[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 858
A BILL TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONDUCT A PILOT
PROJECT ON DESIGNATED LANDS WITHIN PLUMAS, LASSEN, AND TAHOE NATIONAL
FORESTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO DEMONSTRATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES PROPOSED BY THE QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP
AND TO AMEND CURRENT LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR THESE
NATIONAL FORESTS TO CONSIDER THE INCORPORATION OF THESE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
__________
MARCH 5, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-051 cc WASHINGTON : 1997
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ---------- ----------
RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
Bill Simmons, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 5, 1997....................................... 1
Text of H.R. 858................................................. 57
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho; and
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health......... 1
Fazio, Hon. Vic, a U.S. Representative from California....... 7
Herger, Hon. Wally, a U.S. Representative from California.... 4
Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., a U.S. Representative from New York 6
Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California... 3
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota...... 2
Statements of witnesses:
Blumberg, Louis, Assistant Regional Director, The Wilderness
Society.................................................... 33
Prepared statement....................................... 43
Coates, Bill, Supervisor, Plumas County Board of Supervisors. 30
Prepared statement....................................... 56
Connaughton, Kent, Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest,
Susanville, CA, U.S.D.A.................................... 12
Henson, Ryan, Conservation Associate, California Wilderness
Coalition.................................................. 35
Prepared statement....................................... 41
Jackson, Michael, Esq., Friend of Plumas Wilderness.......... 31
Prepared statement....................................... 69
Lyons, James, Under Secretary of Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture..................... 12
Prepared statement....................................... 48
Madrid, Mark, Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest,
Quincy, CA, U.S.D.A........................................ 12
Nelson, Tom, District Forester, Sierra Pacific Industries.... 28
Prepared statement....................................... 51
Sprague, Lynn, Regional Forester, U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
San Francisco, CA.......................................... 12
Additional material supplied:
Quincy Library Group Position Paper: Fuels Management for
Fire Protection............................................ 52
Sierra Club: Report of the Chairman to the Board of Directors 67
Communications received:
Joint letter from 19 signers dated February 26, 1997, to
Senators Boxer and Feinstein............................... 46
Nelson, Tom: Letter of March 21, 1997, to Hon. Helen
Chenoweth.................................................. 72
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP FOREST RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY ACT OF 1997
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:50 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 858,
the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act of 1997.
Under Rule 4[g] of the committee rules, any oral opening
statements at the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the
ranking minority member. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help Members to keep to their schedules.
Therefore, if other Members have statements, they can be
included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
IDAHO; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health convenes today for a hearing on H.R. 858, the Quincy
Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of
1997. The bill was introduced last week by Mr. Herger of
California with his colleagues, Mr. Fazio of California, Mr.
Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Faleomavaega of American Samoa. I am
pleased that at our first hearing the Subcommittee on Forests
will consider this bipartisan legislation that was developed by
a diverse group of people and interests.
A portion of the area covered by this bill is in Mr.
Fazio's district, and I am pleased that he is planning to join
us today to testify on this legislation. Three members of the
Quincy Library Group will also testify. In addition, we will
hear from Under Secretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons, and
representatives from two environmental groups from outside the
Quincy Library Group area.
Mr. Herger's legislation demonstrates that it is possible
for people of very different interests to agree on objectives
for the management of our national forests. They have also
agreed on a plan for achieving those objectives.
The Quincy Library Group is to be commended for developing
solutions for us to consider today instead of asking Congress
to referee over continued conflicts.
I hope today that the Administration will add its support
to the bill since Secretary Glickman and Under Secretary Lyons
have been so supportive of this effort over the past several
years.
As our witnesses will explain, the Quincy Library Group
Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997 is the
culmination of more than four years of work by those who have
the most at stake in the management of the Plumas, Lassen, and
Tahoe National Forests, that is, the people who live and work
there. They are the people who care most about sustaining both
the health of the national forests and the social and economic
heath of their community. The legislation aims to implement a
locally designed consensus-based plan to improve the condition
of the national forests, reduce fire danger to the communities
and still provide needed economic benefits.
I commend Mr. Herger and the Quincy Library Group for all
the hard work that you have done to bring this to fruition. I
look forward to your testimony, and I welcome my two
colleagues, Mr. Herger and Mr. Fazio, to the Subcommittee.
The Chairman will recognize the ranking minority member
when he arrives for any statement he may have. Mr. Vento, do
you have a statement for the ranking member?
[Report of Sierra Club may be found at end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MINNESOTA
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Madame Chair. I ask unanimous consent
of all Members to have the opportunity to put statements in the
record, and I will place Mr. Miller's statement in the record.
I understand Mr. Hinchey is on his way, but may have been
delayed. I would just voice my interest in this proposal. I
have heard variations of this proposal and the Quincy Library
Group for many years, and I note that while the bill states
1993, that the update is February 24, 1997. So the themes and
variations of what might be the guiding principles over this
2,400,000 acres--clearly a significant portion of the forested
lands that are subject to the management of the professional
Forest Service--are indeed substantial proposals.
While I appreciate the interest of the local community and
understand the good faith that they have worked on to come up
with the proposal, I am very concerned, that as you said, these
are national forest lands. I want to look to the remedies and
the safeguards that have existed with regard to the forest
management plans in the past. Insofar as they can be dealt with
and look at ideas for pilots, I think that most of us would
want to cooperate and go along with some recommendations along
these lines, but certainly only with the assurance that the
safeguards would be present in the legislation that deal with
the environmental and social concerns that our forests serve on
a multi-use purpose basis.
I cannot stay for the entire hearing. We are late getting
started because of conflicts that have occurred today, so I
will have to leave shortly. I want to assure you that I intend
to follow up.
I know that there is a schedule that has been put out for
the consideration of this bill in the full House in a month. If
there is going to be a lot of intense work on it over that
period of time on a bipartisan basis, perhaps we can come to
agreement on the many questions that remain.
The bill itself is rather simple. The plan itself since
being modified in 1997, I think, has other ramifications that
we want to look at very carefully, and I think that some of
those are quoted in Mr. Miller's statement. I think Mr. Hinchey
will be arriving, and he has a formal statement with regard to
these matters perhaps which he will elucidate during the
hearing process.
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
[Statement of Hon. George Miller follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Miller, a U.S. Representative from California
Madame Chairman, I want to commend the Quincy Library Group
for their participation on forestry issues in their local area.
I support public participation in the management of our
national forests. However, the issues addressed by H.R. 858
extend far beyond the interests of the 25 individuals and
organizations who are part of the Quincy Library Group.
I have serious concerns with the legislation before us
today for several reasons. First, I think it is a dangerous
precedent to be legislating the management plans for an
individual forest or group of forests, which is in effect what
H.R. 858 does. There are over 150 national forests. If we start
down this path today, where will it end? Secondly, I don't
think we should have management of national forests by
committee, especially one made up of only local individuals.
People across California, indeed across this country, have a
stake in the management of the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe
National Forests.
Beyond those two broad policy concerns, I have particular
problems with the bill itself. A project covering 2.5 million
acres, with specific management instructions for at least the
next five years, is hardly a test. It is a significant course
of action with the potential for significant impacts on a large
body of national forest land. This is an example of putting the
cart before the horse. The Forest Service is told to
immediately implement this so-called ``pilot project.'' Only
then are they to begin the process to amend the forest plans to
conform with what is already occurring. I am not aware that the
Quincy Library Group proposal has ever been subject of an EIS,
or the public hearing and other procedural safeguards of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
I find it odd that a bill that is supposed to deal with
forest health speaks only to logging and fuels management.
There is no mention made in the bill to ecosystem management,
protection of watersheds or riparian areas, wildlife,
endangered species other than the spotted owl, or recreation.
The unwritten intention may be there but there is certainly no
bill direction on these vital aspects of forest management. Key
terms are also left undefined, left open to who knows what
interpretation later.
It is certainly not clear to me that this bill is
consistent with the California Spotted Owl Process or the
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). In fact, one of the
important findings of SNEP was that the Sierra Nevada had to be
looked at as a whole. Yet, here is the first bill to be
considered on the Sierras after SNEP and we are back again
dealing with the Sierra Nevada in pieces. We don't know what
impact H.R. 858 will have on the three affected national
forests, yet alone on the other six national forests of the
Sierra Nevada.
I for one am not ready to embark down this risky, untested
policy path. Unless people can come up with a lot of good
answers, I will not support this bill.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Vento, and as I remember
watching your career as you built the National Forest
Management Act back here and many of the amendments, it was
interesting to know at that time what your concerns were about
consensus building and so I am very pleased that this is our
first bill to come before this committee.
I do apologize that the committee is meeting late. It was
unavoidable and this Chairman will be very particular about the
time that we start unless it is unavoidable, and I cannot
foresee that we would have these kinds of circumstances again.
I would like to introduce our first witness. It is with
great pleasure that I introduce my colleague, Wally Herger. We
would look forward to Mr. Fazio coming in when he can arrive.
I have great respect for their very hard work and diligence
in bringing this bill to us. Mr. Herger, let me remind the
witnesses that under our committee rules, they must limit their
oral statements to five minutes, but that their entire
statement will appear in the record.
The Chairman now recognizes Wally Herger. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much, Madame Chair Chenoweth for
your assistance in bringing this legislation to the committee.
I would also like to thank our local Quincy Library Group
civic leaders including Michael Jackson, Bill Coates, and Tom
Nelson for being here today and for going on record to explain
the reasons behind this bill.
This is indeed landmark legislation which sets a precedent
for cooperation and proactive agreement on both local and
national levels. H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest
Recovery and Stability Act of 1997, launches a forest health
and economic stability management plan for three of
California's national forests that I believe will set an
example for other consensus-based groups around the nation.
This plan represents an entirely new approach to managing
our Federal forests. It was hammered out by a coalition of
local environmentalists, local forest product industry
representatives, and local government officials who set aside
decades of gridlock over the environment to create a feasible,
productive forest management plan. This proposal is a
breakthrough for those of us interested in finding bipartisan
and cooperative solutions to forest management issues.
Perhaps for the first time, we have a local consensus group
bringing local solutions to Washington instead of Washington-
forced solutions on local communities. This proposal takes the
best science for forest management in the Sierra Nevada forest
system and implements it as a proactive, common-sense plan that
will remove the source of out-of-control, catastrophic
wildfires, namely, over-dense vegetation and massive buildups
of dead and dying trees and will through this process use that
vegetation to produce cost-effective wood products, thus
bolstering local economies.
This Congress has talked about establishing a bipartisan
dialog. We have talked about reaching across the aisle to find
compromise solutions to our nation's most serious problems.
This is our chance to make it work.
This legislation is established by local grass roots
compromise and may very well help set the tone for the rest of
the 105th Congress. This legislation demonstrates that sound
forest health and economic stability can coexist. The Quincy
Library Group brings the best of both sides of the
environmental issue together and delivers a shot in the arm
needed by not just our national forests, but by the rest of the
Nation as well.
I am excited about this legislation and I am committed to
doing everything I can to see that this authorizing legislation
becomes a reality. Madame Chair, as you consider changes
proposed by the Forest Service, I ask you to bear in mind the
purpose of this legislation, to implement an existing forest
plan based on the best available science as a priority pilot
project on large enough scale to prove that forest health and
economic stability are not mutually exclusive. It is imperative
that we keep our eyes fixed on this mark.
Thank you, Madame Chair and members.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Mr. Fazio is not
here, and so he will testify when he arrives.
Mr. Herger. Madame Chair, he did indicate to me he was here
earlier. He indicated he did have another meeting, but that he
was going to attempt to return, but I do appreciate his very
strong cooperation in working with us on this, and again, one
more indication of the bipartisan coalition that we have among
all sides to make this process work.
Mrs. Chenoweth. If Mr. Fazio does return, we will make
every effort to have him testify.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. I would like to call
on Mr. Vento for any questions he might have.
Mr. Vento. Madame Chair, I think we have a long witness
list. I guess we will have to get to the questions about cost
and assurance of funding and what the ramifications are of the
other parts of the plan for watershed restoration and habitat
protection and so forth.
Under the one feature, I assume that the plan does include
the language on fire suppression, but that is the only aspect
repeated in the bill.
Mr. Herger. I would really like to hold off any questions
for the experts who helped put it together.
Mr. Vento. OK.
Mr. Herger. We will be hearing from them, Mr. Vento, and
they could answer much better than I could since they were the
ones who actually put it together.
Mr. Vento. Madame Chair, I think again I would be happy to
defer until further witnesses appear.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Vento. Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Madame Chair, and welcome, Mr.
Herger, to the hearing.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Just briefly one question. I won't be able
to stay for the whole hearing because I have a budget working
group to meet with, but I wanted to make sure I was on record
in full support of the Quincy Library Group. In fact, I want to
start a library group of my own in the Sierra National Forest,
so I am looking at this with great excitement.
I want to state for the record, too, that I feel that the
best tool for enhancing the environment of Federal lands is the
local solution and the local talent providing a local solution.
Would you be willing to venture to guess, under the Quincy
Library Group plan after it is implemented and it takes place
in the region, do you think that the environment will end up
being more enhanced and more healthy than it would be under the
current system right now?
Mr. Herger. Again, the locals who worked on this, both
environmentalists and the others will be able to answer this
much better than I, but I will state that the answer is
definitely yes.
The most current science was used and it was used in such a
way that--and I might mention why it is so important that each
area have its own plan. Every area of our forests are very
unique; even within California they are unique, but for
example, up in Washington, there is much more rainfall as you
well know, being my colleague in California, than we have in
California. We are much more susceptible to forest fires in our
area and to insect infestations than they are in other areas.
The slope of the ground is different wherever you are, so it
really takes a plan that is unique to that area to ensure that
we have stream protection that we are really looking at the
entire ecosystem.
What is exciting is that we have done that in this area in
parts of three national forests, and we have done it in a way
that will supply the needed wood products for those that work
in the wood industry in that area, so it is really a win-win-
win for us. The economy wins, the environment wins, the people
who live there win, and ultimately, our nation comes out the
biggest winner.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. I applaud your work on the bill
and am proud to be a co-sponsor. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Hill.
Mr. Rick Hill. I have no questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. I would like to recognize with
unanimous consent, the ranking minority member, Mr. Hinchey,
for any opening comments or statements.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. I do have a
brief opening statement that I would just like to read into the
record if I may.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE HINCHEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK
Mr. Hinchey. First of all, let me begin by welcoming you in
your new role as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health, and let me tell you how much I look forward to
working with you. I believe that we will be able to accomplish
a great deal together. As the ranking minority member, I look
forward to having this opportunity to work with you and other
members of this newly constituted Subcommittee.
I look at the legislation before us today with great
interest. I commend the Quincy Library Group for sitting down
to work out the differences that existed among its various
members. I am familiar with a similar process that was used in
the northern forest lands study that I discussed with you,
Madame Chairman, just last week, as a matter of fact.
As national legislators, our responsibility extends far
beyond a specific geographic area. We have to look at not only
what this legislation means for the three particular national
forests but also, of course, for the other Sierra Nevada
national forests and the national forest system in its entirety
as well.
While I support competing interests sitting down to work
out their differences, we must be very careful in this regard.
We must assure that the public interest is adequately
represented in this process. These are, after all, national
forests, and all Americans have a stake in their management. We
must also be careful to look at the possible precedent that
could be set here.
I think it would be a dangerous path for Congress to
legislate the management plans for an individual national
forest or group of forests, and in light of that, I think it is
important that we determine what in this bill can and should be
implemented administratively under existing law and therefore,
what truly needs to be legislated.
I hope this hearing will be useful in addressing the
strengths and weaknesses of this legislation, and I look
forward to the testimony of our witnesses on this subject, and
I thank you, Madame Chairman, for the opportunity to be here
with you at this hearing and to make the statement.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. I know we are a
little bit out of order, but at this time, I would like to
recognize Mr. Fazio for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. VIC FAZIO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and members of the
Subcommittee. I apologize for not being able to be here at the
beginning. I do appreciate the chance to come before you this
afternoon to support legislation intended to implement the
Quincy Library Group forest management pilot program.
As you know, the Quincy Library Group is a diverse
organization established to take a creative, innovative, and
most importantly, consensus approach to protecting our forests.
It brought together the timber industry and the
environmentalists as well as local officials to work out a way
to enhance fire suppression as well as maintain a sustainable
amount of timber harvest.
The thinning approach that is being proposed in this
legislation whereby smaller diameter trees are harvested and
fuel breaks are created will serve both the environmental
protection needs of forest health as well as help the local
economy dependent on timber harvesting. This project in the
Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests could also
demonstrate the Federal Government's recognition of local
problem-solving.
As we try to put this landmark agreement into legislative
language, we need to foster the ongoing consensus process that
made this agreement possible. The Quincy Library Group is a
unique example of how diverse interests can come together
through compromise, overcome obstacles which traditionally
prevent us from reaching our mutual goals.
I want to stress that the Quincy Library Group's efforts
are unique and that they are concentrated on a local concern
and involve a local process. It is our obligation at the
Federal level to preserve this spirit of cooperation and
reflect the ideals of the Quincy Library Group in their purest
form.
I want to commend my colleague, Wally Herger, for his
sincere effort to translate the Library Group's proposal into a
bill. This is not an easy task. As a co-sponsor of the bill, I
support the concept of this initial draft, but I do share the
concern of many that improvements can and should be made. I
urge the committee to respect the consensus of the Quincy
Library Group to include changes recommended by the U.S. Forest
Service as well as other changes which may be deemed necessary.
This is a fluid process. Just as the Quincy Group has
withstood other pressures in the past and has proved its
endurance and ability to work through difficult problems, we
need to take that same approach. I look forward to working with
Wally Herger, this committee, and Senator Feinstein in
incorporating many of the changes that will be proposed, I am
sure, today and subsequent to this hearing.
I understand that the committee has already been receptive
to adding the word ``catastrophic'' in front of ``designated
areas'' as well as adding the phrase ``within the pilot project
area.'' This helps to clarify when and where exceptions can be
made to the restrictions on timber harvesting in protected
areas.
I would hope that the committee would also be receptive to
incorporating other changes such as directing compliance with
existing environmental laws, and the legislation should stay
true to the library agreement which embraces the spirit of the
California Spotted Owl report in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem
project recommendations.
