<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:40351.wais]
FOREST HEALTH CRITERIA
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF A FOREST IS HEALTHY OR UNHEALTHY, AND HOW TO
IMPROVE OR MAINTAIN FOREST HEALTH
__________
MARCH 18, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-351 cc WASHINGTON : 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ---------- ----------
RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
Bill Simmons, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 18, 1997...................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho...... 1
Peterson, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. 47
Radanovich, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from
California................................................. 48
Statements of witnesses:
Dombeck, Michael, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 3
Prepared statement....................................... 52
Holmer, Steve, Campaign Director, Western Ancient Forest
Campaign, Washington, DC................................... 35
Prepared statement....................................... 55
Kane, Kenneth, Keith Horn, Inc., consulting foresters, Kane,
PA......................................................... 33
Prepared statement....................................... 58
Lynch, Dr. Dennis L., Professor of Forest Sciences, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO......................... 18
Prepared statement....................................... 108
Moore, Martin, Director, Community Development and Planning,
Apache County, AZ.......................................... 20
Prepared statement....................................... 96
Muckenfuss, Ed, Regional Manager, Westvaco Company,
Summerville, SC............................................ 38
Prepared statement....................................... 63
Schoenholtz, Dr. Stephen H., Associate Professor of Forest
Resources, Mississippi State University.................... 24
Prepared statement....................................... 50
Wall, Bill, Wildlife Biologist, Potlatch Corporation,
Lewiston, ID............................................... 40
Wiant, Harry, President, Society of American Foresters,
Morgantown, WV............................................. 23
Prepared statement....................................... 48
Additional material supplied:
Little, Jane Braxton: Article on ``How to manage healthy
forests''.................................................. 121
Society of American Foresters: A Framework for Considering
Forest Health and Productivity Issues...................... 69
Communications received:
Pfister, Professor Robert D. (Univ. of Montana): Letter of
March 14, 1997, to Hon. Helen Chenoweth.................... 116
MANAGEMENT OF OUR NATION'S FORESTS AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING HEALTHY
FORESTS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.,
Hon. Helen Chenoweth (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to
hear testimony on what criteria should be used to determine if
a forest is healthy or unhealthy, and what management tools
would be considered the most appropriate to maintain or improve
forest health.
Under Rule 4(g) of the committee rules, any oral opening
Statee ments at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the
ranking minority member. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help members to keep their schedules.
Therefore, if other members have statements, they can be
included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
IDAHO; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FORESTS HEALTH
Mrs. Chenoweth. I am pleased to be conducting this hearing.
The Subcommittee has invited a broad range of witnesses to
testify on the criteria to determine if a forest is healthy or
unhealthy, and how to improve or maintain forest health.
It is my desire to use this forum as an education tool for
the Subcommittee to listen to a broad range of interests as
well as to substantiate and to form a hearing record.
We are fortunate to have with us today the caliber of
witnesses representing the Forest Service, academia, local
government, industry, and the environmental community. The
subject of forest health has become a matter of great concern
to us all. Forest health has been defined in many different
ways to express important values obtained from forests.
Many attitudes and policies during the past century have
contributed to the forests' present condition. The forests that
seem to be at most serious risk today are those developed under
a historic cycle of high-frequency, low-intensity wildfire.
Nearly 100 years of fire exclusion following thousands of years
of management of the same forests by the use of fire by Native
Americans has led to many crowded and unhealthy forests. Rather
than the high-frequency, low-intensity wildfires of those days,
today's wildfires are larger, hotter, more lethal to
vegetation, more damaging to topsoils, and exceptionally
dangerous to human settlements and property.
Although the majority of forest health problems and the
resulting large, damaging fires are found on the public lands
of the west, introduced non-native forest pests such as the
gypsy moth and Dutch elm disease in the east have also created
serious threats to forest health across the United States,
including all of these criteria.
It is my desire to obtain information from this hearing
that will be helpful to the Subcommittee as we move forward
with improving the health of our nation's forests. I would also
like to point out that it was my desire to have as broad a
range as possible of interests and expertise represented at
today's hearing. Although as I pointed out, we have a highly
qualified list of witnesses, I would like to note that I
extended invitations to more members of the environmental
community to testify, but because of reasons known to them
only, only one representative could attend today, and we
certainly welcome him.
I look forward to the testimony and will recognize the
ranking minority member when he does get back from New York.
Representative Hinchey is on his way in from New York, and will
be joining us when he arrives.
At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Kildee for any
opening statement he may have.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madame Chairman, for recognizing me.
I really have no opening statement, just look forward to
learning what we can learn about the genuine health of our
forests, part of our national patrimony, and thank you for
having the hearing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. I would like to
introduce the new Chief of the Forest Service, Michael Dombeck,
and his assistant, Director Ann Bartuska. As explained in our
first hearing, it is the intention of the Chairman to place all
outside witnesses under oath.
This is a formality of the committee that is meant to
assure open and honest discussion and should not affect the
testimony given by witnesses. I believe all of the witnesses
were informed of this before appearing here today, and they
have each been provided a copy of the committee rules.
Mr. Dombeck, if you will stand and raise your right hand, I
will administer the oath.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of
perjury that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Dombeck. I will.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Let me remind the witnesses that
under our committee rules they must limit their oral statements
to five minutes, but that their entire statement will appear in
the record. We will also allow the entire panel to testify
before questioning the witnesses.
The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Dombeck, and, without
regard to what the rules say, we are anxious to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DOMBECK, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY ANN BARTUSKA,
DIRECTOR, FOREST HEALTH PROTECTION
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you for that introduction, and I have to
say I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee for the
first time as Chief of the Forest Service. I want you to know
that Dr. Ann Bartuska here with me is here as an expert. She is
our director of the forest health protection staff and knows
all of the details.
I would like to begin my testimony by giving three brief
examples just to demonstrate that we do have tools and we know
many of the things we have to do. I would like to start out
with an example from the south.
The southern pine, the longleaf pine, was considered
probably the most valuable in terms of wood quality products,
aesthetically pleasing, fire-resistant species, resistant to
insect diseases and attacks.
In pre-settlement times, we had something in the
neighborhood of 60,000,000 acres of longleaf pine stands. By
the early 1900's, that was reduced to about 3,000,000 acres due
to fire exclusion and conversion of forest lands to agriculture
uses. Because of the management technologies today, the Forest
Service is making progress in restoring the longleaf pine
ecosystems and it is a priority in that part of the country. We
are establishing new stands that provide a wide array of social
and economic benefits as well as just the beauty of the forest.
The second example I would like to give has to do with
white pine blister rust. From 1909 and 1910, white pine blister
rust came to this country and contaminated nursery stocks. It
first affected Idaho and was discovered around Coeur D'Alene in
about 1923. Then it spread throughout the west, Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, and as you know, the white pine was
often known as the tree that built America from the standpoint
of its value.
In the 1950's, we began a successful effort, a breeding
program to develop blister rust-resistant stocks because many
of the original stands have been decimated as a result of this
disease. Today, we are restoring white pine stands and white
pine ecosystems in many ares of the west, so this is another
example of genetics and the importance of disease and those
kinds of studies that are going on.
The third example I would like to mention is an issue that
you are so familiar with in your home State. Last week, I spent
some time in the west looking firsthand at some of the forest
health issues, and you have already described in your opening
statement some of the problems associated with overstocked
stands.
In the Boise National Forest in your State, they are moving
ahead with a wide variety of tools to get on top of the issue,
and I would like to say that it is important that we use all of
the tools at our disposal to deal with the forest health issues
from salvage logging to thinning to fuel reduction to
prescribed burning.
I looked at examples of mowing when I was out in Deschutes
National Forest, and one striking thing that I saw there that
also applies to the entire west is the Skeleton Fire, on the
outskirts of Bend where 19 homes burned in the wildland/fire
interface.
We spent some $1,600 an acre suppressing that fire, whereas
many of the management practices we could have used to avoid
that type of situation as we move forward are much less costly
than that.
For example, we can do prescribed burning in some cases for
$20 to $50 an acre, so I just list those as examples to say
that we do have the tools and we need to use all the tools and
we need to work with communities in a positive way.
I guess the message I would like to leave the Subcommittee
with is that we can accelerate the healing of our forests, and
we can do so in a balanced and measured way. Because the
consequences of inaction far outweigh the fiscal costs of the
needs for restoration, catastrophic events, fires, floods,
landslides seem to be occurring at increasing frequencies with
ever more devastating consequences.
Noxious weeds are diminishing the productivity of hundreds
of thousands of acres of public land. The devastating fires are
increasingly encroaching on the urban/forest interface. Last
year alone, over 6,000,000 acres of public land burned.
Healthy forests provide the resiliency to minimize the
severe consequences of these events, and without decisive
actions, these problems will only get worse. I want to say that
restoration will not be quick, and in fact will be expensive,
but we must look to these sorts of activities as investments in
the land, investments that will immediately reduce the cost of
catastrophic fire and, in the long run, greatly enhance forest
productivity, health, and diversity.
It took many decades to get where we are today, and it will
take years to get to where we need to go. With that, I would be
happy to answer any questions you have.
[Statement of Michael Dombeck may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Chief Dombeck. I appreciate
hearing from you. Dr. Bartuska, do you have any comments to
make or are you here to assist in any questions that might need
your expertise?
Ms. Bartuska. I am primarily here to assist in any
questions. I will make one comment as to the criteria with
regard to understanding what the health of the forests are.
We have programs in place to try to describe that so we
know what the current condition is and where we are going in
the future, and I think that is particularly critical in order
to identify the areas of highest priority and highest risk, and
part of our understanding on the national forests helps us do
that, but also, we are trying to put that into national context
using the Santiago Agreement which is a way internationally to
define what the health of forests are and sustainability of
communities.
So part of our criteria for understanding where these
forests are going is to identify current conditions and trends.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Can you tell me what the Santiago Agreement
may list as far as criteria for healthy forests?
Ms. Bartuska. It involves a whole combination of biological
criteria such as productivity of the forest lands, extent of
forest lands, whether or not you have high fire risk.
It also speaks to the stability and sustainability of
communities, so there are economic factors. The ability to
sustain small communities and large communities, the
contributions to the GNP would be included, so it is a whole
array of criteria dealing with health of ecosystems but also
health of communities.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Bartuska, when we think of actual
forest health, which I think we have tried to confine our
thinking in this committee to include community stability as it
so very important to us, but in terms of restoring forest
health to the forests, can you give me a little more detail
with regard to the Santiago Agreement, if that is the criteria
that you will be looking at?
Ms. Bartuska. I don't have all the details of those
criteria. We can send that to you.
I will say that of seven main biological criteria, there is
one specifically dealing with forest health, and the measures
of that include extent and condition of the forest lands,
mortality balanced against growth, conditions of soil
productivity, so it would be fairly traditional within our own
monitoring programs, traditional measures, but there are also
some dealing with other criteria, other characteristics of the
system, and I don't have all those details with me.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In terms of having our own chief be able to
make the decisions about the forests, what would the Santiago
Agreement do with regard to his ability to make decisions on
our forests in America? Chief Dombeck.
Mr. Dombeck. I look at Ann as the expert on the Santiago
Agreement, but I look at it as more of the umbrella concepts,
sort of the macro approach that then we would build those or
other concepts that we would apply to different geographic
areas based upon differences in species composition,
differences in precipitation, differences in elevation, and all
those other types of things then become nested in those
overall, overarching concepts that apply broad-scale.
I see it as an umbrella that is as much a communication and
education tool. We are, I believe, in the United States with
the academic institutions, such as places like the University
of Idaho--who I understand did the bulk of the research along
with the Forest Service on the white pine blister rust issue
that I used as an example, along with the Forest Service and
industry and many others--we in this country are the experts on
this issue, and many, many other countries look to us for
technical expertise, for advice on these kinds of issues, and I
have got to say one more thing about your home State where the
national interagency fire is another example of, these are the
experts from the standpoint of wildland fire fighting and
incident command. We have this level of expertise in this
country that is sought after by the international community,
and it is something that we should be proud of.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think you can probably gather from the
line of questioning that you are receiving that we want you to
have authority and be unencumbered to make decisions about
forest health in the future. I would be very interested in
receiving more information with regard to the relationship
there.
We have a situation in northern Idaho right now that I
might use as an example to see if it is something that could be
moved ahead, and that is that on November 29, we had a very
interesting phenomenon that occurred with regard to the
weather. We had a very, very cold air inversion that settled in
the northern part of Idaho and northeastern Washington, and
then we had warm rain above, and the rain came through and
rained ice for eight hours. We had ice buildup in the trees.
By the time the ice buildup reached up to two and a half
tons in the crowns of these trees, sometimes trees 175 to 200
years old, so they were native species, the trees would break
right below the last green limb, and it also occurred in the
trees averaging 30 to 50 years old. They all broke about 30
feet off the ground, and that presents an emergency situation
with regard to forest health, because we don't just have the
normal fuel load on the forest floor. We have 25 to 30 percent
of the forest on the floor now from that ice damage spanning
Mr. Nethercutt's district as well as mine and some moving into
Montana.
Are we in a situation where a decision can be made at your
level or the level of Missoula, Montana, and Portland, Oregon,
where we can get in and clean that up so we won't have a lot of
fire damage and insect and disease moving in which would happen
in this circumstance?
Mr. Dombeck. Let me say that actually, I saw some of that,
not the damage in the area that you speak of, but damage
similar to that when I was in eastern Oregon, and it is not
unlike the hurricanes that hit the southeast that will take a
swath through the forest.
My hope is that our policies are such that our experts are
on the land, that we have the ability and the flexibility, the
processes to make these kind of decisions by the resource
managers on the land working with the local people in that
situation.
Now, I assume that that would be in Regional Forester
Salwasser's area and I will check with him, but I assume that
he and the forest supervisors and rangers are taking a look at
that situation as we speak.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, and welcome to your
new job. I have appreciated working with you and your staff
very much.
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would like to call on the gentleman from
Colorado now. Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I have a couple
questions and I would like to start out just on the whole topic
of controlled burns, a big issue out in my State of Colorado,
as you may well imagine.
We have great concern over air quality, and there are many
communities in the range of the State that are in any given
year just one or two days away from being considered
nonattainment areas, and when Secretary Babbitt had mentioned,
for example, the increased effort on forest burns and a
considerable portion of our State includes federally managed
lands, and that affects that range.
I would just like to find out first, your thoughts about
that particular management practice in the first place, but
secondly, what I need to hear is just some assurances that the
air quality standards in our State are being considered, that
there is a plan to accommodate those standards and help us
maintain our attainment of those standards, and that there is a
commitment to work with our State hand in hand just as these
projects may be carried out.
Mr. Dombeck. Let me say that air quality has been a
significant issue associated with prescribed fire, that has
been broadly discussed, and the one reality is that in using a
prescribed fire, we do have control over fires, oftentimes.
They are planned with the particular wind direction in mind and
to work within windows of opportunity based on whatever the
local conditions are, whereas, if we deal with the disaster of
the uncontrolled fire that we just have Mother Nature take its
course, that leads us then into a situation where we have no
control, no ability to manage the situation.
What we have been doing is working with the Environmental
Protection Agency. Our local folks are working with the State
agencies to work with the windows of opportunity, to identify
the windows of opportunity that they have so we make sure all
of the situations, the air quality, the safety precautions, all
of those kinds of things are taken into consideration. It is
very important that we do that.
Mr. Schaffer. Colorado is in the process right now of
passing State legislation that would give the State authority
that was granted to States under the Clean Air Act to require
Federal facilities to reduce emissions coming from Federal
lands.
Are you familiar with that legislation or that effort among
affected States and do you see any reason that there would be
any kind of controversy or conflict at all?
Mr. Dombeck. I am not familiar with Colorado's specific
legislation and much of the clean air issues, of course, fall
under the jurisdiction of the EPA, but what I will say is that
the direction that we are going in, and I believe fairly
aggressively, and the State of Colorado has been in the lead in
this issue, is the Federal agencies are working with the States
and the counties from the standpoint of planning, of having
fire management plans of knowing how they are going to respond
to situations in advance based upon dialog and plans and the
interaction of the Federal agencies, the BLM, the Forest
Service, as well as the appropriate State agencies, the
counties, and from the standpoint of not only fire planning,
but also from the standpoint of how they are going to respond
in the most efficient and effective manner.
Mr. Schaffer. I would also like to ask just with respect to
planning and plotting out these burns and how they occur, some
of those forests are so dry right now that it is very easy to
see how--in fact, I have heard some people in the Forest
Service refer to burns that exceed the plan. They are called
bonus burns in the industry vernacular of sorts.
I am curious as to how many of your staff are trained in
fire suppression.
Mr. Dombeck. Let me first say that no, there isn't a burn
that is not dangerous and shouldn't be taken very, very
seriously whether it is a natural fire or a prescribed burn,
and as a result of 1988, and the tragedies of '94 that I was
personally involved in, we have enhanced training and safety to
an all-time high, I believe, I was with the Bureau of Land
Management at that time, but also within the Forest Service
from the standpoint of the programs that we had with the Forest
Service as they kicked off a program called Fire-21, which
takes a look at the issues across the board associated with
fire, the funding, the training, the safety, because we should
never, ever let anyone believe that fire is not--can be a very
dangerous situation, especially in extreme weather conditions
as we have learned the hard way many, many times, so the
standpoint of training, the standpoint of safety is I think at
an all-time high.
But our workforces are changing, and the numbers of
employees that are perhaps in line positions that 30 or 40
years ago maybe a greater proportion of them would have been
smoke jumpers, would have been trained specifically in fire,
where now, I believe a lesser proportion of some of our people
have that training.
Therefore, the action that we have to take is to make sure
that we provide it so that we don't have those gaps in skills
and training.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and we
will have another round of questioning, if you have any other
questions in mind.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madame Chairman. What programs that
would lead to forest health is the Administration seeking to
give greater emphasis to in the 1997 budget?
Mr. Dombeck. The following initiative would be--we are
looking at timber stand improvement increases, I believe about
an $11,000,000 increase in timber stand improvement. The acres
treated would increase by about 30,000.
We are looking at about $10,000,000 for insect disease
prevention and suppression, and increased emphasis in fuel
treatment, and increased emphasis in the watershed restoration.
These are in addition to other activities that we are involve
in, the training, the monitoring, the research and all these
areas.
I think the point that I want to make is that we realize
that in many cases we have to make investments in watersheds
and those investments include a wide variety of things. We have
got roads sometimes that need to be put to bed, sometimes that
need to be brought up to standard; noxious weed issues that we
have to deal with; a whole variety of forest management
practices that could include anything from salvage logging to
thinning to a prescribed burning.
When I was out in Deschutes National Forest last week, they
showed me some mowing projects they were involved in, and one
thing I would like to call your attention to is something that
I have put in your folders just to give you a visual of some of
the forest health situation. I think that it describes in
pictures some of the things I am trying to describe.
The first picture, and this is in Shasta County,
California; the first picture shows about 1,500 stems per acre.
It is a situation that is very dense, and in low humidity
situations, very flashy from the standpoint of the historical
situation would have been, these would have been probably
Ponderosa pine, and because of fire suppression over the last
100 years, you have had an encroachment of fir species, and a
significant fire risk.
The second picture shows work after some management has
taken place there, and let me just describe the management that
has occurred here, and that is about 2,000 to 3,000 board feet
per acre of saw logs were removed, along with about 35 to 40
tons per acre of nonmerchantable material, and what we have
done here now is reduce this to about 100 trees per acre
compared to 1,500 on the previous photo.
