[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW FOREST RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT IN NORTHERN WISCONSIN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 20, 2009, Appleton, WI
__________
Serial No. 111-26
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-846 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
Dakota K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JIM COSTA, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
Pennsylvania CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
April Slayton, Communications Director
Nicole Scott, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and
Forestry
JOE BACA, California, Chairman
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska,
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin Ranking Minority Member
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon STEVE KING, Iowa
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
Pennsylvania CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
Lisa Shelton, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Kagen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Wisconsin,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Witnesses
Higgins, Jeanne, Forest Supervisor, Chequamegon-Nicolet National
Forest, Eastern Region, U.S. Forest Service, USDA, Park Falls,
Wisconsin...................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Supplemental material........................................ 16
Frank, Matthew J., Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.................................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Supplemental material........................................ 25
Schienebeck, Henry, Executive Director, Great Lakes Timber
Professionals Association, Rhinelander, Wisconsin.............. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Dixon, Kathrine, Staff Attorney, Environmental Law and Policy
Center, Chicago, Illinois...................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Supplemental material........................................ 49
Johnson, William E. ``Bill,'' President, Johnson Timber, Hayward,
Wisconsin...................................................... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Zimmer, Gary, Senior Regional Wildlife Biologist, The Ruffed
Grouse Society, Laona, Wisconsin............................... 78
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Submitted Material
Bartz, David P., Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin......................... 94
Connor, Gordon P., President, Nicolet Hardwoods Corp., Laona,
Wisconsin...................................................... 96
Gehlhoff, Wendy, Director, Florence County Economic Development
Commission, Florence, Wisconsin................................ 101
Guthrie, Steve, Woodlands Manager, Nicolet Hardwoods Corporation,
Laona, Wisconsin............................................... 105
Harrison, Steward P., and Schwantes, Michael J., Partners,
Timberland Power Company, a division of Creative Energy and
Data Solutions, LLC, Green Bay, Wisconsin...................... 106
Hogue, Richard R., Clam Lake, Wisconsin.......................... 114
Kariainen, Steve, Resource Manager, Louisiana Pacific
Corporation, Hayward, Wisconsin................................ 115
Leach, Ph.D., Mark K., Bro Professor of Regional Sustainable
Development and Associate Professor of Biology, Northland
College, Ashland, Wisconsin.................................... 116
Nehrbass, Christopher, Werner, Shahla M., and Uram, Eric, John
Muir Chapter, Sierra Club, Madison, Wisconsin.................. 119
Ouellette, MD, John J., private land owner, Madison, Wisconsin... 123
Quast, Kimberly K., Chair, Wisconsin Consulting Foresters,
Rosendale, Wisconsin........................................... 124
Waller, Donald M., Professor of Botany and Environmental Studies,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin............ 126
Zemke, Elroy, President, and Jane Severt, Executive Director,
Wisconsin County Forests Association, Tomahawk, Wisconsin...... 134
The Nature Conservancy, Madison, Wisconsin....................... 136
HEARING TO REVIEW FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN NORTHERN WISCONSIN
----------
MONDAY, July 20, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture
Appleton, WI
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., at
the Radisson Paper Valley Hotel, 333 W. College Avenue,
Appleton, Wisconsin, Hon. Joe Baca [Chairman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Baca and Kagen.
Staff present: Jamie W. Mitchell, Lisa Shelton, Brent
Blevins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA WISCONSIN
Mr. Baca. I would like to call the meeting to order at this
time. This is a hearing of the Subcommittee on Department of
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry to review the
forest resource management in northern Wisconsin. That's why it
will come to order at this point. I'll begin with a little bit
of an opening statement.
I had an opportunity to talk to Matt a little bit, and
besides being head of the cheese country and dairy country,
forestry is very important in Wisconsin as well.
I happen to hear you've got quite a few golf courses in the
area as well. I wish I had a little bit more time. I would have
loved to have gone to play. I know that Matt said that he
played on Saturday.
But I'm pleased to be here with my good friend and
colleague, Dr. Steve Kagen, to examine forest resource
management here in Wisconsin. I appreciate his leadership and
vision, and I state his genuine concern for the district and
involvement in the Agriculture Committee as well. He has been
very instrumental in assuring that we had the hearing here, and
his persistence and ``stick-to-ity'' is to make sure that I did
not fade away and not come to Appleton, Wisconsin. And there
was a time that I was tempted to say maybe we should cancel the
hearing, but he came back and said, look, I care about this
area, forestry is an interest that we have to look at, it
impacts not only Wisconsin, but it impacts the nation, too. So
I really want to thank Dr. Kagen for his invitation and being
persistent and having this hearing here this morning as we
begin to hear about the forest product industries and the
forest communities here in the heart of the dairyland.
This is not the first time I've been here. As I stated to
some of you earlier, I've had numerous trips back in the 1970s
to the 1980s that I used to come into Appleton and then play
ball in Kimberly, so I used to stay right here. I played a lot
of the fast pitch, because they had the International Softball
World Tournaments that were held here in Kimberly, so I came
back here to play ball during my younger age, which is only a
few years ago. As we are maturing in age right now, we lose
sight and count of how old we are. But I do remember coming out
here and playing ball here in Wisconsin. And during that period
of time, I had an opportunity to also play a little bit of
golf, and I enjoy the golf that I played out here.
By way of introduction, I'm from San Bernardino,
California, just outside of the L.A. area, about 35 miles east
of L.A., and we have the San Bernardino National Forest that
borders my district. And, of course, it provides, like anything
else, recreational opportunity, economic benefits, and it
creates a high quality of life for residents. And this is what
we care about not only in here, in this area, but in the Inland
Empire. And as a Californian and as an American I know it's
critical that we find concrete solutions to the many hazards
facing the future of our forests. And this is why we're having
this hearing: to look at--attempt to look at dynamic
environments. Forests are part of ongoing policy discussions
and challenges, issues like climate change. Similarly, Federal
forest policies must be flexible enough to meet these
challenges. And I state they must be flexible enough to meet
these challenges. Ultimately, we, in Congress, must work to
find solutions to the questions that plague American forest
policies, and that means collaborating in a partnership and
coming together. And I think when we can come together as a
region, as a state, as a nation, we can begin to address a lot
of our problems.
Questions that we'd like to look at is how do we best limit
the devastating impact of invasive pests on our forests? What
balance do we strike between development and forestland
preservation? How can we better equip our brave men and women
who fight fires and maintain our forests to ensure that
continued protection a success? How can we best work with
business, labor, and communities to ensure the survival of
timber-related industries during these times of economic
difficulties? And that's one of the things we heard this
morning before the hearing. How do we manage it? And how do we
control the resources? How can we utilize America's forests and
better protect the health of our water resources as well?
I'm sure today's hearing will be very instructive and
effective to evaluate our current forestry policies in this
country, so I look forward to listening and learning from these
excellent witnesses on their views of forests right here in
Wisconsin.
I want to thank you and your staff, Dr. Kagen, and everyone
who has been here in putting this hearing together, and thank
you for being persistent and having courage and caring about
your district and about the nation.
With that, I'd like to turn it over to Dr. Kagen for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KAGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM WISCONSIN
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Chairman Baca, for holding this
hearing and thank you to the staff for not having the customary
clock up here with the five-minute limit. I understand that
I've got five minutes; is that correct? Somebody is keeping
time somewhere, that's how government works.
We have talked about having a hearing on the issues that
are facing the forestry for sometime, and I'm really, really
glad to welcome you to Wisconsin. Again, it's appropriate that
we are having this hearing here at the Paper Valley Hotel
because the name itself reflects just how important the paper
and forestry industry is to my district and to our continued
economic success. While many parts of the country can boast of
their forests, very few states have both the breadth and depth
of forestry that we take for granted here in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin has over 16 million acres of forestland which nearly
encompasses half the state. It also has a diverse mix of both
private and public forest that includes the Chequamegon-
Nicolet, National Forest, over ten million acres of private
forestland held by 360,000 private landowners and state and
county forests.
This diversity means that the challenges and promises
facing Wisconsin's forests are reflective of the issues
surrounding forests nationwide. Even though all forests are not
the same, sometimes management of these forests is one size
fits all. I can tell you as a physician if you have asthma and
allergies, every patient has a unique set of circumstances that
they bring to the table, so is that also true with our national
forests. Each one has unique problems and situations.
Northeast Wisconsin has always been known for its extensive
forests, which have played an important role in the housing and
paper industries. And now, as our country moves towards greater
energy independence, the forests of northeast Wisconsin have
the potential to meet our nation's needs for renewable energy.
I think it's very important that Congress continue to support
the renewable energy activities of northeast Wisconsin.
While this is a time of great promise for the forest
industry, it's also a time of extreme struggle. We have seen
paper industries struggle under the weight of subsidized
foreign competition, illegal paper being dumped into our
domestic markets. Timber sales have slowed along with the
housing market and the credit crunch which has affected all of
Wisconsin and the entire nation. But it's not only about our
financial markets and the credit crunch. It's about having
sales. It's about having contracts. No business person, no
business owner in their right mind, would be looking to take
out more debt at a time when they don't have the sales they
need to even pay back the debt they might encounter themselves.
I look forward to listening to the witnesses assembled here
today as they speak about how we manage our forests here in
Wisconsin. I look forward to learning what lessons we can share
with our colleagues on the Agriculture Committee and in
Congress more generally.
As we look to craft policies that help our forests meet
their full potential today as well as the future generations, I
also look forward to discussing what challenges are facing
Wisconsin forestry. While Congress may not be able to solve all
these challenges, and perhaps Congress shouldn't be looked to
for all the solutions, it is crucial that we are cognizant of
the realities that face the forestry industry.
So thank you again, Chairman Baca, for convening this
Congressional hearing here in northeast Wisconsin. I look
forward to the testimony we're about to hear.
Mr. Baca. Again, thank you very much for bringing
Washington, D.C., to Appleton and setting history right here in
Appleton and having the first hearing here.
With that, I'd like to begin with the first panel that we
have. I'm going to have Dr. Kagen introduce each of the
panelists. The panelists will have five minutes. There's a
light in front of you that will go on. We turned it off for you
just to make sure we allowed you the additional time. But
there's a light in front of you and it will go from the green
to the yellow and then the red which means that you'll be able
to end your testimony. But your testimony will be taken and it
will be recorded, and for anybody else that didn't have an
opportunity to speak this morning, you'll have five legislative
days to submit your testimony, and it will be part of the
record.
With that, Dr. Kagen, I'd like you to start by introducing
each of the panelists, and then we will start with the first
one and then you'll have five minutes.
Mr. Kagen. Let me begin by thanking you for coming here to
the Paper Valley Hotel to present testimony to the United
States Congress. And first up we have Ms. Jeanne Higgins,
Forest Supervisor of Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Park Falls,
Wisconsin.
Next up will be Matt Frank, who we have come to know very
well as Secretary of Wisconsin's Department of Natural
Resources. And I would say that he's from Madison, but I get to
see him everywhere in the state, so I'm not sure where he's
from.
So, Ms. Higgins, if you'd begin.
STATEMENT OF JEANNE HIGGINS, FOREST SUPERVISOR, CHEQUAMEGON-
NICOLET NATIONAL FOREST, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, EASTERN REGION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PARK FALLS, WISCONSIN
Ms. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Kagen, thank you very much
for taking the time to come to northern Wisconsin and talk
about forest resource management. As evidenced by the
attendance here today, issues facing our forests and forest
resource management are important to many of us. Your presence
and interest is greatly appreciated.
With that, it's an honor for me to speak before you today.
I am Jeanne Higgins, Forest Supervisor for the Chequamegon-
Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin's only national forest. We
more affectionately refer to it as the Cheq-Nic or the Che-Ni
or Chequamegon-Nicolet will be a mouthful. But that forest is
comprised of over 1.5 million acres across northern Wisconsin
in 11 counties and 65 townships. These forests are composed of
land that was once logged over, burned over, and abandoned. And
in the 1930's the Forest Service acquired the land. Since then,
the Chequamegon-Nicolet and numerous partners have worked hard
to create the landscape we see today.
However, we must acknowledge we had challenges in managing
forests in these landscapes. These challenges are not unique to
Wisconsin. However, I believe Wisconsin is uniquely positioned
to provide leadership to successfully tackle these challenges.
So what is the role of the Forest Service and, specifically,
the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest?
Those of us who are responsible for managing this public
trust must ensure we maintain a sustainable forest. In doing
so, the Land and Resource Management Plan is a key instrument
in our success to meet this obligation. We must also look and
work across the landscape to ensure forest sustainability. Our
relationship with our partners and other stakeholders is
critical to our collective success in addressing the
challenges. We must also have the appropriate tools to respond
to these challenges and other dynamic situations that affect
the sustainability of our forests.
Management of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is
guided by the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan, more
commonly known as ``the forest plan.'' The forest plan is set
up to ensure sustainable forests to provide what we as society
desire. This includes the products we value, the wildlife that
live here, and all of the other amenities and resources we use
in our forests. It provides a balance of the demands that we
place on our forests. The primary goal of the forest plan is to
provide guidance to land managers to maintain a sustainable
forest and developed through strong public involvement.
When the plan was revised there was strong interest and
active engagement process for many stakeholders, many of whom
are here today. The plan represents what people value most
about their forests, such as clean air, clean water, wildlife
habitat, wood products, and outdoor recreation. Sustainable
forest management has renewed and recovered healthy ecosystems
and provided significant contributions to the nation's well-
being. The Chequamegon-Nicolet as we know it today is the
result of over 80 years of intensive restoration efforts. So
managing these diverse landscapes cannot be done alone or only
within the confines of the national forest boundary. The
assistance of our partners in working collaboratively with
other landowners is critical. Collaborative relationships are
essential to sustainable forests. It is imperative that
dialogue continue to occur to discuss issues that we face
managing these forests. No one entity can work alone to resolve
the challenges we face, such as nonnative invasive species,
climate change, and parcelization of private forestland.
Forests are dynamic, and appropriate tools are needed to be
able to respond quickly to situations and events that could
impact the long-term sustainability of forest resources. As
land managers of this national forestland, we use a wide range
of tools that are available to us to make management decisions.
These tools are critical for assisting us to manage these
public lands in a balanced and sustainable way. For example,
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act being utilized to rapidly
respond after the quad-county tornado in 2007. The tools we
have available also assist us to work with many partners to
accomplish work that benefits the forest as well as local
communities. The tools such as community wild park protection
plans and stewardship contracting are important to our success.
These are just some of the challenges we face, but as I
mentioned earlier, we are in a position to provide leadership.
We have dedicated staff on the Chequamegon-Nicolet to address
these challenges. These folks are very committed to our work of
managing the national forest.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I look
forward to questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Higgins follows:]
Submitted Statement of Ms. Jeanne Higgins, Forest Supervisor,
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Eastern Region, U.S. Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Park Falls, Wisconsin
Baca. Thank you very much for sticking with the time tables.Mr.
Kagen. That was very good. Mr. Frank?
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW J. FRANK, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, MADISON, WISCONSIN
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen, thank you so much for
holding this hearing in Appleton and in Wisconsin today. We are just
honored to be here with you. I appreciate, in particular, Congressman
Kagen, your focusing Congressional attention on this very important
issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming back to Wisconsin.
Appreciate it.
It's appropriate we are here in Appleton. Appleton has been a
National Arbor Day Foundation winner of Tree City USA for 25 years,
including 17 growth awards. Has one of the most progressive urban
forestry programs in Wisconsin. And I think it's appropriate that we
are here not only in your home area, Congressman Kagen, but in this
city that is really committed to urban forestry.
I really appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the significant value--ecological, economic, and social--that
Wisconsin's forests provide to the people of Wisconsin and the nation.
These values stem from our abundant and sustainably-managed forest
resource; leadership in providing certified wood on public and private
lands; successful programs that promote the sustainable management of
our privately-owned forests; a large pulp and paper industry, number
one in the country, and diverse solid wood businesses; strong tourism
and outdoor recreation base that includes the connection between our
forests and high quality water resources, including more than 15,000
lakes; abundant habitat for diverse wildlife; leadership in research
and innovation in renewable energy; and active protection of the forest
resource from fire and invasive species.
Our forests provide these values through the hard work of many
partners. The state works closely with our governmental partners.
