[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 30 AND AUGUST 4, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-110
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-964 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 ---------- ----------
Doug Crandall, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 30, 1998....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida................................................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Briefing paper........................................... 11
Briefing paper........................................... 75
Statements of witnesses:
Dombeck, Michael, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC................................ 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Ferrioli, Hon. Ted, State Senator, State of Oregon, John Day,
Oregon..................................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Hill, Lawrence, Director of Forest Policy, Society of
American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland..................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Nelson, Cara, Consulting Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense
Council.................................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Peterson, L. Earl, Florida State Forester, Division of
Forestry of Tallahassee, Florida........................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Additional material supplied:
Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Tyee Fire Recovery, Chelan
and Entiat Ranger Districts, Wenatchee National Forest,
Environmental Assessment................................... 77
Text of H.R. 4375............................................ 3
Hearing held August 4, 1998...................................... 83
Statements of Members:
Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida................................................. 86
Brown, Hon. Corrine, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 85
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho, prepared statement of...................... 84
Briefing paper........................................... 84
Statements of witnesses:
Garner, James W., State Forester, Virginia Department of
Forestry, Charlottesville, Virginia........................ 94
Prepared statement of.................................... 130
Hill, Barry, Associate Director, accompanied by Linda Harmon,
Assistant Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues,
General Accounting Office.................................. 87
Prepared statement of.................................... 188
Josephson, Wally, Wildland Fire Specialist, Office of
Managing Risk and Public Safety, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 106
Prepared statement of.................................... 131
McDougle, Janice, accompanied by Denny Truesdale, Assistant
Director of Fire Management for Operations, Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture............................. 108
Prepared statement of.................................... 185
Additional material supplied:
Briefing paper............................................... 11
Managing Forests, Managing Fire, Report to Congress.......... 206
National Interagency Fire Center, BLM Office of Fire &
Aviation, report........................................... 135
OVERSIGHT HEARING: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PARITY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in
room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. [presiding] The Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to have an oversight
hearing on H.R. 4345, a bill to authorize the continued use on
national forests and other public lands of the alternative
arrangements that were approved by the Council on Environmental
Quality for a windstorm damaged National Forests and Grasslands
in Texas.
Now under rule 4(g) of the Committee rules, any oral
opening statements of hearings are limited to the chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from
our witnesses sooner and help members keep to their schedules.
Therefore if other members have statements, they can be
included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.
This hearing will focus on H.R. 4345. This bill is a result
of the decision in March of this year by the Council on
Environmental Quality, CEQ, to grant alternative arrangements
under the National Environmental Policy Act. The CEQ reducing
the fuel load, the CEQ allowed for the expedited treatment of
East Texas National Forests after they had experienced a very
severe windstorm and blowdown on February 10. Immediately after
the windstorm, the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas,
the office responsible for management of the three national
forests damaged in the windstorm, consulted with the CEQ for an
alternative arrangement under NEPA. 40 CFR 1506.11 provides for
such alternative arrangements in emergency situations. The
Forest Service believed that the time period needed for a
traditional NEPA analysis would negatively affect wildlife
habitat, private property, and the overall conditions of the
forest itself. Now specifically, the Forest Service was fearful
that failure to act expeditiously would result in severe
wildfires, bark beetle infestations, and loss of subpopulation
of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Katy McGinty, the chairman of the
CEQ, sent a letter to the Forest Service on March 4 granting
the expedited NEPA process.
The CEQ should be commended for this decision. Ron Hufford,
of the Texas Forestry Association, wrote in a letter to the
Subcommittee: ``the granted waiver has been a proactive
initiative that has allowed the removal of down timber to an
effort to reduce future insect and disease epidemics as well as
reducing the fuel loading in the most severely impacted areas.
The February 10 storm was brief but devastating and left
the issue of the health of the National Forests in question.
The waiver has allowed the professionals to respond to this
emergency in a timely manner.'' And I'd like to submit this
letter for the record. Photos of the blowdown are in the
members' folders along with the photos of other catastrophic
events on other national forests.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.007
Mrs. Chenoweth. H.R. 4345 lists a number of other national
forests that have experienced catastrophic events of a similar
magnitude as the East Texas blowdown, recommending that they
also be granted expedited processes under the NEPA process. The
bill also requires the CEQ to develop and issue regulations
concerning the use of alternative arrangements on national
forests. This is crucial because the CEQ currently has no
consistent requirements for the use of alternative
arrangements.
It is important to note that this bill does not override or
change any environmental law. It merely recommends that the CEQ
consider granting expedited NEPA processes to other national
forests that have suffered catastrophic events and that need
expedited remedial treatment. Although the CEQ has granted
alternative arrangements only thirty times since 1980, many of
the these were in response to situations of similar or even
lower severity than the ones listed in H.R. 4345.
For example, one alternative arrangement was for the BLM
and the Forest Service to implement erosion control efforts
after the Eighth Street fire in the hills above Boise, Idaho.
Another alternative arrangement was for the aerial spraying of
pesticides in Idaho to combat migratory grasshoppers. We know
and agree that these were legitimate circumstances for using
expedited NEPA processes. We also know that forest conditions
in specific areas across this country are in need of
accelerated management in order to prevent costly and
preventable environmental and economic catastrophes. In some
areas, this may mean the removal of dead and dying trees.
Unfortunately, it has become politically incorrect to
harvest trees on Federal lands, for any reason, even when it is
scientifically the most appropriate means for protecting
wildlife habitats, soils, and private property. Hopefully, we
can get beyond the political aspects of this issue and have a
serious dialogue on the merits of using expedited NEPA
processes in critical forest areas.
Now, when the Ranking Minority Member comes in, I will
recognize him for his statement.
And now, I'd like to introduce our first panel of
witnesses: Ted Ferrioli, Oregon State Senator from John Day,
Oregon; L. Earl Peterson, Florida State Forester, Division of
Forestry from Tallahassee, Florida; Cara Nelson, Consulting
Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council from San
Francisco, California; Larry Hill, Director of Forest Policy,
The Society of American Foresters from Bethesda, Maryland.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee rules,
they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but that
your entire record will appear in the permanent record--your
entire statement. We will also allow the entire panel to
testify before we begin questioning the witnesses.
I would like to recognize my colleague, Allen Boyd, from
the great State of Florida, and ask if he has opening
statements.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chenoweth follows:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho
This hearing will focus on National Environmental Policy
Act Parity and H.R.4345. This bill is a result of the decision
in March of this year by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) to grant ``alternative arrangements'' under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQ allowed for the
expedited treatment of East Texas National Forests after they
had experienced a severe windstorm and blowdownon February
10th. Immediately after the windstorm, the National Forests and
Grasslands in Texas, the office responsible for management of
the three national forests damaged in the windstorm, consulted
with the CEQ for an alternative arrangement under NEPA. 40 CFR
1506.11 provides for such alternative arrangements in emergency
situations. The Forest Service believed that the time period
needed for a traditional NEPA analysis would negatively affect
wildlife habitat, private property, and the overall conditions
of the forest itself. Specifically, the Forest Service was
fearful that failure to act expeditiously would result in
severe wildfires, bark beetle infestations, and loss of a sub-
population of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Katy McGinty, the
Chairman of the CEQ, sent a letter to the Forest Service on
March 4th granting the expedited NEPA process.
