. District office staff within these
national forests are responsible for assessing reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs, planning treatments to address the needs, and
accomplishing the treatments. Although the Forest Service's Director of
Forest Management in headquarters is responsible for reporting agency-
wide reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to the Congress,
the standards and procedures for collecting and reporting these data
are decentralized.
Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand
Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make
It Difficult to Accurately Quantify Its Needs
Forest Service reports to the Congress show a generally increasing
trend in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs during the
last 5 years, as shown in figure 1. While the Forest Service data are
sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend, they are not
sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency's specific
needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget.
Although the Forest Service is developing a new national data system,
the agency does not anticipate making significant changes to its
policies and practices to improve the quality of the data.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0970.001
The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs
Forest Service reports to the Congress show that the acreage of
agency lands needing reforestation declined steadily between Fiscal
Years 1995 and 1999 but then steadily increased from 2000 through 2004.
Much of the recent increase in reforestation needs occurred in Forest
Service regions located in western states. Officials from three of the
four regions we visited (the Northern, Pacific Northwest, and Pacific
Southwest Regions) expressed concern about the increasing level of
their reforestation needs relative to their future ability to meet
these needs. With respect to timber stand improvement needs, the Forest
Service reports that the acreage of its lands needing such treatments
increased most years since 1995. While nationwide timber stand
improvement needs generally have been increasing, some regions have
reported stable or decreasing trends. For example, the Pacific
Southwest Region has reported slightly decreasing needs since 1995,
which agency officials attribute in part to an emphasis on thinning
treatments associated with the National Fire Plan. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In 2001, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
developed a National Fire Plan with state and local agencies and tribal
governments to provide technical and financial resources to reduce the
risk to communities and ecosystems from wildland fire, in part, by
reducing hazardous fuels by thinning trees--one type of timber stand
improvement treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service Data Are Not Sufficient to Accurately Quantify the
Agency's Needs
The Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement
data, when combined with other information from Forest Service
officials and nongovernmental experts--as well as data on recent
increases in natural disturbances such as wildland fires--are
sufficiently reliable for identifying relative trends in needs.
However, we have concerns about the use of these data in quantifying
the acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement treatments for several reasons.
First, Forest Service regions and forests define their
needs differently. For example, the Pacific Southwest Region reports
reforestation needs in areas where it anticipates a timber harvest,
even though the forest is still fully stocked with trees, while other
regions we visited do not report a need until after the timber is
harvested.
Second, differences in Forest Service data among
locations are compounded because the reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs reported are a mixture of actual needs diagnosed
through site visits and estimates. In cases where the needs are based
on estimates--for example after a wildland fire--the reported needs may
not always be adjusted after the actual needs are known.
Third, Forest Service regions do not always update the
data to reflect current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the
data. Moreover, some regions cannot link reported needs to distinct
forest locations, making it difficult for them to detect obsolete needs
and update the data.
Finally, Forest Service headquarters staff have not
conducted reviews in the last decade to ensure that the data reflect
on-the-ground conditions.
These inconsistencies in data and data quality mean that the needs
reported at the regional level may be understated or overstated and
cannot be meaningfully aggregated at the national level. Moreover, many
of these data problems are long-standing and may not be adequately
addressed when the Forest Service implements a new data system later
this year. Although the new system will replace individual district,
forest, and regional systems for reporting needs with a modern agency-
wide database, the quality of the data used in the new system will not
improve unless the Forest Service addresses how reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs are defined, interpreted, and reported.
Forest Service officials acknowledge these problems and are preparing
an action plan to address them.
Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to
Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs
Forest Service officials told us that reforestation needs have been
rising largely because such needs have increasingly been generated by
causes other than timber harvests, and funding to address these needs
has not kept pace. During the early 1990s, the agency shifted its
management emphasis from timber production to enhancing forest
ecosystem health and, as a result, harvested less timber. Timber
harvests, which provided sufficient revenue to pay for related
reforestation needs, are no longer the main source of such needs.
According to Forest Service reports, beginning around 2000, the acreage
burned in wildland fires and damaged by insects and diseases annually
began to increase significantly, leaving thousands of acres needing
reforestation. Nationally, wildland fires burned over 8 million acres
in 2000, compared with about 2.3 million acres in 1998. 4
Similarly, the amount of land damaged by insects and diseases increased
significantly, with over 12 million acres of forest affected in 2003,
compared with less than 2 million acres in 1999. As the acreage
affected by these natural disturbances increased, so did reforestation
needs. However, funding allocated to pay for reforestation did not
increase at the same rate, so needs began to accumulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These numbers include lands under federal and state ownership,
not just Forest Service land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that management
practices have been the primary factor contributing to the increase in
acreage needing treatment. For example, some regions prioritize funding
for reforestation treatments over timber stand improvement treatments
and consequently do not treat timber stand improvement needs as quickly
as they are accumulating. These regions follow this practice in part
because they are required to complete reforestation treatments within 5
years of harvesting, whereas for timber stand improvement, there is no
such requirement. National timber stand improvement needs also are
increasing because the Forest Service has expanded the scope of the
program, now identifying lands where timber stand improvement work is
needed to meet objectives beyond maximizing timber yield, such as
improving wildlife habitats or thinning hazardous fuels to reduce fire
danger. As the objectives of timber stand improvement have expanded,
needs have expanded accordingly. Finally, nationwide timber stand
improvement needs are increasing because reforestation techniques
favored in the 1980s and 1990s recommended planting trees much more
densely than may be currently recommended so that as the trees grew,
the agency could keep the largest and healthiest of them for
cultivating, and thin out the others. Consequently, many stands that
were planted 15 or 20 years ago now need thinning, according to agency
officials.
Agency Officials Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Needs Are
Not Addressed, but Have Not Positioned the Agency to Manage
Such Effects
If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to
accumulate in the future and the Forest Service is unable to keep pace
with the needs, the agency will likely have to postpone some treatment
projects. According to agency officials, the agency's ability to
achieve forest management objectives may consequently be impaired;
treatment costs could increase; and forests could become more
susceptible to fire, disease, and insect damage. While Forest Service
officials expressed concern about the potential harmful effects of
delaying projects, the agency has not clarified its direction and
priorities for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program
to reflect this concern and the current context in which the program
operates.
Achievement of Management Objectives Could Be Impaired; Treatment Costs
Could Increase; and Forests Could Become More Vulnerable to
Fire, Insects, and Disease
The Forest Service's ability to meet the management objectives
defined in its forest plans 5--such as maintaining a variety
of tree species in a forest or appropriate habitat for certain
wildlife--could be impaired if reforestation or timber stand
improvement treatments are delayed. For example, an area previously
dominated by forests could become dominated by shrubfields,
compromising wildlife habitat, recreation, and timber value. Such a
situation developed in the Tahoe National Forest, where about 750 acres
were cleared by a 1924 wildland fire and replaced by shrubs that
remained until agency officials replanted the area in 1964--40 years
later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Under NFMA, each national forest is required to have a forest
management plan describing the agency's objectives for the forest,
including those related to reforestation and timber stand improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not
addressed in a timely manner, treatment costs also could increase
because removing competing vegetation, which is required for most
reforestation and timber stand improvement projects, will become more
costly as the vegetation grows. In addition, forests would likely
become more susceptible to severe wildland fires and damage from
insects and disease, according to agency officials. When reforestation
needs are left unattended, brush can grow in place of forests,
providing dense, continuous fuel for wildland fires. When thinning
needs are left unattended, experts believe the tightly-spaced trees
fuel wildland fires, causing the fires to spread rapidly and increasing
the likelihood of unusually large fires that create widespread
destruction. In addition, densely populated forests tend to be stressed
because the trees compete with one another for sunlight, water, and
nutrients. When insects or diseases infect such forests, they can
spread rapidly.
Forest Service Is Not Well Positioned to Manage Potential Effects of
Increasing Needs
Although Forest Service officials expressed concern about the
potential effects of leaving reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs unattended, the agency has not made sufficient adjustments to
address these concerns and adapt to the present context in which the
program operates. Over the past decade, the Forest Service has shifted
its management emphasis from timber production to ecosystem management,
sources of reforestation needs have shifted from timber harvests to
natural causes, and budgets have become increasingly constrained. The
agency, however, has not adjusted the program's direction, policies,
practices, and priorities in keeping with these changes, although
agency officials acknowledged the need to do so.
While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis
from timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s,
there remains a lack of clarity about agency mission and goals, and
more specifically, about the direction and goals for the reforestation
and timber stand improvement program, according to agency officials.
When timber production was the emphasis, program direction was clearly
focused, whereas in the current environment, it is less so.
Reforestation and timber stand improvement projects now are done for
multiple purposes--such as improving wildlife habitat, protecting
streams, and reducing susceptibility to wildland fires--but it is
unclear which purposes are more important, if any, and how to allocate
limited funds to support such diverse purposes. The lack of clarity is
apparent in forest management plans, where objectives are expressed in
vague or contradictory language, according to agency officials. The
plans are intended to help guide decisions, such as which reforestation
techniques to use, but agency officials said it can be difficult to
interpret the plans because of the problematic language.
In the absence of clear, up-to-date program direction, there are
priorities, policies, and practices remaining in place that reflect
outdated management emphasis. For example, a 2001 report had
recommended that the Pacific Northwest region change its priorities by
diverting some of its reforestation funds to pay for timber stand
improvement. Doing so could help reduce the impacts of wildland fire,
and thereby reduce the reforestation needs created by such fires, the
report argued. Nevertheless, regional officials we talked with did not
all agree with the recommendation, and the region has instead continued
to prioritize reforestation over timber stand improvement as it has
done since the inception of the timber program. Similarly, in the
Pacific Southwest region, when officials reforest an area, they almost
always rely on planting--a more expensive method than natural
regeneration. This approach may have been appropriate when timber
production was the emphasis and timber revenues were higher, because
natural regeneration can be slower and less productive than planting.
However, the region continues to avoid natural regeneration because
they have always done so and, according to agency officials, this
practice has been reinforced by the regional culture.
Conclusions
Although the Forest Service annually reports its reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the agency has not
developed a tally of these needs that accurately reflects the condition
of our national forests. While we recognize that the systematic
collection of accurate data may take resources away from reforestation
and timber stand improvements in the short-term, such an investment
could lay the foundation for the Forest Service to provide a credible
picture of our forests' needs to the Congress. With the advent of a new
agency-wide data collection system, the Forest Service has the
opportunity to improve the consistency and accuracy with which its data
reflect on-the-ground conditions in our national forests. Consistent,
accurate data would help the agency to build a well-founded budget case
for funding reforestation and timber stand improvement needs.
However, the Forest Service must recognize that in the current,
fiscally constrained environment, even well-supported needs may not
always be funded. The agency needs to update its goals and policies for
the reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect the
current fiscal environment, as well as its current emphasis on
ecosystem management. Until it does so, it will be difficult for the
Forest Service to identify the best investments to minimize adverse
effects on the lasting health and productivity of our national forests.
To address these issues, we recommended in our report that the
Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to
standardize guidance for reporting data on reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs and improve the data's accuracy in time for
congressional deliberation on the Forest Service's 2007 appropriations
request. We further recommended that the Secretary direct the Chief to
clarify the program direction and policies, and establish criteria for
prioritizing the agency's use of program funds. The Forest Service, on
behalf of the Department of Agriculture, concurred with our findings
and recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or at [email protected]. Bill Bates, David P. Bixler,
Christy Colburn, Sandy Davis, Omari Norman, Cynthia Norris, Jena
Sinkfield, and Jay Smale made key contributions to this statement.
GAO Highlights
Why GAO Did This Study
In 2004, the Forest Service reported to the Congress that it had a
backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing reforestation--the
planting and natural regeneration of trees. Reforestation and
subsequent timber stand improvement treatments, such as thinning trees
and removing competing vegetation, are critical to restoring and
improving the health of our national forests after timber harvests or
natural disturbances such as wildland fires.
GAO was asked to (1) examine the reported trends in federal lands
needing reforestation and timber stand improvement, (2) identify the
factors that have contributed to these trends, and (3) describe any
potential effects of these trends that federal land managers have
identified. This testimony is based on GAO's report Forest Service:
Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and
Timber Stand Improvement Needs (GAO-05-374), being released today.
What GAO Recommends
In its report, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture
direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take several actions to
improve the agency's ability to identify and prioritize its
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs. In commenting on a
draft of the report, the Forest Service agreed with GAO's findings and
recommendations.
What GAO Found
The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and
timber stand improvement has been generally increasing since 2000,
according to Forest Service officials and data reported to the
Congress, as well as other studies. While the Forest Service data are
sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend, they are not
sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency's specific
needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. The
data's reliability is limited in part because some Forest Service
regions and forests define their needs differently, and some do not
systematically update the data to reflect current forest conditions or
review the accuracy of the data. Forest Service officials acknowledge
these problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to
better track its needs. While helpful, this action alone will not be
sufficient to address the data problems GAO has identified.
According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs have
been increasing in spite of declining timber harvests because of the
growing acreage of lands affected by natural disturbances such as
wildland fires, insect infestation, and diseases. In the past,
reforestation needs resulted primarily from timber harvests, whose
sales produced sufficient revenue to fund most reforestation needs. Now
needs are resulting mainly from natural causes, and funding sources for
such needs have remained relatively constant rather than rising in step
with increasing needs. For timber stand improvement, the acreage
needing attention is growing in part because high-density planting
practices, used in the past to replace harvested trees, are creating
needs for thinning treatments today and because treatments have not
kept pace with the growing needs.
Forest Service officials believe the agency's ability to achieve
its forest management objectives may be impaired if future
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace
the agency's ability to meet these needs. For example, maintaining
wildlife habitat--one forest management objective--could be hindered if
brush grows to dominate an area formerly forested with tree species
that provided forage, nesting, or other benefits to wildlife. Also, if
treatments are delayed, costs could increase because competing
vegetation--which must be removed to allow newly reforested stands to
survive--grows larger over time and becomes more costly to remove.
Further, without needed thinning treatments, agency officials said
forests become dense, fueling wildland fires and creating competition
among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect attack and
disease. While agency officials expressed concern about these potential
effects, the agency has not adjusted its policies and priorities for
the reforestation and timber stand improvement program so that adverse
effects can be minimized. Forest Service officials did, however,
acknowledge the need to make such changes.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. We appreciate, again, the
work of your agency in doing this research for us. It certainly
helps guide us in our policymaking decisions, and every member
of the Subcommittee has a copy of the full GAO report. So we
appreciate that.
Ms. Nazzaro. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. I noted in the report that there is a
discussion about timber stand improvements, and I know some
dispute even the term ``timber stand improvement.'' But the
report indicated timber stand improvement needs reported by the
Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Region covering all of
Washington and Oregon were the highest of any region during 4
of the last 5 years.
Can you tell us why that is?
Ms. Nazzaro. I do not believe that I have that information.
I could provide it to you, though. If that was included as part
of our audit, we could provide that for the record.
Mr. Walden. I would be interested to know more about that.
It seems like your report really focuses on an issue that has
been before the Congress multiple times, and that is the
quality of data that we are getting out of the Forest Service.
And you have indicated the Forest Service agreed with your
recommendations and is going to prepare a response. Did they
give you any time line?
Ms. Nazzaro. No. There is a requirement that they provide
within 90 days an action plan to do this, but we have not heard
from them yet, other than the official comments in the report
that said that they were developing this new data system.
However, we are concerned that the data system itself will not
be enough because what we need is to make sure that the data
that is going into that system is accurate. What they are doing
now is automating what previously was done manually, so it
could be bad data in, bad data out. We still will not know if
it is overstated or understated without having quality data
that has been validated.
Mr. Walden. What do you recommend to us to figure out, to
help them figure out how to get good data in? What should we be
looking for? What should we change?
Ms. Nazzaro. Well, we made a number of recommendations in
that area, and particularly we are requiring data validation by
all the regions. In some cases, as I noted in my statement,
they had done site visits to try to validate the accuracy of
their data. In other cases, they told us these were just
estimates. So they really do not know how accurate the data are
themselves.
Mr. Walden. I sort of ran into this in trying to acquire
some data on the work being done on healthy forest restoration,
the thinning projects and all, and I wanted to get it as close
to the ground, to the smallest unit as possible. And it was odd
that I could get statewide numbers, but I could not get
localized data.
Now, I am a journalism major, not a mathematician, but I
could not figure out how you get to the total without all the
little things in between. And it sounds like that is part of
the problem here, that they can give you sort of a global
number, but that may not reflect what is really happening on
the ground.
Ms. Nazzaro. And, actually, I think we are seeing maybe
just the converse of that, that some of the localities were
able to give us what they perceived as accurate data, although
they do not have criteria that is used uniformly across all of
the localities. So then when you wrap it up, you really have
suspect data because they have used different criteria for the
input to that total number.
Mr. Walden. Now, it looked like, too, that the laws that
were passed in 1974 and later helped the agencies be able to
get at this backlog issue and virtually work it down to
virtually no backlog. And now we are seeing a trend the other
direction again.
Am I correct in reading the report that in part that is due
to a lack of funding, in part that is due to stands that were
replanted very densely after harvest in anticipation of future
thinning that have not been thinned? And then the third issue
really is the really terrible wildfires we have seen over the
last 5 years.
Ms. Nazzaro. You are correct in that. The reforestation is
definitely what they have told us as a result of the increase
in wildland fires, which we were able to validate that that
increased trend has occurred. For timber stand improvements, it
is that the forests were planted very densely, and now they
have not done the thinning necessary.
Mr. Walden. And certainly in some forests, it makes perfect
sense to allow natural regeneration. I do not think anybody is
talking about single species regeneration, some plantation
deal. But it looks to me like from this report and others that
we can make a choice to get in and replant a mixed group of
trees to reflect what was there before. And you can do that
cheaper and faster and restore the habitat, protect watershed,
and all that quicker if you get in faster, or you can delay and
get a brush field, and it may take a decade or two or more to
get to the same place or to get back into a natural forest
regenerated.
Is that in keeping with what your report found?
Ms. Nazzaro. Definitely, that it would take longer.
Mr. Walden. And cost more?
Ms. Nazzaro. And cost more, right. What we are seeing is
that--and you could also have a change in habitat as well. So
there is a lot of different consequences of just letting the
natural habitation or the vegetation regrow. It could be that
you are going to have different species of trees growing, so
that would be inconsistent with what was already decided that
this forest should have. But it could also affect recreation
needs, habitat needs, watershed concerns.
Mr. Walden. One final question and then I will turn it over
to my colleague from New Mexico. Did you find any downside to
more rapidly going in and doing reforestation work after a
fire? Did your folks look at that? Did anybody that you talked
to say, gosh, you ought to just let it do what it is going to
do?
Ms. Nazzaro. No, we did not. I didn't recall any in the
report. I just wanted to make sure. No.
Mr. Walden. I did not see it in what I read either. All
right. Thank you very much.
I will turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This must be a little bit frustrating for the GAO. I note
here, here is a 1991 report that says better reporting needed
on reforestation and timber stand improvement. Then here we
have a September 1994 report that says management of
reforestation program has improved but problems continue. And
then you have the report that we are having the hearing on
today. And the Chairman I think probed into this a little bit,
but is there any suggestion you have on how we can get this
right, get the Forest Service to get it right?
Ms. Nazzaro. The bottom line certainly is the need for
better data. What we are saying is they need to be able to
prioritize so that at least we know where the money is being
spent and if it is being spent effectively. But they will not
know that unless they have the right data. And they have agreed
with our recommendations. As I said, they are developing this
new data system, although we are concerned with the data
quality.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you.
On page 22 of the current GAO report, it states, and I
quote, ``While reported reforestation needs have been rising,
funding allocated for reforestation and timber stand
improvement has not.''
In researching this report, did your agency take a close
look into the various reforestation funds and where the funds
were being allocated, specifically in reference to the Knutson-
Vandenberg Fund?
Ms. Nazzaro. We did not look into that issue as to how the
funds were being spent. We did note that they have asked for an
increase in funding in 2006, but we have not looked at how
prior funds have been used, no, sir.
Mr. Walden. Please, for the benefit of the committee
members that may not be familiar, could you detail, or
somebody, maybe staff, what the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund is and
how the money goes into that? Because there may be members that
do not know that.
Ms. Nazzaro. Actually, I am not familiar with it.
Mr. Walden. You cannot? All right.
Ms. Nazzaro. I do not believe we have anybody here that has
a detailed knowledge to give you a primer on it.
Mr. Walden. We have Forest Service here.
Ms. Nazzaro. I would defer the question to the Forest
Service.
Mr. Walden. It is a very important part of this.
Mr. Tom Udall. I agree, Mr. Chairman.
Are you aware of the previous congressional concerns about
one-third of the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund not being used for
reforestation activities as initially intended?
Ms. Nazzaro. No. As I say, we did not look at all into how
any of the appropriated funds have been spent. Again, you may
want to defer that question until you have the agency up here.
Mr. Tom Udall. OK. And I think you are probably going to
say no to this, too, but did you find instances where funds
collected for reforestation in individual sale areas did not
cover the actual reforestation cost?