Once again, taking a local agreement and putting it into a
legislative statute is a challenge, and it takes time, but I
believe we have a solid foundation for this legislation. What
we need is time, time to work out differences, time to educate
our colleagues on this important bill, and time to uphold the
true process through with the Quincy Library Group that has
worked to create this proposal. It will produce a product that
is worth the time, because it may be a model for others to
follow.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify with my
colleague, Mr. Herger, and while I won't be able to stay, I
know that this is an effort on the part of this committee to
fine tune a concept which I think we can all agree with.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Fazio. In order to get this
train back on track, I think that I will just ask my questions
now, and then we will open the panel for a second round of
questions.
Let me ask you--oh, are you leaving?
Mr. Fazio. I would be happy to stay if you have a question
for me.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have a question for you. This is a model
that many other groups may hope to follow, groups in all of our
States, and you are to be congratulated, both of you, for your
efforts. Did you recall finding it difficult, Mr. Fazio, to get
to this point?
Mr. Fazio. I think it is not really hard for Members of
Congress to get to this point. The difficulty is the people in
the group itself who have worked so hard through the years with
the national forest, with the local community leaders.
People come at this from very different points of view.
They have really worked very hard and they continue to have to
work hard to see if they can take their concepts and put them
in language that we can put in the bill. I think they have come
a long way, and I think with Mr. Herger's continued patience
and forbearance and the support of this committee, we can
actually help confirm what is a good process and a very healthy
start.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. I would like to ask Wally, how
long have you been involved in this process?
Mr. Herger. We have been working on this for approximately
four years now, so it has been a long process of again, all the
different sides getting together and the reason they called it
the Quincy Library Group is they met in the very quaint,
beautiful town of Quincy, of a few hundred population up in the
High Sierras of my district. They met in this library for many,
many weeks over about a four-year period to finally come
together and they went over every bit of the area within these
three national forests and finally worked out a consensus. So
this is a tremendous amount of work done by a number of people
with very diverse philosophies on the environment that came
together that are now very united on supporting this pilot
program.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Herger, I need to narrow my questions
down with regard to the legislation. I want to ask you a two-
part question.
How long have you been working on the legislation? Have
there been many changes made to the draft legislation before
introducing it last year and this year?
Mr. Herger. Specifically, the legislation was introduced
for the first time last year. We were working with the
Administration and I am looking forward to having them appear
before you here in a few minutes, but we had indications--as a
matter of fact, I am interested in Mr. Lyons who is here today,
who is one of our top leaders with the Administration,
indicated back last September when we were going over it with
him that he felt that this was something he could support. He
has actually been to the area, and I want to thank him for
that, but somehow, we keep going on month after month, and it
is always tomorrow we are going to be with you, we are almost
there. I am very concerned on how I hope this isn't going to be
a pattern that we will see too long into the future. Certainly,
we want to work with them. We have worked with them in every
way we can, but again, I would just hope that the
Administration is more serious than they have indicated over
the last five months in coming up with a final line of this is
what we want to support than what they have in the last five
months.
Mrs. Chenoweth. When did you first ask the Forest Service
to provide input on your bill?
Mr. Herger. The Forest Service was actually working with us
at least through part of the Quincy Library Group, and again, I
would rather have them describe it, but the Forest Service has
certainly been around this process from the beginning in one
way or another.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I would like to
recognize Mr. Hinchey now for questions.
Mr. Hinchey. I just perhaps have one question, and that is
with regard to the enumerated purposes of the bill. They
include four, as I understand it, one of which is that the
Forest Service may not limit other multiple-use activities in
order to carry out the terms of the pilot project. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Herger. I believe that is accurate.
Mr. Hinchey. Do you see any potential for conflict here? If
you are attempting to carry out the provisions of this bill
which may to some extent at least be very admirable and may
bring about favorable consequences, if you are unable to limit
other activities in order to accomplish that objective, it
seems to me that you might run into some conflicts here,
because that seems to place within the bill a kind of
inflexibility that might be less than helpful in achieving your
objective.
Mr. Herger. Mr. Hinchey, I would like to describe to you a
much greater problem than the one you are posing to me now.
Last year----
Mr. Hinchey. There may be much greater problems, but at the
moment, I am concerned about this one.
Mr. Herger. Let me address this one, if I could. Let me
address it in the best way that I can. Last year, we had the
worst forest fires in California in modern history, 860,000
acre of forest destroyed by catastrophic forest fires. Just a
couple years before, we had the second worst forest fire season
where we had over 550,000 acres of forest. Now, these are
forests that are no longer forests. In these forests, there is
no longer the California Spotted Owl, there is no longer
Northern Spotted Owl. There isn't anything in these areas.
In addition to that, in just the area I represent, 32
mills--the 32nd closed about three months ago, so we are seeing
our environment destroyed. Now, this is directly due in my
opinion to Federal direction and Federal policy here in
Washington that does not work in our area, directly responsible
to that.
We have forests that are too dense, that are 82-percent
denser by Forest Service records than they were in 1928. We are
seeing--where these forest fires are, we are seeing soil
erosion, which has contributed in the flooding that we have
where our stream beds are filled and which is destroying
habitat.
In essence, Mr. Hinchey, we have a system that is broke. We
have a system that is not working at all, so we were going to
try something brand new. I know this unique here in Washington.
This may come as a major surprise to many of my colleagues, but
we thought maybe if we got everyone together locally who lived
there, most of which were born and raised there, who, believe
it or not, care about this environment perhaps more than you do
because they live there, that maybe they could come up with a
solution that for a change would work. So this is not really my
solution. This is not really my legislation. This is a group,
and several are nationally recognized environmentalists who
worked on this as well as everybody with a plan, and again, I
would rather have you ask them these questions. They can much
better give you answers than I, because they are really the
ones who wrote this legislation.
Mr. Hinchey. I appreciate the circumstances which give rise
to this initiative, and----
Mr. Herger. I would like to state--excuse me. Finish.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Herger.
Mr. Hinchey. Go ahead.
Mr. Herger. When you finish, I have another comment, but we
see something taking place now. I am hearing alluded to in your
statements and Mr. Vento's statements a little bit in the final
statements--well, anyway, I hear it when I talk to the head of
the Forest Service here, those who are making the decisions
anyway here in Washington, is that we have a group within the
environmental community that are based here in Washington, not
out in the district, because those are the ones I am
representing, but the ones that are here in Washington that for
many decades are making a living by the fact that the system
isn't working, and I am very concerned when I see all of this.
Well, manana, we are going to come up with an answer, you know,
it is almost right but not quite. When I hear this from Mr.
Lyons and the Administration, where we fail to see action being
taken but yet they are well-meaning. They want to help us, but
somehow, it is not quite right. Again, this really concerns me
that we see these monkey wrenches being thrown in the system by
people 3,000 miles away, most of which have never been to our
area or really lack the concern that we have.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Herger, I appreciate your response even
though it doesn't answer my question or begin to. Nevertheless,
you pointed me in a direction from which I might be able to
obtain the answer, and for that, sir, I am grateful.
Mr. Herger. As a matter of fact, I would like to invite you
to come out to our district.
Mr. Hinchey. I would be happy to do that.
Mr. Herger. Good.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, I would like to recognize Mr.
Hill again, if you have any other questions.
Mr. Rick Hill. Madame Chairman, I don't have any questions.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Vento.
Mr. Vento. I think I will wait for others to try to give us
the answers.
Mrs. Chenoweth. If Mr. Herger would like to join the other
members on the dais and participate in this hearing, I would
like that very much.
Mr. Herger. I appreciate that, Madame Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to do so. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Before we continue, I would like to explain
that I intend to place all the witnesses under oath, and for
the record, I have conferred with Mr. Hinchey on this practice
and we have agreed to put all outside witnesses under oath that
appear before this committee.
This is a formality of the committee that is meant to
assure open and honest discussion and should not affect the
testimony given by witnesses. I believe all of the witnesses
were informed of this before appearing here today. They have
each been provided a copy of the committee rules in addition.
I would like to explain the lights that are on the witness
table. Each witness is given five minutes to testify. The
lights are simply there to act as traffic lights. Green lights
mean go, yellow lights mean your time is just about up, and red
lights mean stop.
I appreciate your cooperation, and be assured that your
entire written testimony will be made a part of the hearing
record today.
I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses,
James Lyons, Under Secretary of Natural Resources and
Environment for the Department of Agriculture; accompanied by
Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, from the Forest Service in San
Francisco, California; Kent Connaughton, Forest Supervisor,
Lassen National Forest, in Susanville, California; and Mark
Madrid, Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest, in Quincy,
California.
Before we get started, if you will rise and raise your
right arms. Do you solemnly swear and affirm under the penalty
of perjury that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you very much, and I would like to recognize our
first witness, Mr. James Lyons, our Under Secretary of Natural
Resources and Environment. Mr. Lyons, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT; U.S.D.A; ACCOMPANIED BY LYNN SPRAGUE, REGIONAL
FORESTER, U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA;
KENT CONNAUGHTON, FOREST SUPERVISOR, LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST,
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE, SUSANVILLE, CALIFORNIA; AND MARK
MADRID, FOREST SUPERVISOR, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, U.S.D.A.,
QUINCY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here today, and also to be honored to be the first to appear
before you in your maiden voyage as chairperson of this
committee, and I appreciate that opportunity. Mr. Hinchey, it
is an opportunity as well for me to have a chance to visit with
you. It is nice to see another easterner involved in setting
forest policy nationwide, and I know your area very well. I
grew up fishing there.
I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to offer
our views on H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery
and Economic Stability Act, and as you have already noted,
Regional Forester Lynn Sprague, Supervisor Mark Madrid of the
Plumas National Forest, Kent Connaughton from the Lassen
National Forest, as well as Jody Cook, who is the Deputy Forest
Supervisor of the Plumas are with me today, and we will be
pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.
The Department of Agriculture supports the goals of H.R.
858, and we certainly applaud the work of Congressman Herger,
Congressman Fazio, and the Quincy Library Group and its
willingness to enter into a constructive dialog to make this
bill workable. We believe we are very close to that goal.
Just last week, Forest Service officials including Mr.
Madrid and Ms. Cook, met with representatives of Mr. Herger's
office as well as members of the Quincy Library Group to
discuss the bill. We think the discussions were very
constructive and substantial progress was made; however, we
feel we need just a little more time to fully consider the
issues raised before the Administration can fully endorse the
bill. I certainly hope, Madam Chairman, that we can do so
within the timetable that you have set out for consideration of
the bill.
As you know, the world is a much more complex place today
than it was even a few decades ago, and certainly nowhere is
that complexity more evident than in the controversies and the
complexities associated with management of the nation's
national forests. Yet I would suggest to you, Madam Chairman,
that the prescription for management of these forests which was
laid down 90 years ago by the first chief of the Forest
Service, Gifford Pinchot, is really rather simple, and if I
may, I would like to quote to you from what was then the Forest
Service manual. It was called the Use Book in 1907, and it was
all of a quarter-inch thick. I daresay the Forest Service
manual today would fill up this table.
This is what Gifford Pinchot said about management of the
national forests, and this section of the Use Book was entitled
``Management by the People.'' He said, ``National forests are
made for and owned by the people. They should also be managed
by the people. They are made not to give the officers in charge
of them a chance to work out theories, but to give the people
who use them and those who are affected by their use a chance
to work out their own best profit. This means that if national
forests are going to accomplish anything worthwhile, the people
must know all about them and must take a very active part in
their management. The officers are paid by the people to act as
their agents and to see that all the resources of the forests
are used in the best interest of everyone concerned. What the
people as a whole want will be done. To do it, it is necessary
that the people carefully consider and plainly state just what
they want and then take a very active part in seeing that they
get it.''
Mr. Pinchot went on to say, ``There are a great many
interests on the national forests which sometimes conflict a
little.'' That showed his foresight. ``They must all be made to
fit into one another so that the machine runs smoothly as a
whole. It is often necessary for one man,'' or one woman, I
would suggest, ``to give way a little here, another a little
there. But by giving way a little at present, they both profit
a great deal in the end.''
I think those were prophetic words, Madam Chairman, and I
think in those few words, Gifford Pinchot captured the essence
of what the Quincy Library Group is all about, and Secretary
Glickman and I believe that the Quincy Library Group effort is
worthy of our continued support.
Before turning to the specifics of the bill, I would like
to briefly review some of the findings of the Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project report, or the SNEP report, because I think
it amplifies what Congressman Herger said about the scientific
soundness and the foundation for what is proposed by the Quincy
Library Group.
SNEP was developed by a team of independent scientists
tasked by Congress with preparing a scientific review of the
entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem. Their final report was
transmitted to the Congress in June, 1996, and in fact, the
ranking member of this committee, Mr. Miller, was a key
proponent of that legislation.
The SNEP report describes a number of approaches to
reducing the susceptibility of the Sierra Nevada range to
catastrophic fire. These include substantially reducing the
potential for large, high-severity wildfires in both wildlands
in what we call the wildland-urban interface and restoring
historic ecosystem functions of frequent low and moderate-
severity fire. This can be accomplished by establishing what
are known as defensible fuel profile zones characterized by
relatively large trees with considerable diversity in ages,
sizes, and distribution.
The key feature would be the general openness and
discontinuity of crown fuels within those forest stands so as
to avoid the likelihood that high intensity fires might run
through the crown. Once these zones have been established, a
program of prescribed fire could then be introduced to restore
the historic fire regime within those ecosystems.
The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic
Stability Act would direct the Secretary to conduct a pilot
program on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen, and part of
the Tahoe National Forests, in essence, to assess the
effectiveness of certain resource management activities. The
activities include construction of a strategic system of
defensible fuel breaks, implementation on an acreage rather
than on a volume basis of uneven-aged forest management
prescriptions, and group selection of individual tree harvest
to promote development of that all-age canopy that I talked
about.
This proposal in effect would implement key aspects of the
SNEP report as I just described. We see substantial merit in
testing these strategies, and we also believe that dialog can
serve as a model for communities to use in seeking a more
constructive solution to resource management conflicts in
addressing local concerns without the necessity of site-
specific legislation in the future.
Although much of this bill could be implemented
administratively, we believe there is merit in legislating the
Quincy Library Group pilot effort. However, I would want to
state that we hope that this legislation is not viewed as a
template for legislating solutions for specific forest
management problems on a site-by-site basis.
Upon a first reading of the bill, we did have a number of
concerns, and I think we have done a lot of work with the
assistance of Mr. Herger's office and members of the Quincy
Library Group to address those. We continue to work on language
to make clear that all existing laws must apply to the
implementation of this experiment, and that the CASPO
guidelines and the information included in the SNEP report
should serve as a template to ensure that we meet all the
standards that are laid out in those documents.
Additionally, we believe that the pilot program should be
subjected to a science-based evaluation at the midpoint and
conclusion of the program. This evaluation should help
determine if the assumptions underlying the program activities
are valid and guide changes for management as new information
is generated. In short, this whole project should be guided by
what we call adaptive management as a basic philosophy of doing
business.
We have remaining concerns with the funding provisions in
the bill. We intend to work with QLG and others to resolve
these concerns. We have proposed several funding sources in the
fiscal year '98 budget that if enacted, could increase overall
the resources we need to implement projects such as the Quincy
Library Group effort as well as similar work in other national
forests in Idaho and other parts of the country.
I won't go into the specific details of our budget
proposals, but I would encourage you, Madam Chairman, to take a
look at those.
I would emphasize though that we believe without additional
resources for the types of activities the Quincy Library Group
prescribes, the allocation within a fixed overall budget is an
inevitable requirement. However, we must not put ourselves in a
position of robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, by
mandating reductions in programs like recreation, fish and
wildlife, and other resource protection activities.
We will seek efficiencies in how we spend our limited
resources, and that might provide us additional resources to
implement some of the projects called for in this legislation.
However, ultimately, the Congress must help us make the
investment that is necessary to achieve many of the goals and
objectives that are laid out in this program and in our overall
forest health goals.
Let me summarize by saying that in the forest conference
that the President convened in Portland in April, 1983, he
challenged natural resource-dependent communities to develop
collaborative and locally based solutions to controversies
around public land management. The Quincy Library Group was up
to the challenge, and in fact, they have been working for some
time prior to the forest conference to engage in such a dialog
to help improve and enhance the health of the forests that
affected their communities, to strengthen the community, and
perhaps most importantly, to demonstrate that these forests can
be managed in a way that satisfies the needs of broad cross-
sections of forest users.
For these reasons, the Administration is committed to
perfecting the bill, and I would offer, Madam Chairman, that if
it would assist, I am willing to offer myself to work
personally in bringing together the parties that have many
concerns with the legislation to see if we could not in fact
achieve consensus and move forward with the legislation.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today and look froward to addressing your questions.
[Statement of James Lyons may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to thank you, Secretary Lyons, for
your testimony and we will proceed on to the questions now. I
do want to remind the members of the committee that Rule 3[c]
imposes a five-minute limit on questions, and the Chairman will
now recognize the minority member, Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. I'm not going to issue a statement so----
Mr. Vento. You'll have the opportunity to ask questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is right, so you can ask any one of
them for--these are all forest supervisors, so you can ask any
one of them questions.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman, and
thank you, Mr. Lyons, for your testimony.
I note in your testimony you congratulate the Quincy
Library Group for their attempt in coming together and working
out this particular problem, and as Mr. Herger said in his
statement a few moments ago, I think that that is a laudatory
thing at the local level to come together and deal with
problems that affect them locally, even when those problems
affect national resources. To a certain extent, the point can
be made that even though it is a national resource, people who
are located right in that community are the ones who are most
directly affected by it to one extent or another.
In this particular case, as I understand it and correct me
if I am mistaken, the Quincy Library Group consists of people
exclusively from the local community, foresters, forest
workers, forestry companies, and a local county official, I
think those were the three people, the three groups that
initiated the project, and there may be others involved.
To what extent has the Forest Service or other national
interest been involved in the negotiations between the various
parties and to what extent have national interests been
represented in the formulation of this particular legislation?
Mr. Lyons. Mr. Hinchey, it would probably be best for me to
allow members of the group to characterize the process that
they went through, and they will certainly have an opportunity
to speak in the later panel.
My understanding through my experience in working with the
group is that it does represent a broad cross-section of the
community. It involves representatives from the forest products
industry; local county supervisor Bill Coates; as well as local
environmental activists who have been very much a part of the
process, Linda Bloom and Michael Jackson, among others.