Now, here, we have a photo that is eight years later, and
what we are ready to do there is, we are ready to go in with a
prescribed burn, giving the right weather conditions, to
further reduce some of the fuel loading that is there because
of the suppression that has occurred there for about 80 years.
I guess my point is again, it is important that we use
every tool at our disposal when we deal with this issue that we
have. On the national forest system, we are estimating
somewhere in the neighborhood of 39,000,000 acres is at high
risk to catastrophic fire.
Mr. Kildee. At one time when I was growing up, fire was
always the enemy in the forest. Now, you can use fire as a
friend, as helpful?
Mr. Dombeck. With great respect. Fire is a natural part of
the ecosystem and depending on where you are, the typical
situation in the intermountain west is that it burned every
seven to 15 years in a low-intensity situation.
The large, catastrophic fires may have occurred in the
cycles in centuries rather than decades like the low-intensity
fires, and these are the way these ecosystems evolved. Through
extensive and overzealous, if you will, fire suppression, the
stands have changed in composition, leaving us with a
significant issue to deal with, a serious issue compounded by
the urban/wildland interface.
If you go around Lake Tahoe or the front range or the west
slope or the Sierras where you have got lots of houses, and in
many cases, very expensive houses, interspersed in these dense
forests. The education issue that is facing us is, in some
cases, you see cedar shake shingles on these houses. You see
people that are used to a visual that is very dense, much like
photo number one, when the historical situation would have been
more like photo number three.
So there is this education problem that goes along with the
visual landscape, and the fact that over the last several
decades, we have preached to put every fire out, and yet, we
have got to be very respectful of fire, because we can never
assume that it cannot be very, very dangerous.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madame
Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. The chair now
recognizes Mr. Vento.
Mr. Vento. Thanks, Madame Chairwoman, and I welcome our new
chief. I really am looking forward to working with you and I
appreciate your testimony today. This is a tough topic, but one
I think that merits education and I hope that we can come down
with policy that reflects the science rather than what actually
favors our own interest.
I appreciate your effort to come here and the Chairwoman's
effort to put forth the hearing on an educational basis.
What was the time lapse between these two photographs,
photo number two and three? Ten years?
Mr. Dombeck. Eight years.
Mr. Vento. Eight years.
Mr. Dombeck. I believe.
Mr. Vento. I was reminded--I was at a meeting on Saturday
evening, and I was reminded by one of the foresters from the
Superior National Forest in Minnesota. He said they had two
fires up there this past year. One was a prescribed burn, and
one was a natural fire that they tried to put out.
Anyway, on the prescribed burn, they spent some $30,000 to
$40,000, maybe even less than that. I don't remember. It might
have been $18,000, but on the fire that they tried to put out,
they spent $1,200,000.
This is one of the problems that we have, Chief, in terms
of when we get into firefighting, we are spending an awful lot
of money. For the short-term, I suppose because of the urban
interface and some other factors we have to deal with that.
I don't know what they did to the air quality, but I guess
they were obviously doing that in compliance with the laws that
deal with air quality.
Mr. Dombeck. From the standpoint of prescribed fire,
oftentimes we can deal with somewhere in the neighborhood of
$20 to $50 per acre in many situations; sometimes a little more
than that, but when we get a catastrophic situation to deal
with, it could go upwards to $4,000 an acres.
The fire that I reviewed earlier, last week in the
Deschutes National Forest that burned 19 homes in Bend at the
urban/wildland interface there, we spent about $1,600 an acre.
From the standpoint of management in advance, you can do a lot
for $1,600 an acre.
We need to start shifting our management practices so we
can begin to make investments to prevent problems before they
occur. It is sort of like watch our cholesterol before we have
a heart attack.
Mr. Vento. No one is suggesting that in life or limb. I
think in Superior, that was not the case. I think it was just a
regular fire that they were trying to put out. But I think that
the urban interface, no one is suggesting that when those
incidents arise that you don't try to deal with it in terms of
life and personal property and as I said, health.
Mr. Dombeck. Let me just add that part of the importance of
planning that we talked about associated with Colorado I think
applies here, because it is important that we know in advance
what we are going to do.
It is just like having the closest force as the most
efficient way to deal with a fire, it is also important that we
know what we need to do.
I was at a situation, and this one happened to be in
Arizona where we had a trailer park of about 1,000 residents in
a very remote area that has a serious fire almost every year,
and the average expenditure is about $3,000,000 to $5,000,000
dealing with suppression of that fire.
Now we have a management plan that actually creates a
mosaic of vegetation types to dampen the effects of the fire as
well as through a prescribed burn or natural fire depending on
where the lightning strikes are to actually create a zone
around the community so that we have protection from that.
So planning in advance and knowing how to deal with these
situations is the way to go versus having to react in the
emergency role.
Mr. Vento. It is a problem. I think that obviously it may
not look as aesthetically pleasing if you happen to want to be
in the middle of a dense forest, but that is part of the
management that we have to advocate, I guess at the same time,
and work with local communities to try to make certain they
understand.
Forest health is a very interesting issue. I have followed
it in detail, but mostly there is an emphasis on salvage
logging that tends to override everything else. There is a role
for salvage, is there not?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes, and I think it is important that we use
all the tools and logging is certainly a tool, but what do you
do when you are in an area where the timber values are not
there to carry the cost of management?
Mr. Vento. Very often, these types of salvage logging
efforts--because of the way receipts are divided--are actually
below-cost sales. They are money losers unless we get extremely
high costs. If you are going to do this right, you should be
using some of the new forestry type of plans in these areas,
shouldn't you?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes, and I hope--that is certainly the
direction I would like to have again, as I emphasized using all
the tools.
It is important that we educate people to the fact that
there is an appropriate place for salvage logging. There are
timber companies that say to me, we would like to retool and
use some of the lower value woods available, looking for new
technologies.
At our forest products laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, we
have probably 275 Ph.D.'s, some of the best minds in wood
technology developing techniques to use lower value or poorer
quality fiber for things in a wide variety of efficiencies.
Mr. Vento. We are using all our aspen in Minnesota, let me
tell you, for fiberboard and other products. I might also say,
of course, the road restoration issue, mixed species types of
reforestation, watershed management, road restoration, these
are enormously important if you look at the damage that is
occurring in terms of these forests.
I think getting this on a cost basis is what the ultimate
solution is. As I say, this is a good hearing. I am sorry I am
going to be running back and forth, because we have another
hearing on my Committee on Banking that Congressman Hansen is
interested in.
Thank you, Mr. Dombeck, Chief.
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Vento. For a second round of
questioning, I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Dombeck.
I wonder, in your opinion, how would you describe modern-
day timber harvest practices with regard to the overall health
of the forest?
Mr. Dombeck. I think there are, like in all areas, a wide
variety of practices developed in everything from helicopter
logging to techniques that are less soft on the land than that
sort of thing.
In fact, I was reading about not too long ago, some mom-
and-pop operations, like those used when I was a kid in
northern Wisconsin, where they were still skidding logs with
horses.
I am not the logging, the engineering expert, but I hope
that in logging technologies, just like all of the things we
have been talking about here where there is management that we
continually strive for the best and most efficient technologies
available to use. We are a society that the development of
technology is something important.
We encourage that and are solidly behind that, and there
are lots of good, progressive timber operators out there.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I assume from your answer that you really
don't feel--I don't want to put words in your mouth. Do you
feel that good, solid timber harvest practices could in any way
be in conflict with ecosystem management plans?
Mr. Dombeck. I think maybe they could in some situations,
but I would venture to say that it is probably a social issue
more than it is a technology issue. From the standpoint of the
debate that I know that you are very familiar with whether we
talk riparian zones, roadless areas, those kinds of things, and
I think it is one of the most important things that the Forest
Service can do. I would hope that the Subcommittee here and
that all the interests would move to the areas first where
there is the least controversy, and that as we begin to build
credibility and build trust on these issues and confidence,
because the things that we don't know when we end up in these
protracted debates and end up in the court system, that money
spent on litigation doesn't necessarily benefit the land or
restore the ecosystem or restore the health of the forest.
I see this in a sense as more of a social issue than it is
a technology issue, but by that I don't mean to diminish the
need to continue the search for new and better, more efficient
and effective technologies.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I am also very interested in knowing how
you feel about grazing practices on the national forest,
because you mentioned that over in the Deschutes Forest, they
were mowing some of the meadows, which I think is something
that can be dovetailed into the whole picture of fire
suppression.
I know Teddy Roosevelt envisioned using the livestock
industry to help keep the fuel load on the forest floor down in
terms of grazing practices.
Mr. Dombeck. Well, the specific situation that I looked at
on Deschutes was in the coniferous forest and not a situation
where it didn't appear that there were opportunities for
grazing in that forest.
But from the standpoint of reducing fuel loading and that
sort of thing, grazing is also a tool, and yet some of the
forest health issues associated with--again, like the long-term
fire suppression where we have encroachment of rangelands by
pinion and juniper, for example, there is already a shortage of
water and the competition for water by the plants is there, and
sometimes--these gradual changes over time based upon the way
we have managed the
ecosystems, we need to reverse through active management
practices.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I know it must have been just as
fascinating for you as it was for me when I first went into the
Deschutes National Forest to see how an emerging forest
establishes itself with the pinion pine being a pioneer
species, and then behind that, we see the graduated growth of
the forest following.
I see I still have just a minute left. I do want to ask
you, how many of your staff are actually qualified in fire
suppression activities, actually qualified as fire suppression
trained technicians?
Mr. Dombeck. I don't know the exact number. I don't know if
Ann does, but we would be happy to provide that information to
you. I am proud to say that I carried a red card at one time,
and one of my goals this spring was to get qualified again, but
with the pace of everything I have to do, I am not sure I am
going to have the time to spend out jogging or in the gym to
pass the tests.
Again, as I said in the beginning, I am proud of the fact
that we have among the best wildland firefighters in the world
employed in the Forest Service, and I am real proud of the work
that they do. They are very respected in the communities that
they work, and it is an interesting group of people doing work
that is very satisfying to them and at not very high pay.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Dombeck. The chair now
recognizes Mr. Vento, if he wants a second round of questions.
Mr. Vento. Thanks, Madam Chair. Just briefly. I note that
an interagency task force or group was put together to examine
the memorandum of understanding under which salvage logging
took place, and there are a number key findings.
Some of them, I think, in fairness are positive. The
involvement of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the salvage
logging plan added to rather than duplicated the efforts of the
Forest Service and BLM regarding compliance with the ESA.
That is a good one, but some of the others are not. They
have a negative effect on pre-existing efforts to improve
collaboration among agencies--a negative effect on pre-existing
efforts because it overrode them, I take it, which is common
sense. This was an emergency, and so the existing channels of
communication that existed were suppressed.
One of the concerns is that it destroyed the neutrality of
dealing with forest health. I think I am saying this right in
terms of this finding, Mr. Dombeck. I know that you
participated in this or at least some of your associates did.
It said current budget processes within BLM and Forest
Services act as an incentive for field units to resort to
salvage logging to generate money to pay for forest health
projects, even when other projects may be more appropriate.
I would assume that they are talking about forest health
here, and that is to say that maybe road restoration would be
more important than forest health, watershed restoration,
diversified planting of mixed species, prescribed burns.
Obviously, this law put in place specific quotas. I think it
did mandate cuts, but others will argue that it didn't.
Do you have any comment on these task force
recommendations? I notice the final draft of an action plan was
due in February. I don't know if it is out or not, but you
might want to comment on that as well.
Mr. Dombeck. Let me say, I think we did learn several
things from the exercise. Number one, I think it got a lot of
our policy people from the Washington staff and the various
agencies out on the ground to look at things firsthand, and I
think that was a positive.
I think from the standpoint of endangered species
consultations and things like that, the whole exercise
demonstrated that we could--by starting the processes up front,
and rather than having the consultation processes in series, it
was valuable to us knowing what the rules are and what data was
required as soon as we started collecting it.
We coordinated better than ever. There were a variety of
positives, but from the standpoint, I think, of some of your
latter comments, we have got to understand that sometimes, we
need to make investments and that we shouldn't always rely on
the value of the fiber that is there to carry the cost, because
you have roads, sedimentation problems that you might have to
deal with; noxious weeds issues you might have to deal with;
stream restoration; high densities of low value or virtually no
value wood, those kinds of things, and we need to look at it
from the watershed approach versus the values of the
merchantable timber that is there as the driver so that in the
long haul, that will generate benefits.
Mr. Vento. One of the problems, of course, is at the same
time when timber revenues are down, the various funds that
respond to conservation are also flat. So you are appealing to
Congress for additional appropriations, modest as they may be,
for prescribed burning, for watershed restoration, for road
restoration, a host of things, the noxious weed issues that
make up this forest health, is that correct?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes, and I think more and more we are
learning, and if it is in agriculture or forest management or
whatever, that there are all sorts of interactions, and the
thing that we would like to be able to do is use the broadest
variety of tools and technologies available in the best and
most efficient combination for the long-term benefit of the
land.
Mr. Vento. One of the criticisms that often is raised, of
course, is that there is a great controversy about the
suppression of fire and whether or not that suppression is
actually responsible for in fact the buildup of fuel loads in
the forest.
I know that someone is going to come through and say, well,
this is what the forest looked like 120 years ago. It was
barren and there was nothing there, and now this is what it
looks like today. It is in much better condition, obviously
under those circumstances.
What is the scientific state of the majority of scientists
with regards to forest health today versus what it was in the
past?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, from the standpoint of the proportion of
forests that are healthy versus those that are not is a really
tough question, because then--what proportion of the tress and
the condition of the trees and so on.
But I might say from the standpoint of monitoring and
technologies, the sooner that we can identify the problems, the
better. Rather than waiting until we have a catastrophic fire
situation or rather than waiting until we have got this insect
infestation, the more that we can detect this coming, our early
warning system is sort of, you know, keep your cholesterol down
and get plenty of exercise to avoid the heart attack, and that
is the direction that we really need to be heading in.
Of course, from the standpoint of science and technology,
we are learning more and more about the interactions of things
and we just need to apply those and I hope we can do it in a
good, balanced context, and one of the things that I am looking
for is being able to move with a broad support base as we fix
our forests, because we do know that inaction is not the
solution. In fact, the costs will increase.
Mr. Vento. My time has expired and I have to leave. Thank
you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Vento. The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Before I start,
Dr. Bartuska, could you tell me where you came from before you
ended up with the agency? Tell me about your background.
Ms. Bartuska. I am originally from Pennsylvania and I got
my degrees in Ohio and West Virginia, and spent nine years in
North Carolina before I came up here working in research in the
Forest Service and the university community and then most
recently here with the forest health protection staff.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. Going back to this prescribed
burning, on the forests where you know you want to do
prescribed burning now, how soon would you start?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, let me say first that I am not the
prescribed--the fire ecologist, but what we look for basically
is the window of opportunity from the standpoint of fuel
moisture levels.
We always, and there are very strict guidelines that I
would be happy to send you if you wish that our experts follow
from the standpoint of weather conditions, relative humidity,
fuel moisture, the time of the year, all of those kinds of
things.
I was again out west last week. They were telling me about
a situation, where if they would burn that the direction of the
smoke would go over the interstate, then they could not burn
because of the air quality as well as the public reaction to
that.
So these are things that--every situation within a certain
set of parameters is probably different.
Mr. Schaffer. What percentage of these lands would you
estimate have to have fuel removed ahead of time mechanically?
Mr. Dombeck. Before they would be burned?
Mr. Schaffer. Yes.
Mr. Dombeck. I would ask Ann to--I would just have to
almost take a wild guess. I am not sure.
Ms. Bartuska. It is highly variable obviously depending
upon the geographic area.
For example, in the south, they almost never are
mechanically removing things, and it is a very active program,
but in certain parts of the west, mechanical treatment is going
to have to be a very high priority first, and it could be ten
to twenty percent before you go in and actually do any
prescribed burning.
A lot of it is dependent on how much fuels there are, as we
mentioned earlier with the urban/wildland interface, there will
be conditions where we will not, even though prescribed burning
might be the most desired approach because of the communities
there will have do mechanical treatments primarily.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask a more general question. Some of
the Forest Service personnel that I have met with in Colorado
believe that they are insufficiently funded to accomplish
forest health projects.
Do you think they are right and how do you think we would
deal with this?
Mr. Dombeck. I think the answer is yes, and it is a matter
of where we make--you know, as a society where we make--our
investments and the priorities that you and the U.S. Congress
in consultation with the Administration.
Let me say that as I mentioned, in national forests, we
assume now that about 39,000,000 acres are at significant
threat of fire, and as I look at the management practices, and
I have the numbers here someplace, and I believe we are making
process to the tune of about----
Mr. Schaffer. How many million acres a year?
Mr. Dombeck. We would like to be at about 3,000,000 acres a
year of treatment and management to get on top of the problem,
and I guess--let me say I will respond in writing with the
specifics, but I think we are somewhere in the neighborhood of
700,000 acres treated per year is about where we are at now,
and we would like to be at about 3,000,000.
Mr. Schaffer. In your prepared comments, you mentioned the
importance of gathering good data and giving us a good picture
of our ecosystems and conditions and so on.
I would like to find out what kind of information does the
forest inventory and assessment program provide for our
national forest lands?
Ms. Bartuska. If you are speaking about the forest
inventory analysis program, we have very good coverage in
determining what the standing volume is as well as other
structures of the forest.
For most of the national forests in the east and throughout
the west, that combined with forest monitoring gives us a
really good handle on some of the trends going on with other
components like soils, condition of the forest.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Mr. Dombeck. I just found the numbers here, sir. The
President's budget allows for treatment of between 800,000 and
1,200,000 acres of high priorities for fiscal year 1998, and
from the standpoint of planning and so on, we would like to be
able to get up to about 3,000,000 or so per year to begin to
gain on the issue.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. The chair now
recognizes Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Good afternoon and welcome to Washington. I
was interested in knowing your familiarity with the Allegheny
National Forest located in northwestern Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dombeck. Well, I have been there. I have never worked
there, and I grew up in the Chequamegon National Forest in
northern Wisconsin not far from Lake Superior, 25 miles from a
town of 1,500, so I am somewhat familiar with the eastern
forest landscape and species and so on.
Mr. Peterson. You are the custodian of maybe the finest
hardwood forest in North America?
Mr. Dombeck. I have heard about it and this is--I am into
my second month on the job, but I hope to get up there and see
it. I want to get out on the ground as much as I can and not
only talk to the employees but talk to the local people that
are there and be able to solve as many of the problems that we
have locally as well as celebrate the successes.
Oftentimes, I think in the business of natural resource
management, we don't spend nearly enough time celebrating the
successes because the positive reinforcement and encouragement
of employees and constituencies and so on is I think a very
powerful educational tool that we can use and should be using a
lot more.
Mr. Peterson. I guess just to quickly familiarize you, it
is a forest that I think contributes $12,000,000 to $15,000,000
a year to the treasury while only cutting about half of the
recommended cut by the last forest plan, and I guess I would
just like to ask you if you support the multi-use concept that
has been there which I think has pretty successfully balanced
recreation, water quality, hunting, timbering, and oil and gas
exploration.
Mr. Dombeck. Yes. I believe that the multiple-use concepts
are among the cornerstones that we have and the fact of the
matter is, we know how to do these practices and we know how to
do them right in many cases, and in virtually all cases, and
from the standpoint of the wide variety of demands and uses of
national forests.