Federal, we have an excellent relationship with Jeanne Higgins and the
U.S. Forest Service here. Our other state partners, county partners,
county foresters, municipal levels of government, as well as myriad
other partners including landowner groups, environmental and
conservation organizations, universities, businesses, our tribes, and
countless others. We cannot achieve success working independently, but
there is much we can do and accomplish working together. To that end,
the Federal Government is a key partner in a number of ways, which I
hope to be able to discuss with you more this morning.
Wisconsin's 16 million acres of forestland covering nearly half of
Wisconsin's landscape significantly enhance the quality of life in our
state. Wisconsin's forested acreage has been steadily increasing for
the better part of a century, and provides an array of benefits that
accrue to us all, even if we often are unaware of their origin. Our
forests are often overlooked as part of our strategic infrastructure.
In fact, forests are a strategic national resource that we must work
together to protect and sustainably manage. Our forests work day in and
day out to produce an array of benefits, many of which accrue to the
public at large, not just the forest owner. These benefits include
clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, flood control, carbon
sequestration, wood products, jobs, renewable energy, displacement of
fossil fuels, settings for recreation and tourism, and scenic beauty.
Trees and forest also play a role in conserving energy, reducing
floods, and enhancing the quality of life in our cities, villages, and
towns.
Our pulp and paper and solid wood industry is a key industry in
Wisconsin and in the country contributing roughly $20 billion in value
to our economy. Wisconsin leads the nation in the production of paper
and in the value of forest product shipments. Over 1,300 wood product
companies employ over 68,000 people with an annual payroll of over
three billion representing 13 percent of all manufacturing employment
in the state. And I might add that Wisconsin recently went into first
place in the number of manufacturing jobs per capita of any state in
the country. We are now at about 19 or 20 percent of our economy. We
remain second only to California in total employee wages from the
forest products industry. In addition, we have $13 million tourist
industry with forest-based recreation, which also adds another $5
billion in economic output to the state.
There are some critical issues that I hope we have a little more
time to discuss this morning. We need to invest in our nation's
forests. I think the Federal Government does have an important role to
play there. We have some thoughts about how the Federal Government can
help us control invasive species. I think one of the areas that we
really need to focus on is looking at the interstate movement of
firewood, and we can talk more about that. Certainly investing in our
forests through programs like the Forest Legacy Program or the Forest
Stewardship Program, supporting our urban and community forestry
programs, also depend, in part, on Federal funding. Focusing on the
area of forest fire protection, making sure that the Forest Service has
adequate funding to fight the fires so they don't have to take money
out of other parts of their budget. I applaud Congress for taking some
steps in that direction to address that issue in the current budget.
Climate change and energy are also very, very important issues. We have
an enormous opportunity here to be a leader. Governor Doyle has made
Wisconsin--has positioned Wisconsin as a national leader in the
development of clean and renewable energy, and bioenergy is an
important part of that, and our forests are a key asset in terms of
developing that.
It looks like I'm over time. And I hope that we have a little bit
more time to talk about some very big and complex issues. But, once
again, thank you so much for coming here. We look forward to working
with the Committee and with Congress.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:]
Submitted Statement of Mr. Matthew J. Frank, Secretary, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:
Good morning and welcome to Wisconsin. I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the significant value --
ecological, economic and social -- Wisconsin's forests provide to the
people of Wisconsin and the nation. These values stem from our:
abundant and sustainably managed forest resource;
leadership in providing certified wood on public and
private lands;
successful programs that promote the sustainable
management of our privately owned forests;
large pulp and paper industry and diverse solid wood
businesses;
strong tourism and outdoor recreation base that includes
the connection between our forests and high quality water resources,
including more than 15,000 lakes;
abundant habitat for diverse wildlife;
leadership in research and innovation in renewable
energy;
active protection of the forest resource from fire and
invasive species.
Our forests provide these values through the hard work of many
partners. The State works closely with our government partners -
Federal, state, county and municipal - as well as myriad other partners
including landowner groups, environmental and conservation
organizations, universities, businesses, tribes, and countless others.
We can not achieve success working independently, but there is much we
can and do accomplish working together. To that end, the Federal
Government is a key partner in a number of ways, which I will outline.
Wisconsin's Abundant Forests
Wisconsin's 16 million acres of forest land, covering nearly half
of Wisconsin's landscape, significantly enhance the quality of life in
our state. Wisconsin's forested acreage has been steadily increasing
for the better part of a century and provides an array of benefits that
accrue to us all, even if often we are unaware of their origin. Our
forests are often an overlooked part of Wisconsin's strategic
infrastructure; in fact, forests are a strategic national resource that
we must work to protect and sustainably manage. Our forests work day in
and day out to produce an array of benefits, many of which accrue to
the public at large, not just the forest owner.
The benefits we derive from forests include clean air, clean water,
wildlife habitat, flood control, carbon sequestration, wood products,
jobs, renewable energy, displacement of fossil fuels, settings for
recreation and tourism, and scenic beauty. Trees and forest also play a
role in conserving energy, reducing floods, and enhancing the quality
of life in our cities, villages and towns.
Wisconsin's traditional bio-economy -- pulp & paper and solid wood
-- collectively contribute $20.5 billion in value to our economy.
Wisconsin leads the nation in the production of paper and in the value
of forest product shipments. Over 1,300 wood products companies employ
over 68,000 people with an annual payroll of $3.1 billion representing
13% of all manufacturing employment in the state. We remain second only
to California in total employee wages from the forest products
industry, which in Wisconsin is the number one employer in 23 counties
and either second or third in an additional 15 counties. Wisconsin has
a $13 billion tourism industry with forest-based recreation estimated
to add an additional $5.5 billion in economic output in Wisconsin.
Relationship with USDA Forest Service (USFS)
Wisconsin DNR has a positive working relationship with the USFS,
working in collaboration across all three branches of the agency.
With over 1.5 million acres, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National
Forest (CNNF) covers nearly 10% of Wisconsin's forest land and 30% of
the forested public land. Intermingled with our State (1.1 million
acres) and County forests (2.4 million acres), the CNNF shares the
joint responsibility for providing the full array of benefits I
outlined above. These include raw materials that support jobs and local
communities, forest-based recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat
and so on. We value our very positive working relationship with CNNF
Forest Supervisor Jeanne Higgins and her staff. She recognizes that the
CNNF sits within a broader landscape of public and private forest lands
and many communities. We work together to collectively address both
challenges and opportunities, some of which I will outline here this
morning.
WDNR also has a long-standing collaborative relationship with the
USFS research, particularly initiatives supported through the USFS
Northern Research Station and the Forest Products Laboratory, which we
are proud to host here in our state. Long-term field research such as
that done on the Argonne Experimental Forest, studies on issues such as
old growth, and the Forest Inventory & Analysis (FIA) program are among
those research programs important to us here in Wisconsin. The Lab has
for decades been a major contributor in advancing the efficient use of
our renewable forest resources and remains a critical player as we move
forward as a nation to address opportunities such as those associated
with renewable, homegrown bioenergy.
The branch of the USFS that we interact with the most is State &
Private Forestry (S&PF). This is not surprising given that private
forests comprise more than two-thirds of our forest land and are owned
by more than 300,000 individuals. The USFS S&PF program provides
Wisconsin approximately $2 million annually to help support our efforts
to provide an array of public benefits from our private and community
forests. Funding for private forest stewardship, urban & community
forestry, Forest Legacy, forest health, and several cooperative fire
initiatives are an important component of our program to protect and
enhance the public values that we derive from our forests. Furthermore,
S&PF provides a conduit for effective cross-state collaboration on
forestry issues, enhancing the effectiveness of efforts to maximize the
delivery of goods and services from forests across the country.
S&PF programs have supported our work to address destructive
invasive species, address how to effective engage the next generation
of family forest owners in whose hands lies the future of our private
forests and the benefits they provide us, design and implement efforts
to mitigate the hazards facing communities at high risk from wildfire,
assess the extent and health of the trees and forests in our
communities, and conserve large blocks of private forest land at risk
of being subdivided and fragmented. To elaborate briefly on just one of
these, through our partnership with the USFS, we have used Federal
Forest Legacy funds to help acquire conservation easements on more that
100,000 acres of working forest lands, including the Wild Rivers Legacy
Forest in Northeast Wisconsin. The final phase of this project is in
the FY'10 budget as proposed by President Obama and passed by the
House. These easements protect environmentally important forestlands
threatened by conversion to non-forest uses while also providing a wide
array of public benefits, including exceptional water resources and
valuable settings for public recreation.
The Federal investment in S&PF is has been declining, just as
recognition of the value of our forests as a strategic national asset
has been increasing. For example, the allocation of forest stewardship
funds, which support efforts to keep our most vulnerable forests in
forest and managed well for the long-term, is scheduled to be reduced
by 45% for Wisconsin. This seems at odds with the direction I believe
we need to be headed if we are to realize the full potential of our
forests both ecologically and economically.
Before shifting gears, I want to close by reiterating our
opposition to the proposed merger of USFS Region 9 and the Northeastern
Area, which was in a recent Federal Register notice. We strongly
support increased collaboration among all three branches of the USFS in
the East. However, the proposed merger is not an effective way to
accomplish that and it fails to recognize the need for the agency to
increase its focus on the compelling Federal interest in the protection
and sustainable management of the nation's forests, not primarily the
National Forests. The air and water purified by our forests, and the
carbon they sequester, does not vary by ownership; it varies by how the
land is treated. We ask that the USFS be a committed partner to work
across our forests and in our communities to maximize how our forests
best serve us all.
Wisconsin a Leader in Providing Environmentally Sustainable Wood
Over the last decade, third-party forest certification has taken
root as a credible public assurance that forests are well-managed.
During this time Governor Doyle recognized the important role of
Wisconsin forests in his original 2003 ``Grow Wisconsin'' plan. He
directed the Department of Natural Resources and the Council on
Forestry to explore opportunities to certify land in DNR administered
programs to build the supply of verified, sustainably produced source
material. The Department moved quickly to complete forest certification
and, as a result, we now have nearly six million acres of State Forest,
County Forest, other state lands and private land enrolled in the
Managed Forest Law program that are third party certified via the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)
and/or the American Tree Farm system. A growing number of manufacturers
are marketing products made from certified wood and paper because the
associated trust is very good for business. The concentration of
certified forests in the Lakes States has especially helped Wisconsin's
paper makers weather the recession and poises them for a more rapid
recovery.
A continuing key to this success is that nearly half of Wisconsin
forestlands are recognized by leading international and North American
forest certification programs. That compares to only about 12% of
forests nationwide, making Wisconsin and our neighboring Upper Great
Lakes states a distinct forest certification ``hub''. Last year
Wisconsin completed FSC certification of more than 42,000 small private
estates covering over 2,000,000 acres, a record no one else comes close
to anywhere in the world. This was accomplished through our Managed
Forest Law program, giving Wisconsin the largest group of certified
family-forest owners under both Forest Stewardship Council and the
American Tree Farm System. But we are not satisfied with these
accomplishments.
So what's missing from the certification picture? Quite
prominently, our National Forests. The CNNF has 1.5 million acres here
in northern Wisconsin ready and willing to engage in forest
certification. I encourage Congress and the Administration to provide
leadership in bringing certification to Federal lands and to expand
forest certification for small family forests. Outside of the Managed
Forest Law program, Wisconsin has another 8 million acres of small land
ownerships that need USDA technical forestry assistance and land
management incentives that could enable their land to be certified.
Certification is also one of several tools that we can use to ensure
future bio-fuel and carbon sequestration programs are implemented in a
manner that balances environmental, economic and social needs.
Maintaining our Industrial Base in a Global Economy
Although we continue to lead the nation in paper production, the
paper industry, along with others aspects of our forest produces
industry, is under stress due to foreign competition, high energy costs
and high fiber costs that have reduced companies' competitive position
in the global marketplace. Although jobs have declined in this sector
over recent years due to the global economy, we still have
approximately 35,000 jobs in the pulp, paper and printing sectors
alone. The pulp and paper industry is restructuring globally and must
add products and streamline operations to regain a competitive
advantage. We must also work together to maintain a vibrant cadre of
professional loggers who play a key role in achieving sustainability on
the ground and getting product to market.
The future health of the industry directly affects Wisconsin's
economy; however, it also affects our ability to sustainably maintain
forests. Our robust industry has provided an incentive to keep forest
land forested and managed sustainability, and encouraged landowners to
undertake activities to ensure the long-term capacity of their forests
to provide an array of benefits, including feedstock for industry but
also such things as recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, and
clean air and water that benefit the public as a whole. As a result,
the loss of industry is not only a detriment to Wisconsin's economy,
but also to the health of our environment and quality of life in our
state.
Climate Change
In 2007 Governor Doyle signed Executive Order 191 creating the
Global Warming Task Force. One of the missions given to the task force
was to advise the Governor on ongoing opportunities to address global
warming locally while utilizing an appropriate mix of fuels and
technologies in Wisconsin's energy and transportation portfolios. In
addition to sequestering carbon, Wisconsin's forests can provide a
feedstock for generating renewable energy. By displacing fossil fuels,
our forests reduce our collective carbon footprint.
Governor Doyle has also been a leader in the Midwest Governors
Association process to develop a strategy for addressing climate
change. Both the Wisconsin and MGA processes have resulted in
recommendations that should influence how we proceed on climate change
legislation nationally. To that end, Wisconsin has been active in
advocating that Federal climate legislation account for the positive
role forests can play.
Climate Change will have an important effect on the future of the
1.7 billion tons of carbon stored in Wisconsin's Forests. Our forest
ecosystems will likely be changed by a warming climate and but also
have a role to play in mitigating the extent to which that warming does
occur. I appreciate the efforts of the House to pass H.R. 2454 with
provisions that for the most part recognize the important contribution
of forests to addressing climate change. First, the bill provides for
the use of forest biomass as a renewable energy resource. Substituting
this fuel for traditional sources in energy generation provides an
avenue for energy producers and manufacturers to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions. Second, this bill includes provisions for
forest offsets. Under these offsets, tree planting and forest
conservation can act as a low cost means for Wisconsin's greenhouse gas
emitters to meet their reduction obligations while implementing more
efficient systems.
This same bill also provides assistance to states in working to
protect sensitive forest ecosystems that will be put at risk by a
changing climate. There was a positive change made in the version that
passed the House to ensure some adaptation funding is available to
address forests, however, given the critical role that forests play
ecologically and economically, the percentage directed to forests
remains low. Should the Senate decide to increase adaptation funding
for forests, I encourage your support for that when it goes to
conference. For our part, Wisconsin has created the Wisconsin
Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI), of which the DNR and
University of Wisconsin are partners. WICCI is already working to model
the impacts of a changing climate of our forests and recommend
adaptation strategies to reduce the detrimental impacts on our most
sensitive forest species. Furthermore, this same group is working with
the USGS to compete for the creation of a Federally funded Midwest Area
Science Hub in the State that would study the impacts of climate
changes on natural systems in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin.
A Leader in the Green Economy
Since coming into office, Governor Doyle has led efforts to make
Wisconsin a leader in the development of clean and renewable energy,
advancing energy efficiency and moving Wisconsin toward energy
independence. He wants our energy to come from the Midwest, not the
Middle East. Governor Doyle has set a goal of generating 25% of
electricity and transportation fuels from renewable sources by 2025,
capturing 10% of the emerging bio-industry and renewable energy market
by 2030, and becoming a national leader in groundbreaking energy
research. Governor Doyle has identified our forests and farms as one
key component of Wisconsin's energy future. Last year Governor Doyle
committed $50 million to build the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research
Center. The synergy that is being created between the research center,
the University of Wisconsin and the USDA Forest Products Lab positions
Wisconsin to be the national leader in developing innovative solutions
to meet our energy needs, from increasing biomass yields to working
renewable energy solutions into the state, national, and global
economies. It is important that we continue to see Federal investment
in this area if we are to achieve the goals outlined by both President
Obama and Governor Doyle.
Pulp Mills as Biorefineries
Wisconsin's large pulp and paper industry positions the state to
take advantage of the existing infrastructure to add production of
renewable energy at a large scale. The pulp and paper industry uniquely
enables the state to be a significant producer of not only pulp and
paper, but bioenergy, bio-chemicals and bio-feedstocks as well. As
integrated ``biorefineries'' the mills could extract energy and other
bi-products from wood while also making their traditional products.
