[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 2458, THE COMMUNITY PROTECTION AND HAZARDOUS FUELS
REDUCTION ACT OF 1997
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-570 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
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 ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
Bill Simmons, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held September 23, 1997.................................. 1
Statements of witnesses:
Albrecht, Michael H., President, Sierra Resource Management,
Inc........................................................ 12
Goicoechea, Pete, Chairman, Board of Eureka County
Commissioners, Eureka, Nevada.............................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Holmer, Steve, Campaign Coordinator, Western Ancient Forest
Campaign................................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Hubbard, James, Director/State Forester, Colorado State
Forest Service, Colorado State University.................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Joslin, Robert, Deputy Chief, National Forest Systems, United
States Forest Service...................................... 3
Wiant, Jr., Harry V., President, Society of American
Foresters.................................................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 71
Additional material supplied:
Society of American Foresters, prepared statement of......... 74
Belsky A. Joy, and Dana M. Blumenthal, Effects of Livestock
Grazing and Stand Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests of
the Interior West.......................................... 38
Quotes from scientists and others............................ 51
Excerpts from the SNEP Final Report to Congress, etc......... 52
HEARING ON H.R. 2458, THE COMMUNITY PROTECTION AND HAZARDOUS FUELS
REDUCTION ACT OF 1997
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
2458, the Community Protection and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
Act of 1997.
Under rule 4(g) of the Committee rules, any oral opening
statements in hearings are limited to the Chairman and the
Ranking Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help members to keep to their schedules.
Therefore, if other members have statements, they can be
included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.
[The statements referred to follows:]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would like to welcome our witnesses and
the members of this Committee today on H.R. 2458, the Community
Protection and Hazardous Fuels Reduction Act of 1997.
Last year, wildfires burned over 6 million acres and cost
nearly $1 billion to fight. These intense fires are now
frequently occurring in America's backyards. In the early part
of this century, a clear delineation existed between the urban
center and what was considered rural America, but this no
longer exists.
Over time, cities have grown into suburbs and suburbs have
blended into what was once considered rural, and this complex
landscape has come to be known as the wildland/urban interface.
Forests and grasslands are intermixed with housing, businesses,
farms and other developments, posing new challenges for fire
management and fire suppression.
The intensity of many of the wildfires witnessed in recent
years are of a magnitude seldom seen before and they are the
result of unnaturally high fuel loads, caused from years of
aggressive suppression, forest disease, and grossly overstocked
stands also contribute to this. This is an unhealthy, dangerous
condition that must be properly dealt with and dealt with now.
Last spring, the Subcommittee traveled to several forests
in the West. The Forest Service provided us with an excellent
tour which gave us an idea of what can happen if we do not take
action. In the Boise National Forest alone, the Forest Service
showed us an area larger than Los Angeles County that had been
burned from catastrophic fires over the past 5 years.
During this trip and other trips that I have had a chance
to take this year, the Forest Service employees working on the
ground have asked for the authority contained in this bill to
help deal with the fire danger and forest health problems that
plague our national forests.
There is no doubt that something must be done. The question
is not if our forests will burn from catastrophic fires, but
when. These intense fires not only threaten the destruction of
communities, putting human life and property at risk, they also
damage water supplies, destroy fish and wildlife habitat and
damage ambient air quality. The unnatural temperatures of these
fires also damage soil to the degree that it substantially
reduces the ability of the land to support future stands of
trees and greatly increases the potential for massive soil
erosion.
Regarding the importance of protecting our forests,
President Teddy Roosevelt, one of the greatest conservationists
of all time, said this, quote, ``If there is any one duty which
more than any other we owe to our children and our children's
children to perform at once, it is to save the forests of this
land, for they constitute the first and most important element
in the conservation of the natural resources of this country.''
Quoting from a Forest Service brochure on forest health,
the agency states, and I must commend the Des Chutes National
Forest for their very excellent brochure, and I am very pleased
to quote from this. It is a very, very outstanding brochure.
``The Forest Service has identified the factors that are
weakening the forests and there are a number of acres affected
and it will take time, effort, resources and cooperation to
restore the balance. The Forest Service has a vision, a vision
of a healthy, balanced, self-sustained forest.'' And I agree
with this vision, and for this purpose, I introduced the
Community Protection and Hazardous Fuels Reduction Act of 1997.
This bill is the result of listening to the on-the-ground
experts, those men and women who work every day in the Forest
Service. It provides the Forest Service with a new tool that
will allow it to help protect our forests, fish and wildlife
habitat, protect our air quality and water quality, as well as
human life and our property.
I look forward to working with the Forest Service and
interested members as we move this bill forward; and in light
of last year's severe fire season and the threat that remains
in our forests, now is the time to properly deal with the
unnaturally high fuel loads that lead to loss of human life and
property, as well as most of the environmental damage and
taxpayer expenditures that result.
Since the Ranking Minority Member is not here right now, I
will recognize him when he does come in for his statement, but
I would like to recognize my colleague from Montana, Mr. Rick
Hill.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chairman, first of all, thank you for this hearing
and thank you for this bill. This is an important issue for
Montana. In western and central Montana we have many
communities that would certainly fall within the definition of
communities where there is urban and forest interface.
Knowing full well that recent reports indicate that the
fuel buildups in western Montana are at excessive levels, and
also in light of the fact Madam Chairman, that we are entering
an El Nino season, which traditionally has created very dry and
warm conditions in much of Montana, I think this is a very
important issue facing Montanans.
The threat is very real, and this deserves action; and
Madam Chairman, your bill would seek to reverse the trends of
the ever-increasing fuel loads in these national forests while
giving our agencies and local communities the tools to properly
manage the forests not only for the benefit of wildlife, but
also for the benefit of our citizens. I think, most
importantly, it establishes that protection of our citizens and
our communities are public interest priorities in resource
management.
So I thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hill. And now I will
introduce our first panel of one witness.
Mr. Robert Joslin, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Washington, DC.
Mr. Joslin, I am very pleased to have you join us today.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT JOSLIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEMS, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Joslin. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss H.R. 2458, the Community Protection and
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Act of 1997. I would like to enter the
written statement into the record and provide summarized
testimony.
As you mentioned, I'm Bob Joslin, the Deputy Chief of the
National Forest System. I also have with me Tom Patten, our
fuels management specialist here in the Washington office.
I would like to preface my remarks by saying, we have not
had sufficient time to fully analyze this bill or to go over it
with your staff to clarify our interpretation, and we would
certainly like to do so. The Bureau of Land Management is in
the same situation, and today's remarks should not be
interpreted as a representation of their official position.
As we interpret it, H.R. 2458 would expand contracting
authorities of the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to
allow them to require treatment of hazardous fuel buildup or
improvements to noncommodity resources as conditions in
contracts for the sale of forest products within wildland/urban
interface area. The bill would also establish authorities for
forest management project credits to be used by the purchasers
to offset against their payments.
While the administration certainly agrees with the stated
purpose of H.R. 2458, to safeguard communities, lives and
properties by reducing the threat of wildfires in the wildland/
urban interface, we cannot support the bill as introduced, but
would certainly be willing to work with you to address these
issues.
While H.R. 2458 focuses on forest health in the wildland/
urban interface, this problem requires a broader view and
extends well beyond the urban interface area. We would like to
see legislation that provides adequate authorities to deal with
the urban interface and forest health issues.
Congress has certainly demonstrated their interest in
improving the health and fire defensibility of the wildland/
urban interface through a number of legislative proposals and
restructuring of the Forest Service fire management budget to
add fuel reduction work to the fire suppression program. There
are several administrative efforts under way to identify the
management needs and authorities that fully address the
protection of wildland/urban interface lands.
We are currently collecting information necessary to assess
risk and treatment needs as part of our efforts to develop
balanced approaches at the landscape scale and developing a
long-term management strategy based on the data collected. We
are also currently working in close partnership with local
communities around the country to assess and reduce the risk of
wildfire losses. I will share one of these efforts with you
today.
The Pike and San Isabel National Forest and Canon City
District of the BLM in Colorado are working through the State
forester, who is with us today, with a number of partners and
communities along the front range of the Rocky Mountains to
identify opportunities in response to wildland/urban interface
issues. Their broad coalition of groups and governments called
the Pikes Peak Wildfire Prevention Partners is working on a
number of efforts together. They include revamping a
suppression training facility to improve the efficiency of
wildfire suppression and to serve as a demonstration area for
fire-safe building materials; completion of fire protection
assessments in the three-county area that identify priorities
for treatment--the U.S. Air Force Academy provided the
technical expertise and assistance to map the assessment area--
establishment of a slash/mulch project where homeowners can
bring woody debris from private property fuels treatment for
disposal. The material is mulched onsite and then made
available to the public for use in landscaping at no cost. The
Forest Service is carrying out this effort and similar ones
under authority of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act.
Both Secretaries have a number of authorities available to
do restoration and forest health activities similar to those
identified in the bill. We are currently examining
administrative options for new ways of accomplishing the
ecosystem management through the timber sale program, including
the potential for stewardship contracting. This effort will
provide valuable information about whether there is a need for
additional legal authorities.
While the authorities proposed in H.R. 2458 would allow
additional improvement activities outside sale area boundaries,
using timber sale contracts, and increases the opportunities to
treat fuels not generated by harvest activities, there are
substantive and technical concerns related to H.R. 2458 that
merit more analysis and discussion. The three significant most
significant issues are:
Section 101(b) appears to exempt the identification of
wildland/urban interface acres from interdisciplinary and
environmental analysis and documentation. The administration
believes that this exemption from the normal application of
NEPA is unnecessary.