Recreation is in a tremendous growth phase today. Forest
health is an issue that we have to deal with. The wildland fire
issue is an issue we have to deal with. Some of the eastern
pest and disease problems are issues that we have to deal with,
but from the standpoint of overall balanced use, I believe that
is where mainstream America is.
Mr. Peterson. I just wanted to share with you that it is
very much a part of our growing economy in that area. It is the
finest hardwood forest in North America.
It is a mature forest. We had a sense a few years ago that
there was a move on the national level to really limit or stop
cutting, which most people that you might hear later today
think would be a mistake, because it is a mature forest that
needs harvesting, much of it or a lot of it. It is not, as some
would say, that we are cutting down the rain forest. That is
just not the case, but it is a mature forest. It is a very
important asset economically to the area, and I look forward to
you coming up this summer, if that is possible.
I would love to have the chance to spend some time with
you, because it is not only a very valuable resource
economically, it is a very beautiful forest, and it is just a
nice place to visit and a pretty part of Pennsylvania, and we
would look forward to your coming.
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you, I accept.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Dombeck, I thank you for being here in
the committee with us. I saw a very interesting article in the
Washington Times yesterday about timber harvest practices in
Brazil.
A representative from the World Bank was indicating that in
Brazil, we need to realize that we don't need to set aside vast
chunks of land exclusively for one use, that really, everyone
is better off, including the communities, the logging industry,
the environmentalists, everyone is better off when we can all
work together using the same land, and actually, we achieve a
higher standard.
I share with you the fact, Chief, that we have quite a
mountain to overcome socially, but together, I think that we
can do that and welcome to your new job.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The committee will recognize the second
panel. On the second panel, we have Dr. Dennis Lynch, Professor
of Forest Science, Colorado State University from Fort Collins,
Colorado; Martin Moore, Director of Community Development and
Planning from Apache County, Arizona; Harry Wiant, President,
Society of American Foresters, Morgantown, West Virginia; and
Dr. Stephen Schoenholtz, Associate Professor of Forest
Resources, Mississippi State University, Mississippi.
Before we get started, I want to ask you to stand and take
the oath. Would you raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of
perjury that your statements and responses given will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you.
Without objection, I will now recognize Mr. Schaffer from
Colorado to introduce Dr. David Lynch. Mr. Schaffer, thank you
very much for bringing Dr. Lynch to us.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I appreciate
the opportunity to introduce a constituent, and a noted one
within his industry and profession as well. In spite of the
material in front of us, his name is Dennis Lynch.
Dr. Dennis Lynch has been a professor of forestry and
scientist at the Colorado State University in Fort Collins for
the past 23 years. Previously, he spent 15 years with the U.S.
Forest Service as a forester, district ranger, planning leader,
and three years working at Colorado State Forest Service and
Land Use Planning Commission.
Dr. Lynch holds a Bachelor of Science in forestry, a
Master's degree in business, and a Ph.D. in natural resources
administration, all from Colorado State University, I might
add.
He has received numerous awards and honors over the years
for his work in the area of forestry. I appreciate him coming
here today and look forward to his testimony. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. Let me remind the
witnesses that under our committee rules, they must limit their
oral statements to five minutes, but that your entire statement
will appear in the record.
We will also allow the entire panel to testify before
questioning of the witnesses, and now the Chairman recognizes
Dr. Lynch for the first testimony. Dr. Lynch.
STATEMENT OF DR. DENNIS L. LYNCH, PROFESSOR OF FOREST SCIENCES,
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madame Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate your inviting me here to present my
views on forest health and management as these relate to the
Central Rockies.
At the outset, I want to say that I am attempting to
present what I believe are points of consensus gained from
discussions with a number of professional forestry colleagues
in Colorado and Wyoming, so I am indebted to my fellow faculty
members, to the Wyoming State Forester and the Colorado State
Forester and his management staff and fire division staff.
I am indebted to the Colorado Timber Association Director,
the Wilderness Society forest ecologist, and the Chairman of
the Colorado-Wyoming State Society of American Foresters.
In discussing issues of forest health and management
related to the Central Rockies, it is important to review the
historical interaction of people and forests, as I do in my
written testimony.
There are several key points that I would like to draw from
that summary. The first is that the forests that we have today
in the Central Rockies are a result of a long history of human
disturbance and use.
Second, these previously disturbed areas of the past have
grown up under protection into today's mature forests.
Third, each time period from pre-history to the present has
been accompanied in its own unique way with a society sense of
forest health. In other words, definitions of forest health
have subjective societal values interwoven with our ecological
estimates.
Fourth, this long period of custodial care and protection
in Colorado and Wyoming appears to have allowed shifts in
understory plant species, the buildup of forest fuels,
increased numbers of trees, and less overall forest diversity.
It is important to recognize that there are distinctly
separate forest types in the Central Rockies, and that these
vary uniquely from one another and from forests in the other
parts of the United States. Therefore, generalizations about
forest health may be of only limited application when
addressing specific forest situations. Each forest should
properly have its own specific criteria related to health and
management, and as I will explain later, our approach to the
restoration of these forests must change.
In my invitation to testify, I was asked to respond to the
question what criteria would you use to determine if a forest
is healthy or unhealthy. From my previous testimony, I think
you can see why that question is very difficult to answer.
However, from my discussions with colleagues, I have
attempted to find some areas of complete or general consensus
about overall criteria. The first criteria that we agree upon
is an unhealthy forest condition is outside the range of normal
forest conditions.
Second, an unhealthy forest does not have a diversity of
age classes and successional stages over large areas.
Third, an unhealthy forest does not have a diversity of
plant and animal species.
Fourth, natural disturbances are more severe and frequent
in unhealthy forests.
Fifth, dead trees and woody debris accumulations are much
greater than decomposition rates and removals in an unhealthy
forest.
Sixth, an unhealthy forest does not provide a balanced flow
of benefits to sustain our society.
I have also been asked to respond to the question, what
management tools would you consider most appropriate to
maintain or improve forest health.
There is always the option of doing nothing, but I would
like to point out that doing nothing carries a price tag.
Currently, fire suppression cost per acre in the Central
Rockies greatly exceeds the cost we have experienced in
demonstration forest restoration projects.
The first management tool that seems appropriate to us is
the use of prescribed fire. The results can be quite good in
achieving desired changes or they can be quite variable.
Prescribed fire is not a precise tool.
Another management tool we believe is quite appropriate in
achieving forest health is the use of mechanical equipment to
prepare areas for prescribed fire, to thin forests to desired
stocking levels, and to remove forest products for our use.
Some critics would quickly point out that this is just
traditional logging or timber harvesting.
The key point I wish to make is that forest restoration is
not traditional logging or timber harvesting. Mechanical
removal can be more precise than the use of fire alone. It can
achieve results in different forest types that prescribed fire
cannot.
I also wish to note that current Forest Service procedures
related to timber sale layout, administration, and pricing do
not work very well in forest restoration situations.
Lastly, there are combinations of prescribed fire and
mechanical restoration techniques that are especially
appealing. Mechanical removal can extract materials for use
while preparing the fuel bed for follow-up prescribed fire. It
gives the manager options when air quality concerns, for
example, preclude using fire to fully accomplish a project.
The Forest Service needs some new authorities for changing
the way it does business in dealing with forest restoration
projects. We suggest that the Subcommittee look careful at the
potential for stewardship contracting on national forest lands.
This concludes my testimony. I will attempt to answer any
questions the Subcommittee members may have.
[Statement of Dennis Lynch may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Lynch, thank you very much for that
valuable testimony. The chair now recognizes Martin Moore for
his testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN MOORE, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
PLANNING, APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Madame Chair, members of the
committee. I come before you today in the capacity of director
of environmental planning and research for Apache County,
Arizona. I am also at the dissertation stage of a Ph.D. at
Northern Arizona University, specializing in western forest
resource policy and management. I also serve on the Arizona
delegation to the Western Governors' Drought Task Force, and I
have worked as a member of the interagency coordinating group
on wildland fire with the western governors in tandem with the
Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Policy Review Team.
Currently, we are facing a serious forest health crisis
throughout the western States, which threatens adverse
ecological, safety, and economic impacts on an increasingly
catastrophic scale. These concerns are centered around a
definition of forest health that includes the vitality and
balance of wildlife populations, health of the forest resource,
balance of multiple uses, and levels of catastrophic fire.
A number of scientists, including Dr. David Garrett and
Drs. Wallace Covington and Margaret Moore have performed
research showing alarming trends in forest resource health in
Ponderosa Pine ecosystems.
Drs. Covington and Moore, with comparisons from 1867 to
1987, show a 994-percent decrease in herbage production, a 26-
percent reduction in streamflow, and an increase from 24 to 843
trees per acre.
Concerned about the implications of Dr. Covington's
research, Apache, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties in Arizona
commissioned an independent, scientific study by Dr. Garrett of
the health of the Ponderosa Pine ecosystem in the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest, with comparisons to other
southwestern forests.
This study includes a compendium of major scientific
research with the full cooperation and assistance of the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, utilizing the latest forest
stand inventory data, and is watershed-based research.
Dr. Garrett's conclusions, building on Covington and
Moore's research, shows from 1911 to 1994, a 391 percent
increase on the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest of trees per acre four
inches or greater in diameter, with several stands exceeding
more than 1,000 trees per acre.
Average maximum stand density index forest-wide is
approaching a high danger level with several areas exceeding
the high danger threshold.
Herbage biomass has plummeted to its low production levels,
largely because of high tree densities. Water yields per acre
will further decrease, resulting in continued stream flow
reductions and water quality problems.
Fuel loads will rise from the current 20 tons per acre to
well over 30 tons, and fuel ladders will dominate the
landscape, leading to increasing numbers and intensity of
catastrophic wildfire.
This continued downward spiral of forest ecosystems
threatens the health and sustainability of recreation
opportunities, wildlife and wildlife habitat, timber resources
and water resources.
Another forest health indicator is level of fire intensity.
Apache County, alarmed about fuel load buildups identified by
Dr. Garrett and the Forest Service, conducted a comprehensive
study of wildfire hazards and potential impacts throughout
Arizona and New Mexico. The results of the study show that more
than 224,000 homes are at high to extreme risk, threatening the
safety of over 600,000 citizens.
Over 5,000,000 acres are at high to extreme risk of loss
and potential costs of fire in relationship to timber
resources, livestock, homes, and drains on the Federal treasury
could exceed $35,000,000,000.
Dr. Garrett's research shows that the number of
catastrophic fires has doubled in 20 years and will continue to
rise.
Concerning the vitality and balance of wildlife
populations, a third forest health indicator, Drs. Covington
and Moore show that instead of wildlife geared toward open,
park-like forest, types and numbers have shifted toward
wildlife favoring closed canopy structures. This stresses
wildlife adapted to open-space environments, threatening the
survival of these species.
In addition, ungulates such as elk have erupted in
population, eating forest meadows down to the roots, creating
erosion and forage reproduction problems, in turn, destroying
the grazing resource base for other ungulates and competing
wildlife.
Another important indicator of forest health is the ability
of the forest to provide for multiple uses. Current laws,
regulations, court decisions, and most significantly, unhealthy
forest resource conditions combine to form a serious threat to
the continuation of human and natural multiple uses.
Based on this testimony and a preponderance of research, it
is our contention that every aspect of multiple use is placed
in serious jeopardy over the next 50 years in southwestern
forests unless the current forest condition is reversed.
The overwhelming body of research shows a need to return
forests to a healthy state for the sake of the total forest
ecosystem, forest resources, public protection from wildfire,
healthy wildlife populations, and every other aspect of forest
health including multiple use and human survival.
To accomplish this, Dr. Garrett provides a 50-year
prescription which should dramatically improve forest
conditions across the landscape. These improvements include
increased water yield; doubling of herbage production; increase
in average tree size from less than six to 16 inches in
diameter; healthy maximum stand density index for healthier,
more disease and insect-resistant trees; and a 50-percent
reduction in fire fuel load with a return to healthy, low-
intensity fires.
This time line includes thinning, prescribed burning, and
overstory harvest of high hazard, unhealthy, and overly dense
trees of all diameter classes with emphasis on trees 20 inches
and smaller, as this would not include healthy old-growth
trees. Returning every ten years to treat and control burn is
vital to this effort.
Dr. Garrett shows that this prescription, in which
mechanical harvest is an imperative player, would result in a
per-acre net value of $155, nearly ten times the $16 net value
if we continue on our present course.
Added to this is the multi-billion dollar savings of
treatment over destruction by catastrophic fire, tree-stand
die-offs and drought.
Currently in place, and I will wrap this up very briefly.
Currently in place on the Apache-Sitgreaves and Tonto National
Forest is an ecosystem demonstration project agreement which we
are part of. This agreement, if funded, would help facilitate
implementation of forest health projects on these forests.
Madame Chair and members of the committee, the threat to
our natural and human environments is real, and the solution is
straightforward and affordable. To ignore them is
unconscionable from either a scientific, ecological, social,
ethical, or economic point of view. It is our plea that all
sides will come together to make the tough choices and act to
preserve this nation's forests for ourselves and our posterity.
Thank you for this time, and I look forward to any
questions.
[Statement of Martin Moore may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Moore, I thank you for your very
interesting testimony. I have been in touch in conversations
with Mr. Mark Killian as well as the dean of Northern Arizona
University there at Flagstaff.
It is fascinating, the work that has been done there, and I
thank you for bringing that to the committee. Thank you very
much.
At this time, the chair recognizes Harry Wiant from the
Society of American Foresters. Mr. Wiant.
STATEMENT OF HARRY WIANT, PRESIDENT, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN
FORESTERS, MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Wiant. Thank you. I am President of the Society of
American Foresters, which is the largest professional forestry
organization in the world, over 18,000 members.
It is a real honor to speak before this committee. I am
serving on a related committee that is a scientific panel for
Congressman Charles Taylor's forest health committee, and that
has been a real pleasure also.
I am going to speak with two hats on, first as president of
the Society of American Foresters, and second, as a private
citizen and forester. They will differ a little bit.
The Society of American Foresters has studied the forest
health issue for many years. You will find a written report in
my testimony.
We conclude that there are serious forest health and
productivity problems in the U.S., but also, forest health is
an informal and a very inexact term.
An assessment of forest health has to consider not only the
condition of the forest but what do you want out of the forest,
the management objectives. Very importantly, forest health is a
local issue. A single national prescription is inappropriate.
Now, I am going to express my personal views which aren't
too different, but perhaps stated a little different than some
of these. Please note in the record that I am not speaking for
the Society of American Foresters at this time.
As humans, we experience, all of us, the joys of birth, the
vigor of youth, the slowing down with age (and I have gone
through several of those stages myself), and finally death.
Very few of us would accept the idea that the hands-off
approach is appropriate to maintain human health.
Trees and forests are similar. I want to make two main
points. A well-managed forest is the healthiest possible,
number one, and number two, there is no opportunity to address
declining health in an unmanaged forest.
I want you just for a moment to picture a well-managed
forest of 5,000 acres. The species are well adapted to the
site, and we are going to grow trees until they are about 50
years old, and then we are going to cut them in what is called
a final harvest. We call it the rotation age.
If we had a forest like that and managed it for 50 years,
what would it look like at the end of 50 years? You would have
100 acres ready to plant or to regenerate naturally. These 100
acres might be scattered around in the forest, but you would
have 100 acres like that. You would have 100 acres with one-
year-old seedlings, 100 acres with two-year-old seedlings,
etc., and you would have 100 acres with mature trees ready to
harvest.
You would have logging and access roads that are well-
engineered; regeneration you want to be prompt; and soil
productivity is maintained. You would have intermediate cuts--
we call them thinning to help other trees in the stand to grow
to a greater size quicker.
Biodiversity would be great because you would have a good
distribution of age classes, and that has been mentioned
before. Fires, insects, and diseases tend to be most damaging
to trees of certain ages, so this will minimize the danger from
fire, from insects and diseases.
Thus, you have the good access roads, appropriate species,
good age-class distribution, and good forest management. That
is the criteria of a healthy forest.
Likewise, the management tools necessary to have a healthy
forest are obvious. One, you would have to have an adequate
cadre of professionals. I am talking about foresters,
engineers, wildlife managers, and others.
Two, you would have to have the flexibility to manage the
forest unhampered by poorly conceived environmental laws, by
frivolous appeals, and by tax codes that discourage long-term
management.
Three, you need to have a strong forest research program in
the Forest Service and universities and in the private sector.
Four, forest management has to remain science-based with a
complete tool kit, and that has been mentioned previously, but
I want to mention some of the things we can't afford to lose.
Prescribed fire, herbicides, selection cutting, clear cutting,
seed-tree cutting, we need all those tools.
To put it in a few words, the answer to the forest health
problem is more and not less forest management, and the primary
responsibility for managing our forests should be in the hands
of those best qualified for the job, foresters. Thank you.
[Statement of Harry Wiant may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wiant, thank you very much, and the
chair recognizes Dr. Schoenholtz.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN H. SCHOENHOLTZ, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
FOREST RESOURCES, MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Schoenholtz. Madame Chairman, committee members, thank
you for the opportunity to present my views on forest health
this afternoon.
Forest health means different things to different people
depending on their forest management objectives and
philosophies.
There is general agreement that our well-being and the
well-being of future generations depend on productive, healthy
forests. However, some perceptions of forest health may vary
depending on individual preferences for forest use.
To maintain and manage our forests in an acceptable state
for future generations requires us to define forest health
broadly enough to encompass the many facets of forest
ecosystems.
What do we look for when we try to assess forest health? An
assessment of forest health should consider key indicators that
can be measured or described periodically to identify trends.
We must remember that some key indicators of forest health may
vary among different forest ecosystems.
For example, in many forests of the West, water limits
plant growth at least for part of the growing season, but
excess water may be the limiting factor in southern forested
wetlands.
Key indicators may also vary among different management
objectives. For example, I would argue that health indicators
for intensively managed production forestry might differ from
indicators used in managing for wilderness values.
Often, the primary concern when assessing forest health is
the vegetation itself. Forest ecosystem health must include a
level of acceptable plant productivity and biological diversity
which, in turn, depend on the ability of the soil to supply
necessary nutrients and water.
Forest vegetation indicators of productivity and diversity
would include age, particularly of the overstory trees;
structure, which is the vertical and horizontal arrangement of
vegetation (a critical component of wildlife habitat); crown
condition; foliar injury levels in the crown and the leaves;
species composition which is very important for diversity and
also for assessing forest product values; species diversity
itself which translates into wildlife diversity by providing
habitat diversity; growth rates; mortality rates; regeneration
rates; species replacement patterns; presence of insects or
disease; and presence of exotic species. This is just a partial
list of some key indicators looking at the vegetation.
There is also a large range of soil attributes such as
chemical, physical, and biological properties that can be used
as part of the assessment of forest health. Some of the basic
soil indicators would include soil texture, which is the
proportion of sand, silt, and clay (soil texture indirectly
affects many other soil properties).
We can look at maximum rooting depth where we have deeper
soils producing more productive forests and more resilient
forests.
We can look at soil bulk density and water infiltration
rate. These are related to water and air movement. We can look
at plant available water capacity; total organic carbon and
nitrogen, which are very importantly related to organic matter;
also nitrogen is often a limiting factor in forest ecosystems.