This has the potential to significantly increase their revenue stream
from the same wood they currently bring into the mill. As a result,
adding renewable energy to the products produced at our existing pulp
mills would help keep the industry competitive globally while also
helping Wisconsin achieve Governor Doyle's targets for renewable energy
production.
In addition to producing energy from wood used to produce value-
added products, opportunities exist to utilize biomass from the forest
that is not used by existing industry. The department estimates that
our forests contain over 600 million dry tons of biomass in our
forests. Our forests already provide nearly 600,000 tons of wood for
energy production today, and another 1.2 million tons of currently
unutilized wood are available to use in energy production. This is all
in addition to wood that might be used to produce energy prior to being
pulped for the production of other products.
In order to ensure that our forests can sustain the production of
woody biomass for energy, the Wisconsin Council on Forestry initiated a
public process to develop Biomass Harvest Guidelines designed to assess
the how material can be removed from the forest in a manner that will
maintain the ability of the forest to provide the array of other public
benefits long into the future. We were one of the first states in the
nation to put such guidelines in place to ensure the array of values
from our forests can be sustained.
Strategic Choices
Policies that promote bioenergy should be crafted in a manner that
allows existing industry to compete on a level playing field. Using
wood for energy clearly helps us meet identified targets for renewable
energy, thereby reducing our carbon footprint and increasing our use of
``home grown'' energy. On the other hand, to the extent that using wood
for energy displaces using that wood for traditional products (e.g.,
pulp & paper, solid wood products) there is a significant drop-off in
economic value. Our forests can provide both traditional forest
products and increased energy; we simply must be thoughtful to chart a
course that will enhance both existing and new industries.
It is also important not to lose sight of all the different
renewable energy products that can be produced from wood, such as
transportation fuels, syngas, electricity and heat. We should strive to
use wood in a manner that maximizes the energy return to the U.S. from
investment in the forest.
As an important step, the RES and RFS definitions must acknowledge
wood as an important source of renewable energy. That energy must be
extracted in a manner that is sustainable long-term. We believe
sustainability can best be determined at a state level, as evidenced by
our development of Biomass Harvest Guidelines. The RES definition in
H.R. 2454 as passed by the House acknowledges forests to a greater
degree than previous versions, however, the final version should more
clearly recognize the contribution that can occur on Federal lands and
have provisions for states to outline clear sustainability guidelines.
Forest Fire Protection
An expanding Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in Wisconsin and
elsewhere, continued droughts, warming climate, and an increasing
forest health crisis have created a difficult situation and stressed
forest fire management capabilities to protect communities and the
forest resource. In Wisconsin, as in the eastern United States
generally, the states have the majority of forest fire protection
responsibilities, equipment and personnel. We collaborate closely with
local fire departments and our Federal partners both in-state and out-
of-state when called upon to provide aid to other states. In these
difficult budget times we will continue to work with our Federal
partners to see what we might do to further streamline the protection
of people, property and natural resources in Wisconsin from forest
fires.
At the Federal level, there is a continued need to advocate for a
solution to the ever increasing impact of emergency fire suppression
costs on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the
Interior's (DOI) constrained budgets. Fire suppression costs for the
agencies have exceeded $1 billion every year since 2000. In 2009, the
Forest Service will spend over 50% of its budget on wildland fire
suppression.
This increase has placed sustainable forest management efforts at
risk on both public and private lands. Unless this diversion of funding
is successfully addressed, state forestry agencies will not be able to
successfully address national priorities and objectives. Extraordinary
emergency fires should be treated the same way as other disasters and
should not come at the expense of all other USFS and DOI priorities and
programs. To that end, I appreciate the overwhelming bipartisan support
shown in the House for the Federal Land Assistance, Management and
Enhancement (FLAME) Act (H.R. 1404). The bill is currently being
considered in the Senate and we strongly advocate its passage as
introduced in S. 561. I hope you will join me in urging action by the
Senate and quick turnaround in conference so that President Obama can
sign the FLAME Act into law this year.
Invasive Species
Invasive species pose a major challenge to our forests. The Emerald
Ash Borer (EAB), for example, has been found in two locations here in
Wisconsin since last August. The DNR, the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) and the University
of Wisconsin (UW) and UW Extension are working closely with Federal
agencies -- USDA Forest Service and Animal Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) to implement a cooperative EAB program. This program is
focused on delimiting existing infestations, detecting new finds,
testing management options and conducting outreach and education. Using
EAB as an example of extraordinary invasive species impacts to our
forests, the entire ash resource equating to more than 760,000,000 ash
trees are at risk, as are 20% of the trees in our communities. Federal
grant funds are a key source of support for detection and management of
this pest. Using a competitive grant from USFS S&PF, we will be
conducting workshops for municipalities and forest landowners in the
fall of 2009, helping these communities cope with this destructive
pest. DNR is also supporting two research projects using funds from
this same competitive process in an effort to learn more about EAB and
how we might most effectively detect and manage it.
On DNR-managed properties, we continue to enforce our firewood rule
that restricts the distance that firewood can originate from to 50
miles from the property. While this is important, we believe action is
also needed at a Federal level. We strongly advocate development of a
national program to regulate the movement of firewood, which has been
found to be a common vector for a number of destructive pests. We would
like to see this move forward quickly, working with state forest health
program leaders, state plant regulatory directors, environmental,
forestry and forest industry groups, the firewood industry and other
affected parties. The Federal Government plays an important role in
managing these invasives, which know no political boundaries, to
coordinate and lead in the detection, monitoring and long term
management of priority invasives. Likewise, investments in research are
critical to develop new tools to respond to invasive species.
Looking Ahead
Our forests, like those throughout this nation, are a strategic
asset that provide a large array of benefits both today and, if managed
well, long into the future. In order to do so, we need to be thoughtful
in how we approach use of our forests to best maximize the positive
outcomes - ecologically, economically, and socially. We face many
critical challenges that we will need to work cooperatively with out
partners, including our Federal partners, to address, locally,
regionally and nationally.
The DNR looks forward to continuing to work with you to help
accomplish this. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss these issues
with you and would be glad to take any questions you might have.
Submitted Material of Mr. Matthew J. Frank, Secretary, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin
Baca. Thank you very much, Matt.And don't be intimidated by the
lights. We are intimidated ourselves when we are back in D.C. When time
expires and all of a sudden we either got a one-minute or two-minute or
five-minute question and answer or presentation. It seems like the
light comes on all of a sudden, you are trying to rush through to get
everything. But hopefully, Matt, I'm sure that we'll be able to hear
some of the other concerns or areas that are very important.
With that, then, we will begin with some questions and answers
hopefully from both myself and Dr. Kagen to both you and your
assistants that are here, too. We will have five minutes ourselves. And
I'll start with Ms. Higgins.
I'm a big baseball fan, as you heard before, and especially
interested in what I have in terms of the Forest Service and the Forest
Product Laboratory in Madison, what it's doing to solve the crisis of
broken bats. Can you provide me with an update in terms of what's going
on there?
Ms. Higgins. I'd be happy to. Our Forest Products Lab in Madison
took on the challenge of trying to understand why bats were breaking as
frequently as they have. We have----
Mr. Baca. They're not cork bats, right?
Ms. Higgins. And I think what the Forest Products Lab found is that
maple bats have been utilized a little bit more frequently in recent
years than ash bats, and maple bats have had a tendency to break and
splinter. So they did their magic, went into their laboratory and
figured out what exactly was causing the bats to break and came out
with actually nine points for Major League Baseball to consider in
terms of manufacturing and utilizing bats. And so those have been
forwarded to Major League Baseball, and I understand they have been
adopted in terms of how to manufacture bats so that they don't break.
So I'm going to be watching to see how many of those bats break as I
watch.
Mr. Baca. Maybe they should come from the forests right out here.
Ms. Higgins. We have a lot of maple here in northern Wisconsin.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Can you tell me what you are doing in your
forest resource management practice to anticipate and incorporate the
effects of climate change?
Ms. Higgins. Climate change is something we should all be concerned
about. We are currently undertaking vulnerability and mitigation
assessment to understand how best to adapt our forests to adapt to
climate change, and we are working with our partners across the state
to understand how we can respond.
Mr. Baca. You mentioned in your testimony the tools for management.
Can you elaborate a little bit more about managing the forests, about
the kind of tools?
Ms. Higgins. Well, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act has been a
very important tool for us to be able to respond quickly to events that
occur in the forest such as the quad-county tornado which hit four
counties in northern Wisconsin in 2007, and it impacted 8,000 acres of
national forest system land and essentially leveled it. We were able to
respond quickly to do the environmental analysis, much quicker than our
normal processes, which allowed us to get in and salvage timber and
begin to restore that forest after that tornado within a matter of
months. So we were very appreciative of that tool to allow us to be
able to respond as quickly as we were.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. You mentioned the use of emergency rate
redeterminations we've added to the farm bill for certain timber
contracts. With the country in such difficult economic times, is there
any additional authority you could use to help local timber producers?
Ms. Higgins. Well, certainly the tools that we have, which include
contract term extensions and rate redeterminations, I think have been a
tremendous help. I would encourage you to ask that question of the
second panel members as to whether or not there's any additional help
that they could use. We have heard that the tools that we have been
able to use have been very helpful in these times.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. In California, water is always a major concern
for a lot of us, especially for those of us in southern California
versus the northern portion. You mentioned water resources in your
testimony, but I wondered if you could expand on your comments by
explaining how Wisconsin watershed fits into the larger regional water
resource picture?
Ms. Higgins. Well, normally, and the Chequamegon-Nicolet is no
different, we are at the headwaters of many of our nation's waters, and
so it's an important role for the national forests, and specifically
the Chequamegon-Nicolet, to provide clean water. Our challenge is not
necessarily so much about water quantity but it is about water quality.
Actually, certainly water quantity has been a bigger concern here in
northern Wisconsin with the drought that we've had over the last
several years, but our focus on the national forest is trying to reduce
sedimentation from roads, trying to ensure that we restore streams and
rivers that at one point in time were actually used as a transportation
source to haul logs--to transport logs from the headwaters down to the
mills, and in that process we modified habitat in our streams. So our
work has been focused on restoring streams and reducing sedimentation.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. I know my time has expired, but I want to ask
Matt, you mentioned firewood. Could you elaborate a little bit more on
the interstate transport of firewood?
Mr. Frank. Yes. Well, invasives, I think, is one of the major
challenges to long-term forest health in not only Wisconsin but across
the country. We have an excellent program within Wisconsin to deal with
this challenge. DNR works very closely with the Department of
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection. We have a lot of good local
partnerships. We work with the Federal and county forest folks who do
this work. I think where we could use more help and attention from the
Federal Government in looking at the interstate movement of firewood.
That is one of the vectors that has been identified, scientifically, as
how invasives will move across state lines.
And up until the last year, we did not have emerald ash borer in
this state. We have not been able to prove exactly how it got here, but
the strong suspicion it is from the interstate movement of firewood.
And the states--we like to do as much as we can on our own, we don't
like to go to the Federal Government to ask for help on all things, we
know there's a responsibility we have, but this is an area where the
Federal Government really can play a role. We would like to see the
Forest Service, through USDA and also APHIS, focus on this and really
work in partnership with the states to design a system that will
prevent the spread of invasives through the interstate movement of
firewood. It's a hole in the system, and I don't think it's a hole that
just the states can address. I think we gotta work with Federal
Government on it.
Mr. Baca. Matt, can you please provide some examples of how you
have used the Federal, state, and private forestry funding to protect
and sustain forests in Wisconsin?
Mr. Frank. Well, absolutely. The Forest Legacy fund, Federal Forest
Stewardship funds have been absolutely essential in us protecting and
preserving forested land in Wisconsin. We are fortunate in this state
that the people of Wisconsin have committed to a strong state
stewardship fund. I think we have a model for the nation, one of the
best ones in the country. Governor Doyle has been a huge supporter of
that fund. We recently got it reauthorized for another 10 years with
additional money. Under that program we set aside over 500,000 acres
for public use and enjoyment for generations to come.
We are able to be successful in that program because we leveraged
dollars, state taxpayer dollars, with other sources. One of those
sources is the Federal Legacy Act, which has allowed us to acquire, for
example, Willow flowage. We have, I think on the current Congressional
list, there is the Chippewa flowage acquisition and Wild Rivers
acquisition. We are able to acquire additional lands because the
Federal Government makes those dollars available. We are very pleased
that there's additional Legacy Act funding in the Administration's
budget that's before Congress.
We'd like to see, as we move along here, to see a greater
commitment to the stewardship side of the budget as well. Those dollars
from the Federal Government help us work with private landowners to
work on sustainability and certification, good forest management. Those
are also important dollars. We are not asking the Federal Government to
pay for all of it, but those partnership dollars are really important
to our efforts.
Mr. Baca. One last question, then I'm going to turn it over to Dr.
Kagen. What is the State of Wisconsin doing to improve the timber
market?
Mr. Frank. Well, that--it has been very difficult in the timber
industry with the state of the national economy. With what's happened
in the housing market, wood products in general, it has been a very
tough few years, and I think you'll probably hear from some folks on
the second panel who will talk about that. One of the things we are
trying to do is we are working with our loggers to try to ameliorate
the impacts of this downturn. We've had contracts that we'll enter into
them to harvest wood on state properties. It may be that given the
market the way it is, it just doesn't make economic sense to be able to
get that wood out on the market because the prices are too low. We're
engaging in a variety of practices to try to work with our loggers so
that they aren't hit too hard by that, and we have engaged in a number
of things.
I think, obviously, number one, a turnaround in the national
economy will be helpful across the board. If you can get the housing
part of the economy moving again and people building homes and buying
furniture and all the things that our wood products industry supports,
that will be helpful. But, second, I think key strategic investments
that will help the health of our forest economy in the future are real
important. Getting money in from the Federal Government to support
things that--we are very happy that the Department of Energy has made a
grant to the University of Wisconsin to be a leader in researching
cellulosic ethanol. That kind of research, those kind of investments,
can really benefit our forest and our economy strategically in the long
run. As we move to research and develop commercial uses of cleaner
renewable energy from our forests, we have the opportunity, I think, to
really add to the underlying strength of that economy, one that would
grow beyond what we have now with the paper and wood products to have
other economic values for our forests.
The second part of that is under the climate change bill to make
sure we have a strong forestry and agricultural offset program that
takes advantage of the fact our forests and our ag lands can be carbon
sinks, as we're trying to get reduced greenhouse gases. Waxman-Markey,
it's important that that bill, as it goes through the Senate, contain a
strong offset program. We think that will benefit our forests as well
and give it even greater economic value because it will encourage
forest to stay in forest. So there's a range of Federal policies, I
think, that ultimately impact that economic future of our forests.
Mr. Baca. Thank you, Matt. I'll turn it over to Dr. Kagen for some
questions.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, again, for your
testimony, Mr. Frank. You mentioned a couple things that interest me.
Cellulosic ethanol, biotechnology, the University of Wisconsin has been
leading the way. In many respects, Wisconsin in its forward thinking
has been leading the way, but if we don't sustainably manage and
harvest our national forests, what's the point of investing in
cellulosic if we can't then begin to level the playing field and allow
this activity to take place? Do you have a--can you make a comment
about the harvesting of our hardwoods in our national forests?
Mr. Frank. Yes, Congressman. I believe that the national forest has
come up with a very strong plan. The plan was approved in 2004. It was
a management plan that we applaud the Forest Service for getting input
from many partners. Wisconsin DNR had input. There were a lot of
stakeholders that had input into that. We firmly believe that you can
grow our economy with clean and renewable energy and do it sustainably.
I think there's a good groundwork for this in our national forest with
that forest management plan; we'd like to see it implemented. And, yes,
we think that we should give some consideration, at least here. Now,
this is where you may, as you look at this issue across the country, it
may differ by national forests. Congress Baca and Congressman Kagen,
you may hear different things in other parts of the country. Here we do
believe that there are parts of the national forest that the Forest
Service could responsibly and sustainably harvest, and that should be
part of the equation. And we hope that Congress will work with the
Federal agencies and continue to work with us on looking at that.
