[Senate Hearing 107-62]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-62
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FORESTS AND PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
__________
MARCH 29, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
-----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-204 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
GORDON SMITH, Oregon CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Brian P. Malnak, Staff Director
David G. Dye, Chief Counsel
James P. Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico RON WYDEN, Oregon
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Frank H. Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Mark Rey, Professional Staff Member
Kira Finkler, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bancroft, G. Thomas, Ph.D., Vice President, Ecology and Economics
Research Department, The Wilderness Society.................... 75
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 5
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 16
Christoffersen, Nils D., Field Program Manager, Wallowa
Resources, Enterprise, OR...................................... 47
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 1
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 43
Farr, Nancy, Project Coordinator, Forest Stewardship Project,
Partnership for a Sustainable Methow........................... 59
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 7
Hartzell, Tim, Director, Office of Wildland Fire Coordination,
Department of the Interior..................................... 18
Headley, Celia, Vice President, Alliance of Forest Workers and
Harvesters, Eugene, OR......................................... 64
Holmer, Steve, Campaign Coordinator, American Lands Alliance..... 81
Hubbard, James E., State Forester of Colorado and Representative
of the National Association of State Foresters................. 26
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................ 3
Jungwirth, Lynn, Executive Director, the Watershed Center,
Hayfork, CA.................................................... 68
Kyl, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona........................ 45
Laverty, Lyle, Associate Deputy Chief and National Fire Plan
Coordinator, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......... 9
Nelson, Tom, Director of Forest Policy for Sierra Pacific
Industries, on behalf of the American Forest and Paper
Association.................................................... 90
Smith, David Wm., Ph.D., Vice President, Society of American
Foresters...................................................... 96
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 25
Vega, Betty, CEO, Cooperative Ownership Development Corporation,
Silver City, NM................................................ 55
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 3
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 107
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on
Forests and Public Land Management,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room SD-628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the
first hearing of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land
Management of the 107th Congress.
During the last Congress, this subcommittee worked on 47
freestanding bills that became law with broad bipartisan
support. This was in addition to a number of other measures on
which the subcommittee heard testimony that eventually became
law as a part of either an appropriation bill or an omnibus
legislative package.
Obviously, this level of legislative productivity required
a great deal of cooperation from all of the subcommittee's
members on both sides of the aisle. But I want to especially
thank my colleague to my left, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the
Ranking Democrat Member of the subcommittee. We worked well
together. We continue to do so. In light of all the new Senate
rules, I want to gladly acknowledge that he is deserving of 50
percent of the credit for the work done in the last Congress.
As we get further into the oversight of what we are about, I am
also very willing to give him 50 percent of the blame for the
work that we do not get done.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Last year we saw some of the worst and some
of the best in Federal land management. We experienced the
worst fire season in the last 50 years, over 70,000 fires that
burned more than 7.5 million acres. At times nearly 30,000
personnel were on the fire lines, including the military and
fire fighters from other countries around the world.
During the worst of the fire season, we learned that the
Federal fire fighting agencies' budget requests were reduced
before they were sent to Congress. Consequently, fire fighting
preparedness was not optimum, and fire fighting efforts in some
instances were hampered.
Today we are suffering through the results of a lack of
that kind of foresightedness. Some parts of my State and some
parts of the West will not recover for decades from what it
experienced last summer.
Unfortunately, the situation is still very dire. If you
look at the maps of the mountain snowpack and spring and summer
runoff forecasts for March of this year--and that is just going
up--the bright red tells the story. It tells what could be a
very angry story come summer. For much of the West, mountain
snowpack is much less than 70 percent of that average, as
demonstrated by those charts, spring and summer stream flows
projected at less than 70 percent of the average flow. In very
simple terms, this means that it is unusually dry out West for
the summer, and it is dry right now. Unless we get some very
unusual weather during the late spring and summer, then it will
get dryer and the heat of the season could well produce a
catastrophic fire situation.
I, therefore, offer a very simple conclusion: We are likely
to have another fire season similar to the one we have just
experienced, but tragically enough, it could even be worse.
Lately we have been discussing the crisis of California.
That is an energy crisis. Once again, my colleague from Oregon
and I in the Pacific Northwest are experiencing the problems
that are, in part, a result of California's situation.
For example, this is how bad it is. Last week a noted
Hollywood makeup artist was quoted as being horrified at the
prospects of making up Catharine Zeta Jones for the Oscar
ceremonies in sheer darkness and without a blow dryer.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Now, pertinent to today's hearing, let me
offer my worst case scenario. It involves an uncontained Sierra
Nevada project level fire with crews on the line when a rolling
blackout grounds the air tankers and shuts down tanker loading
facilities. Could this happen? We are entering potentially a
very dangerous fire season.
At the same time, last year we saw some of the best efforts
in Federal land policy. In addition to the passage of H.R.
2389, the Secure Rural School and Community Self-determination
Act, which I hope to review in oversight later this year, we
were able to pass important legislation addressing wildfire and
hazardous fuel situations.
With the cooperation of Senator Ron Wyden and Senator
Domenici and Senator Bingaman, who has just joined us, and
Senator Feinstein, who has just joined us, and others, we were
able to provide considerable authority, support, and funding
for a National Fire Plan developed by the Clinton
administration. In addition to increasing findings for fire
preparedness, we were able to identify communities at risk from
wild fires, enhance cooperative fire fighting efforts, and
provide additional funding for the initiation of hazardous fuel
treatments and forest health projects and secure additional
funding and accelerated procedures for rehabilitation and
restoration work.
Today we will get a first look from Federal and State
agencies as to how this is coming together. In addition, we
will hear from community activists and land stewardship
contractors involved in some of the projects on the ground.
Finally, we will hear from some national groups which will
offer their perspectives on what Congress passed last year and
how the agencies are carrying out Congress' will.
With that, it is my pleasure to turn to my colleague, the
Ranking Member of this committee, Ron Wyden, for his comments
before we turn to other members of the committee.
[A prepared statement from Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator From South Dakota
Last year, raging fires scorched large areas of forests in the
Black Hills of South Dakota and in several other western states. 70,000
acres were burned in the Black Hills alone. 73,000 wildland fires have
destroyed 6.4 million acres in the western states at a record cost of
$626 million.
The firefighters as well as federal and state authorities did a
tremendous job in containing the fires. However, it was clear to me
that South Dakota and the states throughout the western United States
needed additional resources to manage clean-up and to work on
prevention efforts in the future.
Last year, Congress directed emergency resources to address the
needs of the western forests before the problem worsened. The funding
being used for fire fighting efforts, post-fire salvage and
environmental clean up, protecting the integrity of watersheds and
community water supplies, and assisting individuals and businesses
adversely affected by property losses and economic hardships.
Preliminary documents from the Forest Service on its National Fire
Plan demonstrate commitment to these and other long term efforts to
address the challenges facing forest maintenance. In particular, I am
encouraged that the Plan includes programs for rural fire assistance
that would provide support and training for firefighting in rural
communities.
At the same time, I am concerned about reports that the President's
budget may cut as much as a third of funding that was approved by
Congress last year. The emergency funding was passed with bipartisan
support last year in response to a critical need to rehabilitate
forests that were damaged last summer. It is also designed to provide
assistance for programs that would help to prevent and contain fires in
the future.
In particular, I am disturbed that funding for fire rehabilitation
and restoration may be eliminated. There is still a great deal of work
to be done to repair the damage from the fires and leaving this work
unfinished could be a devastating blow to the health of the forests.
The President has expressed a desire to work in a bipartisan manner
but gutting funding for vital fire rehabilitation and prevention
programs that were passed with bipartisan support is not the way to go.
The President needs to work together with Congress and the Forest
Service to ensure that proper steps are being taken to address the
needs of our forests. We did that last year and must continue to do so
in the future.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your exceptionally kind remarks. Without turning this into
a bouquet-tossing contest, let me be clear that you have met me
more than halfway. You have consistently made an effort to work
in a bipartisan way on these key issues. With the help of
Senator Bingaman, especially on our county payments bill, we
produced what the Forest Service called recently the most
significant bill for their agency in 3 decades. I think if you
had asked folks 2 years ago whether we could have produced a
bill like that, they would have said: fat chance. So, I thank
you and your staff very much for working in such a bipartisan
way, and I know we are going to pursue these issues in just
such a fashion again this session.
I am glad also that you held this hearing. It comes at, I
think, a very important time.
I want to begin my brief remarks by describing what
happened in my office yesterday where we had folks from the
Joseph Timber Mill, which is in Joseph, Oregon, together with
Wallowa Resources, which is a nonprofit environmental group. As
we had with county payments, and so many of the important
issues that we have dealt with, we had the timber industry
folks and the environmental community coming together saying:
we want to be part of a new partnership; we want to get beyond
the days of salvage riders and all of the bitterness that we
saw 2 years go and we want to try to figure out a way that
makes sense for the economic needs of these rural communities
and, at the same time, manage the resource in a sustainable
way.
Well, what the folks who own the mill said, along with the
environmental leaders that were there as well, is that when
they were told at the Joseph Timber Mill that their days of
processing big trees were over, they both got together and made
an investment in trying to deal with approaches where they
could look to smaller trees and also ensure forest health. They
both wanted to make sure that this mill could process trees
that were thinned from a fire-prone forest.
So, you had the timber industry people and the
environmental community working together in exactly the way
that the Government suggested. They were not going to focus on
big trees. They were going to go after an opportunity in line
with the environmental laws to manage the resource as it
related to small trees and preventing fire.
The problem is, as of right now, there is no processing or
thinning going on at this mill in Joseph, Oregon. The fact is
that the Forest Service has not followed through on their
promise to provide the small trees.
I would just offer up the judgment, Mr. Chairman, that this
issue, reducing the risk of fire, is too important for the
Government to be the weak link in an effort to build a
partnership between the timber industry, the environmental
community, and the Government. Frankly, what I have seen around
the country is that too often the Government has been the weak
link and has not followed through on these pledges to work with
industry and the environmental community, as the folks who were
sitting in my office described yesterday.
The last point that I would mention, Mr. Chairman, is
obviously we need sufficient resources. I was very pleased to
have been able to join you in expressing concerns about the
proposed cutbacks in fire prevention funding. The idea of
cutting a billion dollars of the funds earmarked for fire
prevention obviously drew bipartisan opposition when it was
raised earlier. I think we all understand that to have those
kinds of cutbacks, when things are so dry and we have had such
a reduced water year, would be really ominous. I know we are
going to work together to restore that money and to ensure that
the funding is in place so that people in Enterprise, Oregon,
the environmental folks, and timber industry people who come
together can actually take steps to make sure that they are
putting in place the projects that the Government envisaged as
we look to making a transition in natural resources policy.
I thank you for this hearing.
Senator Craig. Ron, thank you very much.
Now, let me turn to Senator Bingaman. The Senator is the
Ranking Member of the full Committee of Energy and Natural
Resources. Thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Well, thank you very much for having the
hearing. This is a very important issue in all of our States. I
am anxious to hear what the status is of the efforts to reduce
these hazardous fuels all through the West. In my State there
are many communities where it is considered a very urgent
matter that needs attention, and that was what we have been
working on here last year in the Congress and again this year I
am very glad to say.
Let me mention three things in particular.
First, I want to thank Betty Vega who is one of the
witnesses. She is from my hometown. She is here to talk about
some of the activities that we have engaged in in New Mexico to
deal with this issue, the Cooperative Ownership Development
Corporation in Silver City, New Mexico.
The three points I wanted to make are: first, I believe
Senator Craig made this point. It is absolutely critical to
keep this dialogue going between the land management agencies
and the communities. That is something that we have not had
enough of over the years. I think that is doing much better
now, and I think it is important that it continue.
A second point is that we need to be vigilant in monitoring
this National Fire Plan that we put in place.
Of course, the third point, which we have all said and
which I firmly believe, is that we need to sustain a commitment
to deal with this problem over the long term. It is not
something we are going to do in a year or 2 years. It is going
to take 10 or 15 years to deal with this in a responsible and
adequate way.
I was disappointed at what I have heard about the
administration's proposed cuts in funding for some of these
programs, but I have had the chance to speak with Senator
Craig. I know he is committed to seeing that the funding is
there when the Congress completes its budget, and I certainly
am. I think all of us want to see this effort continued.
I have said to Senator Craig several times that we have had
a better than average rainfall and snowpack year in New Mexico
this year, and that the problem is not in the southern Rockies
near to the extent that it is in his State. I think that is
true.
However, there was an article in Sunday's Albuquerque
Journal entitled ``New Mexico Fire Officials Gear Up for
Worst,'' pointing out that they do not believe that the
snowpack, even though it is substantially better than last
year, is going to solve our problems. So, I would ask consent,
Mr. Chairman, that that be included in the record.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
[The Albuquerque Journal article follows:]
Sunday, March 25, 2001
N.M. Fire Officials Gear Up for Worst
(By David Mercer of the Journal)
With a heavy snow pack holding in northern New Mexico's mountains,
some might be tempted to put the memories of 2000's disastrous fire
season behind them and believe the season ahead doesn't hold the same
potential for catastrophe.
Firefighters and forecasters working in the region aren't among
them.
The encouraging information, according to Albuquerque-based
National Weather Service meteorologist Chuck Maxwell, comes from
measures of those mountain snow packs, as high as 124 percent of
average in some northern mountains.
Less encouraging? More moisture means the region's lower elevations
are carpeted with a healthy layer of grass, waiting to dry and burn.
``As of right now we've already had some fires here in this area
because it's still dry,'' Las Vegas, N.M., Fire Chief Robert Gonzales
said Saturday. ``People don't realize it's dry'' and want to burn trash
and brush. Some is left over from last year when dry weather and news
of big fires made many reluctant to so much as strike a match.
Gonzales said his department already has responded to a handful of
grass fires in recent weeks, one that burned 25 acres and another that
quickly consumed three or four acres. Both threatened homes.
``It's still not as wet as people think,'' he said. ``But remember,
we've had a drought for what, six years now.''
Taos Administrative Fire Chief Jim Fambro believes the fire season
of 2001 will be active. In just the past couple of weeks the number of
fire permits issued by his department has sharply spiked.
``So people are starting to get the itch,'' he said.
One such permitted fire was driven out of control by swirling winds
Saturday afternoon and consumed an acre before firefighters got a
handle on it, Fambro said.
Still, he would rather see people do any burning they feel
necessary now rather than wait until later this spring, when the
weather may be warmer and drier.
Just what's ahead, Maxwell said, is hard to say.
The long-term outlook calls for drier- and warmer-than-average
weather. What that really means, Maxwell said, is difficult to say.
``I'd be surprised if we didn't have one more big, wet storm come
through here by the middle of April,'' said the meteorologist, who
authors the weather service's extended fire weather forecasts for New
Mexico. ``That's just the way spring is here.''
Snow that is sitting in the high mountains so far is impressive
when compared to last year. According to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service in Washington, D.C.: the Pecos River Basin was at
124 percent of average in the first week of March, compared to 37
percent a year ago; Sangre de Cristo drainages were at 120 percent of
normal, while only 59 percent early last spring; and Jemez Mountains
drainages were at 104 percent, compared to 31 percent last year.
``That's good for places that benefit from the slow melt-off of
snow,'' Maxwell said. In that high country, ``there's much less
likelihood of an early fire season.''
And odds also are decreased for another Viveash, the 28,000-acre
fire that swept across the southern Sangre de Cristos last spring, and
Cerro Grande, which burned almost 48,000 acres in the Jemez range in
May and destroyed more than 400 residences in Los Alamos.
Maxwell offers a couple of caveats, though. He notes that snow
measures are taken in some of the highest, coldest places, ``not where
fire activity is going to be the highest.''
He also points out that northern New Mexico's snow pack doesn't
peak until the middle of April. And two or three weeks of windy, dry
weather--hardly out of the question--could change the picture
significantly by then.
``That could eat up the snow pack,'' he said.
Firefighters across the region, in the meantime, say they'll plan
and wait.
Chama Volunteer Fire Department Chief Felix Gallegos said his
department saw few brush fires last season but nonetheless had a truck
follow the daily departure of the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad's
steam engines to the Colorado border for fear that a stray cinder might
ignite a blaze. They'll be ready to do the same this year for the
tourist line to Antonito, Colo., he said.
Gonzales said his department will be passing out brochures on how
people can safeguard their own homes against wildfire and offers free
home inspections in Las Vegas to evaluate dangers such as debris on
roofs and the ground around homes.
Fambro said his department offers similar inspections and will plan
for at least the potential of another bad year.
``We're still gearing up for the worst,'' he said, ``and we'll hope
for the best, I guess.''
Senator Bingaman. I would also just alert our witness, Lyle
Laverty, who is here that I am going to ask him about this
legislation that we are intending to introduce. I know Senator
Wyden and I have talked about introducing it to ensure that the
reimbursement can go to the Fish and Wildlife Service, in
particular for these hazardous fuels reduction projects. I
think we need to be sure that the law is clear on that so that
those funds can flow.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you.
Now let me turn to Senator Feinstein of California. Senator
Feinstein was leading on the issue of forest health, starting a
good number of years ago when we partnered up on Quincy
Library. I must tell you, Senator, that your due diligence over
the last year and a half or 2 to make that happen has been
impressive. And I appreciate it because I think those kinds of
pilot programs, to demonstrate that we can get in and reduce
fuel loads and change the character and health of the forests
without damaging the environment, are so necessary for our
publics to see that kind of thing going on. So, thank you for
your leadership in that area.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Well, you are very welcome, Mr.
Chairman.
I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with
representatives from the Forest Service and the leadership of
the House as we work to try to get Quincy underway. I think it
is pretty fair to say that Quincy has been fought by the
Department. That is my very sincere belief. I have tried to
push. You have helped me try to push. I hope we are beginning
to make some progress. I do not know how the new plan that was
just put forward is going to affect the Quincy Library
proposal.
But let me say this. We have 18 national forests in
California. They cover 20 million acres of our State. I have
become a believer that the Forest Service fire suppression
policies have been a dismal failure in the United States. We
have had a buildup of the possibility of catastrophic fire over
the years that is second to none in our history. That is why I
worked with Senator Domenici in cosponsoring $240 million of
emergency funding last year. The aim was to address this
problem of dangerous fuel buildup on millions of acres of our
national lands.
With this buildup of fuel, the possibility of very serious
and destructive forest fires has dramatically increased. The
Forest Service has now identified 60 million acres of land in
the interior West as being at high risk of catastrophic fire.
Almost a full quarter of this acreage lies in California. We
have more than any other State.
Two years ago, my State lost more than 700,000 acres of
forests. Several people lost their lives in these fires and
dozens of structures were burned. Incidentally, 70,000 acres
were prime California spotted owl habitat in the Lassen and
Plumas Forests.
Now, the loss of owl habitat is exactly one of the things
that the Quincy Library project attempted to protect against.
Last year we were luckier than many of our neighbors, but with
about 15 million acres in California at high risk of
catastrophic fires, it is only a question of time.
I very much believe that a one-size-fits-all management
strategy is not the right approach. I very much believe that
each forest is distinct, that there are differences in
topography, in geography, in climate, in trees, different trees
burn differently, and that proper forest stewardship in
California may well not be the same practices that are used in
Pennsylvania or Alaska or Montana.
So, I believe that a combination of tools must be used to
fix the problem. The dead and dying trees must be removed.
Overgrowth must be thinned. Mechanical treatment and controlled
burns must each be used separately and in conjunction with each
other. And if we do not do this, incidents of serious fire will
only continue to increase.
So, I hope we can get at that 60 million acres in our West
that are at high risk of catastrophic fire, but in order to do
so, I truly believe the only solution is to change our forest
management practices to phase out fire suppression while
phasing in fire prevention.
I look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr.
Chairman, and the ranking member to see if we cannot get some
additional pilots going. Let us see. You see, I have always
wondered why was there so much opposition to Quincy. If it was
wrong, it was going to fail and we would know it. Why was the
Department so eager to prevent it from moving, from happening?
Now, with the new plan, I do not know whether it is possible
for Quincy to succeed or not, but I hope to ask some of these
questions when my time is appropriate.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Just briefly, before we turn to our panelists, Senator
Bingaman expressed the same concern that I have had about
budgets and necessary resources. The administration found the
situation they were in when they were putting the money
together, that we put all of the 2001 money in an emergency
spending account, and in building the 2000 budget proposal, the
administration did not have such an option. They did manage to
save about half of the 2001 emergency increase and build it
into the 2002 budget. Therefore, the 2002 request is a
significant increase over 2001, albeit I think--and I think my
colleagues agree--still inadequate. And we are going to resolve
that problem before the appropriation is finalized. So, that is
a project we have all got to work on.
Now let us get to our panelists. I am extremely pleased
today that we have three people who are directly engaged in the
issues that we have been talking about. Lyle Laverty, the
Associate Deputy Chief and National Fire Plan Coordinator, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service here in
Washington; Tim Hartzell, Director Office of Wildland Fire
Coordination, U.S. Department of the Interior; and Jim Hubbard,
Colorado State Forester, National Association of State
Foresters.
With that, Lyle, we will turn to you to ask you to lead
off, if you would please.
STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF AND NATIONAL
FIRE PLAN COORDINATOR, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Laverty. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. It is really an honor to be here this afternoon
to share with you information and an update on what is actually
taking place and what we have accomplished so far with the
implementation of the fire plan and, perhaps more importantly,
what we plan to do this summer.
As you have all referenced, the fire season of 2000
captured the attention of American people in a way that has
never surfaced before, particularly in the area of protecting
life and property. I think that you could not watch the news
anywhere without seeing some type of a fire scene last summer.
The President directed the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior to develop and prepare a strategy or
a report on what are we going to do with the situation.
Actually on September 8, the two Secretaries delivered that
report to the President. That report is what we have referred
to as the National Fire Plan. It contains a series of
recommendations that were developed in consultation with the
Governors across the country to talk about the impacts of fire
and the effects on rural communities, but more importantly
ensure a strategy on what are we going to do with that.
The important point is that this is a National Fire Plan.
It is not a Western issue. It is not just an Eastern issue. It
is not a Southern issue. But it is truly in fact a national
plan.
Accordingly, the plan is framed around five goals. You can
see there the one board that frames those.
Very quickly, they are: to protect communities, to build
the fire fighting readiness, to reduce hazardous fuels, restore
those impacted fire sites. Perhaps most importantly that is on
the agenda for Tim, Jim and myself is that we can, in fact,
ensure accountability, that we can come back and look all of
you in the eye and let you know that these have been good
investments.
The Congress for the Forest Service provided an additional
$1.1 billion in funding for the Forest Service's portion of the
fire plan in 2001. This represented about an 84 percent
increase over the 2000 level. The increase provided funding for
the first time on the Forest Service side to achieve the
optimal level of fire fighting resources in those emergency
funds and to carry out the goals and objectives of the plan.
I would tell you today that the implementation of the plan
is well underway. We have, in fact, made significant,
remarkable progress. Cooperation between the agencies,
collaboration between the Governors, the tribal and local
governments is beginning I believe to set a new model in how
government can and should work, responding with results to the
needs of the people of this great country.
We recognize that there are many challenges in front of us
to complete this significantly increased workload. The
conditions of America's forests, as you have referenced,
especially in the interior West, typically dictates that
escaped fires quickly become infernos resulting in significant
damage not only to resources but to property.
It is going to take many years and continued and determined
commitment of resources to effectively reduce the impacts of
the wildland fire in rural communities across America. But I
would tell you that these are sound investments and they will,
in fact, make a difference. Investing in fire fighting
capacity, both on Federal and on State and private lands,
combined with aggressive changes in structure and composition
of these wildland fuels, will lead us to healthy and restored
fire-adapted ecosystems. Uncontrolled, large catastrophic fires
will decline. The investment strategy is long-term and it is
going to be expensive, but the return on the investment is
going to be significant.
The National Fire Plan has five key points. First is fire
fighting, and that is to ensure that we have the preparedness
resources ready to go for the 2001 season. To that end, we have
been very aggressive, and I think we are in a much better
position as we enter the condition that Senator Craig
highlighted as we move into this summer.
The second area deals with the restoration and
rehabilitation of those areas that were severely impacted by
the wildfires of 2000. Progress is well underway, and in many
cases we actually had restoration activities taking place
before we even left the fires this summer and the smoke was
down.
The third key point deals with the hazardous fuel
reduction. The funds that the Congress provided allows us to
work and invest in projects that will, in fact, reduce risk.
The fourth key point is community assistance, to work with
the communities to assure that the communities actually have
adequate protection as well. This is the great cooperation that
is going on between the States and the Governors and the
agencies.
Finally, the fifth key point deals with accountability. We
want to be absolutely transparent. We want to be absolutely
accountable. We have, in fact, a framework that we have
established for oversight and monitoring for results. Even
though it is early in the year, we have made a good start and
we have got a number of accomplishments in place that we are
already able to report.
On the Forest Service side, we have treated over 400,000
acres as we move toward that 1.8 million acres that we expect
to treat in 2001.
We have been aggressive in terms of recruiting fire
fighting personnel. We expect to hire about 3,000 people just
on the Forest Service side, and we are making great progress on
that. This is the most significant block of hiring that has
taken place on the Forest Service side.
We have started to provide assistance for training and
equipment for over 4,000 volunteer fire departments across the
country. This becomes a very critical element because in many
cases these are the first responders.
We have developed a framework, working with the Governors,
on preparing a 10-year comprehensive strategy that includes not
only the Federal lands but also State and private lands. This
begins to help us identify where should we strategically place
resources.
We are committed to increasing the Nation's fire fighting
capability and to protect communities and restore resources,
but it is going to take a long time. It is going to take more
than 1 year. It is going to take more than 2 years, and it is
going to take more than 3 years. I am really pleased with the
conversations that we have had with members and with staff
about the commitment that we can make a difference.
The outcome will, in fact, be significant. We are going to
see healthy ecosystems and we are going to see improved
watersheds. I can tell you that we are going to be able to
reduce losses to communities and protect property values.
Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to
share a few remarks. As Tim and Jim finish up, we would be
happy to entertain any questions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lyle Laverty, Associate Deputy Chief and National
Fire Plan Coordinator, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the implementation
of the National Fire Plan. I am Lyle Laverty, Associate Deputy Chief
and National Fire Plan Coordinator of the Forest Service. I am here
today to bring you up to date on what has been accomplished thus far
and what we plan to do next.
The severe fire season of 2000 captured the attention of the
American people on the need to find ways to protect life and property
and minimize losses of natural resources. On September 8, the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior issued a report
entitled, ``Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the
Environment.'' The report, referred to as the National Fire Plan,
contains recommendations to reduce the impacts of wildland fires on
rural communities and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the
future.
Mr. Chairman, implementation of the National Fire Plan is well
underway and significant progress has been made. However, we recognize
that there are many challenges to complete the significantly increased
workload. Long-term, it is going to take many years and a continued
commitment in resources to effectively reduce the impacts of wildland
fire on rural communities.
Even though it is early in the year, we have made a good start with
the following:
Treated over 80,000 acres, 713 miles of roads and 245 miles
of trails to restore and rehabilitate areas damaged during the
2000 fire season.
Reduced hazardous fuel on over 400,000 acres of the 1.8
million acres we plan to treat this year.
Hired over 850 new permanent fire personnel and expect to
have another 1906 (650 permanent, 1250 temporary) hired by
April 30, 2001 along with planning to acquire 412 fire engines
and the services of an additional 47 contracted helicopters to
provide the highest practical level of fire fighting
capability.
Initiated assistance for training and equipment for 4,000
volunteer fire departments.
Published a preliminary list of communities at risk prepared
by the States and Tribes to ensure that we increase the focus
of our future efforts on reducing fire risk in the areas
adjacent to these communities.
Started 63 research projects to increase scientific
knowledge in support of the National Fire Plan.
Initiated discussions on a framework and draft of the
national ten-year comprehensive strategy for the National Fire
Plan.
Before I talk more about our accomplishments and our planned
actions let me explain how conditions on our forests and rangelands
developed the level of uncharacteristic fire risk that exists today.
background
Fire Conditions
Decades of excluding fire from our forests and past management
practices have drastically changed the ecological condition of western
forests and rangelands and dramatically affected fire behavior. A
century ago, when low intensity, high frequency fires were commonplace,
many forests were less dense and had larger, more fire-resistant trees.
Over time, the composition of our forests has changed from more fire-
resistant tree species to species non-resistant to fire such as grand
fir, Douglas-fir, and subalpine fir.
Fire ecologists point out the paradox of fire suppression: the more
effective we become at fire suppression, the more fuels accumulate and
ultimately create conditions for the occurrence of more intense fires.
As it became Federal practice to extinguish fires aggressively in the
west, firefighting budgets rose dramatically and firefighting tactics
and equipment became increasingly more sophisticated and effective. In
the early 1930s the annual acreage burned by wildfires in the lower 48
states was about 40 million acres a year. In the 1970s, because of our
effective fire suppression, the annual acreage burned by wildfires in
the lower 48 states dropped to about five million acres. In the 1990's,
the annual average acreage burned by wildfires was less than 4 million
acres.
In addition to changes in tree species and ecological conditions of
forests and grasslands more communities are at risk of wildfire than in
earlier years. During the last two decades dramatic increases in the
population in the West has resulted in housing developments in fire-
prone areas, often adjacent to Federal land. This area where human
development meets or intermingles with undeveloped wildland is called
the ``wildland-urban interface.''
Reversing the effects of a century of aggressive fire suppression
and past management practices will take time and money targeted to high
priority areas to protect people, communities, readily accessible
municipal watersheds, and habitat for threatened and endangered
species. Although not all areas will need to be treated, the Forest
Service and the General Accounting Office have estimated that there are
around 60 million acres at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire in the
interior West and more than 72 million acres nationwide. Many of these
acres are not in the wildland-urban interface and include acres distant
from habitation.
The Forest Service and its interagency partners have increased
their efforts to reduce risks associated with the buildup of brush,
shrubs, small trees and other fuels in forest and rangelands through a
variety of approaches, including controlled bums, the physical removal
of undergrowth, and the prevention and eradication of invasive plants.
In 1994 the Forest Service treated approximately 385,000 acres across
the United States to reduce hazardous fuels. In 2000 we treated over
750,000 acres almost double our earlier efforts.
Addressing Fire Conditions: The Key Points of the National Fire Plan
To address these changed conditions the recommendations in
``Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment''
and actions implementing the National Fire Plan focus on five key
points:
Firefighting. Be adequately prepared to fight wildland fire.
Rehabilitation and Restoration. Restore landscapes and
rebuild communities damaged by the wildfires of 2000.
Hazardous Fuel Reduction. Invest in projects to reduce fire
risk.
Community Assistance. Work directly with communities to
ensure adequate protection.
Accountability. Be accountable and establish adequate
oversight, coordination, program development, and monitoring
for performance.
The report also recommended substantial increases in funding for
the land management agencies to address the five key points.
In response to the recommendations in the Report, Congress and the
Administration increased funding for agency firefighting, fuels
reduction, and other fire-related programs. We appreciate the quick and
decisive actions of Congress and the Administration to fully fund the
fire budgets for both the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of the Interior. (See Appendix A.)*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Appendix A and B have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conference Report for P.L. 106-291 contains explicit direction
for the implementation of the National Fire Plan. The Appropriations
conferees directed the agencies to work closely with State and local
communities to maximize benefits to the environment and to local
communities. They directed the agencies to seek the advice of the State
Governors and local and tribal government representatives in setting
priorities for fuels treatments, burned area rehabilitation and public
outreach and education. The Appropriations conferees also directed the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to work together to
formulate complementary budget requests and to carry out the other
tasks, including developing criteria for rehabilitation projects,
developing a list of all communities within the vicinity of Federal
lands at high risk from fire, and working collaboratively with the
State Governors to develop a 10-year comprehensive strategy. (See
Appendix B.)
accomplishments of the national fire plan
Implementation of the National Fire Plan is well underway. Since
the very beginning we have worked collaboratively with Department of
the Interior agencies, the Governors, State Foresters, tribal
governments and county officials.
Our implementation efforts focus on addressing the five key points
of the National Fire Plan. The status of our actions include the
following:
Firefighting Readiness
We are focusing on increasing firefighting capability and capacity
for initial attack, extended attack, and large fire support. We believe
our efforts will keep a number of small fires from becoming large,
better protect natural resources, reduce threat to adjacent
communities, and reduce the cost of large fire suppression.
The expanded capacity will be used in a manner consistent with our
knowledge and experience of the causes of fire risks. The agency will
be guided by fire management plans that we intend to have updated and
completed by the end of 2001.
To date the Forest Service has hired over 850 new permanent fire
personnel and plan to hire a total of over 2,750 (1,500 permanent,
1,250 temporary) to provide the highest practical level of protection
efficiency. This will include twelve new hotshot crews for a national
total of 74 crews. We plan to acquire an additional 412 fire engines
and have contracts for an additional 47 helicopters for a total of 106
helicopters and 40 fixed-wing aircraft. In addition we will have
another 500 aircraft available through ``call when needed'' contracts.
We are also in the process of awarding the retardant contract for 2001-
2003 to ensure adequate supplies.
In addition, we will construct several new fire facilities and
increase the level of maintenance on existing fire facilities to
support initial attack. This construction includes projects such as a
new airtanker base and national fire cache in Silver City, New Mexico,
new hotshot crew housing in Ft. Collins, Colorado, and a new helitack
base in Price Valley, Idaho.
The agency is also investing in applied research to improve the
efficiency, effectiveness, and safety of the national firefighting
effort. In addition to the progress made in the Forest Service research
and development program, the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) has been
increased. This additional applied research and development will assess
fire behavior and fire restoration techniques during and immediately
after fire events; upgrade aircraft-based tools for monitoring fire
behavior; increase understanding about post-fire conditions, fire
effects, and the effectiveness of past land management treatments; and
establish protocols for evaluating rehabilitation measures. The
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior have also established a
stakeholder advisory committee to advise the JFSP Governing Board. The
committee plans to hold its first meeting in April.
Rehabilitation and Restoration
We are focusing rehabilitation efforts on restoring watershed
function, including protection of basic soil, water resources,
biological communities, and prevention of invasive species in priority
watersheds. Healthy, diverse ecosystems are resilient and less likely
to produce uncharacteristically intense fires when they burn.
Burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) teams mobilized after
the 2000 fire season. Plans were developed and approved for over $40.8
million of emergency stabilization for 235 projects on moderately and
severely burned National Forest System lands. Most of the emergency
treatments were completed before winter, including 62,000 acres of
grass seeding, 3,606 acres of mulching, 17,886 acres of intensive log
and wattle erosion barriers, and drainage improvements on 713 miles of
roads and 245 miles of trail. For example:
In Idaho, 650 acres were seeded, 242 acres intensively
mulched, and erosion control barriers installed on 3,157 acres
on the Trail Creek fire on the Boise NF.
In Montana, drainage was improved on 410 miles of road and
4,732 acres of intensive erosion control barriers were
installed on the Skalkaho-Valley fire on the Bitterroot NF.
In California, 890 acres were seeded and 200 acres
intensively mulched on the Manter fire on the Sequoia NF.
In New Mexico, 13,500 acres were seeded, 3,070 acres
intensively mulched, and 5,170 acres of erosion control
barriers installed for the Cerro Grande fire on the Santa Fe
NF.
In Colorado, 1,000 acres of mulch and erosion barriers are
being installed on the Bobcat burn.
The remaining acres will be treated as soon as the land is
accessible this spring.
In addition, long-term rehabilitation and restoration on over 400
projects is currently underway. These activities will include
reforestation, replacement or repair of minor facilities, treatment of
invasive species (including noxious weeds) resulting from fire, survey
and monitor impacts to wilderness, survey and rehabilitate impacted
heritage resources, reconstruct fencing, restore critical habitat and
restore impacted trails.
We are also conducting additional research in rehabilitation and
restoration methods. One example is research at Rocky Mountain Research
Station quantifying the soil and water quality consequences of
catastrophic fire, using the Cerro Grande and other southwestern fires
as study sites.
Hazardous Fuel Reduction
We are focusing hazardous fuels reduction projects in communities
at risk, readily accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and
endangered species habitat, and other important local areas, where
conditions favor uncharacteristically intense fires. We will remove
excessive vegetation and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire,
and other treatment methods.
Following Congressional direction we asked State, local and tribal
governments, and interested parties to identify urban wildland
interface communities within the vicinity of Federal lands that are at
high risk from wildfire. The Departments of Agriculture and the
Interior published a preliminary list in the Federal Register on
January 4, 2001. The States and Tribes each developed criteria for
selecting communities that resulted in some States listing numerous
communities and others listing only a few. The Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior have asked the Governors and the National
Association of State Foresters to help the Federal Agencies to work
with Tribes, States, local governments, and other interested parties to
develop a national list based on uniform criteria.
We have completed hazardous fuel reduction on over 400,000 acres of
the 1.8 million acres that are planned for treatment this fiscal year.
Many of these projects focus on wildland-urban interface areas. In the
future, we intend to focus the majority of this work on wildland-urban
interface areas where hazardous fuel conditions exist near communities.
In addition to work on Federal lands, we will also provide
technical and financial support to State and local fire departments to
implement 329 projects to improve conditions on wildland-urban
interface areas on non-federal lands. The States will also be
implementing projects in impacted areas using the Community and Private
Land Fire Assistance funding.
Research is also focusing on hazardous fuels projects. An example
is work to characterize and map vegetation and fuels from remote sensed
data to locate urban interface areas exposed to high fire potential.
These methods will be helpful in prioritizing investments in fuels
treatment.
Our success in accomplishing hazardous fuel reduction objectives
will be largely dependent on focusing our treatments in the areas of
greatest need. Our goal is to do this efficiently and with the least
amount of controversy, getting the most amount of high-priority work
done. Protecting communities and restoring forests represents the sort
of win-win solution that will allow us to build a strong constituency
for ecologically sensible active management.
Community Assistance
We are assisting State and local partners by providing funding
assistance to rural and volunteer fire departments and through programs
such as FIREWISE to educate homeowners to take actions to reduce fire
risk to homes and private property. We plan to expand community
assistance to rural volunteer fire departments to increase local
firefighting capacity. Rural and volunteer fire departments provide the
front line of defense, or initial attack, for up to 90 percent of
communities. Strong readiness capability at the State and local levels
goes hand-in-hand with optimal efficiency at the Federal level. We will
increase our assistance for training and equipment to 4,000 volunteer
fire departments in high-risk areas.
The Forest Service has been working with the State and private
landowners, the National Fire Protection Association, and local
firefighting organizations to help ensure that home protection
capabilities are improved and to educate homeowners in fire-sensitive
ecosystems about the consequences of wildfires. Also homeowners are
being taught techniques in community planning, homebuilding, and
landscaping to protect themselves and their property. Efforts include
FIREWISE and other high priority prevention and mitigation education
programs, as well as fuels reduction, defensible space development, and
community hazard mitigation on non-federal lands.
We expect implementation of the National Fire Plan can create over
8,000 new jobs in rural areas and provide economic opportunities for
rural forest dependent communities.
We are also beginning research to test the effectiveness of
different models of collaboration, education, and community actions and
to compare different local regulatory and incentive-based policies for
encouraging residents to adopt FIREWISE practices. These new efforts
will provide useful insights and guidelines for implementing effective
community-level programs for wildfire protection.
Accountability
The agency is working to establish adequate oversight,
coordination, program development, and monitoring for National Fire
Plan performance to ensure accountability.
A key component in ensuring accountability is tracking funding and
accomplishments. In keeping with Congressional reporting requirements,
the Forest Service is finalizing a database to track projects funded by
Title IV funds. It will include project accomplishments and funding for
work in hazardous fuels reduction, rehabilitation, and community
assistance. Once it is fully operational--which is planned for the end
of this month--we will be able to report, for example, numbers and
types of rehabilitation work being done in a particular national
forest, congressional district, or state.
Of course, the Forest Service must be accountable for all funding.
In fiscal year 2000, obligations in the Wildland Fire Management
Appropriation totaled $1.5 billion, exceeding available funds by $274
million. An anti-deficiency report was sent to President Clinton and
members of Congress as required by law. This violation was caused by
delays in entering suppression costs into the agency financial system.
The agency is conducting an intensive Anti-Deficiency Act violation
review to more fully determine the specific causes and implement
procedures to prevent a recurrence.
Another recent development associated with the implementation of
the National Fire Plan is the ``Review and Update of the 1995 Federal
Wildland Fire Management Policy.'' The Review and Update was completed
in January 2001 in response to a request from the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior. The working team concluded that the 1995
Federal Fire Policy is generally sound, but that some changes and
additions are needed to address issues such as fire planning, program
management and oversight, and program evaluation.
If you refer to the list of Reporting Requirements in Appendix B,
you will see the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have
accomplished several other important tasks and reported to Congress in
a timely manner. These include a report on criteria for rehabilitation
projects; a report on the need for revised or expedited environmental
compliance procedures; and a financial plan and an action plan showing
how agencies will spend the emergency funds.
Next Steps
The following are the next immediate actions to be taken by the
Forest Service to continue implementation of the National Fire Plan:
Complete the fuels management projects underway and continue
planning for 2002 focusing fuels treatments in urban interface
communities where they are most likely to reduce risk
effectively.
Continue work on a long-term strategy for the National Fire
Plan (2002-2010) in collaboration with Governors and other
stakeholders.
Complete the hiring of new fire personnel to produce an
extremely high level of firefighting capability.
Complete analysis of fire risk and integrate with other
resource information to prioritize treatment areas.
We will continue to provide timely information to Congress and
other interested parties about the National Fire Plan.
Summary
Mr. Chairman, my staff and I will continue to work closely with the
Department of the Interior Team to work with communities to restore and
maintain healthy ecosystems and to minimize the losses from future
wildfires on National Forest System lands, other Federal, State,
Tribal, and privately-owned lands. Our successes to date--beginning to
define the wildland-urban interface communities, hiring firefighters
for the 2001 fire season, and ongoing rehabilitation, restoration,
FIREWISE education work--is evidence of the strong start. However, our
continued success will depend on what happens this field season.
We are committed to increasing the Nation's firefighting capability
and ability to protect communities and restore resources, but it will
take longer than one year.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or the members of the subcommittee might have.
Senator Craig. Well, Lyle, thank you. Before I turn to Tim,
let me recognize Senator Conrad Burns of Montana who has joined
us. Conrad's State was one of those that burned a great deal
last year, and while we burned a few more acres in Idaho,
Conrad got all of the attention.
Senator Burns. We got all the smoke.
Senator Craig. He got all the smoke and he lost property in
the sense of homes and human structures.
Conrad.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not make a
statement. I will submit it for the record.
I have also a letter from Jim Hurst of Owens and Hurst up
at Eureka, Montana.
I cannot impress enough on the Forest Service to let us
start salvaging that burned timber. We are doing it on State
lands and we are way ahead. We are harvesting. All this timber
is in roaded areas where it should have been harvested in the
first place. Right now there are 11 million board-feet
available just in that one area. And we cannot get to it. It
makes no sense for this Government to deny, number one, a
clean-up and the salvage by a mill in Eureka, Montana.
I am going to submit a letter that Jim Hurst wrote to Bob
Castaneda for the record. And they have got facts and figures
on what we can do.
But this is so short-sighted and so ignorant that it is
unbelievable that we manage our lands this way and this country
this way. It is unbelievable and I think it is unconscionable.
It flies in the face of common sense of everything we do in
this country.
So, I want to submit that letter, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for this opportunity to sort of vent a little bit.
I know that it is not entirely the fault of the gentlemen
in front of us, but I just beg of people to let other folks
work and let us salvage a product that is wanted and is demand.
It just flies in the face of just good old common sense.
Thank you very much.
Senator Craig. Conrad, thank you. Your letter will become a
part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns, U.S. Senator From Montana
I want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing on the
National Fire Plan and thank our witnesses for being here. Just a few
weeks ago I co-chaired a similar hearing on behalf of the House and
Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittees, and I am glad we are
following up on that effort. We are looking at another dry year with
high fire danger in the West, and this is the time to be doing
something about it. We were able to dedicate a good deal of money to
wildfire fighting and prevention last year, but we need to make sure
it's spent effectively.
I am looking forward to seeing what each of you has to say this
afternoon. We have a wide variety of interests represented, which is
important because the fires affect us in many different ways. I am
especially pleased to see that we have witnesses not only from the
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, but also a
representative from the National Association of State Foresters. It is
very important to me that the federal firefighting agencies work
collaboratively with state and tribal governments in mapping out a
national long term strategy that addresses the fire risks across all
jurisdictional boundaries.
My home state of Montana and many other states were severely
damaged by wildland fires during this past year. Over 7 million acres
were burned nationwide--1 million of these acres were in Montana. This
is more than twice the 10 year average for acres burned. In the West,
so far this year the snowpack has been well below normal with many
locations reporting 50 to 70 percent of normal levels. I am concerned
that these conditions may lead to a repeat of the fires we had in 2000.
As a result of last year's fires, the firefighting agencies
prepared a report to the President which is now known as the National
Fire Plan. This report contained five key recommendations. These
recommendations were to fully fund the firefighting infrastructure so
that we are better prepared to fight fire, to restore and rehabilitate
landscapes and communities damaged by fire, to reduce hazardous fuels,
to work directly with communities, and to be accountable for
performance. The agencies requested an additional $1.6 billion to
implement the Fire Plan. All these funds were provided by Congress in
the FY 2001 Interior Bill.
The Department of the Interior and the Forest Service emphasized
that they would be accountable for the additional funds provided by the
Congress. Now it's time for us to take the agencies at their word. The
Committees involved need to know what the Department of the Interior
and the Forest Service have accomplished with these additional
resources so far and what they expect to achieve over the course of
this year. We also need to know what the long term budgetary needs of
the agencies are.
I am also interested in what obstacles the agencies, states, and
tribes are facing and what we can do here in Washington to help
maximize accomplishments on the ground. I will focus especially in the
coming year on how the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service
integrate community protection from wildfire into their regular forest
and range management activities. Reducing fire hazard through thinning
and stewardship activities can work hand-in-hand with opportunities to
produce forest products. This was frequently overlooked in the past
Administration. I would like to know what the agencies' approach will
be now.