Section 102(b) establishes a new system of forest
management project credits and permits their transfer to
purchase future timber sales. This provision could have
potentially significant pay-as-you-go implications.
Section 201(a) authorizes and encourages the Secretaries to
enter into contracts for grazing when the local county
commission or other unit of local government certifies that
there is a danger of fire in the wildland/urban interface area.
Existing authorities in the use of a contract rather than a
permit generates some concerns.
Definitions in section 3 that would be critical to the
operation of the bill need to be clarified and refined.
Wildland/urban interface and hazardous fuel buildup definitions
need some work. The addition of a forest management project
does not appear to include fuel reduction.
Finally, the timeframe for development of regulations
implementing the bill in section 301 is too short and appears
to conflict with section 102(g) of the bill.
The Forest Service has received about 50 project proposals
for the treatment of fuels and in urban interface areas across
the countries. These proposals may provide the best information
to date to look at in order to identify the array of possible
authorities we might want to explore.
Madam Chairman, while we agree that protection of
communities, lives and property in wildland/urban interface
areas is a national priority and agree we need to continue our
efforts to reduce threats of high-intensity wildfires to both
human life and property, we cannot support the bill as
introduced. USDA funding proposals for fiscal 1998 would
provide sufficient appropriation to address areas of immediate
concern and to develop the necessary science and procedures to
assess the long-term situation. Once information from that work
is available, we can develop long-term strategies and
implementation proposals on the priority areas. Once we have
that information, we will know more about the need for
additional authorities and would like to work with the
Committee.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Joslin may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Joslin.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Joslin, do you believe it ought to be a priority in
terms of forest management to reduce the threat to our
communities from fire?
Mr. Joslin. Yes, I do.
Mr. Hill. Is it your opinion that this bill would give you
more tools to accomplish that, or would it give you fewer tools
to accomplish that?
Mr. Joslin. I think with some work on this bill that it
would certainly help us and provide tools to help us.
Mr. Hill. Let me ask you a specific question for Montana.
Do you have any programs, pilot programs, efforts in
Montana right now, to identify and reduce life-threatening fire
hazards from fuel buildup in Montana, anything going on in
Montana that is specific?
Mr. Joslin. Yes, sir, there are. We had gone out with a
letter to all of our units across the national forest system
and asked them to come up with some potential ideas for dealing
with this particular effort. In regard to that, in a pilot
sense, we received over 50 responses. Some of those are from
Montana. Bitterroot National Forest, region one, has one; the
Lolo; the Flathead; and another one from the Lolo. And these
properties are all across the board.
What we are doing now that we have all of these in, we have
a group together that are evaluating each one of these
projects. Some of the projects that are proposed will certainly
require help from Congress in dealing with some of the laws
that we would need changed, et cetera, to make them feasible to
carry out. But we believe that with a pilot program like this,
which are done in partnerships that vary from tribal
governments, State forest industry groups to local
organizations, that we can get a good idea by trying these out
of what works and what does not work.
Mr. Hill. Have you examined the cost of being proactive in
terms of reducing fire hazard by reducing fuels as contrasted
to what it costs to fight fires? Do you have any studies on
that to indicate which is more cost-effective?
Mr. Joslin. We have looked at that, and I think certainly
over the long term, pay-me-now is certainly better than pay-me-
later. And I think if we can get after the fuel reduction and
those kinds of things over the long term, that you will find
that that will pay off.
Mr. Hill. The Chief, I think, has identified about 40
million acres of land that are in need of treatment to reduce
fire fuels. What criteria do you use to measure the fuel
loading and how do you determine if an area has too much fuel?
Mr. Joslin. I would probably want to refer that to the
expert, but the Chief identified the fact that we consider that
we have about 40 million acres of the national forest system at
high risk, and those are based on a broad assessment of what
the fuel loads are out there, the amount of fuel both on the
ground and the density of stands, how much is standing, and all
of those things in combination.
I think that as you go from that broad scale down into the
local situations more information would be taken to determine
what that fuel loading is, what you need to do, whether you
need to combine mechanical with fire or whether you can go in
and use fire, for example, by itself, or what the other actions
might be that you might need to take to reduce that to an
acceptable level.
Mr. Hill. This bill gives considerable flexibilities to the
local foresters to make those kinds of decisions. Do you agree
that is where those decisions ought to be made?
Mr. Joslin. Yes, I do.
Mr. Hill. And this bill provides for some exception from
the NEPA process with regard to identifying those interface
areas where there could be communities at risk. Do you take
exception to that provision?
Mr. Joslin. What I think should be done there, as far as
identifying areas, there is no need for legislation on changing
the NEPA requirement there, because there would be none. But I
think when you get down to those specific areas, that NEPA and
that process should be used to consider all of the public's
needs and everything else to come to a decision on exactly what
you're going to do there.
Mr. Hill. So let me make sure I understand what you are
saying. What you are saying is, for whatever the management
solution would be, obviously you should follow the NEPA
process--do an environmental assessment, do an environmental
impact statement. But just for designating areas, saying this
is a community where there is interface between urban and
forest areas, it would be duplicative, would it not, to be
required to go through the NEPA process just to obtain that
designation?
Mr. Joslin. The process we use now, we designate areas like
that without going through the NEPA process.
Mr. Hill. So there is nothing unusual about that specific
aspect of this bill?
Mr. Joslin. No. The only concern there is, when you get
down to talking about the actions that you might propose to
take that, those need to go through the NEPA process in our
opinion.
Mr. Hill. I would agree with that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Mr. Joslin, I am somewhat surprised at the administration's
position on this bill, especially since the idea for the bill
had come from Forest Service personnel not only working on on
the ground but in regional administration. And a similar bill
was introduced by my predecessor, Mr. LaRocco, and came out of
the administration, and he did not introduce it in Committee or
it did not proceed very far. It was a very good concept and it
probably should have.
I find it a bit disconcerting that the White House is now
opposing the bill. But I listened very carefully to your
testimony, and I would like to know, how would you define
wildland/urban interface areas?
Mr. Joslin. Madam Chairman, there are a lot of different
definitions for that. The one that currently is in use by us is
the zone where structures and other human development meet or
intermingle with undeveloped wildland.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is right. That is good.
Approximately how many acres does the Federal Government
manage in what you would consider wildland/urban interface
areas?
Mr. Joslin. I will have to get that figure for you, Madam
Chairman.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. If you do not like this bill, then how does
the Forest Service plan to systematically reduce fuel buildups
on these lands within a 15- to 20-year cycle to protect private
property and lives?
I ask this in view of the fact of your most recent letter
to me with regard to the ice and standing limbs in the
Panhandle National Forest. The Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Act was not employed there by your agency. It has not helped
us. And the danger there continues to grow with every day that
we are not able to get those damaged trees off the forest
floor.
Mr. Joslin. Madam Chairman, I just want to reiterate that
we support what you are after in your proposal here and that we
would like to work with you on certain specific elements in the
bill, because we think that taking these kinds of actions are
what it is going to take out there to save property, lives and
all those kinds of things--certainly agree with you on that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
Tell me, Mr. Joslin, to help me, how would you define
hazardous fuels buildup?
Mr. Joslin. Well, there is about 150 different ways, and I
am not sure which is the correct one, but I think that we need
to work with you and your staff on one that would be acceptable
to all of these partners that--you will be talking to some more
of them later on.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Tell me how would you define forest
management projects.
Mr. Joslin. Forest management projects, to me, are any of
the projects that take place out either in a national forest,
or in any other forest as far as that is concerned, any kind of
activity that would be used to enhance the resource for the
future.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, what management prescriptions would
you include as an appropriate forest management project?
Mr. Joslin. Well, in connection with this particular bill
that we are discussing here today, and we talked earlier about
the 40 million acres that we have identified as high risk, we
have looked at that, and about 25 million acres of that would
probably have to be treated with some kind of combination of
mechanical and fire; the remainder, you could probably deal
with that strictly with fire. And that--you have to remember,
that is a pretty gross overall assessment.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You state in your testimony that, quote,
the administration has not had sufficient time to fully analyze
this bill; and you stated further that the Forest Service has
not had an opportunity to go over the bill.
Who has looked at the bill for the administration? It has
been there for a couple of weeks.
Mr. Joslin. We have looked at this bill quite a bit, in
depth in the last couple of days, in fact, right up to the time
before coming over here; and we still have some of these
questions that we would like to work with you and your staff on
to clarify.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, Mr. Joslin, I appreciate your being
here, and I appreciate your obvious willingness to work with us
on the bill. The bill certainly is not cast in stone and we
remain very open and willing to work with the administration.
I, however, am not particularly inclined right now to see the
landscape concept of management employed all at once across the
national forest. I would like to see it tried out in an area
that has the most critical concern for the potential damage to
private property and human life. So that, indeed, is why we
confined this new concept to its workability based on the needs
of the urban and rural interface.
Mr. Joslin. Madam Chairman, I would like to also indicate
to you that the pilot program that I mentioned, there is one
proposal on the Clearwater National Forest in your home State
of Idaho, and we really think that this is an opportunity to
try a lot of different efforts and use this information to work
with you and other Members of Congress on some things that we
need to make these feasible and go ahead and work them.
Also, I would like to thank you for taking the time to take
a look at the Boise National Forest and the moonscape that has
occurred because of the wild, severe, intense fires that we
have had out there since the mid-1980's.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is very impressive, what we see out
there, and I have extended, and so has Senator Craig,
invitations to the Secretary and to the Chief to come out; and
we would also love to have you join them for the same type of
tour that our leadership team took, and I think that when we
all see the same thing, we are far better able to work in our
separate capacities to, together, find solutions to the
problems that we see.