Ms. Nazzaro. No, but the issue was raised when we talked
about salvage logging as to whether the costs were going to be
able to--that the costs--excuse me, the receipts received from
those sales, whether they would be able to cover all the
associated costs. And they did talk about administrative costs
that needed to be factored in as well. So it was unclear that
the Forest Service had any data to show us how cost-effective
any of these measures were.
Mr. Tom Udall. Just for the record, in 1998, the GAO
reviewed the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund and reported that up to 30
percent of the fund was being charged to indirect expenses.
This report led to a successful amendment to prohibit the use
of Knutson-Vandenberg funding for indirect expenses during the
consideration of the Fiscal Year 1999 House Interior spending
bill, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, and I appreciate your raising those
issues on Knutson-Vandenberg and we will--because that was an
issue that you all raised, that it was like 30 percent of the
fund, questionable expenditures, and we will get an answer as
to how it is being spent now.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Gilchrest, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Nazzaro, could you tell us--and maybe the Forest
Service might want to focus on this or tell us as well--when
the Forest Service collects data throughout the country in all
the different regions, assuming there is specific criteria or
purpose for the kind of data they are looking for, do they do
it with satellites, airplanes, walking on the ground? How do
they collect that data?
Ms. Nazzaro. We documented two methods: one, doing site
visits, that they had gone out and actually viewed these sites;
and the other was that they just did estimates.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there are no flyovers or satellite data
that would be pertinent to the kind of data they are looking
for?
Ms. Nazzaro. You might want to ask the Forest Service about
that. We did not document any of those methods being used.
Mr. Gilchrest. As you were going through this with BLM and
the Forest Service, is there any similarity--the refuge system
has volunteers that do a lot of data collecting for all the
refuges, Federal refuges. Does the Forest Service have any
counterpart to those kinds of volunteers that collect this kind
of data?
Ms. Nazzaro. No, we did not document any performance like
that. Again, you might want to ask the agency whether they do.
I don't know whether they do or not. We did not experience
that.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. You also mentioned in your report
that land managers--and I am assuming that is the Forest
Service--cite adverse effects that could result in
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs not being
addressed. Some of the adverse effects resulting from the lack
of reforestation is that there seems to be an expansion of
priorities in different regions, whether it is for fuel
reduction or some other purpose.
Is there any way--and I think the Chairman made mention to
this earlier. Does your report say that the Chief of the Forest
Service should be specific about the goals or priorities of
each region, giving less independence to each manager for a
different region? Or is it good that each manager has
independence in each region?
Ms. Nazzaro. We did not specify exactly that they needed--
at what level they needed to do it. We asked that they clarify
the direction and the policies for reforestation. We feel right
now that the Forest Service has a multifaceted mission. I mean,
you are asking them to address issues of wildlife habitats,
recreational uses, timber production, in addition to dealing
with the issues from the wildfires. So we really feel that
there needs to be some kind of program direction as to what
goal are they trying to achieve, what are their objectives. And
that is where we talk about the need to set some priorities.
And it could vary certainly from location to location. Not all
locations are set with the same goals in mind.
Mr. Gilchrest. In your research, does the Forest Service
have a list of priorities for each region, such as wildlife
habitat, such as timber harvesting, such as water quality? Are
those things listed out there that you could see?
Ms. Nazzaro. They do have forest plans, but our view there
was that the plans were vague and contradictory. So I would say
no, they do not have the clear direction.
Mr. Gilchrest. So if the plans are vague and contradictory,
who determines the kind of data that you are going to collect
to ensure that the priorities, which might be contradictory,
are achieved?
Ms. Nazzaro. Right now we do not see that the Forest
Service has those directions or policies to tell them what
criteria they should use.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Ms. Nazzaro. We found some that were using criteria based
on existing needs; some were projecting needs into the future.
So there is not a uniformity, at least in the Forest Service,
like we saw at BLM. BLM has a criteria that the need had to
exist within a 5-year time--within the last 5 years, and they
do not project to the future. They have much more solid
criteria.
Mr. Gilchrest. In any of the regions that you went to, the
Forest Service or the BLM, one of the goals would have been
economic value placed on ecosystem services provided for that
forest, is that in--in other words, water quality has a certain
economic value. Wildlife habitat has a certain economic value.
Carbon sequestration has a certain economic value. Was that in
any of the regions that you visited, economic value of the
ecosystem services provided by the forests?
Ms. Nazzaro. I did not see that analysis discussed in our
report, no.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
Before I go to the gentlewoman from South Dakota, on page 7
of the GAO report, at the bottom is a good explanation of the
Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930: establish a trust fund to
collect a portion of timber sale receipts to pay for
reforesting areas from which timber is cut. The reforestation
projects eligible for such funding include growing trees for
planting, planting trees, sowing seeds, removing weeds and
other competing vegetation, and preventing animals from
damaging new trees. The Act was amended in 1976 to allow the
Forest Service to use these funds for other activities such as
creating wildlife habitat.
So I don't know about you all, but I have been on
committees where they buzz right through all the buzz words,
and you never quite know what they are talking about. So I
thought that might help.
Now I recognize the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Ms.
Herseth.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that
guidance where I can refer to in the report. And I appreciate
your testimony here today and all the work, Ms. Nazzaro, of
your staff and your office in preparing the report. And I am
going to save most of my questions for our friends from the
Forest Service who will be following you, but let me just flesh
out a few things and follow up on some of the questions that my
colleagues have posed here. I am going to, by way of
background, just give you a sense of where I am coming from
here.
I represent South Dakota, and if we use--you had mentioned
that funding is part of the problem here, and maybe we can
compare the problems we have there today versus what we were
able to successfully do, as Chairman Walden pointed out, in the
1970s, the lack of uniformity of the data, as Mr. Gilchrest has
pointed out.
But if we use the Black Hills National Forest in South
Dakota as an example, and let's say the normal total annual
budget for the forest there is $20 million, for timber sales,
campgrounds, fuel reduction, wildlife habitat, et cetera. Now
then let's say there has been a major fire, as we have had
numerous ones in the last 5 years, as have other national
forests. And they estimate that the planting needs will cost
$25 million. That is assuming 50,000 acres and $500 an acre.
Now, the current system would have the Black Hills National
Forest budget the $25 million out of their annual $20 million
operating budget, and then consequently the only way the
national forest could fund the tree planting would be to reduce
their budget for timber sales, campgrounds, et cetera, and not
surprisingly, that is not happening. So when we look at the
possible solutions, whether it is to do something as we did in
the 1970s as part of the National Forest Management Act, where
the Forest Service was required to determine the reforestation
backlog and then to reforest the backlog acres within a certain
period of time that seemingly worked, or if we had something
separate from the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund or we had a separate
line item in the budget, is it your opinion based on the
findings in your report that without the uniformity in the data
available that we cannot really make what we made work in the
latter part of the 1970s work now to address the backlog?
Ms. Nazzaro. I guess it depends how much money you are
willing to spend, if you are willing to take at face value that
they have 900,000 acres that need reforestation and get an
estimate of an average cost per acre and that is what you
appropriate to them, although I cannot imagine that those kind
of funds are available. So what we are saying is that you need
to set priorities to make sure--because, as was mentioned
earlier, some areas can be allowed to naturally regenerate
themselves; some areas need reforestation. So until you set
those priorities--but to set the priorities, you have to have
the data to support the existing condition. And we are feeling
right now we cannot tell whether the 900,000 acres is an
overestimate or an underestimate.
Ms. Herseth. And did your report break down by region based
on management in different forests how the data was being
collected? I think Mr. Gilchrest was getting at this point of
whether they are estimates, whether it is on the ground,
whether it is any other method that is being used to collect
the information?
Ms. Nazzaro. No. The short answer is no. It is not--our
first attempt was to try to validate that number of the 900,000
acres, and when we saw all the problems, we just tried to
characterize the types of problems that were existing, so that
led us to the type of conclusion then as to what needs to be
done to correct the problem. But we didn't by location say this
site uses this method versus that site. It is just
inconsistent, and it needs to be done in a consistent fashion.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Thanks for your comments.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the Chairman. Welcome, Robin. Nice to
have you here.
In your opinion, what are some of the probable consequences
of not addressing the backlog of stand improvement needs?
Ms. Nazzaro. Well, right now you would certainly be--I
guess probably the largest problem we see or the most prevalent
problem for timber stand improvements is that you are creating
an ecosystem that is more susceptible to wildland fires.
Mr. Peterson. That is the major issue, you think?
Ms. Nazzaro. That's what I would say would be probably the
largest issue.
Mr. Peterson. Has the Administration budget request taken
into account the increased needs for reforestation and stand
improvement?
Ms. Nazzaro. Could you restate that again?
Mr. Peterson. Does the current proposed budget adequately
reflect the need for reforestation?
Ms. Nazzaro. Since we couldn't verify or validate what
their actual needs were, there is no way we can tell whether
their budget request is adequate or inadequate.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I think the answer is obvious.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Nazzaro. That is why I asked you to restate the
question, to make sure I understood what you were asking. Thank
you.
Mr. Peterson. The GAO report notes that the Western Region
has expressed concern about their future ability to meet
reforestation needs. What are the primary reasons given for
their concern?
Ms. Nazzaro. For the reasons why they need more funds for
reforestation?
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Ms. Nazzaro. The primary concern is because of the increase
in the wildland fires since the year 2000, that at least that
we are able to support that that would justify an increase in
the trend data that we provided.
Mr. Peterson. OK. But there are a lot of other reasons, but
that is the overriding one, you would think. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, do you have an accounting of the
balance in that fund now for reforestation?
Mr. Walden. I do not, but we can get that for you.
Mr. Brown. All right. Let me preface my question then by
saying that I represent South Carolina, which is the Francis
Marion National Forest, you know, which is about 250,000 acres,
and so we have a little familiarity with that process. And I do
not know about trying to address these 900,000 acres that we
have got outstanding. How many acres do we have today that are
under reforestation? I noticed in the 1920s--you know, we have
got as many trees growing today as back in the 1920s. How does
that match between the national forest and the private land
holders?
Ms. Nazzaro. I am sorry. I don't have that information.
Mr. Brown. OK. Let me go to the next question, then. In
addressing trying to meet the needs to find the funding for
those 900,000 acres--that is the reason I wanted to find out
what the balance in that account was, but are there any
alternative methods that we are looking at to do the
reforestation? Are we doing it all in-house, or are we looking
to do some outsourcing? How is the reforestation being
accomplished today?
Ms. Nazzaro. This report did not cover the process by which
the reforesting--to look at the adequacy or the inadequacy of
their methods. That was not addressed.
Mr. Brown. OK. Who would address that area?
Ms. Nazzaro. I would imagine the agencies can give you some
idea as to what extent they are outsourcing or to what extent
they have their own staff doing the reforestation.
Mr. Brown. OK. Because, generally speaking, in the process
we always tend to follow the same stream, and when times get
tough, we have to look for better ways of doing things. And I
am just wondering if we have got the best and cheapest--you
know, best practice that is available today to be able to
address those needs. So you don't have the answer to that?
Ms. Nazzaro. No, sir. We did not look at the extent to
which they're contracting, but I would imagine the agencies
should be able to tell you to what extent they're contracting,
and with the increase and the backlog that they're claiming
they're having, they should be able to tell you to the extent
that they're now outsourcing.
Mr. Brown. OK, because it always seems like if we had more
money, we could get the job done quicker or better, you know.
But we are living in some tight times.
Ms. Nazzaro. Well, and that is our concern, that we are not
advocating just giving them more money. We're saying you need
to know exactly what the backlog is using uniform criteria, and
then set your priorities given the funds that are available to
be spent and make sure that money is well spent.
Mr. Brown. OK. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. For the record, Mr. Brown, the minority crack
staff is right there with the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund numbers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Brown. It was tough following the gentlelady from South
Dakota, when she had all those numbers. It really was amiss to
what I was going to ask, to be quite honest.
Mr. Walden. You know, both of you being from ``south,'' you
have different accents, too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Brown. You are right. That is a common connect.
Mr. Walden. She needs to work on hers.
Just for the record, since you asked, the Knutson-
Vandenberg Fund program level and budget authority in 2000--I
will go back a couple of years here. It was as high as, in
2002, $241 million. And then in 2003, it was $73 million.
Now, understand that we borrow out of that fund to go fight
fire, and then it gets repaid. So the numbers jockey around a
bit. But in 2003, it was $73 million program level; 2004 was
63; 2005 was 87; this year is projected 87. The budget
authorities are all over the place, from $44 million to $213
million one year to 60 in the last two.
The reforestation trust fund is paid for on a duty of
imported lumber that comes in, and it has pretty much stayed at
$30 million going back to 1990. So it has just been a constant
$30 million, which I think is obviously what GAO found as well,
this constant money coming in, and yet the need because of the
wildfires have been so great in the last 5 years, constant
funding for reforestation and yet a more dramatic need. Brush
disposal has sort of been in the $14, $15, $20 million range
over the last 10 years. So it has been sort of constant.
Mr. Brown. And I guess my concern is not just fighting
those forest fires but having some preventive technique to try
to do some control burns and some other preventive measures to
keep that cost down. And so that is the information I guess I
am seeking, Mr. Chairman, just to be absolutely sure that money
is not the end product, as maybe some other processes that we
can address to make it work even with the funds that are
available.
Mr. Walden. And I am reminded as well that the K-V fund can
only be spent within timber sale areas. So when you are talking
about the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund, monies out of that can only
be used to do work in timber sale areas. And if you note in the
GAO report the volume of timber--and I don't remember the years
now, but it is basically half what it was, and we are
generating a third of the revenue we were generating, so you
have gone from 4 billion board feet to 2 billion board feet in
harvest and from $600 million in revenue to $200 million in
revenue. So the revenues off what we are cutting is less than
what it used to be and so less money is coming in.
Mr. Brown. So we cannot use that South Dakota revenue to
enhance my South Carolina trees, then, right?
Mr. Walden. No, but it would sure help in Oregon. We will
take all your South Carolina revenue.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. Run it there. Take the South Dakota revenue,
too. Thank you.
And, Ms. Nazzaro, thank you again for your work. Your
reports have been most helpful. I know we have been somewhat
like a plague of locusts on GAO with all our requests for
reports, but I really think it is important to get a factual
understanding of these issues so that we can then craft policy
that will help America's forests for the future. So thank you.
We appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Nazzaro. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. By the way, we will keep the record open for 10
days if members have other questions, but we appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Walden. Now let's have our second panel come on up, and
as you are coming up, I will tell you they have notified us we
may have a couple of votes here at any time, so we will start
and we may have to recess momentarily.
On panel two, we have Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief of the
National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, and Ed Shepard,
Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning for the
Bureau of Land Management.
Gentlemen, since I swore in our first witness, I think we
will do it throughout today's hearing. So if you would rise and
raise your right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Walden. Let the record show they agreed, and I will
remind you of the 5-minute rule, but we appreciate your being
here. Your full testimony will be in the record, and with that
I would like to recognize Mr. Holtrop for his statement. Good
afternoon and thanks.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify
today concerning the Forest Service reforestation program.
Historically, one of the most important responsibilities of
the Forest Service has been to establish forests to regenerate
forest lands following timber harvest and natural disturbances.
Reforestation programs have been integral to the management
of national forest resources since the agency's inception, as
reflected in key legislation such as the Organic Act of 1897,
the K-V Act of 1930, and the National Forest Management of
1976. Timely reforestation following harvest or major
catastrophic events to restore forest cover on denuded lands is
vitally important to maintaining forest ecosystems and deriving
associated ecological, social, and economic benefits.
Reforestation provides a means by which we ensure that these
values can be enjoyed by future generations.
There are many issues regarding reforestation, but I want
to focus on three issues. First is the ability to predict
treatment needs. In the latter half of the 20th century,
reforestation treatment needs were closely associated with
regeneration harvest activities connected with the timber sale
program. This close association was beneficial both from the
standpoint of utilizing K-V authorities to collect funds to do
the necessary reforestation work and because reforestation
programs could be planned and predicted. This afforded the
opportunity to schedule and complete the many tasks needed to
assure regeneration success. Much of this program
predictability is lost when wildfire and other natural events
become the predominant causal factor giving rise to
reforestation needs. Since the location and magnitude of these
events cannot be predicted from one year to the next, this
makes the job of planning orderly programs of work to complete
reforestation treatments more difficult, and we must rely on
appropriated funds that were requested as much as 2 years prior
to the disturbance event in order to undertake this work if K-V
funds are not available for this purpose. Moreover, this lack
of predictability can also make it very difficult to plan for
and to secure tree seed from appropriate seed sources in
sufficient quantities to address reforestation needs.
The second issue is delays in removing salvage material.
Reforestation activities following catastrophic disturbances
may sometimes necessitate removal of trees. Some harvest
prescriptions are designed to achieve wildlife habitat
objectives. Others are designed to couple the objective of
leaving large tree structures in place while removing other
dead and dying trees to expedite the establishment of a new
forest. Trees may also need to be removed to reduce the
potential for losses to reforestation and other capital
investments. Salvage operations can also be beneficial for
economic reasons. However, the removal of this material must be
done promptly if economic benefits are to be derived.
The removal of salvage from public lands is a controversial
issue. Salvage sales continue to be the focus of numerous
appeals and legal challenges. Often by the time these
challenges are resolved, values for this material may be
insufficient to cover the costs of their removal, much less
result in timber sale deposits to help cover the cost of needed
reforestation treatments.
The last issue is data integrity. Forest Service policy has
been to require our regions to identify and report all
reforestation needs, including those resulting from forest
fires or other natural disasters, on an accurate, consistent,
and timely basis. With the increases in fire and insect and
disease killed forest acreage over the last few years, we have
become aware of inconsistencies in some of the ways some
forests have been reporting reforestation needs. I will now
describe the actions we have and will take to address these
issues.
When the needs report was first established, a primary
focus of the report was to foster timber production goals. We
believe that we can provide Congress a more accurate statement
of needs not only for fiber production but restoration of
forest conditions to meet wildlife, soil, water, and recreation
objectives as well. We are in the process of revising current
policy and definitions for reforestation needs and plan to put
this direction in place before the end of this fiscal year.
Currently, our reforestation needs information is contained
in nine separately managed regional data bases. We will replace
these regional data bases with a single national application by
the end of this year. We have also restructured the budget and
accounting framework to enable us to better link resource needs
to reforestation needs. We will develop guidance to assist the
regions in setting reforestation priorities, to weigh critical
reforestation work in relation to other important work they
must do consistent with land management objectives. We believe
that, taken together, these changes will result it improved
data consistency, accuracy, and utility of needs information.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to
answer and address your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Introduction
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
concerning the Forest Service reforestation program. The decision to
commit resources to reforestation comes about primarily under two
conditions; one arising from a planned timber harvesting program, and
one following catastrophic natural events such as wildfire, wind, ice,
and insect and disease infestations. Under planned activities we have a
statutory requirement to complete reforestation activities within five
years following harvesting. While this statutory requirement is absent
in the case of a catastrophic natural event, we are still obliged, as
responsible land stewards, to assure forest restoration including
reforestation where it is needed.
Background
Historically, one of the most important challenges and
resposibilities of the USDA Forest Service has been to establish
forests on lands that are unstocked as the result of natural
catastrophes, excessive cutting, fire, insects or farming practices of
the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Reforestation programs have been integral to the management of
national forest resources since the Agency's inception. The Organic
Administration Act of 1897 explicitly provided for the establishment of
national forests to improve and protect forests to secure favorable
conditions of water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of timber.
The Act provides for reforestation work in support of these aims. The
Weeks Law of 1911 provided for the acquisition of forested, cutover, or
denuded lands within watersheds to regulate the flow of navigable
streams or for the production of timber, enabling the Secretary to
conduct reforestation work on the acquired lands.
Tree planting programs conducted on the national forests during the
early 1900's were primarily concerned with the re-establishment of tree
seedlings following large wildfires. The Wind River Nursery was
established in Washington State in 1901 to ensure a reliable source of
tree seedlings to reforest large burns in the Pacific Northwest. The
Bessey Nursery was established in 1902, in an early collaborative
effort involving Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot and Professor Charles
Bessey of the University of Nebraska to restore pine seedlings to the
Sandhills region, these efforts led to the creation of what is now the
Nebraska State Forest and portions of the National Forests of Nebraska.
The Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Act of 1930 explicitly provided for
the establishment of forest tree nurseries and also authorized the
Secretary to require timber sale purchasers to make deposits to cover
the cost of reforestation and related work within timber sale
boundaries. The K-V Act continues to be a primary means for ensuring
our reforestation treatment needs are met within timber sale areas.
Timber harvested on National Forests during the first half of the
20th century utilized selective harvesting practices primarily in green
timber stands. Regeneration needs within the timber sale area were
commonly addressed by using natural regeneration methods and could
generally be addressed using K-V deposits arising from the timber sale.