I believe another way to provide forest products and to carry out
the agency's stewardship activities is to salvage timber burned last
year on federal land more efficiently. In Montana, the Forest Service
has had mixed success in making salvage timber available. For example,
on the Bitterroot National Forest the agency has been able to offer
sales only in areas that were slated for timber sales prior to the
fires. Unfortunately, in other areas there is at least a 4 month lag
time in getting any timber harvested from federal land. The longer the
timber stands, the less it is worth, and it is also less useable.
The problem is partly that each Forest has to reinvent the wheel
every time it tries to make a timber sale using expediated procedures.
In last year's Interior Appropriations Bill, we authorized the
President's Council on Environmental Quality to write new and simpler
procedures for these after-fire timber sales and fuels reduction
projects on Forest Service land. Under the previous Administration, CEQ
chose not to change those procedures, but I hope this will change soon.
On the other hand, the state of Montana is currently harvesting
timber from state lands that were burned. To this point, approximately
21.9 million board feet (mmbf) has been harvested from state land on a
harvest area of 4,050 acres (out of a total of 14,000 state acres
burned). The bulk of this salvage was removed within 3 months of the
burn and no lawsuits were filed against the state. We need to do better
on the federal lands. I am including in the record letters from two of
my constituents, Owens & Hurst Lumber Co., Inc. and Pyramid Mountain
Lumber Inc. which highlight the problems local mills have had in
attempting to get the Forest Service to expedite salvage logging in
national forests burned in Montana.
Finally, I am concerned that the federal commitment to addressing
wildland fire issues may wane as other priorities in the Interior bill
become pressing and as the memory of this past year's fires fades. I
think this would be a terrible mistake. Unless Congress and the
Administration provides the funds to address the wildfire hazards in
our forests over the long term we will have more and more devastating
fire seasons. We need a comprehensive approach to wildland fire
management that addresses fire hazards across all ownerships, that
safeguards at-risk communities, and perhaps most importantly,
emphasizes the need for proactive management which can prevent a repeat
of 2000 from ever happening again.
Senator Craig. Now let me turn to Tim Hartzell, Director,
Office of Wildland Fire Coordination, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Tim, welcome before the committee.
STATEMENT OF TIM HARTZELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WILDLAND FIRE
COORDINATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hartzell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee.
Let me first preface my remarks by letting you know how
much we appreciate the support the Congress has given us for
the fire management programs for the Department of the Interior
and Department of Agriculture this year. We are truly
appreciative of that. And for fiscal year 2001, for the
Department of the Interior, that funding is nearly doubling our
fire program capacity and that is going to increase our fire
fighting capability. It is going to help us protect critical
natural resources, sustain local economies, restore healthy
range and forest ecosystems, and most importantly, keep our
fire fighters and the public out of harm's way.
I am pleased to report that the Department of the Interior
has made some substantial progress in responding to the mandate
that Congress gave us in the 2001 appropriation report. The
2001 appropriations provided the best chance in decades for
Federal agencies to demonstrate that management goals can be
developed, sound objectives can be formulated, constituencies
built to implement those objectives, and results achieved.
The problem is certainly a large one, but it is not
insurmountable. I believe that the National Fire Plan
prescribes a blueprint for us and everyone to be successful.
Let me address our accomplishments to date, which have been
many, as they relate to the five key goals of the National Fire
Plan.
First, in the arena of being adequately prepared to
prevent, detect, and conduct initial wildfire attack, we are
hiring nearly 2,500 new fire positions. We are well along the
road to completing that task. We are also ordering 62 new fire
engines that will increase our initial attack capability
throughout the country. We are going to be contracting 24 new
helicopters and other aircraft to increase our initial attack
capability. We are going to be reconstructing 52 fire
facilities, such as crew barracks and heliports, which are
substandard.
In the arena of hazardous fuel reduction, we have a plan to
treat nearly 1.4 million acres. One-fourth of that acreage will
be around wildland communities in the vicinity of Federal land.
The remainder will be hazardous fuel treatments in priority
watersheds to ensure healthy range and forest lands.
Let me just say that in pursuit of this hazardous fuels
management goal, we have initiated several actions to increase
our ability to complete fuels reduction work via contracting,
which was a directive in the appropriations report.
We have streamlined procedures. We have eliminated
duplication among the agencies. We have developed standard
contracts and statements of work for the various types of work
to be conducted. We have established geographic contracting
leads, and we have developed community assistance contracts to
enable agencies to provide training to increase contracting
capacity in local communities.
For the third goal of rehabilitating and restoring the
acreage that was severely burnt or damaged in last year's
wildfires, we plan to treat nearly 1.4 million acres in 14
States. Projects will be targeted at stopping accelerated
erosion, protecting water quality, and restoring crucial
wildlife habitat. Of this 1.4 million acres, we estimate that
treatment on nearly 600,000 acres will be targeted to
preventing the expansion of noxious weeds.
For the goal of community assistance, Congress has given
the Department of the Interior a new appropriations component,
a $10 million increase that will target small rural fire
departments in the vicinity of Federal lands throughout the
country. The purpose of this appropriation is to provide
training, equipment, supplies, and materials, thereby
increasing the protection capability and enhancing fire fighter
safety in these small fire departments. These are communities
and small fire departments that are very important to us
because very often, as you know, in small communities
throughout the country, these fire departments are often the
first responders. We are delighted that we have increased
capacity to provide education and material to support these
rural fire agencies.
Lastly, Lyle talked about accountability. We are committed
to the success of the National Fire Plan and we have taken
several critical actions to ensure that success.
First, we are tracking all key elements of the National
Fire Plan. We will continue to do so throughout the year so
that we can respond to your request for progress status on
call.
We are working with the Forest Service to develop one
national tracking system and one national database. In the
interim, we are modifying our four Interior bureau management
information systems to ensure that progress on the key elements
of the National Fire Plan is tracked and reporting is
available.
We have also initiated regular reporting procedures through
the Department of the Interior bureau directors to the
Secretary, providing her with updated information on status of
the National Fire Plan.
Let me close by saying that I truly appreciate this
opportunity. We are grateful for the support that Congress has
afforded us, and we are grateful for the support that you have
given us to begin to reverse the trend of deteriorating health
of our forests and rangeland ecosystems. We view the funding
for 2001 as an investment that will, in the future, help us
save communities money, our natural resources, and the lives of
fire fighters and the public.
However, the progress we have made to date has not occurred
in isolation. The Federal agencies have for some time worked
very effectively together in the arena of suppression. This is
an evolution in that process. You are going to see this year,
and in the future, increased collaboration among the Federal
family not just for suppression but for fuels hazard reduction
and you are going to see increased collaboration with our non-
Federal and our State and local partners to help us carry out
this important mission. We will not--any of us--be successful
in isolation. The problem is bigger than any of us and the
solution clearly depends upon all of us, the Federal community
with the States, non-government organizations and local
communities.
Like any long-term investment, however, I would caution
that we need to maintain some patience. It took many, many
decades for fuels to build up to their current dangerous
levels. The demands on the public lands and resources are only
going to increase in the future. It will take time for all of
us, the Federal agencies, our tribal partners, State and local
partners, rural fire districts, elected officials, and others
to ameliorate the volatile and dangerous situation that exists
in so many areas of our country.
The Department of the Interior has made a commitment to see
this process through to a successful conclusion. We intend to
honor our commitment and we look forward to your continued
support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartzell follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM HARTZELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WILDLAND FIRE
COORDINATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee concerning a
natural resource effort that is historic in its scope and presents a
unique challenge, implementation of the National Fire Plan. My name is
Tim Hartzell and I am the Director of the Office of Wildland Fire
Coordination for the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to report
that the Department of the Interior firefighting agencies have made
substantial progress in responding to the mandate that Congress gave us
in the appropriation language for FY 2001 to minimize the severity of
another fire season such as we had in 2000, lessen the dangers to
communities at risk, restore ecosystems and the natural role of fire,
protect our critical natural resources, and most important, keep our
firefighters and the public safe.
BACKGROUND
The 2000 fire season was long, stubborn, volatile and widespread.
The fire season started on January 1st, when a small blaze ignited near
Ft. Myers, Florida, and lasted well into the fall. As late as December,
more than 14,000 acres burned east of San Diego, California, destroying
fourteen structures.
In total, almost 93,000 wildland fires burned close to 7.4 million
acres. While neither the number of fires nor the number of acres
approached all-time records, the conditions, fire behavior and
potential for an even more explosive season were perhaps unparalleled
in the last fifty years. The intensity of the fires was the result of
two primary factors: a severe drought, accompanied by a series of
storms that produced millions of lightning strikes and windy
conditions, and the long-term effects of more than a century of
aggressively suppressing all wildfires, which has led to an unnatural
buildup of brush and small trees in our forests and on our rangelands.
The 2000 fire season also caught the attention of the public. In
early August, President Clinton visited a battalion of soldiers from
Ft. Hood, Texas, pressed into duty as firefighters on the Burgdorf
Junction Fire, near McCall, Idaho. During that trip, President Clinton
asked the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop
recommendations on how to reduce the impacts of fire on rural
communities and ensure sufficient firefighting resources for the
future. On September 8th, the Secretaries responded with a report
entitled, ``Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the
Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of
2000,'' also known as the ``National Fire Plan.''
The National Fire Plan recommended that the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior seek an increased appropriation for fire
management, and do several things:
Continue to make all necessary firefighting resources
available;
Restore landscapes and rebuild communities;
Invest in projects to reduce fire risk;
Work directly with communities;
Be accountable.
We are grateful that Congress took quick and decisive action once
the report was issued. As a result, the wildland fire budgets for both
the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture were
substantially increased for FY 2001.
At present, we are concentrating our efforts in the Department of
the Interior on three main areas: fire preparedness, fire operations,
and assistance to rural fire districts. Later in my statement, I will
detail some of the steps that have been taken and will be taken in the
coming months to address these three critical areas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE
The FY 2001 appropriation provided an injection of critically
needed support and funding for wildland fire and resource management.
Although the agencies have managed wildland fire in the past as
efficiently and safely as possible, the FY 2001 appropriation provided
a much needed boost to ensure that adequate resources are available in
the face of today's significant fire and resource management issues,
such as rangeland and forest health, the increasing size and intensity
of wildland fire that is resulting from much of the land's unhealthy
state, and the ever-expanding wildland-urban interface. Late in 2000,
the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service began
implementation of the National Fire Plan by detailing support,
direction and funding for wildland firefighting agencies to better
manage fire and resources on the land. An interagency steering group
convened with representatives and leads from each Federal wildland
firefighting agency, including DOI's Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau
of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and USDA's Forest Service. Each of these agencies developed an agency-
specific National Fire Plan implementation strategy to provide field
personnel with procedural guidance.
The National Fire Plan is founded on a long history of cooperation
among fire-fighting agencies. Its long-term success depends on
cooperation and collaboration among Federal agency partners, Tribal,
State, county and local governments, contractors and other service
providers, and users of Federally-owned land. As soon as agencies
received the FY 2001 budget, National Fire Plan leads from the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior met with such partners as
the National Association of State Foresters, the Western Governor's
Association, and the National Association of Counties, to discuss the
ramifications of the FY 2001 appropriations.
Within weeks of the passage of the FY 2001 Appropriations Act,
requests for pertinent data and status reports were sent to the field
to determine staffing, rural fire district, and planning needs, and to
determine which hazardous fuels treatment projects are ready for
implementation in FY 2001 and which remain in the planning stages.
Deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects were prioritized
and allocated, and project tracking systems were developed. Weekly
interagency and agency meetings, satellite broadcasts and information
bulletins help coordinate efforts and disseminate information
throughout the agencies.
In January 2001, the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service issued the ``Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy.'' This report came in response to a request
from the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. The National Fire
Plan is built upon the foundation and framework of the Review and
Update. The Review was conducted by 14 Federal agencies and the
National Association of State Foresters, who concluded:
The 1995 Fire Policy is still sound, but additional emphasis
is recommended on science, outreach and education, restoration,
and program evaluation.
The fire hazard situation is worse than predicted in 1995.
The scope of the Urban Wildland fuels hazard problem is even
more complex and extensive than predicted in 1995.
Additional research is needed on the effectiveness of
different fuels treatment options, and post-fire rehabilitation
activities.
Additional collaboration and integration of all Federal
agencies with land management responsibility as well as non-
Federal agencies is needed.
The National Fire Plan addresses these concerns by:
Increasing fuels hazard treatment activities for DOI to a
planned target of 1.4 million acres of Federal land in FY 2001.
This represents an increase from an average of 800,000 acres of
fuels treatment activities.
Increasing on-the-ground fuels hazard reduction work in FY
2001 around a greater number of vulnerable communities, and by
developing a collaborative partnership with the State Foresters
and others to design a long-term fuels treatment strategy in
the Urban Wildland interface.
Increasing research in: a) the economic and environmental
consequences of fuels treatment alternatives in a variety of
fuels types across the country; b) the effectiveness of post
fire rehabilitation techniques including the control of noxious
weeds and invasive species.
Increasing outreach and partnership activities with the
Western Governors' Association, the National Association of
Counties, Tribes, other Federal partners, and non governmental
organizations in designing a 10-year strategy to restore health
to fire adapted ecosystems and a plan of action to implement
the NFP.
Also in January 2001, the Department of the Interior completed an
action plan to implement the National Fire Plan. This action plan
contains proposed accomplishments for FY 2001 in wildland fire
preparedness, operations, and rural fire assistance. It addresses
actions needed to implement the National Fire Plan, including:
Hiring additional personnel and obtaining needed equipment.
Completing deferred maintenance and construction.
Enhancing fire science work.
Planning and implementing hazardous fuels treatments.
Planning and implementing burned area rehabilitation.
A financial plan for complying with Title IV of the 2001
Appropriation Act.
We divided our accomplishments under the National Fire Plan into
the three key areas: fire preparedness, fire operations, and rural fire
district assistance.
Fire Preparedness
Wildland fire preparedness provides agencies with the capability to
prevent, detect and take prompt, effective initial attack suppression
action on wildland fires. Preparedness includes staffing, aircraft and
equipment, maintenance and construction, fire science and research, and
the associated Federal acquisition practices.
Interior and Forest Service personnel have been working together to
create consistency in position classifications. Outreach and
recruitment to obtain diverse, well-qualified candidates began in
December 2000 to fill firefighter, fire manager and support positions,
and for fire and fuels specialists. Many of these positions have been
advertised jointly and centrally to eliminate duplication of effort and
to streamline the application process.
We are contracting for the use of an additional 16 aircraft, and we
purchased equipment, including 40 new heavy engines, 43 light engine
upgrades, 14 crew carriers for Hot Shot crews, 7 water tenders, 5
helitack trucks, and 3 dozers and lowboys. Although this equipment has
been purchased in 2001, some of it will not be delivered until 2002.
Within the Department of the Interior agencies, 50 fire facilities
require maintenance or construction. These projects have been
prioritized and the funding has been allocated.
The Joint Fire Science Program, a six agency partnership to address
wildland fuels issues, was established in 1998 to fill the gaps in
knowledge about wildland fire and fuels. The purpose of the Program is
to provide wildland fire and fuels information and tools to specialists
and managers who make wildland fuels management decisions. The
information and tools will also help agencies develop sound,
scientifically-based land use and activity plans. The Joint Fire
Science Program will fund important new research to explore effective
methods of mapping and treating fuels. The program will also direct a
significant portion of funding to answer questions about important
regional or local suppression, fuels management and rehabilitation
needs. The Department of the Interior and the Forest Service recently
issued a request for proposals for fire science projects. We expect new
proposals to focus on the feasibility of developing a locally-based
biomass conversion industry. Other proposals will examine carbon
storage, soil compaction, water quality, and habitat as they relate to
fuels treatments. We have also requested proposals to determine the
cumulative effects of fuels manipulation on fire behavior and severity,
wildlife populations, and habitat structure. In addition, on January
18, 2001, we established the Joint Fire Science Program Stakeholder
Advisory Group under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The
purpose of the Group is to advise and assist the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior, through the Joint Fire Science Program
Governing Board, on priorities and strategies for completing wildland
fire and fuels research and implementing research findings.
The National Fire Plan calls for a dramatic increase in the amount
of fuels reduction and fuels management work, and much of this work is
targeted for completion by independent contractors or through service
agreements. In December 2000, an interagency team of contract and fuels
specialists met in Boise, Idaho, and developed model contracts and
agreements that agencies will use for fuels reduction, rehabilitation
and restoration projects, and model grants and cooperative agreements
to assist communities and rural fire departments. We created a web site
that houses these model contracts so that each field office can access
them easily, saving valuable time and effort, and increasing
consistency among agencies.
Although fuels management by contract has grown over the last 10
years, there is still a need to foster growth in the number of
contractors available. A primary focus of the 2001 appropriation is to
facilitate awards to firms that will hire locally. Although the term
``local'' is undefined, managers and contracting personnel will
emphasize the use of sealed bid awards to firms that are in closer
proximity to project work and best value awards to firms that commit to
specific plans to hire local workers.
The interagency contract and agreement team has developed an
outreach plan that will:
Locate firms that are not currently active in bidding or
proposing on Government procurement for fuels management
contracts.
Introduce local independent contractors to the benefits of
contracting for this type of work with the Government.
Encourage continued participation by firms that currently
have fuels management contracts.
Fire Operations
Wildland fire operations include suppression, burned area
rehabilitation and fuels management, including fuels reduction in
wildland-urban interface areas that pose a risk to people, property and
natural resources. To better facilitate these operations, several steps
have been taken:
First, a list of communities most at risk from wildland fire in the
wildland-urban interface (discussed in more detail later in this
testimony) and hazardous fuels reduction projects within and around
those communities has been developed. Work is continuing to refine the
criteria and the list of communities at risk.
Second, a cohesive fuels management strategy has been drafted that
will provide a broad, national framework for Interior agencies to
ensure:
Effective collaboration among Federal agencies, Tribal,
State and local governments and other stakeholders.
Alignment of all program areas to prevent further
degradation, and to work toward the common goal of reducing
unnaturally intense wildland fire.
Integration of fire and resource management within and
across all agencies.
Third, on February 7th, Secretary Norton approved the release of $4
million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and $2 million to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, needed to perform consultations
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for work identified by
DOI. This money will facilitate consultation for critical hazardous
fuels treatment projects as implementation of the National Fire Plan
progresses.
Finally, both Departments are engaged with the Governors, Tribes,
non-governmental organizations and others in an active and open
partnership to develop a ten-year comprehensive strategy to implement
collaboratively the National Fire Plan and to begin to effectively and
efficiently manage the nation's hazardous fuels situation. This ten-
year strategy will unify State, Tribal, and Federal efforts to
cooperate across jurisdictions, coordinate activities and maximize
capabilities to reduce the impacts of wildfires on communities and the
environment.
Rural Fire Department Assistance (RFDA)
The 2001 budget appropriation provided $10 million to the
Department of the Interior for a new program to enhance the wildland
fire protection capabilities of rural fire departments (RFD). In
December 2000, representatives from each of the Interior agencies met
and developed basic selection criteria for the distribution of these
grant funds. Grants will be limited to $20,000 per RFD, and the RFDs
that apply will be reviewed for criteria that include:
Having an agreement in place with the State Forester or an
Interior agency.
Serving a community with a population of less than 10,000,
in the wildland-urban interface.
Using funding only for training, equipment and prevention.
Sharing a minimum of 10 percent of the total cost.
An Interior work group was formed to develop an interagency
agreement/contract which will be used by field offices to facilitate
the transfer of funds to rural fire departments. A draft of this
document is currently undergoing field review and will be finalized in
the next few weeks.
The money for RFDA has been allocated by each Interior Bureau to
field offices, and fire managers are working with partners at the local
and regional levels to establish priorities and to allocate available
funds.
Communities-at-Risk
The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior were asked in the
FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-291) to publish
jointly in the Federal Register a list of all wildland-urban interface
communities that are at high risk from wildfire.
The list was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2001.
Communities on the list were proposed by States, Tribes and local
governments. The criteria for listing varied from State-to-State, which
explains why some States listed hundreds of communities, while others
submitted a much smaller list. The list also identifies communities
with ongoing fuels treatment projects and those with projects planned
for FY 2001. A total of 37 States participated and more than 4,500
communities were listed. Since then, four more States have submitted
their lists, and the total number of communities has grown to more than
6,400. We appreciate the work that went into the list, especially the
work performed by the State Foresters and Tribes.
Developing the list of communities was only part of the Federal
Register notice published on January 4. The notice also provided a
definition of wildland-urban interface, and included suggested criteria
for categorizing interface communities and evaluating the risk to those
communities. The January 4 list is a starting point. It needs to be
refined, possibly narrowed, and focused so that we can set treatment
priorities for the coming years. The list of communities far exceeds
our hazardous fuel reduction capabilities.
Revising the list is a formidable task. Working closely with the
Western Governors' Association, we have developed a process to address
this daunting task. Some communities are much more vulnerable to
wildland fire than others. Our next task becomes one of identifying,
again in collaboration with our Tribal, State and local partners, the
communities in the vicinity of Federal lands that are most at risk,
which are the places where we will begin hazardous fuels reduction
work. The results of this effort will be published in the Federal
Register later this spring. The Federal Register Notice will identify
the full extent of the high-risk wildland urban interface problem along
with communities where hazardous fuels reduction treatments will not be
planned, and the reasons why.
The revised lists of communities at risk in each State will be
developed by an interagency team consisting of representatives of the
Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, State Foresters,
and Tribes. Representatives from other Federal agencies such as the
Departments of Energy and Defense will be included where appropriate.
Others who may be invited to participate include representatives of
county government, local fire response organizations, State emergency
management offices, and community forestry organizations. A specific
process for refining the urban wildland communities list has been
developed by the Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, and
the National Association of State Foresters. We envision that these
teams will continue and will serve the long-term goals of identifying,
prioritizing and implementing fuels treatment projects, to ensure that
the long-term needs of communities vulnerable to wildland fire are
addressed.
Existing project proposals in these identified urban wildland
communities that have approved plans and completed environmental
compliance will have the highest priority for fuels treatment, and work
is already underway in many of these communities. DOI's projects will
cover about 300,000 acres. Additional projects that can be readied for
implementation this fiscal year will receive the next priority.
Finally, for those newly identified projects or projects not ready for
implementation, the planning process will be initiated toward future
treatments and implementation schedules will be developed.
A cornerstone of the National Fire Plan has been enhancing the
communication for preparedness and strategic planning among all
partners in the wildland fire management arena. To facilitate this
objective, all of the National Fire Plan Coordinators from the
Department of the Interior and its bureaus, as well as the Forest
Service, and representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency,
Council on Environmental Quality and others, assembled in Denver on
February 21 and 22, 2001, to share concerns and issues, clarify roles
and expectations, validate the importance of success, and define a
management structure for collaboration at the geographic area level
throughout the country. This meeting provided a springboard to unify
State, Tribal and Federal efforts to cooperate across jurisdictions,
coordinate plans and activities, and collaborate with local governments
to implement efficiently and effectively the goals and commitments
outlined in the National Fire Plan.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing. We are
grateful that Congress has afforded firefighting agencies an
opportunity to reverse the trend of deteriorating health for our forest
and rangeland ecosystems. We view the funding for FY 2001 as an
investment that will, in the future, help save communities, money, our
natural resources, and the lives of firefighters and the public.
Like any long-term investment, it will require patience. It took
many decades for fuels build up to reach their current levels. The
demands on public land and its resources will only increase in the
future. It will take time for all of us, the Federal agencies, our
Tribal, State and local partners, rural fire districts, elected
officials and others, to ameliorate the volatile and dangerous
situation that currently exists in many parts of our country. The
Department of the Interior has made a commitment to see this process
through to a successful conclusion. We intend to honor this commitment,
and we look forward to your continued support.
Thank you, again. I will be happy to answer any questions from the
committee.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Tim.
Before, Jim, I recognize you, let me turn to my colleague
who has just come in, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, for any
opening comment you would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening
statement, but I am anxious to hear what our witnesses have to
say because clearly in our part of the world, fires could be a
very real part of the drought that is besetting our region.
Thank you for holding this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
Last year's catastrophic wildfire season, in which nearly 7 million
acres burned, finally brought to the forefront the need to address the
increasingly dangerous forest fuel loads on our public lands. It is
unfortunate that it took such a financially and ecologically
devastating fire season to bring the former Administration around to
seriously deal with this issue. I trust that the new Administration
will make this a top priority, not only this year, but over the long
term as well. I have been heartened by statements from top officials in
this Administration indicating that this will, indeed, be the case.
During today's hearing, I look forward to learning more about how
the dramatically increased funding for wildfire suppression and fuels
treatment that we passed last year is being spent. It is my hope that
this will be just the first year of many years of providing the
necessary federal resources for federal land management agencies to
address this important and long-neglected need to reduce the risk of
catastrophic fire across the West. However, it is equally important to
ensure that the money is being spent wisely and that the maximum on the
ground results will be achieved.
As you know, this year is shaping up to be one of the worst drought
years on record for many parts of the Northwest. If this turns out to
be the case, this will only exacerbate what was already a widely known
problem of significant wildfire threats built up over years of
relatively inactive management of our public forests. I believe the
Administration's efforts to reduce the dangerous fuel loads near
populated areas, both large and small, must be accelerated. There are a
number of communities in my state--from the large and fast-growing like
Bend in Central Oregon, to the smaller rural communities like John
Day--that are nearly surrounded by federally-managed forest lands in
declining health. I am deeply concerned that this summer we could see a
tragic loss of life and property--not to mention fish and wildlife
habitat--if we do not act now to rapidly reduce hazardous fuel loads.
To the extent possible, I hope that this new Administration will fully
utilize local stakeholder groups in this process and quickly implement
fuel-reduction strategies that address the high-priority areas in a
manner that accrues complimentary economic development and
environmental benefits.
I want to thank all the panelists who are here to testify today. In
particular, I would like to acknowledge Nils Christoffersen of
Enterprise and Cece Headley of Eugene who have traveled all the way
from Oregon to take part in this hearing. I look forward to hearing
your testimony this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important and timely
hearing today.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Gordon.
Now let us turn to Jim Hubbard, Colorado State Forester,
National Association of State Foresters.
Jim, welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF JAMES E. HUBBARD, STATE FORESTER OF COLORADO AND
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today
representing the 50 State foresters trying to provide the
liaison with the Federal agencies in implementing the National
Fire Plan. I am pleased to be before you today, and I will
observe the rules that you laid down, Mr. Chairman. I am
staying awake and I am taking a lot of notes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Senator Burns. That is more than I am doing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. We have got a buzzer on Conrad's chair.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Please continue.
Mr. Hubbard. The 2000 fire season, with over 7 million
acres burned, was bad, but it is not necessarily what we should
consider to be an exceptional year. Our 10-year average is
increasing and we will continue to have that kind of a problem.
It is related certainly, in part, to drought in the West, but
it is also related to forest condition and rangeland condition.
That condition is not going to change anytime soon, so we can
expect to have a lot of fire activity. And now we have
increased the risk of our exposure by adding life and property
in the interface to this mix.
Congress responded. Congress provided money to fund the
National Fire Plan to fight fire, to restore the burned areas,
and to begin mitigating the fuel hazard. If we work together,
Federal, State, tribal, local, we think we can make that work.
The Western Governors got into the picture as well and
asked for three things of the Secretaries. They asked for full
involvement in all of the elements of the National Fire Plan.
They asked that it be an all-lands approach. They are concerned
that this be the long-term approach with the strategy it takes
to follow through and complete the work.
As for the State and local involvement with Federal land
management agencies, one of the triggers to make that happen is
the community list, the wildland/urban interface community list
that is published in the Federal Register. That list is
provided by the States. The Federal agencies are judged whether
or not they are successful with their project implementation
for fuel hazard by how their projects match up with that list.
So, the collaboration has increased considerably. We have
always worked together on suppression of wildland fire. We are
working much closer now than ever before on the mitigation of
the hazard.
Now, we have with that list some national consistency, but
of course, we have regional and State differences that have to
be observed. So, we have local implementation teams usually
within each State that are dealing with all aspects of the
National Fire Plan. Those teams are composed of State, Federal,
and local participants. Other interests are also participating.
So, they are coordinating the preparedness, the mitigation, and
the prevention. They are coordinating the Federal preparedness
dollars with the volunteer fire assistance dollars, and how we
meld those two together and fight fire on an interagency basis.
We have volunteer fire departments that are trained and
equipped to deal with the increased complexity of fires because
of our forest condition and because of the interface.
We are also now mobilizing the interagency on the fuels
treatment, and with the State fire assistance that you
provided, that is going into incentives to make sure when we
work cross-boundary on a landscape scale and we have private
ownership involved mixed with Federal ownership, that those
private landowners can participate with some help in producing
a public benefit to reducing that hazard.
We also have the community assistance program that takes
the form of economic action and fire management planning
locally that is helping counties to determine how they best
want to deal with this problem.
Finally, the Fire Wise program and prevention messages so
that the public is aware. Many of these landowners moving into
this interface do not have the awareness they need of what they
are getting into, and they can do a lot to help themselves.
Fire Wise helps them do that.
All-lands approach. With the ownership pattern,
particularly in the West, you cannot do this without dealing
with all lands across boundaries. If you want to protect a
subdivision on private land, it is necessarily going to involve
Federal land treatments that are close to that subdivision. We
have to deal with that landscape scale and manage on a
watershed basis and do it together.
We have to be able to cross the boundaries. Senator Wyden
helped the Federal agents come across the boundary on the
private side. We have some legislation that is being tested in
Colorado that allows the State to go the other direction. That
is going to be very useful as we proceed with joint project
efforts.
Long-term. The forest condition and the age of our forests
is increasing. It was created by disturbance in many places,
and it is about to be recreated by disturbance. And that is
usually fire. The tree moistures, the field moistures are low.
They are not going to recover regardless of precipitation. So,
when we have dry periods, we are going to have fires that burn
hot. We are going to have fires that are more difficult to
control. We need to deal with those millions of acres of fuel
accumulation and treat them, and we need to do that, as I have
said, together.
The critical factor for the State and local governments is
the wildland/urban interface. That is because we have life and
property at risk. What we worry about is a fire like the
Buffalo Creek fire just outside of Denver, Colorado. That fire
burned 10 miles long by 2 miles wide in 5 hours. Fortunately
that was in an area where there was no property involved. We
lost a lot of trees. We have got all kinds of problems with
soil erosion following that kind of a fire. But the county that
it was in replotted the footprint of Buffalo Creek one
watershed north, and 840 homes were in the way. You do not get
people out of the way of a fire that moves that fast and covers
that much area.
So, it is a major concern. We have got to do something
about the fuels treatment. You have helped us to start that
process. We have got to do something about how we fight fire in
the interface together.
In summary, we have serious conditions and it is going to
take us a long time to deal with them. It is complicated by the
life and property that is at risk. We have to collaborate to
make that happen. The National Fire Plan finally offers us that
kind of an opportunity like we have never had before.
And we do have to get beyond the differences. We do have to
figure out how we are going to work this together, not just the
land management agencies, but all the interests involved, and
protect those properties, those people, and our natural
resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES E. HUBBARD, STATE FORESTER OF COLORADO AND
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN AND RELATED
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION
My name is Jim Hubbard and I am the State Forester of Colorado. I
am here today representing the National Association of State Foresters,
which represents the directors of the State Forestry agencies from all
50 States and seven U.S. territories, as well as the District of
Columbia. Our members are actively involved in wildland fire
suppression and are working in partnership with the USDA Forest Service
and the agencies of the Department of Interior to implement the
National Fire Plan. I serve as the liaison between the National
Association of State Foresters and the National Fire Plan.
The long-term stewardship and sustainability of our natural
resources and communities is of utmost importance to the membership of
the NASF. As many states saw during the 2000 fire season, catastrophic
wildland fire poses a significant threat to both of these priorities.
On behalf of NASF, I want to thank you for helping focus attention on
the long-term challenge of restoring our forests and rangelands to a
more resilient condition.
My testimony today will highlight three major areas: First, I want
reiterate our support for the overall approach to the issue espoused by
the Western Governors Association. Second, Congress must recognize that
this is a long-term problem that will be costly in the short term but
will hopefully prevent higher costs over the long term. Last, I'd like
to point out why the wildland urban interface is the most critical
problem facing wildfire managers and which aspects of the National Fire
Plan are best equipped to address it.
STATE FORESTER PRIORITIES
As the extraordinary scale of the 2000 fire season became apparent,
particularly in the Interior West, many Western Governors felt
compelled to become more intimately involved with the recovery and
response efforts being mounted by the Federal land management agencies.
The Governors met face-to-face with the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior in September 2000 and emphasized that their priorities for
both short and long term wildfire response are as follows:
Full state involvement in all relevant planning,
prioritization, decision-making and implementation processes at
the national, regional and local levels;
Funding and implementation of rehabilitation, hazard
reduction, and ecosystem restoration projects across all lands,
regardless of ownership; and
Development and funding of a long-term (10+ years),
intergovernmental strategy to address ``the wildland fire and
hazardous fuels situation as well as the needs for habitat
restoration and rehabilitation in the Nation.''
The Governors and Secretaries left the gathering in full agreement
that an active state-federal partnership would be necessary to
effectively address the immediate wildfire recovery needs of the nation
as well as the long-term restoration and maintenance needs of our fire-
adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems. The group further agreed that
local communities must play a more integral role in designing and
carrying out these activities on the ground. The State Foresters fully
support these priorities and are working in active partnership with the
Federal agencies to ensure that implementation of the National Fire
Plan adheres to them.
FULL STATE INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING AND DECISION-MAKING
State governments share responsibility with their federal
counterparts for the administration of many resources and public
services within their boundaries. This cooperative, intergovernmental
partnership is crucial in providing for safe and effective response to
wildland fire. This is especially true in the wildland-urban interface
where initial attack may be conducted by volunteer, local, county,
state or federal firefighters regardless of where the fire started.
The Governors insisted on full state involvement in all levels of
wildland fire response, including rehabilitation and hazardous fuels
mitigation, because they recognized that states bring to the table
valuable resources such as established networks with local governments
and communities, knowledge of statewide land management priorities and
access to local workers and industries. If states are closely involved
in wildland fire preparedness, mitigation and response activities, they
can help coordinate the efforts of diverse federal land management
agencies, ensure that opportunities for interagency collaboration are
identified, and improve the understanding and support of local
residents for priority land management actions.
Congress acknowledged the importance of these intergovernmental
relationships in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Bill (PL 106-291)
and accompanying Conference report. In several instances, the bill
directed the USDA Forest Service and Department of Interior agencies
``to work closely with States and local communities.'' The 2001
Appropriations bill further directed the agencies to ``seek the advice
of governors, and local and tribal government representatives in
setting priorities for fuels treatments, burned area rehabilitation,
and public outreach and education.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Conference Committee Report
[Report], pgs. 160-161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly it was, and continues to be, the expectation of Congress
that the federal land management agencies would incorporate state and
local representatives into all levels of their wildland fire
activities. This enhanced level of state-federal partnership is, in
fact, beginning to develop in many States as federal agencies are faced
with the task of identifying projects and allocating increased levels
of funding according to both Congressional and Administrative
direction.
Many States have established an interagency state-federal team to
coordinate implementation of the National Fire Plan within their state.
My state of Colorado has convened an interagency coordination team that
we hope will improve our collective land management efforts by
identifying areas of mutual importance where we can effectively focus
our efforts and funding.
It is important to note that each of these partnerships has been
strengthened by the availability of increased funding to state and
community assistance programs. These additional dollars for cooperative
fuels reduction on non-federal lands, for training and equipping of
local fire departments, and for assistance to communities impacted by
wildland fire greatly increase the ability of non-federal entities to
participate fully in large-scale project planning and prioritization.
Moreover, these are the critical components to reducing the risk to
life and property in the wildland urban interface, which is creating
unprecedented levels of complexity for wildland firefighters from coast
to coast.
The kind of intergovernmental collaboration now occurring could
have happened previously but, for the most part, did not. Specific
direction from Congress combined with increased funding for state and
private fuels management and wildfire preparedness activities have
given both sides the impetus to work together. I encourage you, on
behalf of the State Foresters, to continue to provide both of these
motivational elements--funding and direction--with the hope that this
kind of cooperation will eventually become our standard way of doing
business.
CROSS-BOUNDARY LANDSCAPE SCALE ACTION
Anyone who has spent much time walking across a Western landscape
will realize that natural forces such as insects, disease, fire,
invasive weeds and flooding do not generally abide by fence lines or
other jurisdictional boundaries. In many of our Eastern and Southern
landscapes, interface fires cross multiple property lines and run
freely from undeveloped lands into areas with homes and other developed
property. We must maintain this same boundary-less mindset in our
efforts to rehabilitate burned areas, mitigate future fire hazards or
restore forests and watersheds to a more resilient condition.
The need to work across boundaries is particularly important in the
wildland-urban interface which is, by definition, a landscape
characterized by multiple private ownerships and structures surrounded
by wildland which could be under local, state or federal jurisdiction,
or a combination thereof. While individual homeowners can reduce their
risk from wildfire by using fire-resistant building materials and
clearing defensible space around homes and structures, it takes several
landowners working together across a landscape or watershed to truly
impact fire behavior and improve the ability of firefighters to protect
residents' lives and homes.
Cross-boundary project planning and implementation is also
important beyond the interface zone in fire-adapted ecosystems where
actions are aimed at restoring natural fire cycles, protecting
municipal and priority watersheds, reducing susceptibility to insect
invasions or enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. All of these goals
will be more effectively accomplished if land managers coordinate their
efforts and improve forest and rangeland condition on a more functional
landscape scale.
Both Congress and the Administration can facilitate this boundary-
less concept by prioritizing federal fuels funding on projects that
involve multiple landowners and/or can be implemented on a landscape
scale so as to maximize positive results on-the-ground. These efforts
will be further strengthened by allowing and encouraging the
expenditure of federal funds across non-federal boundaries when that
expenditure makes sense on a landscape or watershed scale. The
continued availability of focused incentives for private landowners to
participate in large-scale hazard reduction or ecosystem restoration
projects will make the cross-boundary puzzle complete.
LONG-TERM STRATEGY AND FUNDING
Since last year's fires, the Western Governors have placed
particular emphasis on the need for a long-term, strategic response to
wildland fire response rather than a one-year influx of funds. The
State Foresters strongly agree with them on this point and we seek your
support for such a multi-year approach, particularly for the programs
that help fire managers cope with the wildland urban interface.
Many of us are now familiar with the General Accounting Office's
(GAO) estimate of 39 million acres of forestland in the interior West
at high risk of catastrophic wildfire.\2\ What often gets lost is the
realization that this number does not take into consideration the
condition of federal lands not under Forest Service management, state
and locally owned lands, private lands, or that vast majority of lands
outside the interior West. As we've seen in recent years in States such
as Florida, Texas, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York, fire is no
longer a hazard faced only by Westerners but by all Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO/RCED-99-65, pg. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the condition of fire-adapted ecosystems--and the related
risks to lives, property and natural resources--is an issue of national
proportions and significance. The heavy fuel loads in many Western
forests is a situation that has developed over more than one hundred
years. The expansion of development into the interface in the East and
South has also been ongoing for decades. Treating the lands to reduce
fire dangers and equipping and training local fire departments will
take a multi-year investment of time, money and people to address.
The Interior Appropriations Committee members echoed these
sentiments in the Conference Report by stating, ``the managers strongly
believe this FY 2001 funding will only be of value . . . if it is
sustained in future years.'' \3\ The managers further strengthened this
declaration by directing the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
``work with the Governors on a long-term strategy to deal with the
wildland fire and hazardous fuels situation, as well as needs for
habitat restoration and rehabilitation.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Report, pg. 161.
\4\ Report, pg. 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Governors and their staff have taken the lead in
bringing this direction, and their own stated priorities, to fruition
by serving as the catalyst for the development of an intergovernmental
strategic plan aimed at restoring health to fire-adapted ecosystems
across the nation. The drafting team for this ambitious plan is
national in scope and includes representatives from federal, state and
local government, non-governmental and environmental organizations,
ranching and grazing interests, the timber industry, and community
forestry groups, to name a few of the stakeholders involved.
Representatives from State Forestry agencies from all regions of the
country are included in this effort.
The draft document that is currently being circulated for comments
outlines a ten-year strategy focused on achieving the following goals:
Reduce the risk and consequence of catastrophic wildfire,
and increase public and firefighter safety;
Improve conditions of fire-adapted ecosystems to make them
more resilient;
Promote local action by increasing public understanding and
providing tools to enhance local responsibility;
Maintain and enhance community health and economic and
social well-being;
Increase resource protection capabilities;
Provide for the restoration and rehabilitation of fire-
damaged lands; \5\ and,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the context of this draft document, ``restoration''
activities may include: fuel reduction, prescribed fire; riparian
restoration; invasive plants and noxious weeds treatments; and under-
story thinning or other activities related to restoring fire-adapted
ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhance collaboration/coordination among all levels of
government and stakeholders for joint planning, decision-making
and implementation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As of March 14, 2001, the most recent draft of this document,
titled ``A collaborative Ten-Year Strategy for Restoring Health to Fire
Adapted Ecosystems,'' was version five released for comment on February
20, 2001. Copies of this draft may be obtained from Rich Phelps at
[email protected].
In addition to these goals, the final strategy will include
indicators for success that can be tracked through monitoring and
adaptive management. Progress will be guided by yearly performance
goals, objectives, budget estimates for land ownerships and state
participation, and time lines that facilitate implementation of the
strategy within a ten year time frame.
The draft document also calls for reviews of Federal laws and
regulations, such as contracting procedures and agreements, liability
issues, National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act
processes and other procedures, for opportunities to improve their
effectiveness and efficiency in meeting the goals of the Strategy.
Once finalized, this strategy will serve as a blueprint for
intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder action at the national, state
or regional, and local levels. This represents a significant shift in
the way we traditionally allocate public funds in response to wildland
fire. Rather than viewing the issue as simply a costly stimulus-
response cycle, where we suppress wildfire and then attempt to
rehabilitate the land, the strategy attempts to plan for a coordinated
interagency approach to wildfire that treats the problem as one of
landscape management.
IMPLEMENTATION: REDUCING RISKS IN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
Before concluding, I would like to re-emphasize the importance of
reducing the risk to lives and vital community resources in the
wildland-urban interface. As we begin implementing projects and
carrying out activities in response to the recent fire season,
addressing the interface challenge must be our top priority.
The USDA Forest Service and the Department of Interior agencies
have each produced documents outlining their priorities and actions in
conjunction with the National Fire Plan. Congress established
additional direction and goals through Appropriations language. The
states have expressed their priorities through communication with the
Secretaries and Congress, interstate resolutions, and the draft ten-
year strategy. Each of these documents and expressions of intent
acknowledges the critical importance of reducing risk and improving
protection capability in the interface.
One way that Congress conveyed this message was by dedicating $240
million in federal hazardous fuels dollars to ``projects within the
wildland-urban interface on federal lands or adjacent non-federal
lands.'' \7\ Congress complemented this funding with $50 million in
State Fire Assistance for cooperative state and private efforts. The
states are focusing this funding through a competitive grant program
for private land incentives, hazardous fuel reduction, and public
outreach and education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Report, pg. 164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Committee members also highlighted the importance of
addressing the interface by directing the federal agencies to work with
the states and tribes to develop and jointly publish in the Federal
Register a ``list of all urban wildland interface communities within
the vicinity of federal lands and at high risk from wildfire.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ PL 106-291, Title IV (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial version of this list, published in December 2000, was
developed under a very short timeline without an adequate level of
consistency from state to state. A team of federal and state
representatives has since developed a standard set of definitions and
criteria and outlined a revision process that will be used nationwide
by interagency state-level teams to refine the original community
lists.
Although difficult, the development of these lists has served to
connect state, federal, and, often local land managers and has
furthered conversation and information exchange on the status of the
interface across the nation. The revision of these lists will
necessarily be an ongoing process as the needs of various communities
are assessed. However, the version provided for the May 1, 2001
publication should provide a meaningful display of the enormity of the
problem facing us and should also serve to highlight those areas where
we can most effectively work together. We urge the agencies involved to
keep lines of communication open with the States on these lists, and we
suggest that the Congress use them as guidelines, not requirements, for
funding allocations.
Finally, Congress underscored the importance of safe and effective
initial attack in the interface by providing nearly $20 million in
additional funds for assistance to local and volunteer fire
departments. According to the conference committee, ``effective
management of fire related issues in the wildland urban interface
requires strong commitment and resources from state, tribal and local
government. Fire readiness capability must be on an equal par between
state, local and federal organizations.'' \9\ NASF believes that we
need to view the budgets provided for the Cooperative Fire and
Cooperative Forestry programs in response to last year's fire season as
the baseline for future budgets if we are to achieve this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Report, pg. 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, some adjustments will likely be needed in the federal
agencies' Most Efficient Level (MEL) analysis system. Currently the
method for determining MEL only considers likely suppression needs on
federal lands and therefore does not adequately address the wildland-
urban interface.
SUMMARY
A successful response to the 2000 fire season revolves around full
state involvement, implementation of land management projects across
boundaries on a landscape scale, and the development and funding of a
long-term strategy for the restoration of fire adapted ecosystems.
I also want to stress that last year's fire season was not an
isolated event, either historically or geographically.
Since roughly 1988, the year of the Yellowstone fires, we've seen
fires growing in intensity and frequency, in all parts of the country.
In the West, we've seen a convergence of fire regimes, as fire
suppression has changed stand structures in certain forest and range
types, resulting in fires there hotter and more destructive. Other
forest types, which typically regenerate through catastrophic fire, are
becoming more susceptible to these stand replacing fires. In the East,
in spite of effective firefighting and more intensive forest
management, the growth of the wildland urban interface is putting more
values at risk with every fire and is complicating the jobs of wildland
firefighters at all levels.
The partnerships necessary to implement the National Fire Plan are
forming, state by state, as disparate field personnel work to realize
the common goals laid out for them by Congress and by their own agency
leadership. In Colorado, we are further refining this vision by
concentrating our initial efforts on reducing risks in the wildland-
urban interface. By focusing our planning and activities on an issue of
relative common ground, we hope to build trust among our partners and
constituents. We hope to build support for the more complex actions we
will need to carry out in the long term.
But the success of Colorado's efforts, like those of every other
state, will depend on the sustained commitment of both Congress and the
Administration to provide the necessary long-term funding and program
direction. The NASF has written to Secretaries Norton and Veneman and
expressed our belief that the level of funding needed for the land
management agencies in FY 2002 and beyond to implement the ten-year
strategy will be consistent with funding received for FY 2001.