So, Mr. Joslin, I really appreciate your being here, and I
wonder, if time permits, if you would mind staying. We have
another panel that I will be calling.
Mr. Joslin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right now the Chair will recognize the
second panel and excuse Mr. Joslin.
We welcome Mr. Harry Wiant, President of the Society of
American Foresters, and Pete Goicoechea, County Commissioner
from Eureka, Nevada; Jim Hubbard, Director, Colorado State
Foresters, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado State
University; Michael Albrecht, President, Sierra Resource
Management, Sonora, California; and Steve Holmer, Western
Ancient Forest Campaign.
Gentlemen, if you will all take your place at the table. I
wonder if you might stand and take an oath, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Bob Schaffer from Colorado will be here
soon. He is still on an airplane, as we speak, but he should be
in soon; and Mr. John Doolittle wanted also to be back; and Mr.
Jim Gibbons from Nevada also wanted to come in. It is a very
busy time as we are nearing the end of the year, and so I know
where their concerns are; and they personally indicated those
to me and they will try to join us.
To begin with, I would like to recognize Steve Holmer from
the Western Ancient Forest Campaign. Steve.
STATEMENT OF STEVE HOLMER, CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR, WESTERN
ANCIENT FOREST CAMPAIGN
Mr. Holmer. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Western Ancient Forest Campaign represents organizations
and individuals nationwide who are dedicated to protecting
forests and aquatic ecosystems on the national forests.
Our organization strongly opposes H.R. 2458 and urges the
members of this Committee and the House of Representatives to
oppose the bill and its objectional elements in any form.
While the environmental community supports protecting lives
and properties in the wildland/urban interface threatened by
fire, there is no scientific evidence increasing logging will
accomplish that goal and, in fact, significant evidence
suggests the opposite. This bill, if enacted, will allow for
increased logging that will increase fire risk and threaten
other important values such as public safety, clean water
supplies, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunity
and fiscal responsibility.
There is no conclusive scientific data that indicates
forests can be successfully fireproofed by thinning. The Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Project reported to Congress that logging
increases fire hazard by increasing surface dead fuels and
changing microclimate. Given the lack of confirming scientific
data, limited pilot projects already under way by the Forest
Service should be intensively monitored and researched to see
if the strategy works and under what conditions before it is
employed on a broader basis.
Our organization disagrees with some of the fundamental
assumptions found in the bill's findings section. For example,
the bill states the forests are experiencing significant
disease epidemics and insect infestation. The U.S. Forest
Service testified June 19 before the House Agriculture
Committee that there is no forest health crisis on the national
forests. Disease and insects, like wildfire, are natural parts
of a functioning ecosystem.
The bill claims inconsistent management and natural effects
for the buildup of fuels, but there is substantial scientific
evidence that fire suppression, on which the government spends
nearly a billion dollars a year, the selective logging of
larger, more fire-tolerant trees and cattle grazing, which is
also subsidized by taxpayers, are the primary causes of overly
dense forest conditions. Nothing in this bill addresses these
fundamental causes, and in fact, the bill's promotion of cattle
grazing could make the overstocking and fuels problem worse in
some regions.
The NEPA exclusion clause will prevent meaningful public
participation in designating lands for management activities
that may be very near communities. For example, landslides and
flooding, which have killed people and destroyed properties,
have been linked to road building and clear-cutting. Under this
bill, there would be no protection or even the opportunity to
comment for communities or property owners who could be put at
risk by future logging and road building projects in the
designated areas that have steep or unstable slopes. Similarly,
recreation interests would not be allowed to comment on project
designations that could adversely affect hunting, fishing or
hiking near their communities.
WAFC strongly opposes the provision for ``Forest Management
Credits'' found in section 101(b). The Clinton Administration
has proposed an end to the purchaser credit system because it
subsidizes logging road construction, and the House voted to
cut this program in half. Forest Management Credits would
create a new subsidy that could lead to even less money being
returned to the Treasury from a timber program that is already
losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year. It could
also detract from the KV fund, which is supposed to pay for
reforestation of areas that have already been logged.
The ``Cost Considerations'' provision of 101(f) would also
allow the Forest Service to ignore economic considerations when
conducting timber sales under this bill, and specifically
states that ``No sale shall be precluded because the costs of
the sale may exceed the revenues derived from the sale.'' This
section would also obfuscate the extent of money-losing timber
sales by allowing the Forest Service to exclude these sales
from any calculations concerning the revenue of the timber sale
program. In other words, the agency would be granted a blank
check, and they would not even have to worry about how much
money is actually being lost to the taxpayer.
A better approach for funding necessary projects is to
appropriate the money in the annual Interior appropriations
process. If the threat to public safety warrants, it is our
belief Congress should provide adequate funding, not to promote
the giveaway of the public assets as this bill does.
We also strongly oppose section 201 concerning removal of
grasses and forbs because there is significant evidence that
grazing is harmful to forests and streams, and it contributes
to overstocking conditions in some forests. I would like to
submit for the record a scientific report entitled ``Effects of
Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests
of the Interior West'' by A. Joy Belsky and Dana Blumenthal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Holmer. It comes to the conclusion that grazing is, in
fact, a major contributor to overstocking and changes in tree
species composition in our forests. Similar studies conducted
by the Forest Service have come to similar conclusions for
Southwest forests.
In conclusion, the agency has adequate existing authority
to carry out necessary activities in the interface zone to
protect lives and property. This bill calls for uncontrolled
logging that may increase fire risk and threaten other
important values such as public safety, clean water supplies,
fish and wildlife habitat and recreational opportunity.
Western Ancient Forest Campaign will actively oppose H.R.
2458 and urge the members of this Committee to vote against its
passage.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Holmer. I appreciate your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holmer may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. For the next witness, I would like to call
on Mr. Doolittle to introduce him.
Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this hearing and apologize for arriving late.
I would like to introduce Michael Albrecht, President of
Sierra Resource Management, a constituent of mine; and this is
a firm that specializes in forest thinning in our heavily
overgrown forest in the central Sierras.
As you know, Madam Chairman, from the field hearing that
was held recently in Sonora, we have had some excellent
testimony from Mr. Albrecht and an excellent demonstration,
where you and I became personally involved in his expensive
equipment and survived; and he survived without, as far as I
can tell, injury to the equipment.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think he was more at risk than we were.
Mr. Doolittle. Oh, definitely, and the bystanders, if I
might say. Anyway, I am pleased to welcome him today, back here
in Washington, to testify.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. ALBRECHT, PRESIDENT, SIERRA RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, INC.
Mr. Albrecht. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Committee
members. Greetings from Sonora, California. It truly is a
pleasure to be here today discussing such a positive piece of
forest health legislation.
H.R. 2458, the Community Protection and Hazardous Fuels
Reduction Act of 1997, is a welcome sign that Congress is ready
to give professional foresters the tools we need to protect our
forests, our firefighters and our homes.
Before I continue, let me give you a quick snapshot of who
I am and what I represent. Who I am is Mike Albrecht, the
registered professional forester in both California and North
Carolina. I am co-owner of a small timber harvesting and timber
management business. Our company, Sierra Resource Management,
employs approximately 50 people dedicated to sound forest
management. We specialize in forest thinning.
What I represent is the future, and the future of forestry
in our great Nation is exciting. The potential we have to do
trend-setting, positive and profitable work in our forests
keeps me optimistic about the future.
As in all endeavors, our future has been shaped by our
past. I am not here today to apologize for past forest
management practices, because an apology is not appropriate,
but I would strongly acknowledge that the forest practices 50
and 100 years ago were abusive. Foresters, environmental groups
and the general public recognize this fact. The good news is
that although often contentious, the forest resource dialog of
the past 50 years has resulted in advanced forest management
practices and environmental protection that today is second to
none. It is my strongest professional opinion that regardless
of political affiliation and regardless of who signs our
paychecks, we should all be able to agree that American
forestry is the world's standard.
Nevertheless, all is not well in the woods. Your field
hearings held last week in Sonora produced plenty of frank
discussion. We all heard prominent U.S. Forest Service managers
and scientists being critical of the state of our forests. They
were bewildered by the maze of regulations they confront. But
the most disturbing and disheartening revelation, they
confided, is that the sense of purpose of the national forest
is gone.
Our local media summed the whole situation up with the
headline, U.S. Forest Policy Broken. I found in private
business that you can always fix machines, you can build
bridges and buildings, but repairing a broken spirit and
defeated attitude is very difficult. After hearing the Forest
Service testimony, I know we have a difficult task ahead, but I
also know we can do it.
Today, I bring you no new statistics about wood supply and
demand, catastrophic fire, job loss or firefighters killed. You
have heard all of them by now. Instead, let us take some
action.
No. 1, pass H.R. 2458, give us this proactive mandate to
thin the forests around our communities. I applaud the emphasis
of this bill that assigns priority to reducing fire risk. The
management credit idea is innovative. H.R. 2458 dovetails
perfectly with the California Board of Forestry's recent
emphasis on community fuel break areas. The timing of this bill
could not be better.
No. 2, support Congressman Doolittle's effort to fund a
watershed level demonstration project on the Stanislaus
National Forest. This represents an equally innovative approach
to protecting and enhancing our forest resources.
No. 3, continue to seek out and support local projects and
initiatives like the Quincy Library Group's proposal to promote
forest health, local economy and consensus building.
These are the efforts to support. The result of your
support will be healthier forests and safer communities. The
result of your support will be vibrant wildlife habitat. But
most importantly your support will renew the optimism and
spirit within the people whom we charge with managing our
forests.
Madam Chairman, I believe that under your leadership we are
beginning to turn the corner toward better forest policy. Keep
up the good work, continue to give up your weekends to hold
field hearings; it will be worth it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Albrecht. It was very
enjoyable to be out there in California.