It is, I think, a broad group representative of a very
diverse community with diverse interests and concerns with
regard to the uses of the national forest. It is true that it
is the local community, and I think frankly that solutions to
these issues more often than not are successful if they are
generated locally.
That does not diminish the importance of representing that
these are national forests and national assets and you and I
from the East Coast have as much value in and interest in, and
opportunity to have say in the process as anyone else might.
I think they have done a fairly effective job of attempting
to come to grips with some very, very difficult and divisive
issues and on that basis warrant our additional support. I
think in the follow-up dialog we have in this legislation,
others from outside the community who would like to have an
opportunity to have additional input, and I think that
opportunity needs to be provided, and that is why I offered my
services in securing that.
Mr. Hinchey. I take it from your answer then that as far as
you know, there really was no involvement of the Forest Service
or other national interests in the formulation of the
legislation.
Mr. Lyons. Initially, the Forest Service was not involved;
however, I think over time, the Forest Service has been
actively involved, and in fact, just last year, additional
resources were allocated to the forests that are affected by
this legislation to engage on an experimental basis some of the
practices that are called for that would help to reduce fuel
loading and to help move toward the kind of foresting
conditions called for in the Quincy Library Group effort.
So our involvement has progressed over time, and as I also
indicated in my testimony, just last week, Mark Madrid and Jody
Cook were part of a dialog with members of the Quincy Library
Group and a representative of Mr. Herger's office to begin to
discuss some of the issues that have come up, so we have had
increasing involvement over time.
Mr. Hinchey. Does the Forest Service take a position on the
legislation at this point or are you still sort of watching it
and looking at it?
Mr. Lyons. It is the position that I stated at the outset.
We think we have made considerable progress and we think we are
close to achieving legislation that we can support, but there
is some more work to be done, and we would like to engage in
that dialog and bring this to closure.
Mr. Hinchey. The bill speaks primarily if not exclusively
to logging and fuel management. It doesn't seem to address the
overall ecological system.
It has been characterized as a local initiative on a local
forest, but the fact of the matter is, as I understand it, it
involves about 2,500,000 acres, two and a half national
forests. The initiative here is one that would establish a
broad ranging and important precedent if it were adopted. This
is a lot more than a local activity affecting a local region,
and furthermore, it seems only to address one particular aspect
of the problems of an ecological system. It doesn't deal with
problems of endangered species, it doesn't deal with ecosystem
management, it doesn't deal with watershed, it doesn't deal
with a whole host of very important issues. It focuses almost
exclusively on timber harvest and fuels management. Does that
represent in your mind a deficiency?
Mr. Lyons. Well, there are two points I would make. I think
this bill does set a precedent, an important precedent, and
that is that local, diverse, and oftentimes conflicting
interests can come together to work out their differences, and
I think that is something to be applauded.
I don't support the precedent of legislating specific
solutions to specific problems, but I see this as a valuable
pilot effort from which we can learn and then I hope implement
administratively some of the remedies that come of this effort.
This does apply to a broad scale, about 2,400,000 acres in
concept, but the Quincy Library Group concept is about more
than addressing fuel loads and thinning and salvage work. It
involves the set-aside of the environmentally important areas
for protecting threatened and endangered species. It involves
watershed restoration work and a whole host of other things
that are part of the larger Quincy Library Group proposal which
is----
Mr. Hinchey. But none of those issues are addressed in the
legislation.
Mr. Lyons. I think what I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is
that it is very difficult to translate into legislation how one
implements this entire package and proposal. Again, I would
suggest that in a subsequent panel, Tom or Michael or Bill
might address in a broader context what is there.
I would also tell you that we continue to move forward with
our efforts to do the watershed restoration work that is
necessary.
In implementing this proposal consistent with the CASPO
guidelines which are guidelines to protect the California
Spotted Owl and the principles and concepts in the Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Report, we are also adopting a position of
staying out of many areas that previously might have been
considered for timber harvest but have been deemed too
sensitive, so in that context, we are also adopting some of
those more environmentally oriented principles that I think you
are alluding to are missing here.
I think all in all, it represents a fair attempt to try and
develop a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy, and for
that reason, we see it as a valuable effort to implement.
Mr. Hinchey. Do you think this bill is a fair attempt at
addressing a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy?
Mr. Lyons. I think this bill would authorize us to adopt
principles incorporated in the Quincy Library Group strategy
consistent with CASPO, the forest plans, and SNEP, which in
their larger context represent rather effective ecosystem
management strategy for the Sierra Nevadas.
Mr. Hinchey. I would be interested in carrying out this
discussion a little bit further, because I would like to see
where you find that in the legislation, Mr. Lyons.
Mr. Lyons. Well, the legislation specifically refers to
implementation of the Quincy Library Group project, and I think
if you read that document, you will see that it is much more
than simply salvage and thinning.
Mr. Hinchey. Which document are you talking about?
Mr. Lyons. The Quincy Library Group report, and I think
Congressman Herger----
Mr. Hinchey. But we are talking about the bill here before
us now, aren't we? The report----
Mr. Lyons. The bill referenced----
Mr. Hinchey. [continuing]--isn't going to be implemented.
This is legislation which the Congress is being asked to
implement.
Mr. Lyons. Well, the bill----
Mr. Hinchey. The report has nothing to do with that.
Mr. Lyons. No, it does, sir. The bill references the report
and authorizes its implementation basically and that is the
manner in which I have responded to the question.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chairman would remind Mr. Hinchey and
Mr. Lyons, you both ran red lights, so I need to try to keep
things a little bit on time.
Mr. Lyons. I will run one more red light, then I will be
quiet. The bill specifically states that the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, shall conduct a
pilot project on Federal lands described in paragraph 2, to
implement and demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource
management activities described in subsection [d] as
recommended in the Quincy Library Group proposal of 1993.
It references the report and I think it highlights some of
the specific management activities that are called for in that
report, but we certainly see this as a project that is
implemented----
Mr. Hinchey. But Mr. Lyons, those management activities
specifically delineated are forestry and fuels management. They
are the only ones stipulated in the legislation.
Mr. Lyons. They will be implemented in the larger context
of the forest plan within which we are operating.
Mr. Hinchey. That will be interesting to see.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. Mr. Hill, do you have
any questions?
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I would just
comment to you that it seems to me that we ought to promote
more collaborative process rather than more conflict in terms
of developing forest management plans, and so I may disagree
with my colleague's earlier comments.
Let me just ask you, you say in your testimony this
shouldn't be a template for the future. Do you mean with regard
to the collaborative process or do you mean with regard to the
drafting of legislation to implement that process?
Mr. Lyons. I mean with regard to legislation. I don't think
we want to be in a position where we have to legislate
solutions to every problem we have on the ground. We ought to
be better than that.
Mr. Rick Hill. I would just comment that there is a sense,
I think at least in Montana, that the process that we now use,
while it provides for public comment, it doesn't provide for
public input. So the consequence of that is that while the
public may be allowed to express itself, but that expression
isn't necessarily incorporated into any final resolution, and
this process, it appears to me, is one that allowed public
participation to result in actually the development of a plan.
It seems to me that that is good. Would you agree or disagree
with that?
Mr. Lyons. I would agree, Mr. Hill. In fact, I think we
have made great strides in the Forest Service in enhancing our
ability to engage the public in a dialog over the use of their
forests, but we have a ways to go. Certainly, what we have
learned is the earlier the opportunity, the more open the
process, and the greater the likelihood then that the community
will become engaged and will become a part of the process of
devising solutions that make good sense, make good sense for
the communities, and with the input of the Forest Service and
other resource management professionals make good sense from an
ecological and biological standpoint as well.
Mr. Rick Hill. In this instance, this process was always an
open process; there was public scrutiny of the process. Is that
how this came about?
Mr. Lyons. Again, I think I would rather defer to the
people who engaged in the process within the Quincy Library
Group and they can better, I think, characterize how they went
about developing consensus over time.
Mr. Rick Hill. Fair enough. Let us talk about the cost of
implementing the program. In your testimony, you suggested that
the Secretary is prepared to allocate the resources.
Have you done an evaluation of what the cost of the
implementation of this will be in contrast with what the cost
would be under the earlier forest management plan?
Mr. Lyons. We do have some estimates, and if I could, I
would defer to Mr. Connaughton or Mr. Madrid to give you those
specifics.
Mr. Rick Hill. That is fine.
Mr. Madrid. The costs that we estimated in the bill to
implement that is really no different than our day-to-day costs
for doing business. Really what the bill does is it directs to
more concentrated efforts on certain types of activities across
the landscape, but in reality, the costs of doing these types
of activities would be no different than our day-to-day
activities.
Mr. Rick Hill. So we are not looking at any additional
costs?
Mr. Madrid. Not in terms of actual costs to work on the
ground. Costs may be in terms of what is available for us to do
the work, so with the change in budgets and some other things,
there would be some additional need for funding to achieve that
level of activity.
The level of activity doesn't just include harvest
activities or fuel treatment. As part of the last couple of
years of things that the Administration has done in support of
this effort, we have dealt with watershed restoration. We have
a long-term monitoring plan now that we are looking at to deal
with this pilot program as well as looking at some different
things of where we need to be in our land management process.
Now, in the Plumas, we have initiated the review process to
find out and see where we need to go in terms of potential
amendment or revision to our forest plan, so there is more to
that than just dealing with actual fuel treatment on the ground
whether it be by harvest activity, prescribed fire or
reforestation as the combination of all the different
activities.
But really, the day-to-day work that we do and the costs
would be the same to implement this. It is just a difference in
the magnitude of the effort we would need to undertake that
way, so it is not any more expensive than any of the other work
we do every day.
Mr. Rick Hill. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lyons.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Herger, I would
like to recognize you for five minutes for questioning.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, I want to
thank our Forest Service for our forest supervisors from two of
our forests for being out here. Lynn Sprague, I want to thank
you for all the help and support that you have given us, and
Mr. Lyons, I do want to thank you for being here, and I want to
thank you for working with us.
I was just going over some of my notes here. Evidently,
since we have been working, just the two of us here, and I want
to thank you for your expression of strong support from the
beginning of this process, certainly from the time we
introduced the legislation last summer, our individual work at
that time, you mentioned that there were a few areas you wanted
to look at, but you felt that you would be able to--if I am
misrepresenting you, I am sure you will tell me.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Herger. It seemed to me last September that it looked
like you were--I think your comment was that you were going to
be sending me a letter very soon in support. We were very
close, and you got back to us I don't know how many different
times, but we went back and forth, and I believe there is
somewhere between 12 and 25 changes that we have already made
in that original legislation that we introduced last summer
that were because of your recommendations that were fine-tuning
this legislation. I feel because of it, it is far better
legislation today than it was when we originally introduced it
last year because of again, yours and the Forest Service's
input on this.
I just want to make sure the record is clear. It is not
like we are just now starting on this process. We have been
working with it for some time, working in conjunction with you,
so I guess we get back to the point. The concern that we have
in Quincy and these communities in these three national forests
as we saw the Cottonwood fire a few years ago where the town of
Loyalton was threatened to be burned three different times,
this is a serious situation. We have nothing left in an area
that we live in if we don't move immediately.
We had hoped originally that the Forest Service would be
able to implement this and do it administratively, and I have
heard you in our hearing and up in Oregon here, I don't know,
three weeks, a month ago or so, your indication that you would
like to see much of this done administratively. I believe that
was a comment you made at that time, and I agree with you, but
in these last few years, this has not been the case. We have
not been able to get this program, and I would like to make a
comment, too, on the record of some questions, some good
questions that Mr. Hinchey had, and that was, are we just
taking one aspect--are we only dealing with the fire area and
are we not dealing--why are we not dealing with the entire
ecosystem, and the fact is, the Quincy Library plan does deal
with the entire ecosystem. All we are trying to do is implement
one part of it that was done in context of everything.
Just with that, I guess I get back to the point, please
forgive me, Jim, for being a little frustrated, but starting
last September, comments were, gee, maybe next week, we are
going to have this letter, or gee, make this change. About 12
or 25 changes later, your comment is almost precisely the same
today as it was last September. Tomorrow, I think we are close
but not quite there.
I am sure that maybe it is a misperception, but it almost
seems like the goal post keeps moving further and further back
as we get closer to it, and how much more time do we need?
Mr. Lyons. Well, Mr. Herger, let me respond by saying how
much I appreciate your efforts to work with us----
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mr. Lyons. [continuing]--to try and perfect and refine some
things. I think what is happening now with regard to the
legislation is as it moves forward and as it is clear that
there is an intent to proceed that others who have felt that
they have not had an opportunity to have input, others, I
think, as Mr. Hinchey alluded to, seek an opportunity to have
an opportunity to convey their concerns and to see if in fact
they are real and need to be addressed substantively or whether
or not they can be addressed in some other way.
That is the process that we engage in here in developing
legislation, so I would suggest to you that from the standpoint
of our interest within the Administration and we have come a
long way, I think legitimately, others have raised some
concerns, and I think we owe them the time to sit down and
explain what we understand the bill to do. I think the dialog
we had last week between Mark and Jody and your staff and
members of the Quincy Library Group was most instructive in
gaining an understanding of how this would be implemented and
what the ramifications would be, and that led to further
refinements.
I think through that process, I hope we can bring people
along to the point where there is general support. It would be
ridiculous at this point in time to be left to fight over words
when what we really need is action on the ground, and I would
like to get us there.
Mr. Herger. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I
might mention just in the last three years while we have been
working with this, and I do see the red light, and I will close
with this, but while we have been working to deal with this,
probably almost 175,000,000 acres of forest land have been
completely burned and devastated just in my State of
California. I might mention that this is 175,000,000 acres
where we have destroyed the habitat. We have destroyed habitat
for the Spotted Owl, and we have virtually destroyed our stream
purity, everything else that goes with that, so I would hope we
don't continue talking too much longer, because as we do, we
are losing a priceless resource that not only are we devastated
by, those of us who live in these communities, but a national
resource that our entire nation is losing. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I would like to just
ask a little bit about the framework of the bill, Secretary
Lyons. As I understand it, this bill will set in place
legislation for the management of two and a half national
forests. It will set in place a plan and then as the plan is
implemented, it must fall under the National Forest Management
Act and all applicable laws.
There are several, which include the ESA and the Clean Air
Act and the Clean Water Act, and so I don't see any way that we
can reason that this legislation would not impose requirements
under those environmental laws, including NEPA, right? Is that
correct as you understand it?
Mr. Lyons. As you phrased the question, I am not sure quite
how to answer except to say that our understanding is that any
activities implemented would have to be done so in a manner
that is consistent with NEPA, NFMA, CASPO guidelines, et
cetera, so that would maintain a consistent framework, so I
guess we agree, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Good. I also wanted to ask you, Mr. Lyons--
Mr. Sprague, it is good to see you again. I saw you about a
year ago.
Let me ask you this. When we commonly and typically refer
to resource management or timber management, when we talk about
resource management, I think Mr. Hinchey's question needs to be
answered. Is it strictly timber and fuel load or is it
management for wildlife and watershed management or what?
Mr. Sprague. Much of the project's activities envisioned
under the bill under the Quincy Library Group Report of 1993 is
focused on forest health, at getting us to a state with that
250,000,000 acres that we have reduced the fire risk and the
fuel loading such that we can carry out the rest of our
ecosystem management responsibilities.
The point is, right now we have, as Congressman Herger
pointed out, serious fire risk and forest health conditions
particularly on the east side of those forests, and that is
what those projects are focused on primarily. It doesn't take
anything away from the rest of the multiple-use and ecosystem
responsibilities that these supervisors have under their forest
plans.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Sprague, tell me, how serious today is
the fire situation in the Sierras?
Mr. Sprague. It isn't real serious today but----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Projecting to June, July, and August.
Mr. Sprague. It is a continuing problem. We have had 100
years or thereabouts of fire exclusion from our good fire
control practices over that period of time, doing what at the
time we thought was the right thing, what was the best science
of the day.
We now realize that we were overly aggressive in that
activity, and we have what has built up over nearly a century
of time that we can't deal with overnight. We have a continuing
problem, and will have for a number of years to get these
forest health issues under control, get the understory removal
taken care of, getting the stands thinned out, so that we have
vigorous stands that withstand both fire and insect and disease
and others.
Mr. Lyons. Madam Chairman, if I could answer that same
question, in the context of the question that Mr. Hinchey asked
of me earlier, the bill does of course focus on certain
management prescriptions that are a priority. They are a
priority for the reasons that Lynn just described, the
necessity of reducing wildfire risk in ecosystems in which fire
has been excluded for long periods of time.
But rather than take my word or the Quincy Library Group's
word for it, if I could, I would just want to quickly read you
something out of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Report.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Lyons. This is a report that was chartered, if you
will, as a result of legislation that originated in this
committee, and the legislation, of course, was authored by
former Chief of Staff Leon Panetta as well as former Chairman
Miller, and I had a little hand in drafting the legislation, so
it is near and dear to my heart, too.
I think everyone agrees that this is kind of the state-of-
the-art science in terms of the Sierra Nevadas and a very
valuable contribution to our management efforts. But here is
what the document says with regard to the role of fire as it
pertains to other resources, wildlife, water quality, et
cetera.
It says, ``There is strong evidence that fire once was a
major ecological process in the Sierra Nevada with profound
influences on many if not most Sierran ecosystems. The success
of fire suppression has altered and will continue to alter
Sierran ecosystems with various consequences in regard to
ecological function, new transcycling, forest structural
development, biodiversity, hydrology, water quality. Many of
the consequences probably have not yet been described.
Regardless of what combinations of strategies are ultimately
used, only wide-scale extensive landscape treatments, fuel
treatments, which would be thinning, some salvage work and
prescribed fire can approach the level of influence that fire
once had on the Sierran environment.''
It goes on to say that, ``Ideally, work on all goals should
progress concurrently,'' and the report lays out some specific
goals. It says the highest priority goals should be goals one,
three, and four. Goal one is simply substantially reduce the
potential for large, high-severity wildfires in the Sierra
Nevada in both wildlands and the wildland/urban intermix, and
that comes about from the kind of fuel loading treatments that
are called for in the context of the Quincy Library Group
report.