This will require not only a continued increase in the budgets of
the USDA Forest Service and USDI agencies, but also sufficient
resources for the regulatory agencies that may otherwise become a
bottleneck for this important work to go forward. We believe that the
agencies are making good faith efforts to implement important fuel
reduction and rehabilitation work this year, but they have
understandably focused on projects for which NEPA analyses and ESA
consultation have been completed. We hope to see future activities
focus on projects that have been planned and prioritized by
collaborative efforts at the State and local level. Unless Congress
supports the budgets of both the land management agencies (i.e., the
Forest Service, BLM, etc.), and the regulatory agencies (in particular
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service), our ability to carry out such projects in the next ten years
will be limited.
The devastation of the 2000 fire season has resulted in the
emergence of several opportunities that hold promise for helping land
managers and interested stakeholders find and implement mutually
agreeable solutions to the wildland fire and ecosystem restoration
challenge. Focused and consistent leadership from both Congress and
agency administrators will enable us realize this promise. We urge you
to support budgets that enable firefighters and land managers to work
cooperatively to implement a fire plan that protects life and property
in the wildland urban interface while working towards restoration of
the landscape.
Senator Craig. Jim, thank you very much.
We will go into a round of questioning for 5 minutes, and
then we will do a second round if the members wish.
Lyle, let me start with you. In your view, what are the
goals and major provisions of title IV?
Mr. Laverty. Mr. Chairman, the major provisions provide for
the staffing levels to bring us up to the most efficient level
of fire fighting readiness. Between us, as Tim and I have
talked, that brings us an additional 5,000 new fire fighters
over what we had in the season of last year. It provides
additional funding for fuels treatment. It provides the funding
for the restoration and treatment of the burned areas of the
fire season of 2000. And the part Jim talked about, it provides
funding for community assistance and funds for Fire Wise types
of programs. It provides funds for volunteer fire departments.
It provides funds for education opportunities where we can
actually work with the landowners to help them determine what
they can do on their land. So, it is a major component for us.
Senator Craig. So, what are the procedures being used then
to allocate title IV funding?
Mr. Laverty. Those funds, in fact, have been allocated to
the field. The Congress asked us to put together a framework on
what criteria were we going to use for the restoration and
rehabilitation funds. We submitted those back in January. So,
that provided the framework of a matrix on how we would
allocate those funds to the field.
Very similar in terms of the process and the framework and
the matrix in terms of the fuel conditions. We have been
working across the country with our fuels specialists to
determine the number of acres. We have a great matrix that
provides the support for that.
The State assistance. We have a model that has worked. It
has been a long-term program that has raised the income level
for us in terms of working with the State forest system. We
have a great framework in terms of a smooth machine to deliver
those funds out.
Senator Craig. What are the procedures being used to
determine which communities in the urban/wildland interface
will be receiving funding in 2001, 2002, and beyond?
Mr. Laverty. Mr. Chairman, we have been working with the
Western Governors to identify the list of communities that are
in harm's way. We published that list in the Federal Register,
compiled from input from the Governors across the country.
There were 4,500 communities identified at that time. We are
currently in the process of working with the Governors and the
State Foresters to refine that list to see if there are
communities that need to be on the list or communities that we
should take off that list.
We have then taken the list that was published in the
Federal Register, the first round, the 4,500. We identified
about 25 percent of the communities that actually have a fuels
project that is associated with those for 2001. In part, the
reason for many of those projects for 2001 is because we
started the planning 2 years ago. So, as they came on line we
bring down the list of the communities that are at risk.
Our expectation as we begin to move in the planning of 2002
and beyond and we look at this list, working with the States
and the counties, that we are going to find that we have a
higher percentage of those projects that will be aligned with
those communities that are at risk.
Senator Craig. How are Federal agencies using new
authorities to build community capacity through training and
local employment and to assist in the development of small
businesses that may lead to a sustainable restoration economy?
Mr. Laverty. There is a number of programs that are
underway as part of the National Fire Plan. One of the most
significant pieces allows us, as we treat the fuels projects,
the authority to actually target a portion of those contracts
to local communities. We expect that 50 percent of the
contracts we will award, between Interior and the Forest
Service, will in fact go to local communities to begin
developing that capacity. The programs on the economic action
plans are also opportunities where we can invest in communities
to help build that capacity.
This is a huge workload. Between us we are going to treat
about 3.4 million acres. In many cases, we are going to tax
local capacities to even do that work and will be going out and
contracting. I think we have opportunity where we can look at
communities where--we know in Oregon there are communities
where there is 14-15 percent unemployment. These are
opportunities where we can put people to work to do some of
these projects. So, I think we have a good framework, and we
have good tools to help us to do that.
Mr. Hubbard. Mr. Chairman, could I add to that?
Senator Craig. Please do. Tim, you are certainly welcome to
respond to these questions also, if you wish.
Mr. Hubbard. In the community assistance programs, there
are monies through the States for economic action, how to deal
with the small diameter material that is a big part of the
removal of this fuel hazard problem and how to deal with that
in local processing and fit with local markets. There is
stewardship planning and there are cost-share incentives to
implement planning for fuel reduction where there is a public
benefit on a large scale. And there is community planning for
fire protection within counties, within jurisdictions. All of
that spinning together and delivered locally to the
communities.
Mr. Hartzell. Mr. Chairman, just an observation on
contracting. One of the things we are concerned about is
building the internal and external capacity to do this fuels
work with local contracts or local employment. I wanted the
committee to be aware that back in December, collectively the
Federal agencies pulled 100 fuels management and contracting
experts together at the National Interagency Fire Center. The
purpose was to ask these people to develop a streamlined
process so that we do not have the agencies duplicating
contracting work and being inefficient.
As a result of that, what we have established is 11
nationwide geographic areas for contracting. Now, these are
geographic areas that are consistent with our 11 geographic
area coordinating regions for wildfire suppression. So, they
are the same geographic areas. But the concept is that one
agency and one contracting officer would take the lead for
contracting within that geographic area.
Now, we have left it up to the contracting and fuels people
in these geographic areas to subdivide those geographic areas
as they see fit based on land ownership or contracting capacity
within an agency.
Right now there are four geographic areas that have this
contracting concept up and working. The Pacific Northwest has
seven geographic contracting subunits. The Northern Rockies has
four. As an example of the way that works, the Bureau of Land
Management has the lead for fuels contracting and rehab
contracting in eastern Montana based upon land ownership and
their contracting capacity. The Forest Service has the lead in
the northwestern part of Montana. Also, this concept is up and
running in New Mexico and Arizona. I was told today it is soon
to be up and running in the Great Basin States.
The way the concept works is that all agencies may order
against the lead agency's contract. They do not have to develop
their own contracting model or contracting statement of work.
There is a model up and running and they can order against it.
So, it is going to save a lot of time and effort on the
agencies' parts to implement contracting to get work done on
the ground.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, this is all available on a web
site that we have available through the National Interagency
Fire Center.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Now let me turn to my colleague, Ron Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it has been helpful and I want to begin with
you, Mr. Laverty. As you know, the policies that were set in
place at the end of last year are pretty new. Money is just
starting to get out. But I would be curious as to whether or
not there are any policies that have been set in motion with
respect to dealing with fires that you would like to see
changed.
Mr. Laverty. One of the immediate needs we have is the
provision that Congress gave us provided for $11.5 million of
funds on the Forest Service side to transfer to the Fish and
Wildlife Service for section 7 consultations. Our attorneys
have indicated that we do not have the authority to do the
transfer. That is a key one.
Senator Wyden. I understand that, and as you know, I am
going to introduce that legislation with Senator Bingaman and
Senator Craig very shortly, and we are glad to have your
support of that.
As you know, Mike Dombeck is no longer going to be at the
agency, and these policies to deal with fire are new, but a
variety of changes have been set in motion, and I would just be
interested in your thoughts as to whether any of those policies
that have been set in motion that you would like to see
changed.
Mr. Laverty. There is a number of opportunities that we
have right now. One that has surfaced in my conversations with
many of the regional foresters is categorical exclusion. There
may be some elements where we could look at categorical
exclusions to do some of the things that Senator Burns was
talking about that we could get in very quickly following a set
of established parameters and principles where we could move
much faster than we have in terms of being able to go after
some of that volume, particularly if there were no road
construction or anything like that, we could move quickly. I
think that is an opportunity that can be pursued.
We also have a group. In fact, we have to report back to
the Congress on the 1st of May on those recommendations. Some
of those ideas that came out of the report that Dinah Bear put
together, is that we should take a look perhaps at some of our
appeal regulations. Those are some things that can perhaps
streamline some of the process and make things happen on the
ground.
So, there is a number of things that we are considering and
we have a group of people coming together, actually the week
after next, to frame that set of recommendations.
Senator Wyden. Now, you told Senator Craig that you thought
a great many of the contracts were going to involve the local
communities, and that is certainly welcomed. When do you think
contracts are going to be let, and when do you think people
would actually be able to walk out onto the forest floor and do
the work?
Mr. Laverty. Let me start. OMB released the title IV funds
about a month ago. Those funds are now back in the field with
the regional foresters for their allocation to the national
forests. I would expect that we should start seeing some
contracts coming out within the next month or so. In fact,
while we are here right now, we have a conference call with the
regional foresters asking that very question, and I can give
you a good answer tomorrow.
Senator Wyden. So, contracts would get out within a month
and people, presumably a few days after that, could actually
work?
Mr. Laverty. I would hope so.
Senator Wyden. The only other area that I wanted to explore
with you was the question of jobs being created by the fire
plan. Both the Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior are giving us very valuable information with respect
to the number of acres that would be treated and fire engines
purchased, and research is going to be created. But we do not
seem to be getting much information about jobs. Of course, we
are dealing in all of our States with communities with 15
percent, 17 percent unemployment in resource-dependent
communities. What can you tell us about the kind of jobs that
would be created and their effects on local communities?
Mr. Laverty. Well, Senator Wyden, one of the questions that
we are asking the regional foresters today is how many
contracts have you awarded, what is the value of those
contracts, and how many people are going to be employed as
those contracts are implemented on the ground. Those calls are
going to take place every 2 weeks. So, we will be in the
position of a biweekly response to you to let you know exactly
how many people we have, in fact, employed through these
contracts to do these fuels projects.
A similar position is taking place in Interior.
Senator Wyden. I am going to wrap up just by asking you to
look personally at the situation that we are faced with in
Joseph, Oregon. I know you were here when I described this.
I want to commend you because you and your staff have
really been reaching out to us on the county payments bill and
to Senator Bingaman's folks and others, and we appreciate that.
Certainly, as elected officials, we get an awful lot out of
these case studies. To have folks in a very hard-hit community,
that Senator Smith and I represent, where a mill owner comes
and a nonprofit environmental group comes and they say, we are
doing what the Government told us to do: stay away from the big
logs and the big trees, go after the thinning and the projects
with small trees, and we cannot get the Government to act.
I would very much appreciate it if you would work with the
environmental folks and the industry people. I think we have
given you all the names already. Take that work through the
system because I think that kind of thing is going on all
across the country in the West. I hope we can deal on a
bipartisan basis to make sure that the Government is not the
weak link any longer. I think that is what we have seen over
the last few months, and that is unfortunate.
Mr. Laverty. Just one quick response, if I could. One of
the things that we are, in fact, planning to do--I have been
working with John Howard out of Union County. We are taking
that Dinah Bear--we are going to spend some time in Union
County looking at what is happening on the Walt Whitman. Can we
find some efficiencies in the NEPA process? Are there some
things that we can do to make us more responsive? I shared with
some of the folks the blueprint the President provided. It
talks about the Government being nimble. I like that word and I
want us to be nimble.
Senator Wyden. That sums it up. You are running with the
right crowd when you talk to John Howard. You have worked very
closely with Senator Smith and me, and we look forward to
working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Ron, thank you very much.
Senator Burns, questions?
Senator Burns. I do not have any questions. We have already
pretty much covered all the same ground. I am pretty familiar
with Enterprise and Wallowa, Logsden, Imbler.
Senator Craig. Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Let me mention a few obvious things that I am sure you
folks have thought about.
Back in 1994, in the summer, I remember very distinctly
flying out to my hometown with then Secretary of Agriculture
Mike Espy to attend a memorial service for three young men who
had been fighting a fire there and were killed in the fire. One
was a helicopter pilot, and the other two were temporary
employees. I am sure that those kinds of incidents are foremost
in your thinking as you hire these new people and ramp up for
all this increased activity that you are expecting out there,
so that there is adequate protection, that there are adequate
safeguards in place so we do not have more of those experiences
this summer. I would certainly hate to attend any more of those
memorial services. I just wanted to mention that.
We put $10 million in the bill last year for assistance to
rural fire departments, as I understand it. That is an issue
that I know has been very important to some of the volunteer
fire departments in small communities in my State. They came to
us and said, look, we can help. The problem is we are not
equipped with equipment that is adequate to allow us to really
step in and help. Anything we can do to get the proper
equipment so that the Forest Service sees us as properly
equipped and trained, we can be of much bigger help. I think
you mentioned that in your testimony as something that was
important.
Do we need to earmark funds for that purpose, as you
understand it, again this year in the budget, or will that be
done on an automatic basis?
Mr. Laverty. There are two parts to the answer to your
question. The $10 million that you referred to is new money
that has come to Interior, which is the first time they have
had kind of authority.
The Forest Service has historically had funds that have
gone to volunteer fire departments, but we have never been
funded at the level. We have got about $13 million this year in
the Forest Service budget that goes to volunteer fire
districts. That is really one of the most, I guess, unfunded
components in terms of how we get volunteer fire districts
equipped.
I was with Governor Janklow of South Dakota the day before
yesterday. He had 250 volunteer fire districts meeting in Rapid
City to talk about the fire season for 2001 and what they can
do. One of the fire chiefs told me it costs him $450 to outfit
a volunteer fireman with personal protective gear. That is a
lot of cookie sales and bake sales for those folks to have to
raise those kinds of funds.
Senator Bingaman. So, your advice is that we should once
again earmark funds for that and be sure that there is adequate
funding for that particular purpose.
Mr. Laverty. Yes, sir.
Senator Bingaman. I agree with that. I think it is a very
high priority activity.
Did you have a comment, Mr. Hubbard?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes, Senator Bingaman. Not only the $10
million that was provided in the Department of the Interior,
but the $13 million that Lyle referred to in the Forest Service
budget as well. That combined is a huge increase to what we are
able to provide as assistance to those volunteers. They provide
initial attack for 90 percent of our fires in this country. It
is critically important.
Those fire departments are also the best sales people we
have to convince local jurisdictions, local homeowners to do
mitigation activity as well.
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to
the members of the committee, we have got a lot of talk here in
town about the Government assisting faith-based organizations
so that we get them involved in doing social work of various
kinds. And I favor doing that if we can do it in a proper way.
This to me seems like a very parallel circumstance where
you have got a lot of volunteers who spend enormous hours and
put themselves at great risk to help their communities deal
with fires, and what public funds we can provide to equip them
and train them I think is something we really should put an
emphasis on.
Mr. Hartzell. Senator Bingaman, could I comment on the
rural fire departments?
Senator Bingaman. Please, yes.
Mr. Hartzell. The Department of the Interior has a
relationship with about 3,200 or 3,300 rural fire departments.
With the $10 million the Congress gave us, we will be able to
provide some sort of assistance probably to between 800 or 900.
We do not know for sure because it is a pilot program.
But let me just say that in the first month that our
instruction memoranda went out to the field on how to
administer this program, at the National Interagency Fire
Center alone, 900 phone calls were received asking how to
participate.
Senator Bingaman. Good.
Let me ask about one other thing here. My time is about
out.
Mr. Hubbard, I believe in Colorado there has been
established something called the Small Diameter Utilization
Center at Colorado State University.
Mr. Hubbard. Yes, sir.
Senator Bingaman. That is to help, as I understand it,
groups and businesses that want to create jobs and do work that
relates to the small diameter trees that are taken out.
We have got some organizations in New Mexico. Rocky
Mountain Youth Corps is one that comes to mind, operating in
Taos, New Mexico, Betty Vega's group in Silver City, some
others that I think can benefit from the expertise of this
center. Could you describe it very briefly for us and tell us
what services you can provide to organizations like ours?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes, sir.
Part of this started with the Four Corners project, New
Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, where we tried to find out how
to reestablish systems, to leave the large trees, to
reintroduce fire back into the system, and still not have costs
that we could not afford for that kind of treatment. That Four
Corners project is still making good progress on how to do that
locally.
We then exported that same approach to the front range of
Colorado where we have fewer large trees and more smaller
trees, and it is more of a challenge to figure out how to
reduce those costs and use that material.
The center that has been created has been given that
assignment. The Forest Products Lab of the U.S. Forest Service
has a lot of good research. We are trying to connect that
information with local processors in local markets and put it
to use.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, last summer the climatic conditions in Oregon
were identical to those in Idaho and Montana. We were lucky
that we did not have the same fires that they did. As we speak,
we are looking at a near record drought in the Pacific
Northwest.
Senator Feinstein and I are spending time on energy these
days trying to keep the lights on. A lot of the western grid
runs through public lands, and much of it through national
forests. Are you factoring in protection of these energy lines
as you prepare for this summer? Because any disturbance will
have wide-ranging ramifications to further heighten and magnify
the kind of blackouts that are easy to predict, anyway.
Mr. Laverty. Mr. Smith, a similar question was asked
earlier about when are we going to be able to deal with the
resources and how do we place ourselves based on forecasts for
the summer. I believe that with the increased capability, we
are going to be more flexible in terms of strategically placing
resources based on conditions. We ran out of people last
summer. Tim talked about the increased capacity with
helicopters, and we talked about 5,000 additional fire
fighters. I think we are going to be able to strategically
place people around different parts of the country as necessary
to be responsive to those kinds of conditions.
Senator Smith. I appreciate that. I just would forewarn and
plead that you watch out for these electrical transmission
lines because it could make a bad situation much worse.
I apologize. I did not hear the exchange between Senator
Burns and you all. But I am also mindful that there are an
awful lot of areas in Oregon still where years ago there were
fires and there is timber still standing. I am wondering, are
you getting a different signal from this administration as to
some kind of salvage being a part of helping local communities?
When this act was passed last year, it was my understanding
that salvage would not be a part of anything even in roaded
areas. I am wondering if you are getting a different signal at
all in that regard.
Mr. Laverty. I can tell you that one of the items that we
are, in fact, addressing in the restoration and recovery plans
for the fires from 2000, recognize the entire set of tools that
we have available to us. Commercial harvest is one of the
tools.
I was just talking to Dale Bosworth, Regional Forester in
Montana, earlier this morning. One of the projects they are
looking at in the Bitterroot recovery is that full spectrum of
alternatives and actions, including salvage of some of that
timber. I think they are going to be able to look at a series
of options that will include using salvage sale funds to help
us accomplish restoration objectives, but it is important to
talk about what do we need to leave on the landscape, but then
what can we actually take off. If we can capture some value,
that is good.
Senator Smith. Those kinds of activities are proceeding on
private land and State land, and it does not seem to be
happening on Federal land.
Mr. Laverty. I understand on the Bitterroot, we are
actually going to see some volume being removed by the end of
this year. And Senator Burns made that very clear to me.
Senator Smith. I imagine he would.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. In any event, thank you, gentlemen. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am a little confused. What is the $240 million that was
the emergency supplemental that Senator Domenici and I
cosponsored being used for?
Mr. Laverty. I believe those are actually being used for
fuel reduction projects as well.
Senator Feinstein. Is that $240 million being used for
this?
Mr. Laverty. Probably incorporated into that, yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Is that funding this plan?
Mr. Laverty. That was in addition to, I believe, this plan.
Senator Feinstein. My understanding is that money was just
allocated to the regions within the last 2 weeks?
Mr. Laverty. The title IV money of the appropriations for
2001. I think yours was separate from that.
Senator Feinstein. I would like to get a breakdown of
specifically how the $240 million is being utilized, where it
is being utilized.
In terms of what I know about California forests, I am a
little surprised at this, and I would also like to get a
breakdown, if you would, of the California coverage that is
provided by this map. New Mexico got help big time, and I
understand because of the big fires there. But the potential
for catastrophic fire in California at this time is enormous,
and we have got one-third of the National Tahoe Forest either
dead or dying. Yet, you have just got a little square over it,
not a big sunburst.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. I would like to know how much work you
are going to do there. I am really very serious about this. I
would like to know exactly what you are going to do in
California.
Mr. Laverty. The conference report directed us to send to
the Congress a financial and action plan. We delivered that in
the first part of January, and we will get you a copy of that
because it does break down all the projects that are being done
under the hazardous fuel work.
I was just looking at a table here. For the increase of the
$1.1 billion that came to the Forest Service, $135 million of
that was for hazardous fuel reduction. Of that $135 million,
about $30 million of that is going to California. So, there is
a major portion of those hazardous fuel projects----
Senator Feinstein. Right, but now you have another $240
million.
Mr. Laverty. That is right.
Senator Feinstein. That is what I am interested in.
If I could ask this question. Recently the Forest Service
has submitted the record of decision for the Sierra Nevada
Forest Plan. How will the Sierra Nevada framework address the
fuel loading problem in the Sierras, and does this strategy
achieve the objectives of the National Fire Plan?
Mr. Laverty. I have been talking to Brad Powell about that
question. I was hoping Mr. Hubbard might answer that question
for me.
Senator Craig. I am very fascinated by your answer.
Mr. Laverty. I am sure you are. I am sure everybody is.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Laverty. I talked to Brad Powell about that very
question. I have read through the decision. Based on Brad's
conversation, he believes that the framework does provide for
implementation of the National Fire Plan. On the other side of
the equation, I have had numerous people come and tell me that
it will not work.
I know that decision is currently under appeal, and I think
at that time, we are going to have a chance to look at what is
it that may or may not be working as we implement the National
Fire Plan.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Somehow
we have got to move that project forward. I hope that we can
have cooperation from you all in doing that. Is that a yes?
Mr. Laverty. That is a yes.
Senator Feinstein. On the record.
Mr. Laverty. On the record.
Senator Craig. And I heard it too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is it for
me.
If I could get a full copy of the National Fire Plan. All
we got are these things.
Mr. Laverty. I would be happy to do that.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Now let me turn to Senator Pete Domenici who is with us. As
you all well know, both Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein,
as a result of the Los Alamos disaster of last year, co-
authored much of what you are now working with today, which is
a very important tool in this fire strategy that we are looking
at today. So, let me turn to Senator Domenici for any comments
and questions that you would wish to make.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Feinstein.
We got the unanimous approval of the Senate to the so-
called Happy Forest Amendment. People did not know that was
going to happen, but you did. You got on it and before too long
everybody understood that this was the right thing to do,
including a reluctant administration.
I am not sure that I am going to have any questions. I put
a statement in.
[The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
In the wake of last year's horrible fire season Congress made funds
available for the creation of a strategy to address the catastrophic
wildfires that consumed more than 7 million acres in at least 13
states. We are here today to see how this plan is being implemented.
Following last year's fire season, frustrations about the fire
situation peaked. These frustrations echoed across my home state
recently when the New Mexico legislature passed a bill allowing local
communities to protect themselves from the threat of fire if their
federal government won't do it for them. In spite of the legal
obstacles, this bill sends a strong message that people want action to
protect their lives and homes, and they want it now.
I have some frustrations of my own. Much of the burned timber that
is currently rotting in our forests is not being salvaged. What a
waste! Additionally, I have seen where the Forest Service would rather
go into the forests and burn small diameter trees rather than sell them
for the little value they have.
I thought that the major fires, the loss of lives, homes and
livelihoods last year would bring common sense to this issue. After
watching half a million acres burned in New Mexico last season I
determined that something should be done. I was pleased that Congress
supported and funded my request for $240 million for ``Happy Forests,''
and the rest of the Fire Plan. If the federal government will truly
implement this legislation, and use the money we appropriated for it
wisely, including expansion of salvage timber proposals, using grants
and cooperative agreements and utilizing local business to get the work
done, then we will see positive results in many communities.
It is the way we spend these funds on the ground that will help
save homes, lives and our nation's forests. We must allow New Mexicans
and others to re-enter the forests and employ their centuries-old
knowledge to help restore healthier, happier forests. It is time that
we stop letting environmental extremism dictate our policies and
prevent us from seeing the forest for the trees.
It is still my hope that you will continue expanding on cooperation
efforts for fire prevention activities. I also challenge you to
continue pursuing NEPA reviews while getting work done on the ground.
Finally, I hope that you will take advantage of your ability to
expedite procedures when you can, including Section 7 consultations
under the ESA.
State, private and federal lands are intertwined in the West. Our
success in achieving results will only come when we plan and work
together. We have shown you the money. I am anxious for you to show us
the results!
Senator Domenici. But I am going to tell you what I am
worried about. I have read now that in the Santa Fe National
Forest, as an example, the watershed there, that there is going
to be a thinning process because it is a fire avoidance area of
the highest dimension. I read that after it is thinned, up to 7
inches in diameter, all of the timber that they raze and the
brush is all going to be burned. Now, I do not think we
intended that unless there is some other superseding law. I am
just throwing out one example.
Frankly, I think it is a disgrace in a State like New
Mexico where many people use these forests and have in the past
for a livelihood. If we do this and we say to them, we are not
going to let you come in and have any of this to use or put it
out for contract, but we are going to burn it right in front of
your eyes, I think that would really send the wrong signal to
what we are up to.
Now, I have seen a plan in another forest in New Mexico
where you do not plan to do that, where you plan to use it, and
I have seen two or three that you have not yet come up with.
There are some very big burn areas with standing trees where
you have no plan.
So, I want to ask you, first, is it within your process to
permit freestanding burned timber that is usable to be cut down
and used as timber and lumber or whatever it is good for? Can
you answer that one first?
Mr. Laverty. Yes.
Senator Domenici. What holds you up from getting that done?
Mr. Laverty. Well, the first answer to that is for the
forest to go through and complete the NEPA process.
Senator Domenici. But there is no policy within the
Departments, either of them, that says we are not going to do
that because some people think it should stand there and rot in
place.
Mr. Laverty. No, sir.
Senator Domenici. Can we get some of it done, do you think,
within the next 18 months in a State like New Mexico where we
have so much of it standing around?
Mr. Laverty. I believe that we can, yes.
I was just talking to Bob Leaverton earlier this afternoon
about what is actually happening in the Southwest, and I think
we have some projects that are well underway.
Senator Domenici. My second question is, would you please
let us know for the record if there are any areas that need
thinning that are being impeded in terms of thinning because of
the past President's roadless areas? I think that is what has
happened to the Santa Fe watershed. But I think we should know
that, if you would do that for us.
Mr. Laverty. We will get that for you.
Senator Domenici. Now, my last question has to do with
entering into stewardship agreements and the like with people
in the area. You understand that was given as a preference of
what we wanted done. There is nobody trying to exercise a
policy inconsistent with that, is there?
Mr. Hartzell. Not at all.
Mr. Laverty. No.
Senator Domenici. Did we give you enough authority to do
that kind of stewardship arrangement? We thought we did in the
appropriation bill.
Mr. Laverty. I believe we have the authority.
Senator Domenici. Do you think you have the authority?
Mr. Hartzell. I believe we do.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your
giving me some time. I want to insert some other questions, if
I might, and ask them to answer them.
I want to tell you, the expert on forests, a little story.
I was in New Mexico in Los Alamos. There was a big set of
meetings with the Los Alamos people. Instead of going back the
same way, I went over the mountain, which anybody who knows New
Mexico is called the Jemez Mountain, on the other side. And I
observed something that you obviously have already seen and I
should have seen it. But half the way up there, I was driving
through forests that were terrible in terms of looking like
real forests. There were trees that close together all over the
place. As a consequence, there were no big trees because there
is no room for big trees. It is just like driving through a
thicket that happens to be a little bit green. And you finally
get to another part that has been handled right, and you see
beautiful forests, big trees and daylight. They can breathe.
I just wonder if we ought not to be calling these to your
attention because one is good management, the other is a result
of something but not management, either neglect, we did not do
anything to fix it. It just looks awful, and I do not believe
it is much of a forest for us to be preserving. That is an
observation. I think you have seen it more than I, and I just
want to tell you I know about it now and you know about it.
Right?
Mr. Laverty. Senator, I believe that one of the outcomes of
the investment we are going to make in the National Fire Plan
will, in fact, bring us back to the restoration of those kinds
of stands that you last talked about, that are green and
healthy looking stands.
Senator Domenici. I hope so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. We will submit your questions for answering,
and I think because of the time constraints we are going to
have today, there will be more questions submitted than asked.
But now let me turn to my colleague from Arizona, Jon Kyl.
Of course, in his State, especially in the northern end of the
State, some marvelous experimental work has gone on that
demonstrates the point that Senator Domenici was making a few
moments ago that we are going to have this committee focus on
this year as it relates to the thinning, the necessary
cleaning, and what can result from it. Anyway, the mike is
yours for both a statement and questions if you wish, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. I am just going to make a very brief statement
because we have this vote. It is now getting close to the end
of it, and we will have opportunity to visit.
But I really appreciate the chairman just now mentioning
what he did. What I would like to do is to offer the committee
an opportunity for a field hearing perhaps in August, at which
members and staff and others from the administration can visit
the work that has been ongoing now for about a decade,
primarily through Northern Arizona University, Wally Covington
and his group, which I think you are familiar with. It
demonstrates what can be done. They now have got plots that
have been there almost a decade.
You can see the control plot, which looks exactly like the
forest that Senator Domenici mentioned, the dog hair thicket.
It got the name because a dog cannot even run through there
without losing half its hair. It is so thick. No trees more
than a very small diameter because they are all competing for
the same soil, nutrients, water, et cetera. And it is a fire
waiting to happen. It is disease prone. Nothing is healthy. No
critters at all.
Then you see the plots that were either just burned or the
plot over here that was thinned and then burned. And they are
lush. There are not as many trees, but the trees that are there
are pretty. They are bigger. They are healthier. The pitch
content of the trees is substantially higher so the bark beetle
does not get them. The grasses are growing all over so the
critters are running around. The protein content of the grass
is substantial, and therefore it attracts all of the elk and
the deer and everything else.
The point is we know this can work, but here is the
challenge before us. Last year, 7 million acres burned in 13
States, more than double the 10-year average, $10 billion
losses. The 1999 GAO report reminds us that there are 39
million acres at risk, and they say it has got to be treated
within a 15- to 20-year period.
The challenge that you and we have is to identify what can
and should be done within that time frame and to get the money
to do it. We have got to do that because what we have been
doing so far are just small area treatments. They are nice to
look at. They say to us, wow, we can really make this thing
work, but we have not applied it to the large area treatments
that are going to be necessary to save our forests.
So, I am very much looking forward both with Interior and
Ag to demonstrate to our colleagues what can really work so
that we can generate the support here in the Congress. I would
hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can put such a hearing together and
that we will all have the opportunity to see what a benefit
this can be for everything, for the environment. There has to
be some small industry to help with the thinning. There is
nothing wrong with that. They can help us out here. There is no
way we can hire people or get AmeriCorp volunteers to do it
all. So, some small amount of industry has to be available. But
everything is so much more environmentally sound at the end of
the day.
Then the good news is that when you are all done, you have
returned it to the state of nature, that enables nature to take
care of it with burns occasionally as occurred 100 years ago,
but going through the forest floor burning whatever fuel is
there and not crowning as it goes up that ladder of fuel.
I know you all know this better than I. But I just wanted
to make a little speech, and I hope that the chairman will find
a way for us to put such a hearing together and that you could
all help us participate in it.
Senator Craig. Jon, thank you. We will do that only if Dr.
Wally Covington will be the guide.
Senator Kyl. He will do it with great pleasure, I am sure.
Senator Craig. We do have a vote on. I am going to recess
the committee for a bit while we vote. Then we will be back to
take the balance of the testimony. Thank you and excuse us, and
of course, this panel is excused. We have completed our
questioning of you. The committee will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Craig. The subcommittee will be back in order.
Thank you all very much for being a part of the hearing
this afternoon. I apologize for the breakup, but we are in the
midst of a series of votes and potentially a conference that I
may have to attend. But we will proceed. We want your testimony
and we appreciate the distances you have traveled and the time
you spent to prepare it.
So, let us lead with Nils Christoffersen, Wallowa
Resources, Enterprise, Oregon.
Mr. Christoffersen, welcome.
STATEMENT OF NILS D. CHRISTOFFERSEN, FIELD PROGRAM MANAGER,
WALLOWA RESOURCES, ENTERPRISE, OR
Mr. Christoffersen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak here.
It has been thrilling so far. The previous questions and
discussions of the previous panel pretty much covered most of
my testimony, so I need to move on to other points in my
written testimony. I really appreciate the understanding and
the interest that your subcommittee has given to our issue.
I also would like to specifically give thanks to Senator
Wyden for the attention given to our community in his comments.
Our situation is familiar to much of the West. We currently
have the highest unemployment rate in the State of Oregon at 15
percent. It is because of the transition in emphasis from
timber supply to restoration across our national forests that
this has resulted. That transition has hit our community very
hard and we believe that there is an imperative for all
interest groups, State and Federal agencies to work together to
deal with the implications of that transition, that transition
from an extractive economy to one geared towards restoration
and stewardship.
Due to the 90 percent reduction in timber harvest from
public lands in Wallowa County since 1992, we have lost 350
forest sector jobs with average wages in excess of $27,000. The
only significant replacement of jobs has been in the service
sector. 130 jobs have been added with wages less than $15,000.
During that same period of job loss, we have had six
wildfire events, exceeding 40,000 acres in scale, and last year
over 100,000 acres burned in our county. To suppress those
fires, $85 million have been spent on fire suppression in our
county alone. That exceeds the amount spent on restoration
contracts by a factor of 10 and on payments through the
Economic Action Plan by more than 100.
Our community fully shares the national concerns about the
condition of our forested landscape. We appreciate what got us
in the condition they are in today. It was excessive logging.
It was the fire suppression history. We have directly borne the
costs of past logging and fire suppression.
We need to work with all partners to assist our remaining
workforce and the private sector in our county in the
transition to community stewardship and restoration. Toward
this end, we desperately need to develop a stewardship
workforce and the local value-added processing capacity that
generates increased jobs and income from the tasks and
byproducts of stewardship.
With this background in mind, our community welcomed the
National Fire Plan. We would, as a general comment, like to see
it integrated in a longer, sustained, and predictable
commitment from the Federal Government to the restoration and
stewardship across the public lands. We are encouraged that the
plan clearly targets both forest and community needs and
directly encourages collaboration with community organizations
and micro-businesses.
However, we are concerned by a number of planning and
implementation constraints that will limit, if not prevent, the
intended benefits. Allow me to focus on a few of these.
The first, as most of you know and you have spoken to, is
the implementation of NEPA. In our region, it is still a very
long, cumbersome process. It takes more than 24 months to
complete, and therefore few, if any, of the projects
implemented this year were designed to achieve the integrated
forest and community benefits called for in the fire plan.
It is very critical that the Forest Service and the
relevant regulatory agencies receive sufficient funding to
perform the tasks required by law in an efficient and in an
effective manner. We would also like to see the regulatory
agencies working on the ground with us up front in the
identification and design of projects so that we can push
through that consultation process and design better projects in
a more streamlined fashion.
We are concerned that in our community that none of the
fuel reduction work scheduled, both through regular contracting
means and through stewardship contracting, will allow for any
removal or commercial use of byproducts. This approach greatly
streamlines the NEPA processes, but it means that the acres
most in need of treatment will not be treated because those
acres most in need of treatment with the heaviest fuel load
need to have the removal of that, which will be a ground-
disturbing activity, which will extend the NEPA process. And we
need to commit resources to get through that.
Part of it also relates to benchmarks. When the agency only
targets benchmarks, like we saw earlier today on the boards, of
annual acres treated or acres treated through the course of a
program such as the National Fire Plan, there is a disincentive
to invest extra time and effort to provide for the removal and
commercial use of byproduct. This undermines local initiatives
to develop small log processing capacity that, if established,
would offset the cost of restoration.
Local entrepreneurs in my county have invested scarce
resources in low impact processing and small diameter
manufacturing capacity. Further investments have been made in
the utilization and recycling of biomass. We have the
opportunity to generate green energy at an appropriate scale
for our landscape and we have supported these investments with
market research, product trials, and business planning
assistance, which has been financed through the Economic Action
Plan and private foundations.
We desperately need to deal with the serious conditions on
our landscape that have resulted from lack of attention and
management, as you have all discussed. We urge you to make
permanent the stewardship contracting in title IV contracting
authorities and to insist that they are utilized. We urge you
to ensure that the Forest Service remains accountable not only
for the forests and ecological part of its mission but for the
community health and human service part of its mission as well.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Christoffersen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NILS D. CHRISTOFFERSEN, FIELD PROGRAM MANAGER,
WALLOWA RESOURCES, ENTERPRISE, OR
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Thanks for the
invitation to speak today. I am Nils Christoffersen, Field Program
Manager for Wallowa Resources--a community based non-profit
organization serving Wallowa County in Northeast Oregon. Wallowa
Resources emerged after a period of crisis and polarization in the mid-
1990's when the last three mills in the County closed due to the
decline in timber harvest on public lands. With support from the County
Commissioners and a broad range of local interest groups, Wallowa
Resources was created in 1997 to identify and promote a new
relationship with the land. The community's vision calls for the
generation and maintenance of family-wage jobs and business
opportunities from natural resource stewardship. The vision is based on
broad recognition of the need to adapt our community livelihoods to the
opportunities and constraints offered by the ecosystem within which we
live. Wallowa Resources Board of Directors consists entirely of County
residents and Nez Perce Tribal members. On behalf of my community, I am
very pleased to provide our local perspective on the National Fire Plan
to this committee.
Wallowa County has a long history of Federal, State, Tribal and
Local collaboration in land and resource stewardship. Wallowa County
and the Nez Perce Tribe cooperated in the development of a Salmon
Restoration Plan that targeted the needs of anadromous fish before
Chinook and Steelhead were listed under the ESA in 1992-93. Currently,
collaborative efforts led by the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Council,
the Wallowa Soil and Water Conservation District, and Wallowa Resources
are uniting public and private landowners in forest, range and riparian
stewardship programs, as well as an innovative community-led landscape
assessment and planning process.
This is real grass-roots collaboration, involving farmers,
ranchers, loggers, mill-workers, artists, retailers, civil servants and
many others. The collaboration is driven by both a remarkable vision of
community stewardship, and by our local economic depression.
The USFS has a critical role to play in our pursuit of community
stewardship. The northern half of the Wallowa Whitman National Forest
accounts for 59% of Wallowa County's total land base. To achieve the
ecological and social objectives envisioned in the National Fire Plan,
and those underlying the USFS' central purpose, several critical
constraints need to be addressed. After summarizing the current crisis
and opportunity in Wallowa County, I will review general problems in
the planning and budgeting processes guiding federal land management
activities, and the specific problems these constraints pose to the
National Fire Plan.
WALLOWA COUNTY: CRISIS
Wallowa County currently has the highest unemployment rate in the
State of Oregon at 15%. Over the last eight years, Wallowa County's
unemployment rate has averaged about 11%. The much talked about
``longest economic expansion in US history'' has not touched our corner
of Oregon. While much of the U.S.--in particular the metropolitan areas
of the East and West Coast--benefited from increasing standards of
living throughout the 1990's, the people of Wallowa County experienced
a continuing decline in average wages, a reduction in jobs, increasing
claims on public assistance, marital break-ups, depression, and mass
emigration of working age families. School enrollment has dropped
nearly 20% over the last 6 years. The percentage of Medicare/Medicaid
patients at our local hospital has increased from 40% to 80%--
reflecting a loss in private sector jobs with health insurance and a
replacement of working age families by retirees and second home owners.
Due to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Medicare and Medicaid no longer
pay the real costs of medical treatment, and we are now in jeopardy of
losing our hospital.
The listing of a variety of salmonoid fish species under the ESA in
1992-93 initiated a significant reduction in the program of work in the
Wallowa Whitman National Forest. The timber harvest from public lands
in the County dropped from an annual average of about 70 million board
feet for the ten years prior to the listing of Chinook salmon, to an
average of about 4 million board feet per year since 1993. This trend
continues; as no timber sales have been offered in the last two years.
Other management constraints have contributed to this result
including: uncertainties in management direction while the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project dragged on, the hesitant
birth of the Blue Mountain Demonstration Area, policy decisions to not
cut any tree within riparian buffers or any tree over 21 inches in
diameter, the listing of lynx, etc. Of the 1.2 million acres of
National Forest land in the County, less than 100,000 acres remains
available for timber harvest. Most, if not all, of the existing
constraints to timber harvest (and more generally to the commercial use
of wood products) are dictated by politics and process--not science.
This is of course normal in a democracy, but those of us in small,
impoverished, rural communities feel marginalized by the urban,
affluent majority.
The decline in public timber supply since 1992 contributed to the
loss in over 340 wood and lumber product jobs with an average salary of
over $27,000 and private health insurance. The county's average salary
is less than $21,000. The only significant replacement of jobs has been
in the service sector, which has added 130 jobs over the same period at
an average salary of less than $15,000 without medical benefits. Today
even these service jobs are threatened by the continued economic
stagnation.
Under current policies, the commercial use of wood products is
currently possible from about 8% of our public land area. This
restricts local economic opportunities, and, more importantly, it
limits our ability to pursue ecological restoration. Federal and other
public funding is required to cover all of the costs of restoration and
management on 92% of the public lands in Wallowa County. Is this
sustainable? Does this accurately reflect the nation's intentions for
National Forest management? We believe the answer to both questions is
no. Therefore, we urge the Federal Legislator to commit the time needed
to forge a new strategic consensus on the management of our National
Forests, and respond to the significant wildfire risk in the Western
States.
WALLOWA COUNTY: OPPORTUNITY
Local entrepreneurs have been progressive in their response to the
shift from resource extraction to resource stewardship. Considerable
investments have been made by our small private sawmill to retool to
process smaller diameter logs and increase its value-added processing
capacity.\1\ By July 2001, this mill will have the capacity to process
logs down to a 3 inch top diameter. No other mill in Eastern Oregon has
this capacity. Over the past two years the average diameter of all
pieces processed in the mill has been 7.2 inches. This mill is uniquely
positioned as a tool to support fire, insect and disease risk reduction
in our forested landscapes, as well as support the promotion of healthy
mature stands by under story thinning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Disclosure: On March 19, 2001, Wallowa Resources invested in
the last operating mill in our County. The investment agreement
provides us with a small equity position (6010%), and a 50% share of
the management. This arrangement ensures that our charitable purpose
(watershed, forest and community health) will be met by the investment.
Any resulting revenues to Wallowa Resources will be re-invested in
restoration. The decision to invest came about abruptly. Two years of
work with the mill on small diameter log processing, waste product
recycling and secondary manufacturing were at risk due to market
conditions. Efforts to find ``angel'' investors failed due to broad
spread concerns about log supply and lumber prices. With time running
out on the workers' unemployment benefits in a depressed local economy,
and with an eye toward the restoration role possible for this mill, we
stepped to the plate. Nothing else we could do would generate 40+
family-wage earning jobs and contribute to forest stewardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local processing capacity generates the ability of the private
sector to offset the costs of restoration efforts on public land. In
the transition phase from resource extraction to resource restoration
on public lands, private businesses need clearer signals on the future
opportunities that might arise from public land management activities.
Where investments are made which clearly respond to and support the
restoration needs of the land, it is judicious to merge ecological
treatment goals with local economic benefit goals.
Our forest contractors have retrained themselves to take on service
and stewardship contracts instead of logging contracts, and they've
invested in new machinery--machines that are light on the land (less
than 10 pounds per square inch), and can perform a wide variety of
restoration tasks including slash treatment, wetland and riparian
restoration, etc. Other ex-loggers have geared up with draft and pack
horses to handle forest restoration activities in sensitive sites,
noxious weed management on steep slopes, and riparian fencing in remote
areas.
In an effort to make use of our workforce and help catalyze the
move to restoration, Wallowa Resources has secured private funding and
invested it in habitat restoration on public and private land. This
past field season Wallowa Resources invested over $100,000 of non-
federal funding in the restoration of Aspen stands, critical wetlands,
and riparian areas in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and in
assisting the USFS with field assessments (e.g. lynx and soil surveys)
required by NEPA.
However, local investments in restoration are at risk from a wide
variety of planning and implementation problems affecting federal
agencies. These problems are discussed below. Many of the risks to
forest stewardship work and value-added processing of restoration by-
products also affect tourism and cattle grazing in our County. Income
from both tourism and grazing on public land has declined along with
timber receipts over the last 6 years due in part to new limitations on
the number of people in our wilderness areas and cattle in the national
forest. We don't all disagree with the ecological basis for these
limits; we raise this point merely to illustrate that there are no easy
alternatives to our socio-economic challenges.
A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
The National Fire Plan is long overdue. Numerous scientific
assessments of the ecological conditions in Eastern Oregon have
commented on the declining health of our forests, and the increasing
risks from fire, insect and disease. These assessments have been
confirmed by the rapid escalation in wildfire damage. Of the 462,035
acres burnt in Wallowa County between 1955-2000, 89% (or 411,200 acres)
have burnt since 1986. A total of $85 million in federal funds have
been spent on fire suppression in our County over the last 15 years,
with expenditures exceeding $8 million dollars per year in 1986, 1989,
1994, 1996, and 2000.
Cost of Fire Suppression (in $ millions) in the Wallowa Fire Zone
(1986-2000) was as follows: 1986, 12.7; 1987, 0.4; 1988, 4.5; 1989,
19.4; 1990, 1.7; 1991, 1.8; 1992, 0.7; 1993, 0.01; 1994, 22.7; 1995,
0.7; 1996, 8.3; 1997, 0.1; 1998, 0.1; 1999, 0.1; 2000, 11.1.
During the period of local economic decline (1992-2000) discussed
above, over 227,000 acres of public land in our County have been lost
to wildfires and $44 million dollars have been spent on wildfire
suppression. The 2000 Fire Season was significant in Wallowa County:
102,000 acres burnt and $11 million spent in suppression. US Forest
Service and University ecologists have been warning (without results)
the federal government and the general public of the increasing risk of
wildfire in our County since the late 1970's.