Mr. Kagen. You also mentioned the idea of certification, and maybe
you could speak to this importance of having certified forests. What
difference does it make to educate other Members of the Agriculture
Committee in Washington? Can you make some comments about the
certification, the value of having certified forests and certified
woodlands?
Mr. Frank. Absolutely. We've been very committed in Wisconsin to
sustainably certifying our forests, and just late this last year, we
just introduced another two million acres into a third-party
certification program which is, I think, one of the largest private
entries into the program--in any program in its history. We have a
big--Governor Doyle made a big commitment to this on our state lands
when he first came in 2003. We've got our state lands certified. We've
made progress with our private lands. We'd like to see our national
forests be part of that program.
It's important for two reasons. Number one, it helps grow our
economy. More and more the marketplace is looking for that
certification to say, we want to know that you are committed to
sustainable management. You've got catalog companies like Patagonia
that want to make sure that the paper that they're printing their
catalog on is coming from sustainable forests. That's just one example.
We are seeing that more and more in the marketplace. We're seeing
consumers demand it. We're seeing companies down the supply chain
demand it. So it's important, we believe, for our economic future to
have that sustainable imprint or that certification imprint.
The second reason it's important is because it also says--it also
means something very important for our environment. As we harvest and
manage our natural resources, we are committed to doing that
sustainably, and private landowners who are certified are making that
commitment. So certification is important both for a strong economic
reason and for an environmental reason.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you very much. There was a group that couldn't be
here this morning, that's the Menominee Tribal Enterprises, and we are
very fortunate to have here in Wisconsin I think the only virgin forest
in America that remains. And they do sustainably manage and harvest
their woodlands and their forests, and they are a certified forest.
And to that end, Ms. Higgins, is the national forest certified?
Ms. Higgins. No, we are not.
Mr. Kagen. Is that a problem?
Ms. Higgins. Well, certainly, as you heard from Secretary Frank,
there would be some benefits certainly to the State of Wisconsin and to
the economies in Wisconsin if we were certified.
Mr. Kagen. Is there a process in place?
Ms. Higgins. There has been an evaluation of the certification
process, and the Chequamegon-Nicolet was one of six national forests
where there was a test completed related to the certification process.
That testing process helped the agency determine what sort of issues
were at play in terms of becoming certified. And we are currently as an
agency in discussions with the certifying bodies about what it would
take to actually certify the national forest.
Mr. Kagen. Is there any roadblock that you feel is in the way of
the certification process that you need Members of Congress to be
working on or is this something you can work through on your own.
Ms. Higgins. Well, I believe it's something the agency can work
through. Although, certainly further information about the challenges
of the national forest becoming certified would be, I think, of benefit
to you to understand a little bit better.
Mr. Kagen. Secretary Frank also mentioned the forest management
plan, and you have such a plan. And how is that plan being carried out?
Have you met your goals for harvesting? What percent of the harvest
have you met.
Ms. Higgins. The 2004 Land Resource Management Plan, as I
mentioned, is a balance of providing lots of benefits. If we were to
fully implement our plan, we would be treating about 20,000 acres a
year of our vegetation, which could supply up to 131 million board feet
of timber per year. We were currently treating about half of that,
which is allowing us to supply about 70 to 80 million board feet per
year.
Mr. Kagen. This concerns me very greatly, because without those
board feet coming out of the national forest, you are not really
feeding the mills and the arts that are in close proximity. It really
hurts our economy, wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Higgins. Well, certainly we have been able to sustain the level
between 70 and 85, and so we have been able to maintain a sustainable
level of timber to the markets. Could more help our local economies? I
would expect most people would agree that to be true.
Mr. Kagen. So you'd be in agreement to opening up the national
forest to additional harvesting?
Ms. Higgins. Well, certainly our forest plan allows for that and
would be sustainable up to that level that I mentioned before.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you very much. Does that red light really mean
anything? You are on the record.
Mr. Baca. I am on the record. It's supposed to mean something. We
go beyond the time limit. And we have additional time.
Mr. Kagen. Let me go back to Secretary Frank and ask about the
Stewardship Program and what other programs you think Congress should
be investing into to assess Wisconsin's forest economy?
Mr. Frank. Well, I do think we talked about the Forest Stewardship
Program, Forest Legacy Program, very, very important. I would like to
bring up an issue I alluded to in my opening remarks, and that is the
issue of fire suppression. This is an important issue all over the
country. And I know, Chairman Baca, we were talking just a little bit
about the challenges that California has. We also have challenges in
this state. It's been very dry, as Jeanne mentioned, and we have more
fires here, and we move quickly to try to put those out. But I think
one of the things we'd like to see in the Federal budget is to have
more dedicated funding within the Forest Service budgets to fight
fires. What's happened in the past is there hasn't been enough money
appropriated initially, and then the agency is looking for where do
they get money to fight fires. Well, they then look to other parts of
the budget, and they have to take money out of there. Well, so, the
dollars ultimately end up supporting the fire efforts, which is
critical, but then you are kind of taking money away from other
strategic areas of the budget. So that's an area that, as I mentioned,
I think this current legislation before the Congress and the budget
makes a step in the right direction. We'd like to see it go even
further. But have that dedicated funding.
If you look at a map of the United States in general, and you look
at the number of forest fires we're having, certainly in the West we
know that, we're seeing a greater incidence of forest fires. We need to
acknowledge that and make sure that we have enough money to get the job
done.
The second thing I think we could do in terms of that is to better
coordinate state efforts and Federal efforts in fighting fires. We have
a lot of cooperation. I know we send fire fighters to California to
help California out once in a while, and we do this across state lines,
but we think there's even greater opportunity to get efficiencies in
fighting forest fires by a greater collaboration between state and
Federal authorities. And I think this is a challenge, it's going to get
greater before it gets less. And I think it's an area that we've got
some good cooperation, but I think we can even do better.
Mr. Baca. Excuse me, if I could----
Mr. Kagen. One more question.
Mr. Baca. In the same vein, then you can ask an additional
question. On the same subject matter of fighting fires, on the
equipment that we have, is the equipment coming from us or are we
outsourcing part of it to fight fires in the areas? Are we getting
some--if it means helicopters, airplanes, or something that comes in
from Canada or some other place? Matt?
Mr. Frank. We do, Congressman, we do use Federal dollars to help
purchase fire fighting equipment, and it helps us in a couple ways.
Federal dollars help us upgrade our fire fighting equipment that we
have in the forest division within the DNR. These are big pieces of
equipment that we have to basically modify and retrofit specifically
for the purpose of fighting fires. We have people in our agency who
actually know how to do that. It's a very specialized kind of work. We
get Federal dollars to do that. And I can tell you with budgets being
the way they are, we are maintaining a level, but you're looking at an
infrastructure in that equipment that's getting older and older, and
then you look at the question of how long has this equipment been out
there? It's been 18 years. Can we get another 2 years out of it or do
we replace it? Those are the kinds of decisions you make. So Federal
support for that is important.
The other thing is the money that we get from the Federal
Government flows through the DNR and we, in turn, then get that money
out to local fire fighting agencies. We couldn't do the work we do
fighting fires in Wisconsin without coordinating with the Federal
Government, as well as working with local units of government.
Townships, municipalities, local fire crews, they come out, and they
work with us in helping put out forest fires, and those Federal dollars
are passed through to them. So that's another important funding source
that we need to support.
Mr. Baca. I agree with you. I just wanted to make sure that we had
all the equipment, that we're not always outsourcing to other entities
to provide for the safety of our forests as well. I know in California
sometimes we are outsourcing, much of it comes outside the area, and
there's a concern that our fire fighters, our forest fire fighters have
the kind of equipment that they need to prevent any casualties. I'm
sorry to interrupt you, go ahead.
Mr. Kagen. No, I appreciate the line of questioning. And my concern
is, I'm sure everyone in this room and everyone in this country is
aware, in these challenging economic times, asking Washington for
additional funding may not be very successful for you. So I would come
back to the key word, which is prevention. It works pretty well in
healthcare, and it must work pretty well in the management of our
forests. But is it true, is it your understanding, that by harvesting
the woods is a manner in which to prevent forest fires?
Mr. Frank. Certainly sustainable forestry management includes as a
component trying to--you know, if you do have a forest fire, so that
you don't have a catastrophic forest fire.
Mr. Kagen. Doesn't that also mean that our national forestland here
in northeast Wisconsin is at risk of suffering from a forest fire
because it is not being--you are not meeting your goals of harvesting
100 percent of the trees you've intended to under the plan for 2004.
Mr. Frank. I think I would be hesitant to say there's a direct
correlation. I think sustainable management----
Mr. Kagen. Would you agree that we would be reducing the risk by
following the plan.
Mr. Frank. Yes. I think a good sustainable forest plan, whether
it's national forest or state forest or a private forest, one of the
factors you take into account is forest fire prevention. And I think
that is----
Mr. Kagen. Jeanne, would you like to comment? Would you like to
comment on that? Would you also agree that by meeting your goals in the
2004 management plan, you could reduce the risk of forest fire in the
forest.
Ms. Higgins. Yes. Yes, I concur. The statistic that I think is
important to recognize in the national forest, that we have over
350,000 acres that's within the wildland urban interface. There's a lot
of private land within the boundaries of the national forest, so it is
very important that we fully implement our plan so that we can reduce
that risk.
Mr. Kagen. My final question would be, I'm looking for an
explanation as to why you have been unsuccessful in meeting your goals
from the 2004 plan. What's holding you up, the process? Is it people?
Is it funding? Is it just bad weather.
Ms. Higgins. We have a highly dedicated staff of people on the
national forest that they're very dedicated to their work, so I don't
think it's the people that work on the national forest. Certainly we
have been--many of our decisions have been in litigation the last
several years, and so in terms of fully implementing the plan, a
portion of that has been challenged.
Mr. Kagen. Would it be fair to conclude then if we are putting
our--is it true that we're putting our national forest at greater risk
of fire because of a litigious process? If it's not the people and it's
not the weather, I'm looking for, what do you think.
Ms. Higgins. Well, I believe that our--being able to fully
implement the plan is certainly going to help reduce that fire risk.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Ms. Higgins, I have an additional question,
it's probably along the same lines, how closely are you working with
the state, county, and private foresters to limit the spread of an
invasive species like the emerald ash borer.
Ms. Higgins. We have a very good cooperative relationship with the
state and our other Federal partners, too, in terms of trying to reduce
the spread of insects and disease. And we have several of those that
affect our forests. But in terms of the greater risk, I think we
probably all agree right now that emerald ash borer, which is on our
doorstep, could have a fairly significant impact on our forests. And so
we have worked closely to put together closure orders to prevent
firewood from being transported. Our efforts have been around
prevention and education associated with the possible effects emerald
ash borer could have if it is transported across the state.
Mr. Baca. And, Mr. Frank, can you answer that, because that also
goes right back to the original question that we were talking about
fire fighters or fires in our forests, because that also has an impact
if we don't deal with the insects that we have in the area. In our area
we have the bark beetle.
Mr. Frank. Definitely. The thing about our forests is forests are
themselves and part of an ecosystem. All of these issues are
interrelated, so. And I appreciate your tying these issues together in
that fashion. I think a good--a good, strong sustainable forest
management plan deals with invasives, deals with fire protection, deals
with economic harvest, and brings all those things together in a way
that makes sense. So, yes, I think dealing with the invasives issue is
important. And I'll tell you, it's important even if the trees
ultimately don't burn down. When you look at--we have 760 million ash
trees in Wisconsin. Twenty percent of our urban forests in Wisconsin
are ash. If that invasive pest ends up attacking all of those--so far
we are doing the research, but it's always fatal to the tree right now.
Once you've got it it's fatal to the tree--that has a tremendous impact
on our forest for all sorts of reasons. So this invasives issue is of
great concern, and I think it's something that we need to strengthen.
And I think we need to think about more than just education.
It's difficult for us to--we work cooperatively with Illinois, for
example. We love it when people from Illinois come up and camp in our
forests, but we encourage them to buy firewood up here. We've got to
look at the commercial transfer of firewood across state lines. You
know, you can now go in stores and buy firewood from a lot of places.
Firewood could be ending up in Wisconsin not just from Illinois but
halfway across the country. You've got 13 states with emerald ash borer
right now. This is an area that we think needs more attention, and we
need to have a more coordinated Federal policy looking at this issue.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. I know that we've run out of time, but
hopefully you'll submit some kind of written statement, both of you, in
reference to the endangered species that may impact our forests as
well, what can be done, or what changes need to be done, as we address
that area, because I'm very much concerned. Although I am a Democrat,
I'm very much concerned with its impact in California in some of the
habitats that are listed in areas that have a lot of growth and
development. And how do we protect the environment? And what about
endangered species? I hope we can address those sometime in the future.
Mr. Baca. With that I want to thank the first panelists for being
here this morning. Thank you very much for your expertise.
Mr. Kagen. The second panel is Henry Schienebeck, Executive
Director, Great Lakes Timber Professionals, Rhinelander, Wisconsin;
Kathrine Dixon, State Attorney, Environmental Law and Policy Center,
Chicago; Butch Johnson, Bill Johnson, from Johnson Timber, Hayward,
Wisconsin; and also joining us is Gary Zimmer with the Ruffed Grouse
Society. If you would come up and take a chair.
We will begin with Henry Schienebeck. You may start the clock now.
STATEMENT OF HENRY SCHIENEBECK, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES TIMBER PROFESSIONALS
ASSOCIATION, RHINELANDER, WISCONSIN
Mr. Schienebeck. I'll just apologize right up front; loggers are
just used to doing a job until it's done.
My name is Henry Schienebeck, I'd like to offer the following
testimony on behalf of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association
in regards to forest resource management in northern Wisconsin. First
of all, we'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee,
especially Congressman Kagen, for acknowledging the importance of the
forest products industry to society and the need to find a reality in
management of that resource.
The forest products industry has long been a viable source of
revenue for the State of Wisconsin as well as the entire nation for
well over 100 years. Like many of the members our organization
represents, I'm a third-generation logger with a great amount of
passion for the timber industry and the people who work in that
industry both directly and indirectly. In order for us to remain in
business for generations to come, we understand that--we understand
more than most the need to maintain healthy sustainable forests. We
support multiple-use forests, and we also agree there should be parts
of the forest that should remain untouched and unmanaged and managed
only by nature itself. We understand the need to balance all the
marvelous things nature has to offer with a forest product industry
which has been a backbone of this nation since its beginning.
The forest products industry is the second largest industry in
Wisconsin generating over $26 billion for the state's economy. From
2005 until the present time, Wisconsin forest products industry has
lost over 24,000 jobs in all sectors from harvesting trees to
manufacturing of paper, paperboard, and furniture. Over 38 percent of
those jobs have been lost in the elimination of 16 paper mills since
2002. Several reports show that the lack of available stumpage is one
of the major reasons for job loss in Wisconsin and the United States as
a whole. Raw material to make paper, lumber, furniture, and a variety
of other products has been hampered severely by the lack of available
timber, especially from the Federal forest. Because of the lack of
timber being offered for sale in Federal forests, more pressure has
been put on county, state, and private lands to support industry with
raw material. Because of the unnecessary lack of raw material from
Federal forests, the cost of that raw material has been driven high
enough to put Wisconsin and the United States at a competitive
disadvantage in the world economy. And that alone has put over 92 major
companies out of business in region nine.
Nationwide the Federal forest--or the Federal Government owns 597
million acres of land of which 107.7 million acres are included in
wilderness designation, and that excludes all harvesting and most
recreational activities. Over 100 million additional acres of Federal
land are in designations that exclude harvesting trees as a tool to
maintain forest health, leaving about 389 million acres.
By comparison, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest encompasses
just over 1.5 million acres of which 1.3 million acres are forested. Of
that 1.3 million acres, 446,000 acres, or a full \1/3\, are placed in
designations that exclude timber harvesting. On the remaining 854,000
acres, the growth rate is in excess of 150 million board feet per year,
which should be removed to maintain a healthy forest. The current
management plan calls for removal of 131 million board feet per year,
and of that 131 million board feet an average of only 85 million board
feet have been removed over the last five years. In other words, just
over 50 percent of sustainable harvest have been removed from the
Chequamegon-Nicolet. By comparison, the State of Wisconsin as a whole
has harvested an average of 69 percent of its current annual growth.