So these activities, while they are highlighted in this
bill, are done so because they have such a critical impact on
the future health and vitality of all the resources within the
Sierra Nevada ecosystem. We shouldn't lose sight of that.
Mr. Sprague. One other quick comment on that, too, is that
the bill as drafted would step up the pace with which we do
this work on these two or three national forests, and I think
the value there is from a forest management standpoint, is that
we get a larger amount of work done so that we can begin
monitoring and evaluating what we have accomplished so that we
can learn if these practices are what we really need to be
doing across the whole Sierra Nevada ecosystem.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just want to ask the members here if they
would like to open this up for a second round of questions.
Mr. Hinchey, did you have further questions?
Mr. Hinchey. I suppose that Mr. Lyons and I could go on and
on indefinitely, but I just want to make the point in response
to what you just said and which I do not contest at all which
is obviously the case in the report that you read, but the bill
doesn't talk about the use of fire as a management tool. The
only thing it mentions is defensible fire breaks; that is the
only thing it mentions as a tool to deal with the problem of
potential fire in the forests.
Unquestionably, since we have prevented fire from occurring
as it once naturally did, the ecosystem has changed, but the
bill doesn't really deal with that. It doesn't mention that we
might use controlled fire as a management tool. It only
mentions defensible fire breaks.
So while what you say is true, the import of what you are
trying to convey, I think, is not quite there.
Mr. Lyons. I recognize your concerns, Congressman, and I
suggest that is one area in which we could clarify what the
intended purposes are. I think the issue with regard to
reducing fuels is one where we can't introduce prescribed fire
in many of the areas in the Sierras because the fuel loads are
so high, it will generate crown fires, and that is not what we
seek to achieve.
Certainly, that is an area where clarification could be
provided.
Mr. Hinchey. That just brings me back to my original point,
Mr. Lyons, and that is that if you are going to manage this
resource in a way that is different from the way that it has
been managed in the past, or at least, if you are going to set
up a management structure that is different from that which has
existed in the past, and I think that maybe that is a good
idea; it may be a good idea to do that, but if you are going to
do it, you ought to do it comprehensively, and you ought to be
managing it with regard to overall concern for the entire
ecological system and all of those species which depend upon
it. It ought not to be done exclusively as the bill seems to
indicate it would be done in this particular case for timber
and for fuels management.
Mr. Lyons. We share the same goals and objectives. I think
perhaps we just need to clarify the language in our purposes so
it is clear that we are going to manage in an ecosystem context
to achieve that goal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. Herger.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Madame Chair, and I want to thank
Mr. Hinchey for that very good point. I might mention that the
original plan, the whole plan and we wish we could incorporate
all of it, does do precisely what you are recommending, but the
concern was, we would have a tough enough job just getting this
one little piece through Congress rather than trying to get the
whole program.
But I think what is important is that what we are doing was
done, and again, we will hear more from our Quincy Library
Group here in a few minutes, but all of this was done within
the context of managing for the entire ecosystem, so this was
not done by itself without considering that, and hopefully,
that will come out later.
But I think that is a point that is absolutely crucial in
anything we do today is exactly what you are mentioning.
I would like Lynn Sprague, our regional forester, if I
could ask you a question. Many of our national interest groups
have criticized the catastrophic event language in the bill
claiming that it creates ``enormous loopholes which the Forest
Service will exploit to deprive critical areas of interim
protection,'' yet the bill requires preparation of a full
environmental impact statement, the most environmentally
protective process available under law prior to designation of
a catastrophic event area.
Mr. Sprague, in your opinion, is the requirement for a full
EIS prior to entering a catastrophic event area an enormous
loophole?
Mr. Sprague. I would have to say no.
Mr. Herger. Why would you say no?
Mr. Sprague. Because we have authority to do that now
without a special provision that doesn't always require a full
EIS, so this would be more conservative than what our present
practice is, and we have actually even suggested that this
probably isn't even a needed element of this bill.
Mr. Herger. Thank you. Mr. Lyons, did you have any further
comment on this?
Mr. Lyons. No, sir.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, so you do not see this as a
loophole, and I would presume, Mr. Lyons, you don't either.
Mr. Sprague. I have not had any discussions about it. Your
question is the first time I have had to address that other
than my own concern about why is this in there.
Mr. Herger. Right.
Mr. Lyons. I would suggest, Congressman, this is one of the
areas that we did discuss last week, and perhaps Mark could
comment. Mark Madrid could comment on the outcome of that
discussion.
Mr. Herger. OK.
Mr. Madrid. It was one of the topics that we discussed
because there were some concerns just as you described, Mr.
Herger.
Mr. Herger. Right.
Mr. Madrid. With OGC's help, we came up with language that
would address that issue. The issue that we had at the time was
the perception that there was going to be a need for two EISs
and our process exists right now that already streamlines and
puts it into one.
What we did with OGC's help and with the QLG's help and
then as well as your staffers, we came up with language that
addressed that, that hopefully met OGC's concerns of the legal
requirements for meeting that, so we hopefully have closed that
loophole or at least the perception of that.
Mr. Herger. The perception of it. I believe what I am
hearing, and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but
let me just state this and correct me if I am wrong, this is
more of a perceived loophole than it is really a loophole. I
mean, we are talking about the most stringent environmental
assessment that we have, and as Mr. Sprague did mention, if
anything, this is more conservative in protecting the
environment than what you already have and which the Forest
Service already has at its disposal now.
I see I have a little bit of time. This is so complex an
issue that I think of myself--now, I grew up down in the
agricultural area of my district, even though 80 percent of it
is national forest. Just representing it takes myself several
years to get up on the uniqueness of just the California part
of the forest, and I would like to respond to another very good
question of Congressman Hinchey in which he was wondering about
why aren't we allowing more fire in.
I think it was alluded to by you, Mr. Lyons. What has
happened over the years, well-meaning managers have tried to
prevent all forest fires starting probably in the 1850's when
settlements first came to California, really intensifying in
the earlier part of this century, and particularly the 1930's.
Rather than having natural fire that would go through on a
regular basis and do a thinning process, because we prevent it
all with Smokey the Bear and well-intentioned people, now, we
have these unnatural, very dense forests, so that now when we
have a fire go through, rather than be a natural process that
would burn the underbrush and thin out some trees and our large
trees would remain, now we have a situation that is referred to
where you have fire that will be a fuel jump and it will get up
into the crowns and actually destroy all our trees, including
the larger ones that normally would have lived.
The purpose of this plan is to go in and attempt to begin
restoring this forest as it was pre-settlement time so that we
can go back to the natural lightning type of fires that would
be a natural thing rather than the catastrophic type that we
currently have that destroy everything, and that is what our
goal is.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Herger.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just have one question and that is for
Mr. Madrid or anyone who may want to answer it.
When Mr. Lyons was testifying, he pointed out that the SNEP
or the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project suggests establishing
defensible fuel profile zones by creating a more open forest
structure and that once that is done, prescribed fire could be
introduced.
I want to ask you, Mr. Madrid, is H.R. 858 consistent with
the SNEP report? Does it in any way contradict that particular
plan of fire suppression or does it enhance it?
Mr. Madrid. Well, SNEP dealt with things on a very broad
scale all the way throughout the Sierra Nevada ecosystem. In
terms of it being consistent or not, the principles that SNEP
uses to apply to the ground are the very same principles that
we would use to apply this kind of activity to get more of the
fire-safe, not fire-proof, but fire-safe forests that we need
to have. In that sense, you could say it is consistent.
It is really an application of the principles involved in
creating a more healthy ecosystem than it is whether it is
consistent with SNEP or not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The point is that in the Quincy Library
bill, we are not trying to implement SNEP; that is a whole big
project by itself, isn't it?
Mr. Madrid. That is correct, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Connaughton, let me ask you, without
having the fuel breaks, there is no way that we could do any
massive management by fire until we set forth those fuel breaks
to be able to control the fires, is that correct?
Mr. Connaughton. Actually, you have two related
observations. One is, do we need the fuel breaks. There is
great value in fact in having the defensible fuel profile
zones. Fire is a management tool. Fire is in those ecosystems.
In the Lassen forest, it is approximately 600,000 acres. If
fire enters any of those 600,000 acres, it gets away faster
than we can run away, and that is our problem. Until we can
reduce the density of those fuels by cutting down the small
trees, removing them through whatever means possible, then we
face the likelihood of gigantic fires and it is a matter of
when, not if.
Once those fuels are reduced, then that gives us the
opportunity to use fire as a management tool, either
deliberately introduced into the forest or introduced through
natural causes. Currently, approximately 70 percent of our
forest fires are caused by lightning.
If we have the proper fuel conditions, that is not a
monumental threat to us, but with the current fuel conditions,
it is.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, and I know it is true
in my forests, some of my forests in Idaho, and I am sure it is
true in northern California, too, that management by fire was a
tool that the Native American Indians used, so it has been
around a long time. We are just trying to revisit those things
that happened in history that are good.
But I thank you all for coming such a long way. I wish we
had more time. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your fine
testimony, and I will excuse this panel and invite the other
panel. Panel III is Tom Nelson, District Forester, Sierra
Pacific Industries; Bill Coates, County Supervisor, Plumas
County Board of Supervisors, Quincy, California; Michael
Jackson, Esquire, Friends of Plumas Wilderness, Quincy,
California; Louis Blumberg, Assistant Regional Director of the
Wilderness Society, San Francisco, California; and Ryan Henson,
Conservation Associate, California Wilderness Coalition, Davis,
California.
Please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear and
affirm under the penalty of perjury that you will tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Thank you very much. I now recognize our next witness, Mr.
Tom Nelson, District Forester, Sierra Pacific Industries. Mr.
Nelson.
STATEMENT OF TOM NELSON, DISTRICT FORESTER, SIERRA PACIFIC
INDUSTRIES
Mr. Nelson. Good afternoon, Madame Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Tom Nelson, and I am a forester
for Sierra Pacific Industries in Redding, California, and I am
here today as a founding member of the Quincy Library Group, or
as we refer to it, QLG, on occasion.
It is our hope that you will help us implement the
proposals of this group by supporting the QLG bill recently
introduced by Congressman Herger, H.R. 858.
I would like to take this opportunity for the record to
thank a number of people for their invaluable assistance.
First, I wish to thank Mr. Herger for his assistance and his
leadership in carrying our bill. Next, I would like to thank
Secretary of Agriculture Glickman and Under Secretary Lyons for
their continued support of the silvicultural prescriptions
described in the QLG's agreement of '93 which has been
accurately translated into H.R. 858. I would also like to
acknowledge and thank both Senators Feinstein and Boxer for
their ongoing efforts to introduce a similar bill in the
Senate.
The ideas that are embodied in H.R. 858 actually started in
November of 1992, when the three of us sitting here from the
Quincy Library Group at this panel met together for the first
time. It was a very unusual meeting, and between the three of
us, we brought to the table a complete spectrum of opposing
viewpoints on national forest management in California.
Yet we soon found that we also shared a number of common
viewpoints. We all cared deeply about the stability and the
well-being of our communities, about our forested surroundings,
and about the legacy that we leave to our children and our
grandchildren. Moreover, we all agree that the current
management strategies of the U.S. Forest Service for this part
of California are unacceptable to each of the diverse
viewpoints we represented. Business as usual will not meet
anyone's needs.
After several of these initial meetings with just the three
of us, we decided to expand our discussions and bring in more
ideas and participants. We wanted to see if others in the
community shared our concerns. We did this, and it soon became
apparent that a lot of members of the community not only shared
our concerns, but they shared a common set of remedies with us.
When I use the term ``we'' in this case, I am not referring
to just others within the forest products industry. When I say
``we'' in the context of the Quincy Library Group, I mean
loggers, local environmental leaders, teachers, county
government, organized labor, ranchers, road crews, fly fishers,
biologists, and even a retired airline pilot who has developed
a strong interest in fuels management strategies.
Given the strong community support, we soon developed and
agreed upon the QLG agreement of 1993. In many respects, this
was our response to President Clinton's request at the Portland
Forestry Conference, to ``insist on collaboration, not
confrontation.''
A central issue that binds us together is befitting an
appearance today before this Subcommittee. That overarching
issue is our concern for the health of the national forests
which surround our communities. We are deeply concerned with
the very real and very ominous risk for catastrophic wildfires
within these forests. To demonstrate this, I would like to call
your attention to a position paper the Quincy Library Group put
out some time ago which is attached to your copies of my
testimony.
In this paper, we have tried to show that the present
explosive situation, the potential for significant catastrophic
wildfires, is getting worse, not better. At the current pace,
without implementation of this Quincy Library Group bill, we
estimate that it will take these forests 180 years before they
even begin to reverse this trend.
The Library Group has designed a comprehensive strategy to
combat the rising risk of catastrophic wildfires, and that
strategy is included in H.R. 858. The prime objective of our
initial strategy is to isolate individual watersheds of 8,000
to 12,000 acres with shaded fuelbreaks which have already been
mentioned. These fuelbreaks would be about a quarter-mile wide,
and they are not the bare-ground type of fuelbreak that you
commonly associate with a power line or a gas line. They are
shaded fuelbreaks. Our intent is not to stop major fires as
they hit these fuelbreaks, but to force the fire down out of
the crown so that firefighters have a better chance to control
it. Put another way, our goal is not to stop the occurrence of
wildfires, but it is to keep them at 10,000 acres, not 150,000.
We estimate that with this strategy, it will take the
Forest Service 20 to 30 years to completely reverse this rising
trend of wildfire risk, but that we can live for the next five
years with the Library Group bill in a much safer condition.
I see the orange light is on, so I will skip some of my
testimony, but I would like to tell you that the Library Group
proposals that are embodied in this bill have received a
certain amount of criticism recently, most notably from some of
the national preservation groups. I would urge you to study
these criticisms in light of the growing fear these urban-based
groups seem to have toward coalitions which include their
locally based affiliates.
We welcome the support of any and all of these nationally
based groups in our pursuit to pass H.R. 858, and it has
already been pointed out that several changes have been offered
up from our group. We will continue to try and accommodate
these groups, and we will continue to work with anyone who is
sincere in helping us get our proposals implemented, but we
must also caution you that we cannot change the original intent
and integrity of our agreement, and we hope that you will be
cognizant of this as you go through mark-up, amendment
proposals, and hearings.
I see the red light is on, so I would like to thank you for
this opportunity and I would urge your support of this bill so
that we might begin the long uphill battle toward
implementation of our agreement. Thank you, again.
[Statement of Tom Nelson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. I would like to call
on Bill Coates, County Supervisor, Plumas County Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Coates.
STATEMENT OF BILL COATES, SUPERVISOR, PLUMAS COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
Mr. Coates. Thank you, Madame Chair. I appreciate being in
front of this committee again.
My statement, I think, will be reasonably brief. I started
it off by wanting to say we attended, we listened, and we
attempted to do, and I can assure you, Mr. Hinchey, that if you
would have been in that process, you would have been very
pleased with the effort put forth by people from all sorts of
different backgrounds.
I wanted to say that we studied, we worked, we argued, we
fought, we met in a library so we wouldn't have any fist
fights. We took the environmental organizations' suggestions on
the maps. We asked them how the forest prescription ought to
look, and they told us. We took that. We walked away from a
logging sale that we could have encouraged because it broke our
agreement. We folded in the Collins Pine method of forestry. We
had 80 years of proof on the ground that that worked; it is
much more impressive than the Forest Service lands right next
to them. We took the stream restoration program that is now
drawing visitors from around the United States as a leader in
the United States. We adopted the SAT guidelines that came to
us from the work done in the northern Spotted Owl country,
supported by all the environmental groups, I believe. We helped
to set up the DFPZ (defensible fuel profile zones) ideas which
were kind of given to us by the fire folks as we started
talking about real strategy and not further confusion.
What we have done today is we have brought you a gift, and
the gift isn't really a gold bar. It is an agreement. It is the
agreement that President Clinton asked us to come up with in
Portland. He told us to get out of the courtrooms and get into
the meeting rooms and find a way to cooperate and get along
with each other and do some listening as well as some talking.
The gift is now yours. This is a good day for me. I am hoping
to turn this over to you folks, and you figure out what to do
with it.
Besides addressing the declining forest health which almost
every scientist will tell you is there and is a very real
problem, there is another condition that is at risk. That is
the condition of the decisionmaking process.
We have done what the American system has suggested since
this country was formed, and that is, when you have problems,
try to get people together to talk it over and try to figure it
out. We weren't trying to take it away from the whole rest of
the United States. We were trying to include them when we could
and take their ideas, but just as a tidal wave would probably
bring more anxiety along the coast, the forest fires are
bringing a higher level of anxiety for those of us that have to
face those every summer.
That process was kind of a conflict resolution process. We
had hundreds and hundreds of meetings. It cost us personal
money. It is lonely in the middle. We weren't invited to
meetings all at once. We had to explain ourselves all over the
place. Meanwhile, we were being studied and interviewed by
Charles Osgood and the public television, and it has been
draining and exciting, and it has been mixing some better
forest health with some lessening fire danger which, if you are
very strong in the environmental community, you have to be
excited about because it helps with the animals and the water
quality, and it also cuts down the explosive disturbance that
we are calling fire.
Now, around the United States, there is starting to be
these groups popping up all over the place, and they are either
a danger or they are exciting. I think they are exciting. I
believe in them, and if we fail, there is a lot of those groups
that will also want to quit because they know something about
the struggle that we have gone through. If they see our
failure, it will take some of the heart away from them. There
is something else at stake here, and that is the process.
Finally, I would like to thank this committee for its
patience with our bipartisan nature. As most of you know, we
are not liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We are
a mixture of all of those things, and I would particularly like
to thank Congressman Herger for a ton of work, for Congressman
Fazio and his work, the work of Senators Feinstein and Boxer,
and particularly, too, the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan
Glickman; the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Richard
Rominger; and Under Secretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons. Those
folks have saved us when we were getting tired and discouraged,
kept us up and kept us going, and so this is our thanks to
them.
[Statement of Bill Coates may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Coates. That is very
encouraging testimony. I would like to call on Michael Jackson,
Esquire, Friends of Plumas Wilderness.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JACKSON, ESQUIRE, FRIEND OF PLUMAS
WILDERNESS
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madame Chairman. My name is Michael
Jackson, which is not always easy.