Mr. Albrecht. Those seats are still open for both of you on
that equipment.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are very brave. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Albrecht may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hubbard,
Colorado State Forester.
STATEMENT OF JAMES HUBBARD, DIRECTOR/STATE FORESTER, COLORADO
STATE FOREST SERVICE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
Committee.
Wildland/urban interface and the fire threat that goes with
it is the State Forester's No. 1 priority. It has to be. We are
talking about public safety and firefighter safety. So it is
not just a choice of management options, it has to be our
priority. Nothing else carries that kind of burden with it.
I appreciate your efforts to authorize tools for us to
address this issue. Private land needs our adjacent Federal
owners to be responsive, to be good neighbors, if you will.
Today I would like to address the wildland/urban interface
hazard and the wildland/urban interface mitigation.
The hazard first, and I break that into two components, the
forest conditions and homes in the woods, which, if you will,
is my simple definition of interface.
National forests, in the West in particular, are at an age
where they are ready to regenerate. They have more trees per
acre than normally occurs. As the result of age and the number
of trees competing for limited nutrients, they have lower fuel
moistures, so when they burn, they burn hotter; and we have
more of them than ever. So we are facing that kind of a
firefighting situation.
Fuel buildup: That makes it more difficult to suppress
these kinds of fires, makes it more costly to suppress these
kinds of fires, puts more at risk when they burn hotter. It
does more permanent damage. And we are also experiencing a
frequency of fire that is not what we have faced in the past.
Nineteen ninety four to 1996 were well above the 10-year
average by 30,000, 40,000 fires and by 2.4 million acres. That
is a lot.
The homes in the woods are the result of development that
usually comes from local decisionmaking, local decisionmaking
that we are not likely to interrupt. So it gives us a
protection situation that we have to deal with. Little choice.
We cannot ignore it. And it makes it a priority because of the
values and the people that are at risk.
Mitigation, I break into identifying and assessing the
hazard and land management practices that deal with the
situation.
Fire suppression policies and local planning assistance, in
identification, I have included in a copy of my testimony the
Colorado red zone map. That is a joint assessment of all of the
land management agencies in development in the front range, and
it identifies 3 million acres of front range that is
susceptible to interface fire and loss. It helps to set
priorities that identify where we have to work first, where the
forest conditions and the disturbance regime and the housing
density dictate we do something that we have not normally done.
In land management practices, the something that we do is
reduce fuels; the fuel buildup that now allows for hotter fires
to carry further and burn more and be more difficult and costly
to suppress, that regime has to be altered. It has been altered
by preventing--by the suppression activities that have
prevented fire from running its normal course in those areas,
and now we are dealing with how to adjust that situation
because we have people in the way.
We are faced with small diameter trees and limited markets,
small diameter material and limited markets and what to do with
that. That says if we do not find an innovative way, we are not
likely to find a commercial method of reducing this hazard. The
contracting mechanism you proposed to reduce hazard offers
opportunity.
The fire suppression has been aggressive in the past 50
years, 100 years, and that has produced some modifications we
now have to deal with; but we have little choice but to take
aggressive suppression action in the interface.
In land management planning, most States have State
mitigation plans. Many counties have county mitigation plans.
So they are starting to face this situation. It is driven a lot
by suppression costs that they cannot afford, and ruled by
public protection as well. But the development permitting
process still is their decision. We can only advise as to what
mitigation might help that situation.
States are paying major attention to interface. I mentioned
it is our priority. The Federal lands, especially the
intermingled lands, are key components to dealing with this
problem.
In 1996 there was a fire west of Denver, Buffalo Creek
fire. I will run through that quickly. It was 10,000 acres in
one afternoon. It destroyed homes, but also left significant
natural resource damage after it was over, it left some
permanent damage. The regeneration does not occur, because it
burned too hot. The air and water quality suffered. There was
flooding following that fire. It put water into a Denver water
reservoir, and put more sediment into that reservoir than the
previous 13 years of the operation of that reservoir, in one
rain storm event; and the citizens were outraged that we have
not done anything about that.
That kind of burning will continue. So it is a situation we
have to address in some way. We have to do what we can. We have
to do the best we can to redeem our land stewardship
responsibilities. So I thank you for your efforts in proposing
methods to do this.
We need Federal land managers full participation to achieve
public safety and land stewardship in the interface,
responsibilities of public ownership all become factors, and
the State Foresters welcome the opportunity to work with you on
the bill.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I do have the
distinct pleasure to introduce somebody from the Second
District of Nevada to testify on this issue. But before I do
and with your approval, I would like to say it is an honor for
me to be here today before your Subcommittee on Forest and
Forest Health to talk about H.R. 2458, because that bill is of
the utmost importance in protecting our Nation's forests,
private property and human life.
Last year in Nevada we had the worst wildfire forest fire
season that we have ever had in the history of our State. The
passage of this legislation is needed in order to help Nevada
communities reduce the accumulation of wildland fuels on public
lands which lead to the wildfire destructions of these very
communities.
Currently, the unnatural accumulation of dead and dying
trees, large banks of sagebrush, prolonged drought in the West
and the proximity of homes to wildland fuels have created a
very dangerous situation in Nevada. This bill improves
environmental health and water quality by allowing the use of
revenue generated from the authorized sales of timber to be
used for projects to achieve these needed objectives.
H.R. 2458 is important to the State of Nevada, and perhaps
one of the most important and qualified persons to speak on it,
and on Nevada's behalf, is here today, and it is Mr.
Goicoechea. He is a local, self-employed rancher since 1970. He
has been the Chairman of the Eureka County commissioners for
the past 10 years, and since 1994 he has been the Chairman of
the Humboldt River Basin Authority. He is also an active member
of the Diamond Complex Working Group, which is a local
consensus group developing resource management recommendations
for wild horse and grazing issues. By developing working
agreements between the BLM, the county and constituents, he has
and currently does play a leading role in representing the
people of Eureka County.
Further exemplifying his background and knowledge as it
relates to this legislation, he is currently serving as Chair
of the Nevada World Health since 1988, as well as serving as
Chair of the Central Nevada Development Authority. A current
member of the Eureka Recreation Board and Community Development
Block Grant Committee, this honorable gentleman from Nevada has
long demonstrated his devotion and dedication to both the
people of Eureka County and to the entire State as well. His
insight on this issue will certainly be beneficial to this
Committee.
Therefore, it is my distinct honor to introduce to you,
Madam Chairman of this body, this gentleman from Eureka County,
Nevada, Mr. Pete Goicoechea.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Goicoechea
STATEMENT OF PETE GOICOECHEA, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF EUREKA COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, EUREKA, NEVADA
Mr. Goicoechea. Thank you, Madam Chairman and thanks, Jim.
I feel a little bit like a sheep-man at a cattleman's
convention, coming from a county that does not have any
commercial timber, but I am here to testify in support of the
concepts embodied in the Community Protection and Hazardous
Fuels Reduction Act of 1997.
This bill does address the severe risk to human life,
public and private properties, as well as our livestock and
wildlife in Nevada. The costs associated with wildfire in
Nevada in terms of taxpayer resources, property loss and
resource degradation are staggering. In my testimony, there is
a table that shows that presuppression costs alone, in Nevada,
incurred by the Bureau of Land Management ranged between $3 and
$5.5 million between 1990 and 1993.
The BLM was spending close to $145 an acre in
presuppression, and the suppression costs are believed to add
another $130 to $145 an acre. Presuppression is a concern to us
because we think it does not address the actual fuel reduction
and the problems. When you put this with the additional $8
million that was spent in wildland fire activities in
suppression cost in Nevada alone, it is astronomical.
Despite incurring high costs of fire management, the
rehabilitation in Nevada is surprisingly low. In 1985, we
burned over a million acres of Nevada's grasslands and forests.
We only rehabbed 55,000 acres. A large percentage of those
nonrehabbed acres became infested with introduced annuals,
cheatgrass predominantly. As the frequency of fire increases,
the landscape will ultimately be dominated by cheatgrass and
these other annuals, and that, in itself, will continue and we
feel it will build a time bomb in central Nevada.
Recognizing the Federal fiscal constraints, we need to look
at some realistic alternatives. Such alternatives might include
additional enhanced roles for local and State governments. We
need to look at forage banks. We would like to look at
greenstripping. We have a lot of people living out there in the
brush, and the only way, given our small infrastructure,
limited fire departments, that we can really control those
would be to seed these greenstrips into fire retardant--back to
the native grasses and forbs, which burn slower, and we feel we
have a better job of controlling.
Prior to the settlement of the West, fires in these
sagebrush communities was an important factor. Dr. Burkhardt of
the University of Nevada said the Pinyon-Juniper stands in
Nevada appeared to have burned in a 30-year cycle. Our modern
fire suppression efforts, in conjunction with grazing and
without rehabilitation, have turned that into a monoculture of
cheatgrass in central Nevada, whereas the possible seeding
programs should be the native grasses and forbs which are more
resilient to fire. They will reduce that catastrophic fire of--
which Congressman Gibbons talked about last year that we had.
And we were very fortunate to get off without significant loss
of life.
Within Eureka County we have extensive stands of pinyon-
juniper. These noncommercial forests pose a significant
wildfire hazard, and these fires are very costly to suppress,
given their location. The dense stands of pinyon-juniper seldom
support any type of understory and forage for wildlife and
livestock and use a tremendous amount of water.