The national forests were, for the most part, well positioned to
address their reforestation treatment needs using these deposits and by
requesting additional appropriated funds to address the needs
associated with sporadic wildfire, insect and disease attacks.
Following World War II, timber harvesting practices began to shift
to increasingly favor regeneration harvest methods, such as
clearcutting, during the mid- to late-1960's on many national forests.
Timber sale revenues remained generally sufficient to address
reforestation treatment needs within timber sale areas throughout this
period.
The Forest Service identified and reported understocked areas in
the early 1970's. Restoring forest cover to these areas was a desirable
action to promote timber production goals in support of sustained yield
requirements. Congress amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 with passage of National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) in 1976. Under the Act as amended, the Forest
Service was required to identify the amount and location of forested
lands that had been cut over, denuded, or otherwise deforested, as well
as all lands with stands that were not growing at the best potential
rate. In its initial report, the Forest Service reported a backlog in
need of reforestation totaling more than 3.1 million acres
predominately associated with old brushfields and other areas that had
been in an understocked condition for several decades. NFMA required
the Forest Service to eliminate this reforestation backlog within 8
years and to annually report its progress toward this goal. During this
time, the Forest Service conducted treatments that permitted it to
report at the end of Fiscal Year 1985 that the agency had reduced the
backlog to approximately 46,000 acres. The Forest Service further
reported it would carry this amount into its current maintenance needs
for reforestation. In that same year, the Forest Service reported to
Congress lands needing reforestation from ongoing operations totaled
827,109 acres.
Title III of the Recreational Boating Safety and Facilities
Improvement Act of 1980 provided an additional means of funding
reforestation work on the national forests. This legislation
established the Reforestation Trust Fund enabling the annual transfer
from the U.S. Treasury to the Forest Service of up to $30 million from
tariffs received from the import of selected wood products.
Since 1992, the use of the clearcutting method of regeneration
harvest was de-emphasized on the national forests. This change, coupled
with a general decline in timber sale program levels, led to sharp
reductions in regeneration harvest practices and associated K-V
receipts on many national forests. These reductions led to a general
decline in reforestation needs that continued through the late-1990s.
As a result of the buildup of hazardous fuels over the last 100
years, unnaturally intense wildfire n has become the predominant causal
factor giving rise to reforestation needs on many national forests,
particularly in the West. The scale and severity of these events is of
a magnitude that often leads to devastating impacts to forest resources
and a variety of post-fire recovery needs and has resulted in sharp
increases in reforestation needs on many national forests in recent
years.
Why Reforestation Is Important
America's richly, diverse forests provide vital products and
amenities to our society including: quality habitat for wildlife,
biodiversity of plant and animal communities, clean water, aesthetic
benefits, and recreational opportunities. Timely reforestation
following harvest or a major catastrophic event to restore forest cover
on denuded lands is often important to maintaining forest ecosystems
and deriving associated ecological, social, and economic benefits. Some
recent catastrophic wildfires, severe wind and rain events, and other
natural disturbance events have resulted in significant losses to
critical wildlife habitat, imperiled fisheries and watersheds and
municipal water sources. These events also threaten the long-term
productivity of forest soils, through erosion and changes in soil
properties, as well as many other resources. Reforestation is one
element of a land stewardship ethic that includes growing, nurturing,
and harvesting trees to meet specified resource objectives while
conserving soil, air, and water quality in harmony with other resource
management concerns. Reforestation following harvest or areas denuded
by catastrophic fire or other natural disaster is often important to
ensuring forest sustainability; it is a top priority for national
forest management. On many occasions, natural regeneration can serve to
meet forest management objectives. However, in other instances active
reforestation actions such as planting seedlings may be necessary. For
example, many species of wildlife, such as quail, rabbit, deer, elk,
moose, ruffed grouse and wild turkey, and some threatened and
endangered species can be found using newly established forests for
food, shelter and nesting. Moreover, through reforestation treatments
we can hasten the development of large tree structural components in
late-successional habitat areas needed by late-seral dependant species
like the spotted owl.
The Forest Service reforestation program has four major goals: (1)
to maintain all forest lands within the National Forest System in
appropriate forest cover; (2) to improve the quality and yield of the
timber resource; (3) to accelerate the attainment of desired species
composition and stocking objectives in a cost-efficient manner; and (4)
to develop and demonstrate successful reforestation methods and
techniques, and encourage their use by other landowners.
Restoring forested ecosystems following a large scale disturbance
typically involves a series of steps: (1) emergency stabilization to
prevent threat to life, property, and further damage to watersheds; (2)
rehabilitation of resources affected by the disturbance that are
unlikely to recover without human intervention; and (3) longer term
restoration treatments, including reforestation, that span many years
and are needed to restore functioning ecosystems. All of these steps
are completed consistent with the direction contained in individual
forest plans.
Successful reforestation involves a sequence of carefully planned
treatments that begins with the selection of an appropriate
regeneration harvest method that is suited to the unique ecological
characteristics of the site. Regeneration success is also dependent on
the establishment of a suitable growing environment for young seedlings
from appropriate local seed sources. Control of competing vegetation is
sometimes necessary to maintain acceptable rates of seedling survival,
as well as to control damaging agents.
The Role of Research
The tools utilized by silviculturists to determine reforestation
needs and reforestation techniques, have been developed over the years
by forest scientists, and this research continues as needs change. In
the past, research studies initiated following major disturbances
focused mainly on the most immediate recovery needs such as soil
stabilization, water runoff control, ground cover vegetation and
shrubs, and wildlife needs, and less on the reforestation goals.
Reforestation techniques generally utilized (natural or limited direct
seeding and planting) were those already well-researched and readily
available by implementing guidance in Forest Service Silvics and
Silviculture Systems manuals.
Practices, such as salvage logging to prepare sites for
regeneration and provide the funds for restoration activities, have
been studied and some results synthesized. In their paper titled
``Environmental Effects of Post-Fire Logging: Literature Review and
Annotated Bibliography'', Forest Service research scientists, McIver
and Starr reviewed the existing body of scientific literature on
logging following wildfire. Twenty-one post fire logging studies were
reviewed and interpreted. McIver and Starr concluded that while the
practice of salvage logging after fires is controversial the debate is
carried on without the benefit of much scientific information. They
also concluded that the immediate environmental effects of post fire
logging is extremely variable and dependent on a wide variety of
factors such as the severity of the burn, slope, soil texture and
composition, the presence or building of roads, types of logging
methods, and post-fire weather conditions.
We realize that there are gaps in what we know about post-fire
restoration and we are working hard to fill those gaps. Forest Service
researchers, in collaboration with other scientists, are working to
increase our knowledge of how ecosystems respond to fires and how
management actions can affect desired outcomes.
In recent years, reforestation goals on many national forests have
changed to restore forests to a previous level of condition and
complexity (e.g., multiple rather than single tree species, perhaps
eventual uneven aged structure, emphasis on non-commodity objectives),
and to do this at landscape scales. New research is needed to
accomplish those objectives, and to better understand the long-term
results.
One useful collaborative product emerging from Forest Service
research and our National Forests Systems applications group has been
the Forest Vegetation Simulator, and the Fire and Fuels Extension model
that enables resource managers to visualize and project through time
the development of reforested areas following wildfires and treatments.
Issues Affecting Reforestation Programs
Predicting Treatment Needs
In the latter half of the 20th century, reforestation treatment
needs were closely associated with regeneration harvest activities
connected with the timber sale program. This close association was
beneficial both from the standpoint of utilizing
K-V authorities to collect funds from timber sale purchasers to do the
necessary reforestation work, and because reforestation programs could
be planned and scheduled to coincide with harvest activities under a
timber sale contract with a finite contract period. This afforded the
opportunity to schedule and complete needed site preparation work,
collect cones and seed from appropriate sources, sow this seed at the
nursery, grow these seedlings to desired specifications, prepare them
for out-planting, and plant the seedlings and complete the other work
needed to assure regeneration success.
Much of this program predictability is lost when the principal
causal agent creating reforestation treatment needs is a natural
disturbance event, particularly those on a catastrophic scale. Since
the location and magnitude of these events cannot be predicted from one
year to the next, this dynamic makes the job of planning orderly
programs of work to complete reforestation treatments more difficult.
When the economic value of salvageable material is insufficient to
cover the cost of needed reforestation treatments using K-V
collections, the situation is made more difficult as forests must rely
on appropriated funds that were requested as much as two years prior to
the disturbance event in order to undertake this work. Moreover, this
lack of predictability can also make it very difficult to secure tree
seed from appropriate seed sources in sufficient quantities to address
reforestation needs.
Recent trends in the severity of wildfires, particularly in the
West, have made it much more difficult in recent years for managers to
plan and program their needs to complete reforestation treatments.
Delays in Removing Salvage Material
Reforestation activities following catastrophic disturbances may
sometimes necessitate removal of trees. Silvicultural prescriptions
which are developed after a catastrophic event are designed to achieve
specific land management objectives. For example, some are harvest
prescriptions to achieve wildlife habitat objectives; others are
designed to couple the objective of leaving large tree structures in
place, while removing other dead and dying trees, to expedite the
establishment of a new forest. Trees may also need to be removed to
reduce the potential for losses to reforestation investments and
resources within the treated area that may result if the trees are left
in place.
Salvage operations can also be beneficial for economic reasons.
However, the removal of this material must be done promptly if economic
benefits are to be derived because deterioration begins immediately
after these trees die and deterioration rates are rapid for the size of
trees being removed in typical salvage operations on the national
forests.
As I have said, the removal of salvage from public lands is a
controversial issue. Salvage sales continue to be the focus of numerous
appeals and legal challenges. Often, by the time these challenges are
resolved, stumpage values for this material may be insufficient to
cover the costs of their removal, much less result in timber sale
deposits to help cover the cost of needed reforestation treatments.
Meanwhile, on many disturbed areas, shrubs, noxious weeds, and
other unwanted vegetation can out-compete native species, increasing
the cost and complexity of reforestation operations. In the case of
wildfires, there is another ecological cost that must be considered if
salvage operations are not conducted. The standing dead trees that were
killed by the fire may remain standing for a decade or perhaps two, but
they will eventually fall to the ground and create a very significant
dead fuel component that, with subsequent wildfire events, could
consume the young stand that becomes established within these areas.
Because taxpayer funds are not unlimited, forest managers must make
decisions that appropriately consider land management objectives,
sustainability, and other priorities in their decisions regarding the
allocation of available reforestation resources. These factors can
influence where managers choose to make investments in reforestation
treatments, and where they will choose to rely principally on natural
mechanisms to re-establish forest cover.
Data Integrity
Forest Service policy has been to require our regions to identify
and report all reforestation needs including those resulting from
forest fires or other natural disasters on a consistent and timely
basis. Since 1992 Forest Service policy has been to estimate the net
acres in need of reforestation treatments and program these areas for
treatment immediately following wildfires or other natural disasters.
This policy also requires forests to include stands that will require
reforestation treatment following salvage operations in this estimate,
and to make adjustments to reflect actual reforestation needs as
detailed reforestation prescriptions are completed. With the increases
in burned and insect, and disease killed forest acreage over the last
few years and other factors, we have become aware of inconsistencies in
the way some forests have been reporting reforestation needs. I will
describe the actions we have and will take to address this issue.
Agency Actions
A primary focus, when the needs report was first established, was
to foster timber production goals. While timber production remains
important, we believe that reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs also provide an expression of the management activities needed to
promote broader goals in promoting the health and sustainability of
forests. We believe that we can provide Congress a more accurate
statement of priorities, not only for fiber production, but restoration
of forest conditions to meet wildlife, soil, water and recreation
objectives as well. We are in the process of revising current policy
and definitions for reforestation needs and plan to put this direction
in place before the next reporting period.
Currently, our reforestation needs information is contained in nine
separately-managed regional data bases. In 1997, we began developing a
single national application to replace these nine regional data bases,
and we will have this application in place by the end of this fiscal
year. We believe this change will result in improved data consistency
and accuracy in reforestation needs and treatment data.
As part of our efforts to achieve the goals of the President's
Management Agenda, we are working to improve budget and performance
integration. We believe these changes will better link resource needs
to reforestation priorities while also providing Congress with better
information on the reforestation activities being planned.
We will develop guidance to assist the regions in setting
reforestation priorities. This will provide the field units with a
better framework for prioritizing critical reforestation work in
relation to the other important work they must do. In doing this, we
intend to provide managers with the flexibility to ensure that the
unique resource considerations, the objectives for management
articulated in the forest plan, and short- and long-term management
objectives and unique attributes of the site can be weighed in
prioritizing treatments.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to address
your questions.
______
Mr. Walden. I appreciate that. Can you just read the
caption for me there on that slide? Because I cannot.
Mr. Holtrop. That is a 43-year-old ponderosa pine
plantation in the Tahoe National Forest that was planted in
March of 1961 following the volcano fire.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you. I appreciate your
testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Shepard for his statement. Thank you
and we are delighted to have you here today.
STATEMENT OF ED SHEPARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Shepard. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity----
Mr. Walden. I believe your microphone may not be turned on.
Mr. Shepard. Maybe I'll pull it closer. Is that better?
Mr. Walden. I think so.
Mr. Shepard. Thank you for the opportunity to participate
in today's hearing on reforestation on National Forest and
Bureau of Land Management public lands. As noted in the GAO
report, reforestation after timber harvest is a key element in
the BLM's forest management regimes, not only in the 2.4
million acres of the Oregon and California lands, managed
primarily for timber production, but also in the forests and
woodlands that cover nearly 53 million acres of our public
domain lands. Overall, BLM has a history of successful
reforestation in harvested areas and in areas damaged by
wildfire.
Last summer, I testified before this Subcommittee on BLM's
activities for post-fire rehabilitation and greatly appreciate
the Subcommittee's continued interest in this vital agency
activity. At the request of the Subcommittee, the remainder of
the statement discusses primarily BLM's post-fire reforestation
and restoration activities.
Experience has shown that restoration actions taken soon
after--as soon as possible after a fire are the most
successful. Professional resource specialists start evaluating
an area for reforestation needs while the fire may still be
burning. Depending on the management objectives found in the
resource management plans and the condition of the site, the
interdisciplinary team may prescribe treatments including pre-
planning site preparation, planning of seedlings adapted to the
site, post-planning stand maintenance and protection of
desirable vegetation, grass seeding, stream enhancement and
timber salvage to reduce future fuel loads or recover the
economic value of the resource.
While actions undertaken soon after the fire are most
likely to be the most successful, delays in implementing
treatments may jeopardize reforestation and successful
restoration of the forest resource. In some areas where low-
severity burns have occurred and on some lands that have burned
with moderate severity, natural processes may satisfy land
management objectives and reforestation objectives. And on this
slide, you will see areas that had low to moderate severity and
probably would have little activity in those areas.
But in other areas where high-severity burns have occurred,
such as this slide, we know that without management
intervention, the site conditions of the forest may not return
for many decades.
In some parts of the country, particularly in western
Oregon, recent court decisions blocking proposed salvage sales
following wildfires have reduced BLM's ability to aggressively
reforest a burned area and recover the economic value of the
fire-killed timber. Litigation has made it very difficult for
the BLM, even after conducting extensive NEPA analysis, to
implement comprehensive fire salvage and restoration
activities.
In some cases, such as the 1987 Bland Mountain Fire in
western Oregon and the 2004 French Fire in northern California,
the BLM was able to implement salvage sale, reforestation, and
other restoration activities within the first year. In other
cases, such as the 2002 Timbered Rock Fire in western Oregon,
litigation over proposed salvage sales has resulted in the
sales being enjoined.
The Bland Mountain Fire in 1987 burned approximately 10,000
acres, and, tragically, two individuals lost their lives in the
fire, and there was significant property destruction.
BLM's restoration activities, which included salvaging 55
million board feet of timber, was done under an Environmental
Assessment, which is a lower level than an EIS. The reforested
stands are current 15 to 30 feet tall, although part of this
area did re-burn in 2004, and further restoration activities
are going on.
The French Fire of 2004 in northern California burned
13,000 acres of BLM/Park Service land and private and State
land, and emergency stabilization measures were employed, and
we have ongoing salvage, and it should be completed by this
year and the reforestation completed next winter.
The Timbered Rock Fire in southwest Oregon burned in 2002
at the same time the Biscuit Fire was burning. It burned 27,000
acres, 12,000 of that managed by the BLM. Because this fire was
in a late succession reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan,
we prepared a rigorous Environmental Impact Statement for two
salvage sales to recover approximately 17 million board feet of
timber on 800 acres, or 8 percent of the burned area. We also
plan to conduct a lot of erosion control and other restoration
activities.
This EIS was developed in cooperation with researchers from
Oregon State University, and the intent of that was to study a
lot of the post-salvage operations and the effects of different
activities. Litigation has delayed implementation of that
activity.
To conclude, successful reforestation following a
catastrophic event is best achieved by immediate action, and
delays in implementing treatment after a catastrophic event in
some areas may jeopardize reforestation and successful
restoration of the forest resources for several decades.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I will be
glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shepard follows:]
Statement of Ed Shepard, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and
Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on
issues surrounding reforestation on National Forest and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) public lands. The report, ``Reforestation Problems on
National Forests: A GAO Report on the Increasing Backlog,'' focuses on
the U.S. Forest Service and has recommendations for the Secretary of
Agriculture. In an Appendix to the Report, the GAO briefly discusses
the BLM's reforestation and related forest health treatment activities
in the 2.4 million acre-Oregon and California Grant Lands (O&C) in
western Oregon. I would bring to the Subcommittee's attention that the
BLM's reforestation and forest health efforts encompass both the O&C
lands and the public domain forestry program on 53 million acres of
BLM-managed forests and woodlands outside of western Oregon.
The GAO reports that BLM eliminated its backlog of post-harvest
reforestation on the O&C lands in 2002, and has since kept pace with
its reforestation and growth enhancement needs on the O&C lands.
Elimination of the backlog in 2002 was due to a combination of factors,
including reduced harvest levels, increased funding, and management
actions taken by the agency.
The GAO's comments on BLM's reforestation activities describe
reforestation as a regular management practice, which most often means
post-harvest. In discussions with Subcommittee staff, we were asked to
also provide testimony on the BLM's reforestation and restoration
activities in the aftermath of wildland fire. Last summer, I testified
before this Subcommittee on BLM's activities for post-fire
rehabilitation, and greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's continued
interest in this vital agency activity. At the request of the
Subcommittee, the remainder of this statement discusses the BLM's post-
fire reforestation and restoration activities on all BLM-managed lands.
When forested areas managed by the BLM experience fire or other
catastrophic events, our highest priority is public health and safety.
In the immediate aftermath of a fire, the BLM addresses short-term
impacts to local communities, such as threats to public health and
safety from fire-damaged hillsides and watersheds. After public health
and safety needs are addressed, we turn our attention to the steps
needed to stabilize and restore the forest resource as well as salvage
to provide economic opportunities to local communities and economic
recovery of the timber. Our experience has demonstrated that the sooner
after an event we undertake restoration actions, the more likely our
efforts will be successful in restoring the resource. Conversely,
delays in implementing treatments after a catastrophic event may
jeopardize reforestation and successful restoration of the resources.
Reforestation and restoration actions are determined on a site-
specific basis. In addition to management objectives for the resource,
the BLM factors into its locally based decision-making process the
scope, intensity and severity of the event; the possibility of further
on-site or off-site damage; the potential economic value of the
resource; the timeframe desired to meet resource objectives; the
likelihood of success; and the cost of failure. BLM considers several
types of post-fire restoration treatments, including:
Seedings to reduce erosion and invasion by exotic
species.
Reforestation to hasten forest reestablishment.
Reforestation and stand maintenance and protection are treatments which
have the objectives of reforesting lands following disturbance events
such as timber harvest, wildfire, windstorms, and insect outbreaks.
Treatments include pre-planting site preparation, tree planting, post-
planting maintenance and protection of desirable vegetation, and
genetic tree improvement. The BLM's four seed orchards provide superior
seed of native species used for reforestation of western Oregon
forests.
Timber salvage to reduce future fuel loads, recover the
economic value of the resource, provide for the safety of forest
workers, and prepare the site for future resource conditions to meet
RMP objectives.
Stream enhancements to repair damaged streambanks.
Structures to control erosion and runoff.
If salvage is an option, the BLM must consider how much timber to
remove and how much to leave for wildlife habitat, nutrient cycling,
and other ecological functions. Again, this is a site-specific
determination. If too much material is removed, site productivity can
be affected. If too much material is left, there is a risk of insect
and disease attack as well as potentially heavy fuel loading that may
drive future wildfires.
The BLM believes that reforestation and all restoration tools,
including salvage logging, should be available for use by our resource
managers. To be successful, restoration tools must be employed to meet
land and resource management objectives in a timely, cost-effective,
and efficient manner.
I would like to illustrate this process by describing three
examples of the BLM's reforestation and restoration activities in the
aftermath of wildland fires: the Bland Mountain Fire of 1987, the
Timbered Rock Fire of 2002, and the French Fire of 2004.