We can also look at pH, which indirectly controls many of
the soil chemical reactions in the forest, and finally, we can
look at soil strength, which indicates physical damage,
particularly compaction-type damage from heavy machinery.
We have a good understanding of expected changes in
vegetation over time (and we mentioned the U.S. Forest
Service's forest inventory process earlier today) in many of
our forest ecosystem types.
We also have a well developed data base of inherent soil
properties from our Natural Resource Conservation Service. We
have this for much of the country.
If these vegetation and soil criteria indicate deviations
from expected trends or levels, then management practices to
maintain or enhance forest health should be considered. These
management alternatives would include removal of undesirable
species, thinning to appropriate tree density or appropriate
number of trees per acre, supplemental plantings, use of
controlled or prescribed burning, manipulating vegetation to
create specific habitat, possibly imposing stricter air quality
standards, and fertilization.
Monitoring forest health will require manipulations of
large volumes of spatial and time-dependent environmental data.
This aspect of monitoring should be developed within a
geographic-information-system environment that can accommodate
incorporation of new variables and can be developed as an
adaptive management tool.
Avoiding degradation of forest health is achieved by
accepting management techniques that do not adversely affect
the forest or the quality of the environment in which the
forest grows. The forest management decision process should be
based on potential impacts to indicators of forest ecosystem
health.
It is essential that experience, feedback, and adaptability
play prominent roles in any assessment of forest health and the
management of forests. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Schoenholtz. Now, we will
proceed to questioning of the panelists. Each member will have
five minutes for their questioning.
I will open with a question to Martin Moore. You mentioned
the effects on water resources caused by the high density of
trees, and you also noted that more than 5,000,000 acres of
forest lands are at high or extreme risk of loss to
catastrophic fires.
You mentioned 240,000 homes, perhaps 600,000 humans. That
is startling. Could you explain further how fires on these
lands will impact water sources and wildlife, and the second
question is, what will the impact on the Mexican Spotted Owl be
if nothing is done to mechanically remove some of the excessive
fuels?
Also, have they yet seen a Mexican Spotted Owl?
Mr. Moore. Unfortunately, Apache County probably hosts most
of the Mexican Spotted Owls in Arizona. There are approximately
220-some-odd Mexican Spotted Owls in the Apache-Sitgreaves
Forest in our area that we understand. Some are near interface
communities, some are not.
If you don't mind, I will answer the second question first.
There was a fire called the HB fire over in New Mexico. It
destroyed--they don't know, they are still inventorying, but it
did destroy some Mexican Spotted Owl nesting sites.
We had the huge 60,000-acre fire up in the Four Peaks
Wilderness area that destroyed the entire Mexican Spotted Owl
habitat on top of the Four Peaks Wilderness.
We know of approximately four Mexican Spotted Owl habitat
territories that were burned in the 1980's in what was called
the Dude fire near Payson, Arizona.
By the way, this is approximate--I believe it is 5,470,000
acres at risk, or something like that was arrived at from the
data gathered by the Forest Service from their fire management
and fire risk report, and their methodologies largely centered
around interface areas that would include campgrounds, near
roadways, and near communities. It may not be reflective of
some areas of the interior forest that are away from these
areas.
As far as some of these numbers on impacts on streams and
that type of thing, the basic process works like this. You get
a catastrophic wildfire. A catastrophic wildfire, and I
describe it in the written testimony a little bit, is the type
of wildfire that burns large acreages, sterilizes soil,
destroys land-based and aquatic wildlife, and threatens human
life and destroys the regenerative capacity of the ecosystem.
Basically what we have got is a situation where you get a
waxy layer down under the soil. You get a heavy rain that comes
along behind that and it just happened that those conditions
happened just right, or wrong in this case, with the Dude fire.
The Dude fire came. They had heavy monsoon rains right after
that. There was a lot of tearing up of the riparian bottoms. A
lot of soil was washed downstream, and there are a couple of
communities downstream, actually out of the forest where a lot
of this soil washed in and flattened out the stream beds, and
they have had incidents of flooding where homes and bridges
were destroyed and that kind of thing.
That is basically what you would be looking at. Then it
would destroy the long-term ability of the soil to regenerate.
When you sterilize the soil like that, an ability for trees and
that type of thing to regrow, especially Ponderosa Pine, is
very difficult.
Mrs. Chenoweth. We have some areas that were burned in
Idaho in 1910, and they still don't have any regenerative
ability.
Mr. Moore. Yes. As a matter of fact, if anyone is in
Flagstaff and takes a look at the hot fire that burned on I
think it was the north side of Mount Eldon, you can see that
they have tried time and again to replant trees up there and
they just cannot get them to take hold.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting. Mr. Wiant, given the
criteria you described, maintaining soil productivity, a whole
list of very, very interesting, very good criteria, would you
say that forest health conditions tend to vary by ownership
types with regard to State forests, private forests?
Mr. Wiant. Yes. I think they tend to vary by the amount of
management that it is possible to do on them. Unfortunately, I
think that some of our national forests are in terrible shape
because we have been able to do very little management and able
to do less every day, it seems.
I think some of the lands that are in best shape are those
held by corporations who have managed them intensively with
good forest management, and then our private landowners still
need a lot of education, so there are some in between those
extremes, I suspect.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You mentioned the importance of providing
flexibility to use a variety of management tools. How do
current Federal laws limit a landowner's flexibility to do what
is necessary to maintain or improve forest health?
Mr. Wiant. Certainly, our national forests are impacted by
the amount of documentation that is necessary before they can
do anything. It is extremely expensive to the taxpayers out
there, and I happen to be one of them, and I kind of resent
that.
Certainly, some of the laws make it very difficult for
people. There was a letter by Carl Winger, who was at one time
a station director for the Forest Service, in the Journal of
Forestry recently, and he was talking about one of the laws,
and I think we all know it is very important.
He describes what the country looked like at the turn of
the century, and you have seen pictures at the time of the
Civil War in the east at least. It looked like the battlefield,
the French forests after the battles of the first World War.
The lands were really desolate, hardly any timber left, and
I won't read that part to you, but I want to read one part of
this letter, the conclusion, and I think it is very important.
He says that current land management practices are
threatening or endangering 1,300 species of the survivors of
that period, as claimed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
is simply not believable. How can we claim that the land
management practices taking place, at least in the east today,
can be threatening species that survived that catastrophic
period at the turn of the century? It just doesn't make sense.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Wiant. It doesn't. How has
the Society of American Foresters addressed the question of the
legal entanglements that we find ourselves in?
We talked about the socioeconomic problems that we must
overcome. What about the legal entanglements that you see? Will
any recommendations be forthcoming either from your
organization as a whole or what do you recommend?
Mr. Wiant. I think the Society of American Foresters is
trying to stay apolitical, and that limits their ability to
address some of these things, so my answer to that previous
question was my answer not SAF's. I should label or maybe
underline it somehow here verbally.
But we have studied some of them, and I think that you
would find that we have policy statements that indicate that
none of these should limit our ability to practice good
forestry, and that should always be kept in mind by policy-
makers.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wiant, how diverse is the membership of
the Society of American Foresters?
Mr. Wiant. It is very diverse. It ranges, I would say
probably there are a few members that think you shouldn't cut
any trees and a few members who think you can cut them all and
not worry about the environmental consequences, but most
members are somewhere toward the center of that distribution,
so it is quite a varied organization.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. For my final question, I would
like to ask Dr. Schoenholtz.
You noted that it is not possible nor is it necessary to
consider all aspects of a forest ecosystem in order to assess
its condition, yet the Forest Service decisions are frequently
challenged because they are not based on the very latest and
newest information.
Is this a reasonable standard to hold the Forest Service
to? What are your feelings and your thoughts on that one?
Mr. Schoenholtz. My feelings are, if we try to assess or
measure the health of all the components of an ecosystem, it
would just be an impossible task if you consider air quality,
water quality, soil quality, vegetation, wildlife habitat,
soils, the various components and how they interact.
My goal in presenting today was to try to pick indicators
that integrate those various aspects, and in my opinion, the
vegetation and the soil are two key general indicators that
integrate a lot of the processes that go on in the system.
I don't mean to state that any of them are less important
than others. That is a value judgment, but we need to find
indicators that integrate many of these processes, and in my
opinion, vegetation, including growth rates, diversity, and
structure of that vegetation, is an integrator of the soil,
water, climate, atmospheric stress, et cetera.
It also provides habitat for all the wildlife species that
we are concerned with. So if you are going to spend limited
funding, you have to pick key indicators that integrate many of
the processes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Schoenholtz. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you again, Madame Chairman. I have a
first question for Mr. Wiant. You mentioned a number of
restrictions and impediments that the Federal Government
represents from time to time in purposes of private forestry, I
presume.
I would like you--you mentioned tax policy as well, just in
general, but I would like you to be a little more specific if
you could.
What are some areas that we might consider within the
context of tax policy that either promote or impede private
forestry?
Mr. Wiant. All of a sudden, I am having a slip of memory
here. The tax that has been discussed so often that they are
hoping is changed, the tax law right now that deals with
investments, capital gains.
The capital gains change was made several years ago and has
had a great impact on private forestry. They are always very
interested in seeing that change to be more favorable to them.
That would be the main one I would think of.
This is a long-term investment. You are talking about
perhaps 50 years or so before you can recognize any return. An
example of this is, I know of a case in California recently
where they had 500 acres of forest land that had been managed
by a landowner, and after he died, there was a disagreement
about the value of the estate. So the Internal Revenue Service
required that it be evaluated and a forester attorney, a man
who has both qualifications, was able to show that in
California because of all the restrictions on forest management
and the necessary plans that had to be turned into the State
before you could do anything, he was able to show that 500
acres of California forest land had a negative value. As I
understand from his report to me, he was told by IRS that you
can't show a negative value, but he did win when it got into
court.
That is showing kind of the extreme, but when you can show
that 500 acres has a negative value because of regulation,
there is something wrong with the system.
Mr. Schaffer. Dr. Lynch, I have a couple questions for you
with regard to my local concerns that I bring here.
Specifically, what forest conditions in the Central Rockies
concern you the most?
Mr. Lynch. I think from this consensus and discussion that
I mentioned in my talk, the things that really are of concern
to a number of us would be first the fuel buildup that we see
in the forests because of protection and custodial care.
We are concerned about the overstocking that exists in
these stands. Currently, I believe that we are at a point where
we may have more trees than we have ever had on the landscape
and certainly, comparative photo studies by Thomas Veblen at
the University of Colorado; Ric Laven, our own forest
ecologist, pictures of the Manitou Forest, for example,
indicate that we have tremendous numbers of trees now that we
did not historically have.
We are concerned about the shift in the age classes. Many
of our stands are reaching an over-mature, old category and the
concern of everyone, the general consensus, was that we need to
have a diversity of forest types across landscape areas that
would consist of a number of successional stages and certainly,
a number of age classes, and we just don't have those.
Another concern would be the species shifts where we see
trees that are shade tolerant and understories that
historically were not there, at least in our studies, and we
are concerned about the presence of exotics. We have a number
of exotic species that are in these forests, insect life
particularly, that are of concern.
Mr. Schaffer. Could you comment on the prescribed burning
proposal, how you think it may affect Colorado and other
western States?
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Prescribed burning is not a precise tool. I
think that is the overall message to carry. It has some
limitations.
The manager of fires can control the amount of fuel and he
can control the ignition time and type of ignition. He can't
control fuel moisture. He cannot control wind.
So there are limitations here to the use of this tool that
are significant. If we are talking about forest restoration of
the type that we believe needs to be done in the Central
Rockies, we are talking about really burning thousands of acres
of land, and we are talking about smoke management problems
that are of significant concern, particularly air quality
problems in our front range area where we have air quality
concerns that are significant now.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Schaffer. The chair recognizes Mr.
Peterson from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. I have a general question. Mr.
Wiant raised the issue, but I think I kind of sensed it in all
of your testimonies.
You sort of rated who was managing the land the best, and I
think you gave the best grades to the corporations and maybe
lower grades to the Federal Government and private landowners,
small private landowners.
Is this the sort of common theme I have heard here from all
of you that as the Federal owner of a lot of land in this
country, we are custodian but we are not really managers; we
are not really managing the resource? Did I sense anybody that
wasn't saying that in some way or another?
Does anybody want to say that is not what you said?
Mr. Moore. To comment briefly, I think, at least from our
perspective, our concern isn't so much about the ability and
capability of the Federal land managers, the silviculturists
and that to do their job.
I think our concern is possibly more about the paperwork,
need for paperwork requirements, other types of restrictions,
endangered species consultations, court cases and other types
of forest plan restrictions built by political processes that
are tying the managers' hands, and that is the complaint that
we have heard from a number of managers in our area.
There are so many things that they see that they would like
to have done on the ground. They would like to see a good
streamlining of the processes, and we are certainly not
advocating the total destruction of the processes, because
there are important environmental considerations to take into
concern, but at the same time, we are not only destroying the
natural ecosystem. We are destroying the communities that are
built up around these natural ecosystems because their
economies are collapsing.
We have a number of areas back in our part of the State
that are having this difficulty, so I would say our answer is
help the managers to be able to get out there and manage in the
field.
I think Mr. Dombeck's testimony was well taken. They see a
number of things that they would like to do to help matters
happen. We have seen, for example, we have a wildlife biologist
under me on staff, and we see months and months and months of
appeals on small timber sales, before you get on the ground and
make something happen, so those are definite concerns that we
see.
Maybe private landowners or corporate entities may not be
faced with nearly as much.
Mr. Peterson. Anyone else?
Mr. Lynch. Yes. I would like to comment because I was a
Federal forest manager for a number of years, 15 years. I was a
district ranger, and as I look at the responsibilities of the
past now that relate to the bureaucratic process, and I really
mean that, the bureaucratic processes that are in place,
managers do not have the flexibility to confront the problems
that they once did.
In Colorado, we see private landowners that manage very
intensively. We see landowners that have very little education
and do virtually nothing and have unhealthy forests as a
result.
But when we look at State and Federal ownerships, for
example, we have State forest side by side with Federal
forests. The State people can address the problems, move
quickly, have the opportunities and flexibility and policy to
deal with those, where the Federal forest managers just cannot
get out of the morass that they are bound with.
These are competent people. I don't in any way wish to
malign them. Many of them were my students, and what I see is
that the processes have reached the point where they do not
have the flexibility they once had.
Mr. Wiant. I would like to second that. I think the Federal
lands are suffering from unclear objectives. They really don't
know exactly what they should be managing for, the products
they need to be producing.
The timber expertise in the Forest Service is decreasing
all the time. They are hiring fewer and fewer foresters and
they have been doing that for a number of years. So people that
really know how to evaluate timber, to manage timber, are
decreasing.
The loss of production capacities is impacting us all. In
the northwest, the mills haven't just shut down. Many of them
have moved out, and once we lose those production capacities,
even if we have use for smaller materials, it is going to be a
terrific investment over a long time to ever recapture that
loss.
Mr. Moore. I would like to add one more thing briefly. We
appreciated, we understood that Congressman Pombo had
introduced a bill in relationship to flood control, because I
guess California is having severe flooding problems, and to
streamline environmental and particularly endangered species
processes, to be able to get those projects moving and to get
that happening.
We wondered if a similar bill would be a possibility,
especially in the extreme areas of wildland/urban interface
hazard and possibly a drought situation, if that is something
that couldn't be looked at also.
Mr. Peterson. If I could just respond for a moment. I come
from the east, but a lot of the managers in ANF have come from
the west.
I agree with you. They are highly skilled individuals and
fine quality people, but I guess it appears that the political
pressures from whoever have sort of veered us from what was
normally a good management practice and a multi-use practice of
the tremendous amount of land owned by the Federal Government.
A lot of the rhetoric that has been out on the street is
far from the fact, but somehow, we need to have a meaningful
dialog so the general public understands the real issues, and
when we deal with the real facts, we usually do the right
things.
I guess I would like to commend all of you for coming here
today and sharing, but I guess somehow, we need to form a plan
of getting away from the political pressures and back to
allowing good, true managers to manage our national forests,
part of our heritage, and one of our most renewable resources.
I hope you will help us do that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Peterson, thank you very much.
Gentleman, I thank you very much for taking your time and
coming out here, and sharing with us this most valuable and
instructive information.
I would invite you to stay for the third panel, if you
possibly can, and you are now excused from the witness table,
and we will call the third panel.
I call to the witness table Kenneth Kane from Keith Horn,
Incorporated, consulting foresters, from Kane, Pennsylvania;
Steven Holmer, Campaign Director of the Western Ancient Forest
Campaign, Washington, D.C.; Ed Muckenfuss, Regional Manager,
Westvaco Company, Summerville, South Carolina; and Bill Wall,
Wildlife Biologist, Potlatch Corporation, Lewiston, Idaho.
I would like to call on the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Peterson, to introduce Kenneth Kane.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Madame Chairman. First, I would
like to submit for the record because I was not here when the
hearing started, so I would like to submit this statement for
the record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. With no objection, so ordered.
[Statement of Hon. John Peterson may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. Secondly, Madame Chairman, I want to thank
you for first holding this oversight hearing and for giving me
the opportunity to introduce a constituent and friend of mine
who we are very pleased to have travel here from Pennsylvania
today.
I want to commend you for holding this hearing so we can
get advice in finding solutions to the threats on the nation's
forests. It is an important issue to many of us.
I have the good fortune of representing the Allegheny
National Forest, the only national forest in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
For that reason, I am especially pleased to have with us a
constituent from Pennsylvania's fifth congressional district,
Mr. Kenneth Kane. Mr. Kane is vice president of Keith Horn,
Incorporated, a small private forest consulting business in
Kane, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Kane brings to this hearing a professional background
of 13 years as a private forest manager, coupled with an in-
depth understanding of the health and management of the
resources on and in the Allegheny National Forest.
He is also chairman of the Pennsylvania Division of the
Society of American Foresters. He is chairman of the
Pennsylvania chapter of Association of Consulting Foresters in
America.
At this time, I would like to welcome Mr. Kane, and I want
to thank you for making the journey down here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Kane, excuse me. Before you begin your
testimony, as a committee policy, we have all of our witnesses
take the oath, so would you all stand, please, and raise your
right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of
perjury that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you. Mr. Kane, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH KANE, KEITH HORN, INC., CONSULTING
FORESTERS, KANE, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Kane. Thank you, Congressman Peterson, for the very
nice introduction.
Madame Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to join you this afternoon to
discuss forest health in the Allegheny region, which includes
the Allegheny National Forest.
Let me turn now to the two questions which you have asked
us to reply to.
Question one, what criteria determines if a forest is
healthy? To answer this question for the Allegheny plateau, you
must remember that essentially the entire forest in the region
was clear-cut between 1880 and 1930. The vast clear-cutting of
that era virtually eliminated the beech, hemlock old-growth
forest of the region. The hardwood forest which emerged did so
naturally without planting.
So, within the forests of the Allegheny region and other
second-growth forests in the eastern hardwoods, forest health
is typically determined by answering some basic questions.
One, what is the condition of the crown, stem, root, and
leaf of the tree?
Two, is there an adequate diversity of trees, shrubs,
flowers, and other plant species present in the forest?
Three, are there trees of various sizes?
Four, are preferred tree and other plant species
regenerating naturally, or are nonpreferred species becoming
dominant?