I am a salmon lawyer, and in terms of the Spotted Owl, two
members of Friends of the Plumas Wilderness filed the original
Spotted Owl lawsuit in California that resulted in the CASPO
report that the environmental movement believes rightfully is a
long step forward.
We certainly are not interested in destroying the
environment in California. The only endangered species which we
presently have in the Quincy Library Group area was listed
about a week ago under the State endangered species act law. It
was listed by me.
This particular arrangement with the land is such that when
the species was listed, the last 400 salmon in California that
entered the Sierra, there was no problem with the Library Group
approach because we had already set aside all of the land, from
ridge top to ridge top, miles away from that species.
That is the reason that you will find that this group has a
good future is because we try to be proactive. We don't look at
just what we have to deal with today, but we look at what we
have to deal with tomorrow.
I have worked most of my life to preserve species, and I
know these forests and the people within them, because I have
lived there my whole life. I have read every major scientific
study concerning natural resources that applies to forestry or
watershed management in California, and this is the single best
program that I have ever seen in California.
The land base is mostly part of the existing forest plan
and is George Miller's ancient forest bill land base. I don't
know how we can get any better than that in terms of the land
base.
In the course of doing this, the two gentlemen from the
environmental movement that are sitting on either side have
become long-time friends of mine. In the course of doing the
Library Group, the two gentlemen sitting at the other end of
the table have become friends of mine.
The people of the west don't like each other, they don't
trust each other, and they don't have any respect for each
other, and that is what we are trying to deal with. The
distrust and thirst for vengeance that presently exists were
most recently elevated by the salvage rider. Our local salvage
rider, Barkley, almost tore the Library Group apart.
We want to publicly thank Congressman Fazio, the ancient
forest community, and the timber industry for standing behind
the principles of the Library Group at that most divisive time.
This was a time in which we had no legal recourse, and the
timber industry, when the sales were brought up right above
those 400 fish that I was talking about refused to buy the
sale.
They needed timber then worse than they ever needed timber
in the history of our community, but a deal was a deal, and so
if you believe this to be simply a timber industry front, take
a look at the history of Barkley, the first salvage rider sale
recalled by the Administration in the United States, and
realize that the timber industry had a lot to do with that.
The Library Group is both a process and a substantive on-
the-ground solution. First the process. Bill Clinton did
something right in Portland so long ago. When our members came
home from various sides, they were energized, enthusiastic, and
dedicated. ``Get out of the courtroom and reach consensus to do
the right thing for both the land and the people.'' We worked
hard. We studied hard. We traveled hard, because in rural
communities, you have to go to Washington. You have to go to
San Francisco to protect your community.
One hundred of us have dedicated ourselves to this problem.
What we need right now is time so that you all understand what
this proposal is about. We need bipartisanship. We are not sure
we have enough of it yet. The Library Group wants everybody to
agree and let us tell you, we will be here as many years as it
takes to convince everybody that this is the right thing to do
on this land.
We are in no hurry. We have already spent four and a half
years and hundreds of thousands of hours, so if people ask you
for time, please give it to them. If they ask you for changes
that are simply making it clearer to everybody to end the
distrust and the hatred, give them time. This process will
stand any light that anybody shines on it.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I very much appreciate
the honor of being the first bill considered in your
Subcommittee.
[Statement of Michael Jackson may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Michael Jackson. I would like to
call on Louis Blumberg, Assistant Regional Director of The
Wilderness Society in San Francisco.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS BLUMBERG, ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE
WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Blumberg. Thank you, Representative Chenoweth and
members of the committee for inviting me to testify here today.
I am Louis Blumberg, the Assistant Regional Director of The
Wilderness Society in the San Francisco office.
I want to stress four points here. You have my written
statement and I would like to request that that be included in
the record. I want to stress four key points here.
We support the general goals of the QLG. The results of the
QLG process as expressed by H.R. 858 has failed to produce a
public consensus. The bill has serious flaws and creates great
uncertainty and Federal legislation is not needed to accomplish
our shared goals.
Now, first, we support the general goals of the Quincy
Library Group. We, like most Americans, want to see healthy
forests where there is less risk of high-intensity wildfire,
where there is protection for wilderness areas, ancient
forests, and riparian zones, and where there are livable local
communities with viable economies.
We also acknowledge that the Quincy Library Group has made
significant success in strengthening the social fabric and in
promoting harmony in local communities. As we have heard here
today, the Quincy Library Group has drawn wide recognition and
support for its process.
However, and the second point here, in this instance, the
collaborative process has failed to achieve a public consensus.
National, regional, and other local interests in the Sierra
Nevada and even in Plumas County have not been included, nor
have their concerns been addressed. Collaborative processes are
about local involvement, not about local control.
Our efforts which we initiated recently to participate in
the process have been given little consideration in the outcome
here in this legislation, and our efforts have been derailed by
the speed with which Congress is acting. I would point that as
a demonstration of the failure of the process today is the
broad opposition in California, not to the Quincy Library Group
process because everybody can like the process. Who could not
like the idea of people sitting down to work out their
differences?
We support it very much, but the outcome today is seriously
flawed, and the bill is opposed by 19 environmental
organizations. They are national groups, they are regional
groups, they are statewide groups. they are grass roots groups
in the Sierra Nevada, in Northern California, including a local
group in Plumas County. So there is strong and uniform
opposition to the bill.
Now, the bill has many serious flaws. They are enumerated,
most of them, in my written testimony. Fundamentally, the bill
is surrounded by great uncertainty as to what would actually
happen on the ground, where it would happen, and what the
impacts would be. No environmental or economic analysis has
been prepared for the bill as is required by the National
Forest Management Act.
Now, a couple of the key problems with the bill. Although
nobody has been able to tell us, our rough calculations
indicate that the bill would increase logging dramatically, at
least double the current rates of logging, and far exceed the
level that is estimated to be sustainable under the CASPO
report.
The bill also mandates an experimental and ill-defined
management strategy. The DFPZ, the defensible fuel profile
zone, is an experimental concept. It does not appear in any
forest plan. The scientists in SNEP will tell you that there is
no field data to show that it works.
We think it is promising. We agree with the Library Group,
and we would like to see it tested, but 225,000,000 or
240,000,000 acres is way too vast an amount of public land to
subject to this experiment. We would support a scientific test
on one range or district to evaluate the efficacy of the
program.
One of the key problems with the bill is that it would
override current laws, and we talked about this a little here
today, and my understanding of the bill, the way I read it, is
that by not requiring an environmental impact statement before
we legislate a management plan, we would have in effect
suspended NEPA. We would also be suspending the National Forest
Management Act. Those two laws are checks and balances. They
enforce protection of the environment and give the public the
opportunity to understand what is going to happen on the
ground.
Furthermore, Madame Chairman, you mentioned that the SNEP
process is a bigger process. Right now in California, there is
a regional planning exercise going on that is derived from the
SNEP and the California Spotted Owl process. We think that H.R.
858 would preempt this process and would cover one-third of the
entire area being studied for this planning process.
The other problems are listed in the bill, but let me get
to the final point here. Federal legislation is not needed
here. The existing forest plans have the flexibility to do the
type of management activities and if, as people have asserted,
that all activities will comply with all laws, then why do we
need another law?
Currently, the logging program in the area is quite high.
The Lassen National Forest cut more timber last year than any
national forest in the State of California. Congress could use
the appropriations process to direct that funds be used to test
the QLG program on one range or district.
We believe Federal legislation is a serious step, and in
this case, would put aside the National Forest Management Act
and the National Environmental Policy Act. We believe that it
should be used carefully and only when needed.
The public has a right to know and Congress has the
obligation to fully understand the impacts before legislating
any forest management policy.
In summary, because of the many flaws and the uncertainties
surrounding it, because the bill is not needed, The Wilderness
Society must oppose H.R. 858. We are willing to work with the
Library Group and others to establish a broader, collaborative
process that involves all stakeholders to try to come to some
agreement on how these lands should be managed. We think there
is some merit to some of these programs. Thank you.
[Statement of Louis Blumberg may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Blumberg. I would like to
call on Ryan Henson, Conservation Associate, California
Wilderness Coalition, Davis, California. Mr. Henson.
STATEMENT OF RYAN HENSON, CONSERVATION ASSOCIATE, CALIFORNIA
WILDERNESS COALITION
Mr. Henson. Madame Chairman, thank you for this opportunity
to testify here today before the Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health regarding H.R. 858.
We have long supported our friends in the Quincy Library
Group and their goals of ecosystem protection, restoration, and
community stability. Much of my sympathy and support for the
efforts of the Quincy Library Group arises from the fact that
my father, mother, and grandfather worked in the timber
industry in Mendocino County, California, and I would have been
pleased when I lived in Mendocino County to have a
collaborative forum like the Quincy Library Group to bring
people together with careful, reasoned debate and mutual
respect instead of tearing people apart with divisive rhetoric
and animosity.
I have gotten lots of report of Quincy Library Group
meetings, and I do understand that there is a lot of very
serious debate and sometimes animosity, but I am always
surprised that at the end of the day, they all come out still
shaking hands.
I believe we should consider the Quincy Library Group
collaborative process and vision and H.R. 858 at least at this
point, as two different entities. In our view, the current
draft of H.R. 858 reflects neither the full spirit nor in all
cases the letter of the Quincy Library Group proposal.
It is imperative that Congressman Herger, the Resources
Committee, and most importantly of all the Quincy Library Group
work carefully and openly to ensure that H.R. 858 and any other
legislation adopting the mantle of the Quincy Library Group
vision be consistent with that vision.
We have identified six areas where the bill should be
modified to achieve the ecological and social goals of the
Quincy Library Group proposal. Regarding Section 2[c][2], that
is the catastrophic events exception, we appreciate the fact
that some modifying language has been added over the last
couple of weeks. We do recognize that. We would like to ensure,
and Mike Jackson and I were just going over this over in the
corner a couple hours ago, that other sensitive areas of
interest and concern to both members of the Quincy Library
Group and the environmental community and the community
generally are protected from that potential serious loophole.
Section 2[d] regarding resource management activities, we
believe that should be modified so that it is made clear that
the thinning, logging, and other programs authorized by the
bill will be consistent with existing environmental laws and
policies.
Perhaps that is purely symbolic, perhaps it is unnecessary,
but considering the events of the past year or more, I would
feel very good to see it in there.
Section 2[d][1] and [2] may actually, as Louis Blumberg
pointed out, double the amount of logging authorized in the
pilot project area, this two and two and one-quarter national
forests. We would like to see the amount of logging capped at
what the California Spotted Owl science team recommended for
the affected forests.
Section 2[e] regarding cost effectiveness should be deleted
or at least altered so that cheaper but perhaps more harmful
projects are not authorized over slightly more costly but more
benign projects.
Section 2[f] regarding other multiple-use activities should
be altered to eliminate the possibility that the Forest Service
will use this provision to authorize timber sales in addition
to the projects authorized in section [d].
Section 2[g][3] regarding funding flexibility should be
stricken since it may allow the Forest Service to reduce
funding and other necessary programs to fund the thinning and
logging described in section [d].
Now, we have been told by many members of the Quincy
Library Group and also by many congressional staff members that
most of our concerns have already been satisfied one way or
another in the legislation. The problem is, we haven't had the
time to sit down and have folks, both congressional staff and
members of the Quincy Library Group show me where these things
are, and as Mike mentioned, I would like to have that time.
We have worked and are willing to work with the Quincy
Library Group and members of Congress to bring about these
changes as well as other changes that members of the
environmental community or the wider community would like to
see made.
We think this is a hopeful process and a welcome process,
and we would like to see it move forward in a very careful and
deliberative way that does honor to the Quincy Library Group
tradition.
Thank you, Madame Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
for this opportunity to testify.
[Statement of Ryan Henson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Henson. I would
like to open the time for questioning now with Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. I don't have any questions at this time,
Madame Chairman, but I would like to express my appreciation to
the panel members for their coming here and for their efforts
in trying to solve this very knotty problem, and I have a much
deeper appreciation for the complexities of this problem after
hearing your testimony, each of you representing your diverse
points of view.
I just want to thank you very much for the extraordinary
effort that you have put in over the last four years, along
with your representatives in trying to resolve this issue, and
I think that we should pledge ourselves to try to work with you
as you continue to work this problem out to try to bring about
a solution that is acceptable in some way to everyone. My
deepest thanks to you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Herger.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Madame Chair, and this is an
exciting process. It is an exciting process, I think of the
years of the community that I represented that has been so
polarized with the environmental group on one side and those
who are trying to earn a living on the other side, in these
very much timber--excuse me. I could have worded much better,
but those who have worked in these forest product economy-based
communities to see just how they have gone at heads for so long
and be able to come here and be able to work with someone who
had been on perhaps the other side. Mr. Michael Jackson and
Linda Blum, some couple people who are nationally recognized
within the environmental community, and to see us be able to
work together really brings a degree of joy to this job and
responsibility that I have that I had not ever been able to
experience before, and I want to thank you for everyone who has
been involved, and of course, Bill Coates and Tom Nelson and so
many others. I think you mentioned 100. It really is something
that is exciting.
Mr. Blumberg, if I could ask you and I have the bill here
in front of me, have you had an opportunity to read the bill?
Mr. Blumberg. Yes, I have.
Mr. Herger. Could you tell me where, on what page it is
that it indicates that environmental laws have been suspended?
Mr. Blumberg. What the bill does is, it mandates an
alternative forest management plan that was developed by a
group of citizens, in this case, in Quincy, California. They
developed that plan themselves; that is the agreement.
The National Forest Management Act is our Federal law that
governs the development and the implementation of planning for
our national forests. So rather than going through the
procedures mandated by Federal law in the National Forest
Management Act which also involve the National Environmental
Policy Act with a companion environmental analysis, this
particular group has said this is the plan we want to have, and
what Congress is attempting to do with H.R. 858 is say, we are
going to set aside the National Forest Management Act, and we
are going to set aside the National Environmental Policy Act.
We are going to adopt this plan here as our national forest
management plan, and then we will worry about the analysis
later on when we go out to cut trees or we go out to do
defensible fuel profile zones. So what the bill has done is
that it has set aside those two important laws.
In another respect, the CASPO guidelines which have been
amended to the forest plans were, as you know, designed to
protect wildlife habitat and reduce the risk of high-intensity
wildfire. Those guidelines are very strict. They are
quantitative, they are numerical. When you come to the concept
of DFPZ (defensible fuel profile zones), as I said in my
testimony, that is an experimental term of which there are no
standards and guidelines.
We are quite concerned, and we are seeing this in other
national forests in the Sierra Nevada. We are seeing the
Sequoia National Forest, the Stanislaus National Forest, all
interpreting this concept of DFPZ in different ways.
One forest wants to cut all the trees whether they are 30
inches or bigger or not, so we are seeing an abuse, if you
will, from our perspective of the concept of DFPZ. The bill nor
the 1993 agreement nor the forest plans define what is actually
going to happen with the DFPZ, so again, that is stepping
outside of the normal planning process that is set up by
Federal law.
Mr. Herger. Mr. Jackson, if I could ask you perhaps to,
someone who has----
Mr. Jackson. Certainly, since it is my profession. My
understanding of the law is that unless the words
notwithstanding any other provision of law apply and we have
all been through that road and we don't want to go down it, all
of the existing environmental laws apply to this program. I am
sorry that Congressman Hinchey left, because essentially, what
we are legislating here is something that we have been asking
to do through the forest plan process since 1993.
The idea is that it is time to amend our forest plans by
law, and we want to get on with it, but as the Spotted Owl
experts in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project say, as we have
stumbled through all of this learning about ecosystem
management, the timber industry is on its knees. There is no
need for that. We can do some useful environmental work so that
by the time these plans are amended to move from the logging of
big trees to the logging of the smaller material, we have an
economy able to take care of the new markets.
We are not asking for any dispensation and I disagree with
Louis completely.
Mr. Nelson. Congressman Herger, may I add to that as well?
I realize the red light is on. I want----
Mr. Herger. Madame Chair, with your permission.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection.
Mr. Nelson. I have two points on my driver's license
already, so I am real cognizant of the red light here.
To add to that, if we did in fact propose to do half of the
things that Louis just proposed or his interpretation of our
bill, I can assure you that I would not be sitting here and I
know that Michael Jackson would not be sitting here.
Quite frankly, the response from the Forest Service to that
almost identical question was, they didn't even think we needed
to do anything with the forest plan, that everything that we
were proposing was in conformance with their existing plans.
We would probably agree with that, but we are so sure that
our proposals when compared to any other proposals out there
are going to be shown as superior that we have actually asked
for this additional round of NEPA.
We would like to see an amendment. We have a five-year
proposal before you in this bill. We would like to see this
analyzed for a much longer term, and we would like everyone to
take a look at it. We welcome anyone who wants to compare it
with in open forum, because you won't find anything better than
what we have proposed here.
But I wanted to make the point that we would like to have
that so that we don't get stopped from implementing ours by
someone enjoining our procedure, so we feel we are somewhat
insured by going through that procedure as well.
Mr. Herger. Maybe back to Mr. Jackson, you are a lawyer,
you are an environmental lawyer. Is the Quincy proposal
consistent with the law and the plans in the two national
forests or in these three national forests?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir, it is. The present plans call for
clear-cutting about 12,000 acres of land and the removal of
360,000,000 board feet of timber from the two forests. The
present operation of the Plumas National Forest in green sales
is 13,000,000 board feet in a forest that traditionally cut
about 170,000,000. This is well within the existing forest plan
limits.
Mr. Herger. One last final comment. Mr. Henson, you
mentioned how you grew up in a community with a forest product
community and how you wished in your community you had seen
what we have seen in the Quincy area where we have had all the
sides get together.
I guess my concern would be that if we are doing what I
believe I heard you say you wished had happened in your
community where we have had for four long years with countless
thousands of hours that have been spent with people who are
knowledgeable on both sides, if we are unable to implement a
plan that they come up with after four years, I wonder just
where we would ever be able to introduce a plan that we had
come up with.
Madame Chair, I thank you very much and I thank all of our
people for participating and all the countless hours that you
have put into this process, particularly the members of the
Quincy Library Group.
I guess there was a question here that we hadn't involved a
national environmental group. Would you like to comment on
that, Mr. Jackson? Did we----
Mr. Jackson. Sure. I may as well thoroughly drive myself
out of the movement.