And to put that in perspective, 20,000 board feet of timber provides
enough raw material to sustain one job in the forest products industry.
Over the last five years the amount of timber that went unharvested
could have provided 4,400 jobs for Wisconsin alone.
For the above reasons, the forest products industry is at an all-
time low in Wisconsin and the United States. In order to get help the
forest products industry--in order to get help to get our industry
moving again in a timely fashion, we would offer the following
suggestions:
First, once the forest management plan is agreed on, let the Forest
Service implement the plan without interruption. We find it
inconceivable that tens of thousands of dollars are spent on a draft
and then a final management plan only to have them litigated once they
are put into action. In our opinion, there are millions of dollars
being spent tying up the legal system on issues that could most likely
be worked out in face-to-face meetings with other groups and industry.
Second, Congress should fully fund the forest management plans once
they are implemented. If it is the mission of this Committee to get the
economy back on track, then it is imperative that the forest products
industry can count on a constant supply of raw material to manufacture.
It would simply be impossible for any company to create a business plan
for investing in a new business or grow an existing one knowing that
raw material may not be available on a continuous basis.
Third, Wisconsin forests have been dual certified by FSA and SFI to
supply industry with sustainably harvested fiber. We would suggest that
the Forest Service be certified as well, or possibly use the Master
Logger Program to harvest Federal timber in support of the industry to
provide sustainably-managed products to the world economy.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schienebeck follows:]
Submitted Statement of Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director, Great
Lakes Timber Professionals Association, Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:
My name is Henry Schienebeck and I would like to offer the
following testimony on behalf of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals
Association in regards to forest resource management in Northern
Wisconsin. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the
Committee and especially Congressman Kagen for acknowledging the
importance of the Forest Products Industry to society and the need to
find a reality in management of this resource.
The Forest Products Industry has long been a viable source of
revenue for the State of Wisconsin as well as the entire nation for
well over 100 years. Like many of the members our organization
represents, I am a third generation logger with a great amount of
passion for the timber industry and the people who work in that
industry both directly and indirectly. In order for us to remain in
business for generations to come, we understand more than most the need
to maintain healthy sustainable forests. We support multiple use
forests and we also agree that they should be parts of the forest that
should remain untouched and managed only by nature itself. We
understand the need to balance all the marvelous things nature has to
offer with a Forest Products Industry that has been the backbone of
this nation since its beginning.
The Forest Products Industry is the second largest industry in
Wisconsin generating over $26 billion dollars for the states economy.
From 2005 until the present time, Wisconsin Forest Products Industry
has lost over 24,000 jobs in all sectors from harvesting of trees to
manufacturing of pulp, paper, paperboard and furniture. Over 38% of the
jobs have been lost in the elimination of 16 paper mills alone since
2002.
Several reports show that a lack of available stumpage is one of
the major reasons for job loss in Wisconsin and the United States as a
whole. Raw material to make paper, lumber, furniture and a variety of
other products has been hampered severely by the lack of available
timber especially from Federal Forests. Because of the lack of timber
being offered for sale on the Federal Forest, more pressure has been
put on county, state and private lands to supply the industry with raw
material. Because of the unnecessary lack of raw material from Federal
Forests, the cost of that raw material has been driven high enough to
put Wisconsin and the United States at a competitive disadvantage in
the world economy. That alone has put over 92 major companies out of
business in Region 9.
Nationwide the Federal Government owns 597 million acres of land of
which 107.7 million acres are included in wilderness designation which
excludes all harvesting and most recreational activities. Over a
hundred million additional acres of Federal forest land are in
designations that exclude harvesting trees as a tool to maintain forest
health leaving about 389 million acres for other uses.
By comparison the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF)
encompasses just over 1.5 million acres of which 1.3 million acres are
forested. Of that 1.3 million forested acres, 446,000 acres or a full
\1/3\ of the forested acres, are placed in designations that exclude
timber harvesting. On the remaining 854,000 acres, the growth rate is
in excess of 150 million board feet per year which should be removed to
maintain a healthy forest. The current CNNF management plan calls for
removal of 131 million board feet per year. Of that 131 million board
feet an average of only 85 million board feet per year have been
removed over the last five years. In other words just over 50% of the
sustainable harvest growth has been removed from the CNNF. By
comparison the state of Wisconsin as a whole harvested an average of
69% of current annual growth. To put that in perspective, 20,000 board
feet of timber provides enough raw material to sustain 1 job in the
forest industry. Over the last five years the amount of timber that
went un-harvested could have provided 4,400 jobs for Wisconsin alone.
For the above stated reasons the forest products industry is at an
all time low in Wisconsin and the United States. In order to help get
the Forest Products Industry moving again in a timely fashion we would
offer the following suggestions:
First, once the forest management plan is agreed on, let
the Forest Service implement the plan without interruption. We find it
inconceivable that tens of thousands of dollars are spent on draft and
final forest management plans only to have them litigated once they are
put in to action. In our opinion there are millions of dollars being
spent tying up the legal system on issues that could most likely be
worked out in face to face meetings between industry and other groups
of interest.
Second, Congress should fully fund the Forest Management
plans once they are implemented. If it is the mission of this Committee
to get the economy back on track, then it is imperative that the Forest
Products Industry can count on a constant supply of raw material to
manufacture. It would simply be impossible for any company to create a
business plan for investing in a new business or grow an existing one
knowing raw material may not be available on a continuous basis to
support the project.
Third, Wisconsin forests have been dual certified by FSC
and SFI to supply industry with sustainably harvested fiber. We would
suggest that the Forest Service be certified as well or possibly use
the Master Logger Program to harvest Federal timber in support of the
industry to provide certified products to the world economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will be happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much. Ms. Dixon.
STATEMENT OF KATHRINE DIXON, STAFF ATTORNEY, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
AND POLICY CENTER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Ms. Dixon. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen. I
am Kathrine Dixon, staff attorney with the Environmental Law &
Policy Center, which is the Midwest's leading public interest
environmental advocacy organization. Thank you for your
invitation to testify before you today on forest resource
management in northern Wisconsin. Your leadership on this issue
is greatly appreciated, and we are very glad to be part of the
discussion.
For the past eight years, ELPC attorneys and policy
advocates have partnered with members of the Wisconsin
scientific and conservation community to push for restoring
balance to forest management in the Chequamegon-Nicolet
National Forest. In recent years, the balance, the Federal
forest management and the Chequamegon-Nicolet, has tipped
heavily in favor of logging to the detriment of other uses and
values. In short, the Forest Service has simply proposed too
much logging, too fast, in too many of the places that are most
important for wildlife habitat, clean water, and recreation.
My written testimony discusses three primary areas of
concern that must be part of future forest management in
Wisconsin.
First, Forest Service must take steps to reduce landscape
fragmentation. Recent studies published by University of
Wisconsin Professor Don Waller show that severe fragmentation
of Wisconsin's forestlands is seriously impacting both plant
and animal species across the state. The Forest Service must
implement a policy of sharply reducing roads and other
fragmenting features. It must also take active steps to
preserve large patches of interior forest and create movement
borders to expand habitat options.
Second, the Forest Service must do more to ensure viable
populations of native and desired nonnative plant and animal
species. Scientific evidence demonstrates that populations of
several of Wisconsin's species are dwindling at an alarming
rate in Chequamegon-Nicolet. Forest Service must set
enforceable target population numbers for each of the species
that it manages. It must also make a serious effort to
determine the impacts of its management practices on sensitive
species through rigorous monitoring and analysis.
Third, the Forest Service must begin to take climate change
into account in forest planning. New evidence shows that the
Chequamegon-Nicolet is storing carbon dioxide at a rate that
far exceeds its size as a percentage of the nation's forested
land. Forest Service must adopt management practices that are
designed to maximize this carbon sequestration potential, which
is not only good for the environment, but could also be good
for the Wisconsin economy when the carbon market becomes a
reality.
Forest Service must set a standard for forest management
that addresses these three concerns based on the best available
scientific evidence and silvicultural knowledge.
However, before we can think about developing and
implementing new policies, Forest Service must take a fresh
look at existing logging proposals. The Forest Service has
proposed 17 major timber sales since 2002, adding up to over
150,000 acres. Our coalition of supporters is not opposed to
logging. We appreciate the Forest Service's mandate to managing
its land for multiple uses, but the amount of logging proposed
in the Chequamegon-Nicolet is not environmentally responsible,
nor is it sustainable over the long term. This trend must
change.
With new agency leadership being put in place, there is an
opportunity to craft new policies that account for the full
range of resources that the Forest Service must oversee. But,
in the meantime, we cannot lose important resources based on
old and outdated ideas. Once trees are cut, they cannot be
stuck back in the ground like matchsticks. We need a chance to
step back and reassess. The LPC and our colleagues have
presented the Forest Service with reasonable middle ground
proposals for modifying each of their major logging proposals
in ways that would allow significant amounts of logging to go
forward, while also preserving the most important ecological
areas. These proposals are grounded in good science and in an
intimate knowledge of the resources at stake. We are calling on
the Forest Service to adopt these proposals now so the
important resources are not lost while we begin the process of
developing a new long-term approach that factors in many of the
recommendations made before the panel today.
Thank you for your interest in this topic. We look forward
to working with you, with the Forest Service, and with the
other people in this room today on policies that protect
Wisconsin's natural lands and their many values. I'm happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dixon follows:]
Submitted Statement of Ms. Kathrine Dixon, Staff Attorney,
Environmental
Law and Policy Center, Chicago, Illinois
Baca. Thank you. Mr. Johnson.STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``BILL'' E. JOHNSON,
PRESIDENT, JOHNSON TIMBER, HAYWARD, WISCONSIN
Mr. Johnson. On behalf of my family's business, Johnson Timber and
Flambeau River Papers, I'm pleased to submit the following statements
for the record.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen, on behalf of our 358 employees, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the
future of our industry and the role national forests can play in that
future.
We are members of the American Forest & Paper Association. AF&PA is
the national trade association of the forest products industry,
representing forest landowners, pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood
products manufacturers. Like our fellow AF&PA members, we produce
products essential for everyday life from renewable and recyclable
resources that sustain the environment.
The next paragraph goes on about Wisconsin. I think we've heard
enough about that from previous speakers, so I'll skip over that.
We are leaders in efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to
increase the use of renewable energy. Between 2000 and 2006, AF&PA
member companies reduced their greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 14
percent. Our recycling efforts help prevent the emissions of 21.1
metric tons of CO2 from landfills, and managed forests and
forest products store enough carbon each year to offset approximately
ten percent of U.S. CO2 emissions.
We are also the leading producers and users of renewable biomass
energy. We produce 28.5 million megawatt hours annually, enough to
power 2.7 million homes. In fact, the energy we produce from biomass
exceeds the total energy produced from solar, wind, and geothermal
sources combined. Sixty-five percent of the energy used at AF&PA member
paper and wood products facilities is generated from carbon-neutral
renewable biomass.
At Flambeau River Paper, we have taken the steps to make us the
first completely fossil fuel-free pulp and paper mill in North America.
By purchasing biomass more efficiently for our biomass boiler, we have
reduced our consumption of coal and natural gas by over 60 percent
since we purchased the mill in 2006, and by the end of August--excuse
me, by the first of August, we expect to become 100 percent free of
coal at our facility. Further, within three years we anticipate we will
be the first fully functioning integrated biorefinery pulp mill
producing approximately 18 million gallons of cellulosic green diesel
from forest residuals. This will reduce our carbon footprint by
approximately 140,000 tons per year while employing an additional 40
people directly at our facilities and an additional 125 indirectly who
are in the woods.
Companies like Flambeau River Papers and our sister companies in
the wood and paper industries are big businesses, employing hundreds
and in some cases tens of thousands of people. But we are a large
business that creates and sustains and, in turn, depends on dozens of
small businesses. When we acquired Flambeau River Papers in 2006 and
took the steps to reopen the mill, Governor Doyle estimated that this
would help sustain 300 small logging businesses whom we rely on to
supply--that we rely on to supply the 140,000 cords of pulp that we
continue to use annually. The national forests of Wisconsin,
particularly the Chequamegon-Nicolet, rely on these small businesses to
help them achieve their management objectives. We consume approximately
13,000 cords of Forest Service fiber at Flambeau River Papers, and in
addition to that in the future we would require, the company estimates,
we'd procure about 38,000 additional cords.
The interdependence of businesses such as ours, small logging
contractors, and national forests becomes even more important during
difficult economic times. Before we entered the paper business, Johnson
Timber was one of the leading innovators in chip supply for the paper
industry, as well as supplying peeled logs to the sawmill industry in
the state. The economic downturn that the rest of the economy has been
experiencing in recent months came early to our industry, and has had a
profound and lasting impact. Since 2006, nationally, the wood and paper
products industries have shed over 300,000 jobs, almost a quarter of
our work force. Paper and lumber production have both declined by well
over 20 percent in the recent years, with the housing market remaining
extremely depressed.
This depression in the market for lumber has made the economics of
our industry, which are always difficult, even more precarious. That
makes it critical that policies which are intended to promote biomass
utilization are carefully crafted to ensure that the existing wood and
paper industries receive fair and equitable treatment.
We applaud the leadership shown by the Agriculture Committee, in
particular you, Congressman Kagen, as it was a full Committee Chair,
Chairman Peterson from Minnesota, in pressing for positive changes to
the American Climate and Energy Security Act of 2009 which recently
passed the House. In particular, we strongly support the inclusion of
language that clarifies that any mill residues from wood, pulp, or
paper product facilities will qualify as renewable biomass for the
various components of the legislation, including the renewable
electricity standards, the renewable fuels standard, and the cap and
trade portion of the bill. Without this key change, wood and paper
products facilities would be faced with the need to purchase carbon
offsets for all the renewable biomass that we burn. In other words,
renewable biomass, such as spent pulping liquor, would be treated the
same as coal or pet-coke. Further, without the expansion of the RFS
definition, the cellulosic green diesel we plan on producing at
Flambeau would likely not qualify as renewable fuel.
I see I'm over time, but I just want to make one more point before
I'm done.
We are greatly surprised and disappointed to learn, however, that
the version of the bill brought to the floor included a new provision,
Section 553, which would allow the Administrator of the EPA, with the
concurrence of the Department of Agriculture, to modify the definition
of renewable biomass after a one-year study. We believe this provision
is an open invitation for the EPA to revert to the overly-restrictive
definition included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, which has, in essence, excluded all fiber from Forest Service
lands and will only allow the wood fiber from existing plantations on
private lands to qualify as renewable biomass.
As an example, by relying exclusively on wood from existing
plantations, the RFS definition would exclude all aspen acreage,
whether on Forest Service, state, or private forestlands. This would
exclude fiber from aspen forests on over 6.9 million acres in
Minnesota, 2.8 million acres in Wisconsin, and 3.4 million acres in
Michigan, not to mention tens of millions of acres of aspen in the
mountain west. The definition would potentially exclude 118 million
acres of mixed pine/hardwood forests in the eastern and southern U.S.
As well.
You have the rest of my testimony, and I appreciate the opportunity
that you have given me today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Submitted Statement of Mr. William ``Bill'' E. Johnson, President,
Johnson Timber, Hayward, Wisconsin
On behalf of my family's business, Johnson Timber and Flambeau
River Papers, I am pleased to submit the following statement for the
record. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen, on behalf of our 358
employees, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
talk about the future of our industry and the role the National Forests
can play in that future.
We are members of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA).
AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest products
industry, representing forest landowners, pulp, paper, paperboard, and
wood products manufacturers. Like our fellow AF&PA members, we produce
products essential for everyday life from renewable & recyclable
resources that sustain the environment.
The forest products industry accounts for approximately 6 percent
of the total U.S. manufacturing output and employs approximately a
million people with an estimated annual payroll exceeding $50 billion.
Here in Wisconsin, we employee more than 60,000 people, with a payroll
of more than $3.7 billion, producing some $18 billion worth of wood and
paper products and paying more than $235 million in State and local
taxes.
We are leaders in efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to
increase the use of renewable energy. Between 2000 and 2006, AF&PA
member companies reduced their greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 14
percent. Our recycling efforts help prevent the emission of 21.1
million metric tons of CO2 from landfills, and managed
forests and forest products store enough carbon each year to offset
approximately 10 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions.