The CEQ should be commended for this decision. Ron Hufford,
of the Texas Forestry Association, wrote in a letter to the
Subcommittee: ``The granted waiver has been a pro-active
initiative that has allowed the removal of down timber in an
effort to reduce future insect and disease epidemics as well as
reducing the fuel loading in the most severely impacted areas.
The February 10th storm was brief but devastating and left the
issue of the health of the National Forests in question. The
waiver has allowed the professionals to respond to this
emergency in a timely manner.'' I would like to submit this
letter for the record. Photos of the blowdown are in the
Members folders along with photos of other catastrophic events
on other national forests.
H.R. 4345 lists a number of other national forests that
have experienced catastrophic events of a similar magnitude as
the East Texas blowdown, recommending that they also be granted
expedited processes under NEPA. The bill also requires the CEQ
to develop and issue regulations concerning the use of
alternative arrangements on national forests. This is crucial
because the CEO currently has no consistent requirements for
the use of alternative arrangements. It is important to note
that this bill does not override or change any environmental
law--it merely recommends that the CEQ consider granting
expedited NEPA processes to other national forests that have
suffered catastrophic events and that need expedited remedial
treatment. Although the CEQ has granted alternative
arrangements only thirty times since 1980, many of these were
in response to situations of similar or even lower severity
than the ones listed in H.R. 4345. For example, one alternative
arrangement was for the BLM and Forest Service to implement
erosion control efforts after the Eighth Street Fire in the
hills above Boise. Another alternative arrangement was for the
aerial spraying of pesticides in Idaho to combat migratory
grasshoppers. We know and agree that these were legitimate
circumstances for using expedited NEPA processes. We also know
that forest conditions in specific areas across the country are
in need of accelerated management in order to prevent costly
and preventable environmental and economic catastrophes. In
some areas this may mean the removal of dead or dying trees.
Unfortunately, it has become politically incorrect to harvest
trees on Federal lands--for any reason--even when it is
scientifically the most appropriate means for protecting
wildlife habitat, soils, and private property. Hopefully, we
can get beyond the political aspects of this issue and have a
serious dialogue on the merits of using expedited NEPA
processes in critical forest areas.
BRIEFING PAPER
Oversight Hearing on Fire Suppression
SUMMARY
Various forest and weather conditions have greatly
increased the vulnerability of America's forests to wildfire.
In recent years, the total number of wildfires, including the
number of large complex fires, has increased dramatically. The
costs associated with fighting these fires has risen
proportionally, representing hundreds of millions of tax-payer
dollars annually. These efforts also require an ever-increasing
need for well orchestrated communications and cooperation among
volunteer and municipal fire departments, State forestry
agencies, and Federal agencies with wildfire management and
suppression responsibilities. The purpose of this oversight
hearing is to review these and other factors that influence the
effectiveness of government efforts in wildfire preparedness
and suppression.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Already this year, nearly two million acres have burned,
many of those occurring in the well-reported fires in Florida.
At a Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee hearing last week,
Earl Peterson, the State Forester of Florida, gave high marks
to the coordinated fire fighting efforts in his state but did
suggest that better coordination would have been helpful in the
ordering and distribution of equipment. He also said that
better long-range planning would help in order to more
effectively station people and equipment in areas of highest
risk.
The GAO recently reported that wildfire preparedness and
suppression expenditures by Federal land management agencies
are at all time highs--over $4 billion for the last five years.
Given the recent comments by the Chief of the Forest Service
that approximately 40 million acres of agency lands are at a
high risk of catastrophic fire, there is little question that
these high costs are going to persist--and very likely continue
to increase--for the next couple of decades. As wildfires
become larger, hotter, and more numerous it is not only
becoming more expensive to suppress them but the logistics of
organizing communications and coordination among the various
state and Federal agencies is becoming exponentially more
complex. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise,
Idaho serves as ``The Pentagon'' for these suppression efforts.
Located at the NIFC is the National Interagency Coordination
Center (NICC), whose primary mission is the cost-effective and
timely coordination of national emergency response. It is
through NICC that all agency requests to mobilize personnel and
equipment across regions are managed.
WITNESSES
Our nation's ability to prepare for and suppress wildfires
is of extreme importance, not only because these efforts
represent such a huge cost to taxpayers, but because without a
maximum effort, property, and most importantly, lives will be
lost. The intent, then, of this oversight hearing is to discuss
the effectiveness of our preparedness and suppression efforts,
and to try to answer a number of questions, such as:
What did we learn from the Florida fires? In
retrospect, what could we have done better, and conversely,
what worked well? What rehab efforts are underway in the
aftermath of the fires?
How do we fund the various suppression activities? Do
we spend too much in some areas and not enough in others? Are
we adequately monitoring costs? Are we utilizing cost control
measures such as contracting out certain activities to private
enterprise?
How accurately are we predicting the location, timing
and severity of wildfire occurrences? What technologies and
computer modeling are being used?
How effective is interagency cooperation--at every
level?
What agencies or organizations are responsible for
staffing levels, employee training, equipment availability,
public education, maintenance of facilities, fire management
planning. Who, ultimately, is responsible for suppression
efforts, and does this vary by land ownership?
WITNESSES
A witness list is attached
STAFF CONTACT
Doug Crandall at ext. 5-0691
STATEMENT OF HON. ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do have a statement
for the record that I'll ask unanimous consent that be included
in the permanent record of this----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection.
Mr. Boyd. [continuing] and I'll have a brief oral opening
statement, if I might
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, and the
other members of this Subcommittee for allowing me the
privilege of sitting as part of this panel and to participate
in this hearing. I also want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for
calling this oversight hearing on ``alternative arrangements''
that have been granted by the CEQ for emergency situations
under NEPA.
As my colleagues are aware, the State of Florida has
recently experienced a series of severe wildfires that have
burned over half a million acres and destroyed homes and timber
with aggregate value of somewhere in excess of a quarter of a
billion dollars; that's over $250 million dollars.
In the Second Congressional District, which I represent, a
majority of the affected acreage is on Federal lands; primarily
two national forests. District Two has the entire Apalachicola
National Forest within its borders and also encompasses part of
the Osceola National Forest. The wildfires burned thousands of
acres of timberland within these national forests. That's the
reason I am here today is to listen and learn about alternative
arrangements.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and,
particularly, Earl Peterson, who is a long-time friend and head
of the Division of Forestry in the State of Florida.