It is important to emphasize that forest health criteria
are defined by the landowner. Public forestry issues are very
dynamic, because the objectives of the public change
constantly. That is not the case in the private sector, where
most forest landowners have two primary objectives, production
of wood products and continuity of ownership.
So where do we stand? At present, forest health in the
Allegheny region is threatened by native and exotic insects,
disease, and mammals.
In addition to those problems, the forests of the region
are simply growing old.
Hardwood forests change dramatically between 125 and 150
years of age. Specifically, species diversity drops from a wide
variety of shade intolerant species to a handful of shade
tolerant species. This decrease in tree species diversity is
one measure of an unhealthy forest.
The forests of the Allegheny region are recognized
internationally for the high quality hardwood timber they
produce. The unique unglaciated soils of the region produce the
world's best quality black cherry in stands that reach economic
maturity at 80 to 100 years of age.
We have reached the point in time where the Allegheny
plateau's biological and economic maturity coincide. Thus, we
must address the needs to regenerate these forests for both
financial and biological reasons.
But in addition, the public generally prefers to hunt,
camp, hike in maturing 70-year-old Allegheny hardwood forests
rather than decadent 150-year-old forests.
Having examined the criteria for a healthy forest in our
region of the country, let me turn now to your second question,
which is what management tools are most appropriate to maintain
or improve forest health.
As a practicing forester, I recommend that landowners take
certain actions to maintain the health and vitality of the
forests within the Allegheny region.
One, employ sound silvicultural practices and professional
forestry.
Two, use modern silvicultural methods in timber harvesting
scenarios. These practices are site-specific and model natural
occurrences.
Three, employ qualified resource managers to monitor forest
conditions closely. This is necessary to follow insect
populations and assess the effects of disease, drought, and
other phenomena.
Four, control large deer populations, increasing the use of
silvicultural regeneration tools such as fence enclosures and
herbicides. Promote sport hunting to reduce deer
overpopulation.
Five, use aerial application of natural pesticides. This is
necessary to control exotic and abnormal native insect
infestations.
In addition to these tools that are available to the
resource manager, I believe that Congress and the
Administration have continuing roles to play, and given this
opportunity, I offer two concluding suggestions for your
consideration.
First, you must continue to fund and promote forest
research. Research at the Forest Service's Northeast Experiment
Station in Warren, Pennsylvania, has provided the modern
silvicultural methods used throughout the Allegheny region.
Over 1,100 forest managers have attended the training sessions
offered by the station.
Second and finally, there is a pressing national need for
education programs for forest landowners, professionals and the
public. Professionals need to better understand the modern
tools available to them. Landowners and the public need to
better understand the forest ecosystem and the necessity of
using sound science as the basis for management decisions.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement. I
will be happy to answer any questions.
[Statement of Kenneth Kane may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Kane, for your very
interesting testimony, and I would like to now call on Steve
Holmer for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEVE HOLMER, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, WESTERN ANCIENT
FOREST CAMPAIGN, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Holmer. Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify.
The Western Ancient Forest Campaign represents
organizations and individuals nationwide who are dedicating to
protecting forest and aquatic ecosystems on the national
forests.
I would like to begin by saying that I totally disagree
with the statement that only managed forests are healthy
forests. Our forests did just fine for millions of years before
management was invented, and to put it plainly, the lack of
humility before God's creation to make that kind of statement,
I find rather astounding.
There is increasing evidence that demonstrates that over
the past three decades, our national forests have suffered too
much logging, too much road building, and too much cattle
grazing and fire suppression with little concern about the
impact these activities have on our clean water supplies, fish
and wildlife, recreational opportunities, and the ecological
integrity of forest ecosystems. Too much management is the
problem, not the solution.
A recent mapping project by the World Wildlife Fund
concluded that only two percent of the original forests remain
in the lower 48 States. The Eastside Forests Scientific Society
panel report concluded that the few remaining roadless areas in
eastern Oregon and Washington are still threatened, and that
very little of the old growth Ponderosa Pine ecosystem remains.
The scientists' report recommends no logging of old-growth
forests or trees of any species older than 150 years or greater
than 20 inches in diameter; no logging in aquatic diversity
areas; and to establish protected corridors along streams,
rivers, wetlands, and lakes; no logging or road building in
roadless areas.
Both the PACFISH and INFISH Federal interim guidelines for
protecting imperiled fish stocks concurred with the conclusion
that we need to protect roadless areas in riparian zones to
restore declining fisheries.
These are the critical first steps toward proper management
and rehabilitating faltering forests and aquatic systems in the
inland west. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report came to
similar conclusions, and also stated that timber harvest
through its effect on forest structure, local microclimate, and
fuel accumulation has increased fire severity more than any
other human activity. The notion that we can salvage-log the
forest to reduce fire risk is not supported by any empirical
scientific evidence.
The State of Idaho has over 960 streams which are polluted
and rated as water quality limited by the Environmental
Protection Agency because of too much contamination in the
streams. Over half these streams are being degraded by logging.
Flooding, exacerbated by logging and road building in the Coeur
D'Alene watershed is steadily sending millions of pounds of
lead contaminated sediments into Lake Coeur D'Alene and
ultimately, into the city of Spokane's watershed.
In Oregon, seven people were killed this year as a result
of mudslides. Numerous scientific studies have been published,
including one by the U.S. Forest Service that conclude logging
and road building increase the risk of severity of landslides
and flooding.
Across the west, fish stocks continue to decline, and many
species, such as the Coho Salmon and Bull Trout are being
considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
The private and public forests of the southeast United
States are threatened by unsustainable logging. There are now
over 140 chip mills in the southeast, and according to industry
and the Forest Service, the growth-to-harvest ratio of
softwoods in the south went negative in 1991. Further, hardwood
forests are expected to exceed growth within the next two to
ten years.
This is not only evidence that the industry is
unsustainable, but that chip mills are depleting the forests,
thereby impacting water quality, habitats, ecosystem health,
and local forest-dependent businesses.
These are the facts as presented by the scientific
community, industry, and government agencies. These are the
real forest ecosystem health problems which this committee has
chosen to ignore in favor of arguments that all come to the
same conclusion, more logging.
Claiming to address the overstocking and fuel loading
problems caused by fire suppression and grazing cattle, the
104th Congress passed the Salvage Logging Rider which suspended
environmental laws and the citizens' right to have those laws
enforced and participate in how their own lands were being
managed, but no effort was made to address the more fundamental
problems of too much grazing and too much fire suppression.
Under the rider, we witnessed the logging of ancient
forests that have been protected by the courts. Under the
rider, the guise of logging dead and dying trees was used by
the Forest Service to log large, live green trees.
Unroaded areas, which represent some of our nation's last
unprotected wilderness were entered and logged. The
government's own interagency report on the implementation of
the rider confirmed these abuses.
In the aftermath of the rider, several lessons are clear.
Our environmental laws and public processes should never again
be suspended. Ancient forests, roadless areas, and riparian
zones need permanent protection, and the U.S. Forest Service
needs to be reformed and made more accountable to the public.
To address these threats to the health of our forest
ecosystems, we would like to make several recommendations which
we would urge the committee to adopt.
Prohibit new road building on the national forests and
prohibit the use of purchaser road credits to build new roads;
prohibit logging and road building on unstable and potentially
unstable national forest land; restore accountability by
reforming or abolishing off-budget funds.
As Representative Vento mentioned, the interagency report
concluded that the salvage fund created an incentive for the
agency to choose logging projects when other activities such as
prescribed fire or stream restoration would have been more
appropriate, and this is because they get to keep most of the
receipts by choosing salvage operations.
The next point is to end money-losing timber sales. The
annual report of the White House Council of Economic Advisors
shows that the Forest Service spent $234,000,000 administering
the timber sale program than were returned in receipts.
Generally, the Forest Service subsidizes timber extraction
from public lands by collecting less revenues than it spends on
timber program costs, the report says. We urge the committee to
end subsidized logging in the national forests.
At Senator Craig's recent forest management workshop, the
GAO testified that during 1995, the Forest Service spent
$215,000,000 of the taxpayers' money that they cannot account
for. We urge the committee to use its oversight authority to
find out what happened to the taxpayers' $215,000,000.
Further, we urge the committee to look at the full range of
values our forests provide, such as clean water, fish and
wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities.
According to the Forest Service's resource and planning
assessment, by the year 2000, recreation in the national
forests will produce over $1 billion for the economy while
logging will only produce $3,500,000. The value of clean and
stable water flows from our forests is estimated in the
trillions.
Recently, Chief Michael Dombeck testified, ``The
unfortunate reality is that many people presently do not trust
us to do the right thing. Until we rebuild that trust and
strengthen those relationships, it is simply common sense that
we avoid riparian, old growth, and roadless areas.''
We urge the committee to support Chief Dombeck's effort to
reform the agency and restore the public's trust by adopting
his common-sense recommendation and the other recommendations
in this testimony including the restoration of eastern old
growth, since there is almost no old growth left in the east.
The idea that we need to cut down the eastern old-growth
forests is simply absurd. We need to restore old growth
ecosystems in the eastern United States.
In closing, I would like to quote a Republican president
who helped make this a great nation by protecting some of our
national forests, Teddy Roosevelt, who said, ``The nation
behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which
it must turn over to the next generation increased and not
impaired in value.''
I believe the United States is a great nation, but I feel
that we are now risking that greatness by lacking the foresight
and courage that made us great to begin with. We can choose to
squander our remaining unprotected wild places, or we can be
revered by future generations as Teddy Roosevelt is for having
the vision and greatness to protect our nation's natural
heritage.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
[Statement of Steve Holmer may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Holmer. The chair would now
recognize Ed Muckenfuss, a regional manager from Westvaco
Company.
STATEMENT OF ED MUCKENFUSS, REGIONAL MANAGER, WESTVACO COMPANY,
SUMMERVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Muckenfuss. Madame Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to contribute my
ideas on what constitutes a health forest and what management
practices contribute to establish and maintain them.
My name is Ed Muckenfuss, and I am Southern Regional
Manager of Westvaco Corporation's Forest Resources Division. In
my Region in South Carolina, we manage nearly 500,000 acres of
company forest and advise private landowners who own another
400,000 acres.
Westvaco owns forest land primarily to provide a
sustainable source of wood fiber for its mills. We also manage
them to provide habitat for wildlife and clean water for the
lakes and streams that adjoin them.
The key word here is manage. We firmly believe that in
order for a forest to be healthy, it must be actively managed.
Healthy forests are forests that are growing vigorously and
that have a diversity of age classes and forest types which
enables them to resist disease and insect epidemics and helps
to reduce the intensity of wildfires when they occur. The
diversity of forest ages and types also provides a range of
habitats for wildlife.
While some percentage of old-growth habitat is desirable,
extensive areas of old-growth conditions or any single age
class condition puts the entire forest at risk for catastrophic
insect attacks and wildfires.
The photograph you see here is an aerial view of some of
our forest in Kentucky. This forest is actively managed to
maintain healthy tree densities and various forest types
interspersed across the landscape.
We consider this a healthy forest that achieves our
objectives of providing a sustainable supply of wood fiber for
our mill, diversity of wildlife habitats, and protection of the
lakes and streams adjacent to the forest.
There are criteria that we use to determine the health of
our forests. Number one, suitability of tree species to the
site; two, the density of the trees relative to the ability of
the site to support them; three, diversity of age classes
across the landscape; four, the amount of fuel loading on the
site; five, the condition of riparian areas for protecting
lakes and streams; six, diversity of forest types across the
landscape; seven, the relative abundance of noxious insects and
the disease incidence rate; and eight, the availability of
nutrients to sustain vigorous tree growth.
As I have said, healthy forests are the result of good,
active management. Older forests eventually become overcrowded
and lose their vigor, making them susceptible to disease and
insect epidemics. Without management, these conditions set the
stage for catastrophic events like the fires in Yellowstone
National Park.
Here are the management practices that we use to improve or
maintain forest health. Number one, good inventory information;
two, landscape scale planning that provides for protection of
riparian areas and diversity of age classes and forest types;
three, provisions to regenerate with tree species appropriate
to the site; four, intermediate stand treatments to control
density and fuel conditions; five, careful inclusion and
management of old growth or overmature stands; six, soil
amendments as necessary to maintain productivity for intensive
management; and seven, effective control of insect and disease
epidemics.
In many ways, forests are like people. When they are young
and growing, they usually can withstand pathogens and parasites
with their natural defenses. As they grow older, they become
increasingly susceptible, and therefore, require more care.
Inadequate management has put many forests in the United
States at risk. In some forests, neglect has skewed forests
toward stands of older age classes and allowed many stands to
become overcrowded and overloaded with fuels.
In other forests, poor management practices have removed
most of the healthy and vigorously growing trees, leaving the
old and weak.
In either case, these forests are ripe for epidemic of
disease and insects and the catastrophic wildfires that often
follow.
We believe that by applying the management practices I have
outlined, these forests can be returned to healthy conditions
and provide for the needs of many generations to come. Without
adequate levels of management, however, they will increasingly
fall victim to catastrophic events which will result in losses
that will deprive our children of their benefits.
Thank you again for this opportunity to express my views on
this important subject.
[Statement of G. Edward Muckenfuss may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very, very much. That is a very
impressive picture, and I thank you for your testimony.
The chair now recognizes Bill Wall, from my own district in
Idaho, an outstanding wildlife biologist, and I thank you very
much for being here with the committee this afternoon.
Dr. Wall.
STATEMENT OF BILL WALL, WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, POTLATCH
CORPORATION, LEWISTON, IDAHO
Dr. Wall. Thank you, Madame Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I currently serve as chair-elect of the AF&PA
Wildlife Committee, and for the past five years, have worked to
develop landscape management processes Potlatch Corporation in
Idaho.
I would like to share with you some thoughts, and I am
going to share four key points up front, and then get into
answering the two questions that were asked of the panel.
First, I think we should consider that forest health should
be equated with sustainable forest system health, not merely
green trees.
Second, the intermountain west is a forest system in a
health crisis and is right now beyond acceptable biological
risk. The application of active forest management including
timber harvest and controlled fire or silvicultural tools for
restoring forest system health, and analysis tools which are
the new ones that we have been generating over the past ten
years or so. Our capabilities have really expanded, such as
ecological landscape classification systems, GIS-based
landscape planning, watershed analysis are all tools that we
can use to help guide our active forest management to restore
health in our forests.
Third, forest health criteria must be defined on the
ecological capability where forested landscapes are located.
Ecologists have described how physical land characteristics,
weather disturbance factors interact to define different types
of forest ecosystems across the country.
Fourth, each region will have a different criteria which
affects risks to various forest values, thus general health
criteria must be applied specifically within the ecosystem one
is addressing.
Health and management criteria must also address several
spacial scales from forest stands to watersheds to broader
landscapes. We must not reach an either/or scenario of healthy
trees or other forest values such as wildlife habitat. Rather,
we should take an approach of both-and, healthy, diverse forest
landscapes, healthy watersheds, as well as wildlife habitats.
To answer the first question on some of the criteria for
considering healthy systems, the appropriate ecological
representation of all the floral composition and structure
across landscapes is one key. Each forest system has a broad
range of conditions which are necessary for healthy forest
systems. A healthy system is one that has a full, diverse array
of those forest structures and communities.
Sustainable site productivity is the next key. Maintenance
of soil characteristics which sustain the productive resilience
of forest systems is critical. Sustainable and functional
watersheds, quality stream conditions for salmon and fish, at
least in our area, are dependent on functioning riparian
habitats.
A healthy forest is one that maintains a full complement of
functional habitats for native species across broad landscapes
which encompass a variety of ownerships and land management
objectives, and finally, acceptable risk from catastrophic
disturbance such as wildfire, disease, insect outbreaks, as
well as flooding.
Disturbance to forest systems, whether natural or manmade
is necessary to maintain functioning and specific values of
timber, water, and wildlife.
Now, some suggestions on some of the analysis tools and
management techniques which can be applied to achieve those
sorts of goals.
One, it has been interesting that industry has taken a lead
role in the northwest in developing watershed analysis
capabilities. These can be used to define risks to watershed
functions from unhealthy forest conditions, to develop site-
specific best management practices for the specific watersheds
in which they are applied rather than a cookie-cutter approach
which we have seen out of the Federal agencies, and define
restoration and active forest management needs for reducing
risks within those watersheds.
Ecological landscape classification systems help us to
define the ecological capability of the ecosystem in which we
are working, to understand historical disturbance regimes
resulting in stand and landscape conditions, and to help us
define appropriate ecological representation accross
landscapes.
A GIS-based landscape planning process is the new tool that
is allowing us to begin planning for those various conditions.
Finally, timber harvest and silvicultural methods that
recognize the needs within these ecosystems that help us create
the right structure and composition of vegetation across the
landscape in addition to providing for wildlife habitat,
functioning watersheds, and the types of economic returns that
we need to maintain our communities in the west.
Finally, the thing that has really impressed me in the
opportunities that exist relative to this issue and many other
forest and natural resource management issues are the new
partnerships that are beginning to develop, those that are
being developed between public and private.
I have participated in quite a few and have been very
excited about the outcomes of those. Also, the ability of
industry to work at times with the Forest Service to develop
new types of information, new tools, and to apply those to
reach the ecological as well as economic goals that we are
attempting to across landscapes. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Wall, very much, and I thank
the panel for their testimony.
We will now recognize the members for questions, and I want
to remind the members we have five minutes for questioning, and
I would like to first recognize the gentleman from Colorado,
Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me start by going back to a question that
I had asked earlier with respect to prescribed burns. I would
like to hear you all respond to this whole topic, the Babbitt
proposal that has been announced and just where you see this
fitting in in sound forest management practices, in particular,
for Mr. Holmer's comment that no forest management would be
preferable.
What about this Babbitt proposal of management by
prescribed burn?
Mr. Holmer. Our concern has been that there has been an
overemphasis on management. We support the idea of prescribed
burning, and we will support thinning in the urban/wildland
interface.
We do feel that the old growth areas, the unroaded areas,
the riparian zones need to be put off limits as the key first
step to restoring the ecosystems, and I think that you will
find that if those steps are taken, it will also do a great
deal to help deal with the problem of polarization, because the
most contentious timber sales that people deal with are in
these critical areas, and so by realizing the ecological
importance as well as the social conflict that is surrounding
these areas, by resolving that, I think you will find that it
is easier to come to grips with how to manage the rest of the
landscape, and again, I think prescribed burning and
restoration of national fire regimes is the only way that in
the long run we are going to be able to accomplish that.
Mr. Schaffer. Any of the others?
Dr. Wall. Fire in many of our forest systems has always
been a natural disturbance factor, and there are many species
that depend on fire being introduced, but fire can also be
catastrophic and destroy wildlife habitat as well as the types
of riparian zones that Steve is wanting us to protect and
maintain.
It is a judicious use of fire that we are looking for and
one that we can control in most cases, not to say that on
occasion, wildfires will occur, especially in wilderness areas,
et cetera.
To back up and say that we should exclude fire again I
think would be a definite mistake. Fire is an integral tool,
and as was suggested earlier in this panel, we need to have all
the tools in our toolkit, and we need to be able to use those
appropriately in the appropriate times.
Mr. Muckenfuss. Fire is an absolutely essential tool in the
southeast. It is a matter of timing and conditions. There is no
question that fires will burn in the southeast sooner or later.
Through the judicious use of prescribed fire, we are able
to apply this very important management tool with proper timing
and under conditions which create low-intensity fires that help
reduce fuel loading as well as to create additional benefits
from the standpoint of habitat for wildlife and so forth.