Bland Mountain Fire, 1987
This fire, near Canyonville in southwest Oregon, started on July
15, 1987. Approximately 10,000 acres burned, including 4,000 acres of
BLM-administered land and 6,000 acres on private lands. Two individuals
lost their lives in this fire, and significant property destruction
occurred.
The BLM was able to implement restoration treatments within the
first year after the fire, in large measure because we were able to
rely on documents included as part of our land use planning process in
developing an Environmental Assessment (EA) of our proposed restoration
treatments.
Reforestation and other restoration activities included: tree
planting on all burned BLM acreage; grass seeding on 790 acres of
stream side areas; creation of 140 waterbars; creation of one 8,000
cubic yard capacity sediment pond; seeding and mulching of 27.3 miles
of roads and fire trails; creation of 320 temporary sediment catch
basins and check dams; and 55 million board feet of timber salvage.
Reforestation has been generally successful on both BLM and private
lands. Trees planted post-fire are currently between 15 to 30 feet
tall.
Timbered Rock Fire
The 27,000-acre Timbered Rock Fire of 2002 covered nearly 12,000
acres of public lands managed by the BLM Medford District in southwest
Oregon. The fire burned the same time as the 500,000 acre Biscuit Fire.
The BLM proposed two timber salvage sales to recover approximately 17
MMBF of burned, but still merchantable, timber on approximately 800
acres (8 percent of the burned area). As addressed in the Timbered Rock
Fire Salvage and Elk Creek Watershed Restoration EIS, after completion
of the salvage, about 95 percent of all trees (green and fire-killed)
would remain. In preparing the EIS, the BLM sought public involvement
to identify the desires, expectations, and concerns of interested and
affected publics regarding this project and the use of available
resources. A letter seeking input on the EIS was mailed to 780
individuals, landowners, organizations, tribal governments, and
government agencies. A website specific to the Timbered Rock EIS was
published on the Internet. Two public meetings, attended by about 40
people, were held during the scoping period. A total of 50 comments
were received at the meetings and by e-mail, telephone, and fax.
The Timbered Rock project also contained a science element,
developed in cooperation with researchers at Oregon State University,
to look at the influences of post-fire salvage and salvage intensities
on wildlife species. There continues to be scientific controversy about
the impacts of salvage activities on burned lands. Salvage of dead
trees has been of particular interest because of the potential economic
benefits of harvest activities and the influences of salvage on risk of
future fire and insect outbreaks. Salvage also has been highly
controversial because of known or hypothesized environmental impacts on
soil, water, and biodiversity. A large number of questions remain about
basic relationships between salvage and ecosystem response in different
ecosystem types. A key issue related to salvage activities concerns
potential influences on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The complete EIS
is available online at: www.or.blm.gov/Medford/timbrockEIS/index.htm.
The BLM's proposed salvage projects in the Timbered Rock EIS were
challenged in court (Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund, et al. v.
Brong, Civil No.04-693-AA, U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon). On June 10, 2004, the court issued a temporary restraining
order that halted salvage logging, and on November 8, 2004, the BLM was
permanently enjoined from implementing salvage activities under the
EIS.
This litigation delayed implementation of the salvage and other
restoration activities proposed in the Timbered Rock EIS. It is nearly
3 years since the fire, and salvageable material has decayed to the
point where much of the value has already been lost. The Department of
Justice, at the request of the Department of the Interior, has filed a
notice of intent to appeal the case, maintaining the option of asking
for review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since we were not
able to implement the Timbered Rock EIS, however, the opportunity to
study some of the issues surrounding salvage activities was lost.
French Fire
The French Fire, in north-central California, started on August 14,
2004, and burned for six days before containment on August 20, 2004.
The final fire perimeter was in excess of 22 miles, with over 13,000
acres burned. The fire area included BLM, National Park Service, state,
city/county, and private lands. An Interagency Burned Area Emergency
Response Team was convened and prepared an Emergency Stabilization Plan
with detailed recommendations and information.
After implementing emergency stabilization measures following the
fire, the BLM began planning a timber sale to salvage approximately 4
MMBF of dead and dying timber on some 1,930 acres. An EA was prepared,
and the French Fire Salvage Timber Sale was sold on March 8, 2005. The
precise treatments to be applied to different areas of the sale were
selected on the basis of the intensity of the fire and the level of
tree mortality. The harvest of this sale will be completed before the
timber volume and value is negatively affected by insects and decay.
The timber harvest has begun and is planned to be completed by July of
this year. Approximately 240 acres of reforestation is planned in areas
of the fire that had the highest fire intensity and tree mortality.
Conclusion
As illustrated in the Timbered Rock EIS, litigation has made it
very difficult in some instances for the BLM to implement comprehensive
fire salvage and restoration activities. Delays in implementation of
restoration activities may result in lost value of the resource, not
only to the government, but also to local communities. Perhaps the most
significant potential harm from delays in implementation of restoration
activities and reforestation is additional damage to the resource from,
for example, widespread insect infestations that often follow forest
fire. As land managers, restoration of ecosystem health following a
fire or other catastrophic event is a high priority. We have been
successful in implementing treatments in many instances, and new tools
provided through the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and other
legislation should increase our odds of success. But delays can, at
times, jeopardize reforestation and successful restoration of the
resources.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be glad to
answer any questions.
______
Mr. Walden. I want to thank both of you for agreeing to
testify today. We appreciate your service, the BLM and the
Forest Service, to our country.
I guess maybe for both of you--those were very provocative
slides, by the way, and I think really from my perspective
detail kind of what we are facing, whether you go in fairly
rapidly and environmentally sensitively and get a new forest
growing or whether you wait.
Some have called agency reforestation efforts ``plantation
forestry.'' Do you think that is an accurate portrayal of what
you are doing? And what is even meant by plantation forestry?
Mr. Holtrop. First of all, I would say I don't think that
that's an accurate reflection of what it is that the agencies
do. I would assume what they mean by ``plantation forestry''--
and that's how I'm responding to this assumption--is that
perhaps that plantation forestry is just row upon row of
single-species plantation and----
Mr. Walden. Is that what you all do?
Mr. Holtrop. It is not what we generally do. And even if we
were to plant a single species in a reforestation situation,
the natural regeneration that occurs in association with that,
by the time the--in most instances around the country, we're
going to have a mixed stand of species.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard. Well, I would agree with Mr. Holtrop's
assessment. In the past, particularly on BLM's O&C lands, which
we manage primarily for timber production, we were closer to
plantation forestry than in many areas of public land
management. But we grew pretty much away from that as we have
gone to managing not only for the timber resource but the other
ecological values. We are planting multi-species. Now we are
planting at lower densities than we did in the past,
encouraging the growth of hardwoods in some areas, where in the
past we excluded hardwoods. We are really looking more at
providing a diversity of values and species out there rather
than----
Mr. Walden. It seems to me, too, on some of the tours I
have been on out in the forest, it is not just trees you are
looking at but the regeneration of natural grasses--I mean,
there was a whole operation in Bend, I think the Bend Pine
Nursery, part of which goes on today, I think, with seeds from
grasses and brush, to try to replicate what was there. Is that
not what your goal really is?
Mr. Shepard. Yes, that is accurate. We are trying to look
at--in fact, our nurseries have gone away from growing
exclusively tree species to where we are growing a lot of brush
and forb species at the nurseries.
Mr. Walden. All right. The Beschta Report and the more
recent literature review by McIver and Starr recognized that
the effects of post-fire activities in some forest types are
well-known, while in others more information is needed. So what
are you all doing to fill in the gaps in research and data in
this area?
Mr. Shepard. I am sure the scientists are never going to
come to complete agreement on what is right out there and that,
you know, we will always have questions. We are working with
universities and with the experiment stations, research
stations at the Forest Service to try to answer some of the
questions that have come up, whether we should be doing post-
catastrophic event harvesting and salvage at all, or whether we
should be letting nature take its course through a passive
approach.
The unfortunate point about the Timbered Rock Fire is that
part of the project there was to do experimental designs that
were put in by Oregon State University to look at salvage
levels and what the impacts of salvage and different
reforestation activities were on soil compaction and wildlife
habitat and other values. And, unfortunately, we are not able
to implement all of those actions.
Mr. Walden. And why is that?
Mr. Shepard. Because of court injunctions.
Mr. Walden. All right. Mr. Holtrop?
Mr. Holtrop. I also agree and would just say that a lot of
the research needs are not only focused around what are the
effects of salvage, but just what are the effects of our
immediate emergency burned area rehabilitation work that we do
and which of those practices are most effective. And we are
doing research on that and continue to find opportunities for
more.
Mr. Walden. All right. Many name economic return as the
primary reason for man-induced reforestation. But aren't there
a lot of other factors at work here, including soil, water,
wildlife habitat restoration? Isn't that just as important or
more so?
Mr. Shepard. Yes, and I would add that economic return is
also an important consideration.
Mr. Walden. Why?
Mr. Shepard. Particularly where we're managing for our
mandate in the O&C Lands, is to manage for timber production
for the stability of local communities and industries. And so
if we can do that in an ecologically sustainable way and the
most efficient and effective way, that's the best way to go
about it.
But we are trying to meet other ecological objectives out
there, and following many of our fires, we have planted
hardwoods and stream banks and things like that to provide
shading. One fire in southwest Oregon, the Quartz Fire, we went
in and did aggressive reforestation to more rapidly restore
spotted owl habitat.
Mr. Walden. My time has actually expired, so we will have
to come back.
Let me go to Mr. Udall, and for the other committee
members, we are in the middle of a vote. I think we will have
time for Mr. Udall to ask his questions, and then we will
recess and come back for the other members.
Mr. Udall?
Mr. Tom Udall. Mr. Holtrop, you heard me ask earlier about
these three GAO reports over a series of years and why the
Forest Service has not been able to get it right. Could you
give us an explanation here?
Mr. Holtrop. I would say that in response to each of the
GAO reports, we have responded. I would say we have information
now from--based on the 1991 report, we established a process
that has improved the situation. But as our response to the
draft GAO report that we had seen indicates, we concur with the
recommendations of GAO. We believe that there are things that
we can do, should do, and will do in order to improve our data
management of both our TSI and reforestation so that we can be
more responsive to the types of questions that you're asking
and the types of questions that we're asking ourselves.
Mr. Tom Udall. A report by the GAO in 1998 found that the
Forest Service sometimes used up to 30 percent of the Knutson-
Vandenberg Fund for indirect expenses. Can you discuss how this
could potentially impact the reforestation backlog?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, if we were continuing to utilize up to
30 percent of the K-V funds for indirect costs, that would, of
course, have a compounding effect on our ability to meet our
reforestation needs. Ever since that report in actions
subsequent to that, we have been working steadily at reducing
that, and we are now much closer to 15 percent of the K-V funds
are used for indirect costs.
Mr. Tom Udall. And in the previous report, things were
purchased like office furniture in these indirect funds. Are
you trying to more closely link it, at least, to the specific
reforestation projects?
Mr. Holtrop. Absolutely.
Mr. Tom Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back at this
point and thank both the panelists.
Mr. Walden. OK. Ms. Herseth, do you want to go ahead for 5?
I think we still have time. We just have to keep track.
Ms. Herseth. Yes, just a follow-up, and I think, Mr.
Holtrop, you in your statement and in response to Mr. Udall's
question got at a little bit what I was going to ask, but let
me just say at the outset I have had a number of very
productive and good meetings with members of the Forest
Service, a number of Forest Service officials from the prior
tenure under a previous superintendent to the current officials
there and sympathize with the challenge that they face with
limited resources, particularly with the wildfires that we have
had, with some of the litigation that we have had in the past,
although it is a much better situation now because of the
advisory committee's rule, and the drought conditions that we
have had in western South Dakota. So I want to say that at the
outset.
But it sounds--again, using the Black Hills National Forest
here, which is generally blessed with an abundance of natural
regeneration that we have spoken about following a timber
harvest or even some of the wildfires, many of those forest
fires over the last 4 years have left a number of areas that
don't regenerate naturally.
And so I would like to separate policy from implementation
for a minute and would like for you to clarify for me, in
addition to what you have already provided, the Forest Service
policy on reforestation of suitable timberlands following a
forest fire. So, for example, is it Forest Service policy that
suitable timberland should be reforested within a prescribed
amount of time after a forest fire? And what is the Forest
Service policy regarding when a national forest should
determine and document reforestation needs following a forest
fire? So, in other words, if I went out and met with some of
our forest fire officials, Forest Service officials in the
Black Hills National Forest this weekend--I am going to be out
there this weekend, and I am not yet meeting with them, but
maybe I will--and just asked them about reforestation needs
after a fire, what should they be able to tell me at this
point? I know you are going to do more, as you have indicated,
to provide some clarification. But at this point, based on the
current status of Forest Service policy, what should they be
able to tell me are their guidelines?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, since the question is referring to post-
catastrophic event, a natural event is what you are referring
to, they ought to be able to tell you that they are looking at
what their Forest Plan direction is and whether that Forest
Plan direction is giving them an indication of the various
resources that they need to manage that piece of land for.
I think there are many reasons why reforestation--if
natural regeneration, natural reforestation of trees is not
going to occur, there are many reasons, such as the Chairman's
question earlier indicated, many reasons, not just economic and
not just timber production reasons, why replanting to trees is
an appropriate thing to do. But there are also circumstances in
which there are other values in other things that can be
learned from a wide variety of situations as well. And I just
think that what our expectation of the local land managers in a
situation like that is they assess what the needs are, they
utilize public involvement in that process, and they make wise
resource decisions as to what the land calls for. They are
going to make some determinations that natural regeneration is
the appropriate approach and rely on natural generation, which
may take longer than others. And if it takes too long to meet
the resource objectives, then we need to go in and do some more
direct work to make sure that we're ensuring the reforestation.
Mr. Walden. We are down to about 3-1/2 minutes in the vote.
Ms. Herseth. Well, then, one last question. Is there a
prescribed amount of time that they have to do any of these
things? Or is that going to be contingent on the Forest Plan?
Mr. Holtrop. Again, in response to a catastrophic event,
for the reforestation to occur there is not a prescribed amount
of time. We do require a post-fire analysis of what those
regeneration techniques are going to be, and generally we are
going to get that--in less than a year's period of time we're
going to have that, and I am not familiar with whether we have
a national policy as to exactly what that time is.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. And we will be in recess until after
the votes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Walden. I am going to call the Subcommittee back to
order. When we had to recess for the vote on the House Floor,
Ms. Herseth had about a minute remaining. And so I would yield
back to her for any further comments or questions she may have.
Ms. Herseth. Just one final comment. Part of the response
that you gave, Mr. Holtrop, in terms of the direction and
looking at the Forest Plan, the only comment I would make there
is that in South Dakota, with the Black Hills National Forest,
we have the same issue that a few other national forests have
that I know you are aware of, and that is the length of time it
is taking us to get a plan or amendments to that plan, and when
you are looking back then for that guidance as it relates to
purposes and resources, you are dealing with an outdated plan
but may very well be nearing the end stages of getting another
plan finalized. So I think that highlights the need for the
clarification coming out of your office for everyone at the
local-regional level to have more guidance here in how to
address the reforestation challenge.
Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you. And I think what that does also is
it highlights the complexity of the various issues that we are
dealing with, both at the local level and more regionally and
nationally as well. That's a good point.
Mr. Walden. I know I have heard some forests, it takes as
long to do the plan as the plan's length. Do you run into that?
It can take as much as 8, 10 years to do a 10-year plan?
Mr. Holtrop. We have run into that situation in various
places around the country, which is one of the reasons we are
working in establishing a new rule for planning. That is one of
the major driving factors in the need for that.
Mr. Walden. I have one final question before we go to our
next panel. What changes in reforestation practices have been
implemented to address concerns over high-density planting
practices? Because I know in the GAO report they indicate that
sort of the post-timber harvest, after-timber harvest,
especially a decade or more ago, maybe 20 years, there was this
intense reforestation with a plan to do thinning, and we have
sort of evolved out of that and are not doing the thinning.
What are you doing now to change the forest replanting
practices?
Mr. Holtrop. In general, those forests are planting at a
lower density. In fact, I would say that that's a pretty common
statement to say that. In general, we don't plant at the same
density as we were maybe 10, 15 years ago, with the expectation
at that time of more intense thinning opportunities on down the
line.
I would say that what's really driving that is the
recognition of the multiple resource values in which we manage
those lands for, that there are times in which a thinner
planting spacing is going to result in objectives other than
just some of the timber production, but it is going to provide
some of the opportunities for us to accomplish wildlife habitat
objectives and those types of things.
One of the things that we need to be careful about, of
course, is that we want to make sure that if we are going to
put the investment into regenerating a stand through
reforestation techniques, that we meet the objective of
actually reforesting the stand, and we want to make sure we
don't plant at such a density that competing vegetation, non-
tree vegetation, might outcompete the trees or whatever. So
there needs to be a balance made in that decision as well.
Mr. Walden. How do you prioritize for reforestation
compared to other things? Because these are issues I think
everybody on the committee has. You know, how do you set what
is your number one priority and how do you do reforestation?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, one of the factors, of course, that
weighs into prioritizing reforestation is under the National
Forest Management Act we are required to regenerate a stand
with 5 years of harvesting under the--so if it's a timber
harvest treatment, in order to meet our legal requirements
under that Act, that's one of the highest priorities.
Mr. Walden. But what about these areas where it is not a
timber harvest? I think there is legislation in the Senate to
require similar sort of standards for reforestation after a
catastrophic event--a fire, blowdown, hurricane.
Mr. Holtrop. You know, the types of things, again, that we
would utilize to prioritize reforestation are things such as is
the reforestation necessary in order to make sure that we're
not going to have soil or water restoration problems because we
haven't regenerated the stands to accomplish a basic
stewardship responsibility on the land. Perhaps there's a
reforestation need that's necessary to meet the needs of the
habitat of a threatened and endangered species or some other
high-valued wildlife species that the reforestation is going to
allow us.
Those are going to be some of the first-tier, high-tier
types of things that we're going to prioritize at the top of
the list of the types of things.
Obviously the question is also complex from the standpoint
of we're prioritizing within our reforestation needs, but then
we also have to prioritize our reforestation needs with all the
other needs, such as hazardous fuels treatment, some of those
other types of things as well.
Mr. Walden. What happens, though, in a stand that has been
managed or is supposed to have been managed for, let's say, all
those characteristics for spotted owl and that stand burns? I
mean, it is what happened in the Biscuit Fire. Would it not
be--I mean, doesn't it follow then that the goal should be to
get back to an old-growth stand as quickly as possible if that
was the--I mean, if you were managing for old growth for
spotted owl habit, wouldn't it make sense to get back to that
type of forest as soon as is environmentally appropriate?
Mr. Holtrop. You would think that in many instances that
would be the case. Certainly the changed condition that has
occurred in terms of the amount of old growth habitat because
of fires such as Biscuit causes a manager to have to make those
types of determinations or find other places in which that old
growth habitat can be provided elsewhere as well.
Mr. Walden. OK. Mr. Shepard, can you respond to that sort
of general notion of how do you prioritize?
Mr. Shepard. Pretty much the same way. It depends on the
land management objectives, of course, but then we look at the
site conditions out there and the species that we are trying to
manage for--if it was a species we were dealing with such as
large pole pine, which usually gets adequate natural
regeneration, we would put that as an area to watch to see if
we were going to need to intervene or not, but let nature take
its course and naturally reseed. An area where we are trying to
get such as Douglas fir and mixed conifer type, then we would
probably prioritize those to intervene and do the necessary
reforestation and stand maintenance to keep those stands
growing.
Mr. Walden. OK, very good. Mr. Gilchrest, do you have
questions for our witnesses?
Mr. Gilchrest. Wasn't Ms. Herseth questioning?
Mr. Walden. She actually went, and now we are going to go
to you.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. You stepped out. We actually had a few more
minutes, so as soon as you were gone, I called on her. So now
we are to you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess some of the questions were asked and some of the
answers were forthcoming to have some understanding for what I
am about to ask, I guess, and my question was: What are the
goals--who determines the goals of reforestation in all the
various regions around the country or in a particular national
forest within a region? And I think you answered that. And to
some extent, it will vary from region to region, forest to
forest, landscape to landscape, and I would assume in the
Forest Service or BLM on a designated wilderness, the
reforestation goals would be different than they would be in an
area where the goal was renewed production after the forest was
regenerated.
So I guess some of the goals of reforestation are timber
production, soil, water, wildlife habitat, endangered species,
those kinds of things. Does the term ``ecosystem'' ever come
into play with the goal or your priorities for the management
plan for reforestation?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, it does, and the way I would describe
that is all those multiple objectives that you were just
describing define an ecosystem, and that is indeed the holistic
approach that we take as we determine----
Mr. Gilchrest. So are there forest ecologists on staff that
have some perspective of that, some understanding of that?
Mr. Holtrop. We have forest ecologists, we have grass line
ecologists, we have----
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. You have got them all.
Mr. Holtrop. And, of course, biologists and hydrologists
and foresters.