In western Oregon, of course, they are a little bigger
juniper than we have in Nevada, but they use approximately 16
inches of water a year. When we start talking an acre-foot of
water, it is a lot of water. Controlled burns might be an
alternative, and in Nevada today the Bureau is talking about
the light burn policy, but it seems like a tremendous waste of
resource. Perhaps we should be exploiting methods to use this
renewable resource, products that are going to require a new
and realistic alternative.
We feel that the wood chip industry in rural Nevada, as we
look at the pinyon-junipers, we have some estimates that they
will yield between 12 and 15 ton of biomass per acre out of
these pinyon-juniper stands. We see new products on the market.
One of them we have in Eureka is called trex. It is made of
wheat native beach straw. It is not structurally sound, but it
can be used for siding and roofing and some subflooring. We
think there is some real room for those.
We would promote the harvesting of areas in a mosaic
pattern that fits with the contour and the topography of the
land. We would also like to see these seeded down on the urban
interface. We think we need to--as we do the EAs and EISs on
these contours or green zones or greenstrips or free zones, we
think they should include in the environmental assessment--we
feel that we should have the capability of moving in there with
machinery and bulldozers and graders that would in fact not
require the wait-and-see, as we see in Nevada.
Usually the fire has gone by, the houses are burnt, the
cows are burnt, and the rangelands are gone before anyone wants
to make that call that, yes, it is time we moved equipment in.
So if the greenstrips were, in fact, cleared to the point, and
they should be treated as farmland if they could be harvested
for the seed, then in the event of the threat of a fire in an
urban interface area, we could move in with the mechanized
equipment and establish the fire break.
We have witnessed a lot of change in Nevada. The fire
policies--when I was growing up in Nevada in the 1950's and
1960's, fire suppression constituted a firebox that was given
to different ranchers. One of these was designated the fire
warden. There was not a lot of manpower in the Federal agencies
then. In the event of a fire, the ranchers and miners came
together, fought--I would not say truly fought, they more
herded and shaped the fire until it burned out. At that point,
if it truly became out of control, miners entered into it and
they did, in fact, put a fire break around that.
Today we see retardant bombers, helicopter attack teams,
hundreds of professional firefighters coming on the scene, some
of them arriving days after the fire is out.
We have also seen a significant change in Nevada as far as
livestock numbers and the reduction of livestock. In Eureka
County alone over the last 15 years we have seen a 70 percent
reduction in the number of cattle in the county, from 41,000 to
13,000 in 1997.
We appreciate your efforts on this bill, Madam Chairman. We
think that we can reduce the fuels through livestock grazing. I
will not speak on commercial timber harvest because again, like
I said, we do not have any. We believe with this bill you are
helping to address the many issues and concerns I have
expressed, and I also wish to thank you for giving me an
opportunity to testify on this issue. It is very important to
Nevada and my constituents in Eureka County.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are very welcome, Mr. Goicoechea, and I
am very pleased you could come and join us today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goicoechea may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes with great
anticipation Mr. Harry Wiant, President of the Society of
American Foresters. Mr. Wiant.
STATEMENT OF HARRY V. WIANT, JR., PRESIDENT, SOCIETY OF
AMERICAN FORESTERS
Mr. Wiant. Madam Chairman, it is a real honor to be here
representing the Society of American Foresters, which many
people here know is the society that is the largest forestry
organization in the world, 18,000 members. And also I would
like to say that it is foresters that represent the most
successful conservationists in history, and I say that rather
modestly, of course.
We are a diverse organization. We cover all facets of
forest management, and we have worked on the forest health
issue long and hard. I would like to submit our report,
``Forest Health and Productivity: A Perspective of the Forestry
Profession,'' for the record.
When it comes to forest health, we believe your bill
addresses in a very farsighted and innovative way most of the
issues that we face. We truly support the intent of the bill.
The bill identifies a significant problem, provides land
managers the opportunity to address the problem, and allows for
a mechanism to pay for the projects that would be necessary.
However, we think there are some areas of the bill that
could be strengthened. We think that perhaps we need a more
solid definition of the wildland/urban interface; several have
mentioned that here today. And also on hazardous fuels, as to
what is hazardous and what would that involve?
The bill requires the local Forest Service or BLM managers
to determine the areas in need of fuel reduction. We support
that because local managers know best what should be done. In
fact, the more decisionmaking that can be done locally on the
ground, the better off our forests would be. However, it does
not encourage, perhaps as much as it should, to get the views
of the community members, other natural resource professionals,
and State and local government officials, to identify areas in
need of treatment.
The use of the credit system may cause problems. Some will
try to relate it to road building and so forth, which of course
is necessary also, but we know that will be attacked. And as
you know one thing we do not need is more controversy on
managing our forests in this country.
But a credit system is warranted. It is used in the private
sector. But we think it also should be supplemented by
appropriated funds in certain situations where there will not
be the opportunity to have credit to do things that need to be
done. For example, you could think of some of the forests in
Southern California where they would not have enough timber to
offset the cost of things that need to be done. There needs to
be a specific credit allocation process developed.
For example, you need to have it so the counties get their
25 percent payments, thus there should be some limits drawn
around how the credit system works; and of course, that could
be developed.
The credit system might work against small operators. Small
operators do not have the fiscal resources to perform the
forest management work and then wait for their payments. There
might be a problem there that perhaps could be addressed in
some way. Some of these small operators that may not be
interested in commercial production may actually specialize in
fuel reduction and do a good job of it. They could be some of
our best resources for that.
The management options presented in the grazing portion of
the bill seem to be a bit too prescriptive. As it stands, the
bill would not allow the managers to use prescribed burns,
biological control or selective herbicides as management tools.
In conclusion, we support the intent of H.R. 2458. It
certainly is a terrific problem that we have in this country. I
was just last Friday on the Coconino National Forest, and they
showed us the biggest fire they had had since the forest had
been established, over 16,000 acres; and they said they only
got it stopped where they had thinning done; they could finally
stop it because it was not moving through the crown as rapidly.
The opportunity to do that is obviously there and needs to be
done.
I want to conclude by saying that the management of nature,
such as we are talking about here, is not just an option, but
it is a necessity for human survival. It is a fact that is
easily forgotten in our urbanized and, unfortunately,
propagandized population.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiant may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Wiant. I want to thank you
very much for that very constructive testimony; and I want to
thank all the members of this panel for their constructive
testimony. It was very, very well received, and I look forward
to working with each and every one of you as we try to move
this bill to a better position and a stronger bill.
With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Gibbons from Nevada for
questioning.
Mr. Gibbons. Madam Chairman, I have no questions of these
witnesses at this time. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Mr. Vento. And Mr.
Vento, if you have an opening statement or anything you would
like to add to the record----
Mr. Vento. I will submit an opening statement, Madam Chair.
I have a lot of questions about this bill and regret that I was
held up on the floor with another matter.
In any case, I missed the Forest Service witnesses. I am a
little confused because I think that the suggestion that we are
spending a billion dollars--and apparently, that is not being
spent correctly. As far as I understand this legislation, it
does not propose to change any of the policies on how the
billion dollars is spent, at least not on the surface. It
superimposes some new direction with regards to forestry
practices vis-a-vis rural or urban forest interface and grazing
types of policies.
In fact, as I listened to one of the witnesses, Mr.
Gibbons' witness, speak about the problems with grazing, I
thought that was pretty much the conventional wisdom, that
overgrazing had given rise to pinyon-juniper types of stands,
and that cheatgrass and sagebrush are a by-product of improper
grazing policies.
Of course, if it is on land, that is the case, then you
have to do something about it, because it does burn so hot that
it will damage the surface soils. And the overgrazing actually
causes the forbs to be cut so low that they do not regenerate
or compete with these types of species, because the cows are
the cheapest likely to graze in these areas.
So I am a little perplexed that by contracting, a unique
idea, it is going to somehow solve the problem. I thought maybe
resting the cows or taking the cows off it, or changing it and
keeping the cows off might be part of the answer to that.
The other issue, I think there are questions that need to
be answered, and I will turn it over to the panel in a minute
to respond; but the other issue, of course, if it is an urban/
forest interface, the first thing that should happen with local
communities, counties and others is to try to reduce the number
of those interfaces in terms of how we allocate and plan where
human habitation takes place.
In fact, the Forest Service, as you know, itself was guilty
of some of the problems with regards to promoting these types
of leases or inholdings in years past. But by and large, I
think it is a major concern. Of course, many persons that have
these types of homes or ranches frequently want to have the
forest very close to them. It is sort of an aesthetic question.
So I think we are talking about broader questions here. I
understand that, but I think one of the first concerns you will
run into in terms of trying to reduce that is folks that want
to have trees around the house. I know I am proud of my three
or four oak trees in my backyard. I think most folks want some
trees close, except when they fall on the house, then we are
not so happy about it.
I think they have raised a lot of questions. I think it is
innovative, trying to build these credits and trading them and
so forth; but I am interested in why we cannot take the
existing dollars that are in the program and use those to
better manage. I think we are pretty much on the right track in
terms of forest health, in terms of thinning and in terms of
selective tree removal, in terms of replanting, in terms of
watershed restoration and some of the other issues more
broadly.
And I assume the Forest Service's testimony--from what I
have read, I think they are doing some of this already. But
there is a supposition or assumption here, I think, in this
legislation that this is going to be much more aggressively
pursued.
As an example, Mr. Wiant, are there any States that have
actually tried these two policies, this issue of pursuing, for
instance, on State lands this type of policy with regards to--
that is envisioned in this legislation with regards to grazing?
Mr. Wiant. Well, for your information, I would route that
question to Jim Hubbard, since he is a forester.
Mr. Vento. OK, let us go to him.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard. I am not aware of anything in relation to
grazing. But in relation to----
Mr. Vento. I think it is important. Because if we are to
model this, and there is not a single State actually pursuing
this type of policy, then I think that is an important problem.