Fire has traditionally been used in the southeast by
Indians and early settlers to do the same things that we
accomplish with fire, and should we lose fire, it will change
the entire ecosystem of the east coast for the worse.
There is not a tool that is more important to manage
forests and that applies no matter what snapshot in time you
would like to pick as to what kind of forest you would like to
have. It is extremely important for longleaf, wire-grass
ecosystems as it is for plantations.
Mr. Kane. I would concur that the use of fire is a critical
tool; however, in the east, it is not as widely used as it is
in other parts of the country because in our area, we have
approximately 11 fire days that would qualify for prescribed
burning.
However, it is going to be used to a limited extent in our
area to reestablish some species that were lost because with
the advent of science and the internal combustion engine, the
wildfires that ran through the east during the steam years from
the steam locomotives really allowed more species diversity and
allowed the oak species to be more prevalent in the current
forest than what we believe it can be in the future forest,
because of just the nature of the species.
We are going to use prescribed burning even in the east, so
it is a critical tool.
Mr. Schaffer. Madame Chairman, I don't have any more
questions. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Schaffer, thank you very much. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Holmer, if you were suddenly appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate to be the czar over
all of public land, when and where would we cut timber?
Mr. Holmer. Excuse me? Would I support----
Mr. Peterson. If you were given the role of being in charge
of our national forests, you were just absolutely in charge,
where and when would we cut timber, or wouldn't we?
Mr. Holmer. That is an interesting question. Our
organization does not support any specific level of timber
target. We have not taken a position on no logging, but what we
do support is the use of conservation--biology, and the latest
scientific information.
They are a few examples of this being conducted on a
limited scale such as the Northwest Forest Plan. There is a new
report out on the Sierra Nevada ecosystem, another process
underway in the inland west in Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon
and Washington.
We would want to look at the whole ecosystem. In our view,
our forests have been seriously overcut for the past three
decades, so it could be quite possible that we are in a deficit
situation right now, which would mean giving the forest time to
heal.
Another key problem is the lack of protection for critical
components of the ecosystem, such as old growth, roadless
areas, and riparian zones, so restoring those areas and
protecting those areas would be my first priority.
Mr. Peterson. What part of the country are you from and
where have you spent most of your personal time in the forest?
Mr. Holmer. Actually, mostly in the east. I went to high
school in the suburbs outside of Philadelphia, and I went to
college at Penn State, so I have spent a fair amount of time on
the Allegheny, and as my resume there says, I have been to
national forests in 14 different States, and I have also had
extensive experience with overflights and having a chance to
see our forests from the air.
Mr. Peterson. Do you believe the Allegheny National Forest
has been overcut?
Mr. Holmer. I am not familiar enough with the situation in
the Allegheny to say that. I would say from my personal
experience there, I was shocked at how many roads I saw. You
can travel down certain roads seemingly in the middle of
nowhere, but it seemed like it was a suburb because there were
so many spur roads going off to the side to drill pads or
timber sales or one activity after another.
I would have to say I was somewhat shocked at how
industrialized that forest was.
Mr. Peterson. Who do we own the forest for?
Mr. Holmer. Well, the forests are owned by the American
people, and the mandate is fairly clear, to protect the full
range of values on public lands, and there is abundant evidence
that not all the values are being protected right now.
When you look at the problem of clean water, when you look
at the problem of declining biodiversity, there is every
indication that not all the values are currently being
protected, and when you look at the root cause, things like
road building, logging, and grazing repeatedly come to the
front as the reasons why these other values are being
diminished.
Mr. Peterson. I guess having spent my entire life very
close to the ANF and often in the ANF, I would take some
exception to you. I am an avid hunter myself, love to hike and
spend time in the woods, in the forest, and I guess I would
like to ask you how many people will go five miles off a road
today?
When you talk about these huge blocks that are to be locked
up, you are talking about a minute number, part of the society
today that will travel a mile from their car because they are
afraid.
I believe in having some real diversity, having some old
growth, but how much, how big, for whom? I want to tell you, it
is a very small part of the population that get five miles from
their car under any circumstance in any forest.
Mr. Holmer. I understand what you are saying, but I think
that one of the values that these forests provide are
fundamental ecological services, so recreation isn't always the
key factor to look at.
We get a lot of clean water supplies off our national
forest lands. This last year, the city of Salem, Oregon, had to
close down their water treatment facility because there was so
much sediment in their streams.
When you look at the full range that the forests provide,
roadless areas are the key refuges for our biodiversity and
they help control our water flows and help prevent flooding by
remaining intact.
There is a lot of fundamental services that most people
don't even think about, and most economists have been unable to
quantify up to this date.
Mr. Peterson. I guess I am here to say for the record that
the Allegheny River and the Clarion River that flow from the
ANF are the finest quality water-wise today than they have been
in many, many years, and I think it is because of good
practices, a lot of good environmental policy.
We have made great progress, and I can't let you get away
with saying that we are not going in the right direction, that
we haven't improved water quality in that region, because we
have.
Mr. Holmer. I appreciate you saying that, and I do know
that there are some very beautiful places on the Allegheny that
I enjoy visiting very much.
Mr. Peterson. A quick question for Mr. Kane. You mentioned
about education for the private landowner. The largest part of
timber, at least in the east--I don't know that it is true in
the west, is still owned by private landowners and small plots.
Is government playing an adequate role in helping people
understand the value of their forests?
I know of cases where somebody only owned 20 acres. They
sold it for a pittance, but it was worth quite a lot of money
if it would have been marketed properly and cut properly.
Mr. Kane. That is exactly the case. The education is truly
a moving target. In the computer age as information is doubling
in less than a decade, there is so much for people to know out
there, and they own a piece of property for income and to pass
something on to their children and for many reasons, but they
don't take the time to truly understand the ecosystem.
I think the education process is not only for the
landowner, but for the general public. Very few people in the
general public truly understand the forest and what it provides
to them and how, and how managing the resource is so much more
important than just hands off, because there is no way with the
population of our society and the impacts our society has had
on the forest ecosystem that we can say hands off, because even
by standing back, we have touched it.
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank you personally and all
of you for coming today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Bill Wall, I have
some questions for you. That doesn't surprise you, does it?
Dr. Wall. Not at all. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Among the criteria that you described, you
mentioned the state-of-the-art forest management practices and
controlled fire. What practices are you referring to
specifically for the record, and do both public and private
landowners have these practices available for their use?
Dr. Wall. Yes, they do have them available for their use,
but at this point, I think the timber industry has figured out,
has taken the lead in figuring out some of the tools that we
are applying to landscapes in understanding how to use computer
technology and have the actual data in hand in order to apply
those techniques.
We have some historical mistakes to correct, and we are
learning very rapidly with those, and I would also suggest that
our abilities to gather data, process that information and
develop an overall feedback and learning process as we apply
these things, the buzzword is adaptive management, is there
inside industry and they are taking those sorts of lead roles
at this point.
We have the opportunity to work with our neighbors on
public lands to help generate the types of information that we
need and to work to apply that information.
The specific techniques on the ground that are beginning to
be applied are a completely different way of road building as
well as timber harvesting techniques that are far more
sensitive, that take into consideration physical site
characteristics, and then turn around and apply specific types
of applications to specific types of land that historically, we
were not able to quantify or classify in the past.
Using those sorts of techniques has allowed us to
understand much better how to manage our forest resource and to
apply that, not only to the timber values that we are seeking,
but also to maintenance of biodiversity of wildlife habitat as
well as our functioning riparian and aquatic systems.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You recommended using a coarse filter
approach for landscape planning. Could you help me understand
that better and also explain it for the record?
Dr. Wall. Sure. There was a lot of discussion earlier from
various folks on this panel about a diverse array of structures
and composition across the landscape.
A coarse filter approach is an approach to a broad scale
landscape rather than a stand-by-stand approach, although we
recognize the need to use the stand-by-stand approach, in
taking the full complement of wildlife species that exist
across that landscape, quantifying the types of habitats needed
by those various species, and then through a planning process,
making sure that we apply the appropriate techniques across
space and through time to maintain the habitats necessary to
maintain the species that we would find in any one location.
Along with that is an understanding of the ecological
background or capability in which you are working which can be
completely different depending on where you are. Even in Idaho,
the fact that we have on our land base specifically a range
from 40 or about 35 inches of rainfall all the way up to 80
inches of rainfall means that we have to think through the
application of maintaining habitats and the application of
specific practices depending even on just rainfall conditions.
What we are talking about is taking a broader scale
approach to understanding how to maintain habitat through time
and across space.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And Dr. Wall, as you take that approach,
are you considering the native species in the entire course of
the forest? Are we moving back to replanting and reforesting to
the native species so that they will be more resistant to
attack, whether it be fire or insects or whatever it might be?
Dr. Wall. Most definitely. In fact, we are depending again
on our ability to classify the site. We are putting species and
in some cases, five different species within one stand back on
specific sites.
Potlatch specifically has worked with the Forest Service
through time to develop resistant strains of white pine, and in
order to bring white pine back into the ecosystem which was
native there, it is necessary to return to some early
successional stages, because that species is not shade tolerant
and does need sunlight.
We are actively working to restore some of the white pine
sites as well as maintaining all of the rest of the native
species that exist in northern Idaho on our land base.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have one more question for you, Dr. Wall.
Will the Forest Service's ecoregion assessments, such as the
Columbia River Basin ecosystem management project, help address
the issues that we are trying to address as far as healthy
forests and necessary criteria? Will it help on the public
lands?
What is your feeling about that?
Dr. Wall. Well, it has tremendous potential, but at the
same time, potential and reality are two different things, and
the ability to apply the understanding that is gained from
broad scale assessments is, as we well recognize, a problem
associated with the realities of regulations and the
bureaucracy in which they work.
The other thing that I would suggest is that broad scale
looks help us set context for the large scale. Where we make
the mistake, I think, is in learning how to apply ecosystem
management is trying to take information from the broad scale
and bringing it all the way down to a very fine scale or local
situation.
What, in my mind, has to happen after working in ecosystem
management concepts for the past ten years is that we need to
understand that broad scale context, but at the same time, we
have to build site-specific strategies underneath that in order
to achieve the specific goals, so we end up working from stands
to watersheds, to landscapes, and then this broad scale
context, so what we end up with is a simultaneous top-down
approach which is a look at the broad scale, but building with
good, fine information and capability at the fine scale and
meeting somewhere in between in order to meet the objectives
that we are setting for ourselves.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Wall. I appreciate all of
your testimony very, very much. Mr. Holmer, I really appreciate
your testimony today. We haven't always agreed, and most times,
we don't, do we? But I am really surprised that no other
environmental organizations wanted to take the opportunity to
testify today.
I appreciate your being here, I really do. I would like for
you to tell your colleagues in the environmental community that
the record will remain open for about ten days if they would
like to submit testimony for the record.
I also would like to invite you very sincerely to our
forests out in the west. The dynamics out there are quite
different than the forests in the east, and our fuel load in
many areas in western forests are about 12 feet tall, and it
really is a puzzle as to what to do. Because of our very strict
ambient air quality standards, we can't even burn trash piles,
so we really wonder about how far we can go in managing the
forest by fire.
I thank you very much for your testimony, gentlemen, all of
you. Thank you very much. I wish we had more time, but I will
study your testimony and be very open to hear from any of you
any time. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]
2Statement of John E. Peterson, a U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania
Madame Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here today to
participate in this oversight hearing in the Forest and Forest
Health Subcommittee. This hearing is especially important to me
as I represent the only national forest in Pennsylvania, the
Allegheny National Forest. I look forward to the dialogue we
are about to open concerning the management of our nation's
forests and criteria for determining healthy forests.
The Allegheny National Forest (ANF), more than 500,000
acres, lies completely within my Congressional District (PA-5).
The ANF is a unique and diverse asset that is enjoyed by
residents of the Commonwealth and visitors from across the
nation.
Although my views about the beauty and diversity of the
Forest are subjective, the ANF does indeed have a very long
list of attributes. Nearing the top of that list is worldwide
recognition of the hardwood timber that grows on the Forest,
black cherry in particular. In fact, the ANF is the single-
largest source of high-quality black cherry.
While many of us are familiar with forest health problems
as they relate to Western states, the forest health concerns of
Eastern forests can be quite different. However, one common,
pervasive problem is weather. On the ANF, it has been periodic
drought that has caused notable damage. Specifically, in 1988
and 1989 almost 18,000 acres experienced significant oak
mortality. Also, tornadoes and hail storm damage has been
detrimental to health of the Forest.
As an Eastern forest, the ANF experiences threats from
exotic sources like the forest tent caterpillar, gypsy moth,
and cherry scallop shell moth. In 1994 alone, cherry scallop
shell moth severely defoliated cherry on close to 40 percent of
the ANF as it was the primary tree pest. Given these problems
of such complex nature, research becomes a prime tool in
determining methods to treat and prevent repeated instances.
Madame Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not mention how
pleased I am to have with us here today a constituent from my
District, Mr. Kenneth Kane. Mr. Kane is Vice President of Keith
Horn, Incorporated, a small group of consulting foresters from
Kane, PA. I believe Mr. Kane's expertise in the field of
private forestry as a hands-on manager makes him uniquely
qualified to testify about forest management tools and the
criteria of determining a healthy forest.
I look forward to hearing from all of our panelists today
as this Subcommittee seeks answers to these very important
questions concerning the health and longevity of our nation's
resources.
------
Statementby the Honorable George Radanovich, a U.S. Representative from
California
Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth, for providing this forum
today to discuss the issue of forest health. No single issue is
more important in this Subcommittee than addressing the long-
term health of our federal forests. It is just that simple.
Your decision to focus this hearing on ``what criteria
should be used to determine if a forest is healthy or
unhealthy, and what management tools are most appropriate for
maintaining or improving forest health,'' is a sound one. In
order to better address the needs of the forest, we must first
understand both what has worked and what we have done wrong in
our management of this valuable resource.
Furthermore, we need to re-examine the role of the courts
in our forest management plans. Today, the laws guiding federal
forest lands are often made not by sound scientific evidence,
but instead by the courts. Lawsuits filed by extreme
environmental organizations have contributed to the substantial
reduction in timber harvests in recent years--including the
salvage of dead, dying and diseased timber necessary to reduce
the fuel load that has built up in our national forests. As we
move forward in this process, we must remember that lawyers and
judges don't improve the health of our forests, forest managers
do.
Our national forests--I believe--are in critical condition.
The volume of dead, dying and diseased trees has reached
epidemic level in recent years. These severe conditions have
produced a rash of wildfires in recent years, destroying
wildlife and habitat and forcing a substantial reduction in
timber harvest levels not only in my district, but also the
entire nation. For the sake of our forests, we must reverse
this disheartening trend.
Sound science, education and a recognition that the forests
provide both an ecological and economic role in society are
necessary in order to move away from the conflict and
controversy that has surrounded our forest debates and towards
a locally-driven consensus-based forest management program. A
forest is a sustainable resource. If properly managed, it can
provide equally for both the environment and the economy. A
healthy forest is a win-win for both the environment and the
communities who depend on the forest for their livelihoods.
That is why we must place forest health legislation at the top
of our agenda in this Subcommittee.
Again, thank you Chairman Chenoweth for putting this
hearing together today. I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses today as we begin a very important dialogue on the
management of our federal forests.
------
Statement of Harry V. Wiant, Jr., President, Society of American
Foresters, on behalf of myself as a professional forester
Mrs. Chairman, my name is Harry V. Wiant, Jr., President
of the Society of American Foresters (SAF). The over 18,600
members of the Society constitute the scientific and
educational association representing the profession of forestry
in the United States. SAF's primary objective is to advance the
science, technology, education, and practice of professional
forestry for the benefit of society. We are ethically bound to
advocate and practice land management consistent with
ecologically sound principles. I am especially pleased to be
here today to discuss the subject of Forest Health and to thank
the Subcommittee for its continued support of professional
forestry. I thank the Chair for the opportunity.
The public policy activities of SAF are grounded in
scientific knowledge and professional judgment. From this
perspective we review proposed forestry and related natural
resource programs to determine their adequacy to meet stated
objectives and public needs.
I wish to point out that I speak here today in two distinct
capacities. First, I will address the views of the elected
Council of the Society of American Foresters as expressed in
its recent report entitled A Framework for Considering Forest
Health and Productivity Issues prepared by SAF's National Task
Force on Forest Health and Productivity. I wish to submit the
full report for the record. I will also speak as a forester and
citizen independent of the Society of American Foresters who is
concerned with forest health issues.
SAF has been involved in maintaining the health and
productivity of American forests since Gifford Pinchot, first
chief of the Forest Service, founded the organization in 1900.
As a diverse organization encompassing all facets of forest
management, the concept of forest health is one we have
struggled with in recent years. Our recent report comes to
these conclusions:
Professional foresters believe there are serious forest
health and productivity questions in many parts of the country.
Forest health is an informal and technically inexact term.
Assessment of forest health and forest productivity
requires an understanding of both the condition of the forest
and the objectives for the management of that forest;
recognizing that objectives are set by landowners be they
private, public, tribal or trust, and also by society through
policy and regulation.
Forest health is determined at the local level; therefore,
a single national prescription to achieve healthy forests is
inappropriate.
I will now express my personal views, once again pointing
out that these are not necessarily the opinions of the Society
of American Foresters, which I would like noted in the record.
As humans, we experience the joys of birth, the vigor of
youth, slowing down with age, and, finally, death. With proper
attention to health, our productive years may be extended. Few
of us believe a ``hands-off'' approach is appropriate to
maintain human health. Trees, and forests, go through similar
phases. Believing that a vigorously growing forest, within the
limitations of site quality and age, that is not seriously
threatened by insects, diseases, fire, or other hazards is
healthy, my over 40 years of experience as a forester leads me
to the firm convictions that:
A well-managed forest (along a spectrum from intensive
management to wilderness management), with management
addressing landowner or societal objectives, is the healthiest
possible.
In an unmanaged forest, there is no opportunity to address
declining health.
Picture a well-managed 5,000-acre forest, comprised of
trees well adapted to the site, and being managed with a
rotation age (the age at which the final harvest of trees
occurs) of 50 years. After 50 years of management, 100 acres
(perhaps not in a single location on the forest) are being
regenerated by natural or artificial means, 100 acres have 1-
year-old seedlings, etc., with 100 acres ready for the final
harvest. Logging and access roads are well engineered,
regeneration is prompt, and the soil productivity is
maintained.
Hazards to forest health, such as fire, insects, and
diseases, generally are most damaging to trees of given ages.
The age-class distribution of the well-managed forest minimizes
those risks. With proper intermediate cuts (cuts made to
provide spacing for crop trees to maintain vigorous growth, to
salvage diseased and damaged trees, etc.), productivity and
biodiversity are generally maximized.
The criteria to judge whether a forest is healthy becomes
obvious:
Soil productivity is protected and maintained with well-
engineered logging and access roads and prompt regeneration.
The forest is comprised of species well adapted to the
site.
There is an approximately balanced age-class distribution.
Well-maintained logging and access roads facilitate forest
management and protection.
Fuel levels, diseases, insects, and other potential hazards
(deer, for example) are at reasonable levels.
The management tools necessary to maintain or improve
forest health are evident also, including:
An adequate cadre of professional foresters, wildlife
managers, recreation specialists, engineers, hydrologists, and
others is available to provide the expertise needed to produce
the commodity and non-commodity values desired.