But I also want to, Madam Chairman, at this time take this
opportunity to say a public thank you to all the folks from
around the Nation that sent their firefighters to Florida. I
wish you could see the outpouring of gratitude in the State of
Florida for the folks that came from all over to help us save
our timberlands and our homes. And as you know, as a result of
the efforts of those people from all over the Nation, we
survived this disaster without any loss of life, and we're very
grateful for that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]
Statement of Hon. Allen Boyd, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida
Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to thank you and the
other members of this Subcommittee for allowing me the
privilege of sitting as part of this panel and to participate
in this hearing. I would also like to thank you for calling
this oversight hearing on a very important, and it would
appear, under used tool that the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) has in its tool box to use under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
As my colleagues are aware, the state of Florida has
recently experienced a series of devastating wildfires that
burned approximately 500,000 acres, having an aggregate value
of more than $276,000,000. A large majority of the land
affected in the state is located on private and state lands.
However, in the Second Congressional District, which I
represent, a majority of the affected acreage is on Federal
lands.
The Second Congressional District is located in the
panhandle of the state, running from Panama City in the west to
the middle of the Osceola National Forest in the east. It has
the entire Apalachicola National Forest within its borders and
also encompasses part of the Osceola National Forest. The
wildfires have burned approximately 20,000 acres in the Osceola
National Forest. Between 4,000 to 5,000 acres are classified as
Wilderness Areas and most of this wood is either hardwood or
cypress. Of the 15,000 acres not classified as Wilderness, over
10,000 acres are pine plantations. In the Apalachicola National
Forest, a large majority of the 20,000 plus acres that were
adversely affected lie within a Wilderness Area.
As you can imagine, time is of the utmost importance when
we are trying to salvage this timber. In my experience as a
steward of our land, in the warm and humid climate of Florida,
sawtimber must be removed within a 45 to 60 day period after
being destroyed by fire. Otherwise, it loses all its economic
value and can only be left to rot and fall to the ground.
Pulpwood will last for a longer period of time; however, the
pulpwood market is currently depressed due to a glut in the
pulp market, and the Asian financial situation. That is why I
am here today to listen and learn about the ``alternative
arrangements'' that have been granted by the CEQ for emergency
situations under NEPA.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today,
especially Earl Peterson, our State Forester from Florida.
Working together, I believe we can take another positive step
in our stewardship of our federally owned natural resources.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It was a very startling disaster and I am
also very grateful that there was no loss of life, but it is
quite remarkable to be able to see the kind of response to
national disasters that we saw in this case and have seen in
the past. And I share that feeling of gratitude with you. We
were even busy in Boise deploying equipment, and planes, and
men to the fires. And----
Mr. Boyd. Men and women also.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Women, that's right. Absolutely, and
they're tough. So it's a joy--not joyous circumstances at all
that we come together, but it's a pleasure to have you join us
today.
As this the normal process here, we ask that all of our
witnesses be placed under the oath. It's a normal process in
this Subcommittee and I believe all of you have received a
notice from the Committee that that is our process. And so, if
you wouldn't mind standing and raising your hand to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chair recognizes Senator Ferrioli.
STATEMENT OF TED FERRIOLI, STATE SENATOR, STATE OF OREGON, JOHN
DAY, OREGON
Mr. Ferrioli. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to testify in support of H.R.
4345.
My name is Ted Ferrioli. I reside at 111 Skyline Drive,
John Day, Oregon. I'm the Executive Director of Malheur Timber
Operators in John Day, and I am the State Senator from Senate
District 28.
Madam Chairman, Senate District 28 begins in the outskirts
of Portland and the Gresham area, and it goes across all of
parts of 11 counties in Oregon all the way to the Idaho
borders. So, we are neighbors in a sense. The population there
is 100,000 people in my district. It's 17,500 square miles. So
the population density in my district is .17 persons per square
mile. So, I'm very glad to see this rather large crowd of
people here today.
I'm here today to testify about the rather dysfunctional
response by the Forest Service under the current National
Environment Policy Act to a catastrophic event that occurred in
our district referenced the Summit Fire, which occurred on the
Long Creek Ranger District on the Malheur National Forest.
The Summit fire was caused by lighting. It started August
13, 1996 and it burned for 24 days across 37,961 acres of
forestland. It killed or damaged approximately 300 million
board feet across those 38,000 acres. Very shortly after the
fire was put out, the Summit Fire Recovery Project became the
top priority of the Malheur National Forest under direction of
Forest Supervisor Carl Pence. Mr. Pence made that the top
priority pulling in staff from the other ranger districts on
the Malheur National Forest and endeavored to conduct a rather
extraordinary outreach process to bring in people to view the
fire, to communicate with interested parties and the
stakeholders. As a matter of fact, tours were conducted for
Members of Congress, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber's Citizen
Eastside Forest Health Advisory Task Force, environmental
organizations, Forest Products industry representatives, and
representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff.
Throughout the period of planning, this forest-planning
staff received continuous assurances from the regional office
that the Recovery Project was on track for a speedy recovery.
On August 27, almost a year later, Forest Supervisor Pence
signed a Record of Decision that created a Recovery Project
treating approximately 9,500 acres--about a third of the fire
area which would have produced a 100 million board feet of
salvage.
Of course the Record of Decision was immediately appealed
by the environmental community in what we refer to as a
``cookbook'' type of appeal.
Despite the unprecedented communication between the Malheur
National Forest Planning Staff and the Regional Forest Planning
Staff, Regional Forester Bob Williams informed Carl Pence that
Williams could not support the Record of Decision, and gave Mr.
Pence two choices: either he would remand the project back to
the forest; or Mr.Pence could voluntarily withdraw the plan.
Since voluntary withdrawal gave more options for remediation,
Mr. Pence chose the latter option.
In fact, during the next 6 months, the Malheur National
Forest Planning Staff completely rewrote the DEIS, the
Environmental Impact Statement, making major revisions,
including a development of a water resources management plan
which is not required by rule or by statute. And then formal
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Bull
Trout and informal consultation with the National Marine
Fisheries Service for Steelhead. Although at that point in
time, neither of those species were a listed species.
On July 12, 1998, more than 23 months after the fire, a new
Record of Decision was issued calling for the salvage and
rehabilitation of approximately 6,600 of the 38,000 acres
burned with an output of approximately a 50 million board feet.
During the intervening months, of course, the insects, and
blue-stain fungus, and checking severely reduced the value of
the salvageable timber. In fact, if the salvage project had
been conducted in August of 1997, it would have produced about
$6.9 million in revenue for the Federal Treasury, 25 percent of
which would have gone to schools--local schools, and for the
roads funds in the counties. Today, if the project was
operated, or will be operated, it will be worth approximately
one-sixth of that value or about $1.1 million. So we saw a 600
percent reduction in the value of that project over a 23-month
period.