We are also the leading producer and user of renewable biomass
energy. We produce 28.5 million megawatt hours annually, enough to
power 2.7 million homes. In fact, the energy we produce from biomass
exceeds the total energy produced from solar, wind, and geothermal
sources combined. Sixty-five percent of the energy used at AF&PA member
paper and wood products facilities is generated from carbon-neutral
renewable biomass.
At Flambeau River paper, we have taken steps that will make us the
first completely fossil-fuel free pulp and paper mill in North America.
By purchasing biomass more efficiently for our biomass boiler, we have
reduced our consumption of coal and natural gas by over 60% since we
purchased the mill in 2006, and by the end of August we expect to
become 100% free of coal. Further, within 3 years, we anticipate we
will be the first fully functioning integrated biorefinery/pulp mill,
producing approximately 18 million gallons of cellulosic green diesel
from forest residuals. This will reduce our carbon footprint by
approximately 140,000 tons per year while employing an additional 40
people directly and an additional 125 indirectly.
Companies like Flambeau River Papers and our sister companies in
the wood and paper industry are big businesses, employing hundreds, and
in some cases, tens of thousands of people. But we are a large business
that creates and sustains, and in turn depends on, dozens of small
business. When we acquired Flambeau River papers in 2006 and took steps
to reopen the mill, Gov. Doyle estimated that this would help sustain
300 small logging businesses whom we rely on to supply the 140,000
cords of pulp wood we consume annually. The National Forests of
Wisconsin, particularly the Chequemegon-Nicolet, rely on these small
businesses to help them achieve their management objectives. We consume
approximately 13,000 cords annually of Forest Service fiber at Flambeau
River, and we harvest an estimated 38,000 cords annually for other
operations.
The inter-dependence of businesses such as ours, small logging
contractors, and the National Forests becomes even more important
during difficult economic times. Before we entered the paper business,
Johnson Timber was one of the leading innovators in chip supply for the
paper industry, as well as supplying peeled logs to the sawmill
industry. The economic downturn that the rest of the economy has been
experiencing in recent months came early to our industry and has a
profound and lasting impact. Since 2006, nationally, the wood and paper
products industries have shed over 300,000 jobs, almost a quarter of
our workforce. Paper and lumber production have both declined by well
over 20% in recent years, with the housing market remaining extremely
depressed.
This depression in the market for lumber has made the economics of
our industry, which are always difficult, even more precarious. That
makes it critical that policies which are intended to promote biomass
utilization are carefully crafted to ensure that the existing wood and
paper industries receive fair and equitable treatment.
Biomass Energy
We applaud the leadership shown by the Agriculture Committee, in
particular by you, Congressman Kagen, as well as full Committee
Chairman Peterson from Minnesota, in pressing for positive changes to
the American Climate and Energy Security Act of 2009 which recently
passed the House of Representatives. In particular, we strongly support
the inclusion of language that clarifies that any mill residues from
wood, pulp, or paper product facilities will qualify as renewable
biomass for the various components of the legislation, including the
Renewable Electricity Standard, the Renewable Fuels Standard, and the
cap and trade portion of the bill. Without this key change, wood and
paper products facilities would be faced with the need to purchase
carbon offsets for all of the renewable biomass that we burn. In other
words, renewable biomass, such as spent pulping liquor, would have been
treated the same as coal or pet-coke. Further, without the expansion of
the RFS definition, the cellulosic green diesel we plan on producing at
Flambeau River would likely have not qualified as a renewable fuel.
We were greatly surprised and disappointed to learn, however, that
the version of the bill that was brought to the floor included a new
provision (Section 553) which would allow the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, with the concurrence of the Department
of Agriculture, to modify the definition of renewable biomass after a
one year study. We believe this provision is an open invitation for the
EPA to revert to the overly restrictive definition included in the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which in essence excluded
all fiber from Forest Service lands and only allowed wood fiber from
existing plantations on private lands to qualify as renewable biomass.
As an example, by relying exclusively on wood from existing plantation,
the RFS definition would exclude all aspen acreage, whether on Forest
Service, State, or private forest lands. This would exclude fiber from
aspen forests on over 6.9 million acres in Minnesota, 2.8 million acres
in Wisconsin, 3.4 million acres in Michigan, not to mention tens of
millions of acres of aspen in the Mountain west. The definition would
potentially exclude 118 million acres of mixed pine-hardwood forests in
the Eastern and Southern U.S. as well.
We believe a preferable approach would be to keep the a simpler
definition of renewable biomass, such as the one used in the 2008 Farm
Bill, with the addition of reasonable sustainability requirements such
as a written harvest or forest management plan developed by a
credentialed forestry professional, or adherence to a forest management
or wood procurement certification system. As members of AF&PA, Johnson
Timber and Flambeau River Papers are both committed to the principles
of sustainable forest management and are 3rd Party Certified by both
FSC and SFI. Since 1995, all AF&PA members must subscribe to the
principles of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), which sets
rigorous forest management standards that are reviewed by external
partners from conservation groups and research organizations. With over
226 program participants and 156 million acres of certified well
managed forests, the SFIr program ensures that America's forest and
paper companies are committed to sustainable management. We believe
this standard, and other forest management programs such as the
American Tree Farm System, can help assure the Congress and the
American public that wood-based biomass energy will be a sustainable
part of the forest economy.
We continue to believe that promoting the development of renewable
energy must be accomplished while providing adequate safeguards to
ensure that new mandates do not create undue economic or environmental
harm. With that in mind, we recommend that the Committee include a
comprehensive study of the impact of renewable energy mandates on both
economic and environmental factors, with a provision allowing a waiver
from all or part of the renewable electricity standard if it is
necessary to prevent economic or environmental harm. We have attached
specific language which we believe would accomplish these objectives.
We are concerned that the current legislation unnecessarily
restricts the use of wood biomass from Federal public lands. As this
Committee has heard recently from the Administration, between 60 to 80
million acres of National Forests are densely stocked and at risk of
catastrophic fire. The current version of ACES restricts harvesting of
renewable biomass from a number of categories of Federal lands, most of
which are not open to commercial activities under most circumstances.
While we believe these restrictions to be mostly redundant, the
provision prohibiting the removal of biomass from ``old growth'' and
``late successional stands'' is particularly damaging. While it is an
improvement over the version of the bill that was approved by the
Energy & Commerce Committee, it fundamentally misunderstands modern
forest management and creates the opportunity to inadvertently, and
unnecessarily, exclude fiber from legitimate timber sales, particularly
from aspen forests here in Wisconsin.
Many forest types, including Aspen, lodgepole pine, and many mixed
hardwood stands in the Eastern U.S. are not harvested until the stand
has reached biological maturity. The term ``old growth'' is highly
controversial and many forest plans adopt differing definitions, and
differing goals regarding the development and retention of old growth.
In our view, all byproducts of legitimate hazardous fuels reduction
projects or any Forest Service timber sale which complies with the
extensive projections required under existing law should qualify as
renewable biomass.
National Forest Management
As I noted above, the management of many Lake States forests types,
such as aspen, jack pine, spruce, and paper birch, thrive with periodic
harvest. Many of these species are regenerated through periodic
cutting, after which a new stand grows from the root system of the old
stand. Keeping a diverse forest landscape not only supplies the raw
materials needed by our industry, but it provides a diversity of
habitat types which help insure abundant wildlife populations. Grouse,
deer, and other game thrive in managed forests, helping to support
another key element of the Wisconsin economy.
The National Forests of the Lake States are among the best
performing in the Nation in terms of achieving timber supply goals.
Unfortunately, the Chequamegon-Nicolet sold only 64% of it's Allowable
Sale Quantity in 2007, and performance in the last two years has not
improved greatly. Even more unfortunately, this is far above the
National average for the Forest Service: The average national forest
region sells only 40% of the allowable sales quantity.
We have appreciated the support that the Congress has shown for the
National Forest timber sale program in the last several years. It is
important for Congress to find a way to more fully integrate the
hazardous fuels reduction program, which has received almost $1 billion
in the last 18 months, with forest management projects which produce
merchantable wood fiber. Doing so would allow the Forest Service to
free up management funds for regions such as the Lake States which
could easily offer more volume for sale.
Recent Controversies
In the last several weeks, several old controversies, including
what to do with the roadless areas in National Forests, and how to best
manage the process for revising forest plans, have resurfaced. I
realize that some of these controversies are being forced upon the
Administration by active litigants and other activists who oppose
active management of the National Forests. I'd urge this Committee not
to replay the old controversies which have led to such a precipitous
decline in the management of the National Forests, reducing timber
harvest levels by more than 80 percent in the last two decades. The
relatively modest management program that is taking place on the
National Forests should not be subjected to endless appeal, debate, and
delay. Large scale, wholesale revisions of forest management policies
will do nothing to keep our forests healthy and even less to help keep
our workers in the woods.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today.
America's wood, paper, and forest industry is critical to the
resilience and health of our forests and our economy. We have a long
and proud history of commitment to sustainable forest management, and
we have been blessed with abundant forest resources. I thank you for
your efforts to ensure that the management of these forests will remain
a conservation achievement which future generations should emulate.
Mr. Baca. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Zimmer.
STATEMENT OF GARY ZIMMER, SENIOR REGIONAL WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST,
RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY
Mr. Zimmer. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kagen, I'm a 45-year
resident of northern Wisconsin. I live in Congressman Kagen's
8th Congressional District and can still throw a rock from my
house to the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. I am also a
senior regional biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society. The
Ruffed Grouse Society is a nonprofit wildlife conservation
organization dedicated to improving the environment for ruffed
grouse, American woodcock, and other forest wildlife.
Man's disruptions of natural disturbance regimes is
arguably the single greatest threat to sustaining healthy
forest ecosystems across the United States. We can't turn the
clock back a century or more, but we can learn from past
mistakes and recognize the critical role periodic disturbance
plays in shaping our forested landscapes.
The virtual elimination of fires in the east has not only
complicated efforts to sustain aspen, birch, oak, and some pine
forests, it has hampered the establishment of important young
forest habitats and associated forest wildlife. Young forest
habitats are dominated by a dense growth of shrubs and small
trees that are free to flourish when the canopy of a mature
forest is removed by fire, mechanical treatment, or some other
disturbances. Young deciduous forest habitats less than 20
years old have declined by 41 percent over the past two to
three decades in the eastern United States. Between The 1960s
and 1993, Wisconsin has lost about 1.5 million acres of Aspen
forests, about a million acres between 1980 and 1993 alone, as
these forests converted to mid to late successional species.
Today, due to man's intervention, fire's no longer allowed
to play its natural role in removing old aspen to make way for
a new aspen forest. Therefore, the only means available to
ensure long-term forest health and ecosystem integrity in some
communities is through periodic mechanical disturbance.
Currently, most aspen forests in Wisconsin that have not
already been regenerated are overmature, unhealthy, and
extremely susceptible to death and conversion. Once this
conversion occurs, it will be virtually impossible to restore
these aspen communities. Over 81 percent of the aspen forest
communities in the eastern U.S. Grow in the Great Lakes region.
This region provides the only realistic opportunity to conserve
these critical components of biological diversity.
These habitats support a suite of wildlife species that do
not exist in mature forests or exist only at very low
population densities. Wildlife that rely upon young forest
habitats include the ruffed grouse and American woodcock, two
important game species pursued by almost one million sportsmen
and women each year in the eastern U.S., and many nongame
wildlife that require the protection from predators afforded by
thick, young forest habitats. Researchers have documented that
of 187 species of neotropical migratory songbirds that breed in
the Midwest, more than half use shrub, sapling, or young forest
habitats to some degree during the breeding season. As these
habitats decline, so do these and many other wildlife species
that have been depending on young forest habits. It is
estimated that 78 percent of the continent's golden-winged
warbler population is in the upper Midwest, a bird the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service considers a species of ``highest
conservation priority.'' It appears likely that these forests
include some of the main sources of golden-winged warbler
populations in the entire U.S., and some of the last
opportunities to halt the downward decline.
Of major concern to my constituents is the inconsistent
management of our forests. Limited funding, as well as
management tied up for years by appeals and lawsuits, hamper
agency efforts to follow the approved forest plan on the 1.5
million acres in the Chequamegon-Nicolet. The process to revise
the original 1986 plan began in 1996 and took 8 years to
complete and approximately 2 years to finalize the appeal
process. Since then, nearly every vegetative management project
proposed for implementation on the forest has been appealed
and/or litigated, with close to 2 years of harvests tied up in
the legal limbo. Not since 1989 has this forest met its forest
plan annual goals for aspen regeneration. The cumulative loss
of young forest habitat across the forest is, in part, the
reason that species like the American woodcock, brown thrasher,
golden-winged warbler, loggerhead shrike and veery are listed
as species of greatest conservation need in Wisconsin.
I encourage this Committee to work with the Forest Service
to get forest plan implementation back on schedule, reduce the
ability of groups or individuals to tie up management
activities for years and years at little cost to them, but at a
very high cost to those that live and work in the city or the
forest and to the taxpayers of this great nation. We are seeing
mills close, schools being forced to consolidate, and
multigenerational family businesses going under while a
renewable natural resource in our backyard is off limits. It is
a shame to see mills in northern Wisconsin having to haul in
wood products from Canada or overseas in order to stay in
business when ample resources exist only a few miles away that
has been managed sustainably in the past.
These forests provide some of the last opportunities to
maintain essential young forest habitat as an important part of
the biodiversity of our northern forests and meet the social
and economic demands of society. We urge the Committee to
consider these important factors in shaping the future of our
forests. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zimmer follows:]
Submitted Statement of Mr. Gray Zimmer, Senior Regional Wildlife
Biologist, The Ruffed Grouse Society, Laona, Wisconsin
Baca. Thank you very much. I thank each of the panelists for being
here.I begin by asking the first question to Henry Schienebeck. In
your testimony you mentioned the need for certifying Federal forests
sustainable. Could you please explain some of the benefits and features
of the certification, particularly in the Master Loggers Program?
Mr. Schienebeck. Well, the certification program has basically
enabled us to kind of stay in business during some of these troubling
times. The public is requiring that, and this goes beyond forestry now.
I mean, they are even asking that potato seeds be certified. They want
to know where the fiber is coming from. They want to know that it's
sustainably managed and sustainably harvested. And that has helped us
be able to sell timber to some of the mills that are doing business in
more than one country.
And the Master Logger Program is a fairly new program, and there's
a group of loggers in Wisconsin right now, we have 52 master loggers
and another 12 to 15, I believe, that are going through the process.
And what that group does is they basically go through a third-party
certification. And I believe Maine has the most master loggers, the
program originated there. They have 142, I believe, at this time. But
what we do is we go through a third-party certification process. In
other words, for all aspects of timber management, from on the ground
to business practices to ensuring that we are following all the
qualifications, which is best management practices, for logger BMPs are
you doing the job, are you not running up the woods, are you aware of
invasive species, are you aware of exotic species and those types of
things, and they be sure that it's a full package of protection. And
that's something that we promote. All of our members are trained, but
the master loggers can take it to the next level. And it's just a
little bit more of a program that says that you are willing to put your
business in an audit, that you are going to pass that audit, and that
you are well aware of what's going on for the whole package when it
comes to management.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. In your testimony you indicated, and I've
heard a couple of different figures, that 20,000 jobs have been lost.
What impact has it had on the quality of life in the area?
Mr. Schienebeck. It's basically loss of a whole industry in a
village or town. In the Village of Butternut where I live we had three
mills there at one time. We're down to one. Actually, you could say
we're down to half of one, because most of the people there are laid
off and they are looking for other things to do and going off. I know,
that in different areas of the country, there's not much going on
there, either. Like Mr. Johnson said, that paper mill was shut down,
that involves a couple of counties in our area. That's the Village of
Butternut and the City of Park Falls. I mean, it's a two-county
business. There were 300 some jobs there. When that was shut down for
the period that it was, it was like a ghost town. Downtown businesses
were closing up because they are so dependent on that paper mill. And
those aren't just $9 jobs, they're good paying jobs. They are livable
wage jobs that put money back into the community. I mean, we've lost
two schools. We just had a two-school consolidation again. And luckily,
we were able in Butternut to not have that right now, but it's going to
come. Eventually they are going to run out of money if we don't do
something about it, and we live right on Chequamegon-Nicolet National
Forest.