Mr. Gilchrest. Soil scientists, you name it. As you pursue
this, do you think about, do you actually try to accomplish, or
is there some sense that in the future your management plans
might be looking at the economic value of the ecosystem
services that are provided since you are looking at the soil,
you are looking at water quality, you are looking at habitat,
and also looking at clean air or the potential for the Forest
Service to make money with carbon sequestration? Is that in the
mix anywhere in BLM or Forest Service, that kind of thing?
Mr. Shepard. Well, we talk about carbon sequestration, but
we don't have any process right now to consider the economics
of that. But as Joel said, we do consider all of those values
in our interdisciplinary teams as we go through our projects.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you know anyone that is working on that
kind of a thing, the economic value of forest sequestration,
either from a nearby public utility, public entity or a
community or a coal-fired power plant or anything like that?
Mr. Shepard. I know that there is work going on on
sequestration credits, but I am not familiar with it.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Yes, sir?
Mr. Holtrop. I think I can add something to what Ed was
saying as well. There is some work going on. The Forest Service
researchers are doing some work on carbon sequestration and
some credits. We are beginning to explore what our role should
be and can be to further look into what are the opportunities
that we have to encourage wise forest management, not only on
the public lands but on private forested lands as well, to see
if there is perhaps some opportunities to keep forest lands in
forest by----
Mr. Gilchrest. The Delmarva Peninsula, think of that as
places where you can come over and plant trees. You know, we
designate certain areas for refuges. We did that in the last
couple of years. Actually, the Federal Government purchased
land to make it a wildlife refuge. Does the Forest Service ever
go out there looking for more land? We would like you to come
over to the Delmarva Peninsula. I had another question, though.
We can talk about that later.
Mr. Walden. Do I feel a field hearing coming on?
Mr. Gilchrest. Field hearing on the Delmarva Peninsula in
October, late October, fall foliage. We could go canoeing while
we are there, and we will--oh, by the way, if I lose my
election, I would, for room and board, be one of those guys
collecting data, and I would walk through those forests.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Just put me some place and let me go, and I
will use my----
Mr. Walden. I don't think you are supposed to solicit for a
job until you have lost your election.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, just in case, keep me in mind.
I had a couple of quick questions, if the Chairman will
indulge me for a couple extra seconds. How many acres of forest
in the national forests and how many acres of forest in BLM?
Mr. Holtrop. The National Forest System is 192 million
acres, not all of which is forested. Is that the question you
are asking?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes. So 192 million acres. BLM?
Mr. Shepard. BLM manages 261 million acres, and of that
approximately 55 million is forested.
Mr. Gilchrest. So if you looked at the economic value of
carbon sequestration, there is potential for the Forest
Service, I assume, to actually make a little money there from
the private sector. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Holtrop. I think that is one of the things that we need
to explore. Again, recognizing that there is also 500 million
acres of forested lands that are non-Federal lands, and perhaps
there are some opportunities on those lands as well to explore
that as an additional incentive to keep those forested lands in
forest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Great. I was going to ask a question about
Timbered Rock in southern Oregon where there was a forest fire
where I guess there was about 800 acres that was burned--or
27,000 acres that was burned and 800 acres that was, I guess,
reclaimed or salvaged and you went through an EIS. That was on
BLM land?
Mr. Shepard. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. If there was 27,000 acres burned, what was
the reason for the small amount of acreage salvaged? And do you
have any idea how large or how many pages the EIS was to do
that?
Mr. Shepard. Yes, I do. There was 27,000 acres total;
approximately 12,000 acres of that was BLM. It was in a
checkerboard pattern, so a lot of it was owned by a private
timber company. It was proposed that we harvest 800 acres of
that, and the EIS, I believe, was almost a page per acre. I
think it was something like 700 pages.
Mr. Walden. Could I follow up? And how much was harvested?
Mr. Shepard. Right now we haven't harvested it. We're
enjoined on that.
Mr. Walden. And how many years has it been?
Mr. Shepard. That was in 2002, so we're in our third year.
Mr. Walden. And in that 3-year period, what's happened to
the value of the trees?
Mr. Shepard. The smaller trees have lost all their value.
The larger trees have probably lost 40 to 50 percent of their
value.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thanks.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. We may have to take you up on that
Delmarva canoe trip, too.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, both again for your
service, the BLM and the Forest Service and to our Nation's
forest and grasslands. We appreciate it, and your testimony and
comments today are most helpful as we work through these
issues, and your staffs who help you out.
Mr. Walden. Now I would like to invite up our third panel
of witnesses. On panel three we have Dr. Scott Schlarbaum--I
hope I said that right--Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and
Fisheries, University of Tennessee; Dr. Jerry Franklin from the
College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington,
and Mr. Ken Kane from the Society of American Foresters. And
since I have sworn in all the other witnesses, it is only fair
that I swear you in today. So before you get seated, please
stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Walden. Now pleased be seated. Again, we thank you for
your comments today. We are looking forward to your testimony
on this important issue. So now I would like to recognize Dr.
Schlarbaum. Am I close? OK. And if you could hit your
microphone, I am not sure it is on.
Dr. Schlarbaum. How is that?
Mr. Walden. That is better. Thank you, sir, and welcome.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT E. SCHLARBAUM, JAMES R. COX PROFESSOR OF
FOREST GENETICS, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, WILDLIFE, AND
FISHERIES, INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, THE UNIVERSITY OF
TENNESSEE
Dr. Schlarbaum. Mr. Chairman, committee members, national
forests are valued for timber, wildlife, recreation, and many
other uses. Although managed by the Forest Service, citizens
have input into the Forest Plan for each national forest. The
Forest Plan is the centerpiece for management actions and
ensures multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services.
Fire, insects, adverse weather, and other catastrophic events
that affect large areas of national forests are unpredictable
and, therefore, are not addressed in the Forest Plan.
Reforestation is necessary in order to attain previous
structure and function as specified by the Forest Plan.
Successful reforestation is a three-pronged process that
depends upon funding, a source of living materials, and actual
management activities.
Funding for reforestation activities comes from three
sources: Knutson-Vandenberg or K-V funds; national forest
vegetation and watershed management budget, NFVW; and the
reforestation trust fund, RTRT. The K-V dollars are tied to
planned harvest sales and sales of salvage timber, the NFVW
funds are appropriated based upon a submitted fiscal year
budget, and the RTRT funds originate from certain tariffs, both
of which do not normally consider catastrophic events in
regional allocations.
On the surface, it appears that K-V funds generated by
salvage sales would provide for reforestation. In reality, K-V
funds do not provide enough dollars to reforest large acreages
for several reasons. When a catastrophic event occurs and wood
is plentiful, there can be a market saturation. Another problem
stems from the National Environmental Policy Act. Under NEPA,
large salvage logging operations require an Environmental
Assessment. This process can eventually lead to legal
challenges which can last until the trees that could have been
salvaged are worthless due to degradation, and this is
particularly true for Southern national forests.
Given the above limitations of the three funding sources,
it is evident that reforestation backlogs from catastrophic
events will continue to occur and certain objectives in Forest
Plans will not be met unless additional funds become available.
Reforestation efforts often depend upon planting seedlings
of appropriate seed origin. The foundation for producing seed
for the production of seedlings in the Forest Service lies with
the Regional Genetic Resources Programs. In addition to
producing seed, these regional programs also develop
genetically resistant trees for various native and exotic pests
that can cause widespread damage.
With respect to reforestation backlogs, the regional
programs should be regarded as an integral part of the
solution. Any funding increases to address reforestation
backlogs should be in concert with funding increases for these
Regional Genetic Resources Programs.
In Eastern forests dominated by hardwoods, seedlings and
sprouts of fast-growing species will often quickly dominate a
site at the expense of slower-growing species such as oaks.
Forest managers need to have the flexibility in controlling
these competitors that lack a categorical exclusion for
herbicides, despite the fact that some herbicides are benign to
human health and do not move through the soil. I have selected
three examples of problems that have caused a reforestation
backlog of approximately 180,000 acres in Fiscal Year 2003 and
Fiscal Year 2004 in Southern national forests.
Currently, there are 350 acres of severe oak mortality with
another 300,000 acres of moderate mortality in the Ozark
National Forest in Arkansas. The red oak borer has been
identified as the primary causal agent. Damage occurs from the
larval stage of this insect, which chews large holes in the
tree's stem. This damage also predisposes the tree to
Armillaria root rot and hypoxylon canker diseases and attacks
by other insects.
The overall result of the oak mortality will be low-density
forests with less diversity. Regeneration of the oak component
will be limited due to the lack of seed trees and intense
competition, and, unfortunately, there are no seed orchards for
reduction of red or white oak acorns adapted for the Ozark
National Forest.
Southern pine beetle populations began to multiply and
reached epidemic proportions in 2001 in the Daniel Boone
National Forest in Kentucky. By 2002, there were dead or
damaged pines on approximately 70,000 to 90,000 acres.
Currently the forest is reforesting approximately 600 acres per
year, which is short of the amount of acreage required under
the Forest Plan. Correspondingly, a reforestation backlog
exists. In addition, the Regional Genetic Program does not have
enough shortleaf pine seed adapted for the Daniel Boone
National Forest to sustain the reforestation effort.
And the last example is the Osceola National Forest in
Florida recently exchanged land with a timber company to better
consolidate the national forest. Prior to this exchange, a
prescribed fire on the national forest escaped and burned
approximately 14,000 acres of land that was intended for the
exchange. The exchange proceeded, but the Forest Service
inherited a block of burnt-over land and must fund any
restoration with existing funds. Reforestation efforts will be
limited as there are no funds to collect longleaf pine seed
adapted for the local environment.
That concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Schlarbaum follows:]
Statement of Scott E. Schlarbaum, James R. Cox Professor of Forest
Genetics, Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, Institute of
Agriculture, The University of Tennessee
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:
National Forests provide a multitude of opportunities for use by
American citizens. They are valued for timber, wildlife, recreation,
and other uses connected with natural settings. Although managed by the
USDA Forest Service, citizens can have input into the Forest Plan for
each National Forest. The Forest Plan is the centerpiece for management
actions on a National Forest that include decisions on reforestation,
goals and objectives, timber land suitability, wilderness designation,
monitoring, and other management activities. Moreover, the Forest Plan
ensures multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the
National Forest System. Fire, insects, adverse weather, and other
catastrophic events that destroy or damage large areas in National
Forests are unpredictable and therefore, are not addressed in the
Forest Plan. Reforestation of these areas is necessary in order to
attain previous structure and function as specified by the Forest Plan.
Successful reforestation is a three-pronged process that depends on
funding, a source of living materials, i.e., seeds, seedlings, sprouts,
and actual management activities.
Reforestation Funding--Funding for reforestation activities come
from three sources: Knutson-Vanderburg (K-V) funds, National Forest
Vegetation and Watershed Management budget (NFVW), and the
Reforestation Trust Fund (RTRT). The K-V dollars are tied to planned
harvest sales and sales of salvage timber from unpredictable events.
The NFVW funds are appropriated based on a submitted fiscal year
budget, which normally does not take catastrophic events into
consideration. The RTRT funds originate from certain tariffs and may
not exceed $30 million dollars in total. The RTRT funds to each Region
are based on annual request of current year silvicultural program and
budget planning information. As with NFVW funds, the RTRT funds do not
normally consider catastrophic events in Regional allocations.
On the surface, it appears that K-V funds, generated by salvage
sales would provide for reforestation, even in a large catastrophic
event. In reality, K-V funds do not provide enough dollars to reforest
large acreages for several reasons. When a catastrophic event occurs
and wood is plentiful, there can be a market saturation, and paper
mills and sawmills will not buy more logs. This is particularly
critical to southern National Forests in that the stems of a dead tree
will degrade in a relatively short period of time. Another problem
stems from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA,
generally a large (over 250 acres) salvage logging operation requires
an Environmental Assessment (EA). When the EA is complete and a
decision has been made that there will be no significant impacts, a
Decision Notice is posted as a Paper of Record with an appeal process.
This process can lead to legal challenges, which can last until the
trees that could have been salvaged are worthless due to degradation.
Given the above limitations for K-V, NFVW, and RTRT funding of
restoration, it is evident that reforestation backlogs from
catastrophic events will continue to occur and certain objectives in
Forest Plans will not be met. Additional funding through RTRT or some
other channel will be needed to properly reforest and manage devastated
lands according to their respective Forest Plan.
Source of Living Materials--Reforestation efforts depend upon a
source of living materials that can be managed or planted to achieve a
desired outcome. Disturbed forest land regenerates by natural or
artificial ('tree planting) regeneration. Natural regeneration can be
occur from seeds and/or sprouts. Natural regeneration by seed requires
the presence of reproductively mature trees, which are called seed
trees. Spouting is generally limited to hardwood species, although a
few coniferous species, e.g., coast redwood, can sprout. The conifer-
dominated western forests of pines, spruces, true firs, and Douglas-fir
do not regenerate from sprouting and thereby, require seed trees or a
source of nursery-grown seedlings to regenerate the forest. Eastern
forests can be either conifer or hardwood dominated. Many hardwood
species will sprout unless over mature or killed entirely, i.e., stem,
crown and root system are dead. Therefore, the need for a supply of
seed for artificial regeneration can be critical for reforestation.
Seed Origin--Although forest tree species can have natural ranges
that span many states and physiographic regions, there are genetic
differences in trees of the same species from different seed sources.
For example, seedlings of northern red oak from the deep South may not
be adapted to upstate New York environmental conditions where northern
red oak also occurs naturally. Reforestation efforts should use
seedlings from local sources or seedlings from seed orchards that have
been evaluated in the environment that will be planted.
Regional Genetic Resources Program--The foundation for artificial
regeneration within the Forest Service lies in the Regional Genetic
Resources Programs (Table 1). Regional Genetic Resources Programs
(RGRP) were formerly called Regional Tree Improvement Programs and
existed in all Regions with the exception of Region 10 (Alaska). These
programs were originally developed to improve species for timber
production through breeding, testing and creation of seed production
orchards. In recent years, however, the Programs have become more
holistic in purpose. In addition to producing seed for general
reforestation or reforestation due to catastrophic events, the RGRPs
can: 1) initiate gene conservation of threatened and endangered species
and populations, 2) respond to forest decline from air pollution and
global warming, 3) respond to changes in emphasis for National Forest
use, and 4) develop genetically resistant trees for various native and
exotic pests.
The continued existence of RGRPs is essential to reforestation
efforts where artificial regeneration is necessary. The planting of
seedlings that are adapted to the reforestation site is critical for
long term survival and productivity. Unfortunately, these Programs have
been struggling with declining budgets and have been further impacted
by the Forest Service's Budget Formulation and Execution System, which
was implemented in FY03. In 1991, the combined RGRP budget was over $16
million dollars, but had slipped to approximately $10 million dollars
by 1998. In addition, the Region 2, Region 3, and Region 4 Programs
were consolidated and placed under the Regional Geneticist for Region 1
in 1998. The new budget system has removed control of most funds from
the Regional Geneticists and allocated them to National Forest budgets.
Forest Supervisors are now faced with the difficult decisions of
funding immediate needs or long-term needs such as seed orchards, which
produce seed for reforestation. Seed orchards have been closed or
mothballed due to lack of funding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0970.002
With respect to reforestation backlogs, the RGRPs should be
regarded as an integral part of the solution. Funding increases to
address reforestation backlogs should be in concert with funding
increases for the RGRPs, in order to sustain a supply of seedlings that
are of the appropriate seed source for reforestation sites.
Reforestation Management--There are a wide range of management
activities in conjunction with reforestation. In eastern forests
dominated by hardwoods, seedlings and sprouts of fast growing hardwood
species, such as yellow-poplar, black gum, red maple, sycamore, and
sweetgum, will often quickly dominate a site at the expense of slower
growing species, e.g., oaks, which are important contributors to
habitat and diversity. Southern forests have an array of aggressive
vines, weeds, and grasses that will overtop seedlings unless
controlled. Forest managers need to have the flexibility in controlling
these competitors, but lack a Categorical Exclusion for herbicides
despite the fact that some herbicides are benign to human health and do
not move through soil, e.g., glyphosate. Herbicide use now requires an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an EA, which cost money to
conduct and can be appealed. Delay by litigation can be critical in
some regions, as degradation will quickly ruin the market value for a
log.
Reforestation Backlogs in Southern Region (R8) National Forests--
Recently, southern National Forests have been subjected to catastrophic
damage from insects. In addition, a large portion of land was acquired
that had considerable fire damage. Overall, there is a large
reforestation backlog in the Southern Region (Table 2).
Table 2. Reforestation program accomplishments and backlog, FY2003-
FY2005 for the Southern Region (NFVW = National Forest Vegetation and
Watershed Management funds, RTRT = Reforestation Trust Fund; K-V =
Knutson-Vanderburg funds). Source: USDA Forest Service R8 2003-2004
TRACS (Timber Activity Control System) report.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0970.003
Below are three examples of problems that have caused a
reforestation backlog in southern National Forests. In each situation,
there is a lack of funding that has caused a reforestation backlog and
there is a lack of seed from an appropriate source for artificial
regeneration.
Ozark-St. Francis National Forests--Currently, there are 350,000
acres of severe oak mortality with another 300,000 acres of moderate
mortality on the Ozark National Forest (Arkansas). In the areas with
severe mortality, over 50 percent of the red and white oaks are dead,
and many of the remaining oaks have thinning crowns (loss of leaves)
indicating that they may die as well. The red oak borer has been
identified at the primary causal agent. Damage occurs from the larval
stage of this insect, which chews large holes in the tree's stem and
branches in the crown. The borer will attack even small oaks, i.e., 3''
diameter, and cause mortality. In heavily infested trees, one oak borer
per linear inch of the stem has been found. This damage predisposes a
tree to Armillaria root rot and hypoxylon canker diseases and attacks
from other insects such as white oak borers, carpenterworms, walking
sticks, and grasshoppers. Although the mortality has been primarily
ascribed to the red oak borer, the oak-dominated forests on the Ozark
National Forest were heading for decline because of drought, relatively
oak age (70-90 years-old), overstocking, and poor site quality.
The overall result of the oak mortality will be low density forests
consisting of species inferior for timber and mast production.
Regeneration of the oak component will be limited, due to the lack of
seed trees and intense competition from faster growing hardwoods. If
allowed to occur, this will be a significant change in forest habitat
and diversity. Restoration of the oak component will require the use of
artificial regeneration and post-planting management to reduce
competition. Unfortunately, there are no seed orchards for production
of red or white oak acorns adapted for the Ozark National Forest. The
Region 8 RGRP has recently created some oak plantations for eventual
conversion to seed orchards, but it will be a number of years before
the trees reach reproductive maturity.
Daniel Boone National Forest--At the advent of the 21st century,
southern pine beetle populations began to multiply and reached epidemic
proportions in 2001 on the Daniel Boone National Forest (Kentucky). By
2002, there were dead or damaged pines on approximately 70,000 to
90,000 acres within the Forest boundaries. Within the predominately
pine stands of the Daniel Boone National Forest, were red-cockaded
woodpecker colonies, a federally listed endangered species. Until the
southern pine beetle outbreak, these colonies had been increasing in
size. The outbreak destroyed their habitat, which necessitated trapping
the surviving birds and relocating them to more southern locations in
Arkansas, Georgia, and South Carolina.
The Forest Plan was revised in 2004 to include an objective to
reforest 8200 acres in shortleaf pine over the next 10 years and
approximately 42,000 acres over a longer period of time. With current
resources, the Forest is reforesting approximately 600 acres per year,
which is short of the amount of acreage required under the Forest Plan.
Correspondingly, a reforestation backlog exists. Over time,
reforestation will become more expensive as hardwood species are in the
process of dominating the sites and will have to be killed or removed
prior to planting shortleaf pine. In addition, there is not enough
shortleaf pine seed adapted for the Daniel Boone National Forest to
sustain the reforestation effort.
Osceola National Forest--The Osceola National Forest in Florida
recently exchanged land with a timber company to better consolidate the
National Forest and thereby, reduce management costs, improve water
quality, and reduce forest fragmentation, which is important to
wildlife. Prior to the exchange, a prescribed fire on the National
Forest escaped and burned approximately 14,000 acres of the land that
was intended for exchange. The exchange proceeded, but the Forest
inherited a block of burnt-over land, instead of a longleaf pine
forest, and must fund any restoration with existing funds, i.e., from
RTRT and NFVW. Reforestation efforts will be limited as there are no
funds to collect longleaf pine seed adapted for the local environment.
Closing Statement
Reforestation backlogs on National Forests will continue to occur
as catastrophic events are difficult to predict. Provisions for
additional funding to meet immediate reforestation needs from
catastrophic events should be made. Otherwise, there will continue to
be alterations in the habitat and diversity on National Forests where a
catastrophic event has occurred, resulting in failure to meet certain
Forest Plan objectives. Reforestation should be regarded as a
combination of actions leading to a single outcome. The Regional
Genetic Resources Programs are the foundation for reforestation where
artificial regeneration is required and thereby, are integral in the
reforestation process. Increases in funding to meet reforestation
backlogs should correspond to increases in the Regional Genetic
Resources Programs' budget in order to generate enough seed of
appropriate origin to meet reforestation needs. Management activities
in conjunction with reforestation should be efficient and
environmentally safe. A Categorical Exclusion for the use of benign
herbicides to control competition in reforestation plantings would
significantly improve survival and growth without damaging the
environment.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kane?