Madam Chairman, the cost of suppression for the Summit Fire
was $25,400,000, the moral equivalency of a war. The cost for
the original Draft Environmental Impact Survey was $1.2
million. The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
that was ordered costs about $356,000. The project will put out
$1.1 million worth of salvageable materials. The math simply
doesn't work out.
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, while the NEPA
process may be well adapted to long-term projects or proposed
management actions that are not time-sensitive, it's very clear
to us that the NEPA process is especially inappropriate for
time-sensitive projects like fire-recovery projects where rapid
deterioration and the loss of value is a predictable outcome of
delay.
There are three suggestions that I would like the Committee
to consider. One is that if alternative arrangements are to be
used in this type of arrangement or this type of emergency as
they were for the blowdown in Texas, that those alternate
arrangements be clearly modelled and clearly delineated so that
there is a easily accessible mechanism for their approval.
The second, if we are to make the NEPA process work, we
need to also provide an expedited appeal and litigation process
to resolve conflicts in a timely manner. If we had shorter
statutory appeals processes, and a shorter judicial appeal
process, we could not only have heightened access for citizen
appeals and litigation, but we would also have timely
resolution. And that's a critical factor.
The other thing is, Madam Chairman, we should modify the
NEPA process to add the full consideration of the economic
values affected by Federal decisionmaking. At present, NEPA
requires the full disclosure of the environmental values and
considerations, but does not disclose the economic impacts to
local communities, and the economic values and considerations
in Federal decisionmaking. And to be effective, we believe that
NEPA needs to fully disclose the economic impact on local
communities.
Our experience has shown that catastrophic events require a
planning response that preserves the net asset value of the
resources, not only to sustain our communities that depend on
natural resource outputs, but simply to capture the maximum
value to pay for the cost of planning, and to pay for the cost
of rehabilitation of resources damaged by wind, insects,
disease, and wildfire.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrioli may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferrioli, and the
Chair will yield to Mr. Boyd to introduce Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I didn't know I was going to get this opportunity, but I'm
very pleased. I don't have a bio of Mr. Peterson in front of
me. I can tell you from personal experience that's he's been a
public servant in Florida for all his professional career and
I--what 30 years, Earl
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. Forty years.
Mr. Boyd. Forty years. Oh, my goodness, and within the last
six or 8 years been named head of the Division of Forestry
which is under the Department of Agriculture in the State of
Florida. I've had the chance to, before I was in public life,
work with Earl Peterson on many occasions in their job working
with timber and landowners, and they do a great job under his
leadership. And I'm very pleased to welcome Earl Peterson.
STATEMENT OF L. EARL PETERSON, FLORIDA STATE FORESTER, DIVISION
OF FORESTRY OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. Thank you, Congressman Boyd, members
of the Committee.
It's a pleasure to be here today and I particularly want to
say also how appreciative we are for the assistance that came
from throughout the country in our recent siege of wildfires.
The Federal agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, the sister-state
agencies throughout the country, were more than generous in
their resources. With-
out them, it certainly would have not been possible to come
through this with the success story that we had, and with the
safety record that we're so proud of.
I'm also pleased to be here to talk a few moments about how
the Florida Division of Forestry manages its timber resources
and in particular how we deal with emergency salvage operations
when struck by natural disaster.
The Florida Division of Forestry is one of the largest land
management agencies in the State of Florida. We have been
managing state forest lands for over 60 years and presently co-
manage about a million acres while at the same time we are the
lead manager on about 740,000 acres.
We have 36 state forests, approximately 55 percent of which
is suitable for pine silviculture, timber production, if you
would. An active forest management program occurs on this pine
acreage and includes prescribed burning, reforestation, and
timber sales. Trees have grown to an old age on state forests
for a number of reasons, two of which are to provide a natural
ecosystem that is rapidly disappearing from the State and also
to provide a special experience for the public sector who visit
state forests in order to enjoy a large number of resource-
based outdoor recreation activities. Our state forests
represent an investment by the citizens of Florida, and that
investment should produce both a natural resource heritage for
the future and an economic return.
The practice of sustainability is a cornerstone in the
management of our timber resource. By using current forest
inventory data, we insure that state forests are not overcut
and that the growth will continue to exceed yield on an annual
basis. Trees are harvested through a number of silvicultural
techniques, including improvement thinnings, restoration
harvests, and the latter being the removal of offsite species
that the naturally occurring species can be restored to a
particular site.
In a well-managed state forest, foresters from the division
strive to keep the trees in a healthy condition using such
management tools as prescribed burning and improvement
thinnings, which I have previously mentioned. However, due to
natural processes beyond our control, unexpected and
undesirable tree mortality sometimes occurs in any natural
forest system. Examples are lightning----killed trees,
mortality from wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, and
windstorm damage.
Because this is a natural process, if the level of tree
mortality is considered light, then sometimes no action is
taken. The resulting dead snags provide homes for wildlife and
help create biological diversity in the forest system. However,
when tree mortality reaches levels where there is significant
economic loss or there is the potential for insect and disease
spread, then we salvage or do sanitation harvests and initiate
a process to recoup the monetary losses and reduce the based on
the threat to spread to disease or insects.
Although prompt action is often taken to salvage timber
that has been damaged or killed at moderate levels or in
limited areas, there is no question that the Division of
Forestry will take appropriate action when major tree mortality
events take place. This statement is clearly exemplified by
October 1995 Hurricane An-
drew which made a direct hit on Blackwater State Forest, which
is Florida's largest state forest with 189,000 acres. Within
six months, we had salvaged 95 percent of the damaged timber,
which was approximately 50 million board feet of sawtimber.
In the spring and summer of 1997, Florida experienced the
worst outbreak of southern pine beetle in our history. This
infestation was centered in Marion and Levy County area of
Central Florida. Loblolly pine was the major species being
killed, but it also moved into slash pine and longleaf pine.
The insect was indiscriminate in attacking trees across all
ownerships. The Division of Forestry took a lead role in taking
actions to control the insect outbreak plus the salvage that
followed and worked with other agencies as if we carried this
out. And at the same time, we did them on our state forests in
two locations.
Finally, the State of Florida had just gone through one of
the most serious outbreak of wildfires in our history.
Approximately 500,000 acres burned between June 1 and late
July. Of this, there was a total of about 260,000 acres of
commercial-pine timberland. A conservative estimate is that
2,600,000 cords of damaged or fire-killed timber will require
salvage in the next few months. Besides being directly involved
in the total salvage effort, the Division has approximately
14,000 acres on state forests; Tiger Bay State Forest; and Lake
George State Forest in Volusia County. Once the wildfires were
controlled, we immediately moved toward damaged appraisal and
initiating salvage sales on these state forests. In 2 weeks, we
sold four salvage sales and have plans to sell four more during
the third week.