The Federal Government must address its land stewardship
responsibilities seriously. As a nation, we should be able to admit
past errors - timber extraction did exceed ecologically sustainable
limits even up into the 1980's, as did grazing in many areas, and fire
suppression has only increased fuel loads and generated increasingly
catastrophic fires. We must learn from these errors. We are an
indelible and inseparable part of our nation's ecosystem. With care,
commitment and adaptation we can chart a course towards more
sustainable livelihoods - learning from both errors and successes. We
will never chart such a course by disengaging from our natural
landscapes.
Locally, the community is dismayed by the lack of investment in
``preventive care'' for the Public Lands, a strategy that would benefit
the National Forest and the local community. From our perspective, the
last ten years of increasing environmental regulation, reduced public
land stewardship, acute economic decline in the face of national
prosperity, and recurrent devastating wildfires, suggest dysfunction in
our system of governance. I think I speak on behalf of many rural
communities in the Interior West when I say that we feel politically
ignored. There appears to be a lack of concerted effort to understand
the challenges we face, and to construct a legislative and policy
environment that stimulates viable solutions. We are excited about the
opportunity this hearing provides to express our opinion, and hope we
can continue to work constructively with this committee on these
issues.
The National Fire Plan is a step in the right direction but it
needs refinement and focused follow-up if the intended outcomes are to
be achieved. Specifically, we offer the following recommendations:
Ecological vs. Human Interface Priorities: The focus on
larger populated communities in the ``wildlands interface''
criteria of the National Fire Plan should be balanced with a
broader effort to address the declining health of public lands
across the country--including those in rural and poor
communities. The ecological dynamics that have generated the
risks of catastrophic wildfires across the public lands of the
western States are not correlated with population densities.
The inclusion of smaller, impoverished communities situated in
landscapes characterized by high wildfire risk--such as Wallowa
County--is consistent with the ecological restoration priority in the
new USFS Planning Rule, and will generate significant socio-economic
returns.
Legislative and Planning Constraints: The current planning
process guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and environmental
regulations addressing water, air, and endangered species
issues is complex, often confused, and always time consuming.
Recent legal interpretations of the legislative web dictate an
avoidance of any short-term risk without regard to the threats
from lack of action or the potential long-term benefits of a
particular restoration treatment. These constraints will affect
results under the National Fire Plan. Little of the vast
acreage warranting fuel reduction treatment in Wallowa County
has made it through the various analytical and decision-making
steps required by law. These steps currently take 24 months or
more to complete. So the bulk of the work that will be
accomplished this field season under the National Fire Plan is
work that was initially proposed in 1999 or earlier. None of
these projects were designed to meet the full intent of the
National Fire Plan--which seeks to generate local jobs and
accomplish priority rehabilitation and fuel reduction
activities.
Regulatory agency representatives should be located closer to the
districts for which they are responsible and encouraged to participate
in all phases of project design and development. This will stimulate
innovation, creativity, and collaboration. Legislative and policy
review should accommodate short-term risks where long-term benefits can
be achieved. These steps are critical to the pursuit of adaptive
management. The current system of review from afar, and blind aversion
to short-term risk, generates frustration and hampers restoration
efforts.
Inefficiencies in Federal budgeting: The USFS budget process
is complex, confusing, and incessantly delayed. The delays and
the lack of strategic, long-term commitments, stifle local work
planning. To the best of my knowledge, our local USFS district
still does not know what its budget is for the coming field
season. If they do know, confirmation has only been received
recently. The inadequacies of this system defeat efforts to
generate a local ``restoration workforce''. Our highest
qualified workers cannot afford to wait for the USFS to issue
contract notices in May or June, and therefore find work
elsewhere in the region. Even worse, local entrepreneurs
investing in modern harvesting and processing machinery
designed for restoration activities are victimized by
unpredictable shifts in program funding.
Clear, long-term funding commitments for land and resource
management should be established. Restoration and economic objectives
associated with funding should be spelled out broadly with authorities
devolved for (i) the definition of local priorities consistent with
national values, and (ii) the definition and implementation of
appropriate restoration activities. Collaborative reviews of local work
programs and accomplishments should be conducted periodically to assess
consistency with national values, and revise as necessary the
guidelines accompanying the delegated authorities.
Inappropriate Performance Targets: The collaboration with
community organizations and micro-businesses called for in the
National Fire Plan is hampered by the over-arching emphasis on
``acres treated'' as a performance indicator. Collaboration
takes time to generate trust, relevant skills, and strong
working relationships. When performance is measured in annual
acres treated, collaborative efforts are perceived as costly.
Furthermore, the singular target of acres treated discourages
extra effort to provide for opportunities to test new
technologies, and develop new value-added processing systems.
Accountability benchmarks must integrate ecological and socio-
economic performance targets. Congressional review should be structured
to reward accomplishments that demonstrate effective collaboration,
generate local economic benefits, and achieve ecological objectives.
While this incentive structure will increase the costs of ecological
restoration over the short-term, it should reduce the long-term costs
as partnerships strengthen and local resources (financial, technical,
and technological) are committed to collaborative stewardship of our
public lands.
Federal Authorities Exceed Capacities: The lack of
bipartisan consensus on environment and resource management
issues has generated increasing disparity between federal
authorities and federal capacity. Environmental regulations
have increased while funding to federal management and
regulatory agencies has decreased. Insufficient capacity in the
federal agencies results in long delays in project decision-
making and implementation, or worse--a complete avoidance of
decision-making and a never-ending process of planning and
consultation.
Congress should not cut funding to the management and regulatory
agencies before laws are revised. Otherwise, rural communities, other
resource users, and the resources themselves get hurt. The effective
and efficient execution of current authorities in response to the
National Fire Plan, and public land stewardship in general, requires
immediate additional funding for the USFS, USFWS, NMFS, and EPA.
Mechanical Treatment vs. Prescribed Burning: The funding
allocation bias to prescribed burning as opposed to mechanical
treatment and other forms of fuel reduction is inconsistent
with field conditions and with local economic benefit
objectives. The ecological impacts of past logging and fire
suppression, combined with the management constraints discussed
above, have resulted in a landscape in our County where stands
characterized by the stem initiation and stem exclusion stages
currently exceed their historical range of variability by about
50%. In a majority of these young stands, shade tolerant
species (especially White/Grand fir) generating higher fuel
loads are crowding out the species generally associated with
our area (Ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and Western larch).
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest vegetative data lists 80,000
acres of backlog thinning. The majority of these acres exceed
historical ground fuel loads by eight to ten times or more.
Prescribed burning is the cheapest treatment option, but it
also carries considerable risks in high fuel load stands. No
one wants to see a repeat of the Los Alamos disaster.
Prescribed burning in our area falls under an ``Indefinite
Delivery Indefinite Quantity'' contract with a large contractor
based in Western Oregon. This, and a range of licensing and
insurance requirements, precludes any significant local
employment benefit from prescribed burning.
Mechanical treatment (with machines and/or by hand) of fuel loads
is an ecological necessity in many high fire risk stands, and will
generate significant local economic benefits--both in terms of labor
and the potential to add-value to any woody materials removed from the
land. Where commercial use of low value species and small logs
develops, restoration costs will be reduced.
SUMMARY COMMENTS ON THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
The numerous planning and budgetary problems affecting public land
management preclude the short-term response envisioned in the National
Fire Plan. In Wallowa County, there is no NEPA ready work that captures
the mix of ecological and socio-economic objectives desired by Congress
and the previous Administration when it formulated this Plan. Given the
significant time required (averaging 24 months or more) to get projects
through the legislated planning and review process for activity on
public lands, it is unlikely that any National Forest will undertake
work specifically targeting the integrated National Fire Plan goals
with this years funding. Performance targets emphasizing acres of
treatment per year are jeopardizing local community benefits and
undermining local investment in small log harvesting, processing and
manufacturing. As a result, the incentives influencing the USFS program
of work undermine local opportunities to reduce the costs of
restoration to the federal government and the tax-paying public.
Clear policy guidelines and appropriate funding should be packaged
to promote USFS collaboration with local organizations, as well as the
utilization of local workforces. The effective utilization of local
resources as appropriate under existing law should generally be
prioritized over increased federal agency staffing--with the exception
of the current imbalance in staffing required to streamline NEPA's
planning requirements.
Local planning processes should be guided by long-term national
objectives (matched by longer-term funding commitments), and defined in
a site-specific manner relevant to each landscape or watershed.
Planning processes should be structured to generate targeted (and
typically small scale) restoration objectives for each field season,
and implementation should happen fluidly and consistently from year to
year. Practical and scientifically valid assessment programs should be
required for all restoration work, and findings should be fed back into
annual planning cycles. Collaborative or multi-party assessments should
become standard operating procedure.
To the extent justified by local ecological and socio-economic
conditions, priorities under the National Fire Plan should focus on the
mechanical treatment of fuel loads and ladders. Private sector
investments in the processing and secondary manufacturing of the small
diameter logs that will result from mechanical fuel reduction efforts
should be facilitated. This will require additional investments in NEPA
preparation and ESA consultation to accommodate product removal and
commercial use. Research programs in the USFS (especially the Forest
Product's Lab), within universities, and by local partners, should
currently be targeted (and funded appropriately) at small diameter log
utilization and marketing. As forest conditions and public values
change, research programs should be adjusted to support new restoration
activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these views and perspectives
on the National Fire Plan today. All of us in Wallowa County are eager
to continue working with Congress and the Federal Agencies to improve
public land management through the country. While this concludes my
formal comment on the National Fire Plan, the following issues relevant
to community forestry in Wallowa County are provided for your further
consideration.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT
1) Procurement/Grants and Agreements: Clear policy support and
direction is required to stimulate full use of the existing authorities
in Stewardship Contracting and other innovative contracting
arrangements. Optimum solutions are often found when contracting and
procurement officers participate in the initial project design
discussions, but such participation is not standard. It should be.
Stewardship Contracting is still ``outside of the box'' for many
within the USFS. Stewardship Contracting offers the ability for local
forest contractors, with a vested interest in the health of the forest
and significant local knowledge, to transition into family wage-earning
jobs in restoration rather than logging.
2) Wyden Amendment: The Wyden Amendment is a critical piece of our
legislation that is stimulating broader public and private
collaboration on watershed restoration. Knowledge of the opportunities
and benefits of this amendment is still developing. It should be
continued for at least five more years, and then reviewed.
3) Economic Action Program: The Economic Action Program of the
Forest Service is under funded and politically marginalized within the
Department of Agriculture. It needs increased funding, with far fewer
earmarks. The staff of this program must have effective representation
at all levels of planning and decision-making. This is critical to the
stimulation of collaborative efforts, and to the merger of ecological
and environmentally appropriate economic benefits.
4) Strike Team: The Strike Team sent out to Northeast Oregon in
October 2000 to review the progress and constraints of the Blue
Mountain Demonstration Area was considered locally to be a huge
success. It resulted in greater awareness of and support for
collaborative efforts, established accountability benchmarks for the
USFS Regional Offices and Supervisor's Office, and encouraged broader
public participation. This type of effort, with the full backing of the
Administration, should be repeated everywhere collaborative efforts are
occurring--and as a top priority in those areas experiencing policy
barriers to progress. This approach generated results whereas the award
of a National Reinvention Lab Charter two years ago generated nothing
but confusion.
5) Blue Mountain Demonstration Area: Demonstration Areas are mixed
blessings. They generate a lot of promise and expectation, but also
become the target of political opponents. The Blue Mountain
Demonstration Area that covers much of our County has taken time to
establish its planning systems, priority criteria, and mode of
operation, but it is now positioned to generate results and maintains
broad support from the community. If the new Administration values the
original intent and objectives of these Demonstration Areas (which our
community does), we strongly encourage continuation of this initiative
for 3-5 more years. Anything short of this time-frame will provide
insufficient experience to distill lessons learned, and models for
replication elsewhere.
6) Small Business Set-Aside: With the decline in the Timber Sale
program on public lands, the Small Business Set-Aside program needs to
be revised. It is currently built on 6-month intervals, but our forest
regularly goes 6 months or more without offering any commercial
contracts. If the Set-Aside program is not adjusted to the current
frequency of log supply availability on public lands, it does not serve
its purpose.
7) International Trade: The proponents of free trade as the
purveyor of increased public value from private investment need to
reconsider. Price competition on the international market is greatly
affected by national and local regulations and enforcement. The USA has
some of the most prohibitive and costly environmental regulations in
the world. While acknowledging the need for some regulations, it is
obvious that our regulatory environment puts our local producers at a
disadvantage in the face of international competition. The
environmental benefit of our regulations is undermined if we allow
cheaper goods produced in a less appropriate manner to flood our
markets and eliminate our producers. Furthermore, the ability of the
federal government and private landowners to act as real stewards of
the land will diminish if no private sector exists to off-set the costs
of restoration and conservation. We strongly encourage the maintenance
of import quotas and/or tariffs on wood and lumber products. We support
the proposed sliding scale for tariffs correlated with the market price
for lumber.
Once again, thank you.
Supplemental Statement of Nils D. Christoffersen, Field Program
Manager, Wallowa Resources
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Upon returning to
Wallowa County, Oregon, and further reflection on the hearing, I would
like to submit the following supplemental statement to my testimony.
1. Our unemployment rate jumped to 19% by the end of February
2001--the highest level in several decades. This was driven by the
first significant reduction in retail employment in over 20 years. The
sustained decline in manufacturing jobs, with and additional 130 wood
and lumber products jobs lost in 2000, is having significant impacts on
the rest of the economy.
2. The intention of my testimony was to emphasize the opportunities
that exist to address both forest and community health concerns. Our
community workforce and the local wood-processing infrastructure have
adapted to the current need to treat small diameter trees in suppressed
stands and to clean up heavy fuel loads. This should not be interpreted
as a push to remove saw logs from the public lands. We are committed to
improve forest and watershed health as a top priority. However, we want
to take advantage of any employment and value-added processing
opportunities that result from forest restoration and stewardship.
3. Our community is committed to its partnership with the USFS. We
appreciate the commitment, expertise and experience of our local Forest
Service employees--who are valued members of our community. We are
frustrated by the legislative, policy and budgetary constraints
affecting our ability to deal with serious forest health concerns in
our County and across Eastern Oregon. To the best of our understanding,
these constraints are not purely a function of USFS operations and
management, but reflect more broadly the national political tensions
surrounding public land management. We want to see priority given
clearly to a balanced, integrated land management approach that
generates both forest and community health benefits. We do not want to
see a return to the past where forested public landscapes were
subjected to output based forest management, nor the maintenance of the
present where rural communities and forested landscapes suffer from
inattention and neglect.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Nils, thank you very much for that very
observant testimony. I think much of what you are saying is
part of the ``can we crawl before we walk'' part of where we
might be in some of this new strategy right now.
With that, let me turn to Betty Vega, Cooperative Ownership
Development Corporation, Silver City, New Mexico. Welcome
before the committee.
STATEMENT OF BETTY VEGA, CEO, COOPERATIVE OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, SILVER CITY, NM
Ms. Vega. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the subcommittee.
I am Betty Vega, chief executive officer of the Cooperative
Ownership Development Corporation in Silver City, New Mexico,
located in Grant County. I want to thank you for the
congressional support of the National Fire Plan. It provides an
opportunity to better serve community needs and we greatly
appreciate it.
The Cooperative Ownership Development Corporation was
formed in 1987 and is a nonprofit organization dedicated to
social, economic, and environmental justice, committed to job
creation, and finding opportunities for sustainable and livable
wages. It was formed by people from the low income and Mexican-
American community in Grant County in response to economic and
unemployment conditions in the area.
I am going to focus today on opportunities for Congress to
further assist communities in taking care of the land through
small business development and other forms of investment in the
community by acquainting you with the work that a small rural
community organization is doing to promote community economic
development using local resources and assets.
New Mexico and specifically Grant County are rich in
cultural diversity and natural and human resources. Grant
County is located in southwest New Mexico on the southern end
of the Gila National Forest and close to the Mexican border. It
has a population of approximately 30,000 people and is over 50
percent Hispanic. Approximately 21 percent of its population
are living below the poverty level. Though the human
communities adjacent to the forest are small, their impact have
been significant.
We share you concern about forest restoration, hazardous
fuel reduction, and the sustained health of our communities.
The recent catastrophic forest fires have emphasized the need
for attention to the condition of our forests and the direct
and indirect impacts of these conditions on surrounding
communities.
We also recognize that forest restoration requires an
integrated, holistic approach. An integrated approach begins
with a community vision of forest restoration. Reestablishing
sustainable human connections to the land through quality
restoration jobs and conservation-based economy is part of this
approach. This must also include a sensitivity to cultural
values and community needs.
Second, an integrated approach requires strategic
application of various restoration techniques. This may require
a combination of prescribed fires, conservative thinning,
grazing deferment, erosion control, and road closures, native
seed planting, and intensive ecological monitoring. It helps to
minimize disturbance and allows for the introduction of
positive natural processes. It can also protect the old trees
remaining.
Third, it is important to think of this strategic
restoration as experimental in the beginning. This is an
entirely new way of thinking about forests, and we have few of
the answers needed to attempt it on a large scale. A
conservative approach will allows us to employ restoration
models that respond to problems plaguing forests today without
causing more harm than help. These same principles apply when
considering hazardous fuels reduction. Through natural resource
management, our interest has been in retaining those natural
resources for quite some time. We have some experience to
share, but we have a great deal to learn.
These challenging environmental and economic conditions
provide opportunities. The removal of small diameter material
may help restore ecosystems and allows CODC and local community
members to develop jobs and create economic uses for wood
wastes. In other words, a confluence of interests is turning
the excess small diameter timber of the forest and the ready
labor of our communities into assets.
A planning grant and subsequent funding from the Ford
Foundation resulted in the development of the Jobs and
Biodiversity Project, a community-based forestry initiative. It
brings together an impressive group of cooperators and assets
from environmental groups, educational institutions, the
business community, small industry, nonprofits, and government
agencies.
Two of the central pieces of this project are Tierra Alta
Wood Products Plant, an incubated business of CODC organized to
become a worker-owned cooperative, and Gila WoodNet, another
nonprofit organization with specific experience in small timber
removal.
Tierra Alta Fuels uses wood waste and small diameter
thinning to produce an environmentally clean, renewable,
nonfossil, premium wood pellet fuel for home heating use.
Gila WoodNet will establish a wood sort lot, provide a
local supply of raw material for Tierra Alta and develop other
wood products.
So, government assistance and participation is crucial to
success. For example, the programs created by the Community
Forest Restoration Act provide an opportunity for our
organization and the community to coordinate projects with the
Federal Government. These projects will greatly improve the
social and economic conditions in our community, as well as the
conditions in our forest.
We ask that you consider the following areas in defining
Government's role in the process: to provide long-term
appropriations to ensure continued implementation of community-
based restoration projects based on sound ecological
principles; find ways to fund the pioneering work of rural
nonprofits and small businesses to develop markets and products
from restoration byproducts; and provide necessary personnel
and funding to complete the NEPA process in a timely, cost
effective manner.
We have formed a community of interest and of place with a
vision for the future. It brings together people interested in
working to create livable wages by investing in the forest for
future generations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vega follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETTY VEGA, CEO, COOPERATIVE OWNERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SILVER CITY, NM
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Betty Vega,
Chief Executive Officer of the Cooperative Ownership Development
Corporation in Silver City, New Mexico located in Grant County.
The Cooperative Ownership Development Corporation (CODC) is a non-
profit organization dedicated to social, economic and environmental
justice, committed to job creation and finding opportunities for
sustainable and livable wages. It was formed by people from the low
income and Mexican-American community of Grant County in response to
perennial cyclical layoffs in the copper industry. The community
founded the organization with the goal of forming cooperative
businesses and creating other forms of economic ownership in the area.
CODC has combined traditional methods with innovative community
economic development techniques to affect social and economic change.
Since its beginning in 1987, CODC has been actively involved in
areas affecting the state of rural communities. Cooperative business
development began in 1989 with a worker controlled housing rehab
construction company. This led to later development of Adobe Southwest
Community Land Trust in 1995-96 with the goal of providing affordable
housing and rehabilitation to area homes. In 1993, a 3,000 square feet
business incubation center was built to offer the community a bilingual
setting in which to give business training and support services to the
low-income community.
The commitment to develop local resources led to subsequent
feasibility studies and research. Use of area natural resources and the
economic benefits became apparent. Tierra Alta Fuels, a second
incubated business of CODC, was begun in 1998. This business produces
wood pellets and other wood products from small diameter timber and
wood by-products.
I am going to focus today on opportunities for Congress to assist
communities in taking care of the land through small business
development and other forms of investment in the community. I am also
going to acquaint you with the work that a small rural community
organization is doing to promote community economic development using
local resources and assets.
BACKGROUND AND VISION
New Mexico and specifically Grant County are rich in natural and
human resources and cultural diversity.
Grant County is located in southwest New Mexico on the southern
edge of the Gila National Forest and close to the Mexican border. Its
ecosystems range from semi-arid Sonoran desert in the south, at 4,000
feet above sea level, to alpine ranges of 11,000 feet above sea level
in the north.
Grant County's population of approximately 30,000 people is over
fifty percent Hispanic. Additionally, over twenty-one percent of the
population is living below the poverty level. We share your concern
about forest restoration, hazardous fuel reduction and the sustained
health of our communities. The quality of life affected by economic,
social and environmental conditions drives CODC's mission and is the
center of community action and planning.
The Gila National Forest is home to a wide variety of wildlife and
forest cover including Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir, Juniper, Pinon,
Spruce, Oak and Cottonwood trees. Though the human communities adjacent
to the forest are small, their impact has been significant. The recent
catastrophic forest fires have emphasized the need for attention to the
condition of our forests and the direct and indirect impacts of these
conditions on surrounding communities.
Forest restoration requires an integrated, holistic approach.
First, an integrated approach requires a community vision of forest
restoration. Reestablishing sustainable human connections to the land
through quality restoration jobs and conservation-based economies is
part of this approach. Sensitivity to cultural values and community
needs is also essential.
Second, an integrated approach requires strategic application of
various restoration techniques. This may require a combination of
prescribed fires, conservative thinning, grazing deferment, erosion
control, and road closures, native seed planting and intensive
ecological monitoring. It helps to minimize disturbance and allows for
the introduction of positive, natural processes. It can also protect
the old trees remaining.
Third, it is important to think of this strategic restoration as
experimental in the beginning. This is an entirely new way of thinking
about forests, and we have few of the answers needed to attempt it on a
large scale. A conservative approach will allow us to employ
restoration models that respond to problems plaguing forests today
without causing more harm than help. These same principles apply when
considering hazardous fuels reduction. Natural resource management has
been our concern for quite some time and we have some experience to
share but a great deal to learn.
BUILDING COMMUNITY CAPACITY
Challenging environmental and economic conditions of the
communities surrounding national forests provide opportunities. The
removal of small diameter material may help restore forest ecosystems
and allows CODC and local community members to develop jobs and create
economic uses for wood wastes. In other words, a confluence of
interests is turning the excess small diameter timber of the forest and
the ready labor of our communities into assets.
A planning grant and subsequent funding from the Ford Foundation
resulted in the development of the Jobs and Biodiversity Project; a
community based forestry initiative. The planning process brought
together a coalition that includes The Cooperative Ownership
Development Corporation, Gila WoodNet, The Upper Gila Watershed
Alliance, The Silver City Grant County Economic Development
Corporation, The Southwest Forest Alliance, The Center for Biological
Diversity, The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Forest Service. In
addition, religious organizations, community foundations and other
nonprofit organizations are assisting in the implementation of the
project. The purpose of the project is to develop economically viable
forest products while implementing forest restoration projects that
help to reestablish the functioning of natural systems. Removal of
small diameter timber in this thinning process will help reduce the
high density of small trees and help restore the diversity of forest
cover. It can also aid in protecting large old trees remaining on the
landscape by reducing the risk of high intensity uncontrolled fires.
One of the central pieces of the Jobs and Biodiversity Project is
the Tierra Alta Wood Products Plant. Tierra Alta is a significant wood
industry and an incubated business of CODC and is organized to become a
worker owned cooperative. The business uses wood wastes and small
diameter thinning to produce an environmentally clean, renewable, non-
fossil premium wood pellet fuel for home heating use. Vigas and
playground fiber are examples of other products from Tierra Alta.
Another central piece and partner of the project is Gila WoodNet.
This non-profit organization has specific experience in small timber
removal and will establish a wood sorting lot, provide a local supply
of raw material for Tierra Alta and develop other wood products.
Training in the areas of forest restoration, wood product
development, business development and ownership and natural resource
management is necessary. This will not only provide sustainable,
livable wages throughout the year, but will also create an assurance of
sustained natural resource management.
Another form of building community capacity is to create business
partnerships. This can provide technical expertise and guidance to
organizations and community groups limited in resources and skills.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ROLE AND ASSISTANCE
Government assistance and participation is crucial to success. For
example, the programs created by The Community Forest Restoration Act
provide an opportunity for our organization and the community to
coordinate projects with the federal government. These projects will
greatly improve the social and economic conditions in our community as
well as the conditions in our forests.
3 We ask that you consider the following areas in defining
government's role in this process:
1. Provide long-term appropriations to ensure continued
implementation of community based forest restoration projects
based on sound ecological principles.
2. Find ways to fund the pioneering work of rural non-profits
and small businesses to develop markets and products from
restoration byproducts.
3. Provide necessary personnel and funding to complete the
NEPA process in a timely, cost effective manner.
The Jobs and Biodiversity Project forms a community of interest and
of place with a vision for the future. It brings together people
interested in working to create livable wages by investing in the
forest for future generations. Protecting natural resources and
restoring resiliency in forested ecosystems is possible through
restoration efforts. The log sort yard and forest product development
will get the most value of each log. Producing wood pellets from wood
byproduct provides an affordable and environmentally clean, alternative
heating fuel and is the highest and best use of a waste material.
CODC has effectively developed and sustained an environment of
cooperation and partnership between business, government entities,
other nonprofits and the community.
This effort is making the dream of a healthy environment for our
children a reality in our community.
Thank you for your time and the invitation to tell you about the
progress we are making in our local communities.
Senator Craig. Ms. Vega, thank you very much.
Now let us turn to Nancy Farr, Forest Stewardship Project,
Partnership for a Sustainable Methow, Twisp, Washington.
STATEMENT OF NANCY FARR, PROJECT COORDINATOR,
FOREST STEWARDSHIP PROJECT, PARTNERSHIP FOR A SUSTAINABLE
METHOW
Ms. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The project that I coordinate in interior Washington State
is a nonprofit research and demonstration effort that aims to
restore the health of the forest while providing new living-
wage jobs for our rural communities. Participants include
loggers, environmental advocates, ranchers, scientists, and
others.
Much of my area's landscape consists of dry forests and
streams that serve as maternity wards and nurseries for salmon
and other endangered fish. Our dry forests and our watershed
are closely interlinked, and both are in trouble.
Today I will first give you an idea of how much at risk the
forests in my own community are, and second, I will recommend
ways that Federal programs and investments can help reduce the
risk of catastrophic forest loss, restore ecosystem health, and
relink our community welfare with the land.
More than 82 percent of the dry forest in the Okanogan is
currently classified as dense dry. This is dangerously
different from its historically open condition which was
created by frequent low-burning fires. The extreme risk of
catastrophic fires threatens not just our trees, but also the
soils, the streams, and rivers and everything that depends on
the intact ecosystem.
With funds budgeted for the Okanogan Forest this year, less
than 1 percent of the high-risk lands will be thinned. At that
rate, it will take more than 100 years to thin all the
currently overstocked land, during which much of it will burn
in high intensity stand-replacing fires. The ecosystem,
including trees, productive soils, and watershed functions,
will be severely altered.
Preventive maintenance through thinning and slash
treatments is effective at reducing the risk in dry forests
like ours, and it is cost effective. Wildfire suppression and
emergency rehabilitation averages at least $1,000 per burned
acre. Forest Service costs for thinning in our area average
$450 per acre.
These comparative figures, while compelling, do not tell
the whole story. High intensity fires also cost the public in
follow-up vegetation management, lost lives, property, habitat,
water quality, and sometimes even future soil productivity.
On the other hand, investments in hazardous fuels
mitigation have additional benefits, including improved tree
and forage growth, and increased stream flows and groundwater
retention. As an agency silviculturalist told me recently, it
is either pay a little bit now or pay a whole bunch later.
Congress needs to make a more significant and a more sustained
investment in preventive hazardous fuels treatments.
A fundamental principle of the forest stewardship approach
is that forests should be looked at from a holistic perspective
with a long view. The interrelationship between forests, water,
fish, and the local economy in my own area illustrates the
holistic nature of the forest ecosystem.
So, my first recommendation on wildland fire strategies is
to put this subject in its larger context and check each
proposed action relative to its long-range impacts on the
entire ecosystem, which includes the human social system.
Second, we need long range, sustained programs and
investments because the problems in our forest, workforce, and
communities are systemic and long-term.
My last three recommendations relate to how fuels reduction
and related strategies should be implemented. Here our Forest
Stewardship Project can serve as a concrete example of how a
restoration system that combines low-impact techniques, skilled
workers, and proven best practices can meet sustainability
objectives. We believe that using conventional logging
machinery in dry type forests is highly detrimental to the
ecosystem and has no place in forest restoration. We are
demonstrating that low-impact machinery, combined with well-
trained workers, can benefit the forest and community
economics. Significantly our ``light on the land'' approach
impacts no more than 5 percent of the ground. This is one-fifth
the impact of conventional machinery on soils and watershed
functions. Funding for research and demonstration of low-impact
methods, for example, integrating small machines and horses, is
essential to gaining the support of environmental advocates and
to meeting sustainability objectives.
Another benefit that we are able to demonstrate is that our
labor-intensive versus machine-intensive approach enables tree
fallers to decide which trees are best to leave as they move
through the landscape. Training in ecosystem functions is
critical for the workers who will implement ecologically
beneficial fuels treatments. Congress needs to help us invest
in workforce development. Our project's investment is providing
three times as many jobs as the conventional ``big machine''
approach.
My last point is the importance of an inclusive process
that integrates diverse perspectives on an ongoing basis in
treatment planning, monitoring, and adaptive management.
Education and involvement of the community in assessing and
treating the land leads to more learning and better practices.
To recap, I ask you to create and support programs that,
first, address the wildland fire problem within its larger
context, the degraded condition of the whole ecosystem. Second,
provide sustained funding for restoration planning and
implementation. We need to know that this Nation is committed
to sustained restoration work. Third, require and invest in
development of low-impact restoration treatment methods.
Fourth, invest in community education, worker training, and
living-wage jobs. And fifth, finally, mandate and fund ongoing
multi-party participation in treatment monitoring, evaluation,
and adaptive management.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farr follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY FARR, PROJECT COORDINATOR, FOREST
STEWARDSHIP PROJECT, PARTNERSHIP FOR A SUSTAINABLE METHOW
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Nancy Farr,
Coordinator of the Forest Stewardship Project in Okanogan County, rural
Washington state. Our project is a non-profit based research and
demonstration effort that aims to achieve sustainable forest management
while providing living wage jobs for our rural communities. Our project
addresses the needs of the forest and community as a whole system--
where ecology, economy, and social concerns are linked together very
tangibly. The Forest Stewardship Project is a collaboration of local
and regional organizations and individuals who embody the full spectrum
of interests in natural resources. Participants include loggers,
environmental activists, ranchers, natural resource management
professionals, and other residents who cherish the ecosystem of which
we're a part. Together, through the Forest Stewardship Project, we are
finding common purpose and developing a restoration treatment system
that will help return the forest ecosystem to balance.
Okanogan County is physically the third largest county in the
United States. Much of the landscape is made up of dry forests and
rivers and streams that serve as maternity wards and nurseries for
salmon and other endangered and threatened fish. Okanogan's forest
lands cover 48% of the county and receive approximately 75% of the
annual precipitation, so our dry forests and our watershed are closely
interlinked. Both are in trouble, as is agriculture and even hydropower
on the Columbia River, the destination of water flowing out of our
forests.
Today, I will address my comments in two directions. First, I want
to give you an idea of how much at risk the forests and associated
resources are in my own community. Second, I will talk about strategies
that our project is demonstrating which, with your support, can reduce
the risk of resources lost in catastrophic fire, restore ecosystem
health and provide economic opportunities to local communities.
FORESTS AT RISK
More than 80% of the forested land in my county is public. The
majority of that is in the Okanogan National Forest, where there are
more than 400,000 acres of ``dry forest.'' This means that historically
they were open, with widely spaced large trees, little underbrush and
only occasional clumps of smaller trees. Typically these forests
experienced natural low-burning fires every 5-15 years.
These forests are dramatically and dangerously different now. 82%
of forested acres are currently classified as ``dense dry forest.''
They are at highest immediate risk of wildfire, because they are
crowded with small, poorly growing trees--so crowded that 40% or more
of the crown space is closed. This condition has many negative effects,
one of which is the extreme risk of catastrophic wildfire that
threatens not just the trees and timber values but also the soils,
streams and rivers, and all the human uses and the biodiversity that
depend on the intact and balanced functioning ecosystem.
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES AND COSTS
With funds budgeted in FY 2001, if all goes well, some 2,500 acres
\1\ will be thinned in commercial and non-commercial projects in the
Okanogan National Forest. This is less than 1% of the high risk forest.
At that rate, it will take more than 100 years to treat all the
currently dense acres, during which many of them will burn in very hot
stand-replacing fires. Many of the resources, including productive
soils and watershed functions, will be severely degraded or lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Management of the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests was
recently combined. The FY 2001 budget covers both forests. The thinning
estimate above assumes that the thinning budget allocation for the
Okanogan will reflect its share of dense dry acreage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventive maintenance, through thinning of the dense trees plus
various forms of dealing with thick underbrush and slash, is effective
at reducing the risk of catastrophic fire in dry forests like those of
the Okanogan. And it is cost effective when looked at from several
perspectives. Total cost to the Forest Service for non-commercial
thinning in our area is averaging $410 per acre, $486 net cost for
commercial thinning projects. Wildfire suppression and immediate,
emergency rehabilitation work to prevent or minimize damage to streams
is running an average of at least $1,000 per acre burned. These
comparative figures, while compelling, do not tell the whole story.
Wildfire suppression and emergency rehabilitation cost at least
$1,000 per acre + plus:
state and local firefighting expenses;
damage to roads, culverts, fences and soils from emergency
equipment movement;
followup vegetation management and other rehabilitation
expenses; and
lost lives, property, habitat and water quality, and in the
hottest fires, soil productivity.
On the other hand, hazardous fuels mitigation costs approximately
$450 per acre--and it has additional benefits in:
the value of improved timber and forage production;
the value of increased streamflows and ground water
retention; and
the value of improved aesthetics and recreational
opportunities.
As a Forest Service silviculturalist told me, ``With the forest
conditions we've got on the dry sites, we are really in a situation of
`pay a little bit now or pay a whole bunch later.' '' Congress needs to
make a more significant and a more sustained investment in preventive
hazardous fuels treatments.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS
I am really glad that the subcommittee is looking at how hazardous
fuels can be reduced in ways that restore ecosystem health and provide
economic opportunities to local communities. One of the fundamental
principles of our approach in the Forest Stewardship Project is that
forest management should be looked at from a holistic perspective, with
a long view. My earlier description of the interrelationships between
forests, water, fish, agriculture, hydropower and local economies in my
own area illustrates the holistic nature of the forested ecosystem.
Whole System, Long-Term View
So my first recommendation regarding strategies for wildland fire
management is to put this subject in its larger context and check each
proposed action relative to its long term impacts on all ecosystem
functions and resources, including the human social ones. For example,
Forest Service policies and practices should ensure accountability to
local communities.
Sustained Programs and Investments
My second request of Congress is for multi-year, sustained programs
and investments, because the present problems and needs in our forests,
workforce and communities are systemic and long term. For example,
appropriations for hazardous fuels mitigation and community capacity
building through the Rural Community Assistance program should be
increased and sustained. Over some time, the tax savings in reduced
needs for emergency fire suppression and long term resource
rehabilitation, as well as tax revenues from new rural jobs and
stronger local economies, may offset the near term costs.
I want to briefly tell you why sustained investment in programs
like the USDA Forest Service's Rural Community Assistance (RCA) program
is so important. RCA has been instrumental in our organization's
progress on local sustainable economic development over the past two
and a half years. One grant has enabled the Forest Stewardship Project
to begin implementing worker training, restoration monitoring and
community education programs. A $26,000 RCA grant was leveraged to
support a total first year operating budget of $170,000--84% of which
went to wages in new jobs. The job creation potential of this project
is enormously important to our formerly timber-dependent economy, and
the environmental and natural resource benefits of well targeted
federal support are similarly enormous.
We are applying this month for Forest Service administered grants
for project expansion, from the Rural Community Assistance program and
from the Title IV National Fire Plan appropriations. These types of
grants can provide a financial base on which private, community and
foundation funding can be added along with program income and in-kind
and volunteer labor to make efforts like ours sustainable. I want to
emphasize the importance of the language in Title IV of 2001 Interior
Appropriations Bill that authorizes the Forest Service to enter into
contracts, grants and cooperative agreements with nonprofit entities.
This will make a significant difference in our efforts locally and our
development as a model for other communities.
My last three recommendations for the subcommittee relate to how
hazardous fuels reduction and other wildfire strategies are
implemented. In brief, in addition to the two recommendations above, I
recommend that Congress:
3. Require that hazardous fuels treatments be done using low
impact methods that benefit rather than damage ecosystem
functions. Invest in research and demonstration efforts that
show how this can be done effectively in all forest types;
4. Invest in building local knowledge of the landscape and
how to care for it, because the most logical base for
stewardship is the local community;
5. Require multi-party planning, monitoring and adaptive
management decision making, because no stakeholder group sees
the whole picture on its own.
I will now discuss the Forest Stewardship Project (FSP) as a
concrete example of how hazardous fuels can be reduced in ways that
restore ecosystem health and improve the local economy. In short, we
are developing and demonstrating a forest restoration system that meets
sustainability objectives by combining low impact machinery and
techniques, skilled workers and proven best practices.
Insistence on Low Impact Treatment Methods
My stand on low impact forest restoration methods is very strong.
My colleagues and all of our supporters, who include both environmental
activists and traditional natural resource users like ranchers, believe
that using conventional logging machinery, typically cut-to-length
processors and large skidders, in dry type forests is highly
detrimental to the ecosystem and has no place in holistic forest
restoration. Our project is beginning to demonstrate that the
combination of low impact machinery and well trained tree fallers and
other woods workers can reduce hazardous fuels in efficient ways that
have acceptable impacts and benefit the community economically as well
as ecologically.
Conventional logging machinery directly impacts approximately 25%
of the forest. Machinery impacts affect soil structure, water
retention, spread of noxious weeds, standing trees, and the appearance
of the forest. The low impact, light on the land machinery that we use
in our work impacts no more than 5% of the ground, one-fifth the ground
impact of the conventional machinery.
Another very important benefit of our approach is that the faller
makes the decisions about which trees are best to leave as he or she
moves through the landscape. This requires understanding ecosystem
functions, and it means that park-like tree clusters, openings and
snags for wildlife are left in patterns similar to what nature creates
in the dry forest landscape. The natural selection method cannot be
implemented by a machine operator who is motivated primarily to keep
his huge capital asset on the move.
To reiterate, funding for research and demonstration of low impact
methods is essential to gaining the support of environmental activists
and meeting sustainability objectives.
Investment in Workforce Knowledge and Skills
As I indicated, a good understanding of ecosystem functions is
critical for the workers on the ground to implement ecologically
beneficial fuels treatments. This means that broad based job training
and sustained experience in the particular ecosystem are important
factors in who conducts the treatments. Low-impact treatments are
relatively labor intensive, substituting skilled labor for high cost,
high-impact machinery. This means that the workforce is not only good
for the land. It is also good for the local economy.
Our project's approach is providing three times as many jobs as the
conventional big machine approach. And our workers can be eyes and ears
for the Forest Service out on the ground, providing helpful
observations on the forests' response to treatments and changing
conditions. Wildfire strategies and programs should address development
of a local workforce that is capable of taking on the long term
responsibility for forest ecosystem restoration and maintenance.
Multi-Party Community Based Process
Finally, I want to talk briefly about the importance to ecosystem
restoration and to community well-being of using an inclusive process
that integrates diverse perspectives on an ongoing basis in treatment
monitoring and adaptive management. In our project, we have a multi-
party technical advisory group that includes resource management
specialists, environmental advocates, educators and ranchers. We also
provide landowner and community education through monthly ``Walks in
the Woods,'' because stewardship ultimately has to involve the whole
community. As we do more post-treatment monitoring, all interested
parties will participate in observation, evaluation and adaptive
decision making. We welcome scrutiny from all perspectives because it
leads to more learning and better practices.
An important validation of our approach is that we have gained
trust and participation from environmentalists--what some call ``tree
huggers.'' We're cutting down lots of trees (albeit most are skinny
ones), yet they are hugging us! The multi-party stewardship approach
holds great promise for enabling us to improve the productivity of our
natural resource assets and to spend the dividends, without fighting
each other in our communities or in court.
To recap, I ask you to create and support programs that:
1. Address the wildland fire problem within its larger
context--the whole ecosystem and all of its stakeholders over
the long term;
2. Provide sustained funding for forest restoration planning
and implementation--including, of course, thinning of dry
forests at high risk;
3. Require and invest in development of low impact
restoration treatment methods;
4. Invest in local capacity for sustained stewardship of all
forest resources--community education, worker training, and
living wage jobs; and
5. Mandate and fund ongoing multi-party participation in
treatment monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Now let us turn to Cece Headley, Alliance of Forest Workers
and Harvesters of Eugene, Oregon. Cece, welcome to the
committee.
STATEMENT OF CELIA HEADLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE OF FOREST
WORKERS AND HARVESTERS, EUGENE, OR
Ms. Headley. Thank you very much. My name is Cece Headley,
and I am a forest worker and contractor. I participated in
service contract work on Federal lands for over the last 20
years in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. My comments come
from my own personal experience in the field. And when I say
the field, most people here think, oh, that is Portland or
Eugene, but drive from Eugene several hours, come to the end of
the road, and that is where I am. So, I am giving you what we
call the tree roots perspective on contracting.
My perspective comes from the 20 years that I have been
working in the woods and contracting with mainly the Forest
Service but also the Bureau of Land Management.
Historically service contract work, such as fuels reduction
work, was accomplished by contracting on a low-bid basis.
Though these contracts were subject to the Service Contract
Act, it has been my experience that Federal agencies never felt
the responsibility to monitor or enforce those worker
protection provisions in the Service Contract Act, such as
prevailing minimum wage.
Due to this, often contracts were awarded below the cost of
doing business, and that is the cost to the private sector, not
to the Government. This situation led the Federal agencies to
contribute to the creation of an underclass industry in doing
service contract work.
So, we have some ideas and strategies to maybe remedy the
situation.
First, we would like to see the Forest Service conduct a
collaborative assessment of the current and historic
procurement program. Ask the question how many contracts are
awarded below cost, below the Government estimate of what it
really costs to do the work. Initiate mechanisms within the
agency to monitor this part of the contracting, not just how
much work is accomplished, but what it really meant to the
private sector to accomplish it.
Second, direct the Forest Service to refrain from
continuing to award contracts below the cost to accomplish
them.
Third--and this is my most important point--is that I
believe to accomplish the goals in the fire plan, the Congress
needs to direct and fund a much larger investment in in-house
personnel in the procurement program of Federal agencies. At
this time, I believe that the implementation of the goals,
particularly community goals, cannot be achieved without
substantial investment in more procurement officers and
personnel.
The good news is there actually is a model within the
Forest Service system, albeit on a very small scale, of these
mechanisms working, and this is in the Willamette National
Forest where I live and work in the Jobs in the Woods program
where many of the mechanisms that are proposed in the fire plan
have been successful. These include best value contracts
awarded based on other criterion than just low bid, where
contracts are designed taking into account the capacity of the
workforce, and also designed to increase that capacity,
mechanisms such as multi-task, longer duration.
Also, the Willamette has recognized the need to assign
adequate personnel to implement these programs. This is what I
would suggest all forests that plan to implement these
programs, particularly to have benefit to the local communities
and workforce, need to do.
So, that is about all I have to say. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Headley follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CELIA HEADLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE OF FOREST
WORKERS AND HARVESTERS, EUGENE, OR
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Celia
Headley, a forest worker and contractor from Eugene, Oregon, and Vice
President of the Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters. The
Alliance is a multicultural organization promoting social,
environmental, and economic justice for non-timber forest workers and
harvesters in the Pacific West.
I have participated as a worker on Service Contracts with Federal
agencies in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska for over 20 years. My
comments are based on my own experience and those of the many other
workers in the Alliance. I do not bring an overview of policy, but
rather the voice of a grassroots practitioner whose work and life is
greatly affected by policy decisions. I will be referring to details of
procurement and forest work which, I imagine, are usually outside the
scope of hearings but which are critical to understand what is
happening on our public forest lands and to forest workers in the
Pacific West.
We want to thank the Chairman and the subcommittee for holding this
hearing and for inviting us to testify. We appreciate this opportunity
to provide our perspective, gained from years of direct contact with
federal land management agencies.
HISTORICAL ROLE OF FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE
WORKFORCE
Historically, the federal land management agencies strove to
accomplish service work in what appeared to be a least-cost fashion by
awarding contracts to the lowest bidder. These contracts, which mostly
involve mostly labor intense work, are subject to the Service Contract
Act, which contains worker protection provisions such as a prevailing
minimum wage. To my experience, the federal agencies have never felt
much responsibility to monitor or enforce these worker protection
provisions. This is understandable given the lack of in-house personnel
and the perceived mission of the agencies, which focused more on
providing a continuous supply of timber than ensuring economic or
social equity. However, it cannot be denied that the agencies, by their
actions and inaction, have played a major role in the creation of an
``underclass industry'' among service contract workers, and have
contributed to worker exploitation, particularly with respect to labor-
intensive work such as reforestation. Let me give you an example of how
this works. The Forest Service puts out a contract for tree planting
and 18 companies put in bids. Fourteen of the bids are at least 40%
under the government estimate of what it should cost to do the work.
Nonetheless, the Forest Service awards the work to the lowest bidder.