Mr. Hubbard, with regard to the other, forest interface?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes. In regard to dealing with the forest
situation, yes, there are other examples of the same type of
approach that is proposed here in the contracting mechanism,
and it is new.
The interface situation, though----
Mr. Vento. That is with the credits and everything, so that
has a lot of different aspects. I did not think you were
testifying to that.
But do you think the legislation ought to at least--you are
dealing with an interface issue between housing and other
habitation and forests--that you ought to deal with some sort
of a land use plan or some agreement between the counties and
other authorities to try to reduce this incident? Would that
not be one of the highest priority issues?
Mr. Hubbard. I do not think we are in a position in Federal
or State government to require it, but I think that should be a
criterion for selecting our projects.
Mr. Vento. I think that is right, Madam Chairman. I know I
am going over a little bit, but I have to leave, and I
apologize, but the issue is a rather confounding problem.
Because the truth is, with the type of urban sprawl or
community sprawl that we have, everybody wants to spread out.
In fact, we spend a lot of our Forest Service firefighting
and BLM firefighting money in these areas, trying to protect
this, and I am not suggesting that is inappropriate, but we
sure ought to try to reduce that. That should be clear in terms
of if we are going to take over.
I have a lot of misgivings about us getting involved in
terms of the science of this. I think a lot of it gets to be a
lot more political science than forestry science, but I will
leave it at that.
I will submit a statement, and thank you, Madam Chair, for
giving me an extra minute.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Vento.
The Chair just cannot resist responding to you. We are
trying to prevent the $1 billion from having to be spent on
fighting fire that would normally destroy private property,
like we just recently saw.
And as far as grazing is concerned, because of the
overgrazing in our Western States, there is a new kind of grass
called cheatgrass that has begun to come in and it creates
very, very hot fuel. You can graze that cheatgrass in the early
spring, but if it is not grazed down in the early spring, well,
then it becomes a real, real dangerous problem.
So, yes, you are right, this cheatgrass situation is caused
from overgrazing, and that happened----
Mr. Vento. Not very nutritious either.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It sure is not in June or July, but in
March, April and May it can be quite acceptable.
So we are trying, Mr. Vento, to initiate the new
stewardship landscaping concept in Forest Service management on
a smaller scale, and one that would impact private property
very positively. So rather than biting off the whole kahuna all
at once, that is what we are trying to do; and I appreciate
your comments.
Mr. Albrecht, I understand that in California there is a
pilot project going on with the State with this concept; is
there not?
Mr. Albrecht. Yes, there is, Madam Chairman. I would like
to address, if I could, Congressman Vento's comments, if I may
do so.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please do.
Mr. Albrecht. In talking about the urban/wildland interface
and how agencies and government work there, the urban component
is regulated. You are correct in that counties and the State
often have a lot of say over the urban component and what is
done around homes. The wildland component is still governed by
the U.S. Forest Service; they are the ones that really need the
tool, and they are the ones that really have the complex fuel
problem on a wide scale.
So this bill would give them and us as foresters a very
important tool to manage that Forest Service landscape that
would then work very well with what the county and State
agencies are trying to do. They can only do what they are
allowed to do, which is right around their homes or private
property. So they work together very well.
Mr. Holmer. If I may, I want to comment on that. On our
staff we have a Ph.D. forest ecologist named Tim Ingalesbee,
and he traveled to Quincy, California, and one of the things
that he noted is that all around the community of Quincy it is
private lands that are--the forest lands that are immediately
about the community and the public lands are actually a fairly
significant distance from the actual city itself.
And I think that is the case in many communities. And so to
really look at this, you do have to look at the private lands,
and I think you also have to look at the Forest Service's
national wildlands policy, which I believe they promulgated
several years ago, which said that the Federal Government does
not have an obligation to protect every single property,
particularly if it is indefensible, if it is an indefensible
area, or if it is made out of inappropriate materials.
So, clearly, there does need to be some responsibility by
private landowners and also by property owners that they are
not putting an undue burden on the public.
Mr. Vento. Madam Chair, if I can, I know I am trespassing
on my colleague's time, but I appreciate your tolerance. I have
no doubt there are instances in California and others where
there are good examples of where it is needed. I think if we
are going to set down a policy nationwide with regard to this,
we need to have at least the expectation that we are not going
to be counterproductive in terms of the areas that it does not
do us much good to deal with it if there is simply no response.
I am aware and I support--I think most of us support State
and local government doing the determination and zoning, but if
we are going to come to the table, we at least want someone
there so we can work with them; otherwise, this policy would
not work. We would still be spending a billion dollars and
would not accomplish what you are trying to do.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Albrecht, did you have a response?
Mr. Albrecht. Thank you. In response to my colleague here,
and again to Congressman Vento and some of his comments, where
we need to prevent these fires is well before they get into the
urban part of the interface. Once they are in the urban
interface, we lose. Then we are losing homes. The wildland
portion of this component is where we need to really put our
effort. That is where the fires get hot and they move quickly.
I think, at least in the private sector and in working with
the Forest Service in California, there is total agreement that
this type of effort is going to do nothing but improve our
situation. And the Chairman is right that it was a billion
dollars spent in firefighting, and I think it was in 1994
actually that we spent a billion dollars fighting fire
nationally. If we could take a fraction of that money and, in a
proactive manner, prevent some fire--you talk about reinventing
government; that is just exactly, I think, what everybody has
in mind.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.
Mr. Vento, I always appreciate your leadership.
Mr. Vento. I would suggest, Madam Chairman, a lot of the
money spent fighting fires is not really well spent in the
sense that I think if you have a dry year, you end up spending
a lot of money putting out fires you are not going to put out.
That is another problem in terms of that.
So changing it to look at land-use patterns and some of the
other issues, prescribed burns, probably would be a marked
improvement. But we have to get over the idea that we can
control, in some of these dry years, these fires in these
areas, because we probably cannot. Cutting down the forest, of
course, would eliminate the problem, but that is hardly the
solution from my standpoint.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And we do not propose that right now.
The Chair is very pleased to have Mr. Bob Schaffer from
Colorado join us.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I particularly
appreciate the attendance of Mr. Hubbard, who is from my home-
town, back in Fort Collins and, of course, familiar with their
work back in the State.
I had a chance to read your statement and have a couple of
questions for you as well. But before that, I want to point out
that Mr. Hubbard mentioned Colorado's front range is kind of a
good case study for this particular bill and an illustration of
the need for it, and I could not agree more. From a political
standpoint, it is the kind of place--if you are not familiar
with Colorado, the front range is where the prairie ends and
the mountains start and everybody wants to live there. It is
just a strip from north to south which contains probably at
least two-thirds of the State's population in that area.
Every time there is a forest fire of some sort that results
in some house burning down or loss of life, as has been the
case in Colorado, everybody wants to know how in the world that
ever happened and how could we allow conditions to get to that
stage. Then, when we talk about preventing that from occurring
again, whether it is at the county or State or Federal level,
well, then another element of our population decides that that
is in fact a tragedy, so it is a constant battle that goes on.
And I think it is a good illustration of how this bill can
have particular relevance in allowing those who are capable and
competent in employing scientific principles and a certain
amount of history, where management is concerned, to prevent
loss of life and properties and, at the same time, enhance the
environmental attributes that our State has to offer.
Mr. Hubbard, if you would comment a little on the
importance of forest roads in fighting fires, particularly on
the front range.
Mr. Hubbard. OK. If we do not have access on the ground,
then our costs go up tremendously and our losses increase.
Sometimes that is acceptable in the right situations, the acres
burned, but in most cases, and in particular on the front
range, that is not the case.
Where we have interface along the front range in Colorado,
access is not that much of a problem. Sometimes the kind of
access prevents some of the equipment from getting in, so we
have to take alternative measures. Building new roads to treat
interface in the front range of Colorado would not be
necessary.
Mr. Schaffer. I want you to comment, if you would, just
about the differences in fire prevention that you see in
Colorado between the State Forest Service and the U.S. Forest
Service.
Mr. Hubbard. I see no differences, and I say that because
all the agencies have worked together on that. So we are into
an interagency mode, and while there is some difference in
terms of initial attack, in Colorado we put that burden on the
counties; and the counties, through fire protection districts
and volunteer fire departments, provide for that initial
attack, and that deals with 90 percent of our problem. When we
get into larger fire situations, it is everybody working
together on an interagency basis.
Mr. Schaffer. This urban/rural interface is the largest
concern for most foresters who focus on that particular aspect
of fire control and so on. Just in terms of the costs
associated with fires in that particular setting and contrasted
with wildfires that you may see throughout less populated areas
of the country, could you comment just about the cost
differences and why a taxpayer ought to be concerned about fire
suppression and fire prevention in the interface areas?
Mr. Hubbard. A lot of people that move to the interface do
not understand what they are getting into in terms of
protection and that it is more limited than they might have
experienced in an urban setting. But when the fire starts, they
do not want to debate that matter; they want the fire put out.
Any interface fire costs much more than a wildland fire.
You are bringing all your resources that you can bring to bear
on suppressing that incident and that usually involves
expensive air shows that deal with the interface. In the
wildland, we have learned to modify our suppression tactics.
All fire is not bad fire, so a modified suppression approach in
some situations makes sense for the resource and certainly
makes sense for the cost.
In the interface, that is not the case. You throw
everything you have at it and it costs a lot of money.