The time is of essence in selling salvage timber,
especially sawtimber. In Florida's warm climate, dead sawtimber
must be utilized within a few months or it will deteriorate
where it will be worthless except for pulpwood. Pulpwood will
only last a few months longer. Because of this short timeframe,
we expedite the bid process and only give potential bidders a
week or less to submit their bids for sale. Emergency salvage
sales of this nature are almost always sold on a per unit
basis, which means we sell it by the ton. A performance bond of
$5,000 or more is usually required to insure sale compliance.
A few key points for salvage operations conducted by the
Division of Forestry are that they are done in a rapid fashion
to insure maximum economic return, eliminate waste and to
prevent the spread of pathogens or insects that might kill
additional timber. All potential bidders are given a chance to
bid on every sale so that no one could be accused of unfair
sale practices, and ongoing sales are administered closely
working with the loggers comply with division personnel.
The Division of Forestry is fortunate to have the latitude
to make these decisions about procedures and conditions for
silvicultural applications, such as reforestation and timber
harvesting.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of L. Earl Peterson may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. [presiding] The Chair thanks
the gentleman from Florida. With the name Peterson, you've got
to be OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. I'm Congressman Peterson from
Pennsylvania temporarily filling in for the Chair. The chairman
had to leave for a few moments.
At this time, I recognize Cara Nelson, Consulting
Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council for her testimony.
Welcome, and good morning.
STATEMENT OF CARA NELSON, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Nelson. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to
participate in this hearing. I'll be testifying against H.R.
4345.
I work both as a research forester and as a consulting
ecologist for Natural Resources Defense Council. Natural
Resources Defense Council is a national non-profit
environmental organization dedicated, among other things, to
the protection of forest resources. My work for NRDC is largely
focused on issues related to fire and fuels management in the
forests of the Interior Columbia Basin in eastern Washington
and Oregon.
This morning, I'd like to share my views on what I believe
to be one of the most critical issues facing forest managers
today; how, when, and where to experiment with forest
restoration activities and the related topic of requirements
for environmental review of these projects.
As strategies are developed and implemented for protecting
the fire and insect resiliency of Federal forests, it is
critical that adequate attention is devoted to environmental
review and that opportunities for restoration are not subverted
by lack of careful planning or information, or overemphasis on
short-term economic goals.
I'd like to stress three primary reasons why comprehensive
environmental review is needed for all treatments that justify
commercial harvests of dead, dying, and overstocked trees as
forest health measures.
First, there is a lack of scientific consensus about the
efficacy of thinning, salvage, and fuels treatment for
improving fire resiliency or ecosystem integrity. Surprisingly,
little empirical research has been conducted on the impacts of
these treatments on fire behavior. In spite of hypothesized
benefits, the handful of studies that address these issues, as
well as anecdotal accounts and analysis of recent fires,
suggest that removal of dead, dying, and overstocked trees may
not reliably reduce fire intensity or severity. In fact in the
Pacific northwest, three recent studies of the relationship
between thinning, fuels treatment, and fire behavior all found
that treatment actually exacerbated fire conditions. In all
cases, unmanaged stands had the least severe fire effects.
The second reason that thorough environmental review of
management actions is so important is that the type of harvest
practices employed, as well as the manner in which they are
executed, influence environmental conditions and fire and
insect hazard. Thinning, salvage, and fuel treatment are all
sufficiently vague terms that treatments can vary widely in
both the techniques used and the residual stand conditions.
For example, in Van Wagtendonk's model-base study of six
different approaches to fuel reduction in the Sierras, and this
study was part of the ``snap'' process, only one was predicted
to reduce the number of acres burned or fire intensity below
that of untreated stands. Findings such as these provide
evidence that a careless or thoughtless approach to restoration
treatments is likely to result in more harm than good.
Third, in addition to the speculative nature of claimed
ecological benefits from removal of dead, dying, and
overstocked trees, there is ample evidence that persistent
adverse impacts can and do result from salvage and thinning.
These impacts include: the loss of snags; down logs and closed
canopy habitat conditions that are required by many wildlife
species; damage to soil integrity; creation of sediment which
may eventually end up in our streams; increased mortality of
residual trees due to pathogens and mechanical damage; and then
most importantly, increase near-term fire hazard due,
primarily, to logging slash.
These downsides to salvage and thinning need careful,
conscientious evaluation and must be squarely presented to the
public, sister agencies, Congress, and ultimately,
decisionmakers if a responsible judgment is to be made about
where, how, and at what level experiment with logging base
approaches to reducing fire and insect hazard. Failure to
analyze and disclose the environmental risks associated with
these treatments may result in continued ecosystem degradation
and may prevent the adoption of ecologically sound approaches
to management.
In conclusion, sound scientific support does not exist for
broad or generalized inferences that emergency logging
operations will ameliorate fire or insect risks in our Nation's
forest.
I hope that my testimony will help dis-sway the
Subcommittee from proceeding with legislation that would
abrogate the existing NEPA process in the name of forest health
emergencies. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear and
present this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Cara Nelson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. [presiding] The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Lawrence Hill, Director of Forest Policy of the Society of
American Foresters.
Welcome, Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE HILL, DIRECTOR OF FOREST POLICY, SOCIETY
OF AMERICAN FORESTERS, BETHESDA, MARYLAND
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Committee. I
really appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify
on this piece of legislation.
As director of Forest Policies for the Society, I represent
our 18,000 members who constitute the scientific and
educational association representing the profession of forestry
in the United States. Our primary objective is to advance the
science, technology, education, and practice of professional
forestry for the benefit of society. That's a small ``s.'' We
are ethically bound to advocate and practice professional
forestry consistent with ecologically sound principles. I am
especially pleased to submit comments on H.R. 4345 and wish to
thank the Committee for its continued support of professional
forestry and especially its continued support of some of SAF's
priorities.
H.R. 4345 highlights a key provision of the National
Environmental Policy Act and we support that provision. The
regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality in
1978 provide for alternative arrangements to normal NEPA
procedure in an emergency situation. The CEQ regulations state:
``where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an
action with significant environmental impact without observing
the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking
the action should consult with the Council about alternative
arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such
arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate
impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA
review.
In addition to this direction, we understand that
individual Forest Service and BLM units are required to consult
with their respective Washington offices about emergencies that
may result in a request for an alternative arrangement from
CEQ. Additionally, Federal agencies seeking alternative
arrangements should provide CEQ with a complete description of
the needs for such an arrangement at the time of the request.
These provisions are worthwhile and allow for a rapid, yet
cautious, response to situations that clearly should be treated
as emergencies. The environmental laws of the Nation are some
of the most comprehensive in the world, yet at times they can
slow actions intended to mitigate harm to the environment. The
wisdom of the authors of these laws, and particularly NEPA, and
regulations is clearly shown in the emergency provisions. At
times, the environment is better with action than with
inaction.