One of many things can happen at this point. In order to accomplish the
work at such a low price, the contractor can: demand unreasonable
production and unpaid overtime from the workers; pay less than the
stated contract minimum wage; or declare only a percentage of the
workers on the books, thereby avoiding worker's compensation,
unemployment, and other tax payments. No one really knows what happens
because the only entities in a position to monitor are the contract-
issuing agencies, and these agencies do not see monitoring as their
responsibility. Furthermore, the practice of awarding service contracts
to below-cost bids often produces low quality results on the ground. In
the case of reforestation, the result can be that acreage needs to be
replanted, which is not cost effective for the government.
STRATEGIES FOR THE FEDERAL AGENCIES
In order to remedy this situation we suggest that the federal land
management agencies institute some of the following strategies:
Reflect on this historical situation and conduct an
assessment of the procurement program, both internally and in
collaboration with contractors and workers. The assessment
should look at more than just the bottom line of how much work
was accomplished and how much it cost. Ask questions such as
how many contracts were awarded at costs below the government
estimate and what were the results and consequences of these
contracts with respect to the land and the workforce.
Talk to the government personnel who work most directly with
the contracts, contractors, and forest workers to gain an
understanding of the true conditions. Key personnel are the
``on the ground'' inspectors who often have daily contact with
a project and are aware of the work conditions and results.
Develop open information on how the agencies have played a
role in creating an underclass service industry, and design
strategies to address this situation. One key strategy is to
refrain from awarding below-cost service contracts. In the long
run, below-cost contracts are neither cost effective nor in the
interest of land stewardship.
Invest in increased personnel and training for the
procurement program so that the federal agencies have the
capacity to work with forest workers to promote land
stewardship and community well being. This is my most important
point so I will state it again. Without the commitment to
invest much more in the ``in house'' capacity of the agency
procurement offices on all levels, I believe there is little
hope of achieving the reforms and goals set out in the national
fire plan legislation in terms of workers, communities, and
land management. This is a major obstacle that needs to be
addressed.
A SUCCESSFUL MODEL
There is a model within the Forest Service, albeit on a small
scale, that illustrates a better way.
I have the privilege of working in the Willamette Province in
Oregon in the ``Jobs in the Woods'' contracting program set up through
the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. This program incorporates
many of the same contracting mechanisms as proposed in the national
fire plan including a ``best value'' criterion for contract award,
which takes into account factors other than just price. There is also
an attempt to focus not only on benefits to the land, but also on
benefits to the workforce and community as well. Contracts are
structured to take into account the capacity of the workforce and to
increase that capacity by such mechanisms as offering multi-task
contracts of longer duration. Most importantly, however, is that the
Willamette Province has understood the need to assign personnel to make
this program work. The most essential of these is the Contracting
Officer's Representative, Brad Leavitt. Brad is the connection between
the people who design the work (e.g. the biologists, silviculturalists,
engineers, and planners), the procurement officers, and the contractors
and workers. From the inception of a project through all phases of
implementation to completion, Brad remains with the project, to insure
that all objectives are met. I cannot overstate the importance of this
point: Every National Forest should create and maintain a similar
position in order to work towards procurement reforms which can only
benefit the agencies, the land, and the communities and workforce.
THE CURRENT SERVICE CONTRACT WORKFORCE
Having spoken about the federal agencies and their impact on the
service contract industry and workforce, I would like to now provide
some understanding of the current workforce that performs service
contract work. This workforce is often referred to as the ``mobile
workforce'' due to the fact that we have had to travel throughout the
West in order to keep working. This workforce is predominately composed
of Latinos, especially those who perform labor intensive work, and many
of these workers have done forest contract labor for several years.
While many forest-based workers from rural communities historically
were involved in timber harvest activities, the mobile workforce was
engaged in service work on our National Forests. This service work and
the mobile workforce have been and remain today highly invisible. The
work includes all aspects of reforestation, timber stand improvement
(thinning), wild land fire fighting, trail construction, restoration,
wildlife habitat enhancement, and technical surveys as well as
harvesting of non timber forest products such as mushrooms and floral
greens. Our work has been differentiated from the timber-harvest
activities of traditional forest-based workers in that it has been
accomplished through service contracts rather than timber sale
contracts.
It is important to note that even though we--the mobile workforce--
are not a ``community of place,'' we are a ``community of interest.''
We share concerns about the land and, particularly, about our ability
to continue to make a living and support our families through our work.
As the agency makes changes in its programs and the ways it contracts
for forest work, we believe that those who wish to continue working in
the woods, whether they have historically harvested trees or planted
trees, should all benefit from the changes. With the movement towards a
more holistic or integrated approach to forest work--towards ecosystem
management that encompasses restoration and use of the byproducts of
restoration--there will hopefully be a corresponding integration of the
workforce. Though we might come from different backgrounds and have
different skin color, we are all forest workers who want to do right
for the land and our families and communities. A measure of success of
legislative and agency initiatives would be the development of an
``ecosystem management industry'' that provides ``quality livelihoods''
for whomever participates, no matter which of the historically
differentiated industries they were in. Those of us from all
communities affected by federal forest policy understand that we need
to work together toward realizing our goals of healthy ecosystems,
healthy communities, and healthy families.
SUMMARY
In summary, I would like to restate my key points:
The federal land management agencies have contributed to the
creation of an underclass workforce doing service contract work
on the federal forests. This is not only detrimental to the
current workforce, but it is one of the major obstacles to
communities trying to access service contract work and help
make the transition to ecosystem management.
The federal agencies need to assess and build a clearer
understanding of their role, and put mechanisms in place to
make reforms.
The federal agencies need to look at and learn from
successful models of contracting and collaboration. They also
need to invest in ``in-house'' capacity for procurement.
The federal agencies need to develop better information
about the existing ``mobile workforce'' doing service contract
work, and develop mechanisms through which this workforce and
traditional timber-related forest workers can both make the
transition to an integrated, ecosystem management workforce.
Senator Craig. Well, Cece, thank you very much. We
appreciate that.
Now we turn to Lynn Jungwirth. Of course, Lynn has been
before our committee before with valuable testimony and heads
up the Watershed Research and Training Center at Hayfork,
California. Let us see. That is on the eastern side of the
mountains, is it not?
Ms. Jungwirth. No. It is just about 50 miles inland from
Eureka. We are in the coast range. No, we are not over in those
Sierras where it is all hard stuff. But you are close.
Senator Craig. I thought I had you located on my mental
map, but I guess I do not quite.
Ms. Jungwirth. You will just have to come visit.
Senator Craig. I know. I am going to. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF LYNN JUNGWIRTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WATERSHED
CENTER, HAYFORK, CA
Ms. Jungwirth. Thanks for having this hearing.
I think it is pretty clear that the community forestry
folks have figured out a lot of the economics around the
National Fire Plan, how do you make it work economically, how
do you make it integrate with rural development. We have done
that on a small scale because of two reasons.
There was a very small scale of activity on the public
lands. Big industry went away because there was no supply. And
we were all that was left. We had very little access to
capital. We had very little access to materials, and we needed
to rebuild our economies based upon a restoration management
direction.
So, we did not leave the mountains. We stayed and said, we
can learn how to fix these roads. We can learn how to help with
these streams. We can learn how to help with this habitat. We
can learn about sustainable forestry. And so we stayed and we
figured out small scale approaches and we invested in that.
You are going to find incredible support from communities
throughout the West for this fire plan not only because they
are worried about their communities burning up, but because we
will integrate for you your other goals besides community
protection. We will integrate the rural development goal. We
will integrate the conservation goals, and we will build a
system that will work for those people and our people in the
forests.
It is a good thing we will do that because you cannot
implement this National Fire Plan without us because we have
done the numbers. Let me explain.
The Forest Service will put a lot of money into building
their suppression capacity. Congress gave them a lot of money
to do that. It was time. They needed to reinvest in that. It
had been ignored.
But no matter how many suppression dollars you put into the
Forest Service, if you do not have a workforce in the field to
mobilize, if you think your volunteer fire department is
standing around because it is waiting for a fire to start they
could go put out, you are mistaken. The volunteer fire
department is there because the workforce is there. Your
volunteer fire department shows up when the whistle blows. They
do not stand around waiting for a fire. If they are not there
working, they are not going to be there for the volunteer fire
department. So, you have to have us out there.
So, if you do not help structure the utilization and the
procurement mechanisms so we can be out there, then when you
have a fire and you want to call the workforce that came in and
did the thinning, you are going to have to call somebody from
several hundred miles away. You are going to have to call
somebody from down in the valley at the big ethanol plant and
ask them if they want to release their crew to come up and
fight that fire. The answer is going to be: I do not think so.
So, as we have developed these systems, integrated the
service contract piece, which you and your committee have taken
leadership in--you have given us those tools. You have given us
the title IV authorities. We have the opportunity to make this
work now and institutionalize it. Because the big guys left, we
had the opportunity to build some of these other scales. We
have built systems that now will work.
Right now, it is wonderful to be in front of you. You are
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. If 1 million of
those acres were treated with mechanical treatment and that
biomass was brought out to small biomass plants throughout the
West, you would have 3,000 megawatts on the grid. They could
build these biomass plants within 1 year. If those biomass
plants are situated in our communities where our small scale
processing is happening, it makes the sort yards, the post and
pole peelers, the pellet plants, the small log processing, the
little furniture things that are happening more economically
viable. It gives a market for that material that is much closer
to where the trees and the vegetation are coming from, which
makes it more valuable. If that million acres went to those
little biomass plants by little sort yards, where they could
take a better and higher use off the posts and poles and the
small logs, you would generate $750 million.
The processing plants are not out there to process 3
million acres worth of activity. They cannot be built
overnight, but the small processing plants can be built
overnight. They are being built overnight. These people are
doing it.
So, you need us. We need you. You have given us all the
tools. This is a wonderful opportunity for rural development.
The 18 people from community forestry who came here this week
are ready to stand with you guys and do this.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jungwirth. follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNN JUNGWIRTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
THE WATERSHED CENTER, HAYFORK, CA
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the implementation of
National Fire Plan from a community perspective. The perspectives I
bring to you today are as Director of the Watershed Center in Hayfork,
California. In this role, I have helped develop community
infrastructure for the transition from a timber-based economy to an
economy dependent upon ecosystem management, watershed restoration, and
the health and welfare of threatened and endangered species, such as
the Northern Spotted Owl and the Coho Salmon. My county, Trinity
County, has helped develop worker training programs, small-diameter
timber utilization projects, collaborative stewardship projects, county
level fire plans, and a county Natural Resource Advisory Committee. We
have implemented restoration plans for the Trinity River and forest
health projects in the Trinity and Six-Rivers National Forests. We are
a community of innovators and implementers, trying to take the evolving
science and policy direction and help develop practical programs that
sustain both the forest and our community.
As Chairperson of the Communities Committee of the 7th American
Forest Congress, I have worked over the last five years with a network
of community leaders and practitioners from around the country to help
heighten awareness and understanding of the interdependence between
forests and communities. Many of us have worked on projects to restore
healthy forests and watersheds, while building local capacity through
workforce training and the development of small nonprofit groups and
business enterprises.
When Congress passed the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations bill with
its emergency wildfire provisions (Title IV), many of us involved in
community-based forestry were very excited about the investment being
made in wildfire protection strategies. We were especially pleased
about authorities encouraging the federal land management agencies to
help build local community capacity through funding mechanisms such as
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. These authorities fell
under the hazardous fuel reduction provisions and were intended to
provide job training and employment opportunities as well as stimulate
small or micro-businesses in rural communities. In response to these
provisions in Title IV, The Watershed Center put together a framework
for a community-based wildfire strategy, and we worked with American
Forests and others to describe what such a strategy might look like. I
have attached an editorial describing this strategy.
As we began working with the federal land management agencies at
the start of this year, many community-based forest practitioners were
hopeful that we would be able to work a number of our ideas into the
National Fire Plan. Our discussions and efforts to collaborate with
agency leadership seemed promising. As the Plan has moved into
implementation, however, the level of excitement in many communities
has diminished.
The focus of the 2001 Fire Plan strategy appears to be rebuilding
the fire suppression infrastructure within the Forest Service to its
``most efficient level,'' which means investing in new crews, new
equipment, and new air attack infrastructure. We at the Watershed
Center support some reinvestment in suppression forces as long as it
includes engines and engine crews stationed within the forest. We
support local Forest Service and BLM ``brush disposal'' crews who can
work on fuels reduction projects when they are not fighting fire. We
understand that rebuilding the federal agencies is essential for
implementation of fuels reduction projects as well as implementation of
other forest and watershed restoration projects. But, we believe the
long-term approach must be focused on vegetation management and the
restoration of forest ecosystems to conditions in which wildfire plays
a regenerative rather than a destructive role.
Four other issues my community asked me to bring to you regarding
the National Fire plan include:
1. The long-term focus of the National Fire Plan should be on
vegetation management, not increased suppression forces. In fact, a
long-term increase in the use of suppression forces is an indication of
a failed wildfire management strategy. In Oregon and Washington the
Forest Service and BLM spent a good deal of resources training the
National Guard and volunteer fire departments. If you add that capacity
to a complimentary local industry, then the agency can call up
emergency forces when it needs them. Today the agencies have to try and
maintain funding levels for in-house, specialized fire crews who are
not multi-skilled enough to help them do off-season planning, watershed
restoration, and sustainable forestry. This approach is not sustainable
over the long term.
2. The National Fire Plan identifies urban-wildland interface areas
as high priorities for hazardous fuel reduction. However, these areas
around communities-at-risk and key ecological areas will not be treated
in 2001 and they might not be treated in coming years because the
agencies can't get the NEPA planning accomplished in a timely, cost
effective fashion. We want NEPA to stay intact and consultation under
ESA to take place, but the Forest Service needs to find ways to use
programmatic approaches to fuels reduction projects when those projects
are of a common type on a common landscape. BLM has a found a way to
tier their NEPA analysis to a landscape plan and to get a Declaration
of NEPA Adequacy from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Forest
Service needs a similar device.
3. Monitoring of the National Fire Plan needs to be funded and it
needs to be done through partnerships with State and Local Government
and use a local workforce. The monitoring report needs to focus on
effectiveness, not implementation.
4. A mechanism needs to be identified within the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) to determine whether and when to permit a short-term risk for
a long-term gain in terms of strategic project implementation under the
National Fire Plan. We have allowed Spotted Owl and Coho Salmon habitat
to burn up in stand replacing fires when the stand was old growth in
key watersheds. It is not logical to save habitat from logging and then
lose it to fire because we would not remove blow down and fuel ladders.
Someone must be authorized to compare the risk of management to the
risk of no management and make a reasoned decision. Right now, ESA
prohibits that approach because of an assumption that ``no management''
is more beneficial to species and habitat. We need a concerted effort
to validate that assumption and a commitment to make a change if it is
no longer valid.
Finally, I would like to provide specific responses to the
questions I received for community practitioner at this hearing:
12. What is your vision for improved wildland fire strategies? Our
vision for improved wildland fire strategies include:
a. Bring the agency up to the most efficient level
b. Complete community-based strategic fire plans, fully integrated
with agency plans and integrated into county general plans.
c. Implement an aggressive fuels reduction program, consistently
funded, which includes an appropriate mix of prescribed burns,
mechanical thinnings from below, and fuel breaks.
d. Develop local industry for implementation of the fire strategies
through service contracts.
e. Develop local value-added processing of the by-products of fuels
reduction strategies.
f. Develop a federal program for the local use of biomass for
small-scale (less than 5 megawatt) co-generation to provide energy for
the electrical grid and heat for local small-scale industrial use.
Explore small-scale wood gassification as an alternative for better air
quality from co-generation.
g. Develop and maintain a local workforce able to be mobilized for
fire emergencies. Regional forces like National Guards and volunteer
fire departments receive training and equipment for emergency response.
13. How would you characterize the wildland fire threats facing
your community? Are new strategies needed to address these threats?
Wildland fire threats in our community include:
a. winter blowdown not removed has allowed excessive fuel loads on
ridge tops around town.
b. fire killed vegetation not removed has allowed excessive fuel
loads on slopes around our communities.
c. bug killed vegetation not removed has allowed excessive fuels
loads in the forests and adjacent to forest roads.
d. skilled professionals are no longer available within the agency
or within the private sector to quickly respond to fire emergencies.
e. intense fires endanger and destroy ESA species' habitat, which
puts more restrictions and habitat pressure on intact habitat on other
public and private lands.
14. What is your perspective on the language in Title IV
encouraging federal agencies to help build community capacity through
training and employment opportunities and to assist in the development
of small businesses that may lead to a sustainable restoration economy?
How could agency efforts to use these new authorities be improved? My
community has developed the capacity to provide training and workforce
development because of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative and
the Forest Service Economic Action Program. Other communities who have
not had access to that help have a hard time finding funding for
retraining projects and industry development.
15. How would you characterize your community's involvement in
federal efforts to develop plans and activities under Title IV? My
community initiated a countywide fire planning effort. The Forest
Service and BLM participated as landowners. The agencies are using that
information for their out-year planning efforts.
16. How could agency efforts to involve communities in carrying out
activities under Title IV be improved? Agency efforts to involve
communities could be improved if the Fire Management Officers were
required to participate in community-based fire planning; if only
projects identified through community-based planning were fundable;
and, if only projects identified in a landscape level strategic plan
were fundable.
17. What is the current and potential capacity in your community
for developing training programs to provide skills for planning,
implementing, and monitoring hazardous fuels reduction activities? We
have good capacity to participate in the planning and implementation,
but it has taken us seven years to develop that capacity. Our
contracting capacity for this work needs to be developed, but we do
have a small skilled workforce left upon which to build.
18. What is the current and potential capacity in your community
for utilizing small-diameter trees from hazardous fuels reduction
activities? What types of small businesses are using or could use these
materials in your community? We have some capacity to utilize small
diameter trees but only because of extensive help from the Forest
Products Lab, the PNW Research Station, and private Foundations who
have helped us with R&D over the past five years. (We anticipated this
need.) Small-scale bio-mass/co-generation plants are an important part
of this equation and the lessons from Vermont need to move to the
western states. We currently have a post and pole processing plant, a
small log processor, a furniture plant and we are working on a fencing
kit project. With the exception of the furniture plant, these are
development projects of our non-profit corporation. A consistent
program of work and a consistent supply of raw material from federal
lands are issues, even when you work on a small scale. Although our
business viability requires only 1.5 million board ft. we cannot be
assured of that volume of small diameter material because it is not in
the current Forest Service program of work. The Forest Service and BLM
manage over 75% of the 2.2 million acres in our county. We have
developed markets for small diameter, sub-merchantable material.
19. What types of federal financial and technical assistance does
your community need to develop training programs and small businesses?
Please discuss both primary and secondary businesses (on-the-ground
work, mill work, value-added processing, special forest products,
etc.). We need funding from the U.S. Department of Labor for worker re-
training. We need access to work on agency land for our small
contractors. We need education dollars for training in value-added
processing. The agencies need to be funded for monitoring
implementation, validation, and effectiveness and that monitoring needs
to be performed by a local collaborative and a local workforce.
20. What type of skill training is needed to create a workforce
capable of doing hazardous fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration?
How are the skills required of ecosystem restoration workers different
from those of loggers and traditional forest workers? Traditional
forest work is about productivity and extraction. Restoration work is
about analysis and precise repair. A restoration worker needs a very
broad range of skills, from landscape analysis, to data collection and
analysis, to restoration practices including habitat rehabilitation,
road improvements and obliteration, riparian rehabilitation and
monitoring. Restoration often takes specialized, low impact equipment.
Restoration forestry is very labor intensive and therefore, very
costly. Costs could be lowered through some mechanization, but without
constancy of work no business can capitalize even a small investment.
21. What opportunities exist for developing training programs for
local workers and contractors in your community? Training programs are
only possible if the agencies allow the use of some of their projects
for training purposes. Other partners like Small Business Development
Centers can provide business training, but fieldwork preparation can
only happen if you DO field work.
22. What types of long-term strategies are needed to develop and
retain and industry and an ecosystem restoration workforce (resident
and/or mobile) trained to reduce wildland fire threats (i.e., trained
to undertake hazardous fuels reduction, firefighting, and burned area
restoration activities) and to help sustain ecosystem health and
community well-being? What could Congress do to make that possible? We
cannot develop a local industry around restoration/fuels reduction/
forest health until there is constancy in funding (the demand side must
be there) for those activities. Today the perceived cuts by the
administration in next years National Fire Plan budgets is hampering
the implementation of this years program, which focuses mainly on
hiring suppression crews. No one, not even the Forest Service, wants to
develop an infrastructure which will only last one year. Local
contractors will not purchase thinning equipment and chippers when they
believe the work will only last a season.
23. What types of businesses are likely to benefit from a greater
emphasis on involving the local community, small businesses, and a
trained workforce? Under what conditions could a successful industry
devoted to fire management and restoration work develop in your area?
What are the current gaps? All facets of restoration, from analysis to
mapping to project design to project implementation can be done by
local businesses. But industry will not develop if there is no long-
term commitment to forest restoration coupled with sustainable
forestry. It will also not develop if we succumb to the historic
``boom/bust'' model of forest management and centralize service
contracting firms and processing plants in the most urban areas of the
rural counties. If we want to have a local workforce to use in times of
fire emergencies, then we must have a local workforce in place doing
the stewardship work of forest management.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. You will find no more
willing partners in the stewardship and restoration of public lands
than the workers and families in your rural forest communities. We have
knowledge and skills to bring to the work and are committed to the
long-term health and vitality of our national forests.
Senator Craig. Lynn, thank you very much.
Time is not going to allow for me to ask the series of
questions we developed. So, in the spirit of the baseball
season, I am going to ask a jump question for all of you.
Basketball. I am sorry. I was never quite the athlete.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Lynn, what you were saying and clearly what
all of you have said begs certain questions that we are sorting
through at the moment as we look at changes and reform and how
the Congress will support it or will not support it and how we
communicate that message and build an understanding of some of
the new forestry practices that will have to go forward.
So, I guess my question of all of you would be under what
conditions could a successful industry devoted to fire
management and restoration develop in your area and remain a
sustainable industry without the need for Federal financial
grants. Do any of you wish to respond to that?
Ms. Jungwirth. I think every person at this table has
answers for you. I will just lead it off.
When you have a consistent program of work for fuels
reduction, forest restoration, and watershed maintenance--all
of those things--then you have an ability to finance, have a
predictable future and do that. We have developed the markets.
We have developed the products. Those right now work
economically. That is what we need now to take those models and
let other communities find out about them and move that out
into the larger rural areas of the West and the Southeast.
Senator Craig. Anyone else?
Ms. Farr. I would like to add. Lynn talked about the market
side of things. I would like to talk about the forest
restoration side of things. I think it is really critical for
community capacity long term that there be emphasis early on,
right now, in ensuring that the methods that are used to thin
the forests and to do that restoration work are low-impact
methods. We are doing it now with the long-term view in mind
because there is the potential to have a tremendous negative
impact over the long term if the work that is done is done in a
large-scale, large machine, large workforce that swoops in,
takes care of it in the short term and then leaves town. That
is not going to serve us over the long term, and there are ways
to get this work done that have low impact to the forests and
have a tremendous positive impact to workers and the whole
economy locally.
Mr. Christoffersen. I think there is good justification for
some government support in the short term for the transition
that is needed from the large-scale extractive economy we were
in to this new vision that we have. I think when you look at
the total balance of cost to the Government, that it is still
going to come out in the Government's favor. What I mean is as
I said. We spent $85 million in Wallowa County alone on fire
suppression in 14 years. If you spent a fraction of that
helping micro-businesses develop that could contribute to
restoration and offset the costs of getting the work done on
the land, over the long term you would have tremendous savings.
But I think there are other sources of funding which
organizations such as mine have been able to secure. We had
support from the Ford Foundation and other private foundations,
plus the State of Oregon. We have secured funding that has
allowed us to invest in a range of very small-scale,
diversified processing, machines that allow us to process logs
down to a 3-inch top. We are also looking at getting into the
cogeneration of electricity and the fermentation of ethanol,
all again on a very small scale.
What we would like to be able to do is produce a range of
products at a small scale, that we can then adapt that
processing system to whatever the land's needs are because the
land has different needs at different periods of time,
depending on different conditions, ecological changes. Right
now there is a need to deal with the small stands that are
going to produce 3-inch to 9-inch poles that are going to come
off, and we have the capacity to process marketable products.
We want to be able to position that we can shift with the
land's needs.
But the other thing is that long term, we are going to need
support on trade policy. The NAFTA discussions with Canada are
critical. There is a range of issues related to trade with
other countries that we need to take into consideration if we
are going to maintain these small micro-businesses.
Senator Craig. Yes, Ms. Vega.
Ms. Vega. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond from the
point of view of developing small, independent businesses and
particularly with the group of people in Grant County which we
serve, the low income, minority people. It is very difficult to
start a business with wood products and based on wood products
and raw material without any kind of support at all. We do get
some support from other agencies and other funders. But
Government support is almost critical to us, and it is critical
because the pricing of our raw material depends on what the
market is doing in wood products. The finished product, of
course, the pricing depends on developing a market for it. The
access to the raw material is very critical to us.
I think that is possible without government support, but it
is very difficult. You almost have to have some type of
additional support for these businesses to begin and to be
sustainable for the communities.
Senator Craig. Yes, Cece?
Ms. Headley. We have talked about the marketing and the
environmental. I do want to say, in terms of the workforce,
that there be a commitment to quality jobs and family wage jobs
and they are sustainable in themselves. From our part, we have
never been in the grants part. We have always just contracted
with the Government and made our money through wages and
contracting. But that is not sustainable. When there is service
work to be done, the Government has to have a commitment to
paying family wages for skilled workers.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you all very much for your
insight and the experience you have built into our record. That
is extremely valuable as we go forward. Thank you all.
Now let me ask our third panel to come forward: Tom
Bancroft, Steve Holmer, Tom Nelson, and David Smith. Thank you
all for your patience. We will proceed, first of all, with Tom
Bancroft, Ecology and Economics Research Department, The
Wilderness Society here in Washington.
STATEMENT OF G. THOMAS BANCROFT, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT, ECOLOGY
AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Dr. Bancroft. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today and thank the
committee members for their interest in this important issue.
The major fires of last summer unfortunately caused
substantial damage to homes. Clearly a comprehensive and
strategic fire program is needed. However, it is important to
remember that fire is a natural and necessary process as
sunshine or rain to a healthy forest. In the interior West, the
problem is that many people are now living in the low
elevation, dry forests where forest composition and structure
has changed as a result of fire suppression, grazing, and
logging. These older forests now respond differently to fire.
We need a program that protects people and their homes and,
second, restores forest ecosystems in which management
practices of the last century have dramatically changed them
from their natural condition.
The Wilderness Society feels that the majority of these new
monies should go to programs that protect people's homes in the
wildland/urban interface. The structure of the home and how
close the fire can come to the home determines if it will burn.
If we reduce the probability that the fire will burn right up
to a house and reduce the flammability of the house's building
material, we will reduce the possibility of the house being
destroyed.
According to a Forest Service analysis, a number of the
houses in the Los Alamos fire burned when low ground fires
spread across dry leaves, needles, and low brush to the edge of
homes, igniting the siding of the house and then the entire
house. Had the dry leaves and needles been cleared, it is
probable that fire would not have reached these houses.
The Forest Service's structure ignition assessment model
suggests that large wildland fires, such as forest ground
fires, would not ignite a wooden house at distances greater
than 40 meters.
Fire Wise reports that flammable roofs are the number one
cause of home loss in the wildland fires. Firebrands, or flying
burning material, can come from wildland fires greater than 1
kilometer away and start a home on fire. According to Stanford
Research Institute, if a house has a nonflammable roof and a
defensible space of a low flammable material 10 to 20 meters
out from the house, over 95 percent of the homes survive a
wildland fire.
Clearly, society needs a major educational outreach program
on protecting homes. We strongly urge the Federal Government to
build up the Fire Wise program to be a major educational and
outreach program.
County governments should be advised of the opportunity for
joint projects between this program and title III of the County
Payments bill for fire prevention and county planning. We
suggest that the Forest Service look for counties developing
defensible space education and regulations and work closely
with them.
We agree with the recommendations of the National
Association of State Foresters, that local and State
governments use their regulatory authority to recommend
structural siding, the use of Fire Wise construction materials
and methods, and creating a defensible space.
Ecological monies should be focused on the low elevation,
dry forests where structure and composition has changed as a
result of decades of fire suppression, logging, and grazing.
Reducing fuel levels and using fire appropriately is key to
restoring healthy, resilient conditions, sustaining natural
resources, and protecting people.
Credible efforts will be ecosystem based, protect rare
habitat and species, focus on thinning small diameter classes,
retain all old large trees, protect soils in roadless areas,
and avoid constructing new roads.
We think the Forest Service has some very promising
restoration projects defined in areas like the Lakeview Federal
Stewardship Unit in Oregon and several other projects in
Idaho's Boise and Sawtooth National Forests.
On the other hand, projects like the Bitterroot Fire
Recovery Project in Montana and the Upper South Platte
Watershed Protection and Restoration Project in Colorado do not
appear to be ecologically sound restoration projects.
In summary, we are supportive of Congress and the Forest
Service's efforts to protect homes in the wildland/urban
interface and to restore a more natural pattern of fires in
wildland ecosystems where fire regimes have been altered
because of past management practices. We think this program
offers a lot of hope for people and the environment, and we
will continue to support projects that protect homes and
restore ecosystems.
To provide significant protection to homes, much of the
work needs to be focused on the area within 100 meters of homes
and on the flammable properties of houses. Extensive wildland
fuel reduction is inefficient and ineffective at reducing home
losses because fuel reduction for greater than 100 meters
around homes is greater than necessary for reducing ignition
from flames and because it is not sufficient to reduce
firebrands, or that flying fire material.
We will continue to follow this program closely and try to
help make sure the money goes to good projects.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bancroft follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF G. THOMAS BANCROFT, PH.D. VICE PRESIDENT, ECOLOGY
AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
I am Dr. Thomas Bancroft, Ecologist and Vice President of the
Ecology and Economics Research Department for The Wilderness Society, a
200,000-member national conservation group that focuses on public land
issues. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and thank the
committee members for their interest in this important issue.
The major fires of last summer unfortunately caused substantial
damage to homes. Dry conditions this winter and spring in the west and
southeast suggest that if spring rains fail to materialize this summer
may also be a severe fire year. Large fires have already occurred in
Florida as a result of drought conditions there. Last year's fires and
the threat of a second major fire year emphasize the need for a
comprehensive and strategic fire program. However, it is important to
remember that fire is as natural and necessary a process as sunshine or
rain to a healthy forest. In the interior west, the current problem is
that many people are now living in the low-elevation dry forests where
forest composition and structure have changed as a result of fire
suppression, grazing and logging. When fires do occur, they tend to be
severe. The mid- and high-elevation forests of the interior west have
not been significantly altered because their fire cycles are so long--
>35 or >200 years--and have always been characterized by either mixed
severity or large, hot, stand-replacing fires. Fortunately, people
don't tend to live in these forests but rather in the low-elevation dry
forests and my discussion will concentrate on low-elevation forests.
These dry-site forests of mainly ponderosa pine have changed for a
combination of reasons. Livestock grazing depleted the fine fuels that
carried the light, frequent fires, while their hooves exposed mineral
soil seedbeds for increased pine generation. Fire suppression allowed
far more of these trees to persist, while logging removed most of the
large old trees. These forests may have been deprived of ten or more
natural fire cycles. The result is forests that, due to continuing fire
suppression, tend to burn less frequently, but when they do burn, the
fire is much more likely to reach the forest canopy and spread as a
crown fire, killing many or all of the overstory trees. A historically
low-severity fire regime has turned into a high-severity or mixed-
severity fire regime, a change that has occurred over millions of acres
in the West. These higher severity fires are more apt to have
detrimental effects on soils and watersheds, as well as wildlife
habitat. They can also have serious implications for humans who have
chosen to settle in and around these forests.
We can increase our ability to protect human dwellings and restore
more natural composition and structure of forests by restoring low-
intensity fires to these habitats. In fire-adapted ecosystems,
prescribed fire at appropriate intensity, frequency, and time of year
should be part of management strategies intended to protect watershed,
species, and other natural values. We agree with the Forest Service
premise ``that fire-maintained forests should be inherently safer for
firefighters and the public than in forests in which fire is
excluded.''
Before we hasten toward significant policy changes as a result of
the fires, let's review what burned last year. These are national
numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres \1\ Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest.................................... 2,333,672 32%
BLM................................................ 1,694,407 23%
Other Ownerships................................... 3,364,414 45%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 7,393,493 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Interagency Coordination Center 2000 Statistics and
Summary. http://www.nifc.gov/news/yearendreport2000.pdf
This is not just a Forest Service or just a public-lands issue but
an issue on all lands, forested and non-forested lands, public and
private. An analysis of the 2000 fire season shows that only 32% of the
acreage burned was on National Forest land, much of the land that
burned was not forested, much of the forested acreage which burned was
managed timberland, and in the interior west much of the burning
occurred in forests where intense fires are natural. An analysis of
five of the largest fires (Valley/Skalkaho (MT), Kate's Basin (WY),
Canyon Ferry (MT), Burgdorf Junction (ID), and Clear Creek (ID)) shows
that for these fires 36% of the acreage was non-forested, 57% was in
naturally high intensity burn forest types, and most of the acres were
in roaded, managed forests.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Morrison, Peter et al. 2000. Assessment of Summer 2000
Wildfires: Landscape History, Current Conditions and Ownership. http://
www.pacificbio.org/pubs/wildfire2000.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two critical issues here. First, protecting people and
their homes and second, restoring forest ecosystems in which management
practices of the last century have dramatically changed them from their
natural condition.
Substantial research shows that extensive wild land vegetation
management does not effectively change home ignitability and therefore
will not necessarily protect homes. No matter how much thinning and
logging are used as a management tool, we are never going to be able to
``fire-proof'' our forests. Fires will always occur in the Wildland-
Urban Interface. It is therefore critical that these two issues are
addressed separately and with a focused program that meets the
respective objectives. People's homes should be the initial focus of
efforts to prevent and fight fires not the remote forests where fire is
necessary and beneficial.
HOME DEFENSIBILITY
The Wilderness Society feels that the majority of these new moneys
should go to programs that protect people's homes in the Wildland-Urban
Interface. To most effectively target these moneys, it is critical to
have a mechanism that identifies areas at highest risk. Forest Service
Research shows that the most important mapping unit for doing this is
the ``ignitability'' of homes. The current mapping effort is very
interesting and good for ecological restoration, but we question
whether it helps in protecting human habitation.
Ignitability of homes and immediate surroundings is a key
determinant of whether a house burns during a fire in the Wildland-
Urban Interface. Thinning more than 40 meters from homes does not
change home ignitability. Fire fighting success strategies should focus
on defensible space and areas immediately around homes in so called
defensible zones.
The ignitability of homes is determined by two factors. The
structural characteristics of the home and how close the fire can come
to the home. Heat and fuel determine whether combustion will occur.
Scientific analyses show that fire spreads as a continually propagating
process. Locations along the path must meet the requirements of
combustion to ignite. Reducing the chance that a house will burn
requires reducing the chance that flames and heat will come right up to
the house. A second issue is firebrand, or burning material that flies
on the wind to a house and can cause a house to catch on fire.
If we reduce the probability that the fire will burn right up to a
house, we will reduce the possibility of the house being destroyed.
Similarly, if we reduce the flammability of the house's building
material, then we can decrease the chance of loss. According to a
Forest Service analysis, a number of the houses in the Los Alamos fire
burned when low ground fires spread across dry leaves, needles, and low
brush to the edge of homes, igniting the siding of the house and then
the entire home. Had the dry leaves and needles been cleared, it is
probable the fire would not have reached the house.
The Forest Service's Structure Ignition Assessment Model suggests
that large wildland fires such as forest crown fires will not directly
ignite wooden houses at distances greater than 40 meters. The model
indicates that at 40 meters the intense flame would need to last for 10
or more minutes to ignite the side of a wood house, but a typical crown
fire only lasts about 1 minute in a given tree.
In summary, extensive research has shown that the area within 40
meters of the house is the most critical for determining whether flames
come right up to the house and ignite the house. Homeowners should
reduce the amount of fuel immediately around their house by cleaning up
dead leaves and needles, removing flammable brush, and keeping
woodpiles away from their houses.
FIREBRANDS
Firebrands are also a major concern. Highly ignitable homes,
especially flammable roofs, can catch on fire during wildland fires
without fire spreading near the structure. This occurs when burning
material, firebrands, is carried by the wind and lands on a house. The
flying burning material can ignite flammable materials on or
immediately adjacent to a house.
Firebrands that result in ignitions can originate from wildland
fires that are at a distance of 1 kilometer or more. For example,
during the 1980 Panorana Fire (San Bernardino, California), the initial
firebrand ignition to homes occurred when the wildland fire was burning
low shrubs about 1 kilometer from the neighborhood. Firebrand ignitions
are particularly evident for homes with flammable roofs. Often these
houses ignite and burn without the surrounding vegetation also burning,
suggesting that homes can be more flammable than surrounding
vegetation. For example, during the 1991 fires in Spokane, Washington,
houses with flammable roofs ignited without adjacent vegetation already
burning. ``Although firebrands may be lofted over considerable
distances to ignite homes, a home's material and design and its
adjacent flammables principally determine the firebrand ignition
potential.'' \3\ Reduce the flammability and one reduces the chance of
losing the house to a fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Cohen, Jack D. 1999 DRAFT: Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to
Homes: Where and How Much? http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pugs/cohen/
cohen.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According the ``FireWise \4\,'' ``the number one cause of home
losses in wildland fires is from untreated wood shake roofs.'' Wind-
blown sparks can land on these untreated wood shake roofs and catch the
roof on fire. Given nonflammable roofs, Stanford Research Institute
found 95% survival with a clearance of 10 to 18 meters, and Ethan Foote
and Keith Gilless \5\ at Berkeley found 86% home survival with a
clearance of 10 meters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``FireWise'' is a collaborative program designed to bring
information to the public on how they can live or recreate more safely
in fire-dependent ecosystems. The web site is developed by the National
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Program. More information can be found at
http://www.firewise.org
\5\ Foote, E. I. D., K. J. Gilless. 1996. Structural survival. In:
Slaughter, Rodney, ed. California's-zone. Sacramento, CA: CFESTES; 112-
121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, people must realize that the type of roof they have can
dramatically affect whether their house survives the inevitable
wildland fire. Some have suggested that more than three-quarters of the
homes lost in the Los Alamos fires might have survived had homeowners
raked up leafs and needles, cleaned needles and leaves off their roofs,
kept woodpiles and brush away from their homes, and had non-flammable
roofs. Clearly, society needs a major educational-outreach program on
protecting homes.
MAPPING
The Strategic Assessment describes a Wildland-Urban Interface
hazard mapping effort that may not be necessary for home fire losses.
Home ignitability is the principal cause of home losses during wildland
fires. If the focus is to protect property then we need to map home
ignitability as a measure of the threat. Areas with high home
ignitability should be the focus of efforts under this program.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON DEFENSIBLE SPACE
Clearly, homeowners and local communities have a major
responsibility in protecting their homes from fire. They need to be
informed that having a non-flammable roof and keeping brush, dried
leaves and needles, and woodpiles away from their homes will have a
major impact on preventing home ignition. We strongly urge the federal
government to develop and implement a strong ``extension and outreach''
program. The ``FIREWISE'' site and program is a major start in this
direction and should receive increased focus and money.
This effort cannot be limited to the federal government, but must
include state and local governments, as well as homeowners. We suggest
you encourage joint projects between local communities, states and the
federal government to help improve the defensible space around homes
and the construction and maintenance of homes. Homeowners have a major
responsibility here, but we need to provide them with the information
and tools they need to make wise decisions.
County governments should be advised of opportunities for joint
projects between this program and Title III of the County Payment Bill
(Public Law 106-393) for fire prevention and county planning. A county
may use these funds for (A) efforts to educate homeowners in fire-
sensitive ecosystems about the consequences of wildfires and techniques
in home siting, home construction, and home landscaping that can
increase the protection of people and property from wildfires; and (B)
planning efforts to reduce or mitigate the impact of development on
adjacent Federal lands and to increase the protection of people and
property from wildfire. We suggest that the Forest Service look for
counties developing defensible space education and regulations and work
closely with them to leverage resources and protection for people's
homes.
Through education, we can encourage the care of land within 40
meters of homes, but vegetation treatment alone will not suffice.
Structures must be built or retrofitted to incorporate fire-safe
elements such as metal roofs, shutters and fire resistant sides. .
Human values at risk may suggest that the interface zone is a priority
for attention, but without investment in these structural
modifications, forest treatment is virtually meaningless. Zoning laws
that encourage fire resistant construction may be needed. Enactment of
zoning laws for fire-prone areas is not new--Frederick Law Olmstead
suggested it 70 years ago as a means of protecting lives, property and
resources from fires that sweep down from the fire-dependent, fire-
created chaparral in the area around Malibu, California.
We agree with the National Association of State Foresters'
recommendation for local zoning initiatives: ``There is a need for
local and state governments to use their regulatory authorities to
strike a safe balance between siting structures, the use of fire-wise
construction materials and methods, and the creating of defensible
space.'' When a person buys a house in the Wildland-Urban Interface,
they should know what the fire risk is for the house they are buying.
This should include some understanding of the consequences of the
house's structure as well as the surroundings. People should know how
the local or county governments provide fire protection.
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
Much of the low-elevation dry forest landscape in the Intermountain
West has been transformed. Beginning with livestock grazing in the
second half of the 19th century and continuing with decades of logging,
road-building and fire exclusion through the 20th century, these
changes have degraded watersheds and habitat for fish and wildlife.
These altered forests now respond very differently to fire, sometimes
to the further detriment of fish, wildlife, and watersheds, as well as
endangering the lives and property of people who have chosen to live
within and adjacent to forest lands.
Creating the situation where fire can be re-introduced as a natural
component of these low-elevation forests is critical. In these fire-
adapted ecosystems, we agree with the Forest Service's basic strategy
that ``reducing fuel levels and using fire at appropriate intensities,
frequencies, and time of year are key to restoring healthy, resilient
conditions, sustaining natural resources, and protecting people.
Science supports the use of prescribed fire and other management
treatments in ecosystems where low intensity fires were the norm to
reduce risk of catastrophic wildland fire, to restore plant community
composition and structure, to restore landscape patterns, and improve
ecosystem resilience.''
We also agree with the Forest Service position that the first
priority for restoration should be the millions of acres of already
roaded and managed landscapes that are in close proximity to
communities. Thinning projects outside the Wildland-Urban Interface
zone should not occur in roadless areas or old growth, because science
shows they would be highly ineffective. These projects need to focus on
the low-elevation, dry pine ecosystems that have been heavily roaded
and logged. It is critical that prescribed fire be an integral part of
these efforts and must continue following any mechanical thinning to
maintain lasting benefit. I have attached a report by ecologists Rick
Brown and Greg Aplet, Ph.D., titled, ``Restoring forests and reducing
fire danger in the Intermountain West with thinning and fire.'' It
describes in detail our position on how to restore desired ecological
conditions in our forests. Based on current knowledge, it appears that
the most credible efforts will:
1. Be part of a comprehensive ecosystem and watershed restoration
plan;
2. Consider landscape context, and protect rare habitats, such as
old growth, and populations of rare fish and wildlife;
3. Protect riparian areas by avoiding major manipulations in these
areas;
4. Focus on low-elevation dry forest types;
5. Focus thinning efforts on the smallest diameter classes and
retain all large, old (presettlement) trees and provide for their
replacement over time;
6. Treat thinning slash and other surface fuels with prescribed
fire;
7. Have negligible adverse effects on soils and prevent the spread
of invasive plants;
8. Protect roadless areas and avoid construction of new roads;
9. Concentrate resources on the Wildland-Urban Interface and
incorporate monitoring as an essential element and cost of the project.
BARRIERS TO SUCCESS
We are supportive of the national fire program but are concerned
that there might be some serious barriers to success.
First is the notion that this program will fire proof the forests.
Humans can not change weather patterns and therefore will never prevent
fires from occurring. A properly designed program will help provide
defensible space around human communities and restore the structure of
low-elevation dry forest ecosystems so that fire will act more the way
it did historically.
Second, after dealing with the defensible space around homes, the
focus should be on removing small diameter trees and brush from altered
low-elevation dry forest ecosystems. After a century of logging, large
diameter trees are too rare to be removed. We emphasize that prescribed
fire must follow any thinning in order to achieve ecological
restoration. Plans and funding need to be in place to maintain an
appropriate prescribed fire regime in these areas.
We think the Forest Service has some very promising restoration
projects defined in areas like the Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit in
Oregon's Fremont National Forest, the Silver Creek Danskin/Gallagher
project in Idaho's Boise National Forest, and the Lime Creek Aspen and
Trail Creek projects in the Boise and Sawtooth National Forests. The
Idaho projects are a mixture of prescribed burning and fuel reduction,
including thinning, and near private property and/or private homes. The
thinning activities are limited to the Wildland-Urban Interface and the
prescribed fires are several thousand acres in size. These projects are
primarily in the low-elevation dry forests.
On the other hand, projects such as the Bitterroot Fire Recovery
Project in Montana are not ecologically sound restoration projects nor
do they provide significant protection to the Wildland-Urban Interface.
The Bitterroot project proposes substantial logging, including some
from roadless areas far from human habitation. Similarly, we do not
support the Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration
Project on the Pike-San Isabel National Forests in Colorado. This
project proposes to log over 17,000 acres including over 5,000 acres in
roadless areas and over 4,000 acres of clearcuts. The plan places no
limits on the size of trees that may be logged in the name of
restoration. The project has a number of significant environmental
concerns including alteration of critical habitat for Mexican Spotted
Owls and low standards of protection for Goshawks.
Third, we are concerned that performance measures for Forest
Service personnel tend to emphasize acreage treated rather than the
reduction in risk areas. These measures tend to encourage managers to
focus their efforts on lower risk areas. In doing so, they can treat
more acres for the same money and include the sale of large trees to
increase the acreage treated. These incentives to managers decrease the
effectiveness of this program and should be changed.