Mr. Baca. Maybe Mr. Johnson, you can answer that question or
elaborate on it, because not only does it impact, when you have a loss
of jobs, not only in school but the quality of life in the area, but
the revenue. And, then, also, does it impact the population of those
communities, too, as well that means as we're going right now, we are
going to be going through the Census that is coming right before us,
and so the loss of jobs also will impact the Census and the amount of
Federal dollars or dollars that will be coming back to the cities and
counties in the state. Could you elaborate? You mentioned that over
300,000 some thousand jobs were lost because of the timber market.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. As Mr. Schienebeck mentioned, in 2006, when the
mill that we purchased went bankrupt, before we bought it, there was
definitely an economic impact felt throughout the not just Park Falls,
Price County, Ashland County region but the entire northwest Wisconsin.
The fact is we were going through the process of putting together the
plan to purchase the mill. We invited the University of Minnesota-
Duluth School of Business to put together an economic impact study of a
mill closure of that size in northwest Wisconsin, that lost 300 jobs,
and what that has on the economy, and what it showed is about a $200
million impact not just to the county but really to northwestern
Wisconsin.
I'm trying to remember the employment figures that were lost due to
that, but I can tell you driving through Park Falls from February 16 of
2006 when it was announced that the mill was closing through July 25,
2006, when we purchased the mill, took ownership, in the City of Park
Falls, about 3,000 people, there was well over a quarter of the homes
that went up for sale. Being a school board member in Hayward, I
certainly know the impact of losing the facilities and whatnot, and the
stress that it can cause on the school district is tremendous.
Thankfully, Park Falls was one of the lucky areas that someone was able
to come in and resurrect the mill and put 307 people back to work
there.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Ms. Dixon, thank you for being here today and
for your ongoing work. You represent an important voice in the process
of public policy. I know that you and the local timber community don't
always agree, but like Congress, policy is made like sausage; it's an
unpleasant process with good results.
Your testimony mentioned fragmentation as a priority for you. Do I
understand correctly that this refers to the patchwork of the forest
parcels in the state?
Ms. Dixon. That is correct. And I would just respond to your
earlier comment about not seeing eye to eye with the timber community.
I don't think that's entirely true. It's not the logging community that
we have issues with. We certainly don't. We recognize logging is an
important part of Wisconsin's economy. It's necessary, it's appropriate
in many circumstances and in appropriate amounts. The Forest Service
and the forest managers are responsible for setting those amounts. And
it's our opinion, and the opinion of our scientists, clients, and
colleagues, that some of the timber proposals that have been issued are
in places that are important for key habitat for wildlife, for clean
water, and other recreational opportunities. So I would just clarify
that it's not an issue with the timber community, it's just an issue of
appropriate amounts and appropriate places.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Along the same lines, access to water and
water conservation are two areas dear and near to my heart with the
ongoing drought situation in southern California. What is, in your
opinion, is the best way for us to best utilize the water resources of
America's forests.
Ms. Dixon. Best utilize water resources?
Mr. Baca. Yes.
Ms. Dixon. I think water is a key issue, particularly in Wisconsin.
There are a number of--there are thousands of lakes in the state, there
are private--there are people that enjoy using those lakes for
recreation, for fishing, trout fishing and so on, so I think
maintaining access, use, and quality of those water resources is of
optimal importance. I believe that management of forestlands has a lot
to do with the quality of our water resources in Wisconsin. As Jeanne
Higgins testified in the earlier panel, one of the major issues
associated with logging is sedimentation of water resources. And I
think I may have mentioned in my written testimony that over half of
the trout streams in the Chequamegon-Nicolet currently fail to meet
temperature standards for brook trout, which require cold water
conditions. Our scientists have told us that some of those impacts are
a result of management practices not necessarily in recent days, but
the forest management plan indicates that Wisconsin's water resources
were heavily impacted by--through the cutover period by excessive
sedimentation. So we recognize that as a problem, and we believe that
the Forest Service is taking steps to address that problem, and we
support their efforts.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Mr. Zimmer, what can we do to best promote the
regrowth of young forest habitat.
Mr. Zimmer. We have to address the need that's out there. Currently
the Chequamegon-Nicolet, if you go with the current management level,
is harvesting, and if we continue that harvest over the next ten years
or so, we are at lower levels than ever has been, aspen levels, in
historic times. We need to increase that because we have the suite of
species and a lot of species that are indirectly related. Even species
like the northern goshawk, which relies on species for prey that
utilize young forest habitats, like snowshoe hare and ruffed grouse are
the top two prey species. There is that interlink that is needed, and
we need to maintain that habitat across our forest spectrum, and in
those places we can do it.
From our standpoint, the people that I work for, we have a big
desire for hunting ruffed grouse and woodcock, and Wisconsin, the U.P.
of Michigan, and northeastern Minnesota are the three best places left
in the United States to hunt ruffed grouse and woodcock. So our folks
are seeing that every October. Come join us in the October, we will
take you on a hunt, but also come and see the license plates of the
visitors to the national forest and the state and county forest in
northern Wisconsin. It's remarkable how much tourism is in the pursuit
of just those two species every October.
Mr. Baca. I may take you up on that as long as I can go golfing.
Mr. Zimmer. We can work that in.
Mr. Baca. I know that we are running out of time, but, Mr. Johnson,
you mentioned biomass. In June, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
future of the forest. At that hearing nearly every witness emphasized
the need for a broad and workable definition of renewable biomass in
both renewable fuel standards and the renewable electricity standards.
As a result of that hearing, I worked with Mr. Peterson, as did Dr.
Steve Kagen, to a get sensible definition in the climate change bill,
and I am pleased with those results. The definition of renewable
biomass, as it passed the House, has two important pieces.
The first is the definition for private land. Mr. Waxman, the
Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, agreed to include the
farm bill definition for private lands, and this is a broad definition
that is already in the law.
The second piece is for Federal and public lands. The definition
that was passed in the House permits the use of forest biomass in a
sensible way. I realize these definitions are not perfect.
With that, I'd just like to ask if there are any suggestions on the
best way that we can construct the legislative language, I would
appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions or ideas that you may have
in that area.
Mr. Johnson. Do you want them now or written?
Mr. Baca. Well, we don't have enough time for it all right now. But
I would appreciate it, if you can, just make a short comment on that.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think the thing that we really need to address
as we're going forward and in talking definitions and other things, is
we are trying to promote or to build a new industry. Especially in
these tough financial times that we are in, to get a new industry off
the ground like the biorefineries or biofuels or renewable energy
projects is tough. And one of the top things they are always asking,
how long is your feedstock supply agreement? And without a solid
definition moving forward, that allows us to utilize the natural
resources that we have sustainably, be it private, be it a Federal
forest, that we are ensured a supply for at least ten to 20 years for
the financial community, we will never get the funding to get these
projects off the ground. And it's important, as we push through with
legislation, with policy, that we keep in mind that these projects are
only as good as the feedstock that's going to be supplying them.
And a wide definition, one that certainly allows time to implement
and to secure the feedstock be it from private or governmental forests
or field or whatever the case may be in terms of feedstock, is one that
I think we need to address and continue to push forward to ensure that
feedstock in the industry.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Mr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll start off by just making a
comment or two about how important the forestry industry is not just to
Wisconsin but to our entire country. We cannot become a stronger
nation, a nation that's independent of foreign sources of energy,
without a successful method of sustainably managing our forestlands all
across the country, whether or not they are county, state, or Federal
or private forestlands. It is critical that Congress get it right. And
you've also noticed in this room how important a few sentences are in a
piece of legislation. So that's why you have experts like physicians on
the Agriculture Committee. We have to have a secure nation. We can get
a strengthened national security by having a successful process of
sustainably managing our forestlands. I think everyone would agree with
that.
In this room, we have tremendous assets of institutional knowledge,
people who have been living and growing up in the forest, not just for
their own generation, but for several generations. We have tremendous
talent and knowledge that if we can harness this and really begin to
work together on some of these problems, we can lead the way here in
Wisconsin and northern Illinois. We can lead the way in terms of making
certain that we have sustainable practices not just in the forests but
also on our farms, because we have the definition now, the trees are an
agricultural product.
It's very important as well that the forest industry be successful
to mitigate climate change. Now more than ever we understand the
interconnectivity. As an allergist I would say that if you are a tall
man in China and you sneeze, well, there's an American person here that
has it on the back of their neck. What they are doing with their
environment affects us here. That's why 42 percent of the mercury in
our waterways, in the Great Lakes and our northern lakes and streams,
came from dirty coal in China.
Most importantly, in today's economic stressful time, we cannot
afford to waste any of the trees or branches or debris that fall in any
forestland anywhere. We have to be very efficient and must not waste
anything. And I'll remind all of you that, you may already be aware of
this, but I'll remind you that I'm aware of it, and that is about the
carbon cycle of our planet. The global carbon cycle has to do with
where this carbon is located. Well, in our soil, there are 3,195
gigatons of carbon. In the plants we have 654 gigatons. And every year
we put into the atmosphere, apart from man's contribution, 58 gigatons
of carbon. And because of the photosynthesis that takes place in our
plant life, in our trees, in our forestlands, we take out 58 gigatons
as well. So what we have to do is reach a balance.
There was a balance until mankind, in the recent centuries, began
to kick in seven gigatons of carbon every year due to anthropogenic
effects of emitting the fossil fuel carbon. What we have to do now is
mitigate that. And the best way to do it is to manage our soils and our
forests in a sustainable way.
So let me just get a head nodding or a raising of the hands of the
panel to see if we can't agree on one thing, and the one question I
have is, wouldn't you all agree that we need to do everything possible
to maximize the carbon dioxide retention in plant life? Would you all
agree? And isn't it also true that younger----
Mr. Baca. They have to respond. I mean they nodded their heads.
Would you, for the record.
Mr. Kagen. Let the record reflect there was a lot of head nodding
going on, and it wasn't because they are falling asleep. It's not
Congress, after all.
So if we all agree that it's really paramount for the survival of
our climate, for the survival of our human species and our economy and
our national defense, our national--strength of our national security,
we have to remove as much carbon dioxide as soon as possible, isn't it
a fact, we will start with Henry and move down the line. Isn't it a
fact that younger trees, rapidly growing trees, take in more carbon
dioxide than older trees?
Mr. Schienebeck. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct.
Mr. Kagen. Ms. Dixon.
Ms. Dixon. I would actually disagree. That has been common
knowledge until recently. Studies that have recently come out as early
as September, I believe it was 2008, and I have copies of the paper
with me if you'd like to see it, there's a study----
Mr. Kagen. If you could make those studies available. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I'd agree.
Mr. Zimmer. I'd agree.
Mr. Kagen. Isn't it--doesn't it just make common sense that we have
to have a rebirth and a regrowth and a replanting of our forests in
order to replant them and grow our forests anew, don't we have to
sustainably harvest tree life that exists? Would anyone disagree with
that statement.
Ms. Dixon. I'd agree that harvesting can be done sustainably,
absolutely. But as I mentioned, there are studies showing that older
trees actually continue to sequester carbon indefinitely. So I would
echo the comments made by Secretary Frank in the earlier panel that
carbon sequestration benefits actually would create an incentive for
leaving more older trees standing, and that's the position that's taken
by the Environmental Policy Center.
Mr. Kagen. So we have some disagreement. I look forward to making
sure we come with some better, more stable agreements--more sustainable
agreements in the future.
My question to Ms. Dixon is, who do you believe is best able to
manage the forestlands, someone who's closest to the farm, or someone
who's further away?
Ms. Dixon. I absolutely agree that the Forest Service is the expert
agency, they have the expertise. There are many, many knowledgeable
people on the Forest Service staff that have dedicated their lives and
their careers to managing Federal forestlands.
Mr. Kagen. So you'd agree people closest to the tree farm, the
people closest to the forest, might have better knowledge of what's
going on on the ground.
Ms. Dixon. I would agree in general. I agree that the policies,
however, are set at a higher level, and it is to some extent----
Mr. Kagen. Which leads me to my next question, that is, which
specific sections of the 2004 Forest Management Plan do you and your
organization specifically disagree with? And if you don't have time at
the moment, perhaps you could itemize that in a written response.
Ms. Dixon. Yes, I'm happy to submit specific written responses.
Mr. Kagen. I'd appreciate that very much.
Ms. Dixon. Absolutely.
Mr. Kagen. Henry, any other comments? You mentioned three things
that were important. And I really used to enjoy meeting people because
they put their hand out in the vertical position. But now when they
come up to me and I'm a Member of Congress, they go for the horizontal
position. You mentioned funding, full funding. How difficult would it
be, do you think, for Congress to fully fund the forest plans, to make
sure that we have the funds necessary to carry out the job of keeping a
healthy forest.
Mr. Schienebeck. I wouldn't think it would be that difficult
because anytime you start to manage the forest, you are bringing money
back into the system. It's not like we're asking for something for
nothing all the time and saying, hey, just give us a pot of money and
we'll go until it's gone and then we'll come back for more. We're
looking at value added. With biomass and everything, we're looking at
creating more income and generating revenue from that with the add-on
product and making the country--and, actually, by the time, I would
imagine, if you'd figure out how many barrels of oil we don't have to
buy and how many things that are attached to that barrel of oil, the
savings could be huge.
I mean, we look at the forest and, obviously there has been
mistakes made in the early 1930s and stuff with the cutout and
everything. Our point of view is basically, I think, we have changed
all that. I don't think we are over-harvesting because all you have to
do is drive around on the roads. Go to northern Wisconsin. We have more
trees throughout the whole country than we have ever had before. I
mean, scientifically or not, the evidence is there. The trees are
standing. We are cutting. We have been able to support the industries
we have so far. Could we do better? Absolutely. We could create more
jobs, and we can still----
Mr. Kagen. And could you respond to the written testimony of Ms.
Dixon and her group about irresponsible logging projects? What do you
think that means, and do you have any response to that comment and that
opinion.
Mr. Schienebeck. I'm not exactly sure. I didn't read that
testimony. But irresponsible logging, I think, is a thing of the past.
We have gone through more training in the last 15 years as loggers.
It's required every year that you continue your education and training,
and that's forest management, that's safety, that's value of timber
that you are cutting, how to get the most value out of that product.
It's best management practices for water it's basic species training.
All those things we are continually putting classes on, from that to
the economics part of it. How do you sustain your industry, how do you
sustain your business, by accounting practices and those types of
things as well. But it's not all about the money, it's about ensuring
that that forest is there. I mean, I'm third generational, a lot of the
members are fourth, and my two sons chose to go somewhere else because
they didn't see the future.
Mr. Kagen. Ms. Dixon, what do you think are the responsible logging
projects? How do you define that.
Ms. Dixon. Let me just respond for a quick second to Mr.
Schienebeck's comments. It's not the loggers themselves, as I mentioned
earlier, it's not the loggers themselves we have issues with. We don't
believe that the loggers in Wisconsin are doing things irresponsibly.
We appreciate the amount of training that they go through and the
amount of expertise that they have in their field. The issue for us is
the amount of logging that is proposed by the Forest Service.
Mr. Kagen. Except there are more trees now than we've had before,
so if we are cutting too many down----
Ms. Dixon. I think that's generally true. My written testimony,
however, explains, or at least gives examples, of two specific timber
sales that we were able to come to an agreement with the Forest Service
over, and there were very specific areas of those timber sales where
our scientists, clients, and colleagues determined that if logging
occurred in those areas, it would have environmental impacts to
species, habitat, and to clean water. Of the 6,000-acre timber sales,
specifically I'm thinking of the Boulder timber sale, which is located
on the Nicolet side of the forest, of the 6,000-acre project, we agreed
that the Forest Service would defer maybe 1,500 acres of those. So it's
a small percentage.
We look at the specific timber projects project by project and
stand by stand, and if there are--there are usually generally
significant amounts of the project area where it's appropriate to log
and necessary, and that's fine for us and our clients, but there are
often some stands where we believe that logging should not happen. And
we have had numerous discussions with Forest Service leadership at that
specific level. So that's all that we are talking about here is really
portions of larger projects.