There is flexibility to manage the forest, unhampered by
poorly conceived ``environmental'' laws, frivolous appeals, and
tax codes which discourage long-term investments in timber
management.
There are strong forest research programs in the USDA
Forest Service, universities, and the private sector.
Forest management remains science based, and the
``toolkit'' available to managers (prescribed fire, herbicides,
selection method, clearcutting, etc.) is maintained.
To put this in few words, the cure to our forest health
problems is more and not less forest management! The primary
responsibility for managing our nation's forests should be in
the hands of those best qualified by training and experience,
the foresters.
Thank you.
------
Statement of Hon. Stephen H. Schoenholtz, Associate Professor, Forest
and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University
Madam Chairman, Committee Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on useful
criteria to assess forest health, and management tools
appropriate to maintain or improve forest health. Forest health
means different things to different people depending on
differences in forest management objectives and philosophies.
Therefore, defining forest health is currently a topic of
intense debate. There is general agreement that our well-being
and the well-being of future generations depends on productive,
sustainable, healthy forests. However, some perceptions of
forest health vary depending on individual preferences for
forest use. To manage and maintain our forests in an acceptable
state for future generations, requires us to define forest
health broadly enough to encompass the many facets of forest
ecosystems.
Evaluating forest health is a daunting task. Forest
components such as plants, animals, soil, water, and air have
many complex interactions that we may recognize, but do not
fully understand. Evaluating and monitoring health of some
components may be difficult and/or expensive. Forests are
constantly changing. This must be recognized when assessing
their health. Some indicators of forest health at one stage of
forest development may not be important at other stages.
Furthermore, separating human-induced change (e.g. increased
ozone or acidic deposition, historic farming, tree harvesting,
burning) from natural change (e.g. wildfire, insect outbreaks,
severe storms) can be difficult. Finally, the question of scale
must be addressed in the assessment of forest health; that is,
forest health can be considered at the stand level (10's of
acres) or at regional or national levels (millions of acres).
What do we look for when we try to assess forest health? We
must keep in mind that forests consist of components in
addition to trees. These components include other vegetation,
animals, soil, air, and water. An assessment of forest health,
therefore, should consider key indicators that can be measured
or described periodically to identify trends. Key indicators
should also effectively integrate the status of all forest
ecosystem components. It is neither possible nor is it
necessary to consider all of the processes and components of a
forest ecosystem in order to make useful assessments about
forest health or the consequences of forest management for
forest health. We must focus our efforts on identifying key
indicators, the knowledge of which will permit acceptably
accurate assessments of forest health. We must remember that
some key indicators of forest health may vary among different
forest ecosystems, among different spatial and temporal scales,
and among different scientific and managerial objectives.
There is great merit in trying to identify indicators of
forest health in spite of the difficulties involved because
these indicators are essential for understanding and predicting
forest health. To be useful in society over a range of
ecological and socioeconomic situations, key forest health
indicators should meet the following suitability criteria
(after Doran and Parkin 1994): integrate ecosystem properties
and processes; be accessible to many users and applicable to
field conditions; be sensitive to variations in management and
climate; and where possible, be components of existing data
bases.
Measurements of forest vegetation meet these suitability
criteria. Vegetation is often the component of primary concern
when assessing forest health. However, it also provides habitat
for animal communities and it interacts with other ecosystem
components such as soil, air, and water. Forest ecosystem
health must include a level of acceptable plant productivity.
This productivity depends on development of efficient leaf area
and on maintaining low stress levels in plants. This, in turn
depends on the ability of the soil to supply necessary
nutrients and water.
A list of basic forest vegetation indicators includes: age;
structure; crown condition; species composition; species
diversity; growth rate; mortality rate; foliar injury; species
replacement patterns; regeneration rate; presence of insects or
disease; and presence of exotic species.
We have a good understanding of expected temporal patterns
in many forest ecosystem types. If these criteria indicate
deviations from expected patterns, then management practices to
maintain or enhance forest health should be considered.
These management alternatives include: removal of
undesirable species; thinning to appropriate tree density;
supplemental planting; use of controlled burning;
fertilization; manipulating vegetation to create specific
habitat; and imposing stricter air quality standards.
Soil is recognized as a critical component of forest
ecosystems and, as such, quality of soil has a profound effect
on the health and productivity of a given ecosystem. Soil is a
dynamic, living, management-responsive resource whose condition
is vital to both forest ecosystem function and to global
balance. Health and quality of soils determine plant, animal,
and human health. Criteria for indicators of soil quality and
health relate mainly to their utility in defining ecosystem
processes and integrating physical, chemical, and biological
properties, their sensitivity to management and climatic
variations, and their accessibility and utility to society.
Ultimate choice of specific indicators for assessing soil
quality and health will depend upon identification of
strategies for sustainable management of our forest resources.
There is a large range of soil attributes, such as
chemical, physical, and biological properties and processes
that can be used to indicate soil quality. Some of these
attributes have wide utility and can serve a range of purposes.
These basic soil indicators include (after Doran and Parkin
1994): soil texture; maximum rooting depth; soil bulk density
and infiltration; plant-available water capacity; total organic
carbon and nitrogen; pH; electrical conductivity; and soil
strength.
Other measurements will probably be needed depending on
management objectives, local conditions, and existing data
bases.
Our knowledge of factors affecting forest health is
incomplete. To be acceptable evidence of change in forest
health these conditions must be met: (1) changes in vegetation
must be attributable to differences in environmental conditions
(e.g. soil properties, air quality, climate); (2) changes must
be evident for a sufficient time so that short-term, temporary
differences are not mistaken; and (3) judgements should be
based on adequate knowledge of forest factors affecting health.
Monitoring forest health will require manipulations of
large volumes of spatial and time-dependent environmental data.
This aspect of monitoring should be developed within a
Geographic Information System environment that can accommodate
incorporation of new variables and can be developed into an
adaptive management tool.
Avoiding degradation of forest health is achieved by
accepting management techniques that do not adversely affect
the forest or the quality of the environment in which the
forest grows. If a negative effect is an unavoidable
consequence of the management goal, then future forest health
problems need to be averted by incorporating the appropriate
ameliorative techniques into management decisions for the
forest. This requires an understanding of what has been changed
in a negative way and the correct ameliorative practice needed
to restore forest health.
Although we lack empirical evidence for judging the degree
to which some criteria can be altered without concomitant loss
of forest health, we must harness what we know about forest
ecosystem function in a form that is useful for managers and
policy makers in order to help those responsible for making
effective decisions about forest management and environmental
regulations. The forest management decision process should be
based on potential impacts to indicators of forest ecosystem
health. Since our knowledge base is incomplete it is essential
that experience, feedback, and adaptability play prominent
roles in any assessment of forest health.
Literature Cited:
Doran, J.W., and T.B. Parkin. 1994. Defining and assessing
soil quality. Chapter 1. In J.W.
Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart
(eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment,
SSSA Special Publication Number 35, Am. Soc. Agronomy, Madison,
WI.
------
Statement of Mike Dombeck, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee for the
first time as Chief of the Forest Service. As some of you may
know, I am no stranger to the Forest Service, having grown up
25 miles from a town of 1,500 people in northern Wisconsin's
beautiful lake country, in the Chequamegon National Forest. In
my Forest Service career, I have worked at various levels of
the organization in the West, Midwest, and Washington D.C.,
before going to the Department of the Interior. I am glad to be
back. I am accompanied today by Dr. Ann Bartuska, Director of
our Forest Health Protection Staff.
Success Stories in Forest Ecosystem Restoration
Today, I will begin my testimony with several concrete
examples of efforts to restore the health of our nations
forests. These examples demonstrate we can improve the
conditions of forest ecosystems.
Longleaf Pine in the Southeastern United States
Of all the southern pines, many consider the longleaf pine
the most valuable in terms of quality of wood products, the
most aesthetically pleasing, and the most resistant to fire and
to insect and disease attacks. In presettlement times,
approximately 60 million acres of longleaf pine stands extended
from East Texas through the lower coastal plain to Virginia.
This ecosystem was maintained by frequent low-intensity fire
from lightning strikes or human-caused ignition. By the early
1900's, the area of longleaf pine forests had been reduced to
about 3 million acres, mainly due to the exclusion of fire from
the ecosystem and because of extensive conversion of forest
lands to agricultural uses.
We are now artificially regenerating longleaf pine on the
most appropriate sites where it originally grew. We work with
other federal agencies, state forestry organizations and
private land owners in this effort. We are also involved in
cooperative research on longleaf pine ecosystems with partners
such as the Alabama Alliance with members representing Tall
Timbers Research, Inc., universities, private landowners, and
environmental organizations. The Forest Service is now making
restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems a priority as the
national forests revise their land and resource management
plans. Through these efforts, we are establishing new stands of
longleaf pine and are providing a wide array of ecological,
social and economic benefits.
Seedling Resistance to White Pine Blister Rust
In 1909 and 1910, white pine blister rust was from
contaminated nursery stock from Europe and was introduced to
the east and west coasts. The first infection in Idaho was
discovered on the Cour D'Alene National Forest in 1923. Since
then, it has spread throughout the white forest pine type in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana. In the west,
blister rust has typically killed 90 percent or more of the
western white pine. Stands where white pine formally dominated
have been converted to grand fir, cedar, hemlock and Douglas-
fir. Control efforts were largely successful in the east, but
proved ineffective in the vast expanse of western wildlands.
Disease-resistant white pines were observed in infected
areas. In the 1950's and 1960's, we began a successful breeding
program to develop resistant white pines. Today, we have saved
the species from extinction and are reintroducing resistant
white pine seedlings as fast as we can working toward the
restoration of the western white pine ecosystem in our Northern
Region.
Prescribed Fire and Thinning on the Boise National Forest
The past decade brought severe drought and fire to the
Boise National Forest in south central Idaho. Catastrophic
wildfires burned as never before and the damage to the forest
ecosystem and dependent communities has been severe. The
conditions that have made the Boise so susceptible to
catastrophic fire are evident. Once fire resistant forests
dominated by ponderosa pine have been replaced by far more
dense stands of trees--including many of species that would be
naturally limited--existing under conditions that cannot be
sustained. These overstocked, highly stressed stands have
resulted in fuel loads that, when ignited, experience very
largestand-replacement fires far more often than historical
conditions provided.
The Boise National Forest has been a leader in identifying
addressing forest health problems in ponderosa pine ecosystems.
Using the latest technology to identify areas at highest risk
to catastrophic fire, the Boise prepared over 16,000 acres for
prescribed burning this year. Through the increased use of
prescribed fire and landscape-wide thinnings, we are changing
tree composition, stand structure, and tree density to restore
ponderosa pine ecosystems. The value of this work is obvious.
It costs $20 to $50 an acre for prescribed burning compared to
$400 to $4,000 an acre to suppress wildfires.
Before turning to the issue of forest health and how to
measure it, I would like to talk about the broader issue of
management of National Forest Systems (NFS) lands.
Management of The National Forests
There is an ongoing dialogue in this nation over how
national forests and rangelands should be managed. This
dialogue is healthy. Dialogue and information are the essence
of democracy. The people we serve, all of the people, are now
more fully engaged in defining our course. The task for the
Forest Service is not to dictate the outcome. Rather, we need
to be the facilitators, the suppliers of knowledge and
expertise, the educators and communicators who help people
search for solutions.
Today, faced with competing demands, new pressures on the
land and greater challenges than ever before, resource
management has become more contentious and more heated. We in
this room can help to change that. I believe that if we work
together, we can usher in a new era of resource stewardship and
a deeper commitment to conservation; a commitment marked by a
willingness to hear all sides of the debate; a commitment to
remain open and responsive to new ideas, new values, and new
information; a commitment to leave our lands healthier and our
waters cleaner.
I call this commitment of working with people to maintain
and restore the health of the land, collaborative stewardship.
Collaborative stewardship rests on one very basic premise: We
simply cannot meet the needs of people if we do not first
secure the health of the land.
Forest Health in the United States
While our forests are generally healthy, past timber
harvest practices such as selective removal of pine overstory
in the Inland West with the subsequent ingrowth of fir
understory and the elimination of fire from these fire-
dependent ecosystems have increased the risk of catastrophic
wildfires, and increased the severity of drought, insect
infestation, and disease. Serious forest health problems do
exist and forest management practices must be improved based on
the best available science.
Most people support the goal of sustaining healthy forest
ecosystems. Yet, over the past year, the words ``forest
health'' have become unnecessarily value laden and incorrectly
characterized to imply ``log it to save it.'' If we are to move
beyond the divisiveness associated with implementation of the
salvage rider, we must begin a more productive and credible
dialogue about ``forest health.'' To so do we must abide by
three principles.
First, unhealthy conditions in our forests developed over
many decades--any solution will require time and commitment to
implement. We must look at restoration of forest health as an
investment: an investment in the land; an investment for our
children's futures; an investment that will ensure productive,
healthy and diverse national forests.
Second, restoring forest health in not simply a forestry
issue. A healthy forest is one that maintains the function,
diversity, and resiliency of all its components, such as
wildlife and fish habitat, riparian areas, soils, rangelands,
and economic potential and will require active management. It
will require road maintenance and obliteration; use of
prescribed fire; grazing management; thinning of green trees;
salvage; and, other forest management practices. We must use
all available tools and continue our search for new ones.
Third, we must more effectively communicate the many
environmental and economic benefits of restoring forest health
as well as the consequences of inaction. If people do not
support restoration of forest health, then all of our best
efforts will be wasted.
I would like to concentrate my remarks today on how we can
work together to develop a strong network of healthy forests.
Forest ecosystems are dynamic and ever changing. We now
know the futility of trying to maintain static and predictable
forest conditions. We recognize that natural disturbances such
as fire, flood, insects, disease, and hurricanes are not only
inevitable, they are necessary to maintain the health,
diversity, and productivity of a forest ecosystem.
Understanding the role and function of natural disturbances and
the effects of human-induced ones is prerequisite to restoring
and sustaining healthy ecosystems. How we integrate these
relatively straightforward concepts into our restoration
efforts is the challenge.
Inventory and Assessments
Establishing priorities for restoration projects requires a
clear understanding of forest ecosystem conditions and trends.
Programs such as Forest Inventory and Analysis and Forest
Health Monitoring provide information to assess national
conditions and trends. These data assist us in the development
of regional assessments such as the Interior Columbia River
Basin Assessment, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, and the
Southern Appalachian Assessment. At this regional scale, all of
the critical issues are described, alternative solutions
proposed, and implementation considerations identified as
background material for potential land management decisions.
The point is that without good base-line data, we cannot make
good management decisions.
Actions
The Forest Service has identified a series of management
actions to address the critical issues of forest health
mentioned. These include:
<bullet>Increasing the role of prescribed fire and fuels
treatment;
<bullet>In partnership with the Animal and Plant Inspection
Service, reducing the introduction, spread, impact and increase
control of exotic pests--both plant and animal;
<bullet>Accelerating restoration of riparian functions;
<bullet>Increasing thinning in dense forests;
<bullet>Increasing monitoring of forested and rangeland
ecosystems;
<bullet>Increasing use of science in resource-decision
making;
<bullet>Increasing technical and financial assistance to
non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners.
The Forest Service will work with its partners using these
priority actions to address critical forest health issues.
Specifically, the FY 1998 budget proposes a significant
increase in fuels management under our wildland fire management
proposal. The fact is we have less of a ``fire'' problem then
we do a ``fuels'' problem. We must make fuels management a
significant part of our overall fire management program and,
ultimately, this investment in fuels reduction will result in
long term savings in fire suppression costs. We have also
proposed increases for timber stand improvement activities and
forest vegetation management. We hope you will support the 1998
budget proposal.
In addition, we will shortly share with you a legislative
proposal to create a new permanent fund called the ``Forest
Ecosystem Restoration and Maintenance Fund''. This fund would
provide additional resources for reducing fire hazards and
improving the structure and health of forests.
Another specific action involves cooperative efforts
encouraged by our State and Private Forestry programs.
Increasingly, the nation is dependent on non-industrial private
forest lands (NIPF), which comprise 50 percent of privately
owned forest lands, to meet timber demands. Some NIPF lands are
not as healthy or productive as the owners would like. The
Forest Stewardship Program and the Stewardship Incentives
Program provide technical and financial assistance to NIPF
owners in meeting their objectives for good land stewardship.
Other programs such as Economic Assistance and Agroforestry
help develop the linkages between healthy wildland communities
and healthy human communities. The Urban and Community Forestry
program provides financial and technical assistance to
communities in how to plant species of trees that are less
likely to succumb to insects and diseases and other damaging
agents. As you can see, forest health is not simply a salvage
issue; it is an ecosystem restoration issue with broad
opportunities and complex solutions.
One Approach to Forest Ecosystem Restoration
An outstanding example of the type of collaboration
necessary to restore forest health is happening in the eastside
forest ecosystems of Oregon. A blue ribbon panel of scientists
convened by Governor Kitzhaber identified ways we could speed
the healing of these ecosystems, methods which may be broadly
applicable to all forested regions of the West. The Kitzhaber
report embraces the full spectrum of forest and watershed
management and restoration activities such as riparian
restoration, noxious weed management, prescribed fire, grazing
management, and thinning. It also contains a common sense
recommendation that initial forest ecosystem restoration
efforts focus on less controversial areas avoiding riparian,
old growth, and roadless areas.
I have asked Governor Kitzhaber, Congressman Bob Smith of
Oregon, and a broad range of public interests--environmental
and industry--how we can move forward and begin the restoration
of the eastside forest ecosystems. Last week I spoke with the
Governor and his collaborative citizen's council. I have
already met with the heads of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Bureau of Land Management to discuss how we can
constructively employ the approach outlined by Governor
Kitzhaber. All parties have expressed strong interest in moving
ahead with restoration of our forest ecosystems. I believe this
is the sort of approach that will help rebuild trust and
support for forest ecosystem restoration activities.
Criteria and Indicators for Forest Health
Because the issue of forest health transcends national
boundaries, we have been working internationally to address
forest health concerns. Building on our Forest Inventory and
Analysis and Forest Health Monitoring programs, the United
States, as one of 12 countries, was signatory in 1995 to the
Santiago Declaration. Signatory countries contain more than 40
per cent of the world's temperate and boreal forest lands. This
landmark document lists 7 criteria that characterize how we
must manage for sustainable forestry along with indicators for
measuring sustainability. The criteria include: conservation of
biological diversity; maintenance of productive capacity of
forest ecosystems; maintenance of ecosystem health and
vitality; conservation and maintenance of soil and water
resources; maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon
cycles; maintenance and enhancement of long-term socioeconomic
benefits to meet the needs of societies; and legal,
institutional and economic framework for forest conservation
and sustainable management.
Summary
The message I wish to leave you with is that we can
accelerate the healing of our forests. And we can do so in a
balanced and measured approach. This is not about the ``cut it
to save it'' misnomer that presently surrounds the words
``forest health''. It is about sitting at the same table with
the regulatory agencies, state, other land managers, and
citizens and taking action before we are confronted with
incredibly costly--both socially and environmentally--
conflagrations.
The consequences of inaction far outweigh the fiscal costs
of forest ecosystem restoration. Catastrophic events such as
floods, fire and landslides, are occurring at increasing
frequencies with ever more devastating consequences. Noxious
weeds are diminishing the productivity of hundreds of thousands
of acres of public land. Devastating fires are increasingly
encroaching upon the urban-forest interface. Last year alone,
over 6 million acres of public land burned. Healthy forests
will provide the resiliency to minimize the severe consequences
of these events. Without decisive action these problems will
only worsen.