Fourth, we are concerned that the budgeting and contracting process
prohibits the Forest Service from developing the most effective program
it could. We recommend that Congress appropriate money for this fire
program over a multi-year time frame so that the Forest Service can
develop a strategic protection and restoration program. We are
concerned about the legal parameters of stewardship contracting. The
current system encourages the removal of large trees. This tends to
defeat restoration and protection efforts. We suggest that the
contracts for thinning and restoration be separate from a process to
sell these materials.
SUMMARY
We are supportive of Congress's and the Forest Service's efforts to
protect homes in the Wildland-Urban Interface and to restore a more
natural pattern of fire in wildland ecosystems where fire regimes have
been altered because of past management practices. We think this
program offers a lot of hope for people and the environment. We will
continue to support projects that protect homes and/or restore
ecosystems. We will follow this program closely to make sure the money
goes to where it does the most good.
Senator Craig. Tom, thank you.
Now let us turn to Steve Holmer, American Lands Alliance
here in Washington.
STATEMENT OF STEVE HOLMER, CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR,
AMERICAN LANDS ALLIANCE
Mr. Holmer. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate this
opportunity to testify. I am just going to use my statement to
address some recent events and some of the things I heard
today.
We try to look at these things very broadly, and when we
look at global climate change, we do see a real risk for our
forests. The scientific analysis suggests that we are going to
see shifting of climate zones. We are also going to see a
likely increase in fires.
So, I would just like to point out it is very disappointing
the recent changes in government policy where the Bush
administration said that we are not going to work to regulate
CO2 and where we are going to pull out of the Kyoto
Protocol. I think that is just downright disgraceful. The Kyoto
Protocol was an opportunity to write forest-friendly rules that
could have actually provided significant amounts of money for
reforestation and restoration on public and private lands. So,
I see that as a huge missed opportunity.
Now going directly to some of the fire issues that are
before us right now, scientists have collected evidence
determining that the primary causes of increasing fire
intensity and severity of the past century's land management
policies of road-building, aggressive fire fighting, commercial
logging, and livestock grazing. So, I think we see it as very
important to get at the root causes to address these issues.
So, that means looking at the fire suppression program, looking
at the timber program, looking at the grazing programs to see
what role they could play in alleviating this issue.
Specifically, we are also very concerned that the hazardous
fuel projects and the program in general is lacking
environmental safeguards. Our comfort for this program would be
raised significantly if old growth forest, roadless areas,
critical habitat for threatened and endangered species would be
explicitly protected under the law for these projects.
We are also very concerned that the projects do not seem to
be focusing on the urban/wildland interface. The Forest Service
has testified that only 25 percent of the projects are in what
they would call the urban/wildland interface, and we see that
as a rather broad definition. We strongly agree with The
Wilderness Society's testimony that the emphasis should be
immediately adjacent to the communities.
There was a chart up here before that showed that there
would be some 1.8 million acres treated on Federal lands and
some 400,000 on private lands. Most of these lands that we see
at risk are on private lands. So, we think the program should
be largely shifted to sending grants to community forest
groups, et cetera so that the private lands could be where
treatment happens first.
We also want to support efforts for contracting reform to
support community groups so that we are not in this low bid
system that is encouraging the use of illegal immigrants and
transient labor and other things that are not supporting
communities. So, I think some contracting reform is another
area that if we are going to really make this work, I think the
communities' groups have a lot to suggest there.
Another key area is the issue of fire planning. In the 1995
wildland fire management policy, it says that there should be a
fire plan for every burnable acre. Right now only about 5
percent of the forests have these plans. In our view, we could
increase the safety of fire fighters, for example, if we had
these plans.
The fire policy states that public and fire fighter safety
is the first priority on every wildland fire. Yet, fire
fighting is extremely hazardous duty, and the lack of fire
management plans compels the agency to aggressively attack
every fire and do an extended attack even in areas where the
risks to human communities are low and the ecological benefits
of burning are high. So, this is unnecessarily putting fire
fighters at risk.
It also is a way that we are spending incredible amounts of
money that does not need to be spent. For example, there was a
fire in California, the Big Bar fire where the Government spent
some $170 million. Now, this fire was mostly in roadless areas
and in wilderness. So, this high level of expenditure is really
questionable for the outcome of it.
We are also concerned now about the issue of salvage
logging becoming a part of this program. In the case of this
California fire, we now have the Six Rivers National Forest
proposing the Megram fire salvage in this area. There is really
no scientific evidence that salvage logging is going to do
anything to help the fire situation.
In fact, there was a 1995 report, Wildfire and Salvage
Logging, Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Post-Fire
Salvage Management and Other Post-Fire Treatments. It is known
as the Beschta Report. This report found considerable evidence
that post-fire salvage logging would likely result in
persistent, significant, and adverse environmental effects. The
report was prepared by an expert team of agency and university
scientists and endorsed by the Forest Service. The report's key
recommendation is that there should be a complete prohibition
of salvage logging in severely burned areas. So, the notion
that we should go in there and do this intensive salvage in
recently burned areas is not supported by the scientists, and
it is really just based on economic grounds.
In the case of the Megram fire sale, the agency is actually
asking for an emergency exemption, and it is based on economic
grounds. They want to get in there as quickly as possible to
get the salvage out. Well, this is not going to do anything to
help fires. It is not going to do anything to help protect
communities. So, in our view it is a misguided example of
really why we are concerned about this, which is essentially
that instead of going out there and reducing fuels to protect
communities, we are basically seeing an extension of the timber
sale program.
That is why in our view how these projects are funded is
extremely important. We would rather see service contracts than
commercial timber sales or goods for services stewardship
contracts. We think that is the way to maintain the highest
level of accountability and assurance that the ecological
objectives of these projects are going to be the actual
outcome.
So, that is the general direction that we would like to
propose for this policy. Last year the environmental community
submitted a letter, which has been included as part of our
testimony.* This really outlines where and when we think that
these projects would be appropriate. Thinning projects in the
urban/wildlands interface, if they are not in old growth and
cutting big trees or in roadless areas, I think are something
that you are going to see a lot of flexibility from our
community about in terms of appeals, protests, and litigation.
But when we have projects that fall outside of those areas that
we do feel are putting the ecosystem at risk, we view that as
an illegitimate project and we are going to be fighting it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, we would like to see this program go in a direction
that is actually going to work, that is going to lay the
foundation for real ecological restoration, and is not simply
going to repolarize the situation and be salvage rider part 2.
So, when we hear discussions about expediting NEPA, we think
that that is just completely out of bounds and something that
is in the end going to undermine the program, undermine the
agency's credibility, and lead to a great deal of environmental
harm.
So, I would just like to conclude my testimony with that,
that we are willing to work with the community groups, work
with the agencies and the Congress to make this program work
and establish a real restoration program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holmer and Dr. Ingalsbee
follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE HOLMER, CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR, AMERICAN
LANDS ALLIANCE AND TIMOTHY INGALSBEE, PH.D., WESTERN FIRE ECOLOGY
CENTER
INTRODUCTION
The wildfires of 2000 have become the most recent flashpoint in the
debate surrounding federal land management policies. Dramatic news
photos of homes burning in Los Alamos, New Mexico and the Bitterroot
Valley in Montana brought the issue of wildfire protection in the
urban/wildland interface zone to the nation's attention.
Unfortunately, many of the policy discussions about last summer's
fires revolved around ``who is to blame?'' rather than focusing on real
solutions based on sound science. Scientists have collected evidence
determining that the primary causes of increasing fire intensity and
severity are the past century's federal land management policies
promoting aggressive firefighting, commercial logging, livestock
grazing, and road building. The real issue is not ``who is to blame?''
for past mismanagement of public lands, but ``who is going to lead?''
in creating management policies that will restore degraded lands and
altered fire-adapted ecosystems that need more low-intensity prescribed
fires, while at the same time providing real protection for rural
communities at risk from high-intensity wildland fires.
While several of the fires of 2000 were uncharacteristically severe
due to past abuses, several other fires including some of the mammoth
fires in Idaho and Montana burned at natural intensities, with
ecologically beneficial effects. Fire has always been a vital,
essential part of western forest and rangeland ecosystems. As a natural
disturbance agent responsible for recycling nutrients, regenerating
plants, and sustaining diverse wildlife habitats, fire is necessary for
the continued health and productivity of these fire-adapted ecosystems.
In response to the wildfire season last year the Forest Service has
announced a new National Fire Plan which the agency is using to justify
a massive increase in yearly Congressional appropriations to pay for
more mechanical fuels reduction treatments, more commercial
``thinning'' projects, more equipment, more fire crews, and less system
wide fire planning. The Plan sets the stage for the industrialization
and mechanization of forest restoration by advocating a massive ten to
fifteen year hazardous fuels reduction program that will eventually
affect most National Forests.
Without additional analysis, development of criteria and
environmental safeguards, we are concerned that forest ecosystems will
be put at risk by mechanical fuels reduction projects. Unless changes
are made in federal fire policy, ecosystems will continue to be
degraded, the costs of wildfires will continue to increase,
firefighters lives will be put in jeopardy, and homes will continue to
be threatened.
HAZARDOUS FUELS PROJECTS LACK ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS
There is a real risk that ecologically harmful projects will be
common place because there are no safeguards to exclude projects from
roadless, old growth, and other ecologically important areas that don't
need fuels reduction treatments. Projects are already emerging and
there is growing concern about the emphasis on commercial commodity
production and the lack of emphasis on doing projects--where the work
needs to be done--in the urban/wildlands interface.
ROOT CAUSES NOT BEING ADDRESSED
According to a Dec. 5 Congressional Research Service report
``Forest Fire Protection,'' historic grazing and logging practices (by
encouraging growth of many small trees) and especially fire suppression
over the past century, appear to have contributed to unprecedented fuel
loads in many areas. However, under the current Fire Policy, it appears
that grazing is being ignored and that more logging (mechanical fuels
treatment) and fire suppression are being prescribed as the solution.
This contradicts common sense and will in the end lead to further
degradation of forest ecosystems. If we are to seriously talk about how
to restore ecosystems it is necessary to reform the logging, grazing,
and fire suppression programs that are at the root of poor ecosystem
conditions.
THE 2001 FEDERAL FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In response to the wildfires of 1994, the Forest Service created
the 1995 Federal Fire Policy to help coordinate their response.
Following last year's fire season, this policy document was updated by
the 2001 Federal Fire Management Plan.
In the new Plan, the original 1995 Federal Fire Policy was
reaffirmed, and in some cases even strengthened with new policies
covering the role of science and education in fire management. However,
the 2001 Plan discovered that substantial action items such as creating
Fire Management Plan for each National Forest had not been completed,
and that there were no mechanisms for oversight or accountability to
implement the Federal Fire Policy. ``There have been no meaningful
consequences for failure by agency administrators at any organizational
level to fully implement all aspects of the 1995 Federal Fire Policy,''
says the report.
Major Policy items that were not implemented over the last five
years include the failure to adopt Fire Management Plans (FMPs), and
the failure to minimize the costs of fire suppression on large wildland
fires. The 2001 Policy reaffirmed that ``Every area with burnable
vegetation must have an approved Fire Management Plan.'' FMPs cover
such critical issues as responses to and uses of wildland fires,
burned-area rehabilitation, fuels reduction, and ecosystem restoration
activities. Accordingly, FMPs ``are the principal foundation for
implementation of the 2001 Federal Fire Policy.''
Congress appropriated a disproportionate amount of funds for
mechanical fuels reduction. While the majority of the funding goes
toward mechanical fuels reduction (and a great deal in the regular
appropriation goes toward aggressive fire suppression), little funds go
toward fire planning even though it should be the first step in
implementing a sound National Fire Plan.
fire planning necessary to limit fire suppression to where it is needed
The 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Policy mandates that ``every area
with burnable vegetation must have an approved Fire Management Plan.''
However, the agency seems to be ignoring this requirement--only 5% of
National Forests have fire management plans and the National Fire Plan
provides little funding for National Forests to complete new plans.
Without these Plans, the Forest Service will continue to commercially
thin, even in roadless areas, and aggressively suppress fires, even
where they should be allowed to burn naturally.
The paradigm of aggressive fire suppression is still rampant. For
example, the Forest Service is beefing up its fire teams and hotshot
crews to deal with future fires. The Forest Service has so far hired
over 850 permanent fire personnel and plans to hire about 4,000 new
fire fighting personnel total. Also a great deal of funds will go to
new hardware such as helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, fire engines,
bulldozers, chainsaws, etc. to prepare the new staff to ``win the war
on fire.'' This beef up in personnel and hardware is testimony to the
fact that the Forest Service is stuck in the old paradigm of aggressive
fire suppression at any cost. The Forest Service continues to stifle
real forest restoration by failing to make fire planning one of their
top priorities. Without fire plans fires will almost always be
suppressed rather than allowed to burn.
According to the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Fire
Policy), ``Every area with burnable vegetation rust have an approved
Fire Management Plan (FMP).'' However, it has been six years since the
Fire Policy was first signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior, and yet over 95% of the National Forest do not have approved
FMPs that comply with the Fire Policy. There has been a systematic
neglect within the Forest Service to do required fire management plans.
The National Fire Plan could fund this critical need, but Congress is
going to have to give clear, explicit direction to the agency to
complete FMPs and fully implement the Fire Policy.
lack of fire management plans increases safety hazards for firefighters
The Fire Policy states that public and firefighter safety is the
first priority on every wildland fire. Yet, firefighting is inherently
hazardous duty, and individuals are exposed to health and safety risks
on every incident. The lack of FMPs in the U.S. Forest Service compels
the agency to engage in aggressive initial attack and extended attack
even in areas where the risks to human communities are low, the
ecological benefits of burning are high, but the hazards to
firefighters can be very high to extreme. Avoiding unnecessary fire
suppression actions would decrease hazards to firefighters.
The highest priority action item needed to implement the Fire
Policy is for land managers to develop new FMPs that would allow a full
range of ``appropriate management responses'' to wildland fires. These
responses could range from simple aerial monitoring of fires burning in
remote roadless or wilderness areas, to aggressive fireline
construction where fires threaten to encroach upon human communities.
FMPs thus enable managers to place firefighters where they would be
most safe, effective, and needed. Without these FMPs fire managers have
only one option: total suppression. Consequently, firefighters are
often exposed to prolonged, unnecessary risks and hazards on ``siege-
like'' campaign fires that, in many cases, defy human control efforts
and are only extinguished by changes in the weather.
LACK OF FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANS INCREASES COSTS FOR TAXPAYERS
The Fire Policy mandates that fires are to be suppressed at minimum
cost. Yet, in the internal report, ``An Agency Strategy for Fire
Management,'' the Forest Service acknowledges that ``there are no well-
defined guidelines or direction that specifically lead to minimum-cost
strategies or tactics;'' consequently, the agency manages emergency
firefighting funds as ``unbudgeted, unlimited, unallocated, and without
benchmarks on acceptable spending levels.'' Fire suppression lacks
fiscal accountability and restraint because it is run as a ``carte
blanche'' deficit-spending program. The Forest Service gets reimbursed
for firefighting expenses through emergency supplemental
appropriations; however Congress routinely ``rubber stamps'' these
requests without ever scrutinizing the expenditures of fire managers.
In 1999, the Forest Service spent fully 30% of its firefighting budget
attempting to suppress two lightning-caused wildfires burning in
designated wilderness areas. Lack of FMPs for the two affected National
Forests compelled managers to engage in total suppression devoid of any
economic analysis of projected suppression costs compared to the values
at risk.
Forest Service studies reveal that from 1970 to 1995 the agency
spent $11.8 billion on fire suppression (adjusted for 1995 dollars).
The total costs of suppression have been increasing at an average rate
of 15.5% annually. During the 1980s, the average annual cost of fire
suppression was $492 per acre, but during the 1990s, this increased to
$743 per acre (adjusted for inflation). The Fire Policy was developed
after officials were shocked by the expense of the 1994 fire season--an
unprecedented $950 million. However, the 2000 fire season has topped
$1.3 billion--and the bills are still being counted. FMPs can reduce
suppression costs by restricting inappropriate actions from
inappropriate places, and helping to focus firefighting action to the
times and places it is most safe, effective, and necessary.
LACK OF FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANS INCREASES DAMAGES TO ECOSYSTEMS
Fire suppression programs and practices have never undergone
environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act;
yet, there are significant direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts caused by firefighting. In some cases, the
effects of firefighting can be more significant and enduring than the
effects of the fire itself. For example, bulldozers cutting firelines
into steep erosive slopes or roadless areas can cause scars that last
for decades. Backfires ignited under extreme weather conditions can
increase the intensity and severity or wildfires, and in some cases,
can start whole new wildfires when they fail to meet up with the main
intended fire front. Some fire retardant chemicals degrade into cyanide
at levels highly toxic to fish and frogs. And the presence of large
numbers of firefighters and their equipment and vehicles can spread
invasive weeds, harass wildlife, and damage sensitive lands.
Fire Management Plans can prohibit certain aggressive suppression
methods where they would be most damaging (e.g. bulldozers in roadless
areas, chemical retardants in riparian areas). Alternately, FMPs can
prescribe ``Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics'' where they would be
most safe, effective, and least damaging. Without FMPs providing such
guidance to fire managers, there is no limit to the kinds of
destructive practices that managers can and do order firefighters to
wage on wildland fires. FMPs enable managers to set priorities for
suppression in ways that decrease the short- and long-term damages that
firefighting can inflict upon the landscape.
what federal fire managers say about the need for fire management plans
``Fire management planning has not been a priority, with less than
5% of the National Forests having current, approved fire plans. The
agency is not in compliance with the National Fire Management Policy.
When asked would a Fire Management Plan have made a difference in the
effectiveness of the suppression efforts for the Big Bar and Kirk
Complexes, the answer was `YES.' When asked why there was no approved
Fire Management Plans for the two involved Forests and other National
Forests in general, the most common reason is lack of priority and
resources.''
--Policy Implications of Large Fire Management: A
Strategic Assessment of Factors Influencing Costs
(USFS; 2000)
``Consistent with Land and Resource Management Plans, develop fire
management plans that provide for suppressing fires that would threaten
public safety, communities, species habitat, or degrade ecosystems.
Increase the management of natural ignitions for resource benefits
where values and resources will be increased or improved.''
--Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-
Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy (USFS; 2000)
``Fire Management Plans that implement Federal Fire Policy must be
completed as soon as possible. All land management agencies should
place a high priority on completion of these plans. If necessary, land
management plans should be updated, revised, or amended to allow full
implementation of Federal Fire Policy.''
--Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy'' (USDA/USDI/DOE/DOD/DOC/EPA/FEMA;
2001)
URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE UNDEFINED
An issue that is of primary importance in the Forest Service's
presentation of the National Fire Plan is their unwillingness to define
the urban/wildland interface zone. The Forest Service has failed to set
hard criteria about how to choose the communities in most need for
fuels reduction. One of the major components to the National Fire Plan
is to carry out most of the first and second year projects in the
communities most ``at risk.'' However, the communities that the Forest
Service is evaluating as the most ``at risk'' comes from a laundry list
of communities published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2001.
The Governors and the National Association of State Foresters created
this community list without any criteria about what a community at risk
is.
We are very concerned that to date, the Forest Service has ignored
the intent of Congress to focus fuel reduction projects on the urban/
wildlands interface to save lives and property. Instead, the Forest
Service recently admitted that only 25% of the current projects are in
the area they define as the interface/zone. In addition, we are also
concerned that the definition being by the agency is overly broad by
including power lines, roads and other structures.
INCREASED PRIORITY NEEDS TO BE PLACED ON PROTECTING COMMUNITIES
Homeowners must be educated about the danger associated with the
wildland-urban interface zone and the necessity to do their part to
reduce the risks, Jack Cohen, research scientist at the U.S. Forest
Service's Fire Sciences Lab in Missoula, Montana, has demonstrated that
to reduce fire risks in the urban/wildland interface zone, removing
fuels from within 40 meters of a structure and reducing the
flammability of the structures are more effective and efficient than
landscape wide thinning. According to Cohen, ``The evidence suggests
that wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be
inefficient and ineffective. Inefficient because wildland fuel
reduction for several hundred meters or more is greater than necessary
for reducing ignitions from flames. Ineffective because it does not
sufficiently reduce firebrand ignitions.''
Congress should encourage state and local governments to require
homeowners living in the interface zone to protect their own private
property through common-sense fire safety practices, such as the use of
fire-resistant roofing material and the clearance of brush and other
flammable materials near homes.
CONDUCT ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ALL FUEL REDUCTION PROJECTS
The Forest Service should be required to identify restoration
priorities before any restoration or fuels reduction activities take
place. This assessment should involve the public and provide a broad
array of alternatives--not just commercial thinning--to address
priority needs in the area. For many areas, removing roads, invasive
species, and cows combined with prescribed burning would the best
prescription for ecological restoration.
HAZARDOUS FUELS PROJECTS SHOULD NOT MIX WITH THE TIMBER PROGRAM
We are concerned that fuels reduction projects are being conducted
as part of or conjunction with timber sales. This could allow funds
intended for fuels reduction to be used to subsidize logging on the
National Forests. Mixing these funds, are allowing for the appearance
that hazardous fuels reduction is being used to bolster the timber
program could ultimately undermine public support and the program's
effectiveness.
Attached to this testimony is a sign on letter endorsed by over
seventy-five national, regional and local environmental and grassroots
forest protection groups urging environmentally responsible direction
for the FY 2001 fuels reduction funding. It represents a consensus from
the environmental community on the types of projects we will support.
Projects that fall outside of these guidelines are considered fair-game
by environmentalists for protests, appeals and litigation.
Congress should prohibit the use of commercial timber sales and
stewardship contracts for hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Commercial logging removes the most ecologically valuable, most fire-
resistant trees, while leaving behind highly flammable small trees,
brush, and logging debris. The use of ``goods for services''
stewardship contracts also encourages logging larger, more fire-
resistant trees in order to make such projects attractive to timber
purchasers. The results of such logging are to increase fire risks and
fuel hazards, not to reduce them. The financial incentives for abusive
logging under the guise of ``thinning'' must be eliminated.
ESTABLISH SEPARATE CONTRACTS FOR FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION PROJECTS
All fuels reduction projects should be paid for with appropriated
dollars. Any material of commercial value must be sold in a separate
contract and all revenues must be returned to the Treasury. This would
eliminate the current incentive to include larger, more valuable, fire-
resistant trees in order to make timber sales a.k.a. ``fuels reduction
projects'' more attractive to timber companies.
COMMERCIAL LOGGING INCREASES FIRE RISK
There is strong evidence that commercial logging increases fire
risk. According to the Congressional Research Service, the remaining
limbs and tree tops or slash substantially increase fuel loads on the
ground, at least in the short term, until the slash is removed or
disposed of through burning. The government's Interior Columbia Basin
Management Project found that logging slash increased fire risk for up
to thirty years. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project confirmed that
commercial logging had been the single greatest contributor to higher
fire risks in the region stating, ``Timber harvest, through its effects
on forest structure, local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has
increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity.''
POST FIRE SALVAGE LOGGING SHOULD BE PROHIBITED
There is no scientific evidence that post-fire salvage logging
reduces the future risk or severity of wild fires. There is also
substantial evidence that this form of logging causes significant
environmental harm by disturbing already impacted soils and vegetation,
removing canopy cover, removing woody debris needed to create new
soils, harming wildlife and plants that depend on recently burned
areas. Post-fire salvage logging should have no place in the hazardous
fuels program.
The 1995 report, ``Wildfire and Salvage Logging, Recommendations
for Ecologically Sound Post-Fire Salvage Management and Other Post-Fire
Treatments'' known as the Beschta Report found considerable evidence
that post-fire salvage logging would likely result in persistent,
significant adverse environmental impacts. The Beschta Report was
prepared by an expert team of agency and university scientists and was
endorsed the Forest Service. The report recommends the complete
prohibition of salvage logging in severely burned areas, on erosive
sites, on fragile soils, on steep slopes and any other sites where
accelerated erosion is possible.
The Six Rivers National Forest has released a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) outlining a proposal to salvage log in the 1999
Megram Fire area west of the Trinity Alps Wilderness. The proposed
``Fuels Reduction for Community Protection-Phase I'' project would log
approximately 1,050 acres of ancient forests in the Mill, Horse Linto,
Sharber, and Quinby Creek watersheds, including within unprotected
roadless areas. Approximately 0.4 miles of new temporary roads would be
constructed, and another 2.65 miles of previously used roads would be
reconstructed, to facilitate the logging.
Despite the name, the project has nothing to do with either fuels
reduction or community protection. The proposed logging and road
construction is located miles away from any community, and will more
likely increase the risk of fire rather than decrease it. The forests
and streams in the area provide critical refuge for a host of plants,
fish and wildlife species, including rare orchids, salamanders,
northern spotted owls, goshawks, fishers, steelhead, chinook, and coho
salmon. The proposed logging and road construction threatens to
severely impact these species, as well as domestic water supplies in
Hoopa and other Trinity River communities.
To avoid citizen challenges, the Six Rivers NF has announced that
it is seeking an ``Emergency Situation'' determination that would
exempt 863 acres of the project from the appeals and litigation
process. The Six Rivers NF is claiming that unless an emergency
situation is declared, the administrative appeals process could prevent
them logging for another year, at which point the burned trees would be
so decayed that it would not be economical to log them. The Six Rivers
NF is attempting to circumvent the ability of citizens to force the
agency to obey the law, and are using a thinly-veiled ``emergency'' to
get the cut out.
There is no need to log within the Megram Fire area. The agency
should instead work to restore past impacts the area from logging,
roads, grazing, and fire suppression. The Forest Service should also
withhold the emergency exemption for the proposed timber sale. There is
no ``emergency'' in the area, the only reason the Six Rivers NF is
seeking the exemption is for economic purposes, and that the proposed
exemption would seriously undermine the public's trust in the agency.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND PUBLIC PROCESSES MUST BE FOLLOWED
Environmental laws, the NEPA process or ESA consultation should not
be suspended, expedited, or streamlined. According to the Congressional
Research Service, the extent to which fuel management might reduce the
extent, damage and control costs of wildfires has not been precisely
quantified. Given this uncertainty and lack of scientific evidence that
mechanical fuels reduction benefits forest ecosystems, it is necessary
that a complete review of each project take place. Streamlining laws
and shutting the public out of these projects will only lead to
mistrust and a greater likelihood for public opposition, appeals, and
litigation.
ROADLESS AREAS AND FIRE RISK
The roadless policy contains broad exemptions for fuel reduction
and restoration projects and the Forest Service has testified that the
roadless policy will not prevent the agency from meeting its fire
fighting responsibility. In addition, agency research indicates that
roadless areas are in general not the areas most at risk and contain
few communities nearby. In addition, increased human access leads to
more fire ignitions--88% of the fires from 1988-1997 were caused by
humans, with only 12% caused by lightning. Scientific analysis of the
2000 fire season revealed that the vast majority of burned acres were
located in previously logged and roaded areas, not in roadless or
wilderness areas.
REMOVING COWS NEEDED FOR PROPER FIRE MANAGEMENT
According to the Congressional Research Service, in the inter-
mountain west livestock grazing has affected ecosystems by reducing the
amount of grass and changing the plant species mix in forests and on
rangelands. This reduced the fine fuels that carried surface fires,
encouraged trees to invade traditionally open grasslands and meadows,
and allowed non-native species to become established, all of which
experts believe induce less frequent but more intense wildfires.
Therefore it is essential that livestock be removed from all areas at
high risk of fire or where fire risk reductions projects are
undertaken. Otherwise the problem will continue to worsen.
FIRE SUPPRESSION HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT--COSTS OUT OF CONTROL
For most federal programs, Congress sets an annual spending level
that may not be exceeded by the federal agency. However, in the case of
fire suppression and the federal budget, these rules do not apply. The
Forest Service is permitted to take money from other Forest Service
programs and spend it on fire suppression. Then Congress fully
reimburses the Forest Service for the difference. Due to this system
Congress does not set a realistic budget for fire suppression and the
agency has little accountability or incentive to get serious about fire
planning and preparedness because it knows Congress has a carte blanche
policy for funding fire suppression.
In the aftermath of the 1994 fire season, a very heavy fire year
similar in intensity as the 2000 fires, Agriculture Secretary Dan
Glickman and Department of the Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt signed
the federal Wildland Fire Policy which requires the creation of fire
plans for ``every burnable acre'' on National Forest Lands. The agency
report ``Policy Implications of Large Fire Management'' concludes that
fire plans are needed to efficiently respond to wildfires.
According to the report, ``Estimates have shown that for every
dollar of appropriated preparedness dollars received, there is a
savings of five to seven dollars in fire suppression and emergency
rehabilitation funds spent.'' However, only 5% of the National Forests
have developed such plans, causing the Forest Service to continually
waste tax dollars, degrade ecosystems, and jeopardize firefighters by
systematically fighting all fires with aggressive suppression tactics.
For more information contact Lisa Dix at 202-547-9267,
mailto:[email protected] or Timothy Ingalsbee, Ph.D. at 541-302-
6218, mailto:[email protected].
Senator Craig. Steve, thank you.
Now we go to Tom Nelson, director of Timber Lands for
Sierra Pacific Industries, representing the American Forest and
Paper Association of Redding, California.
Tom, welcome.
STATEMENT OF TOM NELSON, DIRECTOR OF FOREST POLICY FOR SIERRA
PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Nelson. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom
Nelson and I am the director of Forest Policy for Sierra
Pacific Industries in Redding, California.
I have already submitted written comments to your
committee, but I wish to highlight portions of that testimony
during the time frame allotted here today. Specifically, my
testimony focuses on four issues associated with the National
Fire Plan and some suggestions for addressing them.
While I will mention timber harvesting in my testimony, my
objective is not simply to advocate a more robust timber sale
program on the Federal lands. The focus of my testimony is on
sound management practices that help promote the long-term
sustainability of national forest system and other public
lands. It is imperative that our public lands are managed to
promote healthy forests and healthy communities and ensure the
Federal Government is a good neighbor to adjacent landowners.
Issue number one, the need for continued fuel hazard
reduction efforts. Increased fuel reduction efforts by the
Forest Service and Department of the Interior are badly needed.
The number of acres of public land that require hazardous fuel
reduction far exceeds the number of acres treated by the Forest
Service and the Department. For example, in 1994, the
Department and the agency treated about 500,000 acres out of a
total of 39 million acres declared at risk. In 2000, they
estimated that 72 million acres were now at risk and reduced
fuel loads on approximately 2.4 million acres, almost five
times more than the acres treated during 1994.
That sounds very impressive. However, the combined total
acreage treated by the Forest Service and the Department in
fiscal year 2000 was still just over 3 percent of the Forest
Service lands that require treatment. At this pace it will take
more than 30 years to treat the existing areas at risk.
A significant portion of the fiscal year 2001 Interior
appropriation for hazardous fuels reduction work was directed
to alleviate immediate threats to urban/wildland interface
areas. Congress should continue to support the Forest Service's
and Department's efforts to reduce fuel loads in urban/wildland
areas and provide assurances to communities that enter into
cooperative agreements. At the same time, fuel reduction
efforts outside of these areas, where the bulk of these high-
risk acres actually occur, must not be ignored.
According to the Forest Service, most of the 72 million
acres of national forest system lands at risk are not in the
wildland/urban interface, but in these outside areas.
The risks and effects of catastrophic wildfire are not
confined to public lands. On the contrary, they spill over onto
private inholdings and onto adjacent homes and structures not
part of the urban/wildland interface. For example, in my
written testimony, I have attached a map showing ownership
patterns in California, specifically the private lands owned by
our company, Sierra Pacific, and the neighboring Federal lands.
You will note that these two ownerships, as is common
throughout the western United States, are intertwined and
intermingled.
Private forest product companies like ours, as well as non-
industrial forest landowners, have aggressively tried to reduce
the risks for catastrophic wildfires on our own holdings for
many years, largely through the use of thinning. However, these
efforts cannot be effective without the cooperation of our
Federal neighbors since wildfires do not recognize property
boundaries.
AF&PA respectfully suggests that increased appropriations
in fiscal year 2002 must be provided for hazardous fuel
reduction work in urban/wildland interface communities at high
risk of catastrophic wildfire and on a greater percentage of
areas outside the interface. Additionally, collaborative
partnerships with owners of inholdings, State foresters, and
other entities should be pursued to design long-term fuels
treatment strategies outside of the urban/wildland interface.
Issue number two, the need for timber harvesting as one
tool available to the Forest Service and Department of the
Interior to maintain forest health.
In a recent statement to the House Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health, Mr. Lyle Laverty of the U.S. Forest Service
stated that excessive vegetation and dead fuel will be removed
``through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatment
methods.'' I believe Lyle reaffirmed that position earlier
today.
We concur with this assessment and wish to emphasize that
timber harvesting must be a hazardous fire reduction tool
available to the Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior. After 50 to 80 years of fire suppression in the West,
timber harvest is a prerequisite activity before fire can ever
be safely reintroduced into the natural ecosystem.
Issue number three, implementation of the National Fire
Plan must not reduce or eliminate the Forest Service's or the
Department of the Interior's ability to conduct other agency
and departmental programs. I will skip over that one in the
interest of time.
Issue number four, the Forest Service must carry out its
mission and be held accountable for its operations. Language in
the National Fire Plan calls for the Forest Service and
Department of the Interior to be accountable for oversight,
coordination, program development, and monitoring performance
for fire fighting, restoration and rehabilitation, hazardous
fuels reduction, and community assistance.
While progress is being made toward accomplishing these
goals, more can be done by the agency and Department to ensure
that accountability is achieved. In particular, two elements
appear to be missing.
To ensure that the Forest Service and Department establish
a credible system of accountability, AF&PA respectfully
suggests that the Forest Service and Department of the
Interior, one, provide a clear link between National Fire Plan
goals and performance measures to the overall mission of both
the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior; and two,
develop more specific performance measures to permit evaluation
of program effectiveness, both from a financial standpoint and
from the standpoint of improvement in forest health conditions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present
these comments on behalf of the American Forest and Paper
Association. I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM NELSON, DIRECTOR OF FOREST POLICY FOR SIERRA
PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER
ASSOCIATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of the Interior and the Forest Service's
efforts to reduce hazardous fuel loads are not keeping pace
with the increase in these materials. At risk are unique
ecosystems, urban-wildland interface communities, in-holdings,
and homes and other structures outside interface areas. Support
in the Fiscal Year 2002 Interior appropriations bill is needed
for increased hazardous fuels reduction work.
Timber harvesting should be a tool available to the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior to maintain forest
health.
Personnel must not be reassigned from their core functions
to conduct National Fire Plan-related activities.
The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have
an obligation to carry out their missions and to be held
accountable for their operations.
TESTIMONY
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Nelson and I am the
Director of Forest Policy for Sierra Pacific Industries in Redding,
California. I am presenting my testimony today on behalf of the
American Forest and Paper Association's (AF&PA) member companies,
associations, and allied groups. AF&PA members include forestland
owners, manufacturers of solid wood products, and producers of pulp and
paper products. The U.S. forest products industry has sales of over
$195 billion annually and employs 1.6 million people, more than one
percent of the U.S. work force. AF&PA members are committed to
sustainable forestry for all forestlands, public and private.
My testimony focuses on four issues associated with the National
Fire Plan and suggestions for addressing them. The issues are: the need
for continued support of fuel hazard reduction efforts; use of timber
harvesting as one of many tools for fuel reduction efforts; the impact
implementation of the National Fire Plan has on other Forest Service
programs; and accountability.
While I will mention timber harvesting in my testimony, my
objective is not simply to advocate a more robust timber sale program
on the federal lands. The focus of my testimony is on sound management
practices that help promote the long-term sustainability of National
Forest System and other public lands. It is imperative that our public
lands are managed to promote healthy forests and healthy communities
and ensure the federal government is a good neighbor to adjacent
landowners.
Issue #1: Need for continued fuel hazard reduction efforts.
Increased fuel reduction efforts by the Forest Service and
Department of the Interior are needed. The number of acres of public
land that require hazardous fuel reductions far exceeds the number of
acres treated by the Forest Service and the Department. Given their
limited resources, hazardous fuels reduction projects focus on
alleviating threats to urban wildland interface areas. Congress should
continue to support the Agency and Department's efforts to reduce fuel
loads in urban-wildland areas. At the same time, fuel reduction efforts
outside of these areas must not be ignored.
The Forest Service's and Department of the Interior's hazardous
fuel reduction efforts have not kept pace with the steady increase in
over-accumulation of vegetation, outbreaks of insect infestations and
disease, and accumulation of fine fuels. During the past decade, the
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior accelerated their
efforts to reduce hazardous fuel loads. For example, in 1994, the
Department and Agency treated about 500,000 acres.\1\ In 2000, they
reduced fuel loads on approximately 2.4 million acres, almost five
times more than the acres treated during 1994.\2\ The figure appears
impressive until one realizes that in 1998, the Forest Service
estimated that ``approximately 39 million acres of National Forest
System lands [were] at high risk from damaging, high-intensity,
wildland fire'' due to over-accumulation of vegetation and high
mortality from insects and disease.\3\ The combined total acreage
treated by the Forest Service and Department in 2000 was less than 6
percent of the total Forest Service lands requiring treatment in 1998
and today, the Forest Service estimates that 72 million acres of the
land it manages is at risk. At this pace, it will take more than 30
years to treat the existing areas at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Forest Service treated about 385,000 acres across the U.S.
Statement of Lyle Laverty, National Fire Plan Coordinator, USDA Forest
Service, before the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
March 8, 2001.
\2\ The Forest Service treated about 750,000 acres in 2000.
Statement of Lyle Laverty, National Fire Plan Coordinator, USDA Forest
Service, before the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
March 8, 2001.
\3\ Janice Mcdougle, USDA Forest Service Associate Deputy Chief,
State and Private Forestry, prepared statement before the House
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, September 28, 1998, http://
www.fs.fed.us/intro/testimony/19980928.html. Accessed 3/22/01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As hazardous fuel loads increase, so too does the duration,
severity, and intensity of the fires fueled by them. For example,
assessment teams in the Interior Columbia River Basin ``concluded that
over all forest types, fires have become less frequent and more intense
and fire severity has shifted from non-lethal to lethal.'' \4\ As the
number of intense wildfires increases, our ability to control them
decreases. As documented in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, ``current technology is not
capable of eliminating the high-severity fires.'' \5\ Hiring additional
fire fighters and purchasing more equipment is not enough. We must
aggressively attack the problem: hazardous fuel loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Vol. 1, page 3-73.
\5\ Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Vol. 1, page 3-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant portion of the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior
appropriation for hazardous fuels reduction work, about $120 million
under Title IV, was directed to alleviate immediate threats to urban-
wildland interface areas. To help stretch appropriations for hazardous
fuel reduction work, efforts will be made to ``match, where possible,
joint projects with state cooperators.'' \6\ However, as one
representative of the National Interagency Fire Center noted, community
representatives are concerned there is no guarantee the federal
government will continue to provide needed funding for their projects
and, thus, communities worry they will be left to pay the entire cost
of hazardous fuels reduction work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan: Action and Financial
Plan--Title IV Funding, http://www.na.fs.fed.us/nfp/pa/financial--plan/
overview.htm, Accessed 2/22/01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should continue to support the Forest Service and
Department's efforts to reduce fuel loads in urban-wildland areas and
provide assurances to communities that enter into cooperative
agreements. At the same time, fuel reduction efforts outside of these
areas, where the bulk of these ``high risk'' areas actually occur, must
not be ignored.
According to the Forest Service, most of the 72 million acres of
National Forest System lands at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire are
not in the wildland-urban interface.\7\ However, because of limited
resources, hazardous fuel reduction in many of these areas will be
deferred for years. Accumulation of fine ground fuels and encroachment
of shrubs and other vegetation beneath dominant canopies will continue.
As a result, the likelihood of severe fire behavior in these areas will
escalate. The forest industry is very worried about this situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Lyle Laverty, USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan
Coordinator, Statement before the House Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health, March 8, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risks and effects of catastrophic wildfire are not confined to
public lands. On the contrary, they spill over on to private in-
holdings and onto adjacent homes and structures not part of the urban-
wildland interface. For example, I have attached a map showing
ownership patterns in California--specifically, the private lands owned
by our company (Sierra Pacific Industries) and the neighboring federal
lands. You will note that these two ownerships, as is common throughout
the Western United States, are intertwined and intermingled. Private
forest products companies, like ours, as well as non-industrial forest
landowners have aggressively tried to reduce the risks for catastrophic
wildfires on their own holdings for many years, largely through the use
of thinning. However, these efforts cannot be effective without the
cooperation of our federal neighbors, since wildfires do not recognize
property boundaries.
Throughout the West, private landowners, state fire experts, and
rural communities are poised and ready to implement management
activities that will reduce the potential risks of devastating
wildfires like we witnessed last summer in Montana and Idaho. A good
example of this is the State of California's program to implement Fire
Safe Councils in rural counties. We believe that this type of
partnership between private forest landowners, the State, and local
county officials is the most effective way to combat the inherent
dangers to the 72 million acres now at risk within our National Forest
System lands. But this cannot, and will not, occur without the key
player at the table the federal land managers.
Reversal of fuel conditions cannot occur overnight. Clearly,
however, there is an urgent need to prevent fuel conditions from
advancing at their current pace. It is not enough to provide funding
for additional fire fighters and equipment. AF&PA respectfully suggests
that increased appropriations in Fiscal Year 2002 must be provided for
hazardous fuel reduction work in urban-wildland interface communities
at high risk of catastrophic fire and on a greater percentage of areas
outside the interface. Additionally, collaborative partnerships with
owners of in-holdings, state foresters, and other entities should be
pursued to design long-term fuels treatment strategies outside of the
urban-wildland interface.
Issue #2: Need for timber harvesting as one tool available to the
Forest Service and Department of the Interior to maintain forest
health.
The Forest Service states that excessive vegetation and dead fuels
will be removed ``through thinning, prescribed fire, and other
treatment methods.'' \8\ Timber harvesting should be a hazardous fuel
reduction tool available to the Forest Service and the Department of
the Interior. After 50 to 80 years of fire suppression in the West,
timber harvest is a prerequisite activity before fire can ever be
safely reintroduced into the natural ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Lyle Laverty, Statement before the House and Senate
Subcommittees on Interior and Related Agencies, March 14, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The condition of the forests determines the risk of catastrophic
wildfire. The prescription for disaster is ignoring overcrowded
forests, with many dead and dying trees. As mentioned previously, 72
million acres of national forests are at risk for catastrophic fires.
As the Government Accounting Office reports, ``timber harvesting may
make useful contributions to reducing accumulated fuels in many
circumstances.'' \9\ Consider thinning. A Forest Service research
report states, ``well-thinned, relatively open areas scattered across
the landscape, interspersed with denser, less intensively managed
areas, would provide a wide array of wildlife habitat, and would be a
forest less prone to large-scale catastrophic wildfire.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ann Bartuska, Letter to John Talberth, November 6, 2000.
\10\ Dahms and Geils, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that use of best management practices may help
reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. For example, as noted in the
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report, ``when slash is adequately
treated and treatments are maintained, logging can serve as a tool to
help reduce fire hazard.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ann Bartuska, Letter to John Talberth, November 6, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly, depending on local conditions, hazardous fuel reduction
through prescribed burning or other means may be more effective than
timber harvesting. Nonetheless, harvesting should not be precluded as
one of many tools available to the Forest Service and Department of the
Interior for reducing hazardous fuels. AF&PA respectfully suggests that
language should be included in the National Fire Plan and in relevant
related documents specifically stating that timber harvesting is a tool
available to the Forest Service and Department of the Interior to
maintain forest health.
Issue #3: Implementation of the National Fire Plan must not reduce or
eliminate the Forest Service's or the Department of the Interior's
ability to conduct other Agency and Departmental programs.
There are indications that certain National Forest Districts are
shifting personnel, including biologists and NEPA coordinators, from
their core functions to National Fire Plan-related work. The shift in
personnels' priorities may result in the slowing or cessation of other
critical Forest Service programs. While AF&PA members agree that the
implementation and long-term goals of the National Fire Plan are
important, they should not be the sole priority of the Forest Service.
The Forest Service is working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to
secure funding necessary to hire biologists needed to perform Section 7
Consultations. Efforts to identify the kinds of positions and the
number of personnel needed, such as this, are steps in the right
direction. Actions to ensure accountability may help address concerns,
as well, and are discussed in the next section of my testimony.
The bottom line is that Forest Service personnel must not be
reassigned from their core functions to conduct National Fire Plan-
related activities. AF&PA respectfully suggests that efforts to
identify the kinds of positions and the number of personnel needed to
implement the National Fire Plan should be continued and supported as
needed in Fiscal Year 2002 Interior appropriations. But it is also
important that other funded programs don't suffer because of the
National Fire Plan.
Issue #4: Accountability.
Language in the National Fire Plan calls for the Forest Service and
Department of the Interior to be accountable for oversight,
coordination, program development, and monitoring performance for
firefighting, restoration and rehabilitation, hazardous fuels
reduction, and community assistance. While progress is being made
toward accomplishing these goals, more can be done by the Agency and
Department to ensure that accountability is achieved.
As has been noted during recent Congressional hearings, the Agency
and Department are making progress to ensure accountability. For
example, the Agency and Department are developing a database designed
to track accomplishments for projects funded under Title IV. According
to the Forest Service, ``once it is fully operational . . . [the
Agency] will be able to report'' project data in specific national
forests, by state, or congressional district.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Lyle Laverty, Statement before the House Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, March 8, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service and Department of the Interior are to be
commended for their efforts to ensure accountability. However, a clear
link between National Fire Plan goals and objectives to the Forest
Service's and Department of the Interior's overall strategic plans must
be articulated. Such an explanation will facilitate the early
identification of conflicts between programs, needed resources, and
staff responsibilities. As a result, confusion about program
implementation, duplicative efforts, and unnecessary delays in
implementing program objectives may be reduced or avoided.
In addition to providing a clear link between National Fire Plan
goals to their overall mission and other core programs, specific
performance measures need to be developed further for each National
Fire Plan goal. The performance measures, or objectives, should explain
how the agency intends to accomplish each goal and include action plans
for achieving each objective. Most important, performance measures must
be developed in a manner that will enable Agency and Department
personnel evaluate program effectiveness based on financial and forest
health considerations.
Certainly, such an undertaking is time-consuming and will require
Congressional support. However, developing and articulating specific
information on how to accomplish National Fire Plan goals and
timeframes for completing activities helps ensure the most efficient
use of Agency and Department resources.