STATEMENT OF KENNETH KANE, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS, KANE,
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Kane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am here today representing the Society of American
Foresters----
Mr. Walden. I am not convinced your microphone is on or it
is close enough to you. Those have to be fairly close.
Mr. Kane. How is that? Is that better?
Mr. Walden. I think so.
Mr. Kane. OK. I am here today representing the Society of
American Foresters. SAF is an organization of over 15,000
professional foresters in all segments of the profession, from
consultant foresters like myself, to academics, scientific
researchers, and Federal and State and local agency personnel.
SAF members believe it is our responsibility as professionals
to ensure the continued health and long-term sustainability of
both public and privately owned forest resources for the
current and future generations. Over the last several decades,
SAF has become increasingly concerned with the lack of action
in Federal forests that is needed to maintain and improve these
forests and their associated resources. Foresters need to be
able to apply the proven practices of silviculture, which at
times can include timely human-induced reforestation, to ensure
over the long run that our forests are healthy and the
objectives set forth for these forests can be met. As the
General Accountability Office report outlines, reforestation
has become a major problem on National Forest System lands. The
backlog of reforestation can inhibit proper stewardship of our
forests and can reduce the health and long-term viability of
these forests.
As you said so well in your opening remarks, our area was
pretty much harvested early on from large sawmills. This is a
typical sawmill that occurred in our area around 1900. The
devastation from the intense harvest with firewood and forest
product materials left a landscape that the next slide will
show. This landscape was not uncommon across Pennsylvania. In
fact, around 1900, Pennsylvania, most of Pennsylvania looked
like this, coupled with the deer herd that was reduced by 400
animals at that time, as the settlers used the natural
resources of the area to survive.
This is what the forest looked like prior to settlement.
You'll see a lot of vertical structure, a lot of old growth
down and dead and woody material. However, after the
harvesting, the next slide depicts what the forest looked like
after harvesting. The large materials were taken to the
sawmills, and in remote areas small, low-value pole timber was
left behind. This land was purchased primarily by the Allegheny
National Forest that comprises now half a million acres of
public land in our area.
The next slide depicts the very first timber sale on the
Allegheny National Forest in 1927 in the little Arnot
watershed. You will notice the next series of slides is taken
from the exact spot for a period of approximately 70 years.
This is in the spring of 1927, 1937, 1947, 1957, 1967, 1977,
1987, all the way to 1998, which depicts a mature Allegheny
hardwood forest.
Mr. Walden. Can you tell us what the tree types are?
Mr. Kane. Interesting. That's a great question. I hate to
take up the time, but to answer your question in the interim of
my time----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. Suspend the clock.
Mr. Kane. OK. Thank you for that opportunity. But I am
trying to depict 150 years of history in 5 minutes, so thank
you for bearing with me. But the species you see in this
picture, the larger trees you see are black cherry, prunus
serotina, which is the primary species of the Allegheny forest
type. Many accuse us foresters of managing primarily for that
tree. However, if you couple what I have explained to you in
the low deer herd in 1900, today the estimated deer herd in
Pennsylvania is 1.6 million animals. The problem we are having
and that I will depict later on in this presentation is with
that low deer herd, we were able to regenerate a very diverse
forest. The smaller tree on the right-hand side of that is a
sugar maple, acer saccharum. What we tried to do in managing
our resource is we carry the acer saccharum--when we manage for
the forest resource, we try to carry that sugar maple into the
next rotation, and oftentimes we will let that tree go for 200
years. However, the black cherry matures in about 100 years,
which is the crisis that we have before us today. We not only
are susceptible to the blowdown that I am going to show you,
but we are also susceptible of overmaturity.
The slides that I've depicted show the forest in a dormant
state, our hardwood forest in a dormant state. The next slide
will show you what the forest floor looks like with 1.6 million
deer on our landscape. That slide, you will see hayscented fern
in the foreground, and if you look very closely, in the
background you will see at about 5 foot a line, horizontal.
That is a deer browse line. That is the impact of the white-
tailed deer to our forest.
Just yesterday, I attended a conference at Penn State, the
Pennsylvania Forest Issues Conference, and at that conference
it was stated by research data that two-thirds of Pennsylvania
currently is unable to regenerate itself without foresters
actively managing that resource. Two-thirds of Pennsylvania's
17 million acres of forestland can't regenerate itself because
of that condition, because the white-tailed deer changes the
forest structure on the forest floor, inhibiting natural
species to advance.
The next slide will show you how we're susceptible to
blowdown. We experienced a blowdown in 1985 that damaged the
13,000 acres in the Allegheny National Forest, and in 2003, we
had a blowdown that blew down 10,000 acres.
The next slide will show you the impact. That is an aerial
infrared photo of the Allegheny National Forest, the impact of
the tornadoes that crossed it in 1985. That area, 13,000 acres
was blown down quite severely, as you can tell by the color
infrared. That area was let for timber sale within 2 years of
blowdown. The 2003 storm, now in 2005, less than 20 percent of
the area has been let for timber sale salvage.
Mr. Walden. Excuse my ignorance. Is it the blue or the red
that was blown down? The blue?
Mr. Kane. The red is the growing infrared. The gray in the
middle is the impact of the tornado.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Mr. Kane. Which was quite severe. It was a swath
approximately a quarter to a mile wide and 60 miles across our
half-million-acre national forest.
The next slide shows you what the regeneration looks like
in that tornado swath today. Twenty years later we have a
sapling stand, very similar to that stand that you saw in my
earlier slide of 1937.
The next slide shows you why we can't let our forest go to
late succession. That is a beech tree. The species on--the same
tree, species on the left is early stages of the beech scale
nectria-complex; the middle is when the tree is on the killing
front; and on the right is the late stages of the beech scale
nectria-complex. Beech scale nectria-complex is a disease that
was brought into North America at the point of Nova Scotia in
1890 from Europe, and it has been moving south and west ever
since. The Allegheny Plateau is now in the killing front of
that disease. Beeches are late successional species in our
forests, so we can't support a late successional forest. In
Europe, the beech tree is known as--the disease is known as the
beech snap disease because the trees tend to snap off between
15 and 30 feet high. So they're not even good areas for
recreation once you're in late succession because you're in
there, the wind blows, and the trees start snapping off all
around you.
It's interesting. I know our area may not quite be as
beautiful as the peninsula you were invited to earlier, but we
very much would enjoy having you up for a tour, if you were
inclined.
Mr. Walden. Yes, snapping tree tour. That will work.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kane. Also, we're susceptible to a disease that's
exotic that is in another late successional species, which is
the hemlock wooly adelgid, which is attacking our State tree,
the Eastern hemlock.
The next slide shows you what we are up against today. The
upper left is straight maple, and the low-story vegetation that
takes over our lower canopy that won't allow natural forest to
replace itself, primarily because of our friend the white-
tailed deer. Bambi is beautiful, but she can cause a lot of
problems.
The lower left shows what we have to do. That's a herbicide
apparatus that we use to use herbicides, as Dr. Schlarbaum
referred to, herbicides that are inert to man, but they are
herbicides that we use daily, such as glyphosate, which is
Round-up that we use around our homes. That is the primary
herbicide we use to control these species on the ground.
And then, of course, the beech brush, the young root
suckers that occur from the dying beech from the scale nectria.
They reproduce through their roots, so we get that thick brush
you see in the lower right.
The next slide is my final slide that I will try to
conclude my comments with. That is a woven wire deer exclosure.
Those are what we have to erect on our plateau to regenerate
our forest. The area to the right is inside the exclosure. The
area to the left is outside. The difference is quite stark.
That fence to erect today is--2 years ago, prior to the cost of
energy and steel increasing, that cost us approximately $1.50 a
linear foot to construct. I'm currently under contract with a
contractor to put some of that fence up at $2.20 a linear foot.
So, in conclusion, action needs to be taken now to ensure
the establishment and growth of regeneration in disturbance
areas of northwest Pennsylvania and in many areas throughout
the country. Forest policy, funding, and other factors that
preclude timely reforestation are evident in comparing the
response, of course, to the 1985 and the 2003 wind events.
Thank you for the extra time.
Mr. Walden. Well, it is very helpful, especially those of
us from the West who aren't dealing with some of the issues you
are, but as a committee we have that responsibility. So it has
been most informative.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kane follows:]
Statement of Kenneth Kane, Consulting Forester, Keith Horn Forestry,
Inc., representing the Society of American Foresters
My name is Kenneth C. Kane. I am president of Keith Horn Forestry,
Inc., Consulting Foresters, in Kane, Pennsylvania. I have been
practicing forestry full time on the Allegheny Plateau since 1983. I am
also a native of Kane, Pennsylvania, a small community located at the
eastern edge of the Allegheny National Forest. It was growing up in the
Allegheny Plateau Region that motivated me to attend Penn State
University and obtain my Bachelor of Science degree from Penn State's
School of Forest Resources.
I am here today representing the Society of American Foresters
(SAF), an organization of over 15,000 professional foresters in all
segments of the profession, from consultant foresters like myself, to
academics, scientific researchers, and federal, state, and local agency
personnel. SAF members believe it is our responsibility as
professionals to ensure the continued health and long-term
sustainability of both public and privately owned forest resources for
current and future generations. Over the last several decades, SAF has
become increasingly concerned with the lack of action in federal
forests that is needed to maintain and improve these forests and their
associated resources. Foresters need to be able to apply the proven
practices of silviculture, which at times can include timely human-
induced reforestation, to ensure, over the long-run, that our forests
are healthy and the objectives set for these forests can be met. I will
include, for the record, SAF's position statement in this issue, titled
Use of Silviculture to Achieve and Maintain Forest Health on Public
Lands. It is difficult to meet the public's demands for these lands
when foresters are prevented or restricted from practicing our
profession. As the General Accountability Office Report outlines,
reforestation has become a major problem on National Forest System
lands. The backlog of reforestation can inhibit proper stewardship of
our forests and can reduce the health and long-term viability of these
forests.
Many well-intentioned people ask if we should simply allow forests
to regenerate on their own. In fact, most forests can regenerate
successfully without human influence, However, when society expects
(and legally requires) responsible stewardship of our forests and
diverse values from these forests--clean water and air, wildlife
habitat, recreational opportunities, forest products, and scenic
beauty, it is sometimes necessary to intervene. Human-induced or
artificial reforestation is often needed to accelerate the growing
process and move more quickly towards meeting the demands society
places on forests. Human induced reforestation is also beneficial where
there is an abundance of invasive species, wildlife such as deer, a
real problem in northwest Pennsylvania, or other conditions, that would
prohibit natural regeneration of the desired forest. Additionally if
there is a lack of seed trees in the area, it may take years for
natural regeneration to take hold, putting the soil at risk of erosion
and putting the area at risk of invasive species.
Delayed or inadequate reforestation after catastrophic events, such
as wildfires, hurricanes, blow downs, and ice storms, is of particular
concern. In some cases it is extremely difficult to naturally reforest
these areas to the desired species and composition in a timely manner
and intervention is needed through forest management and reforestation
practices. At times foresters need to remove a proportion of dead and
dying trees in a disturbance area to provide access, remove safety
hazards, or reduce the risk of insect infestations or fire danger the
dead and dying trees can create. This kind of activity encourages
forest regeneration.
I'd like to share a case example of the reforestation problem from
the eastern U.S., in the Allegheny Plateau. The example demonstrates
the need for timely reforestation in the Allegheny region, particularly
after catastrophic events, to achieve the objectives set out for these
areas and restore the desired species composition and forest structure.
These problems are certainly not exclusive to the eastern U.S.--similar
issues are prevalent after wildfires in the west and south, blow-downs
in the boundary waters, hurricanes on the east coast and after many
other disturbances.
Extensive timber harvesting in the Allegheny region in the early
1900's coupled with a greatly reduced deer herd provided ideal
conditions for the establishment of a new forest of shade intolerant
hardwoods such as Black Cherry, White Ash, and Tulip Poplar, along with
Red Oak and Maple. At the turn of the last century, these lands were of
little value to timber companies and were sold to the federal
government, forming the Allegheny National Forest. The first timber
sale was conducted on the little Arnot watershed in 1927. I have
attached to this testimony a pictorial sequence of the development of
the forest as it moved from an early successional seedling to sapling
stand, to a poletimber stand, to a light sawtimber stand to eventually
in seventy years, a mature Allegheny hardwood sawtimber stand.
Unfortunately, these beautiful forests do not stop changing once
they are mature. Mature Allegheny Hardwood forests are very susceptible
to wind throw as we experienced in 1985 with the series of tornadoes
that crossed the region and again in 2003 with a combination of
tornadoes and intense thunderstorms. The 2003 storm resulted in
approximately 10,000 acres of downed trees.
These natural disturbances should create a scenario to regenerate
the forest without human intervention--Natural seedlings and a seedbank
from the blow down trees, abundant light created from the disturbance,
the same moist rich soil, and natural protection from the blow down.
However, other influences on the landscape have greatly inhibited the
capacity of the forest to naturally regenerate on its own.
First and foremost, the whitetail deer population has exploded. The
herd that was estimated at only 400 animals in Pennsylvania in the
early 20th century is now estimated at 1.6 million. The deer through
over-browsing, have changed the species composition of the forest floor
from diverse wild flowers, shrubs, and seedling trees to hayscented
fern, beech brush, and striped maple, preventing the natural
regeneration of desired species. The beech brush, fern, and striped
maple eliminate other species desired for diversity and favorable stand
structure.
Insects and diseases are also a factor precluding natural
regeneration of this forest type. Although American Beech is a late
successional forest species, an exotic disease known as the beech scale
nectria-complex prevents the tree from occupying the upper canopy of
the forest and providing valuable mast (food) for animals. The Hemlock
wooly adelgid insect threatens the native Hemlock in a similar manner.
These and other invasive species often preclude regeneration of
desirable native species.
In order to overcome these hurdles and restore the forest to
desirable species composition and structure, foresters must be able to
employ modern science and professionally accepted techniques. In some
areas, foresters need to be able to salvage a portion of the down
timber to gain access to the forest or create conditions where shade
intolerant species can grow. In some cases, herbicides may need to be
used to control undesirable vegetation, invasive species, and promote
species diversity. Deer exclosure fences can also be constructed to
protect diverse early successional forests from deer and additional
steps can be taken to work with wildlife agencies to bring deer
populations into balance with the habitat. Fertilizers can also be used
to enable regeneration to grow past the level of deer browse.
Action needs to be taken now to ensure the establishment and growth
of regeneration in disturbance areas in northwest Pennsylvania and in
many areas throughout the country. Forest policy, funding, and other
factors that preclude timely reforestation are evident in comparing the
response to the 1985 tornado and the 2003 blow down. After the 1985
event--covering a much larger area than the 2003 event--the Allegheny
National Forest completed over 80% of the salvage by 1987 and the area
is now fully regenerated. Here in 2005, nearly two years after the 2003
storm, less than 20% of the affected area has been salvaged and even
less has been reforested. In contrast on private land and state land,
the salvage is nearly complete at over 80% salvaged. Once this material
is removed, the area can be quickly reforested to ensure the presence
of desirable species. On the federal lands, where this material is
being removed at a much slower rate or not at all, reforestation is
slow and will most likely not produce desired results.
The Allegheny Hardwood Forest type is a unique forest ecosystem. We
need to utilize the science available to us to regenerate the forest in
a timely manner and ensure the continuation of this unique ecosystem,
before the opportunity passes.
NOTE: Pictures attached to Mr. Kane's statement have been retained
in the Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Walden. Dr. Franklin, we are delighted to have you
here, although I was a little concerned, you being a Husky and
me being a Duck, but, you know, we will put that aside.
Dr. Franklin. I am worse than a Husky. I am a Beaver.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. That is--I won't ask you about the football
players and the sheep, you know, the guy that got pulled over.
But, anyway, we are delighted to have you here and look forward
to your testimony today.
STATEMENT OF JERRY F. FRANKLIN, COLLEGE OF FOREST RESOURCES,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Dr. Franklin. I will briefly go over the points in my
testimony. I had understood that we were really focusing on the
GAO report, and I just want to say I agree with the general
conclusions of the GAO report. I think there are serious
deficiencies in providing accurate and nationally consistent
data regarding reforestation and stand improvement needs, as
well as on a number of other topics. And the absence of such
data bases, combined with the massive retirements of career
professional foresters, is resulting in a significant and
irretrievable loss of institutional memory on the part of the
Forest Service.
This is a really serious issue. We have no record of what
has gone on on a lot of that landscape. We cannot identify who
did what when and why.
However, perhaps the most fundamental of the GAO findings
in importance is the need to, as they put it, ``clarify the
direction and policies for the reforestation and timber stand
improvement program to be consistent with the agency's current
emphasis on ecosystem management.'' And I would have to say, I
think, the Forest Service has not systematically assessed its
objectives and methods, silvicultural prescriptions, for
example, in reforestation and stand improvement in light of the
dramatic shift from timber production to ecosystem management
that has occurred in the last 15 years.
Objectives and practices in reforestation and stand
improvement need to reflect these new management objectives and
not the historic timber emphasis, except where that's
appropriate to the land allocation. What was appropriate for
timber production is not necessarily good for many ecological
objectives.
For example, the traditional practice following natural
disturbances calls for rapid re-establishment of dense (``fully
stocked'') stands of commercially important tree species. Such
an approach may be antithetical to both short- and long-term
ecological objectives. As an example, early successional forest
habitat--meaning relatively open areas free of dominance by
closed forest canopies--characteristically have very high
levels of species diversity and are the site of many important
ecological processes. That is when a lot of the nitrogen-fixing
organisms are found, for example.
Further, traditional reforestation practices can result in
perverse outcomes, and a great example of this is on sites that
suffer uncharacteristically severe--meaning stand replacement--
wildfire, where we get intense fire where it is not
characteristic. On such sites it is currently the common
practice to salvage and immediately re-establish dense, uniform
plantations. What have we done? We have effectively recreated
the conditions for the next, uncharacteristic stand replacement
fire. And a lot of the problems that we have with
uncharacteristically dense stands in the West, particularly on
the coast, has to do with the fact that we created those
stands. Sierra Nevada is a great example of where we have done
it.
An additional perverse example of an outcome from
traditional reforestation practices applies particularly on the
west side in the Pacific Northwest, the west side of the
Cascades, and that's where we are proposing to go out and
create new dense stands--they are plantations--on sites where
we ultimately want to create owl habitat. Now, we have a big
program specifically to correct that condition on a lot of
designated owl habitat. So, you know, what are we doing? We are
creating more work for ourselves in the future.
I would also add that stand improvement needs and practices
need serious reconsideration along with the reforestation
practices. The treatment of young stands to restore ecological
values is often a very different process than that that we use
to achieve timber management objectives.
I did want to end with just a comment that I think many
Forest Service professionals are really doing their best to
understand the differences and adjust their assessments and
prescriptions accordingly, and I really give them high marks
for their efforts. However, agency traditions and local
policies may not always allow them to do what they think is
best.
I would encourage you to think about encouraging the Forest
Service to do a serious agency-wide reevaluation and
rationalization of reforestation and stand improvement
policies. I think they need to systematically examine and
revise the philosophies, principles, and practices on which its
silvicultural activities are based, including reforestation and
stand improvement. I think that would be an important and
worthy exercise.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Franklin follows:]
Statement of Jerry F. Franklin, Professor, College of Forest Resources,
University of Washington
Jerry F. Franklin is Professor at the College of Forest Resources
at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, His degrees are
in Forest Management from Oregon State University (BS ``59, MS ``61)
and plant ecology from Washington State University (PhD, ``66). He has
over 50 years of experience in forest management, silviculture, and
forest ecology, primarily with the USDA Forest Service Pacific NW
Research Station (35 years) and as a university professor.
I agree with the general conclusions of the GAO report. The Forest
Service does have serious deficiencies in providing accurate and
nationally consistent data regarding reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs. I would note that there are many similar topics
where the agency lacks consistent and retrievable documentation of
stand conditions, past silvicultural activities, and management needs
on national forest lands. The absence of such data bases, combined with
the massive retirements of career professional foresters, is resulting
in a significant and irretrievable ``loss of institutional memory'' on
the part of the Forest Service.
However, perhaps the most fundamental of the GAO findings in
importance is the need to ``clarify the direction and policies for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program to be consistent
with the agency's current emphasis on ecosystem management'' (p. 36).
The Forest Service clearly has not systematically assessed its
objectives and methods (silvicultural prescriptions) in reforestation
and stand improvement in light of the dramatic shift from timber
production to ecosystem management that has occurred in the last 15
years. This failure is resulting in projects, prescriptions,
assessments, and inventories that are neither consistent with
ecosystem-based objectives nor consistent among regions or even
national forests within a region.