Restoration will not be quick. And in fact, it will be very
expensive. But we must look at these sorts of activities as
investments in the land--investments that will immediately
reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and, in the long run will
greatly enhance forest productivity, health, and diversity. It
took many decades for today's unhealthy forest conditions to
develop; it will take many years to reverse them.
Thanks for inviting me to be here today. I'd be pleased to
answer any questions.
------
Testimony of Steve Holmer, Campaign Coordinator, Western Ancient Forest
Campaign
Chairman Chenoweth, thank you for this opportunity to
testify on the management of our National Forests. The Western
Ancient Forest Campaign represents organizations and
individuals nationwide who are dedicated to protecting forest
and aquatic ecosystems on the National Forests.
Increasing evidence demonstrates that over the past three
decades, our National Forests have suffered too much logging,
too much roadbuilding, and too much cattle grazing and fire
suppression with little concern about the impact these
activities have on our clean water supplies, fish and wildlife,
recreational opportunities and the ecological integrity of
forest ecosystems.
The Facts: Our National Forests Imperiled
A recent mapping project by the World Wildlife Fund
concluded that only 2% of the original forests remain in the
lower forty eight states. The Eastside Forests Scientific
Society Panel report concluded that the few remaining roadless
areas are threatened and that very little of the old growth
Ponderosa pine forest remains. The report recommends: no
logging of old growth forests or trees of any species older
than 150 years or greater than 20 inches in diameter; no
logging in aquatic diversity areas and to establish protected
corridors along streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands; no logging
or roadbuilding in roadless areas.
Both the PACFISH and INFISH federal interim guidelines for
protecting imperiled fish stocks concurred with the conclusion
that we need to protect roadless areas and riparian zones to
restore declining fisheries. These are critical first steps
towards proper management and rehabilitating faltering forest
and aquatic ecosystems in the Inland West.
The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report came to similar
conclusions and also stated that, ``Timber harvest, through its
effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuel
accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other
recent human activity. `` The notion that we can salvage log
the forests to reduce fire risk is not supported by any
empirical scientific data.
In the state of Idaho, over 960 streams are polluted and
rated as ``water quality limited'' by the Environmental
Protection Agency because of too much contamination in the
streams. Over half of these streams are being degraded by
logging. Flooding, exacerbated by logging and roadbuilding in
the Couer d'Alene watershed is steadily sending millions of
pounds of lead contaminated sediments into Lake Couer d'Alene
and ultimately into the city of Spokane's watershed. In Oregon,
seven people were killed this year as a result of mudslides.
Numerous scientific studies have been published, including by
the U.S. Forest Service that conclude that logging and
roadbuilding increase the risk and severity of landslides and
flooding.
Across the West, fish stocks continue to decline and many
species such as the coho and bull trout are being considered
for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Over 70,000 jobs
of a once booming commercial fishing industry have been lost
because the fish are gone. Clean drinking water for millions of
Americans originates on the National Forests and yet there is
no protection for this resource. Last year, the city of Salem,
Oregon was forced to close down its water treatment system
because of the huge amount of sediments filling the river. The
City of Portland estimated that it would have cost $200 million
to build water treatment facilities if the Bull Run watershed
that provides their water was not protected from logging and
roadbuilding.
The private and public forests of the Southeast are
threatened by unsustainable logging. There are now over 140
chip mills in the Southeast that average over 300,000 tons of
chips a year, 100 of these were sited within the last ten
years. At 300,000 metric tons of chips per mill per year,
nearly one million acres--1,562 square miles--of southeast
forest are being fed annually to the chip mills. And because
chip mills grind up trees of any size, clearcutting is the most
common method of logging used to feed the mills. According to
industry and USFS, the growth to harvest ratio for softwoods in
the South went negative in 1991. Hardwood harvests are expected
to exceed growth within the next 2-10 years. This is not only
evidence that the industry is unsustainable, but that chip
mills are depleting the forests, thereby impacting water
quality, habitats, ecosystem health and local forest-dependent
businesses. In addition, chip mills employ very few workers. A
typical chip mill has a sourcing radius of 75 miles yet only
employs from 4 to 10 people and the hardwood consumed by a
single chip mill in one month could run an average size sawmill
for an entire year. Hardwood chip exports increased 500% from
1989 to 1995.
These are the facts as presented by the scientific
community, industry and government agencies. These are the real
forest ecosystem health problems which this Committee chooses
to ignore in favor of arguments that all come to the same
conclusion: more logging.
The Lessons of the Logging Rider
Claiming to address the overstocking and fuel loading
problems caused by fire suppression and grazing cattle, the
104th Congress passed the Salvage Logging Rider which suspended
environmental laws and a citizen's right to have those laws
enforced and participate in how their own lands were being
managed. But no effort was made to address the fundamental
problems of too much grazing and too much fire suppression.
Under the rider we witnessed the logging of Ancient Forests
that had been protected by the courts. Under the rider, the
guise of logging dead and dying trees was used by the Forest
Service to log large, green trees. Unroaded areas, which
represent some our nation's last unprotected wilderness were
entered and logged. The government's own Interagency Report on
the Implementation of the Rider confirmed these abuses.
The logging rider ignored science by suspending procedural
laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act that
requires the best available information be applied before the
government takes a proposed action. The logging rider allowed
the agency to ignore economics and offer timber sales that they
knew would lose money. The agreement implementing the rider
reinstituted timber targets. This kind of discredited mandate
forces the agency to ``get-the-cut-out'' by making bad
management decisions that ignore scientific evidence and
economic common sense, and that have devastating consequences
for the environment.
The logging rider overturned the fundamental notions of
democracy by banning citizen appeals and the system of checks
and balances that has made our system work by allowing the
Forest Service to ignore the objections of other federal
agencies. Eliminating citizen appeals and meaningful judicial
review has no place in the American system which is based on
the right of every citizen to participate and ensure that the
government is not acting above the law.
To their credit, Clinton Administration officials admitted
that signing the rider was the worst mistake of their first
term and they issued the Glickman Directive which halted some
but not all of these abuses.
In the aftermath of the rider, several lessons are clear.
Our environmental laws and public processes should never again
be suspended. Ancient Forests, roadless areas and riparian
zones need permanent protection. And the U.S. Forest Service
needs to be reformed and made more accountable to the public.
Restoring Accountability
To address these threats to the health of our forest
ecosystems we would like to make several recommendations which
we urge the Committee to adopt.
Working in conjunction with over forty other organizations,
we have developed a Grassroots Forest Initiative to identify
some specific ideas to help restore accountability to the
agency and help stop the abuses that continue to threaten our
forest heritage. Here are the four points in the initiative:
1. Prohibit new roadbuilding on the National Forests by
ending any appropriation for new roads and by prohibiting the
use of purchaser road credits to build new roads. Given the
ecological importance of roadless areas and with over 370,000
miles of logging roads, eight times the length of the
Interstate Highway, and a massive backlog of roads in need of
maintenance, it does not make sense to build new roads.
2. Prohibit logging and road-building on unstable and
potentially unstable national forest land. Recent landslides in
the West have demonstrated some of the ``hidden costs'' to
public safety and the environment of subsidized logging and
road building on steep, unstable slopes.
3. Restore accountability by reforming or abolishing off-
budget funds. There is a growing consensus that the various
off-budget funds--the Knutson-Vandenberg (KV), Brush Disposal
and Salvage Funds--which total nearly a billion dollars a year,
must be either reformed or abolished. The Interagency Report on
Implementation of the Rider concluded that the salvage fund
created an incentive for the agency to choose logging projects
when other activities (such as prescribed fire or stream
restoration) were more appropriate, because the agency could
keep most of the receipts for the salvage logging operations.
We strongly oppose tying restoration projects to timber sale
receipts.
4. End money-losing timber sales. The annual report of the
White House Council of Economic Advisors shows that the Forest
Service spent $234 million more than it collected in timber
receipts in 1995. ``Generally, the Forest Service subsidizes
timber extraction from public lands by collecting less timber
sale revenues than it spends on timber program costs,'' the
report says. According to the Government Accounting Office
(GAO) the timber sale program lost nearly $1 billion from 1992-
1994. For the sake of both the environment and the taxpayer, it
is time to end subsidized logging on the National Forests.
This initiative has been signed by over one hundred groups
including the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, California
Wilderness Coalition, Inland Empire Public Lands Council,
Oregon Natural Resources Council, Northeast Ohio Sierra Club,
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, and the Western North Carolina
Alliance.
At Sen. Craig's recent forest management workshop the
Government Accounting Office testified that during 1995, the
Forest Service spent $215 million dollars of the taxpayer's
money, that they cannot account for. We urge the Committee to
use its oversight authority to find out what happened to the
taxpayer's $215 million, determine why the agency can't account
for it and document how they will ensure this abuse of the
public's trust will not occur again.
We urge the committee to look at the full range of values
our forests provide such as clean water, fish and wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities. According to the
Forest Service Resources and Planning Assessment, by the year
2000, recreation on the National Forests will produce over $100
billion dollars for the economy while logging will only produce
$3.5 billion. The value of clean and stable water flows from
our forests is estimated in the trillions.
Old Growth, Roadless Areas and Riparian Zones Need
Protection
In testimony before the Senate Energy Committee on February
25, 1997, Chief of the Forest Service Michael Dombeck
testified, ``The unfortunate reality is that many people
presently do not trust us to do the right thing. Until we
rebuild that trust and strengthen those relationships, it is
simply common sense that we avoid riparian, old growth and
roadless areas.'' We urge the Committee to support Chief
Dombeck's effort to reform the agency and restore the public's
trust by adopting his common sense recommendation and the other
recommendations in this testimony.
In closing, I would like to quote a Republican President
who helped make this a great nation by protecting some of our
National Forests, Teddy Roosevelt, who said, ``The Nation
behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which
it must turn over to the next generation increased and not
impaired in value.''
I believe the United States is a great nation, but I feel
that we are now risking that greatness by lacking the foresight
and courage that made us great to begin with. We can choose to
squander our remaining unprotected wild places, or we can be
revered by future generations as Teddy Roosevelt is, for having
the vision and the greatness to protect this nation's natural
heritage.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
------
Statement of Kenneth C. Kane, Keith Horn, Inc., Consulting Foresters,
Kane, Pennsylvania
Madame Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss forest health on the Allegheny region which includes
the Allegheny National Forest (ANF). You have asked those
testifying before the Subcommittee to address two specific
issues:
1. What criteria determine if a forest is healthy or
unhealthy? and
2. What management tools are most appropriate to maintain
or improve forest health?
I will address both of your questions directly. However,
let me first provide some background information which will
help set the stage for my presentation.
My name is Kenneth C. Kane. I am Vice President of Keith
Horn, Inc. consulting foresters in Kane, Pennsylvania. I am a
graduate of Penn State's School of Forest Resources where I
received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1982. I have lived in
the Allegheny region my entire life and have studied and worked
with the forests of this region for over 20 years. For the last
13 years, I have been a full-time, hands-on manager of private
forest land. I am Chairman of the Pennsylvania Division of the
Society of American Foresters and also Chairman of Penn Chapter
of the Association of Consulting Foresters of America. I am
also president of the Kane Area School Board and active in
other community and industrial organizations, including the
Allegheny Forest Alliance. I am testifying on my own behalf.
The Allegheny National Forest
For many years, the Allegheny National Forest has been the
single largest source of high-quality black cherry, a species
of wood in great demand here in the United States and around
the world. Continued harvest and regeneration of the ANF's
black cherry trees is a top priority for hardwood lumber
producers located near the ANF and for veneer manufacturers
throughout North America.
It is fair to say that the ANF is the flagship national
forest in the Northeast. In the last seven years (fiscal years
'90-'96) the ANF produced $132.6 million in timber sale
revenues. The Forest Service estimates that costs attributable
to the ANF timber program during that period were $29.1
million. Thus, the net profit to the United States was $103.5
million. Of that amount, $33.8 million was returned to the
counties through the Twenty-Five Percent Fund. [Attached is a
chart (Fig. 1) which illustrates the ANF's profitability.]
Fortunately, Madame Chairman, the ANF has no widespread
threatened or endangered species listings or other over arching
legal/political issues driving its timber program into a tail
spin of oblivion. However, there are other challenges ahead,
and we must act now to protect the enormous values of this
national forest.
The ANF: A Forest at Ever-increasing Risk
Like other national forests in the Eastern US, the
Allegheny National Forest is a second-growth forest with mostly
even-aged timber stands. In general, these stands were created
50-90 years ago and are now extremely well-stocked with black
cherry and other valuable hardwood trees. Black cherry is a
shallow rooted tree species; mature trees are highly
susceptible to wind-throw damage. Thus, the stands on the ANF
that are heavy with mature black cherry trees are at ever
increasing risk.
Attached to this statement are two charts that illustrate
my point. The first (Fig. 2) shows the distribution of timber
stands by 20-year age classes. As you can see, nearly all of
the timber stands on this 503,000 acre national forest are
either 51-70 or 71-90 years old. The second chart (Fig. 3)
illustrates the fact that the ANF is an incredibly productive
timber-growing forest. More than four-fifths of this forest is
highly suited for the production of black cherry, oak, and
other species.
As mentioned earlier, the ANF is the single most important
source of high quality black cherry logs. Given the importance
of this species to the domestic furniture business and to
America's veneer and lumber exports, we need to do everything
possible to ensure that the ANF will always be a source of
black cherry. That's why we have to maintain and improve the
health of this and other national forests.
Question One: What Criteria Determine If a Forest Is
Healthy?
To answer this question for the Allegheny Plateau, you must
remember that essentially the entire forest in the region was
clear-cut between 1880 and 1930. [Such clear-cutting was very
common throughout the East. In fact, nearly all eastern
hardwood forests are the result of the clear-cuts which
occurred at or near the turn of the century.] The vast clear-
cutting of that era virtually eliminated the beech-hemlock,
old-growth (climax) forests of the region. The hardwood forests
which emerged did so naturally (without planting).
So, within the forests of the Allegheny region and other
``second-growth'' eastern hardwood forests, forest health is
typically determined by answering some basic questions:
<bullet>Individual Tree Vigor. What is the condition of the
crown, stem, root, and leaf of the tree?
<bullet>Species Diversity. Is there an adequate diversity
of trees, shrubs, flowers, and other plant species present in
the forest?
<bullet>Size Class Diversity. Since not all trees grow at
the same rate, are there trees of various sizes?
<bullet>Presence of Desired Natural Regeneration. Are
preferred tree and other plant species regenerating naturally
or are non-preferred species becoming dominant?
It is important to emphasize, however, that forest health
criteria--like other forest management parameters--are defined
by the landowner. One of the reasons why national forest health
seems to be a moving target is that public forestry issues are
very dynamic. In other words, the objectives of the landowner
(the public) changes constantly. That is not the case in the
private sector, where most forest landowners have two primary
objectives: (1) production of wood products; and (2) continuity
of ownership. [Some forest lands in our region have been held
by the same family since 1855.]
So, where do we stand? At present, forest health in the
Allegheny region is threatened by native and exotic insects,
disease, and mammals. The Gypsy Moth and Beech Scale Nectria
complex are two examples of exotic threats and over-browsing by
white tailed deer (which reduces desired vegetation such as
hardwood seedlings and thus species diversity) is an example of
a native mammal threat.
In addition to these problems, the forests of the region
are simply growing old. Typically, forest professionals find
that forests in the Allegheny region that are 50 years of age
are generally healthier than forests which are 75 years old,
which are healthier than forests that are 100 years old, etc.
This is attributed to the fact that hardwood forests--like
humans--experience reduced resilience as they approach the end
of their natural life span (which is about 125 years for the
forests and a bit less for humans). Hardwood forests change
dramatically between 125 and 150 years of age. Specifically,
species diversity drops from a wide variety of shade intolerant
species (including black cherry, ash, tulip poplar, etc.) to a
handful of shade tolerant species (mostly sugar maple, hemlock,
and beech). This decrease in tree species diversity is one
measure of an unhealthy forest.
As mentioned earlier, the forests of the Allegheny region
(especially the ANF) are recognized internationally for the
high-quality hardwood timber that they produce. The unique
unglaciated soils of the region produce the world's best
quality black cherry in stands that reach economic maturity at
80 to 100 years of age. We have reached the point in time on
the Allegheny Plateau where biological and economic maturity
coincide. Thus, we must address the needs to regenerate these
forests for both financial and biological reasons.
But, in addition, the public generally prefers to hunt,
camp, hike, etc. in maturing 70 year old Allegheny hardwood
forests rather than decadent 150 year old forests. This is
attributed to reduced diversity in the oldest forests and the
presence of dense underbrush (e.g. beech brush, striped maple,
and fern) which result from deer over-browsing. Also, the 150
year old forests are generally less ``scenic'' because they are
more likely to have a higher percentage of beech infested with
the Beech Scale Nectria complex (an exotic disease which causes
the trees to snap off at mid-stem).
Question Two: What Management Tools Are Most Appropriate?
Having examined the criteria for a ``healthy'' forest in
our region of the country, let me turn now to your second
question which is: What management tools are most appropriate
to maintain or improve forest health? As a practicing forester,
I recommend that landowners take certain actions to maintain
the health and vitality of the forests within the Allegheny
region:
<bullet>Employ Sound Silvicultural Practices and
Professional Forestry. [This is self-explanatory.]
<bullet>Use Modern Silvicultural Methods and Timber
Harvesting Scenarios. These practices are site specific and
model natural occurrences.
<bullet>Employ Qualified Resource Managers to Monitor
Forest Conditions Closely. This is necessary to follow insect
populations and assess the effects of disease, drought, and
other phenomena.
<bullet>Control Large Deer Populations. Increase the use of
silvicultural regeneration tools such as fence enclosures and
herbicides. Promote sport hunting to reduce deer over-
population.
<bullet>Use Aerial Application of Natural Pesticides. This
is necessary to control exotic and abnormal native insect
infestations. [This was done with great success in 1994
cooperatively on both private and public land in Northwestern
Pennsylvania and Southwestern New York against an unprecedented
population of the Elm Spanworm and Forest Tent Caterpillar.
Similar efforts have also worked effectively against the Gypsy
Moth.]
In addition to these tools that are available to the
resource manager, I believe that Congress and the
Administration have continuing roles to play. And, given this
opportunity, I offer the following thoughts for your
consideration:
<bullet>Continue to Fund and Promote Forest Research.
Research at the US Forest Service's Northeast Experiment
Station in Warren, PA has provided the modern silvicultural
methods used throughout the Allegheny region. Significantly,
over 1,100 forest managers have attended the training sessions
offered by the Station.
<bullet>Enact Tax Incentives. The Internal Revenue Code
needs to be changed to provide tax incentives for private, non-
industrial landowners to follow sound forest management
practices. Particular emphasis should be given to changes to
the capital gains and estate taxes.
<bullet>Increase Forest Education. Finally, there is a
pressing national need for education programs for forest
landowners, professionals, and the public. Professionals need
to better understand the modern tools available to them.
Landowners and the public need to better understand the forest
ecosystem and the necessity of using sound science as the basis
for management decisions.
Thank you, Madame Chairman, for the opportunity to present
this statement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0351.065
<all>