What appears to be absent from the alternative arrangement
procedures granted by CEQ is some sense of direction and
criteria for how and when these procedures should be granted--
excuse me--and when these procedures should be applied. The
best person to determine whether the situation warrants
alternative arrangements from CEQ is the on-the-ground manager.
The people intimately involved in the day-to-day management of
a forest know what the situation is, and how quickly it needs
correction. The additional guidance CEQ is required to develop
under this bill should provide land managers in all the Federal
land-management agencies with a better understanding of when
and how they should request these expedited procedures.
Therefore, SAF supports the provisions of the bill. This
guidance would also ensure that directions are made
consistently over time, and that all parties interested in the
decisions have a clear understanding of how and why they were
made.
We cannot comment on the specific locations of the National
Forests for which this bill requests that CEQ and the Forest
Service develop alternative arrangements under NEPA. However,
we are encouraged that the bill merely requests, and does not
require, the Forest Service to develop alternative arrangements
for these areas. Although SAF has heard from some of its
members that there are many locations in the national forest
and public domain lands that are in need of emergency
treatment, and we believe the decision to seek alternative
arrangements from CEQ should rest with the agencies and the on-
the-ground managers on a case-by-case basis.
Thanks again for this opportunity to testify and I, as the
others, would be pleased to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill, and we look
forward to your answers to some of our questions. I do want to
let you know, Mr. Peterson, had to step out, momentarily, but
will be back very shortly.
Chairman is going to step out of order and with unanimous
consent I'm going to issue a statement. Because this issue is
so very important to the northwest, to those of who live there,
and work there, and actually see on the ground the devastating
affects of the lack of decisionmaking ability for one reason or
another.
And I'd like to address my comments to Ms. Nelson. In your
testimony, you criticized reports of successful fire-hazard
reduction as being almost entirely anecdotal. You then cited as
an example the thin stand in Tiger Creek in the Boise National
Forest, which survived the 1992 Foothills fire. I can tell you
that the Subcommittee visited that site last year and the Boise
Forest explained to us why that particular stand survived.
Let me explain that to you. It was only because the
thinning had removed enough material between the larger pine
trees to eliminate the fire ladder that had previously existed,
and when the fire reached that stand, it dropped to the ground,
burning the ground fuels but not reaching the crowns of the
trees. The evidence was very compelling and, as expected, only
in this area was the fire similar to historical fire behavior
for the Boise National Forest.
You then said thinning was not effective at reducing fire
intensity and severity on Rabbit Creek fire also in the Boise
National Forest where some 200,000 acres burned in 1994. I must
point out that it sounds like your observation is anecdotal.
As you didn't cite any scientific reports or other
explanations for your conclusions, however, assuming your
description of this fire is correct, which it is not, I must
point out that many other factors influence how fire burns
including the intensity of the vegetation, and so on. In fact,
I am told by forestry experts that thinning tree densities are
substantially the reason why forest fire don't crown.
I would appreciate if you could provide me with additional
information on the Rabbit Creek fire from your perspective,
scientific, actual information such as the type of thinning
that was done, the fire weather, and other factors that
influenced the fire behavior in that particular fire.
Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Boyd for questions.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Maybe I should open up with a question of Mr. Peterson
about some of the practices that you use--the State of Florida
uses and you're authorized by the State through its legislature
to use. And I noticed in your testimony that you said sawtimber
must be utilized within a few months. Can you be more specific
on that timeframe, and also is that different in Florida, and
why?
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. Yes, sir.
Florida's climate makes it very conducive to an early beget
of blue stain. Sawtimber depends on the time of year, but
within 30 to 45 days, you need to move that out or it will
become less valuable and have to revert to pulpwood because of
the inset of blue stain and other deteriorations. That time
would be greater in the winter, of course, when weather is not
so warm and humid.
Mr. Boyd. So, this is the time of the year that it would be
most critical?
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. There's another problem we have in the south they
don't have in other places and that is the southern pine
beetle. What happens in terms of outbreaks of southern pine
beetle after fire damage?
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. Well, the stress occasioned by the
fire on trees often make them very susceptible to the
infestation of the southern pine beetle and, of course, when
that occurs as we have learned from experience, it spreads and
it's imperative that you get in and remove the damage of the
infested trees, along with a buffer, all around them to limit
the spread and further destruction of the forest.
Mr. Boyd. OK, let it be noted in the record that we did
have a severe outbreak of southern pine beetle in the Osceola
National Forest within the last couple years.
Madam Chairman, I've spent all of my professional life in
agriculture and part of that has been the--I'm a timber owner.
I'm a land owner that has plant some virgin pines on it and
also planted pine plantations. And I've spent all of my
professional life managing that for, basically, three things:
one is aesthetic value; two is wildlife habitat; and three is
also economic production. They are not in conflict with each
other. I can tell you. And so, I think the things that I've
read, and I want to turn to Ms. Nelson now, if I might. I
didn't get through all of your testimony because I didn't get a
copy of it until I received it when I got here, but I read part
of it.
Ms. Nelson. OK.
Mr. Boyd. And I must tell you that I'm somewhat shocked
because it goes against everything that--the years that I've
spent in the business, it goes against what we know to be true
and what works. And I want to read to you. Well, first of all,
let me ask you this question and then I'm going to read part
from your testimony. I guess I understand from your testimony
that you feel like there should be one, no thinning in any
national forest land.
Ms. Nelson. No, that's not true.
Mr. Boyd. OK, that's not true.
OK, second, you feel there should be no fuel treatments.
Ms. Nelson. No, that's not true either.
Mr. Boyd. That's not true. OK.
Ms. Nelson. I feel that we must be very careful in
implementing both thinning and fuels treatments, and I've cited
in my testimony--there is a long list of citations of studies
that have been done that show that the way in which fuels
treatment is conducted makes a large difference in the
resultant insect and fire hazard in the residual stand.
Mr. Boyd. Well, I guess I didn't get to the part where you
said that thinning or fuel treatment might be OK. I mean, I
just read the part where you were making the case that it
increased fire risks. So, then would it also be safe to say
that you would be against any salvage operations in damage--
whether that be fire damage?
Ms. Nelson. Same answer to all three of those questions is
that----
Mr. Boyd. OK.
Ms. Nelson. [continuing] with all of these treatments, they
need to be designed for specific reasons on specific sites and
carefully conducted. And that's why environmental review is so
important.
Mr. Boyd. But I gathered from your testimony that the
length of the environmental review would be so long that in the
case of Florida here, where we have, there would be no value to
the salvage operation
Ms. Nelson. If the sales are being conducted for forest
health reasons or environmental reasons, then if that's the
case, then I don't see any emergency reason to proceed. Now, if
the primary objective of the sale is economics, then I think
that should be clearly stated and that there may be a need to,
on a 6-month time period, you know, recover economic value.