The Forest Service and Department of the Interior must be held
accountable for achieving National Fire Plan goals, as well as other
Agency and Departmental core functions. AF&PA respectfully suggests
that, as part of those efforts, the Forest Service and Department of
the Interior:
1. Provide a clear link between National Fire Plan goals and
performance measures to the Forest Service's and Department of
the Interior's overall mission and strategic plans; and
2. Develop more specific performance measures to permit
evaluation of program effectiveness both from a financial
standpoint and from the standpoint of improvement in forest
health conditions.
CONCLUSION
Over-accumulation of vegetation, outbreaks of insect infestations
and disease, and accumulation of fine fuels are outpacing the Forest
Service's and Department of the Interior's hazardous fuel reduction
efforts. As such, the risk of cataclysmic wildfire is escalating on
public lands as well as on private in-holdings and adjacent homes and
structures. Aggressive action must be taken to reduce hazardous fuel
both within the urban-wildland interface and outside of the interface.
It is imperative that all appropriate tools to reduce hazardous fuel
loads be available to the Forest Service and Department, including
timber harvesting. Lastly, it is important that the National Fire Plan
be linked to the broad strategic plans of the Agency and Department and
accurate and reliable performance measures be developed and
implemented.
AF&PA looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and others to
help ensure that the Forest Service and Department of the Interior have
resources necessary to address immediate threats to forests and
grasslands and develop long-term strategies for protecting them.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman. I would be
happy to answer questions from the Subcommittee.
Senator Craig. Tom, thank you very much.
Now let me turn to Dr. David Smith, professor emeritus,
Virginia Tech at Blacksburg.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WM. SMITH, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT,
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Dr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dave Smith, and I am
here today as vice president of the more than 17,000-member
Society of American Foresters.
I would like to make five points.
Number one, a long-term commitment is absolutely essential.
Number two, there are barriers to the Forest Service
accomplishing some of the fire plan goals.
Three, commercial harvests need to be considered on a case-
by-case basis.
Four, decisions need to be made in concert with State and
local communities.
And five, an enhanced research effort is essential.
Going back to number one, a long-term commitment, I want to
thank the committee and Congress for providing last year's
emergency appropriations. There is no doubt that the additional
funding helped the forestry community and, indeed, the country
get through a difficult fire season and to begin to prepare for
another difficult one this summer. It took us nearly 100 years
to get into this situation. It is going to take more than 1
year to get out of it. We need a long-term continuing
commitment to truly address this management issue.
Arguably, the most significant aspect of last year's
unprecedented emergency appropriation was the explicit
acknowledgment on the part of Congress, the administration, and
the land management agencies that fire is not only a
suppression problem, but also a land management problem.
We hope this year's appropriations bill will follow through
on the commitment to a national long-term solution and that
this committee will continue to perform the oversight to make
sure the land management agencies follow through on that
commitment.
The barriers. In the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill,
Congress provided $401 million for fuel reduction projects in
the wildland/urban interface. It has come to our attention that
a significant portion of Forest Service fuel reduction projects
will be outside of these areas and have not adequately involved
communities in the decision making process. While this is
understandable, it is also regrettable. The Forest Service has
to show progress with this significant increase in funding, but
to be successful, they have had to resort to projects that have
already been through the NEPA process and, in some cases,
section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. This
has caused SAF to ask what are the barriers to the Forest
Service being the responsive agency we know it wants to be and
one that involves local communities. In fact, we have developed
a proposal to examine that issue and we hope to report back to
you on our work.
Commercial harvest. Simply stated, we want to ensure that
commercial timber harvest will be considered as one tool among
many to address the hazardous fuel problem. If trees that need
to be removed are of commercial size and the land management
agencies follow environmental safeguards, then there is no
reason that agencies should not sell the timber. Selling the
materials that result from fuel reduction projects will reduce
the burden on taxpayers and stimulate economies. Currently the
United States is a net importer of wood products. It seems
inappropriate not to utilize forest products here in our own
country.
Local decision making. While we believe the partnership
between the State and Federal Governments continues to improve,
we are anxious to see similar partnerships with local
communities. Communities must be part of the solution to our
wildland fire issues and we must build their capacity to be
involved in these discussions. In many ways, they have the most
at stake, but the fewest resources and the smallest voice. This
must change if the National Fire Plan is to be viewed as a
success. We must remember that early detection and quick
response are the answers in many cases.
Research. Cost effective and sustainable fire management
depends on sound science. This research should include
partnerships with colleges, universities, and private sector
research units in order to reap the best and most effective
results. Many of the key barriers to the implementation of the
National Fire Plan stem from the lack of scientific knowledge
about the effectiveness and the effects of fire and fuels
management. Because of the increased incidence of extreme
fires, the growing complexity of the fire management situation,
and the vital link between fire management and land management
policy, it is imperative that we have a strong research and
development program.
In conclusion, the last summer's fires raged in part
because policy gridlock has prevented forest managers from
doing what it takes to address the conditions that lead to
catastrophic fire. A forest manager can take steps to alleviate
these conditions by removing combustible materials and
mechanically removing dead and dying trees from at-risk
forests, particularly in the wildland/urban interface.
The current situation guarantees failure as managers are
resigned to do very little to address these problems. We hope
that this committee will continue to urge for adequate funding
and to explore changes in authority that will help end this
gridlock.
Our Nation's forests cover one-third of the land area of
the country and are unequalled in their value to people and our
economy. They are far too valuable not to manage utilizing the
best science and experience possible. Forest resource
management decisions that we make today will be reflected in
the forests of the 22nd century and beyond. We must do it right
today if we are to maintain the integrity and productivity of
these forests for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.
Our profession of forestry is a dedicated partner in this
endeavor, and we will shoulder a significant part of the
responsibility for implementing this plan. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID WM. SMITH, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT,
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is David Smith,
and I am here today as Vice President of the Society of American
Foresters. Many of our 17,000 members are involved in reducing the
risks associated with wildfire, and working to implement the National
Fire Plan. The Society of American Foresters holds sustainability of
forest resources as a core value. Sustainability means meeting
environmental, economic and community aspirations simultaneously. It
requires the development and protection of natural resources at a rate,
and in a manner, that enables people to meet their needs while
providing future generations with the means to do the same. Our goal is
to see that all the forests of this nation are managed sustainably.
I would like to make five brief points today. The first is that
Congress, the Administration, and the land management agencies need to
make a long-term commitment to the National Fire Plan, and that
treating fire requires land management. The second is that there are
significant barriers to the Forest Service being a responsive agency.
Next, that commercial timber harvest, can, and should be part of a
fuels reduction program. Fourth, that the land management agencies must
make decisions at the local level, involving the states and local
communities. And finally, we must make a significant commitment to
improving our fire research capacity.
long-term commitment to land management and fire preparedness
First, I want to thank the Committee and the Congress for providing
last year's emergency appropriations. There is no doubt that the
additional funding helped the forestry community, and indeed the
country, get through a difficult fire season, and to begin to prepare
for another difficult one this summer. It took us nearly 100 years to
get into this situation; it is going to take more than one year to get
out of it; we need a long-term commitment to truly address this
management problem. We hope the Administration will request, and the
Congress will provide the funding necessary to continue the commitment
to effectively deal with wildland fire now and in the future.
Investments made today in reducing the risks associated with wildland
fire will eventually reduce the need for the massive emergency
appropriations made last year.
We believe Congress and the Appropriations committee recognized the
need for a long-term commitment to reducing the risks associated with
wildfire. The Congress included language in the Conference report of
the FY 2001 Appropriations bill that stated, ``the managers strongly
believe this FY 2001 funding will only be of value . . . if it is
sustained in future years.'' It went on to request the Administration
work with the states to develop a long-term solution to the fire
problem, and restoration needs.
Fire exclusion has directly contributed to fuel buildup. In
addition many forests are currently beyond the natural range of tree
stocking, and endemic and exotic pests have reached epidemic
proportions. This combination of excessive basal area or tree density
and increased pests results in fuel loads considerably above what
historically occurred. The greatest problems we are facing in regard to
wildland fire are high forest density developed from nearly a century
of fire protection, lack of active management that can encourage fire
adapted species, and the introduction of exotic species.
The Forest Service has stated that nearly 73 million acres of
national forests (61 million in the West and 12 million in the East)
are at high to moderate risk of catastrophic fire. Cost estimates of
treating this problem are in the tens of billions of dollars. That
acreage does not necessarily account for lands off national forests
that also have significant problems. In the past few years we have seen
major fires in Texas, Florida, Virginia, New York, and New Jersey,
states with little or no national forests. This truly is a national
problem that requires national solutions.
In addition to the development of heavy fuel loads, the jobs of
contemporary firefighters have been complicated by the growth of the
wildland-urban interface. Developed properties, frequently people's
homes, stand in the way of today's wildfires. From last year's fires in
Montana, where homes and other property were destroyed in the
Bitterroot Valley, to the 1999 Fire Siege in Florida, where
firefighters spent a great deal of time ``steering'' fires around
development, the interface complicates firefighting and increases the
values that are at stake.
Arguably the most significant aspect of last year's unprecedented
emergency appropriation was the explicit acknowledgment on the part of
Congress, the Administration, and the land management agencies that
fire is not only a suppression problem but also a land management
problem. Last year, the SAF expressly requested Congress provide
increases in restoration, rehabilitation and fuels reduction projects
over and above the administration's emergency request. We were pleased
to see Congress do just that by providing $648 million for restoration
and fuel reduction efforts in the appropriations package.
Our intention is not to minimize the necessity of suppression
activities. There is no doubt that we will have to continue to fight
fire, even if we had endless resources to address land management
needs. There is too much at stake, particularly in the wildland-urban
interface where we will have to continue building capacity to fight
fire due to the risks to people and property. However, focusing
attention on the health of ecosystems and the land management activity
necessary to reduce the risk of fire is a welcome change. We strongly
encourage the Congress to continue and increase this funding.
Since we will have to prioritize where the limited funding
available for this work will be most effective, we suggest focusing on
the wildland-urban interface. This does not mean that we should not
treat more remote areas. There are compelling reasons to work on other
areas of our national forests, however, our first priority ought to be
to protect human life and property. Though much of the fuel problem is
on federal lands, the solutions rest with a range of stakeholders. We
are encouraged that the Administration and the land management agencies
are working cooperatively with the state forestry agencies, state land
boards, volunteer and local fire departments, and local communities
both to determine priority treatment areas, and to conduct the work
where possible.
We need coordinated leadership from all federal agencies, not just
the Forest Service and BLM. The National Fire Plan provides a framework
for that coordination, and other federal agencies should be engaged in
a dialogue about fire priorities. The Departments of Defense, Energy,
and Commerce, and agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Weather Service,
United States Fire Administration, United States Geological Survey, and
other agencies all play important roles in wildland fire management.
The federal family needs to work in a coordinated fashion, as we will
not have success if federal agencies work independently of each other
and their state and community partners.
In addition, some adjustments will likely be needed in the federal
agencies' Most Efficient Level (MEL) analysis system. Currently the
method for determining MEL only considers likely suppression needs on
federal lands and therefore does not adequately address the wildland-
urban interface.
We hope this year's Appropriations bill will follow through on the
commitment to a national long-term solution, and that this committee
will continue to perform oversight to make sure the land management
agencies follow through on that commitment. Additionally, we believe
there are certain barriers to the BLM, and the Forest Service in
particular, to treating our fire problems with greater efficiency. We
hope this committee will continue to examine those issues, and possibly
offer bipartisan legislative solutions.
BARRIERS
In the FY 2001 appropriations bill Congress provided $401 million
for fuel reduction projects in the wildland-urban interface. It has
come to our attention that a significant portion of Forest Service fuel
reduction projects will be outside of these areas, and have not
adequately involved communities in the decision-making process. While
this is understandable, it is also regrettable. The Forest Service has
to show progress with this significant increase in funding, but to be
successful they have had to resort to projects that have already been
through the NEPA process, and in some cases Section 7 consultation
under the Endangered Species Act. The Agency has had to resort to
implementing preplanned projects because they cannot implement fuels
reduction projects in less than one year. This has caused SAF to ask
what are the barriers to the Forest Service being the responsive agency
we know it wants to be, and one that involves local communities. In
fact, we have developed a proposal to examine that issue, and are
currently seeking funding to conduct that work.
The Forest Service plans to conduct fuel reduction projects on 1.8
million acres using $205.6 million. We know that in subsequent years
the Forest Service will do a better job of implementing fuel reduction
projects. However, we believe there are authority changes that may help
them better implement their goals. For fuel reduction projects we
believe Congress could:
Adopt the BLM appeals process for the National Forest
System, including the administrative law functions currently in
use by the Interior Board of Land Appeals.
Increase the requirements for filing an administrative
appeal by requiring participation in the decision process
related to the specific decision.
Revise the National Environmental Policy Act decision
process in the following way. First, publish a scoping document
that lists alternatives but does not propose a preferred
option. Second, propose a resource management plan or
management action based on the scoping document and public
comments received in the first round. The proposed plan or
action is then subject to public comment and review. Third,
make a formal decision.
Once we conduct our analysis of the barriers the Forest Service
faces, we will make more concrete suggestions. Mr. Chairman, we believe
this Committee has done an excellent job exploring these issues in
recent years, both by examining our report entitled Forest of Discord,
and your past focus on comprehensive reform. We hope this Committee
will continue to explore the ideas in our report, this committee's
thoughts on reform, and of the ideas of those who want to find
solutions to these challenges. We believe many of these barriers could
be removed by implementing some of the concepts that have come before
this committee in the last few years.
COMMERCIAL TIMBER HARVEST
Simply stated, we want to ensure that commercial timber harvest
will be considered as one tool among many to address the hazardous
fuels problem. If trees that need to be removed are of commercial size,
and the land management agencies follow environmental safeguards, then
there is no reason the agency should not sell the timber. Selling the
materials that result from fuel reduction projects will reduce the
burden on taxpayers, and stimulate economies. Currently the United
States is a net importer of wood products. It seems inappropriate to
not utilize forest products here in the United States.
As a practical matter, mechanically treating stands will include
commercial logging. Some critics characterize logging as wholesale
ecological destruction. This is just not true. The science is clear:
Logging can help us out of this overstocked situation by removing
materials that intensify wildfires. While the majority of these fire
problems cannot be addressed through commercial logging, it is one tool
available to managers, and it should be utilized. Much of the work will
consist of pre-commercial thinnings as well as potentially commercial
thinnings. Additionally, much of the immediate fire problem we are
facing is on shrub and grasslands that do not have much timber. We
agree that innovative contracting mechanism such as Stewardship
Contracting and other efforts that do not focus on merely offering
timber volume for sale will be needed, and we believe you should direct
the Forest Service to pursue these efforts vigorously including working
with Congress where new authority may be necessary.
We understand that former Chief Dombeck has stated that no
emergency money will be used to conduct commercial timber sales. We
hope that on-the-ground managers do not interpret this prohibition to
mean that they are not to conduct commercial timber sales, nor to
interfere with their management prescriptions. According to Forest
Inventory and Analysis data, in the state of New Mexico, if every tree
twelve inches in diameter and less were harvested, the forests of the
state would still be significantly overstocked. We stress the need for
environmental safeguards and proper planning when conducting management
activities. Additionally, as Americans we should be proud to use timber
from our national forests. Some of the best natural resource
professionals in the world plan national forest management activities.
They do so with an extensive public involvement process, and ensure
strict adherence to environmental laws. Consumers should feel good
about using forest products from national forests.
LOCAL DECISION-MAKING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
State governments share responsibility with their federal
counterparts for the administration of many resources and public
services within their boundaries. This intergovernmental partnership is
critical for providing safe and effective responses to wildland fire,
especially in the wildland-urban interface where initial attack is
conducted by volunteer, local, county, state or federal firefighters
regardless of where the fire started.
We fully support the overall approach to the issue espoused by the
Western Governors Association. The Governors met face-to-face with the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior in September 2000 and
emphasized that their priorities for both short and long-term wildfire
response are as follows:
Full state involvement in all relevant planning,
prioritization, decision-making and implementation processes at
the national, regional and local levels;
Funding and implementation of rehabilitation, hazard
reduction, and ecosystem restoration projects across all lands,
regardless of ownership; and
Development and funding of a long-term (10+ years),
intergovernmental strategy to address ``the wildland fire and
hazardous fuels situation as well as the needs for habitat
restoration and rehabilitation in the Nation.''
Congress also recognized the importance of involving state
decision-makers in the FY 2001 appropriations bill by stating in
several instances that their involvement and capacity building was
critical to the success of the effort. It appears that the states and
the federal agencies have heard Congress on this point. There is an
enhanced level of state-federal partnerships beginning to develop in
many states as federal agencies are faced with the task of identifying
projects and allocating increased levels of funding according to both
Congressional and Administrative direction. We hope this process
continues, and that the states and federal government begin to work
together on many aspects of land management.
It is important to note that each of these partnerships has been
strengthened by the availability of increased funding to state and
community assistance programs. These additional dollars for cooperative
fuels reduction on non-federal lands, for training and equipping of
local fire departments, and for assistance to communities impacted by
wildland fire greatly increase the ability of non-federal entities to
participate fully in large-scale project planning and prioritization.
Moreover, these are the critical components to reducing the risk to
life and property in the wildland-urban interface, which is creating
unprecedented levels of complexity for wildland firefighters from coast
to coast.
While we believe the partnership between the state and federal
governments continues to improve, we are anxious to see similar
partnerships with local communities. Communities must be part of the
solutions to our wildland fire issues, and we must build their capacity
to be involved in these discussions. In many ways they have the most at
stake, but the fewest resources and the smallest voice. This must
change if the National Fire Plan is to be viewed as a success.
RESEARCH
Cost-effective and sustainable fire management depends on a sound
and vigorous program of scientific discovery, validation, and
application, and should include partnerships with colleges,
universities, and private sector research units in order to reap the
best and most effective results. Many of the key barriers to the
implementation of the National Fire Plan stem from the lack of
scientific knowledge about the effectiveness and the effects of fire
and fuels management. Because of the increased incidence of extreme
fires, the growing complexity of the fire management situation, and the
vital link between fire management and land management policy, it is
imperative that we have a strong research and development program.
Fire operations today benefit from wise investments made in fire
research in previous years. But improvements to meet the future demands
in fire management will also require aggressive investment.
Unfortunately, the R&D capacities of the USDA Forest Service and the
Department of Interior have been severely constrained.
Examples of some of the key research questions that need to be
explored include:
Improving long-term forecasts for fire season severity and
extreme fire events.
Improving organizational effectiveness and safety practices.
Effectiveness of Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER)
treatments on the risk of extreme water and mudflows.
The effects of wildfire (with or without post fire
treatments) on habitat for terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian
species.
Development of integrated silvicultural, processing, and
marketing systems to economically reduce fire hazards.
Utilization research at the Forest Products Laboratory
designed to find value-added opportunities for small diameter
wood.
Effects of fuel treatment options on air quality,
watersheds, habitat for threatened and endangered fish and
wildlife, and public opinion.
Better understanding of public knowledge, beliefs, and
attitudes about fire and fire management.
Knowledge of social and economic impacts of hazardous fuels
reduction, fire rehabilitation and restoration activities.
Understanding the barriers to fuel reduction--and the
opportunities for utilizing economically marginal by-products
of fire management.
Learning new ways to reduce the vulnerability of communities
and home.
Fire behavior in complex fuels--understanding the impact of
variability in fuels.
Fuel moisture dynamics--live fuels and moisture effects that
are not covered in existing models.
Predicting fire injury to plants and soil--the basis for
estimates of higher level, more integrated prediction.
The base fire research budget (FY 2000 and pre-Fire Plan 2001) for
the Forest Service is about two percent of its fire expenditures. Total
investment in fire research is only 1/4 to 1/2 of one percent of the
total economic activity caused by fire, including suppression costs by
federal and state agencies, estimated at $5-10 billion per year. This
is a pitifully small foundation effort for a so-called ``science-
based'' program. The consequences of under funding R&D include
inefficiency, vulnerability to litigation, reduced safety of
firefighters and the public, and the possibility of large-scale
ecological and economic mistakes. Congress, the administration, and the
land management agencies need to work together to secure increases in
funding, improve accountability, and restructure how these funds are
allocated.
CONCLUSION
For this plan to be successful we must make long-term commitments
to funding, remove barriers that prevent success, use all the
management tools available, treat fire as a land management problem,
involve local decision-making, and strengthen our research efforts. Too
often we have searched for short-term solutions. Twelve years ago Dr.
Jim Agee, a fire ecologist with the National Park Service, cautioned
that:
``. . . the large wildfire years, such as 1987 and 1988 in the
West, will encourage innovative fuel treatments, but in several years'
time the threat of such fires will have diminished in the public's
eyes, while anxiety about potential prescribed fire control and smoke
problems [as well as other fuel control methods] will be freshly
renewed each season.''
While the challenges may seem huge, there is no doubt that failure
will result in major damage to communities and our nation's forests.
Last summers' fires raged in part because policy gridlock has
prevented forest mangers from doing what it takes to address the
conditions that lead to catastrophic wildfires. A forest manager can
take steps to alleviate these conditions by removing combustible
material and mechanically removing dead and dying trees from at-risk
forests, particularly in the wildland-urban interface, and sensibly
reintroducing fire to a landscape that has been starved of it for
years. Forest managers have made mistakes in the past, and there is no
doubt that we will make some in the future, but the current situation
guarantees continued failures as managers are resigned to do very
little to address these problems. We hope that this committee will
continue to urge for adequate funding, and to explore changes in
authority that will help end this gridlock.
Our Nation's forests cover one-third of the land area of the
country and are unequalled in their value to people and our economy.
They are far too valuable not to be managed utilizing the best science
and experience possible. Forest resource management decisions that we
make today will be reflected in the forests of the 22nd century and
beyond. We must do it right today if we are to maintain the integrity
and productivity of these forests in perpetuity.
Senator Craig. Doctor, thank you very much.
A couple of questions. I know the hour is late and you all
have been very patient. I apologize for the timing here today.
For the record, I am curious. How many of you as
individuals or organizations supported the Clinton
administration's National Fire Plan and what is now known as
the Domenici-Feinstein Happy Forest Urban Interface Fire
Reduction Program? Did The Wilderness Society support those, do
you know?
Dr. Bancroft. We support the fire plan. We think it is a
very impressive plan and it needs some more work on it. I am
not familiar with the other. I would have to get back with The
Wilderness Society and ask some other people on that.
Senator Craig. I would like to know.
Steve.
Mr. Holmer. American Lands feels like the fire plan could
be improved.
Senator Craig. Did you support it originally when it was
being talked about and implemented and then we were funding it?
Mr. Holmer. Yes, we were very involved in the discussions
about it. There is a serious lack of accountability. If the
agency does not do the fire plan, for example, there is no
repercussion. So, we would like to see a little greater
accountability built into the plan.
We opposed the Domenici amendment last year primarily
because it lacked the kind of environmental safeguards that we
felt were necessary to allow us to support it. If there had
been a clear definition of the urban/wildlands interface, a
clear limitation on the cutting of large trees, limitations on
entering roadless areas and riparian zones and habitat for
threatened and endangered species, we could have probably
supported that, but none of those safeguards were written into
the language.
Senator Craig. Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Nelson. I believe we have supported it, yes.
Dr. Smith. As a society, we do not support per se. We are
looking at and evaluating the implications of the bill and how
it might impact on the resource from a biologic aspect, from a
social aspect, and from an economic aspect. So, there are parts
that we agree with based on those three parts and parts that we
do not agree with.
Senator Craig. I asked the question for what probably is
the obvious reason. To support the plan and be effectively
critical of it is one thing. To not have supported the plan and
be critical of it in my, I hope, objective opinion is somewhat
different. If you are critical in the beginning and you are
still critical, it means you cannot be very objective in
offering good advice. I am being a bit blunt, Steve.
I find it fascinating at a time when we are struggling to
change the entire dynamics of forest management in a direction
that you have been an advocate of for some time, that there
does not seem to be anything that quite works, at least in your
definition. I do not mean to single you out.
I spend a great deal of time with climate change. I spend a
great deal of time in Western Europe trying to keep the
Europeans and everybody else from disallowing us to use our
forests as credits for sequestration. I do know that a healthy
vibrant forest is much greater a sequester of carbon than an
old, dead or dying forest. In fact, the sequestration models
that we are working on now I think are going to come back even
suggesting scientifically that our forests may even sequester
more carbon than was originally thought.
So, I am not quite sure I understand the dynamics. If we
are interested in using our forests for environmental purposes
and one of those being the ability to sequester carbon--because
as hard as we try, I doubt that we will ever get our carbon
levels down, unless we shut our economies down to a post-99 or
less level, but we should work to try through technologies and
all other things and through the vibrance of a healthy forest
that has a capacity to sequester. I do not know how you get
there if in the end you have forests that are going to be
subject to catastrophic fires that wipe out vast acreages and
put millions of tons of carbon in the air when we might be able
to extract carbon and keep it from getting into the atmosphere
if we are cautious about how we handle it.
It is a bit of a side note from where we are with forests,
but I believe, my friend, it directly relates today more than
it ever has before.
Mr. Holmer. Yes. I think we do need to take a broad
perspective. It is our understanding on the sequestration
question that in fact old growth forests are where you have the
highest level of carbon. In fact, in logging of old growth
forests, you see a substantial release. I know that some people
would argue that by keeping things in forest products, that in
fact we will sequester the carbon that way.
Senator Craig. A little.
Mr. Holmer. When this stuff goes into a landfill, it
creates methane which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas.
So, I do not think the science will really support that view
either.
We are interested in seeing real restoration, but in our
view that often means taking what we consider to be harmful
things out of good places. So, that might mean taking the cows
out because the cows have been shown to increase fire risk over
time. That means possibly taking roads out because the roads
are not being maintained, but also humans are the highest
reason you have fires. Some 88 percent of all fires are human
caused. So, if you remove a road from an area, you might
actually reduce the risk of an ignition in that area.
We just think that there are other areas where the emphasis
should be prioritized. If we are talking about thinning and the
cutting of trees, again if that is happening in the urban/
wildland interface and there is not a commercial incentive to
cut big trees, to cut too many trees, that is something that
our community is likely to say, okay, you can go ahead and do
that.
But if it gets outside of those boundaries, I would say we
are going to have to look at each project. Some of the projects
that you mentioned are not acceptable and they are going to be
subject to the usual contestation appeals and litigation, et
cetera.
Senator Craig. Well, Steve has kind of suggested the jump
ball question. Do any one of you wish to comment on that before
we adjourn the committee?
Yes, Dr. Smith?
Dr. Smith. I would like just to amplify your comment
concerning the sequestration and all the issues involved in old
growth. I think we have to keep in mind that old growth dies
and something has to take its place. It is like any population.
There are new individuals, medium-aged, old-aged, and they keep
rotating from place to place. We have choices. We can use wood
or it will burn or turn to carbon dioxide and water. That is
the cycle. That is going to happen.
And we have to be very much aware if we do not use wood in
a manner that we know we can, environmentally sound, then we
have to look at the substitutes and what are their costs
environmentally in terms of energy, carbon, when we go to using
steel, aluminum, plastics, oil products and so on that do much
greater in terms of their energy consumption than using wood
which we know is recyclable and we can grow it and we know how
to do that.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Yes.
Dr. Bancroft. I just wanted to say that we have been very
supportive of several of the projects. We have worked a lot
over the last year on the Lakeview project in Oregon. Mike
Anderson, who has been here and talked in front of you several
times in the past, has been down there working extensively on
that. We think that was a great opportunity.
We also liked some of the projects in Idaho, the Silver
Creek project in Boise National Forest and the Danskin and
Gallagher fuel reduction projects. All of those appear to be
good restoration projects focusing on thinning and
reintroducing prescribed fire.
We are also concerned on other projects like the Upper
Platte project in Colorado where it is proposing, under the
guise of restoration, to actually take out a lot of timber,
including extending into roadless areas. So, we are really
concerned when you get some of those big projects and they are
not focused on restoration but more focused on timber
harvesting.
On your earlier question, I just wanted to say we are also
very concerned about the contracting procedures in that we need
to separate the actual removal of thin material from the
selling of that. We think we may need to readdress some of
those contracting procedures.
We also agree that we need multi-year funding. It is hard
for the Forest Service and these communities to plan into the
future without some multi-year funding.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Nelson, any additional comments?
Mr. Nelson. Yes. I agree with your comments on the
sequestration, but I think that that is a bit more complicated
than really the issue at hand here. The fact remains there are
72 million acres that the Forest Service has identified that
are at risk of burning up in a wildfire. What we are trying to
do--we being foresters and the Forest Service itself--are
trying to come up with a strategy to reduce that risk. So, if
nothing else, I want to make sure that we leave you with the
magnitude of this problem. That is a lot of acres out there,
and even though the Forest Service is doing 2 million acres a
year, it is going to take a long time even at that rate.
I would also like to add that the community panel that was
up here--I have been involved with the Quincy Library group
since 1993, 8 years.
Senator Craig. I know you have.
Mr. Nelson. We have done all those things. We excluded the
California spotted owl areas. We excluded the riparian areas.
We excluded the old growth areas, the roadless areas. We did
all that. There were still a number of groups, two of which are
on this panel, that opposed it right down the line, and it has
yet to be implemented. So, I would say to you that we are on
the right track, but we have to keep pushing forward here.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you all very much for your time
and your testimony. We appreciate it.
Before I adjourn the committee, I wanted to introduce this
group of young people who came in. Last year as Idaho citizens,
some of them, they witnessed our skies turn black in Idaho with
wildland fires that burned nearly a million acres of land in my
State of Idaho, and to devastating environmental results,
tragically enough.
They happen to be an ag class from the College of Southern
Idaho, and a few of them might end up being ranchers that would
want to graze a few cattle, Steve.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. That is the options in this business that we
have to work with.
Anyway, thank you all very much for your testimony, and we
will stand the committee at adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Owens & Hurst Lumber Co., Inc.,
Eureka, MT, March 13, 2001.
Senator Conrad Burns,
Chairman, Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Interior, Dirksen
Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns: I submit my testimony today on behalf of my
community, a town that is laden with fear, apprehension, insecurity and
distrust. Quite simply, Eureka, Montana, is going broke. Federal land
management policies are bankrupting our schools, our historic way of
life and more tragically, our spirit.
Central to our community is a sawmill. A mill that for the past 20
years has produced a majority of its product from dead and dying trees
harvested initially from the Kootenai National Forest and more recently
from the burned forest of Northern Alberta.
On January 18, 2001, the mill permanently laid off approximately
40% of its workforce, the primary reason being the unavailability of
reasonably priced logs. Certainly, the current poor lumber market,
brought about by foreign imports, was a contributor; but the fact
remains, if the mill can process a cheap log, it can produce cheap
lumber. Owens and Hurst has a dwindling supply of timber and most of it
is expensive as a result of declining timber sales which fosters
intense competition.
Seven miles from the mill is the beginning of a charred forest
created by last summer's fires, 25,000 acres containing enough timber
to run the local mill for 3 to 4 years, 25,000 acres with a
transportation system in place, none of it in roadless designation. The
blackened and deteriorating timber still stands as the Forest Service
plods through the lengthy NEPA process. Forest officials estimate the
timber will be offered for sale this fall after it endures a long hot
summer which will cause a massive amount of deterioration and a
resultant loss of value. By their own estimates, nearly one third of
the timber will be wasted this summer, a loss to the Federal treasury
of over $2,000,000.
In summary, as it now stands, the process is not acceptable, there
are 25,000 acres of burned trees in a roaded area of the forest that
need to be treated immediately. There is a willingness within our
community supporting such an effort in addition to urban interface
fuels reduction work. The pieces, parts and players are all in place,
now the USDA Forest Service needs to perform their duties as
responsible and responsive forest managers. Otherwise, while the Forest
Service fiddles, Eureka will burn--again.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide input to the
subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Jim Hurst,
President.
______
Pyramid Mountain Lumber Inc.,
Seeley Lake, MT, March 14, 2001.
Senator Conrad Burns,
Chairman, Interior Appropriations Sub-Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns: Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Inc. is a small,
family owned business in the rural community of Seeley Lake, Montana.
We have survived without a fee land base by developing and maintaining
long term relationships with landowners, professionalism, vision and
through the commitment of the Johnson Family and the Mood Family for
over 50 years. Pyramid is proud of its 140 employees and the more than
200 related jobs in logging, trucking, road building and various other
support positions. We are optimistic about the potential for the Forest
Products industry in Montana but, very concerned about the continued
neglect of National Forest Lands and lack of active forest management.
Fires of 2000, which blackened thousands of acres of Montana
landscape, produced challenges but, also opportunities. The
opportunities come from the strong broad based public support for
active management to reduce forest fuels--including green sawlogs and
salvaging forest products as soon as possible. The Forest Service is
responding under the same tedious, cumbersome process which not only
wastes natural resources but also, delays actions on the ground which
would facilitate the recovery of these burned forests, reduce the
public safety hazards, and restore healthy forests.
Example:
Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Inc. third partied a Forest Service timber
sale named Bear T.S. on the Bitterroot National Forest from Derby
Lumber, Inc. in the fall of 1999. The entire 5300 acre sale area
located between Sleeping child and the Skalkaho burned in August, 2000.
Although Pyramid had not planned any harvest on Bear T.S. in 2000, we
immediately expressed our interest in salvaging as soon as possible to
recover the value in Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Fir. Approximately 50%
of the logs we process in our converting facility are Ponderosa Pine
which lose a minimum of 25% of their value when the logs become blue
stained the next Spring after death by fire.
Forest Service Foresters, Fire Specialists, Hydrologists, Soil
Scientists, Wildlife and Fisheries Biologists, Engineers and Landscape
Architects quickly reviewed the burned over Bear Drainage and came to
resolution on treatments to salvage log and rehabilitate the drainage,
including our 5300 acre sale area. Under the Catastrophic Damage Clause
in all Forest Service contracts, the Contracting Officer has a great
deal of flexibility and authority to resolve situations such as the
Bear T.S. Historically, the agency would modify the contract--taking
into account loss in values, increased, logging and manufacturing
costs, and the need to act promptly to treat the sale area and expedite
the recovery process on their forested landscapes.
November, 2000 Pyramid was offered 3 options which OGC was willing
to defend the Forest Service on in court as advised by the Department
of Justice.
Option 1: ``Cancellation by Mutual Agreement'' which is always an
option and requires no decision.
Option 2: Remark sale unit boundaries and trees to cut on 275 acres
to represent the exact harvest prescription before the area burned and
adjust contract rates to reflect increased logging and manufacturing
costs and loss in value. This option includes harvesting green Douglas
Fir which did not burn but, were to be cut under the original sale
design. No new decision made.
Option 3: Do Nothing. Wait for at least 12-18 months until the EIS
is complete for the entire Bitterroot, assuming no appeals or
litigation.
Pyramid preferred Option 2 even though, the logic behind this
alternative was incredibly conservative and not consistent with
Professional Forester's and Specialist's opinions. The options were
constrained by process and political agencies in Washington, D.C. but,
Option 2 did provide a small volume on 5% of the burned over sale area
which helped Pyramid operate its plant through the winter and provide
high paying jobs in the small town of Seeley Lake. A normal
interpretation and implementation of the Catastrophic Damage Clause
would have produced enough additional volume in merchantable sawlogs to
operate our mill for 4\1/2\ months.
Small mills, such as ours, not only provide employment and the
basis for economic diversification in rural communities but, also, we
provide the infrastructure for Federal, State and Private Forest
Landowners to actively manage their forested lands and maintain forest
health, reduce forest fuels, provide defensible space, and implement
restoration forestry treatments. We provide the outlet for forest
products produced from such treatments which helps offset the
tremendous cost of forest management. At the same time, we are
supplying solid wood products to meet the demands of society and also,
we're providing raw materials in the form of chips, shavings, sawdust,
and hog fuel to plants producing paper, particleboard and power.
Senator Burns, Pyramid appreciates your interest and attention in
expediting salvage, active forest management and restoring our nations
forests to a healthy condition. Time is of the essence, consequently, I
have included a list of possible solutions to help expedite the
processes which have constrained the Forest Service Professional's
performance in managing this country's forests on behalf of the public.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at your
convenience.
Respectfully,
Gordon Sanders
Resource Manager.
______
Owens & Hurst Lumber Co., Inc.,
Eureka, MT, March 15, 2001.
Bob Castaneda,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 1101 U.S. Hwy. West,
Libby, MT.
Dear Bob: Thank you for requesting my economic evaluation regarding
the 25,000 acres of burned timber near Eureka from an action versus no
action perspective. As you know, over six months have elapsed and the
charred timber still stands, losing value every day. By the Forest
Service's own admission, at least 11,000,000 board feet of timber will
be ruined if removal isn't expedited, a volume that would supply our
mill for five months on our current reduced operating schedule. As you
are aware, this timber is located in an area that has a transportation
system in place.
If the 11,000,000 board feet were saved, it would in essence save
65 jobs for nearly half a year, producing wages of approximately
$1,500,000 at the mill plus another $500,000 or more in the woods for
harvesting and restoration efforts, not to mention the Forest Service
jobs associated with the project. Using the revolving multiplier, that
could mean seven to ten million dollars worth of economic activity in
Eureka and surrounding communities. Coincidentally, the Forest Service
will lose the revenues from the sale of timber, revenues that could be
returned to the land in the form of forest restoration activities,
activities that will eventually be a cost to the Forest Service if no
action is taken.
In addition, had the burned timber been offered for sale in the
fall of 2000 (as the state of Montana did) it would have probably
prevented the permanent layoff of 40 workers at our company, a loss of
over $1,500,000 in wages annually in the Eureka area. As a sidebar,
local businesses have also been reducing their workforce and their
hours, of operation, not to mention the school district has amended its
free lunch program to accommodate residents who no longer can afford to
provide lunches for their children.
I have addressed the projected waste of wood, delayed restoration
efforts and job losses resulting from the loss of 11,000,000 board
feet; at the same time, I am very concerned about the continued
deterioration of the wood left standing. You should realize by now that
as our forests deteriorate so does our customary way of life. Social
values charge, crime becomes more predominant and county government
incurs the burden of providing more and more services with less
revenues.
There will be a substantial negative economic consequence to the
Eureka area if the remaining burned timber is not advertised for sale
in an expedited fashion, while it still has enough value to turn it
into lumber of a quality that allows our company or others to compete
with lumber produced and imported by foreign countries.
To be quite blunt, I will assess the direction of the USFS timber
sale program this summer, focusing on the fire areas. Based upon your
performance I will make a decision either to go to auction or keep
operating. In good conscience I cannot let the lives of my employees
hinge on false hopes created by flawed projections and missed deadlines
which have become all to common within the Forest Service. The
devastation caused by our closing would be of a magnitude not felt in
this area since the Great Depression. To elaborate, the job count would
go like this:
Owens and Hurst Lumber Company............................ 65
Lone Pine Timber Industries............................... 35
Four logging contractors.................................. 20
Independent log haulers................................... 10
Eureka Pellet Mills....................................... 30
______
Total industry related jobs............................. 160
The elimination of one hundred and sixty jobs would suck
approximately six million dollars, in wages only, from a local economy
that is already staggering from the loss of forty positions. The
societal upheaval that would result from such an unnecessary event is
unimaginable.
From a forest health standpoint, the demise of yet another mill
creates problems of a huge magnitude for the Forest Service. If the
agency takes an aggressive move toward forest health restoration
projects the necessary infrastructure to do the work and process the
material will be lost, as evidenced by similar situations in New Mexico
and Arizona. What will be the resultant cost to the government and the
environment?
Your people openly admit that without a mill in Eureka their
opportunities for improving forest health diminish greatly. They have
also expressed deep concern about their ability to fight wildfires
without the expertise and equipment provided by our local logging
contractors.
In summary, facts indicate that if 11,000,000 bf of timber is
wasted, a loss of $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 in economic activity plus
other negative consequences will be the result. Regarding the remaining
volume of burned timber, it is imperative to remove fiber and begin the
reforestation process rapidly, to delay has ominous consequences
neither you or I can fully comprehend.
Thank you,
Jim Hurst.
______
Forest Trust,
Santa Fe, NM, March 29, 2001.
Senator Larry Craig,
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Attention: Calli
Daly, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: Enclosed are comments of the Forest Trust on
implementation of the National Fire Plan. Please include these comments
in the record for the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land
Management's hearing of Thursday, March 29, 2001.
Sincerely,
Laura Falk McCarthy,
Assistant Director.
[Enclosure].
Statement of Laura McCarthy, Assistant Director, Forest Trust
On behalf of the Forest Trust, a New Mexico-based organization
dedicated to protecting forest ecosystems and improving the lives of
people in rural communities, I am pleased to share our observations
about how the national fire plan is being implemented in the Southwest.
Our staff includes seven professional foresters and we work principally
with rural communities, landowners, and Forest Service personnel to
meet our goals.
We have noted several wide discrepancies between the plans and
progress reports prepared by the national fire team and implementation
of the national fire plan in the Southwest. In this testimony, I will
provide specific examples of what we have heard the national fire team
say and how we have seen their direction carried out in our region and
in New Mexico in particular.
FOCUS ON REDUCING FIRE THREAT TO COMMUNITIES AT RISK
The national fire team published a preliminary list of communities
at risk in the Federal Register of January 4, 2001 as a first step to
ensure that agency efforts focus on reducing fire risk in the areas
adjacent to these communities. The national fire team also requested
that each national forest provide a list of fuel reduction projects
analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Projects on these lists are considered top candidates for
implementation in FY 2001 with Title IV funding. However, the Forest
Service has not outlined a procedure to ensure that these projects will
benefit the communities at risk.
To illustrate this concern, I compared the list of NEPA-ready fuel
reduction projects for the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests to the
list of communities at risk that was published in the Federal Register.
I found that only 6 of the 40 proposed NEPA ready projects are in
communities at risk. The implication is that it is more important to
meet the fuel reduction target for 2001 than to ensure that the funds
for fuel reduction treatments benefit the communities most at risk.
TAKING ACTION IN THE URBAN WILDLAND INTERFACE
The Federal Register publication suggests that one definition of
the urban wildland interface be adopted. However, some regions and
national forests have already created their own definitions of urban
wildland interface and are using them to plan fuel reduction
treatments. I asked a number of Forest Service personnel in Region 3
their opinion of the proposed definition. Most were unaware that a
draft definition had been published in the Federal Register. One person
who knew of the definition informed me that the selection would make
little difference to decisions about where to implement fuel reduction
treatments. I found this comment disturbing because without a standard
definition of urban wildland interface, there will be no consistency in
the use of emergency fire funds. Furthermore, the attitude that such a
definition will make no real difference is indicative of the disconnect
between the national fire team's rhetoric and the way the fire plan is
being carried out on the ground.
The selection of a definition of urban wildland interface will
guide the agency's decisions about where to apply fuel management
treatments and how to expend the emergency funds. For example, the
definition of urban wildland interface will determine whether emergency
funds can be used to thin forests that are categorized as high-risk but
are miles from population centers. In another example from the
Southwest, the Forest Service drafted a preliminary list of fire
prescriptions for vegetative types within the urban wildland interface.
The prescriptions call for using basal area standards instead of
silvicultural guidelines to thin a diverse range of ponderosa pine and
mixed conifer forest types. Reducing basal areas to 40 to 60 square
feet per acre may be indeed by needed in densely populated areas, but
is not necessarily appropriate in rural settings with scattered
structures.
The definition of urban wildland interface is a significant policy
decision and the Forest Service needs to involve the public in its
formulation. The process proposed in the Federal Register is reasonable
and should be taken seriously within the agency. Once a definition is
adopted, the Forest Service will need to assure that all levels of the
organization use the definition in the same manner.
COLLABORATION WITH CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS
The conference report for the 2001 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act explicitly directs the agencies to collaborate with
state, local, and tribal governments and citizens. My observation of
the Southwest is that some collaboration is taking place, but that it
is limited to relationship building among the various levels of
government. While many see interagency collaboration as welcome
progress, the Forest Trust is concerned that citizens and community
groups are being left-out of the process. For example, a recent meeting
in Albuquerque, NM to kick-off national fire plan implementation in the
Southwest was well attended by State, Tribal and local government
officials, but few community representatives were informed of the
meeting. When I learned of the meeting, I made three attempts to get
information about it. I was first told, by a regional fire plan
coordinator, that the meeting was by invitation only. Despite the fact
that the regional fire team intended the meeting to be open to the
public, the message I received was that the process was closed.
Collaboration is a Congressional expectation that is hard to
measure. Furthermore, it takes a considerable amount of time to foster.
Yet, the Forest Service needs to be accountable for the collaborative
goals in the Appropriation Bill, even if that means emphasizing
relationships with communities over quick accomplishment of targets.
Experience in the Southwest has demonstrated that projects that are
planned and implemented without collaboration are more likely to end up
in an appeal. By contrast, when planning proceeds slowly and involves
many stakeholders, there tend to be fewer impediments to
implementation. Thus, we recommend that the Forest Service be asked to
create some measures of successful collaboration to accompany the
accomplishment reporting to Congress.
FOCUS OF FIRE-RELATED RESEARCH
The Title IV funds present a great opportunity to shift the Forest
Service's focus away from research-as-usual to address the compelling
need for information about the effectiveness of fuel management
treatments. Ross Gorte of the Congressional Research Service pointed to
one of the most significant research needs in his memo of September 20,
2000, where he states that ``It is logical, and widely accepted, that
reducing fuels will reduce the severity of wildfires, but no research
literature documenting this relationship has been found.'' Therefore,
we were surprised to learn how few of the research projects funded by
Title IV address the effectiveness of fuel management treatments at
reducing fire intensity and the frequency and severity of crown fires.
The majority of research projects are not directly linked to the issues
raised by the 2000 fire season, for example research about fire in
Northeastern oak forests. We are concerned that little of the
authorized research will be useful to inform management decisions in
the forests that are most at risk of catastrophic fire.
VIEW FROM THE FIELD
The view from the field is that implementation of the national fire
plan is progressing rapidly and unevenly. The Forest Trust appreciates
the difficulty of the implementation task and commends the Forest
Service for its efforts to get the job done. We are grateful for the
opportunity to share with the Subcommittee our observations of the
discrepancies between the intent of the national fire team and how the
fire plan is being carried out on the ground. We do this not to be
critical, but to provide information that will be useful to evaluate
the progress of program.