Mr. Kagen. Finally, Mr. Johnson, if you have any other additional
comments at this time, I'd appreciate hearing them now. I thank you and
your family for employing more people than less people and doing it in
a sustainable way, making certain that the economy around you will
continue to grow, and I really appreciate what you've been doing. Any
other final comments.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I guess the one thing that I would caution
Congress and the state and others on is as we move forward and look at
renewable electricity standards, portfolio standards, and everything
else is to really have a strong understanding of the feedstocks that we
are looking at. If we are looking at woody biomass as a feedstock to go
into a renewable fuel standard, electricity standard, whatever the case
may be, I just urge the Congress to remember that woody biomass is a
finite resource and there is truly a best use of wood out there. And
while we have a great traditional industry going and potential great
industry coming up with biofuel plants and others, do we really want to
start putting a finite resource into old technology, such as old
electric-generating facilities, 25, 30, maybe 35 percent efficient
facilities, when we can find new technologies, new industries that are
coming on board, such as a biofuels plant or others, that are coming on
board making transportation fuel, waxes, electricity, natural gas
replacements, as long as they have a steam house, and be able to
utilize 70 to 80 percent of the thermal efficiency within that woody
biomass instead of the 25, maybe 35 percent.
As I said, it is a finite resource, and I just urge this body to
find the best use of wood available and not just throw it because a
number sounds good or a goal sounds good.
Mr. Kagen. Mr. Zimmer.
Mr. Zimmer. What I would just like to say is having lived in the
north woods for all my life, basically, I see a proud people, hard-
working people, that spend days and days--I know loggers, and I'm not
really a logger. I cut some wood for firewood and things like that. I
see guys that get up at 3 o'clock in the morning to get out, work most
of the day, come back tired, just to make ends meet, at the night. They
don't want to go on unemployment, and they won't if they can help it.
We have the natural resources up there. The national forest, \1/3\ of
it, as you heard from Mr. Schienebeck's comments, \1/3\ is hands-off
already. Only \1/2\ of the remaining forested land out there is even or
only \1/2\ of the goals are being met on the remaining portion. Let's
put that forest to work for these people so they can and I can raise a
family and raise it the American way. Thank you.
Mr. Kagen. Amen.
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much. I appreciate each and every one of
the testimonies. I know that we've got a lot of work ahead of us as we
look at the challenges and the solutions. And I appreciate the fact,
just even the last few statements that were just made about the
outdated equipment and looking at new technology and looking at how we
preserve our environment at the same time, how do we create jobs and
maintain jobs in the area and allow people to put food on the table and
enjoy their quality of life. These are real people that are being
affected. These are people that have lost their jobs, don't have a job,
can't feed their families right now, but are relying upon the forest
for jobs, whether they are loggers or have any other kind of job, or
whether they work with Mr. Johnson's timber factory.
One final statement that I have before I turn it over to Dr. Kagen
to give his closing remarks, how can state, Federal, and the private
entities best work together? Because I think that's what Dr. Kagen
said, how do we all come together and how do we work together in
looking to solutions to the problems we have. What is impact not only
in the 21st Century, but how it will impact our future in terms of the
community? Any final comments you have on that?
Mr. Johnson. Me directly?
Mr. Baca. Anyone. Federal, state working together. We all need to
work together, and private entities as well.
Mr. Johnson. I think a relationship--as you know, as we look at
litigation and some other things, we heard in the room before this
hearing from the gentleman, I can't remember which county he's from,
county forester, Marinette County, or I can't remember which it was,
but talking about some of the counties here in Wisconsin passing
resolutions to say, let us maybe help manage our Federal forests. And
I'll tell you, the state and county foresters and the work that they do
is absolutely tremendous. And possibly to help some of this litigation
that we see coming forward, maybe a partnership between Forest Service
employees, county foresters, state foresters, come together as a group
before litigation is pressed and go over it, almost to have the county
and state portion come in as a third party to look at it until there's
forest certification on the national forest. Maybe that would be a way
around some of this costly litigation that costs taxpayers money, costs
businesses money because our timber is tied up and they can't harvest
it to produce the product they need. Cooperation to find solutions to
problems that really don't need to be there I think would be the
greatest thing, and a great working relationship to find ways around
this.
Mr. Baca. Ms. Dixon, from your area.
Ms. Dixon. Absolutely, I agree that there should be greater
coordination among Federal, state, and county forest managers. I think
you may have noticed from my written testimony, Wisconsin landscape is
fragmented not only by roads and other features but in ownership, and
greater coordination among those various forest owners would really
help the process of managing Wisconsin's forestlands overall more
sustainably.
There are many forest managers in Wisconsin, the Board of
Commissioners of Public Lands being one, Menominee Indian Tribe being
another, that manage their forests in a historically sustainable way,
and I believe all parties would benefit from having all those forest
managers talking together more.
Mr. Schienebeck. I guess I would say let's start looking at the big
picture. We are in a world economy, not the United States economy, and
I think that, obviously, we are doing a good job of managing our
forests now. Can we get better? Absolutely. But if we weren't doing a
good job, we wouldn't have to sit here and talk about it because nobody
cared, there wouldn't be anything there to talk about. So that's just
kind of a simple, straightforward thing that, yes, we are doing a good
job, we can do better. But when we look at the world picture, what we
have here and what we can promote, that we are sustainably harvesting
versus Brazil or somewhere where they are illegally clear-cutting their
rainforests, or doing things like that, I think we can promote that,
because we do have the technology, we do have the skill, we have the
workforce, and we need to have the product out there to be a world
player.
Mr. Baca. Thank you.
Mr. Zimmer. Just kind of a touch-up for Mr. Schienebeck's comments
there. We have, across the board, you've heard some of the evidence
today, state, county, Federal, consultants, foresters, things like
that, we have some of the best experts in the world right here to
manage our forests. Let's let those experts do the right job and get it
done.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Before we adjourn, I'd like to ask Mr. Kagen
for closing remarks.
Mr. Kagen. Well, I'll be the contrarian, as I won't be quite my
normal self. I'll be brief, how's that. I want to thank Chairman Baca
for allowing Congress to come here to northeast Wisconsin. I think it's
very important that the voice of northeast Wisconsin, particularly in
our timber and lumber industry, our forest industry, get back to
Washington. I feel like quoting one of my favorite poets, Walt Whitman.
In one of his poems there was this line that said, ``I'm the grass, let
me work.'' We've really got to get back to working and taking common-
sense solutions and getting everybody back at work. It's really about
the success of our economy. We can protect our environment, we can
secure our nation and harvest our national forests all at the same
time. It will be great for the health of our forests, great for the
health of our county and the health of our people. I look forward to
working with other Members of the Agriculture Committee.
And I'll say one other comment. In my early 2\1/2\ years of
experience being a Representative of the people, I'm very proud of some
of the institutions who have more than three letters in Washington,
like the USDA. I really believe that they are the closest people that
can best manage and help to manage our farmland, including our forests.
I look forward to working with them and making certain that we get full
funding of programs that need full funding and make certain that we
eliminate waste wherever possible. But in this economic time we can't
afford to allow any waste to occur in our healthcare system, in our
economy, and certainly not in our forestlands. And thank you again,
Chairman Baca, for allowing this hearing to take place. Thank you all
for participating. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Kagen. As you indicated, working
together becomes very important to a lot of us as we look at the
challenges and solutions, both the private and the public sector, and
working with our educational institutions; whether it's community
college or a state college or university, and looking at the kind of
research that we need to do to see where we are today and where we need
to be tomorrow.
With that I'd like to thank each of the panelists today for your
expertise and your knowledge and sharing information as we look at the
many challenges we face in our economy, and the environment. With that
I want to thank you. I want to thank Dr. Kagen, again, a special thanks
for hosting this hearing and making history right here in Appleton by
bringing Congress here.
And with that, I'd like to just state that before we adjourn, under
the rules of the Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain
open for 10 calendar days to receive additional materials and
supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any questions
posed by any Members of this hearing. The Subcommittee on Department
Operations and Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry is now adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement of David P. Bartz, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
I am writing to ask for your support in improving the management of
the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. The CNNF has greatly reduced
the amount of timber available for sale in the past 10 years. Currently
the CNNF is harvesting less than half of the timber volume in their
allowable harvest plan. This translates to a huge loss of revenue to
local communities from direct Forest Service payments, and a
significant reduction in the wood needed to sustain our forest
industry.
Wisconsin communities within the national forest boundary are being
shorted over $5 million annually in direct payments from the Forest
Service that would be paid if the national forests were managed
sustainably. This is placing an unfair tax burden on property and
business owners who cannot continue to make up this deficit.
Last year the CNNF failed to harvest 88 million board feet of
timber available for harvest in their management plan. That shortfall
is exporting the demand for timber to private lands that are unable to
supply the volume needed to sustain Wisconsin's forest industry. Over
7500 jobs have been lost in the paper industry since 2000. Nineteen
large sawmills have closed in the last 5 years, and 23% of our logging
contractors have gone out of business in the last 10 years.
I understand the public pressure and the politics involved with
managing our national forests. Certainly the long term health of our
forests is the ultimate desire of most people concerned. A great deal
of public and professional involvement went into writing the harvest
plan for the CNNF. I strongly feel that getting the Forest Service to
follow that plan is the best way to maintain a healthy forest and all
of the benefits it provides.
I thank you for the interest you have taken in our national forests
and our industry. Your help in improving the harvest level on the CNNF
would be greatly appreciated. If there is anything I can do to help in
that regard please let me know.
Sincerely,
Steve Guthrie, Woodlands Manager
Nicolet Hardwoods Corporation
[REDACTED]
______
Submitted Statement By Steward P. Harrison and Michael J. Schwantes,
Partners, Timberland Power Company, a division of Creative Energy and
Data Solutions, LLC, Green Bay, Wisconsin
United States Forest Service
Great Divide Ranger District
P.O. Box 896, 10650 Nyman Avenue
Hayward, WI 54843
14 December 2008
ATTN: Twin Ghost Project
Dear Sir or Madame:
I find it ironic that this fall, shortly after the completion of a
survey of the Federal land which abuts my private property; that a cut
is scheduled for the second growth old growth northern hardwood forest
on the land immediately surrounding my land. Until the latest survey
some of this property was under my purview since no one knew where the
actual boundary lines were for many years. But shortly after this
survey, which took some of the forest away from me, most of the north
boundary line abutting my private land on the Federal side is scheduled
for a select cut in areas identified as 384/014, 384/034 and 384/015.
These areas have scattered, mature, and healthy Red Oak, Sugar Maple,
and a basic mix of a northern hardwood forest. The same applies to the
southeast inside corner, 395/005, butting up to my private property and
a portion of which fell under my purview-again because neither the U.S.
Forest Service nor I knew where the property line lay.
These designated areas have large healthy Red Oaks, Large Sugar
Maple, and a mix of northern hardwood species throughout them. The
trees are not dense.
The areas mentioned above are a second growth forest well over 100
years old. I remember during the early 1990s there was a similar select
cut on the south side of Christy Lake; mainly the Red Oaks were cut. I
called to inquire regarding it and I was told this select cut was to
regenerate the Red Oaks. Well, I see little if any regeneration of the
Red Oaks in that cut. I question cutting healthy acorn bearing Red Oaks
to ``regenerate'' Red Oaks because I have seen it fail. I assert that
it is just a ploy the USFS uses to promote the interests of industry.
Some years after the 1990s select cut I tried to get Barry Paulson a
Great Divide Ranger to come with me and visit the site on the south
side of Christy Lake to see how it was a failure-he never did come to
see.
There are many species which require mature trees to survive
without stress. The areas I have identified are doing just fine by
allowing Nature to take its course. Nature certainly does not need the
USFS to interfere. Allowing trees to live life with the natural
elements-in my eyes is the very correct way--especially in the areas I
have mentioned around my property. Again they are second growth old
growth forests, well over one-hundred years old. Why are they not
documented as second old growth forest and be done with it? All the
USFS does is identify them as areas to be select cut! Are you afraid
someone like me who realizes the value of Nature in and of itself will
question the validity for such cuts? You made no attempt to state the
actual age of the trees or the density of the areas or the age of any
of the Twin Ghost Project and very possibly in the Cayuga or Twenty
Mile projects. It does make a difference to the public, which you seek
comment from. It is like leaving out a piece of the puzzle.
This whole Twin Ghost Project has come about much too quickly and I
take that view. The comment period is also during the holiday season
and it may not be getting the full attention it needs from the public.
There needs to be a much longer public comment period, even until after
the holidays, when a new president of the United States of America may
greatly change the present practices of the USFS.
The timing of this cut is also suspect because District Ranger
Connie Cheney and some of her staff have been harassing me in other
ways ever since the ATV signing fiasco for which they were responsible.
They handled the ATV road signing issue so poorly when they were
supposed to work cooperatively with the Spider Lake Town Board, the
town Comprehensive Land Use Committee and the citizens of the Town of
Spider Lake. The entities were to agree first, BEFORE any ATV use signs
were installed. However the USFS did not honor this commitment. They
have made myriad other mistakes such as leaving FR 671 as an ATV use
road, even when they knew of my official written complaints regarding
its being left open to ATV traffic. I have called them on each of their
missteps and now, just to show me, they have planned a project to
select cut trees in second growth old growth forest right up to my
property line.
Leaving the pencil straight perfect trees for the next cut may not
be the answer to forest health that the USFS thinks it is. Nature's
natural selection works just fine.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Truly,
Richard R. Hogue
005N FR 208
Clam Lake, WI 54517
[REDACTED]
______
Submitted Statement By Steve Kariainen, Resource Manger, Louisiana
pacific Corporation, Hayward, Wisconsin
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:
Thank you for having the recent hearing in Appleton to address
forest management issues in northern Wisconsin. Although I could not
attend, I wish to submit the following:
For the last 30 years I have worked in forestry and wood
procurement for Louisiana Pacific Corporation in Hayward, Wisconsin.
Over that time I have witnessed a significant improvement in both the
practice of forestry and the public's perception of forestry. As you
know, logging is a very important and highly visible aspect of forest
management.
During my career I have had the pleasure of working with hundreds
of different logging contractors and wood suppliers. I have developed a
deep respect and admiration for loggers, as they epitomize the
independent, entrepreneurial spirit that has been such an important
part of our American heritage. Logging has evolved over the years to
become much less dependent on brawn and much more dependent on brains.
Modern logging machinery is very productive, yet is light on the
landscape. Today's loggers require extensive training in both equipment
operation and in environmental protection.
In spite of all of the advancements in the logging profession, I am
very concerned that the logging profession in Wisconsin is at risk.
Because loggers are generally family businesses in rural communities,
the risk extends to those families and communities.
There is no physical shortage of timber in Wisconsin. According to
USFS FIA data we have almost twice as much timber volume in Wisconsin
today as we had fifty years ago. But each year in Wisconsin we lose
almost as much timber to natural causes as is harvested. In other
words, there is a tremendous opportunity to make more timber available,
thereby making all of the businesses and communities that depend on the
timber more stable and secure.
Timber harvested from Wisconsin forests has traditionally been used
primarily for pulpwood and for logs. We are already seeing increased
demand for wood fuel in some areas, and there is good reason to believe
the demand for wood fuels will grow in proportion with increased
investments in woody biomass technology.
Failure to address the growing wood fuel demand with additional
wood fiber supply will place both traditional and emerging wood users
in jeopardy. It will also put undue strain on the loggers and truckers
who deliver wood from the forest to the mills for processing.
I ask that you support efforts to require all national forests to
develop harvest plans consistent with their long-term biological
capability (allowable sale quantity or ASQ) and to provide the funding
support to ensure the plans are implemented. For example, our
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is one of the most productive of
all national forests, yet has only harvested 53% of ASQ from 2005
through 2008. Managing the national forests to their full potential
will help to ensure a healthy future for Wisconsin's forests and for
the family businesses and rural communities that are such an important
part of the fabric of life in Wisconsin.
Thank you.
Steve Kariainen
Resource Manager
Louisiana Pacific Corporation
[REDACTED]
______
Submitted Statement By Mark K. Leach, Ph.D., Bro Professor of Regional
Sustainable Development and Associate Professor of Biology, Northland
College, Ashland, Wisconsin