However, with the case in Texas, from my understanding and
again--you know, I'm not familiar with the forests down there,
but from the record, the record states that the purpose of the
sales was to protect the surrounding resources and--you know,
the ecological integrity of the stand. And there's no reason to
expedite the removal of trees for that purpose.
Mr. Boyd. Madam Chairman, I notice my red light comes on,
but I would ask unanimous consent to have additional time since
we don't seem to have a large crowd here on the Committee.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please proceed Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Well, for the record, let me tell you that the 15,000 acres
that burned in the Osceola National Forest here in the last
sixty days that was outside of the wilderness area--there's
about 5,000 in the wilderness area, 15,000 outside the
wilderness area, primarily was pine plantations. I spent
several hours with Marcia Carney, who is the State Forester for
U.S. Forest Service, last weekend touring those sites and
talking with her about what her vision was for what should be
done. And she and I agreed that those pine plantations would
best be salvaged and replanted in longleaf pine. By the way,
those are slash pines. Those are pine plantations which,
obviously we--when I say plantations, I mean man planted them.
But if you don't do a salvage operation pretty quickly, those
logs will fall over a period of time and make reforestation,
rehabilitation almost impossible. So, I want that to be shown
as part of the record, that if you don't get in there in some
reasonable period of time and do the salvage operation, then
reforestation and rehabilitation becomes very difficult.
Now, I want to turn to the other members and I know you
probably have not had a chance to read Ms. Nelson's statement,
and I want to ask you to consider this statement. And I read
from Ms. Nelson's statement on page two, third paragraph:
``results from a study of the effectiveness of fuels treatment
on previously non-har-
vested lands in the Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Wenatchee
National Forest, Washington provides evidence that harvest
treatments may increase risk of fire damage. In this study, the
Forest Service evaluated the effects of past fuel treatments on
fire severity. Before wildfire in 1994, approximately 2,021
acres of the fire that had not been previously logged were
treated for fuels with mechanical removal and/or prescribed
burning.'' And then she goes on to describe using percentages
that says those areas that had fuel treatments prior to the
fire had greater damage than those that did not have fuel
treatments prior to the fire.
Mr. Hill, let me ask you. What would be your reaction to
that statement?
Mr. Hill. Well, I'd have to wonder what some of the fire
conditions were at the time the experiment was conducted: you
know, wind temperature; was the fuel spread; was it piled for
burning; or just exactly what happened--I'm really not familiar
with that particular study.
Mr. Boyd. But you certainly couldn't make a statement carte
blanche--a general statement across the board that land that
had fuel treatments on it was more likely to be--have a higher
mortality in case of fire, could you
Mr. Hill. That's correct.
Mr. Boyd. OK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
I have some questions for Mr. Ferrioli.
In your discussion and in your testimony, you discussed how
appeals and litigation can be used to slow or stop Forest
Service discussions, but often it seems that just a threat of a
lawsuit seems to stop everything.
Mr. Ferrioli. Oh, thank you, Madam Chairman.
It has been our experience that the Forest Service is
extremely risk adverse, and it seems that even the mention of
an appeal can send our planners into a paroxysm of self-
analysis, and it seems to make the process very protracted. In
the case of the Summit Fire Recovery Project, there were
numerous instances where members of the environmental community
said in response to proposals in scoping ``If you do that,
we'll sue you.'' And I believe that made the agency very, very
careful to the point of even dereliction of their duty to be
timely.
We heard today that there's a great concern that a revision
of the NEPA process might make planning thoughtless or
careless. Planning does not need to be thoughtless or careless
to be timely, and that's the biggest problem. When the agency
is so averse to appeals or lawsuits that they fail to carry out
their duties which are serving the people and protecting the
land by moving forward on these projects, the communities
definitely suffer.
In the case of the Summit Fire Recovery Project, what
should have probably taken 6 months, took 24 months. We still
have not seen the end of it. The appeal that was filed is one
that we've seen templated and used in dozens of other appeals.
The response from the agency is as if they've never seen this
kind of an approach before. They treat every appeal the same.
Anybody that's willing to invest in a word processing program
and a $.32 stamp can virtually bring a planning process to a
halt.
And in the case of the deterioration that Mr. Boyd mention,
I can assure him that although his concern with southern pine
beetles, we must have Yankee pine beetles in the Oregon area--
--
[Laughter.]
[continuing] because our pine beetles attack with the same
kind of ferocity. We have the same blue stain, and checking,
and deterioration--very rapid deterioration of our pine stocks.
I'll just show for illustration purposes, this is a blue-
stained log. It's about 33 inches in diameter. After 24 months,
you can see that the blue stain almost approaches the center of
the heartwood. This log would have been relatively valuable if
harvested within 6 months of the fire. Today, it has
deteriorated to the point where it is just about pulpwood.
[Photograph.]
The same thing with this particular piece. This round is
about 33 inches in diameter. You can see that the round is
almost split all the way to the heartwood. Blue stain goes
right to the heartwood, and there is ample evidence of pine
bore beetle damage to this wood.
[Photograph.]
I do believe that there's a coefficient between
environmental concerns and economic concerns, and it seems that
there's a desire on the part of some folks in the environmental
community to completely disconnect environmental considerations
from economic considerations. But one of the things that we
need to focus on is the kind of damage that we see as a result
of these fires.
This is a devastated, class-one stream in the Summit Fire
Recovery area. It is habitat to bull trout, and it's habitat to
steelhead. This is approximately 24 months after the fire. You
can see that we still have exposed mineral soils. You can see
that the treatments that should have been done in this area
which would have been reducing the standing wood to lower the
risk of reburn have not been done; that we have not had
reforestation; and that the native vegetation has not returned
to this area. This is after 24 months.
So I would submit to you that the failure to take
appropriate and timely action can contribute to a long-lasting
environmental degradation that does effect and impact species
like steelhead, bull trout and other anadromous species. This
is just one of the riparian areas that were devastated by that
fire.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Senator Ferrioli, it seems down at the
Forest Service does treat fire when it's actually occurring.
It's an emergency, and then after the fire is over, it's no
longer an emergency.
Mr. Ferrioli. Madam Chairman, if I could comment?
We had 24 days of very intensive fire response. We spent a
million dollars a day putting that fire out. At the end of the
Fire Recovery Project, we should have had about 3 to 6 months,
a period of time for scoping, planning for the recovery project
and implementation. Due to the inexplicable responses of the
Forest Service to the idea that they might have an appeal or
the idea that somebody might sue, we saw that process
protracted to 24 months. It just seems that the moral
equivalency of war is what we bring to putting the fire out. We
spent 24 months and about $1.7 million in planning for
rehabilitation. To date, we've done nothing on the ground. So,
you could say that there is a tremendous race for fire
suppression and then an interminable process for planning and
recovery.