______
The Watershed Research and Training Center,
Hayfork, CA, March 31, 2001.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the
hearing on March 29, 2001 on the National Fire Plan. Your commitment to
ensuring that communities have a voice in the process is extraordinary.
It was empowering to be on a panel with four other community leaders
struggling with the same issues my community faces.
The purpose of this letter is two-fold. First, I would offer some
additional thoughts on how the fire plan can serve as a component to
our greater efforts to rebuild rural communities. Second, I would like
to augment my answer to your final question regarding the National Fire
Plan and the criteria for building a sustainable local industry to
utilize the by-products of fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration
projects.
While we are very enthusiastic about the National Fire Plan, and
applaud the investment that Congress has made, we recognize that the
land management agencies need a consistent program of work for all
aspects of forest restoration and maintenance. These include vegetation
management to restore water quality and quantity, protection of
wildlife and aquatic species habitat, soil integrity and other critical
components that are necessary for critical ecological processes to take
place. We hope that the National Fire Plan serves as a way to focus
work around hazardous fuels reduction but recognize that its
effectiveness will depend on the agency having a consistent program of
work in all its program areas.
In response to your question, I would like to add the following
into the record:
1. Working Together for Rural America: 2000 and Beyond
Part A--Integrating Natural Resource Management and Rural Community
Assistance A strategic plan for the USDA Forest Service Economic Action
Programs September 2000--FS-681 (attached)
This strategy was written through a collaborative stakeholder
process, which provided information for the formation of this plan. It
outlines an approach to reconnect people in rural America to a working
landscape through activities of the Rural Community Assistance Program,
the Forest Products Conservation and Recycling Program, and the Market
Development and Expansion Program. The current challenge is to
integrate these EAP (Economic Acton Program) components with the land
management activities of the National Forest System. Please ask the
National Forest System leaders to help you understand how they are
helping to implement the goals of this strategic plan as they carry out
the National Fire Plan.
2. Our sense of the essential elements to help create community-
based approaches to economically sustainable and self-financing small
scale industries in rural areas in relation to the fire plan are:
A. A consistent program of work from the Forest Service and BLM,
including vegetation management for hazardous fuels as well as other
necessary watershed restoration work, including wildlife habitat
rehabilitation, stream restoration, noxious week removal, road work
data collection, sustainable forestry, and monitoring.
B. The expansion of the Economic Action Programs of Cooperative
Forestry. These programs are usually under-funded and heavily
earmarked. They are extremely critical to the development of community-
based, small-scale business development. They need to be available to
more rural forested communities. Community assistance to both federal
lands communities and private forest land communities is essential for
the successful implementation of a fire plan integrated with landscape
level restoration activities and community fire protection.
C. The expansion of the amount of technical expertise available
from the Madison National Forest Products Laboratory, the Forest
Service Research Stations, and University Extension Research Units.
These institutions have proven invaluable as local communities have
searched for the highest and best use of bio-mass from fuels reduction
and forest restoration activities.
D. Credit, business assistance, and marketing assistance from
focused application of existing EDA, RDA, and SBA programs, including
revolving loan funds.
E. Pilot projects in small-scale bio-mass electrical generation
plants integrated with local value-added manufacturing plants. A
percentage of the net revenue from each plant should contribute to a
``watershed restoration and maintenance trust fund'' for long-term
forest health activities (through the FERC license negotiations).
F. Focused application of SBA Hub-zone contracting authorities for
both BLM and the Forest Service as they award service contracts related
to the National Fire Plan Title 4 projects.
G. It is essential for us to understand the outcomes of the
implementation of the National Fire Plan and specifically how the
social, economic, and ecological goals are being met. A monitoring
report for Congress should show:
measures of social impacts: who gets the work and who benefits
1. How many BLM and FS new hires under the Fire Plan came from HUB-
Zone counties? Hub-Zones are census blocks which significantly exceed
the state averages in poverty and unemployment. They are a SBA
designation.
2. How much bio-mass was utilized in businesses within the county
where the fuels reduction project was implemented.
3. What percentage of contracts were awarded locally (within the
county where the work was implemented)? What percentage of contract
dollars were awarded locally.
4. What percentage of contracts were awarded using the new Title IV
Authorities.
5. How many acres were treated which were identified in a
community-based fire plan integrated with an agency strategic fire plan
or another landscape level strategic fire plan.
measures of economic impacts of the fire plan
1. How many new businesses were established in value-added
manufacturing and service contract work.
2. What percentage of bio-mass removed in fuels reduction projects
was utilized.
measures of ecological impacts of the fire plan
1. How many communities-at-risk have completed fuels treatments
adjacent to them which significantly alter the behavior of fire on the
landscape as revealed through fire behavior modeling, comparing pre-
treatment behavior to post treatment behavior. (In other words, was the
scale of the fuels reduction treatments sufficient to alter fire
behavior. The only way to check is through fire behavior models.)
2. What percentage of the fuels reduction treatments (prescribed
fire, mechanical treatments, mechanical treatments with fire) met the
full management prescription. How many treated areas met with water
quality soil covering standards and water quality ``best management
practices''.
Thank you for the opportunity to add to my testimony of March 29th.
Together we can re-build the workforce and manufacturing infrastructure
for a sustainable rural America as we continue to use ``small-scale''
approaches on a large scale.
Sincerely,
Lynn Jungwirth,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of Rick Brown, Conservation Science Support Center, and
Gregory Aplet, Ph.D., The Wilderness Society
INTRODUCTION
Much of the forest landscape in the Intermountain West has been
transformed. Beginning with livestock grazing in the second half of the
19th century and continuing with decades of logging, road-building and
fire exclusion through the 20th century, these changes have degraded
watersheds and habitat for fish and wildlife. These altered forests
also respond very differently to fire, sometimes to the further
detriment of fish, wildlife, and watersheds, as well as endangering the
lives and property of people who have chosen to live within and
adjacent to forest lands.
While these problems can appear daunting, methods to address many
of them are being developed and refined. Unfortunately, progress lags
behind potential for a host of reasons including institutional inertia,
commercial pressures, inter-agency conflicts, budgetary limitations,
lack of political will, and the aesthetic preferences of individual
landowners. Ecological problems are pervasive, and in one sense
restorative actions taken almost anywhere would provide some benefit.
In light of the risk of loss of populations and species of fish and
wildlife, the needs of local human communities, and limited resources
available for restoration efforts, what is needed are strategically
focused, integrated approaches that will get maximum benefits for a
given cost while minimizing unintended adverse effects. Focusing
treatments in high priority areas while integrating aquatic,
terrestrial, and socio-economic considerations should increase the
probability of success of restoring healthy landscapes.
Neither haste nor hesitation is acceptable. Millions of acres in
the Intermountain West could use some form of treatment (including
simple rest from past and ongoing abuses) if we are to avoid
unacceptable effects on wildlife, fish, and human communities. Problems
150 years in the making will take many decades to correct. The needs
are great and our knowledge is adequate to begin but the gaps in our
knowledge are so substantial that these tasks must be approached with
humility and a commitment to learn from both our successes and
mistakes.
FOREST TYPES AND CONDITIONS
While the character and distribution of forests are determined by a
complex of factors, including differences in slope and aspect, the
distinctive responses of each species of tree to environmental factors,
fire history (including burning by Native Americans), and climatic
variation, discussion of the role of fire can be facilitated by a
simplifying characterization of Intermountain forests. Generally, lower
elevations are dominated by dry forests of ponderosa pine (and
sometimes larch and Douglas-fir). Historically, these forests were
shaped by what is sometimes referred to as a ``stand-maintenance'' fire
regime of low-severity, frequent fires that generally burned grasses,
brush, small trees, and fallen needles and branches, but had little
effect on older trees with thick insulating bark. Death of lower
branches from shading or the effects of fire raised the bottom of the
canopy to the point where it was not adversely affected by the typical
fire. Periodically, small groups of older trees were killed by bark
beetles and, often after falling, would be consumed by fire. This would
leave exposed mineral soil and an opening in the canopy, ideal
conditions for establishment of a group of young pine trees, which
would be thinned by competition, insects, disease and fire as they grew
older, eventually replacing the patch of older trees that previously
occupied the site. This dynamic would repeat across the landscape,
producing extensive stands of large old trees that appeared even-aged
but were actually comprised of many patches of trees of different ages
(Weaver 1943). The clearing effects of fire produced the classic
``park-like'' stands of old-growth pine described by early settlers.
While some areas still resemble historic conditions, it is these
dry-site forests of ponderosa pine that typically have been changed the
most by human activities in the last 150 years. Livestock grazing
depleted the fine fuels that carried the light, frequent fires, while
their hooves exposed mineral soil seedbeds for young ponderosa pine
(Swetnam et al. 1999). Fire suppression, beginning after 1910 and
becoming effective around 1940, allowed far more of these trees to
persist, while logging removed most of the large old trees. These
forests may have been deprived of ten or more natural fire cycles. The
result is forests that, due to continuing fire suppression, tend to
burn less frequently, but when they do burn, the fire is much more
likely to reach the forest canopy and spread as a crown fire, killing
many or all of the overstory trees. A historically low-severity fire
regime has turned into a high-severity or mixed-severity fire regime, a
change that has occurred over millions of acres in the West (USDA
Forest Service 2000a, Skinner and Chang 1996). These higher severity
fires are more apt to have detrimental effects on soils and watersheds,
as well as wildlife habitat. They can also have serious implications
for humans who have chosen to settle in and around these forests.
Mid-elevation forests are more difficult to describe in general
terms. Cooler, moister conditions allow less drought- and fire-tolerant
species such as grand fir and white fir, as well as Douglas-fir,
western larch and ponderosa pine, to grow in these areas. In some areas
presettlement fire patterns produced ponderosa pine-dominated stands
similar to the drier forests at lower elevations. Complex species
distributions and variable environmental conditions produce a ``mixed''
fire regime in which fires could range from low to high severity,
depending on fuel buildup, weather conditions, and topography,
producing a ``mosaic'' of stand conditions and wildlife habitat that
would shift across the landscape over time. These mid-elevation
forests, which tend to be the most productive, have been heavily
altered by logging and road-building, and fire suppression has allowed
the development of more dense, multi-storied forests on more of the
landscape. The fire regime can still be described as mixed, but the
relative proportion of fire types has shifted, and severe fires are
more likely to occur on more of the landscape than they would have
historically.
At still higher elevations, forests of subalpine fir, Englemann
spruce, mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine predominated. These forests
are slower-growing, but cool, moist conditions generally caused
significant fires to be infrequent, allowing greater accumulations of
wood. The fire regime for these forests can be described as weather-
dominated in that high fuel loadings are typical and the fire events
that determine forest patterns occur under uncommon, extreme weather
conditions that can result in stand-replacing fires over large areas
(Agee 1997b). While logging and road-building have had some very
detrimental effects on these forests, the fundamental dynamics are
relatively little-changed since fire suppression has been effective for
less than one natural fire cycle. Fuel levels may suggest a high fire
``hazard'' under conventional assessments, but negative ecological
consequences of wildfire are likely to be minimal, as demonstrated by
the Yellowstone fires of 1988 (Romme and Despain 1989, Knight and
Wallace 1989).
RESTORATION GOALS AND PRIORITIES
There appears to be broad agreement that some form and degree of
restoration of habitats, populations of fish and wildlife, productivity
of soils, integrity of watersheds is appropriate. One commonly
suggested approach is to restore landscapes to some semblance of
``presettlement'' conditions, within their ``historical range of
variability.'' As Swanson and others (1994) put it, ``A key premise of
ecosystem management . . . is that native species have adapted to and,
in part, evolved with the natural disturbance events of the Holocene
(past 10,000 year) environment. Accordingly, the potential for survival
of native species is reduced if their environment is pushed outside the
range of its natural variability.'' While attempts to strictly recreate
conditions of the past will often be neither desirable nor feasible
(Hessburg et al. 1999, Swanson et al. 1994), careful determinations of
past conditions can help clarify the types and extent of changes that
have occurred in ecosystems, and help inform the identification of
management objectives and restoration priorities. Understanding
historical condition is also critical to the concept of ``ecological
integrity'' (Angenneier and Karr 1994), which looks beyond forest
structure to incorporate the essential components basic to ecosystem
sustainability: soils, water, species and habitat diversity, resistance
to disturbance and evolutionary potential (Perry 1998). Effective
communication across traditional disciplinary boundaries will be
essential to the determination of appropriate restoration goals based
on historical conditions.
Ecological restoration efforts are often categorized as either
active or passive. Passive restoration is the ``cessation of . . .
activities that are causing degradation or preventing recovery,''
(Kauffman et al. 1997) and can be considered the first step in
restoration (National Research Council 1996). The primary techniques
employed in active restoration include thinning of undesired trees and
other vegetation, the intentional use of fire, closure and obliteration
of roads, control of off-road vehicles, improved livestock management,
in-stream work, and noxious weed control. Though all of these actions
are critical to comprehensive ecosystem restoration, we focus our
discussion here on the two techniques most frequently discussed for the
Intermountain West, thinning and prescribed fire, and we offer
recommendations for their use.
Focus on water and watersheds
The high value of water, the widespread degradation of watersheds,
and the prevalence of at-risk populations of fish require that these
values receive special consideration in forest management decisions,
including forest restoration. Strategies for conserving both aquatic
and terrestrial resources at multiple scales are based on similar
principles: secure areas with high ecological integrity (``anchor
habitats''), extend these areas, and connect them at the landscape
level (Lee et al. 1997, Gresswell 1999). An approach that
simultaneously considers the condition of a watershed and its
associated forests, and the status of aquatic populations (Rieman et
al. 2000) appears to offer the best prospects for balancing potentially
competing objectives. Simplistic assumptions that what's good for the
forest will be good for watersheds and fish will not suffice.
Successful forest restoration may help improve watershed resilience and
thus aquatic habitats, but active forest restoration carries a risk of
further degrading watersheds, especially if it involves road
construction or other soil disturbance (Gresswell 1999, Lee et al.
1997). Healthy fish populations can be quite resilient to the effects
of wildfire (Gresswell 1999). Most often, healthy populations are
associated with roadless or wilderness areas and cool moist forests
that have been relatively little affected by logging and fire
suppression (Lee et al. 1997, Rieman et al. 2000). Prescribed fire
(ignited either by humans or lightning) may be the best means of
managing and restoring these areas (Rieman et al. 2000). Active
restoration involving both thinning and prescribed fire may be more
appropriate in more heavily roaded, lower elevation forests and in
areas adjacent to more intact watersheds (Lee et al. 1997).
Account for rare ecosystem elements
Determination of restoration goals needs to recognize potential
conflicts or trade-offs among reasonable objectives. Aggressively
modifying stands to be highly resistant to severe fire may
unintentionally degrade watersheds and habitats for fish and wildlife
(Rieman and Clayton 1997, Gresswell 1999). Heavily thinning stands to
reduce canopy density and the risk of spread of crown fire may degrade
habitat for wildlife needing more closed-forest conditions. For
example, on the east side of the Cascades, fire suppression has
resulted in the development of northern spotted owl habitat
uncharacteristic of dry forests, but these "unnatural'' stands now
provide habitat critical to the species' survival. In other places,
opening the canopy may increase erosion and degrade aquatic habitats.
Watershed analysis should provide a mechanism for identifying and
resolving potential conflicts among objectives.
Protect riparian areas
Riparian areas provide habitat benefits for wildlife far out of
proportion to these streamside areas' relatively limited distribution
on the landscape, notably for migratory birds (Marcot et al. 1997).
Riparian areas and the vegetation they support are also essential to
the quality of water and aquatic habitats and contribute many functions
to ecosystem integrity (National Research Council 1996). Logging in
riparian areas can cause ground disturbance resulting in sediment
delivery to streams, and can reduce shade and the input of large wood
to streams, thus degrading aquatic habitat. Riparian areas and their
relationship to broader landscapes are highly complex, as are the risks
of wildfire, which may be the same, less or greater than in adjacent
uplands (Agee 1999). While precommercial thinning may have some
application in riparian areas (Gregory 1997), restoration treatments
should initially focus on uplands (Johnson et al. 1995, Lee et al.
1997). Larger trees may not need to be thinned in riparian areas, but
if they are, they can be left on the floodplain or placed in the
channel (Gregory 1997). Prescribed fire, carefully applied based on
site-specific analysis, may be the most appropriate treatment in
riparian areas (Kauffman et al. 1997, Agee 1999).
Stay low
Thinning for restoration does not appear to be appropriate in
higher elevation, cold, moist forests (Agee and Huff 1986). These
forests have often not yet missed a full fire cycle and the historical
dynamic of generally high fuel loadings and a fire regime dominated by
weather-driven, lethal fires has not changed significantly. Efforts to
manipulate stand structures to reduce fire risk are apt not only to be
futile (Agee 1996, 1998a), but also to move systems away from
presettlement conditions to the detriment of wildlife and watersheds
(Johnson et al. 1995, Weatherspoon 1996).
Low elevation, dry forests appear to offer the clearest
opportunities for thinning--in conjunction with prescribed fire--to
contribute to restoration of wildlife habitat while making forests more
resistant to uncharacteristically severe fire. Within this zone, high
forest integrity will generally be associated with the presence of old
growth trees, especially ponderosa pine. Highest priority should be
given to securing high-integrity ``anchor habitats'' that still closely
resemble historic conditions, which can be maintained with prescribed
fire alone. Adjacent areas that have developed dense post-settlement
understories are apt to be a priority for restoration treatment with
thinning and/or fire to help reduce the likelihood of crown fire
spreading into the high integrity stands. Treatment of these areas
could help to secure the remnant intact stands from wildfire risks
while extending more natural stand conditions across the landscape,
eventually connecting high-integrity areas. In general, protection of
remnant old growth pine, from stands to individual trees, should be a
top priority, in light of how depleted these trees have become and
their importance not only as habitat but also as genetic and scientific
resources (Henjum et al. 1994, Wickman 1992). On the other hand,
reproduction of ponderosa pine is infrequent and unpredictable (White
1985), and care should be taken to retain young pine trees necessary to
replace old trees as they eventually die.
Mid-seral ponderosa pine stands (roughly 60 to 100 years old) may
represent a secondary priority for restoration treatments. These stands
are often well on the way to developing old growth characteristics, and
treatments to help ensure that this trend is maintained can increase
the probability that old growth habitats are restored more quickly than
they would be otherwise. Thinning to remove smaller trees can reduce
the risk of fire spreading into the canopy, while improving the growth
rate of remaining trees. Variable density thinning can help mimic the
clumped distribution and associated processes found in pre-settlement
stands (Harrod et al. 1999). Conventional silvicultural treatments tend
to thin to a density low enough to have a low likelihood of attack by
bark beetles. Leaving some areas at a density greater than this would
allow bark beetles to continue to function as source of mortality,
providing a key food source for woodpeckers and influencing subsequent
decay of snags (George and Zack in press). Rather than taking stands to
desired densities in a single treatment, it may be more appropriate to
use thinning to make stands less vulnerable to severe wildfire
(Stephenson 1999, Agee and Huff 1986) while allowing fire, insects and
disease to maintain a trajectory toward old growth conditions.
Stay below
``Thinning'' generally refers to ``understory thinning,''
``thinning from below'' or ``low thinning'' to describe the cutting and
removal of small trees that may be necessary to meet objectives for
restoration of habitat and fire regimes. Some have argued that thinning
from below does not sufficiently open the canopy to breakup fuels and
reduce fire danger, and they have proposed the removal of large trees
in what is known as a ``crown thinning.'' However, in most cases, it is
the vertical continuity of fuels, not the continuity of the canopy that
most needs to be disrupted. As Agee et al. (2000) note, ``Fuel
fragmentation does not have to be associated with structural
fragmentation or overstory removal, but must be associated with . . .
reduction of surface fuels and increases in height to live crown as a
first priority, and decreases in crown closure as a second priority . .
. Thinning must be linked with surface fuel reduction and increases in
height to live crown to be an effective fuel treatment.'' Thinning from
below directly addresses this need by removing the fuel ladder that can
carry fire up into the canopy. In those instances where restoration
requires opening of the canopy, the effect can be achieved by an
aggressive low thinning. After more than a century of commercial
logging of western forests, large trees are simply too rare on the
landscape to allow them to be removed in a ``restoration'' treatment.
Treat fine fuels with prescribed fire
Restoration objectives may be accomplished by prescribed fire alone
in some forest types (Agee and Huff 1986, Weatherspoon 1996). However,
thinning alone, which may successfully reduce fire hazard, is very
unlikely to meet ecological objectives unless it is combined with
prescribed fire (Weatherspoon 1996) since thinning cannot replicate
many of the beneficial ecological effects of fire (National Research
Council 1999) Thinning can also lead to more severe fires (Agee 1996,
Weatherspoon 1996), especially through inadequate treatment of logging
slash. Thinning without subsequent prescribed fire to consume fine
fuels, like needles and small branches, will likely do nothing to
reduce fire danger or restore ecosystem health (van Wagtendonk 1996,
Stephens 1998). Of course, neither thinning nor fire will be a panacea;
both must be used, but used thoughtfully. Nothing will make forests
fire proof, but it appears feasible to make some forests more ``fire
safe,'' as long as prescribed fire is used to reduce fine fuels.
Avoid disturbing soils
One potential problem with understory thinning operations is that
the low value of the wood being removed encourages the use of low-cost
logging methods. This typically means ground-based equipment, which can
have seriously detrimental effects on soils. Soil compaction, which can
take decades to recover (Harvey et al. 1989), both reduces plant growth
and inhibits infiltration of water, increasing erosion, sedimentation
and spring run-off. Fire can also adversely affect soils, but these
effects are relatively short-lived (Rieman and Clayton 1997), and
should not be presumed to give license to unnecessarily degrade soils
during thinning operations. To maintain both ecological integrity and
management credibility, it will be essential to employ low-impact
equipment and use it properly (Johnson et al. 1995).
Avoid roads and protect roadless areas
The adverse ecological effects of roads are legion (Furniss et al.
1991, Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and road construction to access
thinning sites is highly unlikely to be justified either ecologically
or economically. Limitations on road construction and other soil
disturbance will also help limit the spread of invasive exotic plants
(noxious weeds). In the interest of getting necessary work done,
restoration efforts should focus on already roaded portions of the
landscape, where controversy is less and there is no shortage of stands
appropriate for treatment. Roadless watersheds have the highest levels
of ecological integrity and the greatest resiliency to wildfires
largely due to the absence of logging and road construction (USDA
Forest Service and USDI BLM 1997). Accordingly, they are the lowest
priority for restoration.
Concentrate on the wildland-urban interface
The wildland-urban interface or ``intermix zone'' is often not very
precisely defined but generally describes areas where human housing
intermingles with mostly forested land. The dramatic fires of the 2000
fire season have put the interface zone fully in the national public
eye. Growing political attention, although tardy and prone to
misdirection, may be appropriate. Not only are human property and lives
at risk, but the interface zone most typically occurs in the dry forest
types that are most amenable to restoration efforts combining
mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. The presence of people,
their developments, and their pets mean that habitat values are already
somewhat compromised, reducing the severity of some of the unintended
consequences that may accompany restoration efforts. On the other hand,
the close proximity of people can complicate prescribed burning
programs. Perhaps the most important consideration regarding efforts to
make the interface zone fire safe is that treatment of public forest
lands alone will not be enough. The crucial area for treatment is
within 40 yards of structures (most apt to be private land), and even
here vegetation treatment alone will not suffice (Cohen 1999).
Structures must be built or retrofitted to incorporate fire-safe
elements such as metal roofs and shutters. Human values at risk may
suggest that the interface zone is a priority for attention, but
without investment in these structural modifications, public investment
in forest treatment is pointless.
CONCLUSION
While there is much to be learned about the current status of
forested ecosystems on National Forest lands and about the efficacy of
thinning and prescribed fire to make these forests more sustainable, it
appears clear that action must be taken to reverse trends of
degradation, and that thinning and fire can play a role in these
restoration efforts. Because thinning is a form of logging, and because
of decades of Smokey Bear's education about the evils of forest fire,
both techniques will be controversial with at least some portions of
the public. Every effort should be made to apply these tools
thoughtfully, in ways and in locations where they will have the highest
prospects for success and the lowest likelihood of unintended
consequences. Based on current knowledge, it appears that the most
credible efforts will:
be part of comprehensive ecosystem and watershed
restoration;
consider landscape context, and protect rare habitats, such
as old growth, and populations of rare fish and wildlife;
avoid riparian areas;
focus on low-elevation, dry forest types;
focus thinning efforts on the smallest diameter classes and
retain all large, old (pre-settlement) trees and provide for
their replacement over time;
treat thinning slas and other surface fuels with prescribed
fire;
have negligible adverse effects on soils and prevent the
spread of invasive plants;
protect roadless areas and avoid construction of new roads;
concentrate resources on the wildland-urban interface and
incorporate monitoring as an essential element and cost of the
project;
learn from monitoring and adapt management accordingly.
It may not be feasible to address all of these considerations for
every area, but managers who focus their attention on areas where these
criteria can be met will have greater prospects for building the
experience and credibility that will allow greater discretion in the
future. It will also be essential to acknowledge how little empirical
scientific study supports assumptions of the efficacy of thinning to
restore habitat and reduce fire risk. While additional scientific
research is necessary, much can also be learned from routine
monitoring, especially if it is structured to reflect a more consistent
case studies approach, which could be facilitated by regional guidance
from Forest Service research stations. Support within the Forest
Service and from the Congress for research, administrative studies, and
monitoring will be crucial to refining techniques and building public
trust. As much as scientific knowledge, that trust must form the basis
for successful action.
REFERENCES
Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior.
Presented at the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management
Conference, Redding CA, January 16-18, 1996.
Agee, J.K. 1997b. The severe weather wildfire--too hot to handle?
Northwest Science 71: 153-156.
Agee, J.K. 1998a. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes.
Northwest Science, Vol. 72 Special Issue
Agee, J.K. 1999. A coarse-filter strategy. Forum for Applied Research
and Public Policy 14 (1): 15-19.
Agee, J.K., B. Bahro, M.A. Finney, P.N. Orm, D.B. Sapsis, C.N. Skinner,
J.W. van Wagtendonk, C.P. Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded
fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and
Management 4801 (1999): 1-12.
Agee, J.K. and M.H. Huff. 1986. Structure and process goals for
vegetation in wilderness areas. Pages 17-25 in R.C. Lucas,
compiler. Proceedings--National wilderness research conference:
current research, 23-26 July 1985, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-212.
Angenneier, P.L. and J.R. Karr. 1994. Biological integrity versus
biological diversity as policy directives. BioScience 44: 690-
697.
Cohen, Jack D. 1999. Draft: Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes:
Where and How Much? USDA Forest Service--Rocky Mountain
Research Station.
Furniss, M.J., Roelofs, T.D. and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and
Maintenance in Meehan, W.R.. ed. Influences of Forest and
Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:297-323.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
George, T.L. and S. Zack. In Press. Spatial and Temporal Considerations
in Restoring Habitat for Wildlife. Restoration Ecology. (Paper
presented at Society for Ecological Restoration annual meeting,
The Presidio, San Francisco, CA, September, 1999.)
Gregory, S.V. 1997. Riparian Management in the 21st Century in Kohm,
K.A. and J.F. Franklin, eds., Creating a Forestry for the 21st
Century, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of
North America. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc, 128: 193-221.
Harrod, R.J., H.M. Bradner, and W.E. Hard. 1999. Historical stand
reconstruction in ponderosa pine forests to guide silvicultural
prescriptions. Forest Ecology and Management 114: 433-446.
Harvey, A.E., R.T. Meurisse, J.M. Geist, M.F. Jurgensen, G.I. McDonald,
R.T. Graham, and N. Stark. 1989. Managing Productivity
Processes in the Inland Northwest--Mixed Conifers and Pines in
Perry and others, eds., Maintaining the Long-Term Productivity
of Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems. Timber Press, Portland,
Oregon.
Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G.
Wright, S.A. Beckwitt and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim protection
for late- successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds:
National forests east of the Cascades crest, Oregon and
Washington. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 94-2,
Bethesda, MD. 245 PI). Hessburg, P.F., G.B. Smith and R.B.
Salter. 1999. Detecting change in forest spatial patterns from
reference conditions. Ecological Applications 9:1232-1252.
Johnson, K.N., J. Agee, R. Beschta, J. Beuter, S. Gregory, L. Kellogg,
W. McComb, J. Sedell, T. Schowalter and S. Tesch. 1995. Forest
Health and Timber Harvest on National Forests in the Blue
Mountains of Oregon. A Report to Governor Kitzhaber.
Kauffman, J. Boone, R.L. Beschta, N. Otting and D. Lytjen. 1997. An
Ecological Perspective of Riparian and Stream Restoration in
the Western United States. Fisheries, vol. 22, no. 5. Knight,
D.H. and L.L. Wallace. 1989. The yellowstone fires: issues in
landscape ecology. Bioscience 39 (10): 700-706.
Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow and J.E. Williams.
1997. Broadscale Assessment of Aquatic Species and Habitats in
Quigley, T.M. and S. Arbelbide, tech. eds., An Assessment of
Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin. Volume
III. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405.
Marcot, B.G., M.A. Castellano, J.A. Christy, L.K. Croft, J.F.
Lehrrikuhl, R.H. Naney, R.E. Rostentreter, R.E. Sandquist and
E. Zieroth. 1997. Terrestrial Ecology Assessment in Quigley,
T.M. and S. Arbelbide, tech. eds., An Assessment of Ecosystem
Components in the Interior Columbia Basin. Volume Ill. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-405.
National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the
Pacific Northwest. Committee on Protection and Management of
Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids.
National Research Council. 1999. Environmental Issues in Pacific
Northwest Forest Management. National Academy Press.
Washington, DC. 259 pp.
Perry, D.A. 1998. The Scientific Basis of Forestry. Ann. Rev. Ecol.
Syst. 29:435-66.
Rieman, B.E. and J. Clayton. 1997. Wildfire and native fish: issues of
forest health of sensitive species. Fisheries 22 (11): 6-15.
Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, R.F. Thurow, P.F. Hessburg and J.R. Sedell.
2000. Toward an integrated classification of ecosystems:
defining opportunities for managing fish and forest health.
Environmental Management 25(4):425-444.
Romme, W.H. and D.G. Despain. 1989. Historical perspective on the
Yellowstone fires of 1988. Bioscience 39 (10): 695-699.
Skinner, C.N., and Chi-ru Chang. 1996. Fire regimes, past and present
in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress.
Chapter 38, Vol. II Assessments and Scientific Basis for
Management Options. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37.
Davis: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of
California; 1041-1069.
Stephens, S.L. 1998. Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and
fuels treatments on potential fire behaviour in Sierra Nevada
mixed-conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 105: 21-
38.
Stephenson, N.L. 1999. Reference conditions for Giant Sequoia forest
restoration: structure, process, and precision. Ecological
Applications 9: 1253-1265.
Swanson, F.J., J.A. Jones, D.O. Wallin and J.H. Cissel. 1994. Natural
Variability--Implications for Ecosystem Management in Jensen,
M.E. and P.S. Bourgeron, eds. Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health
Assessment, Vol. II: Ecosystem Management: Principles and
Applications. USDA Forest PNW Research Station, General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-318.
Swetnarn, T.W., C.D. Allen and J.L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied
historical ecology: using the past to manage the future.
Ecological Applications 9: 1189-1206.
Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of
Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation
Biology 14 (1): 18-30.
USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. 2000a. Protecting People and
Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive
Strategy. The Forest Service management response to the General
Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65, April 13, 2000.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Eastside
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region.
van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a Deterministic Fire Growth Model to
Test Fuel Treatments. Pages 1155-1166 in Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. II
Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options.
Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of
California, Davis.
Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships in Sierra
forests in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to
Congress, Vol. II, Chapter 44. University of California,
Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, California.
Weaver, H. 1943. Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in the
ponderosa pine region of the Pacific slope. Journal of Forestry
41 (1): 7-15.
White, A.S. 1985. Presettlement regeneration patterns in a southwestern
ponderosa pine stand. Ecology, 66 (2): 589-594.
Wickman, B.E. 1992. Forest Health in the Blue Mountains: The influence
of insects and disease. USDA Forest Service, General Technical
Report PNW-GTR-295.
______
Statement of the National Environmental and Religious Organizations and
Coalition, and the Regional and Local Grassroots Forest Protection
Organizations
Hon. Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior, Washington DC.
Dear Sirs: On behalf of the undersigned national and grassroots
forest protection organizations, we are writing to express concern
about provisions in the Interior Appropriations bill which threaten to
increase logging and undermine good stewardship on the public lands. We
were pleased with the Administration's efforts to underscore the
importance of avoiding another salvage logging debacle, protecting
roadless areas and prioritizing the noncommercial removal of brush and
shrubs in the recent report to the President.
We feel that similar efforts are required in preparing for the
expenditure of the significant funds provided for hazardous fuels
reduction and rehabilitation in the Interior Appropriations bill. Of
particular concern are the provisions concerning mechanical treatments
for hazardous fuels reduction, timber sale funding levels and the
stewardship contracting rider.
hazardous fuel treatments lack environmental safeguards
Our community strongly supports a scientifically sound fuels'
reduction program targeted to protect communities in the urban
wildlands interface. However, the fuels reduction language lacks
adequate environmental safeguards to protect Wilderness, roadless
areas, old growth forests, endangered species habitat and riparian
areas. We request the Secretaries issue a directive to ensure that
these ecologically critical areas will be excluded from mechanical
fuels reduction projects.
In addition, we believe direction is needed to ensure that fuels
reduction projects focus on the fine and surface fuels which create the
greatest fire risks. Forest Service fire staff indicate the priority
for treatment should primarily be trees below 4" inches in diameter. We
urge the Secretaries to direct the agency to develop ecologically-sound
treatment criteria to prevent the logging of large trees.
The Interior bill also includes language providing the
Administration with an option to develop expedited NEPA procedures
within the next 60 days. We are strongly opposed to any weakening of
the current NEPA procedures and public involvement in decision-making
for fuels reduction projects. Instead, we urge you to utilize existing
NEPA regulations, which have been carefully developed and time-tested
in planning and reviewing projects to be conducted with these funds.
Moreover, fuels reduction options entail great uncertainty about
effectiveness and often--especially in cases of mechanical removal of
vegetation--are accompanied by significant environmental harm. As
practiced to date, therefore, they generally are among the land
management activities most needing careful consideration and public
input. We respectfully urge the Administration not to exercise this
authority to expedite NEPA procedures.
We also believe the funding increase for fuels reduction could be
better targeted to protect communities at risk from wildfire. Forest
Service research indicates that to protect homes and communities, the
focus for treatments should be within 200 feet of the structure, not in
distant wildlands or forests located miles away. We urge the
Administration to adopt this standard and to redirect emergency fuels
reduction funds to support the Firewise program and other cooperative
efforts for community protection. In addition, to property owners and
communities, to fireproof their homes and businesses are needed to help
clear brush and replace wooden roofs with metal ones.
There is a significant increase in funding for preparedness
activities. We urge the Administration to make the completion of fire
management plans the top property for these funds. Currently only 5% of
the National Forests have completed fire management plans which were
mandated by the Fire Management Policy of 1995.
The Interior bill directs that $15 million in fuels reduction funds
shall be used to implement the Quincy Library Group Plan which could
allow these funds to be used for commercial logging. This Plan calls
for extensive logging in the name of fuels reduction in the Sierra
Nevada and is strongly opposed by the environmental community. We are
concerned that funds intended for fuels reduction will go instead for a
logging program that will cause environmental harm and not reduce fire
risks. We urge the Secretaries to direct that none of the Quincy funds,
or other emergency hazardous fuels funds will be spent on or in
conjunction with commercial timber sales.
We are concerned that the Forest Service and BLM will attempt to
take old projects off the shelf including timber sales, that are not
environmentally sound fuels reduction projects. We urge the Secretaries
to direct the agency to not spend emergency fuels reduction funds on
timber sales and to ensure that all old projects are reviewed to ensure
that they have an exclusive fuel reduction objective.
There is serious concern about language in the Administration's
fire policy supporting salvage logging to recoup fuels reduction costs.
There is strong scientific opinion that salvage logging does more harm
to forest ecosystems than good. Focusing on economic recovery could
undermine the ecological restoration goals of this program and
encourage harmful resource extraction. We urge the Secretaries to
exclude salvage logging from the fuels reduction program.
We are also concerned that funds intended to address hazardous
fuels issues in Western forests, will be spent on Eastern forests which
do not have the same, ecological needs. The relatively moist Southern
Appalachian forests, for example, naturally limit the spread of fire.
Fuel reduction bears little relevance to the decline of native forest
types, which is a major threat confronting the Southern Appalachians.
We urge the Secretaries to not spend emergency fuels reduction funds in
Forest Service regions 8 and 9.
TIMBER TARGET LANGUAGE AND INCREASED SUBSIDIES PROMOTE
IRRESPONSIBLE LOGGING
We appreciate that the Administration opposed and was able to
remove the timber target bill language. However, the Interior bill
still contains timber target language that attempts to urge the Forest
Service to prepare for sale 3.6 billion board feet of timber. This
represents a significant increase in timber sales above the current
level of 2.1 billion board feet.
The timber targets language is backed up by a significant increase
in funding for logging. The bill contains a $40 million increase in
logging subsidies, including $5 million earmarked specifically
targeting Alaska's Tongass National Forest. This $40 million in
additional logging subsidies will lead to more harmful timber sales on
the National Forests. We urge the Secretaries to use this un-asked for
increase to mitigate the environmental degradation from timber sales by
spending it on forest restoration through road decommissioninig and
obliteration.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTS, NEW VEHICLE FOR INCREASED TIMBER PRODUCTION
We appreciate the Administration's efforts that resulted in the
removal of two anti-environmental riders affecting the White River and
White Mountains National Forests from the bill. However, the Interior
bill still contains language that authorizes the Forest Service to
enter into an additional 25 ``end-result'' stewardship contracts.
The ``goods-for-services'' authority in stewardship contracts
allows the Forest Service to trade National Forest trees for contracted
services and could encourage large-scale logging in conjunction with
restoration projects. One current stewardship project in Idaho using
goods-for-services proposes to log 173 million board feet in the name
of ``elk restoration.'' This is one of the largest logging projects in
the nation right now. We urge Secretary Glickman to direct the agency
to forgo this authority and not to issue any additional stewardship
contracts, and to oppose the use of ``goods-for-services.''
When viewed together, the stewardship contracting rider and these
substantial funding increases for timber sales and mechanical hazardous
fuels treatments open the door to a significant increase in logging on
public lands thereby threatening clean water and habitats for
endangered fish and wildlife. We look forward to working with the
Administration to mitigate the potential impacts of these provisions in
the Interior bill.
Sincerely,
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND COALITIONS
Alaska Rainforest Coalition, Matt Zencey, Washington, D.C.
American Lands Alliance, Steve Holmer, Washington, D.C.
Defenders of Wildlife, Mary Beth Beetham, Washington, D.C.
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Marty Hayden, Washington, D.C.
Endangered Species Coalition, Brock Evans, Washington, D.C.
Friends of the Earth, Courtney Cuff, Washington, D.C.
John Muir Project, Rene Voss, Washington, D.C.
National Audubon Society, Dan Beard, Washington, D.C.
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Robert Gronski, Des Moines, IA
National Environmental Trust, Robert Vandermark, Washington, D.C.
National Forest Protection Alliance, Jeanette Russell, Missoula, MT
Native Forest Network--Public Lands Project, Matthew Koehler, Missoula,
MT
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nathaniel Lawrence, Olympia, WA
Network for Environmental and Economic Responsibility of the United
Church of Christ (USA)
Pacific Rivers Council, David Bayles, Eugene, OR
Sierra Club, Melanie Griflin, Washington, D.C.
The Wilderness Society, Michael Francis, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Tiernan Sittenfeld, Washington,
D.C.
World Wildlife Fund, Dominick Dellasala, Ashland, OR
REGIONAL AND LOCAL GRASSROOTS FOREST PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONS
100 Percent Natural Productions, Scott Whinery, Tarzana, CA
Allegheny Defense Project, Rachel Martin, Clarion, PA
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Mike Wood, Missoula, MT
American Wildlands, Deb Kmon, Bozeman, MT
Audubon Society of Corvallis, Jim Fairchild, Corvallis, OR
Blue Mountain Audubon Society, Chris Howard, Walla Walla, WA
CAFIG (Corvallis Area Forest Issues Group), Claudia McCue, Monroe, OR
California Trout, Inc., R. Brett Matzke, Coarsegold, CA
California Wilderness Coalition, Paul Spitler, Davis, CA
Cascadia Fire Ecology Education Project, Catia Juliana, Eugene, OR
Cascadia Forest Alliance, Donald Fontenot, Portland, OR
Cascadia Wildlands Project, James Johnston, Eugene, OR
Center for Biological Diversity, Todd Schulke, Tucson, AZ
Center for Native Ecosystems, Jon Jenson, Boulder, CO
Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Craig Thomas, Georgetown, CA
Center for Social Justice and Global Awareness, James Facette, San
Antonio, TX
Central Cascades Alliance, Kimberly Burkland, Hood River, OR
Central Oregon Forest Issues Committee, Steve Huddleston, Bend, OR
Citizens for Better Forestry, Susan Hope Bower, Hayfork, CA
Civilian Filibuster, Erik Holland, Reno, NV
Clearwater Biodiversity Project, Chuck Pezeshki, Moscow, ID
Coast Range Association, Chuck Willer, Corvallis, Oregon
Colorado Wild, Jeffrey Berman, Durango, CO
Columbia River Conservation League, Bob Wilson, Richland, WA
Cumberland Greens Bioregional Council, Howard Switzer
Dakubetede Environmental Education Programs, Laurel Sutherlin,
Jacksonville, OR
Deerlodge Forest Defense Fund, Paul Richards, Boulder, MT
Drake Environmental Action League, Rose Winkeler, Des Moines, IA
Forest Conservation Council, Bryan Bird, Boca Raton, FL
Forest Guardians, Sam Hitt, Santa Fe, NM
Forest Unity Network Jay Gerring, Seattle, WA
Friends of the Abajos Dan Kent, Moab, Utah
Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, Kevin Proescholdt,
Minneapolis, MN
Friends of the Bitterroot, Larry Campbell, Hamilton, MT
Georgia ForestWatch, Randall F. White, Ellijay, GA
Green-Rock Audubon Society, Bill Hallstrom, Beloit, WI
Headwaters, Inc., Jim Ince, Ashland, OR
Heartwood, Alison Cochran, Bloomington, IN
Helping Expressions, Guy Errickson
The Highlands Chapter of the Western North Carolina Alliance, Dave
Barstow, Highlands, NC
Hoosier Hikers Council, Suzanne Mittenthal, Martinsville, IN
Illinois Student Environmental Network Laura Huth, Urbana, IL
International Primate Protection League, Shirley McGreal
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, Jim Britell, Pt. Orford, OR
Kettle Range Conservation Group, Timothy J. Coleman, Republic, WA
Klamath Forest Alliance, Carol Wright Etna, CA
Lake Region Audubon Society, John Perry, Lake Superior Greens, Jan
Conley, Superior, WI
League of Women Voters, Pat MacRobbie, Sequim, WA
Leavenworth Audubon Adopt-a-Forest, Pat Rasmussen, Leavenworth, WA
Madison Audubon Society, Karen Etter Hale, Madison, WI
Madison Greens, John E. Peck, Madison, WI
Magic, Robin Bayer, Stanford, CA
Marion County Water Watch, Barbara Warner, Lebanon, KY
The Minnesota Project, John Lamb, MN
Montana Wildlife & Habitat Conservation Project, Seth Wilson, Missoula,
MT
Mt. Adams Adopt-A-Forest, Marc Harvey, Lyle, WA
Northcoast Environmental Center, Tim McKay, Arcata, CA
Northeastern Californians for Wilderness, Carl H. Schwarzenberg, Etna,
CA
Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Will Rhodes, Duluth, MN
Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Eric Wilborn, Portland, OR
Oregon Natural Resources Council, Ken Rait, Portland, OR
Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project, Michael Clossen, Seattle, WA
Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Jess Morton, Palos Verdes
Peninsula, CA
Pennsylvania Audubon Society, Carmen T. Santasania, Harrisburg, PA
Physicians for Social Responsibility-Oregon Chapter, Catherine
Thomasson, MD, OR
Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists, Mark Donham,
Brookport, IL
RESTORE: The North Woods, Michael Kellett, Concord, MA
Rev. Douglas B. Hunt, Ph.D., Wheaton NO
Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative, Roz McClellan, CO
Rogue Valley Audubon Society, Ted Cassidy, OR
SAFE: Save Our Ancient Forest Ecology, Dr. Rob Schaeffer, Modesto, CA
Seattle Audubon Society, Helen Ross, Seattle, WA
Siskiyou Project, Kelpie Wilson, Grants Pass, OR
Sky Island Alliance, Matt Skroch, Tucson, AZ
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Caitfin Winans, Charleston,
SC
South Carolina Forest Watch, Kathy McDeed, Westminster, SC
South Yuba River Citizen's League, Shawn Garvey, Nevada City, CA
Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Andrew George, Asheville, NC
Southern Oregon Nature Excursions, Jack Leishman, Talent, OR
Southwest Forest Alliance, Todd Schulke, Flagstaff, AZ
Sublette Riders Association, Jonathan Ratner, Pinedale, WY
The Fyke Nature Association, Hugh Carola, Ramsey, NJ
The Lands Council, Mike Petersen, Spokane, WA
The Ecology Center, Inc., Jeff Juel, Missoula, MT
The Waldo Inn, Robert E Lee Jr., OR
Threatened & Endangered Little Applegate Valley, Chant Thomas,
Jacksonville, OR
TN Forest Defense Council, Katey Culver, Nashville, TN
Trillium Community Land Trust, Susanna Bahaar Thomas, Jacksonville, OR
Umpqua Watersheds, Inc., Francis Eatherington, Roseburg, OR
Western Fire Ecology Center, Timothy Ingalsbee, Ph.D., Eugene, OR
West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Jeremy Muller, Ekns, WV
Wild Wilderness, Scott Silver, Bend, OR
Wild Alabama, Lamar Marshall, Moulton, AL
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, Bethanie Walder, Missoula, MT
WildLaw, Ray Vaughan, Montgomery, AL
Yosemite Area Audubon, Richard Kuntsman, Mariposa, CA