The National Environmental----
Mr. Herger. Maybe I should ask one of the others.
Mr. Jackson. That is all right.
Mr. Herger. My understanding is that we did----
Mr. Jackson. I will take it. Louis and I had our first
conversation about the Library Group in 1993. He first saw our
maps in 1988.
There has been no secret from the national environmental
movement in regard to this. Their position seems to be and they
can speak for themselves, but as I understand it, they support
what we did in the agreement, they support our process, but
they are still uncomfortable that the bill truly reflects the
broad nature of our process.
That is why I said that I would really hope that you and
this Subcommittee, because I think this first bipartisan thing
is important, will allow us time to respond to these folks.
I don't think we are going to agree to change the substance
of what we are doing, but certainly, we are interested in
language that is very, very specific, and given the history and
the hard feelings, I think it is a reasonable request on their
part.
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much and again, I want to
mention that everything I hear is that we have been involving
everyone from the beginning, and I again want to thank all of
you for appearing here today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jackson, I am not through with you yet.
I know your patience must be wearing out, but I do have
some questions. Mr. Coates, Mr. Henson had some concerns. Do
you feel that these are concerns that you can address pretty
easily and have you been working with Mr. Henson?
Mr. Coates. Actually, I don't know Ryan. I am kind of
getting to know him today. Some of the things that he
mentioned, today would be the first day that I have been
exposed to them.
We are very willing to take a look at that and none of them
sounded like deal-breakers. I think we can accommodate that.
I was going to say, pertaining to some of Louis' comments,
that he and I probably don't agree on lots of things. He gets
paid for conflict and I, like some of you folks, get paid to
make things work. I am hoping that one of these days, he has a
plan that I can get behind that addresses the health problem in
the Sierras at a certain pace that gives us a chance to work
our way back to pre-settlement condition, and I am hoping he
will work with me either on this bill or on other things so
that I can come to understand that those folks are really
interested in getting things done instead of just raising the
goal post one time after another with endless concerns.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Jackson, do you feel that Mr. Henson's
concerns are something that can be pretty easily worked out?
Has the group been consistently working with Mr. Henson?
Mr. Jackson. The group has not. One of our environmental
members has, and my experience in working with Mr. Henson is
that he is a very reasonable individual, and I do believe that
there are areas that can come to closure.
It is going to be a policy decision in the end whether or
not the extent of this experiment is reasonable, but I will
tell you one thing. If the experiment is smaller, for instance,
if we took Louis up on the one ranger district, we can't prove
anything, and I think he knows that.
Landscape problems require landscape solutions and when Dr.
Jerry Franklin came to Plumas County--in one of the five times
he came to Plumas County to look at the Quincy Library Group
situation, he made it very clear to us that we could not do
something small. The problem is large, the solution must be
large.
Yes, I think we can work with Mr. Henson, and I have hope
for Louis.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I want to say, Mr.
Jackson, that your testimony was shocking to me. It was
riveting. It was very good, and I guess I just have to say I
come from the old school where a long time ago, when I moved as
a young bride to a town in northern Idaho that is a logging
town, I learned there that decisions in the forest should be
made by foresters who understood the dynamics of the forest,
and that with the advent of NEPA and with the advent of the
implementation of the National Forest Management Act, I was
suspicious about people on the street making decisions about
things that happened in the mountains that affected our
economy.
I have to tell you very honestly, I am still like a
thoroughbred horse they are trying to lead into a new stall. I
am a little jittery about this bill, but I am overwhelmed at
what you have accomplished, and you have my undying support
because I believe this is the vision that Gifford Pinchot laid
out.
This is the vision that Bruce Vento wanted to see when he
helped construct some of these original bills so that people in
the local level would have input.
I am learning a lot. It is a new day, and I want to truly
grow with the circumstances, and I have to say that if I heard
from you every day, my rate of growth would probably be
straight up. I don't usually get that effusive, but I do want
to close by saying one thing that I think we are all concerned
about, Mr. Coates mentioned it, and that is the conflict
industry. In a report to his board of directors, the Sierra
Club chairman Michael McCloskey said, in November of 1995, a
new dogma is emerging as a challenge to us. It embodies the
proposition that the best way for the public to determine how
to manage the interest in the environment is through
collaboration among stakeholders, not through normal
governmental processes.
I think he understands the problem. He just doesn't see the
proper solution yet. He went on to say further, it is posited
that this is best done at the community level through a
consensus process. Yes, Mr. McCloskey, this is exactly what we
are trying to do, and I just want to say to Mr. Herger, to all
of you, it is an honor to me and I hope that it bodes well for
us all in this term to be able to see this kind of legislation
come before this committee as the first legislation, and I hope
it will set the course for the future.
Thank you all very much for your very, very interesting
testimony, and I do want to let you know that the record will
remain open for any additions or corrections to the record for
ten days.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]
Testimony of Ryan Henson, Conservation Associate, of the California
Wilderness Coalition
Dear Madam Chairman:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of the Committee on
Resources regarding H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group (QLG)
Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997.
The California Wilderness Coalition is an alliance of
grassroots, regional, and national conservation groups as well
as businesses and individual citizens from throughout
California. Our primary purpose is to monitor the management of
California's public lands, educate the public about their
importance, and train citizens to become active stewards of
their own public lands.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide input on H.R.
858. While we support most of the goals of the QLG and have
many valuable friends in the group, there a few parts of the
bill that we feel should be altered and clarified. What follows
is a short discussion of each section of H.R. 858 of concern to
us, as well as specific recommendations for how these concerns
can be resolved. By adding these recommended changes, perhaps
you can resolve some of the issues raised by the conservation
community and more accurately reflect the letter and spirit of
the QLG agreement.
Section 2(c)(2): Exception For Designated Catastrophic
Event Areas
Discussion: We welcome the recent inclusion of the words
``catastrophic'' and ``within the pilot project area'' to this
section. This will both lessen the scope of this otherwise
dangerous loophole, and prevent roadless areas and a number of
other important areas supposedly protected by the QLG agreement
from being logged under the provisions of Section 2(c)(2).
However, we are very concerned that other ancient forest and
critical wildlife habitat can still be logged undo this
provision if these areas experience natural disturbance events.
Recommendation: Strike the entire section. Or, at the very
least, change the first sentence in Section 2(c)(2) to read:
``With the exception of spotted owl habitat areas, spotted owl
protected activity centers, and areas of late-successional
emphasis as identified in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project
Report, the Secretary shall....'' Adding this language would
necessitate striking ``Except as provided in paragraph (2)''
from Section 2(c)(1).
Section 2(d): Resource Management Activities
Discussion: H.R. 858 will override many existing
protections for the affected public lands provided by Federal
law and policy. For example, the recommendations of the
California Spotted Owl (CASPO) report are not specifically
mentioned in the bill. Currently, the CASPO report is the
primary means by which the ancient forest of the Sierra Nevada
are protected from the wholesale cutting of the past. Prominent
members of the QLG have made it quite clear that the resource
management activities endorsed by the group should be fully
consistent with CASPO and other applicable Federal laws and
policies.
Recommendation: At the end of the first paragraph of
Section 2(d), add ``consistent with applicable federal law and
policy.''
Section 2(d)(1) and (2)
Discussion: The 40,000-60,000 acres of shaded fuelbreaks,
individual tree selection, and group selection logging
authorized by H.R. 858 are, without a doubt, the most
controversial aspects of the bill. With the exception of the
acreage figures for the proposed fuelbreaks, there is no limit
to the amount of logging authorized by this provision. John
Buckley of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center
estimates that the logging program described in this section
will at least double the amount of logging allowed on the
affected public lands. In addition, the logging methods
mandated by the bill have not been proven scientifically to
decrease the threat of catastrophic wildfire. We contend that
it is unwise to mandate such an extensive logging program
without first having some idea of the ecological, social, and
fiscal risks, consequences, and benefits involved. At the very
least, we should cap this logging at the level of cutting the
CASPO report estimates is acceptable for the affected public
lands. Not including salvage logging, this includes 47.1
million board feet (MMBF) for the Lassen National Forest, 49.6
MMBF for the Plumas National Forest, and 27.5 MMBF for the
Tahoe National Forest. These estimates are the best scientific
guide we have of what logging levels are consistent with
maintaining old-growth forest habitat in the Sierra Nevada.
Lastly, the acreage figure for the fuelbreaks preempts the
National Environmental Policy Act analysis process by forcing
the Forest Service to log at least 40,000 acres per year even
if, after considering public input and conducting a thorough
review of the social, ecological, and fiscal impacts of
implementing the program, they decide that a smaller fuelbreak
program is more desirable.
Recommendation: Strike the acreage target in Section
2(d)(1) for the fuelbreaks and insert in its place ``not to
exceed the timber volume estimates for the pilot project area
contained in the California Spotted Owl report.'' At the end of
Section 2(d)(2), add ``The volume of timber derived from the
implementation of this provision shall not, when combined with
the resource management activities described in subsection
(d)(l), exceed the timber volume estimates for the pilot
project area contained in the California Spotted Owl report.''
Section 2(e): Cost-Effectiveness
Discussion: This provision could potentially allow the
Forest Service to place budgetary concerns over ecological ones
to the detriment of clean water, wildlife habitat, and other
key values.
Recommendation: Delete the section. Or, at the very least,
add ``and ecologically desirable'' after ``cost-effective.''
Section 2(f): Effect on Multiple Use Activities
Discussion: This section could be interpreted to allow even
more logging than is authorized in subsection (d).
Recommendation: At the end of subsection (f), add ``The
resource management activities described in subsection (d)
shall constitute the entire timber sale program for the pilot
project area.''
Section 2(g)(3): Flexibility
Discussion: This provision will worsen the existing
situation on the affected public lands where the needs of the
timber program often supersedes recreation, watershed
rehabilitation, fuels treatment, and other worthy programs. If
Congress supports the pilot program, Congress should allocate
sufficient funds to implement it.
Recommendation: Strike the provision.
Thank you, once again, for this opportunity to review H.R.
858 and offer recommendations to the Subcommittee about how it
can be improved.
------
Testimony of Louis Blumberg, Assistant Regional Director, The
Wilderness Society, California/Nevada Office
Thank you Representative Chenoweth and members of the
Committee for inviting me to testify today. The Wilderness
Society (TWS) is a national conservation organization devoted
to preserving wilderness and wildlife, protecting America's
public lands and fostering an American land ethic. I am also
submitting this testimony on behalf of the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC).
TWS and NRDC support the general goals of the Quincy
Library Group (QLG). However, in this instance the
collaborative process has not produced a public consensus. HR
858 does not adequately reflect the concerns of regional and
national conservation organizations in California. The bill
would mandate an experimental logging program that could
greatly increase logging levels and generate significant
environmental impacts. Neither the environmental nor the
economic costs of the bill have been estimated. Fundamentally,
legislation is not needed to accomplish the objectives shared
by the QLG and the general public. For these reasons, The
Wilderness Society, NRDC and 17 other grassroots, regional, and
national groups are opposed to HR 858.
I have attached a copy of a letter from the other
organizations expressing their opposition to the bill to my
testimony and ask that both be included in the record. These
other groups are: Sierra Club, Plumas Forest Project, Central
Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Yosemite Area Audubon,
Tule River Conservancy, Cal Trout, Klamath Forest Alliance,
California Wilderness Coalition, Friends of the River, Friends
of the Inyo, South Fork Mountain Defense, Friends Aware of
Wildlife Needs, Environmental Protection Information Cener,
North Coast Environmental Center, Citizens for Better Forestry,
Willits Environmental Center, and the Mendocino Environmental
Center.
The Wilderness Society (TWS) and NRDC support the goals of
the QLG. As would most Americans, we would like our national
forests to be healthy, functioning ecosystems, with less risk
of high intensity wildfire, and where uneven age management was
used more often; where roadless areas, ancient forest and
riparian zones are all protected; and that communities
surrounded by or near national forests be good places to live.
We recognize the sincere efforts of the Quincy Library
Group to promote social harmony in the communities of Plumas,
Lassen and Sierra counties. As the report of the Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project (SNEP) makes clear, like other communities
near national forests, these in the northern Sierra are going
through a transition, with timber jobs declining in relation to
growth in other sectors of the economy. We realize that
economic transition can be difficult, especially in rural areas
where the opportunities for new work are fewer than in the more
populated urban areas. In this light, the QLG has produced some
meaningful achievements by bringing people in that area with
different, sometimes opposing views together. The QLG has
helped to strengthen the social fabric of the area and
stimulated a dialogue about forest management that has been
heard far beyond the northern Sierra, and has brought us here
today to discuss H.R. 858, a bill that is intended to codify
into federal law the alternative forest management policy
developed by the QLG.
The bill does not reflect public consensus: We recognize
the value of local involvement in resource management and the
potential for collaborative process. But when dealing with
natural resource issues, collaborative processes must involve
all stakeholders, including national and regional interests. As
the President's Council on Sustainability noted in its report
last year,
``Individuals, communities, and institutions need to work
individually, and collaboratively to ensure stewardship of
natural systems. Finding an acceptable integration of local,
regional, and national interests is not without difficulty.
Issues involving public lands and marine resources, for
instance, require that a broad, national perspective be
maintained.'' (``Sustainable America, a New Consensus,''
President's Council on Sustainable Development, 1996, pp. 114-
115)
When it comes to national land issues, just because one
group of local people comes to an agreement over how they would
like the land managed, does not automatically mean that the
agreement is good or appropriate. Our national forests belong
to all Americans, and the opinions of some of those fortunate
to live close a forest should have no more influence than any
other Americans. Collaboration is about local involvement, not
local control.
The bill before the Committee today is seemingly the result
of a collaborative process based in Quincy, Plumas County,
California, but despite its characterization as a ``local''
process, in fact some of the timber industry participants come
from as far away as Redding, California, over 100 miles away in
Shasta County. Though some of them manage private lands in the
Quincy area, the QLG collaborative process has been limited
solely to the public lands in the sub-region. Equally important
is how the private timber lands are managed, yet the 1993 QLG
agreement and HR 858 are silent on this issue.
Overall, HR 858 is vague and creates great uncertainty
about what actually will happen ``on-the-ground,'' though one
outcome is clear--if enacted, the bill could result in a great
increase in logging on a vast, two and one quarter million acre
tract of public land in the northern Sierra Nevada. The serious
flaws in the bill and its bias towards logging over
environmental protection demonstrate that this collaborative
process, to date, has failed to achieve public consensus. The
broader public interest is not adequately represented in this
bill, nor has it been in the process, which is why the bill is
opposed by 19 national, state, regional, and grassroots groups
throughout California, including local groups in the Sierra
Nevada and one in Plumas County.
Federal legislation is not needed: The existing forest
plans have the flexibility to allow the Forest Service to
implement the type of management envisioned by the QLG--the
singular use of uneven age forest management and the
construction of ``a strategic system of defensible shaded
fuelbreaks'' (though the latter term is undefined). If, as QLG
members have repeatedly stated, all activities will be
consistent with all existing laws, including the CASPO logging
rules, and subject to analysis under the National Environmental
Policy Act, then we are unclear why Congress needs to take the
serious step of codifying the QLG proposal into federal law. In
addition, a great amount of logging and fuels treatment is
already going on in the area. In fact, one third of the
increased appropriations for fuel treatment in California
approved by Congress last year went to the Quincy area.
Theoretically, all of these activities are also consistent with
all laws and the CASPO rules. We urge this committee to
seriously evaluate the need for federal legislation in this
instance. We believe legislation is not needed.
The bill is seriously flawed: HR. 858 has many serious
problems and is unacceptably vague in many places. The
Wilderness Society and the other organizations listed above are
strongly opposed to the bill in its current form. Should the
bill move forward, we urge the Committee to thoroughly revise
it to produce a public consensus that provides adequate
protection for the environment and a compromise that is fair to
the American people. A discussion of some of the most serious
problems with the bill follows.
1. The bill would increase logging dramatically on the
affected forests. HR 858 would mandate a massive program of
fuelbreak construction and uneven-age logging resulting in a
huge increase in logging. Though no analysis has been presented
by the QLG to inform the public just how great the logging
levels will be, conservative estimates indicate that the levels
would at least double, and therefore far exceed the level
estimated to be sustainable under the forest plans as amended
by the CASPO policy.
Moreover, current logging levels on these national forests
are already at least as great as the levels on any other
forests in California. Last year, these forests accounted for
almost 50 percent of all public land logging in the Sierra
Nevada. The Lassen National Forest cut more timber last year
than any other national forest in California and exceeded the
level estimated to be sustainable under CASPO by 44 mmbf. The
bill will require an enormous increase in logging that could
cause significant environmental damage. The public has the
right to know what the logging levels and resulting impacts
might be, just as Congress has the obligation to understand the
impacts of HR 858 before proceeding with the bill.
2. The program would fail to comply with existing
environmental protections. The bill would effectively override
any restrictions in existing forest plans that are inconsistent
with the vague direction in the QLG program. Of great concern
in this regard is the current CASPO policy adopted by the
Forest Service in 1993 for the entire Sierra. Neither the
``fuelbreak system'' nor the group selection harvest technique
described in the QLG program require compliance with CASPO,
which is a scientifically-based strategy designed to protect
wildlife and ancient forest while reducing the risk of
wildfire. In addition, the bill would override other provisions
in existing plans that protect wildlife, visual quality, and
riparian areas. Also, the 1993 QLG agreement, which is
incorporated into HR 858 by reference, specifically states that
the QLG program ``will expand the existing landbase available
for timber production beyond that currently `zoned' for
production.'' Yet, HR 858 fails to establish a public process
to accomplish this reallocation of the landbase, which is a
cornerstone of the National Forest Management Act. Any
alternative forest management plan must comply with existing
laws and regulations, including CASPO. All logging should take
place on the existing timber base.