The emphasis in managing much of the national forest land base has
shifted from maximizing timber production to other resource objectives,
such as providing habitat for biodiversity and restoring forests to
historic and less fire-prone conditions. Objectives and practices in
reforestation and stand improvement programs need to reflect these new
management objectives and not the historic timber emphasis. What was
appropriate for timber production is not necessarily ``good'' for many
ecological objectives!
For example, traditional practice following natural disturbances
called for rapid re-establishment of dense (``fully stocked'') stands
of commercially important tree species. Such an approach may be
antithetical to both short- and long-term ecological objectives. Early
successional forest habitat--relatively open areas free of dominance by
closed forest canopies--characteristically has high levels of species
diversity and is the site of many important ecological processes, such
as nitrogen fixation. Allowing for the slower and less uniform process
of natural regeneration may have greater ecological benefits,
particularly when such naturally disturbed areas are allowed to retain
the structural legacies of the previous stands--i.e., are left
unsalvaged.
Traditional reforestation practices often result in perverse
outcomes, such as on sites that suffer uncharacteristically severe
(stand replacement) wildfire as a result of uncharacteristic fuel
accumulation. On such sites it is currently common practice to salvage
and immediately re-establish dense, uniform plantations--effectively
recreating the conditions for the next, uncharacteristic stand-
replacement fire! In some national forests successful past efforts to
replace under-stocked natural stands with dense plantations have been
as important as fire suppression programs in creating fire prone stands
and landscapes. This may have been appropriate when the objective was
to intensively tend these stands for timber production but such
practices are not consistent with current objectives. Many
professionals in the agency recognize such inconsistencies and have
made efforts to change practices but past regulations (e.g., reforest
in five years) and tradition often make this difficult or impossible.
Additional examples of perverse outcomes from traditional
reforestation practices can be found in the Pacific Northwest. Here the
agency is engaged in a major program--appropriately I would argue--to
treat plantations established during the last forty years so as to
accelerate development of structurally complex forests, which provide
habitat for species such as the Northern Spotted Owl. Why would we
continue to establish new dense plantations of this type on sites where
our goal is structurally and compositionally complex forests?! It would
not achieve our ecological goals and, if successful, result in the need
for additional stand improvement treatments.
I would emphasize again the importance of structurally complex,
gradually reforesting early successional habitat for ecological
diversity. Mount St. Helens has provided us with a clear example of the
unique contributions that large, slowly reforesting areas of this type
can make to regional biological diversity. For example diversity and
density of avifauna (birds), amphibians, and meso-predators are at
extraordinarily high levels in the Mount St. Helens landscape.
Stand improvement needs and practices need serious reconsideration
along with reforestation practices. Treatment of young stands for
ecological purposes often contrasts with what is done to achieve timber
management objectives. For example, creation of uniform stands is a
goal in timber management; stimulating spatial heterogeneity through
variable density thinning is often a goal in ecologically-oriented
stand treatments. Related to this, ecological treatments often involve
removal of some of the dominant trees while traditional timber thinning
is ``from below''--removal of only the smaller trees. Traditional wood
production thinning focuses on elimination of commercially unimportant
species and defective trees while ecological thinning may focus on
retention of minor stand components and trees that have special value
as habitat.
Many Forest Service professionals understand these differences and
are adjusting their assessments and prescriptions accordingly. I give
high marks to the insight and creativity of the majority of the
agencies professionals as they deal with a bewildering array of new
knowledge and new goals. However, agency traditions and local policies
may not always support their efforts.
A serious, agency-wide re-evaluation and rationalization of
reforestation and stand improvement policies is urgently needed. Even
the language that is utilized--``timber'' stand improvement--is
inappropriate where development and enhancement of ecological values
are really the primary objective. The language helps perpetuate the
confusion of field personnel, stakeholders, and decision makers about
what is really intended with reforestation and stand improvement
activities. There have been profound expansions in the scientific
underpinnings for silviculture along with the dramatic changes in
management direction that warrant agency-wide attention.
A major national initiative by the Forest Service to systematically
examine and revise the philosophies, principles, and practices on which
its silvicultural activities are based--including reforestation and
stand improvement--would be an important and useful exercise.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you again, Dr. Franklin. We appreciate
your comments on this important topic. Thanks for being here.
I am going to yield to my colleague from Oregon, who is in
the middle of a markup in another committee, but I know has an
intense interest in these issues. We appreciate Mr. DeFazio
being here today, and I will turn it to you first for question.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
courtesy. Yes, we are in the middle of a lengthy homeland
security markup, and I have got to run back.
I am particularly interested in these issues, representing
a district more than half owned by the Federal Government,
predominantly in forests. And, you know, I would direct a
couple of questions to Dr. Franklin, although to Mr. Kane I
would observe, if the white deer are that much of a problem, I
don't know what has happened to your hunter population there in
Pennsylvania.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kane. Interestingly enough, Congressman, Pennsylvania
has a million hunters. We have one of the largest hunting
populations in the United States.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, then, maybe they need to be reoriented
onto what they are hunting.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. Or beyond that, we have got a few extra
cougars and we could lend those to you, and then maybe some
wolf reintroduction would be good.
Mr. Kane. Interesting comment. The hunters have become lazy
with an overabundance of deer. It is an issue in itself within
Pennsylvania. Thank you for your comment.
Mr. DeFazio. Dr. Franklin, so salvage logging, can it occur
and meet ecological objectives? I mean, are there cases where--
or certain sizes of trees or stands where that would be
allowable in your opinion, or desirable, shall we say?
Dr. Franklin. Yes, I think those are relatively uncommon. I
don't think, you know, that that circumstance generally exists.
But there are circumstances of that sort, and it would be, for
example, on a case where you get an uncharacteristic stand
replacement fire and you have large fuel accumulations left
after that fire, and you're concerned about having another
repeat, excessively intense fire. So there are circumstances.
But for the most part, salvage logging effectively does little
or generally no ecological good. We do it. We do it for
economic reasons. But in terms of a direct benefit for recovery
processes, generally it is not.
Mr. DeFazio. So in the Northwest, in particular, matrix
lands would be handled differently than LSR lands in sort of
salvage and reforestation.
Dr. Franklin. Absolutely. You know, the land allocation is
critical. What are your objectives for that acre? Are they
ecological, or are they timber production? And if they are
ecological, then particularly on the west side, salvage is not
appropriate. It doesn't make a positive contribution. It
doesn't make a direct contribution.
Mr. DeFazio. I thought, though, from looking at your
testimony that if we had an area that had burned where you had
a mix of fairly dense smaller trees that were not thoroughly
burned mixed into larger trees, some of which were dead or
dying and others which weren't, that you might go in there,
remove the fuel load and the smaller trees, which perhaps
ideally we might have done before we had the fire. Is that
correct?
Dr. Franklin. That's correct.
Mr. DeFazio. And to get any value out of those, that would
have to be done----
Dr. Franklin. Quickly.
Mr. DeFazio. Very quickly. OK.
Dr. Franklin. Absolutely.
Mr. DeFazio. That is an interesting twist, sort of the
inverse of what we look at now. We look at the highest timber
value bigger, older stuff, and the smaller trees are ignored.
And then we generally engage in a longer fight over the larger
trees as opposed to expediting--perhaps we could get some
consensus on expediting removal of the smaller trees.
I also would like--I appreciate the issue you raised where
you talked about the uncharacteristically dense stands, and it
is my understanding from talking to the Forest Service that,
looking at west side Oregon and Washington,
uncharacteristically dense stands west side, and going into
thin for ecological value but achieving commercial grade
production in doing that is somewhere around 6 billion board
feet, if you want to measure it that way. Obviously, perhaps,
you wouldn't want to measure it that way. But to me it seems
like a missed opportunity here, and anything you want to expand
on on the pre-fire condition of some of the west side forest
and the uncharacteristically dense stands and the wisdom or
lack thereof in terms of not moving that back more toward a
natural system before a fire. Could you just briefly comment on
that? I am about out of time.
Dr. Franklin. I think there are two places where we really
aggressively need to treat stands, and on the west side it's
particularly in the younger stands that are overly dense. We
thought we were going to primarily focus on maximizing timber
production. We aren't anymore, and there's a very large acreage
of those and a very large need for treating those. And
certainly that would yield a potentially significant amount of
timber.
The other place where we have a very significant need is
more in the eastern slopes of the Cascades, where we have
stands that are clearly--and these include older trees--that
are clearly in a condition that it is not characteristic and
will lead to an intense fire, which is not characteristic of
that site. And, clearly, there's a real need to get into a lot
of those stands and largely remove small and medium-size
material so that, in fact, those forests are sustainable.
In southwestern Oregon, you know, there is a very complex
mix of conditions. It is really complicated. So, you know, it
is sort of a mix of both places where it's appropriate and
places where it's inappropriate.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, if I would--and, again, it is somewhat
difficult to determine sometimes, but some people want to
restrict that to a particular diameter. But, for instance, I
have witnessed on the Malheur where there has not been a
significant fire, mostly because of human intervention in some
places for 90 years, where you have Doug firs of significant
diameter growing up into the crowns of ponderosas that would
survive a fire, but the Doug fir is like 20-some-odd inches in
diameter. And so the measures cannot be just sort of, well, we
will go in and take out all the trees less than a certain
diameter. It has got to be we want to protect the remaining old
growth ponderosa, which might mean removing some significant
but exotic trees.
Dr. Franklin. I agree with you absolutely, and it needs to
be objectively driven, and arbitrary diameter limits are not a
particularly good approach to that. And I have seen exactly the
same thing where 18-, 20-, 22-inch diameter white firs are
tucked into the crowns of some of those old growth ponderosa
pine, and I would like to see us keep those pine. And to do
that you have to remove that white fir.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. And, Dr. Franklin,
thank you, because a lot of those are forests that are in my
district. When I was first running for this office, I went on a
forest tour out in the Deschutes, and they were showing us how
they were--that the forest we were in was being managed in
theory for, I think, last succession--old growth
characteristics of ponderosa pine. And so that on the one hand,
they were describing what the forest should look like and
showed us a photo from, I think, the 1920s of a car sort of
driving through, a savannah type scene with just grass
underneath, and then these big old growth ponderosa. And then
what we were seeing when we got out of the bus and got out
walking around was all this white fir and other fir coming up
in it. And I said, now, I am confused, because you just told us
it should look like this, and yet it looks like that. And they
sort of threw up their hands and admitted that was a problem.
I was just up on a proposed thinning project up on Mount
Emily outside of LeGrand, the same deal. And the people who
were appealing that fuels reduction project are doing it based
on diameter size, which you have just testified isn't
necessarily the way to manage these old growth forests. We
appreciate that.
Dr. Franklin. I don't think that that is the best way to
approach restoration.
Mr. Walden. It seems arbitrary. We ought to be managing for
the stand that is supposed to be there, historically was there.
Isn't that more accurate?
Let me turn to Mr. Kane. Why has the agency's response to
2003 blowdown on the Allegheny National Forest taken longer
than the response to the 1985 event?
Mr. Kane. That is an interesting question, and I would tend
to say that there's--with more pressure on the National Forest
System for multiple uses other than primarily timber, in 1985
there was still a very active timber program on the Allegheny
National Forest, an at that time the timber program produced
somewhere in the vicinity of about 70 million board feet a
year, was their ASQ. In 2000, that was down to about 10. They
just didn't have the staff, and they didn't have the resources,
because if you couple--what we have been told on the Allegheny
is, as you mentioned, borrowing from funds to take care of the
fire issue, a lot of those management monies went to fires, as
I understand it, and they didn't have the resources to address
it. Also, there has been more challenges nationwide on our
National Forest System and their practices by other individuals
and groups that slows that process where they tend to get
caught up in, you know, preparation of policy and analysis of
what they do rather than knowing--we generally know what to do
in short term, but to document it and to do the traditional
long-term--as you mentioned earlier with the BLM, a page of
environmental assessment for every acre of treatment. It tends
to slow the process immeasurably.
Mr. Walden. And with the funding problem we face, then, if
we lose the economic benefit of salvaging some of this timber,
then that money is not available to engage in some of the
restoration work that needs to be done, clearly.
Mr. Kane. In fact, you will notice today I've danced around
economics. The Allegheny National Forest is the most valuable
forest in Region 9, and truly one of the most valuable national
forests in America. The timber values on that forest,
individual trees can be worth up to--the trees like I showed in
my slide--not every tree. I have to qualify, not every tree,
but individual trees in that forest can be worth in excess of
$10,000 per tree, and values in excess of $10,000 an acre are
not uncommon if you check the Forest Service----
Mr. Walden. Ten thousand dollars an acre?
Mr. Kane. An acre for salvage--for the timber that's on an
acre. An individual tree can be, but it's not uncommon for an
acre of timber to be worth in excess of $10,000. So the
economic factor is significant. I'm hesitant to bring that up.
I'd rather stick to the science because the economics are
pretty straightforward.
Mr. Walden. All right. And, Dr. Schlarbaum, I just want to
point out for the committee--and we may send this around
separately. Your explanation of reforestation funding is
probably the most thorough and yet succinct that we have seen,
so we appreciate the work that you have put into this.
In the South, what happens after a catastrophic event like
a blowdown if human intervention is not undertaken?
Dr. Schlarbaum. Well, the timber will degrade quite
rapidly. In fact, with the southern pine beetle hitting these
pine stands, if you do not get in there and salvage within a
year, usually it's too late. In fact, they won't even burn.
Mr. Walden. Do you have examples of--much more of your
lands are privately held, I assume, than those of us in the
West.
Dr. Schlarbaum. Yes.
Mr. Walden. But what does it look like between the private
and the Federal lands when there is a blowdown? What do you see
as differences in the way they are then managed?
Dr. Schlarbaum. Well, again, assuming there is not a market
saturation, the private landowner would immediately move to
salvage that timber and then regenerate the stand.
Mr. Walden. OK. And the public landowner?
Dr. Schlarbaum. Well, the public landowner, you know, you
would have to do an EA if you wanted to do a large salvage
sale, over 250 acres generally on national forest, and those
are subject to litigation.
Mr. Walden. OK. My time has elapsed. I recognize my
colleague from South Dakota.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to each
of you for your statements and for your presence here today and
answering some important questions in a very important area,
regardless of what region of the country we are from and
districts that we represent.
You may have heard me speak with the earlier panel that in
South Dakota we have the Black Hills National Forest. We have
experienced not only wildfires that are exacerbated by drought
conditions in the western side of the State but pine beetle
epidemics as well. And we have had a series of litigation that
has been somewhat minimized here in the last couple of years
based on the advisory group that was formulated about a handful
of years ago. And I just want to open up a couple of questions
to any of you that want to respond, but, Dr. Franklin, I
couldn't agree more with your assessment based on what we have
heard today from the GAO's report as well as the testimony from
those in the earlier panels that we need some sort of more
comprehensive reevaluation within the Forest Service, an
ability to collect this data that will help guide us in the
policies as well as these funding priorities that are necessary
for the health of our forests across the country as it relates
to regeneration, the reforestation and stand improvement
issues.
So I agree with you there, and I think it is important that
we do that in a way that can then collect regional and forest-
specific data. Let's see. Whose report here--I think it is, Mr.
Kane, your statement indicates that the Allegheny Hardwood
Forest type is a unique forest ecosystem. That is commonly how
we talk about the Black Hills National Forest, as being a
unique ecosystem. Did you want to respond? You have heard that
before, I suppose.
Mr. Kane. Yes, I think we--that brings up a very
interesting point. The Black Hills is a unique ecosystem, as is
the Allegheny, which shows the importance of giving the local
managers responsible for that forest the opportunity to
practice the silvicultural techniques necessary to manage that
forest.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you. Again, it is the local and unique
characteristics of each of our forests that highlights the
importance of collecting data in a systematic way with
standardized criteria that takes into account what those
measures and methods are and the local importance of those that
can then help inform the Forest Plans. And if we had a way to
collect this data more efficiently, it might help make the
whole Forest Plan development process more efficient as well.
But let me just throw these questions out to any of you. We
have the benefit in the Black Hills of still having some
infrastructure for our timber industry and the economic
importance for jobs there. And I have worked closely with the
association that works also quite closely with the Forest
Service in addressing the predictability and stability of the
harvest and of the ASQ that is necessary to sustain those mills
and other businesses.
But something that is of importance to all of us and that
the association has been involved with in our neighboring State
of Wyoming as well is what informs the Forest Plan in a variety
of other areas. And so if you could just share some of your
thoughts on the ecological importance of maintaining species
diversity, structural diversity, and age class diversity when
reforesting an area as well, and then any thoughts that you
have on the role of disturbance, whether it is wildfires,
blowdown, or pine beetle epidemics and natural regeneration. If
any of you or if all three of you want to respond, if one of
you wants to take the lead in either of those areas.
Dr. Schlarbaum. I will just say something about the
importance of making sure that you get the appropriate seed
source if you are going to artificially regenerate or plant
those areas. You want to make sure that your seed source is
local or if you have an orchard, they are from the Forest
Service's Regional Genetics Resources Program that is
constructed from materials that have been tested. Otherwise, if
you buy just any seedlings off the market, they may not be
adapted to 2-year force in the short term or the long term, and
sometimes you can get trees that will live that aren't
particularly productive, but they will go ahead and pollinate
your more native local genotypes and lower the overall fitness
of your forest. So pay close attention to your seed source when
you reforest.
Mr. Kane. Uniquely, on the Allegheny Plateau, nearly all of
our regeneration is natural regeneration through silvicultural
practices. So we don't have the concern for the genetic purity
because it is already there. We are using native trees for our
regeneration.
The important thing for us, as you saw from my
presentation, is that we need more--we may need more structural
diversity that our lower canopy has been really inhibited by
man's influence over a hundred years of policy on white-tailed
deer management in Pennsylvania that causes a problem, and also
that it affects our species diversity. We are often accused by
people in our management schemes that we are managing, again,
as I mentioned earlier, for the black cherry monoculture. That
could not be further from the truth. It is the strength of the
tree's survival and the influence of man, again, going back to
the white-tailed deer problem, that deer are preferential
browsers, just like we are, that they prefer other species
above the cherry, and it just so happens that areas that were
harvested in the 1930s and 1940s when the deer herd was quite
high actually are almost all cherry monocultures.
So all those outside factors affect it, which shows the
importance of why we need, you know, good professionalism and,
I would say, a history of individuals on a forest. It is very
difficult to understand--you know, you can understand general
silviculture, but I will be honest with you, as a forester, I
guess I'm considered an expert on the Allegheny Plateau. But I
wouldn't attempt to come out to the Black Hills and try to
manage your forest.
Ms. Herseth. Is that a general--excuse me just a second. I
want to follow up. Is that a general assessment that you are
offering perhaps on policy and procedure within the Forest
Service and the moving around of various supervisors and other
officials?
Mr. Kane. That is, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Herseth. OK. Thank you.
Dr. Franklin. Well, it is always difficult to give general
guidance for somebody else's backyard, but in general, the
biological diversity is important, and a lot of it you won't
even be aware of, you won't even see, because it's things like
the fungi in the ground that form the mycorrhizal relationships
with the trees. So diversity is important. Probably structural
complexity is the best way to have an index to that, a
reference to that. So structural complexity is probably your
simplest measure of how well you're doing on diversity. I would
just suggest that probably over half, perhaps as much as two-
thirds of the animal diversity in your forest system--and that
means both vertebrates and invertebrates--is probably
associated with deadwood. So deadwood is a very, very component
of those systems.
The last thing I would suggest to you is don't--you
mentioned the issue of different age classes or different
successional stages of forest. Do not deceive yourself that a
clear cut is anything like a natural young stand. Natural young
stands have high levels of structural complexity. One of the
things they have in them typically is a lot of residual
deadwood. That is one of the reasons why they work much
differently than a clean cut does in terms of providing for
things like biodiversity.
Mr. Walden. Go ahead, Dr. Schlarbaum.
Dr. Schlarbaum. In terms of some historical references,
South Dakota State put out a publication--and you may or may
not have seen it--of photos from the Custer expedition. Have
you seen this publication?
Ms. Herseth. I have, and I would encourage--I will get you
a copy, Chairman, because it is fascinating to see during the--
all of these photos document during Custer's expedition and the
growth of the forest. As you know, the ponderosa pine
regenerates itself tremendous quickly, and given the population
of the hills since Custer's expedition--and we were talking
about the urban-wildland interface, and the patchwork of
private-public property there. So I am pleased that you
mentioned that because I think it is very informative and
instructive.
Mr. Walden. Can you outline it for me?
Dr. Schlarbaum. Well, it is a publication that--they
noticed the Custer expedition, he was--what was he? He was up
there looking for gold or--he was doing--I can't remember
exactly what he was looking for.
Ms. Herseth. Unfortunately, it may have been something
involving poor policy on our part with Native Americans. But
there was an expedition that actually found the gold, that
discovered--that was not--the primary purpose was actually to
map out the area, combined with some of the other missions
within the Army, and then they discovered gold at that time.