Mr. Schaffer. In the time I have left to get a question off
to you, you mentioned in your testimony, again, the use of
small contractors for removal and thinning and so on; and the
marketing and the economics of that are challenging at times,
particularly in our area up in Larimer County and down in Las
Animas County, as well, that I represent. What kind of
incentives do we need to build in to make it a marketable
proposition for small contractors to be involved in thinning?
Mr. Hubbard. As you are well aware, our markets are very
limited, and the acceptance of logging on the front range of
Colorado is questionable at best, so we have to go about it
carefully. We have to make sure we have local acceptance. What
that causes for contractors is problems with a sure supply and
how much investment they can afford to make.
So we are dealing with small contractors that are more than
willing to modify their actions to address this issue. But they
need some mechanism that does not exist now; and a modified
contracting approach, as proposed in this bill, holds some
promise.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Schaffer, we will return for another
round of questioning, if you have further questions.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. I will yield to your side. I have no questions
at this time, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Harry Wiant, I have a couple of
questions for you. In your testimony, you expressed concern for
a system that allows for the costs of forest management
projects to be offset against stumpage payments.
At a time when appropriated funds are tight, what other
means would you recommend to fund some of these forest health
projects?
Mr. Wiant. I wonder sometimes if it might not be better if
we charged the users what it really costs. We hear about below-
cost timber sales, mostly propaganda, but certainly nobody can
challenge the fact we have below-cost recreation, below-cost
wildlife management, below-cost practically everything else on
the forest. So if there would be some way we could let people
pay what it is costing to provide the service that they are
enjoying, that would help.
Other than that, I don't know. I think you have come up
with an innovative approach, and it would be hard to come up
with another right now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In your testimony, you state forest health
should be determined at the local level, and I agree, and that
is the intention of this bill, to give local foresters more
flexibility in managing local forests.
What else do you think we should do to move decisionmaking
closer to the ground that maybe is not covered in this bill or
existing law?
Mr. Wiant. I have traveled over the U.S. in the last couple
of years in my office with the Society of American Foresters,
and talked to an awful lot of foresters that work with the
Forest Service; and there are many very capable, well-driven
individuals frustrated with the fact that they just cannot do
anything--they cannot manage the forest, they cannot do what
needs to be done. Somehow we have to move from the hierarchical
system down to the ground level and let people there make the
decisions that need to be made.
I worked for the Forest Service years ago, and it operated
that way; and we had our forests in much healthier and better
condition under that system than what we have today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mike Albrecht, I have a couple of questions
here I have noted. When dealing with the timber sale contract,
is it reasonable to require the purchaser to conduct forest
management projects in the sale area to remove fuels, improve
forest health and/or achieve other forest objectives?
Mr. Albrecht. Well, I would say absolutely yes, Madam
Chairman. One thing about us private contractors is, once we
are out there, we like to work, and the more work you give us,
the more we will do.
There is some real economy to your proposal, in that if we
have people and equipment out in the forest anyway, the more
tasks that can be bundled in one contract, certainly we are
eager to do the work and certainly it will save the taxpayers
money. I guess I cannot strongly enough support that concept.
And the talk and talk and talk over the last 10 or 15 years
that I have been involved, about trying this versus actually
doing it, it is very frustrating. I am hoping your bill will
move us into action.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In your opinion, are provisions that allow
for the cost of forest management projects to be offset against
stumpage payments a practical and reasonable contractual
mechanism?
Mr. Albrecht. Yes. You can pay for work several ways. The
idea of using goods, the timber, for the Service's management
activities is an excellent idea in that, No. 1, what I like
about it, it is credit-earned. You have to do the work first to
earn a credit. That is a good concept. Private industry does
that all the time. Do the work, then get the credit; do not
give the credit up front and assume the work will get done. I
like that part of it.
I do not know where the money is going to come from
otherwise. We cannot seem to get enough proposed money for all
sorts of activities, so let us use the dollars out there on the
stump. Yes, that is great.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In following up on one of the comments and
questions made by my colleague from Colorado, I want to ask you
a similar question. Can materials that are removed in thinning
or other activities be utilized as commercial products? Are
there examples of that around Sonora?
Mr. Albrecht. Absolutely, yes. There are commercial
thinning products, which would be small logs, that go to our
small log mill, and those are converted to lumber.
There is another important piece of this puzzle, and that
would be the biomass industry, where we are taking
nonmerchantable products and chipping them to make cogeneration
power. As you are aware--and that is probably out of the
purview of this bill--that whole industry could use some help.
We need that market in place to make this whole thinning work,
which would be the chipping, biomass industry.
But, in general, yes, there are markets out there for the
small product. There is a pulp market for paper. We need to
strengthen that biomass market if we can, and then we have a
real good approach to this.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Albrecht, I do not believe that that
concept is out of the purview of this bill, not at all. As we
have been working on this bill, we have thought about those
industries that would benefit from products that are having to
be chipped up and otherwise hauled out of the forest, the value
added, multiple use staging of our wood products instead of
just sheer stumpage that would be made into 2x4s or lumber.
Mr. Albrecht. Right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So I thank you for your comments, and the
Chair recognizes once again Mr. Gibbons from Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to respond to my colleague, Mr.
Vento. Unfortunately, he is not here at this point in time.
I do not believe it was the testimony of Mr. Goicoechea
that it was overgrazing that caused much of the cheatgrass, and
I was wondering, Pete, if you wanted to respond to the grazing
issues that were raised, especially with relation to the pinyon
forest in Nevada and the grazing issues there.
And if you would like to respond, I would sure appreciate
your comments.
Mr. Goicoechea. Yes, I appreciate that, Congressman
Gibbons. I wish Congressman Vento was here so I could respond
in fact to him.
We agree that we do have some sins and some overgrazing in
the past we have to atone for, but grazing is not what causes
the encroachment of pinyon-juniper. Pinyon-juniper is
predominantly on rocky hillsides with very little soil base
under them.
What we see in central Nevada is that generally fire is
what causes the spread of pinyon-juniper. And the point is, if
we take the native grasses and the forbs and we get the grazing
annuals in, they are genetically designed to survive fire.
Cheatgrass is in place any time you have a fire and you do not
replace it. We would like to see us get back to the native
brushes and forbs and grasses. They tend to burn a lot cooler
than the cheatgrass fires we have.
The cheatgrass fires, we are all well aware of, and I know
the chairman is aware of the Kuna fire 2 years ago, these
cheatgrass fires, they might not seem like a lot of fuel, but
they burn fast and hot and they kill people.
No, grazing practices of 100 years ago, we have to live and
pay for those, that is true, but let us focus on recovering and
rehabbing those and not continue to build on them with
wildfire. And the fact is, we are not rehabbing these. Let us
stop the spread.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Goicoechea, can you give us a direct
example of how operations under this bill will directly help
Nevada in its problems with wildland fires?
Mr. Goicoechea. Well, I think the fiscal issue, Congressman
Gibbons, is going to be the real driver in it. Again, as Mike
Albrecht testified, we need a lot of research, especially into
the biomass industry. We feel that there are significant
resources in Nevada and in all the intermountain West.
When we talk about pinyon-juniper stands, we would like to
see an alternative to just controlled burning, and we would
like to see both revenues generated from those pinyon-juniper
stands. And also, on the grazing side, we have a lot of Forest
Service allotments in Nevada and through the intermountain West
that are inactive. They are standing grasslands; in some cases,
they are just strictly, predominantly cheatgrass grasslands.
They are waiting to explode.
I think there are revenues that can be generated both from
contract grazing, like this bill addressed in the contract
grazing portions; and I think you need to address the old
preference statements. All of the intermountain West was
adjudicated from grazing. Be sure, as you contract to graze
these allotments in the intermountain West, that they address
the property rights and the water rights of those adjacent base
properties.
We are very concerned about the discretion of either
Secretary doing contract grazing. We think that could
jeopardize local economies if we see cattle transported out of
the county and out of the State into an area. A year ago we had
a permittee from White Pine County, approximately 200 miles
away, move into a forest allotment on the Toiyabe's. It sounded
like a good deal to him and to the Forest Service also, but
when he got there, he did not have any water. He had to haul
water into the allotment.
He was also denied access because of private property. He
was denied some access to the forest. It did not work well for
him and it was a problem.
I think grazing is a tool. It removes foliage. It does not
go up in smoke. It goes through livestock for food production.
We also feel that at any point that we can reduce that fire
hazard, it reduces the loads on the local government.
We have to fight those fires, as Mr. Hubbard said. The
first line of defense is the county and these small volunteer
fire departments. We do not have the manpower and the equipment
to truly wage an assault on the wildland fires, especially with
the understorage of fuel we are putting out there today.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Wiant, quickly, in the time I have
remaining, what would you suggest to this Committee as to your
definition of the wildland/urban interface? What would be an
adequate stance or defined definition you would suggest for us?
Mr. Wiant. We have a forest terminology committee hard at
work which--we hope the publication will come out before long
and it will address that.
Some of the things said here obviously make sense. You
cannot call a cabin in the middle of 100 acres an interface.
But where do you draw the line? I think that is going to take
consideration by various interest groups to come up with a
reasonable and a usable definition. I do not have one for you.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Goicoechea, I wanted to just ask you, indeed, is the
range not in better condition now than it was even 30 years
ago?
Mr. Goicoechea. In our area, yes. Madam Chairman, I think
the range is improving, and it is dramatically improving. And,
in fact, I think we are taking the reduction in the number of
livestock in our county and most areas of Nevada; I think we
are very rapidly approaching the point that we are, the forest
and the understory there, we are in a dangerous condition. It
is a threat. And I am generally concerned about the health and
welfare of the residents of northern Eureka County and those
vast grasslands. We do not have livestock to graze it.