3. The bill would mandate implementation of an experimental
and ill-defined management approach over a vast area of public
land and for an excessive time period. Neither the ``fuelbreak
system'' nor group selection techniques are defined in the
bill, nor has the ``fuelbreak system'' been implemented
extensively in the Sierra. A QLG paper on fuelbreaks (the 1993
QLG agreement was silent on fuels issues), ``QLG Fuelbreak
Strategy,'' acknowledged that issues like ``wildlife or
riparian corridors,'' ``prescriptions or guidelines for the
design of fuelbreak projects,'' and ``criteria for decisions on
which kinds of fuelbreak should have priority,'' all need to be
addressed, and states that ``[u]ntil these questions, among
others are adequately addressed at [the] landscape scale,
fuelbreak implementation, no matter how well conceived and
planned at the project level, will be overly vulnerable to
professional and legal challenge.'' Yet the bill fails to
address any of these issues or to establish a public process
for doing so. Requiring implementation of these untested and
ill-defined approaches on millions of acres of public lands for
a minimum of five years (and possibly longer), regardless of
the outcome of the pending Cal Owl regional planning process,
could result in significant environmental harm and is highly
inappropriate. In addition, although the bill mandates
reporting on the project's ``benefits,'' it fails to require
reporting on its environmental and economic costs or on the
overall effectiveness of the project in reducing fire risks.
We recommend that the program's management approach be
defined more clearly and the overall scale of the project be
reduced significantly. For example, we would support
implementation of a carefully-designed research project testing
the application of the new approach on one ranger district with
appropriate limitations on acreage, timber volume, and timing.
4. The bill contains a loophole that would eliminate
protection for sensitive areas. The major environmental benefit
of the QLG proposal is that it would provide interim protection
from logging for selected roadless areas, spotted owl habitat
areas, and protect activity centers. However the bill provides
a loophole that would allow the Secretary to designate these
areas for logging whenever there are ``catastrophic
disturbances from wildfires, insect infestations, disease,
drought or other natural causes.'' (The bill does not define
``catastrophic. '') Because these are all natural process in
forest ecosystems, this provision could be misinterpreted by
the Forest Service to apply to almost any acre of the national
forest. This is a major loophole, and history strongly suggests
that the Forest Service will exploit this exception to deprive
critical areas of interim protection while undermining the
environmental benefits of the original QLG agreement. The
``catastrophic event area'' exception is unacceptable and
should be eliminated.
5. The bill circumvents the NEPA and land management
processes. Although section 2(i) requires the Forest Service to
initiate a land management plan amendment process in compliance
with NEPA, it mandates implementation of the QLG program
without regard to the results of the process. In effect, the
pilot project will be implemented for a minimum of five years,
even if the NEPA process mandated by the bill reveals that the
project will produce unforeseen and/or significant adverse
environmental impacts. Moreover, the bill fails to establish a
deadline by which the plan amendment process must be completed,
so that the pilot project may be implemented indefinitely
without NEPA review.
6. HR 858 would preempt the Cal Owl process: The Forest
Service is currently engaged in a comprehensive regional
planning process for the entire Sierra Nevada including the
public lands incorporated into HR 858, in accordance with the
requirements of NEPA and NFMA. If enacted into federal law, the
QLG alternative forest management plan would override any
future administrative decision made through the Cal Owl
process. Should the Committee proceed, HR 858 should
incorporate language that would require amendment of the QLG
program to conform to the subsequent Cal Owl policy.
7. The fiscal impact is unknown: No cost estimate of the
program mandated by the bill has been completed. Given the
agency's difficulty in attracting bids in recent months,
chances are good that much of the logging mandated by HR 858
would result in a financial loss to the taxpayers. In addition,
without an additional line item appropriation, funding for the
QLG program would need to come from existing programs in the
Forest Service budget. As with the level of logging, the public
has the right to know and Congress has the obligation to
understand the fiscal implications of HR 858 or any other
legislation before it is enacted.
The bill has several other problems. The reference in
section 2(f) to other ``multiple use activities is vague, and
could be interpreted to allow widespread logging within the
project area, in addition to the management activities mandated
by the bill. HR 858 should clearly state that the management
program required by the QLG proposal would constitute the
entire timber program for those forests.
Section 2(e), by requiring use of the most ``cost-
effective'' approach, will encourage the Forest Service to log
the largest trees (which provide the greatest revenues), rather
than using more environmentally-sound approaches such as
thinning and prescribed burning.
Section 2(g) allows the Secretary to use all funds
allocated to the affected national forests to implement the QLG
program, including by implication, funds allocated for
wildlife, wilderness, recreation, prescribed burning and any
other forest program. Thus, critical work in these important
areas could effectively be underfunded or even entirely
unfunded.
Because of the magnitude of these problems, TWS and the
other organizations listed above must oppose HR 858. The
environmental and economic costs are unknown yet potentially
quite significant. If enacted, the program mandated by the bill
could cause serious environmental damage to a vast area of
public land. In this instance, the collaborative process has
failed to produce a public consensus because the views of the
full range of stakeholders have not been adequately represented
at the library table. Moreover, legislation is unnecessary to
accomplish the common objectives of the QLG and the broader
public. We are willing to work with the QLG, the Forest
Service, and this Committee to develop forest management policy
that provides adequate protection for our public lands and
draws broad-based public support. HR 858 does not meet that
test.
Thank you again for the invitation to testify today. I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
------
February 26, 1997
4Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
4re: Quincy Library Group Legislation
Dear Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein:
Our organizations have been involved with forest management
in California for many years at the local, state, and national
levels. We are writing today to express our concerns about the
legislation being promoted by the Quincy Library Group and
Representative Herger. Despite the efforts of some of us to
work with members of the Quincy Library Group (QLG) to resolve
our differences, we must oppose the February 7 draft of the
bill, which is the last version we have seen. Overall, the
legislation is vague and creates great uncertainty about what
would actually happen on a vast, two million acre tract of
public land. If implemented, the program could cause serious
environmental damage and establish a bad precedent for
legislating public land management. Some of the most
problematic provisions of the bill are discussed below.
1. The bill would increase logging dramatically on the
affected forests. Current logging levels on these national
forests are as great or greater as on any others in California.
Last year, these forests accounted for almost 50 percent of all
public land logging in the Sierra Nevada. The bill will require
an enormous increase in logging that could cause significant
environmental damage and could easily exceed the level
estimated to be sustainable under the existing CASPO policy.
The program would fail to comply with existing
environmental protections. The bill would effectively override
any restrictions in existing forest plans that are inconsistent
with the vague direction in the QLG program. Of great concern
in this regard is the current CASPO policy adopted by the
Forest Service in 1993 for the entire Sierra. Neither the
``fuelbreak system'' nor the group selection harvest technique
described in the QLG program require compliance with CASPO,
which is a scientifically-based strategy designed to protect
wildlife and ancient forest while reducing the risk of
wildfire. In addition, the bill would override other provisions
in existing plans that protect wildlife, visual quality, and
riparian areas, and allow for the reallocation of lands without
adherence to the process required by the National Forest
Management Act. Any alternative forest management plan must
comply with existing laws, regulations, and protections.
3. The bill would mandate an experimental and ill-defined
management approach over a vast area of public land and for an
excessive time period. Neither the ``fuelbreak system'' nor
group selection techniques are defined in the bill, nor has the
``fuelbreak system'' been implemented extensively in the
Sierra. In addition, the bill fails to establish a public
process for determining how and where these management
approaches will be implemented. A smaller scale experimental
program designed to scientifically test these methods is
essential before they are applied on a scale as broad as the
QLG proposal.
4. The bill contains a loophole that would eliminate
protection for sensitive areas. The bill would allow areas
protected under the QLG agreement of 1993 and areas recommended
for wilderness protection by the forest plan, to be logged
after being designated as a ``catastrophic event area.'' This
loophole effectively eliminates the major environmental benefit
of the QLG proposal.
5. The bill circumvents the NEPA and land management
processes. The bill requires the Forest Service to conduct the
experimental QLG program without analysis consistent with the
National Environmental Policy Act on the possible impacts on
wildlife, riparian areas, and the forest matrix.
The bill has several other problems. For example, it does
not take into account the recent information in the report of
the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project that depicts on maps areas
of ancient forest and key watersheds that it recommends for
protection. The bill allows any funds allocated to the forests
to be used for the QLG logging program potentially at the
expense of the recreation, wildlife and fish, wilderness,
controlled burning, and all other Forest Service programs.
Because of the magnitude of its problems, our organizations
must oppose the QLG bill as currently drafted. If enacted, the
program mandated by the bill could cause serious environmental
damage to a vast area of public land. In this instance, the
collaborative process has failed because the full range of
stakeholders are not represented at the table. We urge you to
oppose the bill in its existing form. We are interested in
working with you and your staff to develop forest management
policy that provides adequate protection for our public lands
and draws broad-based public support. We would welcome your
response through Louis Blumberg, The Wilderness Society, P.O.;
Box 29241, San Francisco, 94129-0241.
Sincerely
Louis Blumberg
The Wilderness Society
San Francisco
David Edelson
Natural Resources Defense Council
San Francisco
John Buckley
Central Sierra Environmental
Resource Center, Sonora
Dan Utt
Tule River Conservancy
Poderville
Dick Kunstman
Yosemite Area Audubon
Mariposa
Barbara Boyle
Sierra Club
Sacramento
Ryan Henson
California Wilderness Coalition
Davis
Neil Dion
John Preschutti
Plumas Forest Project
Blairsden, Plumas County
Steve Evans
Friends of the River
Sacramento
Sally Miller
Friends of the Inyo
Lee Vining, Mono County
Larry Glass
South Fork Mountain Defense
Eureka
Craig Thomas
Friends Aware of Wildlife Needs
Georgetown
Cecilia Lanman
Environmental Protection Information
Center, Garberville
Brett Matzke
Cal Trout
Camp Nelson
Felice Pace
Klamath Forest Alliance
Etna
Tim McKay
Northcoast Environmental Centa
Arcata
David Drell
Willits Environmental Center
Willits
Betty and Gary Ball
Mendocino Environmental Center
Mendocino
Joseph and Susan Bower
Citizens for Better Forestry
Hayfork
------
Statement of James R. Lyons, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on H.R.
858, the ``Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic
Stability Act of 1997.'' I am accompanied today by Regional
Forester Lynn Sprague, and Supervisors Mark Madrid of the
Plumas National Forest and Kent Connaughton of the Lassen
National Forest.
The Department of Agriculture supports the goals of H.R.
858. We applaud the work of the Quincy Library Group (QLG) and
its willingness to enter into a constructive dialogue to make
the bill workable. We are close to that goal. Just last week,
Forest Service officals from the Plumas National Forest,
representatives from QLG, and a representative of Congressman
Herger sat down to discuss the bill. The discussion was
constructive and substantial progress was made. However, more
time is needed to fully consider all of the issues raised by
the bill before the Administration can fully endorse it.
Management of the National Forests
The world is much more complex today than it was even 20
years ago. And nowhere is that complexity more evident than in
the management of our national forests. I don't need to belabor
the challenges we continue to face in satisfying competing
demands that are placed on this resource. Yet, the prescription
for management of these forests was laid down 90 years ago by
the first Chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot. I would
like to quote Pinchot because his views are directly relevant
to the issues we are addressing today. Pinchot believed that
the key principle in using national forests was management by
the people. He said:
National forests are made for and owned by the people. They
should also be managed by the people. They are made, not to
give the officers in charge of them a chance to work out
theories, but to give the people who use them, and those who
are affected by their use, a chance to work out their own best
profit. This means that if National Forests are going to
accomplish anything worth while the people must know all about
them and must take a very active part in their management. The
officers are paid by the people to act as their agents and to
see that all the resources of the Forests are used in the best
interest of everyone concerned. What the people as a whole want
will be done. To do it it is necessary that the people
carefully consider and plainly state just what they want and
then take a very active part in seeing that they get it.
There are many great interests on the National Forests
which sometimes conflict a little. They must all be made to fit
into one another so that the machine runs smoothly as a whole.
It is often necessary for one man to give way a little here,
another a little there. But by giving way a little at present
they both profit by it a great deal in the end....
In these few words, Pinchot captured the essence of the
Quincy Library Group and why Secretary Glickman and this
Administration believe that QLG is worthy of continued support.
The QLG, was formed in 1993 by a three-county alliance of
elected officials, timber industry, workers, union
representatives, local environmentalists and citizens. The QLG
has collaborated to resolve longstanding controversies over the
management of public forest lands on the Plumas, Larsen, and
the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest.
They have developed an agreed upon plan that addresses various
aspects of forest management including timber salvage sales,
fire hazard reduction, watershed and riparian area restoration,
monitoring and forest planning. Most importantly, they have
followed Pinchot's dictum that compromise is needed to fit the
pieces into a unified whole crafting a program that is
generally acceptable to all. In recognition of the importance
of this effort, Secretary Glickman has prioritized funding for
these three forests to support forest activities consistent
with the QLG proposal and forest plan standards and guides.
The Condition in the Northern Sierra Nevada Range
Before turning to the specifics of H.R. 858, I would like
to review briefly the findings of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project (SNEP). SNEP was a team of independent scientists
tasked by Congress with preparing a scientific review of the
entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem. Their final report was
transmitted to Congress in June, 1996.
This team of eminent scientists found that the Sierra
Nevada range has become highly susceptible to catastrophic
wildfire. This situation reflects the virtual exclusion of low-
to moderate-severity fire that has affected the structure and
composition of most Sierra Nevada vegetation. The resulting
forests can be characterized as having denser stands, primarily
in small and medium size classes of shade-tolerant and fire-
sensitive tree species. Fuels have become more continuous from
the ground through the upper canopy. Selective cutting of large
overstory trees when combined with the relatively moist and
warm climate of the 20th Century appears to have reinforced
this trend by producing conditions favorable to the
establishment of tree seedlings and other plant species. When
coupled with the exclusion of fire, most stands in the Sierra
Nevada range have experienced increased mortality from the
cumulative effects of competition, drought, insects, disease
and, in some cases, ambient ozone air pollution. This has
created conditions favorable to intense and severe fires that
are more damaging to the ecosystem, are more expensive to
suppress, and pose a greater threat to life and property.
The SNEP report describes a number of approaches to reduce
the susceptibility of the the Sierran range to catastrophic
fire. These include substantially reducing the potential for
large high-severity wildfires in both wildlands and the
wildland/urban intermix, and restoring historic ecosystem
functions of frequent low- and moderate-severity fire. This can
be accomplished by establishing defensible fuel profile zones
characterized by relatively large trees with considerable
diversity in ages, sizes, and distributions of trees. The key
feature would be the general openness and discontinuity of
crown fuels; both horizontally and vertically. Once these zones
have been established, a program of prescribed fire could then
be introduced restoring the historic fire regime.
Contents of OLG Proposal
The Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic
Stability Act of 1997 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture
to conduct a pilot project on designated lands of three
National Forests--the Plumas, Lassen and portions of the Tahoe
National Forests. The purpose of the pilot project is to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource management
activities directed in the bill. These activities are: (1)
construction of a strategic system of defensible fuel breaks on
not less than 40,000 but not more than 60,000 acres per year;
and (2) implementation on an acreage rather than volume basis,
of uneven-aged forest management prescriptions utilizing
individual tree selections and group selections to achieve a
desired future condition of an all-age, multi-story, fire
resistant forest.
The pilot project would terminate on the later of the
following: 5 years after date of enactment of this bill or when
the land resource management plans for the three forests have
been revised or amended as appropriate.
This proposal, in effect, would implement key aspects of
the management regime laid out by SNEP. Although much of this
bill could be implemented administratively, we see substantial
merit in testing these strategies. We also believe we can learn
from this pilot and that our work with QLG can serve as a model
for other communities in addressing local concerns without the
necessity of site-specific legislation.
Concerns With the Bill
Upon a first reading of the bill, we recognized a need to
clarify its language. We were concerned that the bill could be
read as exempting pilot project activities from the
requirements of various environmental laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act,
and the Clean Air and Water Acts. Additionally, we believed the
bill should explicitly state that any pilot project must also
be consistent with guidelines for the management of the
California Spotted Owl (CASPO). We did not see how this
proposal could serve as a true demonstration if these
conditions were not met. We have been assured by
representatives of QLG and Congressman Herger that this is was
their intent. They have agreed to language that would make
clear that existing laws must be followed along with CASPO
guidelines.
We were also concerned that the procedures for designating
catastrophic event areas were not in compliance with current
policy for public notice and comment under NEPA regulations. We
were assured this was not intended and have reached agreement
on language to cure this problem.
Additionally, we believe the pilot program should be
subjected to a science-based evaluation at the mid-point and
conclusion of the program. This evaluation should help to
determine if the assumptions underlying the program activities
are valid. We also have remaining concerns with the funding
provisions in the bill. In short, we already have the authority
to allocate funds and, if necessary, reallocate, under the
guidelines of the Appropriations Committees. We will continue
to support the QLG effort at the maximum level within the
constraints of overall funding resources. We have proposed
several funding areas in the FY 1998 budget that, if enacted,
could increase the overall level of resources available for the
QLG program and similar work in other National Forests with
similar fire prone characteristics.
Specifically, the FY 1998 budget proposes a significant
increase in fuels management under our wildland fire management
proposal. This proposal would make fuels management a
significant part of the overall fire management program and
would balance the resources necessary to achieve long term
savings in fire suppression costs. We have also proposed
increases for timber stand improvement activities and forest
vegetation management. And finally, we will shortly share with
you a legislative proposal to crate a new permanent fund,
called the ``Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Maintenance
Fund''. If enacted, this fund would also provide additional
resources for reducing fire hazards and improving the structure
and health of timber stands. I hope that you will support these
proposals, and recognize that without additional resources for
the types of activities the QLG bill prescribes, reallocation
within a fixed overall budget is an inevitable requirement.
Such a reallocation can have unintended consequences for other
resources in our national forests.
Summary
During the Forest Conference in April, 1993, President
Clinton challenged natural resource dependent communities to
develop collaborative and locally-based solutions to
controversies surrounding public land management. The science-
based assessment commissioned by Congress recommended
implementing programs that reduce the potential for
catastrophic fires. The QLG is an exemplary illustration of
democratic processes at work in achieving these goals. The
pilot program has the potential to enhance the health and
productivity of the affected national forests, to help those
communities that depend on these forests for their well being
and, perhaps most importantly, to demonstrate that these
forests can be managed in a way that satisfies the needs of
broad cross-ection of forest users. For these reasons, the
Administration in committed to working with the Committee, QLG,
and other interested parties to move forward with this pilot
program.
This concludes my prepared remarks. My colleagues and I
will be pleased to answer your questions.