Dr. Schlarbaum. But they took a number of photos and then
some people came back 100 years later from South Dakota State
University, rephotographed the exact spots--I mean, you can see
the same rocks, rock formation, even some dead trees that are
there. And I use it--and I teach a history of forestry class,
and I use that as an example. And it is striking that if you
look at the difference between 100 years, there are more trees
now than there were.
Mr. Walden. All right. Well, I appreciate the testimony
from all of our witnesses today, and especially you all who
have hung out with us until the end here. Thank you for your
comments, your counsel. It is appreciated. Obviously people
come at this issue with different views, and that helps us in
some respects, makes our job harder in others. But hopefully we
will get it right and, again, we thank you for your testimony,
your time, and your service.
The record will stay open for 10 days. If members of the
committee who were unable to be with us today have questions,
we would appreciate your getting back to us. Otherwise, all the
testimony today and the statements of our members will be put
in the record.
[Additional information submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter submitted for the record by Dale E. Anderson,
President, Pennsylvania Forest Industry Association, follows:]
Mr. Doug Crandall, Director
House Resource Committee
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
The four attachments included here are the recent pleadings from
the lawsuit before the District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, civil case #04-1466.
This case was brought by the Allegheny Defense Project against the
U.S. Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest.
These types of cases consume a huge amount of resources from both
the government and private sector.
They result in the destruction of the forest.
They wreck the local custom, culture, and economy.
These types of lawsuits are unfair to the local residents.
These types of lawsuits benefit only the non-profits who bring them
against the government due to the effect of the Equal Access to Justice
Act.
A way needs to be found to curb this type of favoritism.
Please include these comments, and these attachments, in the record
of the House Resources Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health hearing
as held on Wednesday, 27 April 2005.
Dale E. Anderson
President
Pennsylvania Forest Industry Association
415 Washington Street
Ridgway, Pennsylvania 15853
(814) 776-1883
NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official files.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Michelle Dennehy,
The Forest Foundation, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Michelle Dennehy,
The Forest Foundation
GREATER REFORESTATION EFFORTS NEEDED SAY FOREST FOUNDATION, FOREST
SERVICE RETIREES
Call Comes as Nation Prepares to Mark Arbor Day on Friday, April 29
AUBURN, Calif., April 27, 2005--Forests on federally owned lands in
California wiped out by wildfires are not being replanted quickly--or
at all, in some cases--putting ecosystems at risk from severe erosion
and mudslides and depriving future generations of forests, two groups
said today.
Nearly four years after fires burned more than 117,000 acres in
California forests in 2001, a survey by The Forest Foundation found
that only about 28 percent of severely burned forest land designated by
the Forest Service for replanting has actually been replanted.
The National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) and The
Forest Foundation, an organization dedicated to educating the public
about our forests, today urged the Forest Service to speed replanting
efforts to ensure forests for future generations.
``As we celebrate National Arbor Day April 29, the Forest Service
cannot do what is necessary to ensure forests for future generations
because their hands are tied by burdensome regulations and a lack of
funding,'' said Dr. Tom Bonnicksen, a visiting scholar with The Forest
Foundation and a professor emeritus of forest science at Texas A&M
University. ``Rather than replanting trees, these once majestic forests
stand burnt and dead, and some are turning into brushfields.''
``Replanting is key to ensuring our state's forests stand tall for
generations to enjoy,'' said Doug Leisz, Chairman of the National
Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) who served as U.S.
Forest Service Associate Chief from 1979-1982 and California's Regional
Forester from 1970-1978. ``During my tenure with the Forest Service, we
actively replanted soon after fires, before competing brush took over.
The delays experienced by the Forest Service spell disaster for our
future forests.''
The Forest Foundation's survey found that of the 117,907 acres in
California's forests burned in 2001, the Forest Service determined
30,372 acres of their land experienced a high-severity fire and needed
replanting. The Forest Foundation surveyed results on 10,647 of these
acres where information was available and found that only 3,011 acres--
or about 28 percent--had been replanted to date. Only 1,541 more acres
are planned for replanting, meaning only about 43 percent of the area
identified as needing reforestation will ever be replanted.
While the Forest Service's reforestation efforts focus only on
high-severity burns only, experts believe some moderately-burned areas
also need active attention and replanting, as many trees in these areas
will also die.
Historically, natural, low-intensity wildfires helped create forest
clearings and ecological conditions conducive to forest regeneration.
But after a century of public policy mandating fire suppression, and a
lack of forest management practices that reduce fuels, forests have
grown overcrowded. The resulting buildup has led to catastrophic
wildfires in recent years--fires that often degrade soil quality and
destroy forests so completely that regeneration likely will take
hundreds of years.
``These monster fires of extreme heat kill seed trees over vast
areas, making it difficult or impossible for living trees to
spread seeds widely enough to generate a new forest,'' Dr.
Bonnicksen said. ``Meanwhile, other competitive plants that
thrive in post-fire environments, like manzanita, can quickly
overtake an area and delay regeneration of conifer trees for
centuries.''
These areas that cannot regenerate naturally need a helping hand,
the Forest Foundation found. But the Forest Service faces delays or
obstruction of its efforts to restore burned areas.
For example, the McNally Fire in 2002 burned more than 150,000
acres in the Giant Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia and Inyo
National Forests. While the Forest Service found 8,400 acres of conifer
forest needed replanting, only 4-5,000 acres are likely to ever be
replanted. Almost three years after the fire, no replanting has been
accomplished to date due to delays caused by environmental
documentation requirements. The delay has allowed brush to overtake
some areas.
In the Megram Fire of 1999, which burned 59,200 acres in the Six
Rivers National Forest, only 1,508 of the 3,000 acres the Forest
Service planned to replant have, in fact, been replanted. Portions of
what was once a magnificent conifer forest of Douglas-firs and other
trees are becoming brush.
While severely burned public lands haven't been replanted, private
forestland owners quickly removed dead trees and fuels, using the value
of the wood to fund the replanting of a new forest. These private
landowners replant in ways that enhance environmental values and
accelerate forest regeneration.
After the 2000 Storrie fire in Plumas and Lassen Counties, local
private land manager W.M. Beaty and Associates removed dead trees and
fuels on the 3,200 acres it managed that burned in the fire. Its
reforestation efforts, including the planting of nearly one million
trees, were completed by 2004. Some trees in this young, mixed conifer
forest are now 4-5 feet tall.
In contrast, on public land at the Lassen National Forest, of the
estimated 27,000 acres burned on the in the Storrie fire, only about
1,206 acres will be treated with fuels removal efforts and only 230
acres will be replanted. More than four years after the Storrie fire,
only 171 acres have been replanted
``Although some natural regeneration is occurring, Lassen and
other national forests are in need of active replanting,'' said
Doug Leisz. ``Without this replanting, generations of
Californians stand to miss out on the forest grandeur we now
take for granted.''
Note: Photos of forests turning to brush are available by
contacting Michelle Dennehy at The Forest Foundation, tel. 530 823
2363, email: [email protected].
About The Forest Foundation
The Forest Foundation is a non-profit organization that strives to
conserve our forests and keep them healthy by sharing the knowledge of
forestry experts with the public. Based in Auburn, Calif., its programs
include scientific research, community outreach, education programs,
and forestry exhibits. For more information, visit
www.calforestfoundation.org.
About the National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR)
The National Association of Forest Service Retirees is a national,
nonprofit organization of former Forest Service employees and
associates who possess a unique body of knowledge, expertise and
experience in the management of the National Forests and other
forestland. NAFSR members strive to contribute to the understanding and
resolving of natural resource issues through periodic review and
critiques of agency policies and programs. For more information, visit
http://www.fsx.org/nafsrpg.html.
Contact:
Michelle Dennehy, The Forest Foundation
www.calforestfoundation.org or Email: [email protected]
tel. 530 823 2363, cell 530 320 6732
replanting on our national forests after 2001 fires in california
Craater Fire
Inyo National Forest
5,600 acres burned; 800 identified as needing
reforestation
Approx. 400 acres were replanted
Obstacles: Remaining 400 aces located in Mono Basin
Scenic Area and manager decided not to replant by hand.
Darby Fire
Stanislaus National Forest
14,288 acres burned; 2,096 acres identified as needing
reforestation
No replanting to date and none planned. Some natural
regeneration occurred.
Obstacles: No funding available.
Gap Fire
Tahoe National Forest
2,462 acres burned; 1,100 acres identified as needing
reforestation
1,020 acres planted to date; 80 more acres planned
Hyampom Fire
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
1,065 acres burned; 172 acres identified as needing
reforestation
No acres planted to date; 121 acres planned
Obstacles: Environmental planning process caused delay;
sale of dead material offered one year after fire was unsuccessful.
Highway Fire
Sequoia National Forest
4,150 acres burned; 150 acres identified as needing
reforestation
150 acres replanted
McLaughin Fire
Inyo National Forest
2,407 acres burned; 150 identified as needing
reforestation
None replanted
Obstacles: No seed stock available to plant. The area was
also located on a steep slope that would make replanting difficult.
Modoc Complex
Several fires in Modoc National Forest
2,900 acres burned in Bell Fire, 332 acres identified as
needing reforestation
186 acres replanted
Obstacles: Survival of trees planted is questionable
because site was not prepped by removing dead trees and other fuels.
Dead trees are likely to fall on top of new seedlings over next
decades, creating a hazardous fire situation. Several removal sales
attempted but wood had deteriorated and no longer held value.
North Fork
Sierra National Forest
4,132 acres burned; 430 acres identified as high-severity
burned areas that could be reasonably replanted. Many other acres
received high-severity fire effects.
Approx. 250 acres replanted where managers were able to
remove dead trees and fuel; another 70 acres planned over the next
year. Of remaining acres, 130 likely to remain unplanted, as dead tree
removal was delayed until material worthless. Planting without fuels
removal would create fire hazard.
Oregon Fire
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
1,720 acres burned; 197 acres identified as needing
reforestation
20 acres have been replanted; no other treatment planned.
Obstacles: Planning process took 13 months to complete,
during which value of wood to fund removal and replanting was lost.
Sand Prescribed Burn
Inyo National Forest
100 acres burned; 100 identified as needing reforestation
100 acres planted
Star Fire
Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests
On the Tahoe, where 9,500 acres burned, 5,000 acres
identified as needing reforestation.
835 acres replanted to date; another 1,200 acres planned.
Some natural regeneration occurring, though with white fir only in what
was formerly a mixed conifer forest.
Obstacles: Removal of some trees was stalled by
litigation, so the trees lost any value to fund replanting efforts.
Acres not replanted have too much fuel already on the ground; competing
brush, vegetation in area also problematic.
White Fire
Stanislaus National Forest
120 acres need replanting
50 acres replanted to date; remaining 70 acres to be
planted in 2006.
NOTE: Pictures attached to The Forest Foundation's statement have
been retained in the Committee's official files.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by George Sexton,
Conservation Director, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center,
follows:]
May 5, 2005
House Committee on Resources
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Re: Oversight Hearing on Reforestation on National Forests: A GAO
Report on the Increasing Backlog
Please accept these comments from the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center regarding reforestation efforts conducted by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) pursuant to the Timbered Rock fire of 2002. We feel
compelled to offer the following comments to the Subcommittee in order
to clarify, and refute, some of the contentions made by Mr. Ed Shepard,
Assistant Director of Renewable Resources and Planning for the BLM to
this Committee on April 27, 2005. As the small non-profit forest
defense group that took the lead on the administrative protest and
litigation that ultimately halted the illegal Timbered Rock salvage
logging, we have significantly different observations and thoughts
regarding the actual relationship between salvage logging and
reforestation than was presented to this committee by the BLM.
We believe that it is important for this committee to know that
while a federal court halted the aggressive and illegal salvage logging
at Timbered Rock, that BLM restoration efforts in the burn area have
proceeded has planned. It is inappropriate, and inaccurate, for the BLM
to imply to this committee that the court order preventing large-
diameter (old-growth) logging in the Elk Creek Late-Successional
Reserve somehow prevented the accomplishment of re-forestation efforts.
Indeed the BLM wrote an Environmental Assessment (EA Number OR ``110-
03-08) specifically authorizing 6,600 acres of tree planting in the
Timbered Rock burn area that was separate and distinct from the
proposal to log trees in the Reserve. The EA covering reforestation was
written, signed, and implemented months before the illegal Timbered
Rock EIS was completed or litigated. The re-forestation EA was not
subject to administrative protest or litigation, and the BLM is free to
implement all proposed tree-planting activities.
Were Restoration Activities Halted or Slowed at Timbered Rock?
No. Not in the slightest.
In November 2002, long before the Timbered Rock Logging EIS was
complete, the BLM issued the Timbered Rock Rehabilitation/Stabilization
Environmental Assessment, authorizing thousands of acres of tree-
planting in the project area. That Environmental Assessment was never
protested, or appealed, and many of the rehabilitation efforts
authorized in that EA were implemented with widespread community
support.
Further, upon release of the Timbered Rock Logging EIS, the BLM
split the project into several Records of Decision (RODs), which
authorized various actions across the forests. One of these RODs
authorized road maintenance, road closures and further tree planting.
This ROD was not protested or litigated and the BLM is free to
implement it whenever the agency so desires.
Unfortunately, the activities authorized under the ``restoration
ROD'' were mere sideboards to the large-diameter (average 26 inches
DBH) old-growth logging of the Elk Creek Late-Successional ``Reserve''.
By authorizing the proposed restoration activities in a separate
decision from the ROD containing the destructive large-diameter
logging, the BLM wisely allowed the less controversial portions of the
project to proceed without administrative or legal challenges. Yet Mr.
Shepard inexplicably told this Committee that litigation (preventing
the logging of the reserve) ``delayed implementation of the salvage and
other restoration activities.'' The BLM is simply wrong about this.
Hopefully the BLM was not trying to mislead this committee.
The plaintiffs' administrative protest and legal complaint, as well
as Judge Aiken's ruling, all clearly state that the only activity being
protested, or enjoined, was the illegal Late-Successional Reserve
logging of large diameter snags from the ``reserve'' proposed in the
Flaming Rock and Smoked Gobbler timber sales. No restoration, or
reforestation efforts for this project were ever administratively or
legally challenged. Most, if not all, of the restoration and
reforestation activities outlined in both the EA and the restoration
ROD have already been implemented.
Why Was the Timbered Rock Salvage Logging EIS Litigated?
``This EIS does not claim that there is an ecological benefit
to salvage logging.''
Medford BLM, Timbered Rock FEIS at page 5-16.
Mr. Shepard's testimony left out many salient facts regarding the
proposed Timbered Rock salvage logging. In particular, no mention was
made of the fact that all of the proposed salvage logging would have
occurred within forests set aside for protection as the Elk Creek Late
Successional Reserve (LSR). These reserve lands were protected by the
Northwest Forest Plan, while other lands, known as the timber matrix,
were identified as those forests in which logging, replanting and fiber
production would play a dominant role. None of the lands proposed for
logging in the Timbered Rock EIS were matrix logging lands. All of the
lands proposed for logging in the planning area were classified as
Late-Successional Reserves. Nowhere in Mr. Shepard's testimony will you
find reference to the term ``Late Successional Reserve.'' Indeed, the
BLM is conspicuously silent as to the protective status that governs
management of this delicate watershed.
Other words that do not appear in Mr. Shepard's testimony include
the terms ``deferred watersheds'', ``key watersheds'' and ``critical
habitat.'' While the BLM may not wish to highlight these words, they
are relevant in that the illegal Timbered Rock salvage logging would
have occurred within forests designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as critical to the recovery of the Northern Spotted owl, found
in watersheds that were designated as key to the maintenance of healthy
salmon runs, which were deferred from logging by the BLM due to the
immense cumulative impacts from prior BLM logging and road construction
activities in the watersheds. Simply put, the Timbered Rock planning
area is one of the most environmentally sensitive, and protected,
watersheds in Oregon. But for the Timbered Rock fire, the BLM could not
have proposed large-scale logging in this watershed. Please see the
photo attachment for an image of the cumulative effects of road
building on the Elk Creek watershed.
Plantations in the Planning Area Act as Fire Bombs
While there is no court order, law or regulation that prevents the
BLM from creating more plantations in the Timbered Rock planning area,
it might be wise for the agency to avoid creating further tree
plantations by its own volition.
Following the Timbered Rock fire, the Oregon Department of Forestry
conducted a damage appraisal report for Timbered Rock which found that
100% of the young plantations burned with stand replacing intensity,
while less than 10% of the big old growth trees burned intensely. Stand
mortality on the Medford BLM land that was located in the nearby
Biscuit fire showed very similar results to Timbered Rock in that 81%
of plantations and 33% of forested stands experienced moderate to high
burn severity according to the BLM (November 8, 2002 Press Release from
BLM).
Unfortunately the BLM timber sales at both Biscuit and Timbered
Rock targeted the biggest trees while neglecting to thin the dense
young fiber plantations. The average tree marked for logging in the Elk
Creek Late-Successional Reserve was about 26-inches in diameter, over
two feet wide. A 26-inch average DBH indicates that the timber sale
focuses exclusively on taking old-growth trees. Here in Southern
Oregon, the BLM contended in Medford Mail Tribune newspaper (Timber
plan draws cheers, jeers 2/11/04) that the focus of its logging at
Timbered Rock ``would be on smaller trees, not the largest ones.''
Unfortunately that statement was not reflected in the actual logging
prescription developed by the BLM. In fact, all of the 24 million board
feet of salvage at Timbered Rock would have come from snags over 16
inches in diameter. In other words, only the largest, most valuable
wildlife snags were proposed for logging. The smaller burned material
will simply be left on site as a continuing fire hazard.
We at the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS Wild) estimate that
well over 500,000 acres of native old-growth forests in Southwest
Oregon and Northern California have already been converted into small-
diameter fiber plantations on our public lands. Similarly, the Medford
BLM recently stated that over 770,000 acres of our public forestlands
contain trees less than 12 inches wide that could be thinned. It is
high time for the BLM to turn its focus toward managing those fiber
plantations that it has already planted, rather than continuing to
convert large-diameter forests into small-diameter fiber plantations.
BLM Math Tricks
For the committee to understand the complex and controversial
issues surrounding post-fire management activities on federal lands, it
is essential that you be provided with accurate information from the
federal land management agencies. Unfortunately Mr. Shepard's testimony
relies on many figures that are simply not accurate reflections of the
BLM's aggressive plans to log the Elk Creek LSR following the Timbered
Rock fire.
Mr. Shepard submitted to the committee that the BLM intended to log
``approximately 17 mmbf of burned, but still merchantable, timber on
approximately 800 acres (8 percent of the burned area.'' In fact the
timber sale prospectus for the Smoked Gobbler and Flaming Rock timber
sales called for logging over 24 mmbf, in order to assure that at least
17 mmbf made it to the mill. While the BLM may choose to only ``count''
those trees that make it to the mill, it understates the impacts of the
logging by refusing to disclose the actual amount of forest to be
felled.
Mr. Shepard's 800-acre figure is equally dubious. He neglects to
mention to the committee that the roadside-logging portion of the
proposal would open up an additional 1,000 acres of the Elk Creek Late-
Successional Reserve for salvage logging on top of the 800 acres of
``area salvage logging''. Similarly, the 800-acre figure ignores the
more than 2,500 acres of proposed green tree logging authorized by the
Timbered Rock EIS which is not defined as ``salvage.'' To contend that
the Timbered Rock timber sales would only impact 800 acres of small
diameter trees is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. In fact,
the BLM is attempting to log the very largest burned trees and a
significant number of unburned green trees within the old-growth
reserve.
Compromise and Collaboration
Mr. Shepard neglected to inform the committee that approximately
6,000 acres of privately owned industrial timber industry lands within
the burn have been salvage logged and are being managed exclusively for
fiber production. Additionally, before the burn the BLM had converted
5,400 acres of native forest within the Elk Creek watershed into fiber
plantations. Approximately 80% of forest stands in the area have
already been subjected to logging. The Elk Creek watershed has already
done more than its part to supply our nation's wood fiber needs. Yet
the BLM seems intent on proposed to log the remaining forests
supposedly protected as a Late-Successional Reserve in a watershed that
has experienced extreme cumulative impacts from past logging
activities.
Further large-diameter logging in this watershed would not provide
``balance'' nor would it aid in BLM restoration activities. By
attempting to blur the lines between the controversial practice of
salvage logging in a Late-Successional Reserve, with the agency's
efforts to conduct re-planting and other restoration activities, the
BLM does the public, the forest, and this committee a disservice.
The BLM can help resolve the controversy surrounding post-fire
management by truly focusing its activities on restoration of burned
stands and small-diameter thinning of green stands, while abandoning
its obsession with logging large trees and snags within old-growth
``reserves'' located in sensitive watersheds. It is irresponsible of
the BLM to use the forum provided for it by this committee to push its
old-growth logging agenda.
Sincerely,
George Sexton
Conservation Director
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center
PO Box 102
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-5789
______
Mr. Walden. And, with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]