Yes, the range is improving. I know today it is better than
it was 10 years ago. I cannot speak if we go back 40 or 50
years ago, but I genuinely believe it is improving.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Goicoechea, the cheatgrass is a
replacement of the fire, but what is the native species usually
in our high desert areas?
Mr. Goicoechea. It was predominantly bunchgrass. And,
again, the nature of bunchgrass is, it grows tall and it always
is a little green at the crown. When fire runs across it, it
runs around a little cooler and it tends to have enough green
there to hold it off.
And then, of course, when you get into the higher uplands,
your bitter brush, and it burns very hot; and then, of course,
the sage itself. But we prefer the sage to the rabbit brush and
cheatgrass infestations we are seeing coming into these fires
now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting. Thank you.
And the Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer again.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a number of
questions.
Commissioner Goicoechea, the opponents claim this
legislation would somehow impair the ability of local
communities to participate in fire management plans and
forestry issues. You, as a county commissioner representing
local government, are here supporting the bill; and I would
like you just to describe for the Committee your take on that
issue of local involvement.
Mr. Goicoechea. I think just to the contrary. I think the
only way the bill will work, once implemented, will be with the
involvement of State and local governments. We have to be
involved. It is the only way the bill can truly work.
Local government has to have some input, and I would hope
that--and again I think we are seeing that with all the Federal
agencies, a more cooperative approach to local government, with
the Federal agencies working hand-in-hand, and especially in
something that is as life-threatening as wildfire.
Mr. Schaffer. For the purpose of clarity, is it your
position that this bill enhances or constrains local
participation?
Mr. Goicoechea. I think it will enhance. It might not look
like it from the outside looking in, but I think it is the only
way it will truly work and become effective.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you.
I would like to ask Mr. Holmer, in your testimony you
mention your belief that the management credit program
established in this bill will lead to further revenue losses
from the timber sale program. I guess it is the further timber
sale losses that I would like to inquire about.
When do you believe that the timber sale program has lost
money?
Mr. Holmer. According to the White House Council of
Economic Advisers in 1995, the timber sale program lost $234
million. The Government Accounting Office did an audit that
showed from 1992 to 1994 $995 million were lost. And we are
anxiously awaiting the 1996 numbers to be released by the
Forest Service.
We understand that it may for the first time show,
according to their own numbers, there was a loss. It is my
understanding only one national forest in the country actually
makes money now, which is the Allegheny National Forest in
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Schaffer. I will jump to Mr. Wiant quickly to comment
on that particular aspect of the cost associated with the
timber sale program from your perspective.
Mr. Wiant. Well, it is ironic to me that the same people
that seem to object to the cost of timber sales, because of
appeals and legal actions, keep increasing and increasing the
cost, so it is very hard to ever harvest timber.
I mentioned that fire out in Arizona. Now they would like
us to salvage some of the material but they cannot get through
all the red tape to even do that. So the cost, a lot of
artificial costs are tacked on.
But I do not believe that timber sales ever has had a loss,
and if it has a loss now, it is pretty sad because it has had
many, many years where the Forest Service returned--used to be
they said they returned more to the Treasury than they spent. I
think that was probably true in the 1950's; I do not know if
that is true today, but I am sure they are not operating at a
loss as far as the timber itself.
Mr. Schaffer. The purchaser credits that have been severely
limited, or cut, during this Congress, it is the view of many
that that will have an detrimental effect on our ability to
manage forests, particularly in areas where the value of the
timber may be getting so close to market value that having
private contracts to manage those forests may not occur any
more.
Secondly, in just remote areas that are difficult to reach,
with the reduction in the purchaser road credit program, can
you tell us a little bit about what you think the future holds
for private contracts that are used in a way to assist the
Forest Service in managing our forests?
Mr. Wiant. Testifying here on a previous occasion, I
indicated I feel that a good road system is probably one of the
most important tools we have for managing our forests and
protecting the health of our forests and of our citizens. So we
have to have a good road system.
It is distressing to me to see, as I did in this forest I
was in the other day, where they were saying the Forest Service
was planning to retire 50 percent of their roads. Seems strange
to me when we need good roads. The recreationers certainly use
them a lot. The only people it will be available to are the
backpackers that may get back in those areas--and I do that
myself, and I like that, but that is a very small percentage of
our population. We have to have them accessible to people that
are on the trail for days.
Mr. Holmer. If I may comment on that, I would like to read
a quote from a recent scientific report which states,
``Intensive timber management contributes to additional fire
hazards due to greater road access and associated increases in
human-caused fires, operation of logging equipment, slash
buildup following logging, and the associated decrease in
moisture content of forest understories.'' This was from
DellaSala, Olson and Crane, 1995 Ecosystem Management in
Western Interior Forests.
And here is another quote. ``It is after logging that the
damage from fires is greatest, on account of the inflammable
and unburned slash.'' T. S. Woolsey, 1911, U.S. Forest Service.
In our view, intense management and road building actually
exacerbate these problems and will not solve them.
Mr. Schaffer. Scientific reports. Which report is that you
mentioned?
Mr. Holmer. It is entitled Ecosystem Management in Western
Interior Forests by DellaSala, Olson and Crane, and I will be
happy to make that available to you.
Mr. Schaffer. I would request that report be submitted for
the record. I am somewhat familiar with it and realize there
are additional comments you will find in that report that
actually expound on forest management.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Schaffer. I guess my time has expired. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
Do you have any more questions that you would like to ask?
Or do you, Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. No.
Mr. Schaffer. Yes, I do.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. I wish to go back to the issue on BLM and the
Forest Service with respect to reducing grasses around
communities.
I would like to find out a little more from the
Commissioner about the interactions that have taken place in
your specific example, the communications and responses that
your county has received with the Forest Service or BLM on
grass management issues.
Mr. Goicoechea. In his introduction, Congressman Gibbons
talked about the Diamond Working Group Complex, and this is a
highly touted group; and the issue when we came together was
wild horse management, which we could spend another afternoon
on, no doubt, but with that there was a tour with approximately
11 permittees of 3 grazing districts and the Commission for the
preservation of wild horses. Again, it was a horse-driven issue
rather than a resource issue. But given the number of horses on
the mountain, there was significant resource damage in that
area.
We went on a tour, and it took about 11 months to put the
program together. Permittees actually took a reduction in
preference AUMs which--the active AUMs they would have on hand
and in exchange for the horse groups agreeing to establishing
an AML number. That AML was approximately 230 head. The census
count on the mountain was over 1,500. So the permittees took a
reduction.
The horses were reduced, and we are at, we hope, a happy
medium. And now we will start working our way back up, both the
horse numbers and the cattle numbers. There will probably be a
period, I would assume, in some of those areas, of a couple of
years' rest, because the resource damage was that bad.
No, we do, especially from the BLM perspective in Nevada,
we are seeing more cooperation from the Federal agencies on the
ground level. And I think that is the point I was trying to
make in addressing Chairman Chenoweth's comments, too, that I
think for any of this to work, it has to come from the bottom
up. The people closest to it are the ones that truly
understand.
I know the comment was made by Mr. Wiant here that one
cabin out in the forest is not truly urban interface, but I
guess it depends on who owns that cabin whether it becomes
urban interface, if you are a politician. Speaking for myself,
as well as you, we can get leaned on.
Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Hubbard, I wish to inquire about--with
respect to catastrophic wildfires in Colorado, or anywhere else
throughout the country for that matter, on Federal lands, how
do you propose the Forest Service measure, assess and
prioritize projects?
Mr. Hubbard. I think that varies by location, but in
Colorado, I propose we do what has already been put in place,
and that is to use the different land management agencies. And
it takes all of them getting together and deciding because of
forest condition, because of housing density; and it is that
group's definition of interface whether it is 20 homes per acre
or 60 homes per acre. And it depends on the conditions, the
access, the slope.
So they make those local decisions as to what they think
are reasonable. They involve public participation in the
process. They involve local government in the process. I think
that is the only way that you come to a reasonable definition
of what you consider to be your priorities that you want to
then work on, and everybody is committed to that assessment.
Mr. Schaffer. Madam Chairman, thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. Again, I want to
thank the witnesses for their very valuable testimony. I have
certainly learned a lot.
My major concern is that we respond to what we have heard
in testimony and in comments from our Forest Service people;
that we respond to an outcry across America to protect private
property, homes and humans. We talk about the $1 billion cost
to fight fire in just 1 year, but how do you put a price tag on
a life?
And because we had an agency that did not feel they had the
authority to plow a fire break around a little town called
Kuna, Idaho, we nearly lost that town, and we lost lives in
that fire; and because we did not have an agency that felt that
they could graze down some of the Boise foothills and protect
the homes that are adjacent and encroaching up into those
foothills. The answer is not always just to stop humans from
building, but rather, how are the public land managers going to
protect human lives?
As we move through progress, another question I have as
Chairman is, I have listened carefully to Forest Service
managers across the country; and from the time that I came to
Congress in 1994 until today, I have heard many of our members
in the Forest Service open up. And I not only have listened to
them, but I have sensed their feeling of despair in wanting to
make this work and the sense of despair they feel, as we all do
when we see headlines that the Forest Service is broken.
I do not think it is too late. I think if we do work
together, we can reason with one another and we can build a
better future for the wildland/urban interfaces, for the Forest
Service and for the taxpayers in general. That is my vision. I
am sure I share it with every one of you who testified.
Some of us have different thoughts on that, but as long as
we keep talking and working in the process, I believe our
thoughts will come together based on good solid facts. So I
look forward to working with each and every one of you as we
perfect this bill, and I very much value and appreciate every
one of your comments.
I do want to let you know that the record will remain open
for 3 weeks for any one of you who wishes to supplement your
testimony; and with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5570.067