------
Statements of Thomas C. Nelson, Director of Timberlands, Sierra Pacific
Industries
Good afternoon, Madame Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Tom Nelson. I am a forester for Sierra
Pacific Industries in Redding, California, and am here today as
a founding member of the Quincy Library Group (QLG). It is our
hope that you will help us implement the proposals of this
group by supporting the QLG bill recently introduced by
Congressman Herger, HR 858.
I would like to take this opportunity, for the record, to
thank a number of people for their invaluable assistance.
First, I wish to thank Mr. Herger for his leadership in
carrying our bill. Next, I would like to thank Secretary of
Agriculture Glickman and Undersecretary Lyons for their
continued support (especially their financial support) of the
silvicultural prescriptions described in the Quincy Library
Group's Agreement of 1993, which has been accurately translated
into HR 858. I would also like to acknowledge and thank both
Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their ongoing efforts to
introduce a similar bill in the Senate.
The ideas embodied in HR 858 actually started in November
of 1992 when the three of us sitting here at this panel met
together for the first time. It was a most unusual meeting and,
between the three of us, we brought to the table a complete
spectrum of opposing viewpoints on National Forest management
issues in California. And yet, we soon found that we also
shared a number of common viewpoints--we all care deeply about
the stability and wellbeing of our communities, our forested
surroundings, and the legacy we leave to our children and
grandchildren. Moreover, we all agree that the current
management strategies of the US Forest Service for this part of
California are unacceptable to each of the diverse viewpoints
we represent--``business as usual'' will not meet anyone's
needs.
After several of these initial meetings with just the three
of us, we decided to expand our discussions and bring in more
ideas and participants - we wanted to see if others in the
community shared our concerns. It soon became apparent that we
shared with other community members not only a common set of
concerns, but a common set of remedies. And when I use the term
``we'' in this case, I do not refer to just others within the
forest products industry. ``We'', in the context of the Quincy
Library Group, means loggers, local environmental leaders,
teachers, county government, organized labor, ranchers, road
crews, fly fishers, biologists, and even retired airline pilots
who have developed an interest in fuels management strategies.
Given this strong community support, we soon developed and
agreed upon the QLG Agreement of 1993. In many respects, this
was our response to President Clinton's request at the Portland
Forestry Conference--to ``insist on collaboration, not
confrontation''.
A central issue that binds us together is befitting our
appearance today before this Subcommittee. That overarching
issue is our concern for the health of the National Forests
which surround our communities. We are deeply concerned with
the very real and very ominous risk for catastrophic wildfires
within these forests. To demonstrate this, I'd like to call
your attention to a position paper the Quincy Library Group put
out some time ago, which is attached to your copies of my
testimony. In this paper, we have tried to show that the
present explosive situation--the potential for significant,
catastrophic wildfires--is getting worse, not better. At the
current pace (without implementation of the QLG bill) it will
take these forests 180 years before they even begin to reverse
this trend.
The Quincy Library Group has designed a comprehensive
strategy to combat the rising risk of catastrophic wildfires--
that strategy is included in the actions authorized in HR 858.
The prime objective of our initial strategy is to isolate
individual watersheds (8-12 thousand acres each) with ``shaded
fuelbreaks''. These fuelbreaks would be designed as quarter-
mile swaths that are thinned along ridgetops and major roads.
They are not the bare? ground fuelbreaks commonly associated
with powerlines and gas lines. Our intent is not to stop major
fires as they hit these fuelbreaks, but to force the fire down
out of the crowns of the trees so that firefighters have a
better chance to control it. Put another way, our goal is not
to stop the occurrence of wildfires (that's not realistic in
the lightning-prone Western states) but to hold them to 10
thousand acres, not 150 thousand.
Even using our strategy, it will take the US Forest Service
20 to 30 years to completely reverse the current wildfire risk
trends, but the existing risks can be significantly reduced
after five years with implementation of HR 858. While we
understand that several urban-based environmental groups have
criticized our proposals as being ``too large'' in scope for
their liking, those of us who live next door to these fuel-
laden forests cannot accept a slower pace and higher risks. The
enormity of this problem, and the severity of its consequences,
demands an immediate and comprehensive plan. We have looked at
other ideas, including the ``status quo'', and we believe that
the QLG proposal is the best, most effective response possible.
In light of the forest health conditions throughout the West,
we do not see our proposals as ``too large''.
By now it is probably quite obvious why a forest products
company that is determined to stay in California might enter
into negotiations like those of the Quincy Library Group.
Implementation of HR 858 would mean five years of economic
certainty as merchantable materials are removed on 50 thousand
acres of National Forest land each year to stay on track with
the QLG fuelbreak objectives. From the standpoint of a
privately held, family-run business in California (with 12
sawmills and 3000+ employees) it is this type of certainty
which encourages investments in rural communities. It is
distinctly different from the existing policies for management
of the National Forests in the West, whereby investment
decisions must be based on expected outputs that change weekly,
sometimes daily, and rarely change for the better.
The QLG proposals embodied in HR 858 have received a
certain amount of criticism recently, most notably from
national preservation groups. I would urge you to study these
criticisms in light of the growing fear these urban- based
groups seem to have toward coalitions which include their
locally-based affiliates. We welcome the support of any and all
of these nationally-based groups in our pursuit to pass HR 858.
To that end, I should point out that we have suggested numerous
changes to the original language of the Quincy Library Group
bill already. These changes were made prior to the formal
introduction of HR 858 by Congressman Herger and all the other
sponsors, and were at the request of national, urban-based
environmental groups as well as representatives of the US
Forest Service.
We have tried to accomodate these groups, and will continue
to work with anyone dedicated to the implementation of our
proposals. But we cannot agree to changes that would jeopardize
the original intent and integrity of our 1993 agreement, and we
hope that you will be cognizant of this as HR 858 goes through
mark-up, amendment proposals, and hearings.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I urge your
support of this bill, so that we might begin the long, uphill
road to restoration of forest health within the boundaries of
the Quincy Library Group. We are eager to begin.
------
FUELS MANAGEMENT FOR FIRE PROTECTION
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP POSITION PAPER
``The fire regime has changed from frequent, low intensity
fires to infrequent, high intensity stand replacement fires''
(CASPO Interim Guidelines, U. S. Forest Service, 1993)
``Extreme fire behavior and resistance to control will be
the norm, rather than the exception.'' (Regional Forester, U.
S. Forest Service R-5, July 1992)
BACKGROUND
Decades of aggressive fire suppression and other recent
activities have changes fire regime of the forests in the
northern Sierras. Fire history studies in the Sierras show that
the frequency of relatively low intensity fires ranged from 5
to 30 years in the mixes conifer and eastside pine forests.
For example. consider the effect on approximately 935,000
acres in the Plumas National Forest. If you assume an average
pre-European settlement fire frequency of 20 years, it implies
that 47,000 acres would have burned each year. In contrast,
dunag a recent 20-year period 4,100 acres per year were
actually burned on the Plumas
Until recently this 90% reduction of acreage burned per
year was considered a measure of great success for the fire
suppression policy. Unfortunately, we are now being awakened to
some hard facts:
The pre-European settlement fires were of low
average intensity, while recent fires burn at very much higher
and increasing average intensity.
High intensity translates to high costs for initial
attack, higher costs for sustained attack on more numerous and
larger escaped fires, and very high costs for loss of tangible
and intangible assets in the forest and communities.
The long-term effect of fire suppression is an
accumulation of fuels and the growth of too many understory
trees of a species that is not fire adapted for long-term
health in that location given climatic variability. These fuels
and fire ladders are certain to support increasing numbers of
large fires and certain to result in catastrophe unless the
fuel is reduced and the understory is thinned.
FIRE COSTS
The Forest Service fire suppression program is paid for in
two main categories: Fire Protection (FP) and Fire Fighting
(FF). FP funds are for the basic costs of equipment and
personnel, while FF funds support the emergency expenses of
actually fighting a fire. Recent FF expenditures on the Plumas
Forest have ranged from $0.5 to $9 million per year (Figure 1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.001
Figure 1. Plumas National Forest wildfire suppression
program costs.
The occasional spike in the graph cawed by one or two large
fires that occur every few years is even more significant than
average yearly costs on a single Forest like the Plumas. (Table
1) These spikes in the cost line are the equivalent in FF terms
to the Regional Forest's statement, ``Extreme fire behavior and
resistance to control will be the norm rather than the
exception.''
Table 1. Summary of costs associated with recent Plumas
National Forest wildfires.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.002
Another factor that contributes to the rising trend in
total fire costs is the movement of more and more people into
the Sierras. Inevitably more people mean more sources of
ignition, greater loss of assets and risk to life when a fire
escapes control, and the necessity for diversion of fire-
fighting resources from the forest to the urban interface when
catastrophe threatens. The actual cost of wildfire goes well
above and rises steeper than the Forest Service shows in its FP
and FF accounts.
Unless the trend toward larger and more intense fires is
turned around, it is inevitable that a conflagration of
multiple out-of-control fires will overwhelm any fire fighting
capability that we can afford or are likely to provide. Damage
in that fire will be on a scale such that neither the forest
ecosystem nor the communities that depend on it will be likely
to recover during a single lifetime.
FUELS MANAGEMENT
The Forest Service now acknowledges that its focus on fire
suppression has led to three specific hazards:
1. The accumulation of a large fuel overload on the ground.
2. Crowding of small trees in the understory, creating a
fire ladder that carries ground fire into the crowns of large
trees, thus converting ordinary fires into stand-destroying
fires.
3. Invasion of the understory by excessive numbers of
shade-tolerant trees (principally white fir), which dominate
the competition for nutrients and soil moisture,
thereby adding the mortality of large trees to the fuel load
and making the overstory trees even less able to survive crown
fires.
These hazards can be reduced only by reducing the load of
dead and dying fuel and by thinning the understory.
Unfortunately, to date the Forest Service program for fuels
reduction in these forests has been only a token effort at
best. For example, since 1982 the Plumas National Forest has
treated about 600 to 900 acres per year under its ``natural
fuels'' program as part of fire protection, and another 4,500
acres per year under the ``brush disposal'' program associated
with timber harvest. At that rate it would take about 180 years
to work through the whole forest.
But given that fact, how can the fuel load ever be reduced
and the unterstory thinned at a rate which will significantly
change our current inevitable course toward catastrophe?
The simple answer is that we have no other choice. It isn't
a question of whether, but of how, where, and when to begin the
Fuel treatments. Do we start to work on this pre-catastrophe or
post-catastrophe?
A more realistic answer is we know the job can be done
because in many pervious years the amount of material that
needs to be removed actually has been removed. The main
difference is this: In previous years most of the material
removed was in logs from the largest trees, leaving behind most
of the logging slash to add to the fuel load, while in future
years, say for the next 30 or so, most of the material must be
removed as small logs from understory trees, and biomass, thus
reducing the fuel load, not adding to it.
A thirty-year fuels program is not a very attractive
proposition; it is not adequate given the ``catastrophic''
threat and it is not realistic to count on sustaining public or
political interest in a ``crash'' program of that length.
Fortunately, Quincy Library Group (QLG) can offer a
considerable improvement on the bare-bones 30-year program.
The QLG proposes that all sales should laid out in patterns
that are fully intended with natural fuels treatments in a
strategic fire protection plan.
STRATEGY
1The QLG strategic fire protection plan has three
requirements:
1. Four years of very high priority.
2. During those four years, natural fuels treatments and
sales of thinnings, salvage, and biomass should be done in
strips of approximately quarter-mile width according to a
prescription that makes these steps defensible fire lines,
meets the intent of CASPO (Califomia Spotted Owl) guidelines,
and does the least possible damage to other ecosystem values.
3. The acreage treated each year should be at least l/32 of
the total forest.
In practice the strips (similar in concept to shaded fuel
breaks) should follow ridge lines, valley bottoms, and
convenient roads in a pattern that would isolate all major
watersheds (average size of 10 to 12 thousand acres) within the
four years.
The intent of the CASPO guidelines would be met because
they are based on the concept that intense wildfire is a major
short-term threat to owls (and by implication to other wildlife
and ecosystem values). Under the QLG strategy there is maximum
protection with mimimum disturbance to owls or other ecosystem
components because: (1) almost all of the treated strips would
be along existing roadways, (2) lower density of snags and
large down woody debris within the strips could be compensated
for by leaving more of those materials farther off roads during
subsequent treatments in those areas, and (3) the included
roadways would permit efficient removal of the materials with
minimal disturbance.
After four years, with a network of fundamental protection
in place, a somewhat different long-term strategy would be
phased in: you could continue to use strips to divide large
areas or areas with high value and/or great fire risk, but most
of the remaining forest would be treated more efficiently in
areas, not strips. In either case, fuels treatment should
continue at the rate of at least 1/32 ofthe forest area each
year.
CONCLUSIONS
What we have lait out are three possible courses:
1. Do nothing different, just wait for ``the big one''.
2. Increase fuels work, but follow conventional practice
that limits strategic placement of fuel breaks to what you can
accomplish under the ``natural fuels'' budgets, and confines
other fuel removal to sales areas designated in the
conventional manner. This would eventually get the job done,
but in scattered units that for many years would protect very
little area except the actual acres treated.
3. Increase fuels work, and do both ``natural fuels''
treatment and timber sales in patterns and under prescriptions
that support the QLG Strategic Fire Protection Plan. That is,
the sales would be based on understory thinning and biomass
removal in a network of strips. This will more quickly reduce
the risk of catastrophic wild-
fire, and at the same time make suppression efforts against the
remaining fires more effective and less costly.
The differences among these three cases can be illustrated
by three lines on a graph of cost trends over time (Figure 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.003
Figure 2. Relative cost for three fuels treatment
strategies.
In Figure 2, relative costs are scaled to reflect an
assumption that the FP cost remains constant for the whole
period.
Curve #1 shows no change of strategy. Fire suppression
costs, and the loss of forest and non-forest resources
continues to rise. The only likely break would be a huge spike
when ``the big one'' occurs, followed perhaps by subsidence to
a level that would support fire protection for a moonscape
forest.
Curve #2 represents the shape to be expected if Fuel
Treatment (FT) work is done in a way that follows historic
precedent. It would initially cost money that cannot be saved
by immediate reduction of other fire protection costs and fire
losses. Eventually, however, these costs and losses would be
reduced far enough that total cost would fall below the ``no
treatment'' projection, and from then on a continuing return on
investment would be achieved. Until most of the forest had been
treated, there would not necessarily be many connections among
treated areas, so for at least the first half of the period any
reduction in FF or Loss costs would be gradual, and there would
be only gradual reduction in the risk of catastrophe.
Curve #3 is the shape we believe the QLG strategy would
produce. Again you have to add Fuel Treatment (FT) costs at
first, but a network of treated strips would reduce the average
size of large fires and facilitate the fighting of smaller
fires, so the reduction of fire costs and fire losses would be
earlier and steeper, with a quicker crossover to profit on the
investment, and much earlier and more significant reduction in
the risk of catastrophe.
BOTTOM LINE
There is a strong temptation to avoid the initial cost of
fuels reduction and understory thinning, because it is not easy
to show that a particular catastrophic fire could actually be
avoided. On the other hand, we can't escape the certainty that
our current course leads inevitably to catastrophic fire.
It's a classic case of ``Penny Wise Pound Foolish''. We can
easily look thrifty in the short run by avoiding the ``penny''
of immediate cost to implement the QLG strategy. But that won't
look so wise when a catastrophe hits that could otherwise
have been avoided or made smaller by spending those early
pennies on fuel reduction. At that point it will look foolish
indeed to be spending many ``pounds'' on futile efforts to
suppress the conflagration.
------
Statement of Bill Coates, Plumas County Supervisor; Past President of
the Rural Counties of California; the County Supervisors Association of
California; and the 16 Western States Supervisors and County
Commissioners Association within the National Association of Counties
Dear Members of the Committee:
My statement can be encapsulated within three statements:
We attended. We listened. We attempted to do.
We attended President Clinton's Northwest Forest Summit
Conference in Portland at his invitation.
We listened when he told us to get out of the courtrooms
and into the meeting rooms to work out our differences locally.
We listened when we were told that if we would just get on the
same songsheet, (the environmental community and the logging
community) that the USFS could act on our plan.
We came back from Portland and attempted to follow
President Clinton's request. We asked questions, studied,
argued, studied, debated, and finally agreed. We used the
environmentalist's ideas about land base and silvicultural
methods, for which they had action brought against the USFS to
force implementation. We mixed in the forestry methods of the
Collins Pine Company, where we had 80 years of solid ``on the
ground'' proof of forest health results. We asked for the best
science available and put it in the plan. We walked away from
salvage logging where it broke our agreement. We opened up our
meetings to all and asked for a solid impartial monitoring
plan. We adopted SAT guidelines for riparian areas, folded in a
stream restoration element that is drawing acclaim visitors
from around the world, and helped design the DFP2 system called
for in SNEP to reduce the loss of species, old growth areas,
and habitat to increasing frequent catastrophic wildfire
events. This litany could go on.
We feel like we have come to Congress and to the President
with an incredible gift. Instead of gold bars, it is an
agreement. It is what was asked of us.
The rest is up to you. Will you hesitate, study, endlessly
temporize and debate? Or will you seize the opportunity this
gift affords you, and act decisively to begin returning our
forests to healthy conditions, with stable communities and a
broad national public support as a very desirable by-product?
In addition to answering our declining forest health
condition, as outlined in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project,
there is another important condition at risk here. It is the
condition of the decision making process.
If this local grassroots effort at solving problems isn't
acted upon, after having been requested at the highest level,
then what other collaborative effort will want to proceed?
Other groups will know of our 750 meetings, the loss of family
time and personal expense, the agony of bureaucratic process
and the ecstasy of fire and fuel and stream restoration and
monitoring and better recreation and cleaner air and more water
production and healthier animal and plant populations almost--
almost coming together. Our advice would have to be, ``Don't
even start.''
Finally, I'd like to thank this committee with your
patience for our bipartisan nature. As you know we aren't
liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, but rather a
mixture of all. Our process is exactly what is described in
every political campaign for federal and state office, and then
not too often seen again ``on the streets.'' I would especially
like to thank Congressmen Herger, and Fazio, Senator's
Feinstein and Boxer, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman, Deputy
Secretary of Agriculture Rominger, and Under Secretary for
Natural Resources and Environment Lyons for their support.
Their encouragement at key points in time when we have tired,
was crucial.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0051.020