And in the meantime, we see continuing resource
degradation. The community stands to lose significantly. We
have about 600 jobs at stake in keeping the mills open in our
community. Our schools are already on a 4-day school week. The
value of this project has dropped six-fold, meaning there will
less dollars for schools, and roads in the counties. And the
volume under contract in our community is between 3 and 6
months.
So, we literally have a situation after the fire where the
Forest Service seems to be engaged in a round-robin of planning
while the community's needs are not met and environmental
degradations pile up.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Nelson, you mentioned that there were some times when
forest restoration or thinning is acceptable. Are you referring
to the Van Wagtendonk Study of 1996?
Ms. Nelson. I'm not referring that study as an example of
when treatments would be called for. I used that study as an
example that the way in which a treatment is done, meaning the
techniques--specific techniques that are used have variable
effects. So, for instance in that study, one of the treatments
that was part of the experiment was lop and scatter and----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Lop and scatter
Ms. Nelson. [continuing] lop and scatter. It's a standard
fuel-treatment practice.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you explain for the record what lop
and scatter is?
Ms. Nelson. Sure. It's an approach where the materials,
tops of trees and branches, are scattered around the site, and
this is a standard fuel treatment. The other kinds of
treatments that were investigated by Van Wagtendonk--we have
some model-base study prepared as part of the Sierra, Nevada
Ecosystem Project, included prescribed burning, chipping, I
believe. I think there were six treatments in all, and lop and
scatter came out as the results of study indicated that lop and
scatter on these stands would increase flame land and rate of
spread of the fire.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Of course----
Ms. Nelson. Now, the reason that I mentioned the study in
the first place was not to say that fuel treatment should not
be done, but that environmental review is important because,
you know, in the Sierras and those areas we would want to make
sure that lop and scatter treatments are not being done on that
site.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You do admit in your testimony that this
model was constructed, but this has never applied in a natural
setting
Ms. Nelson. Well, the treatments have been applied in a
natural setting, and I think why, as Mr. Hill mentioned in his
response----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now let me back up here.
Ms. Nelson. OK.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want you to answer my question because in
your statement and let me quote to you----
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] ``given that the studies'
conclusions are based on models that have not been tested in
natural settings, results must be interpreted cautiously.''
Ms. Nelson. Yes, and that's how I view, as a scientist, I
take a very cautious view on when and how much inference you
can make from scientific studies. Now the interesting thing
with this topic in general is that there are very few studies
that have been conducted at all. So, this is the reason that we
need to rely on modelling studies. If there were results from
on-the-ground studies, that would provide further----
Mrs. Chenoweth. So, we have a heavy fuel-load situation,
and the only thing that you recommend in order to avoid the
heavy fire that damages the soil creates a crowning effect is
lop and scatter?
Ms. Nelson. The only thing that I recommend?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Recommend, the thinning?
Ms. Nelson. Oh, no. You must have misheard what I said
previously. I said lop and scatter increased rates of spread
and flame land. So that would not be a good technique----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Alright.
Ms. Nelson. [continuing] in these particular forests in the
Sierras.
Now, I don't say that there's one approach that I would
recommend or not recommend in every situation. My point is that
there is no blanket prescriptions that we can use for all
stands, number one. And No. 2, that using the wrong treatments
can result in higher risks because of activity fuels, as Mr.
Hill mentioned previously. Activity fuels is the main problem
with the implementation of treatments.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me ask you.
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Given a situation where there has been 9
years of drought, the forests are stressed because of lack of
moisture, there is heavy fuel load on the forest floor, what
kind of thinning techniques would you recommend, specifically?
Ms. Nelson. Well, I would need to know more specifically
about the stand than what you just told me. However, I would,
No. 1--would not do anything on an emergency basis. And No. 2,
I think the most important thing about this whole topic is that
there is a need for more information about where to go with
this incredibly large problem that we have as forest-free
community.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson, the Subcommittee is having a hearing on fire
readiness next week, and since we have you here now, we'd like
to have you talk freely about the fires in Florida. I'd like
for you to please feel free to share any important lesson
learned. From your perspective with the Committee, and for the
permanent record, I'd really like for you to elaborate on where
you think we are most effective. Where you think we're the
weakest, and on the quality of our equipment, people, and the
communications And finally, I'd like to ask you what do you
think we need to do to be better prepared for similar or worst
occurrences in the future, God forbid
Mr. Peterson.
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Those are profound questions. If I can--but before I do
that, if I might. I would just like to say that my experience
with the Federal land managers are that they the people at the
ground level would like to move more expeditiously and
effectively in dealing with situations such as fire, disease,
insects outbreak, but because of the fear, because of the
threat of challenges, they feel their hands are tied. That
things just have been said here today--the classic example
which I have is 1995 when Opal hit Blackwater, we got our 50
million border feet out within six months and our neighbor
across the way, the Conecult National Forest, they were only
able to begin by the time we got through.
So, I think the local managers for the Federal agencies are
very interested in being more aggressive in dealing with these
problems, but they just feel like the process won't permit it.
The fires in Florida have been a challenge that I think has
been well met by all. It's one of those things, Madam Chairman,
that I don't think any state can meet either staff or equipped
for that magnitude in that complexity of fire. I think there
has to be a lot of lessons learned from this and I wish I had
this opportunity about 3 or 4 weeks from now because the fires
have barely stopped, and we are now in the process of
critiquing, evaluating, and what went well, and what didn't go
quite so well.
I will say that it was a classic example of good working
relationships between, local, State, and Federal agencies. We
had personnel in the state from every state except two, and
most of those probably except for the southeast were Federal
employees. We had about 5,175 out-of-state people in Florida at
one time or another during this siege.
Bringing in those people and that equipment is a challenge
of monumental proportions. I think there needs to be a better
coordination between the ordering agencies to be sure that the
right equipment is ordered. I think it also needs to refine the
process so that there is not duplication, for example.
In Florida, if you say I'm going to send ten dossiers, you
really haven't helped me. You've got to send me ten dossiers
that are low-ground pressure, white track. So, there's much
room to refine the process of ordering to avoid duplications.
We also had and I would hasten to say that I'm not suggesting
that any of these are major problems except they just bear our
attention. I think we need to solidify the resource-ordering
process more closely than we have in the past so that we
centralize to avoid the duplication; to avoid the wrong
resources being ordered. That's an area I think we can.
Certainly within the State of Florida, there's some things
that we will do different, but I think also, Madam Chairman,
that this is a classic example of what, particularly the
southern group of State Foresters, has been saying for a number
of years and that is catastrophic fires are not, and should
not, be considered unique to any one region of the country.
It's a matter of time. It's a matter of time when any one
region can have it and our policy, our strategies, and our
operational designs should be developed along those lines, not
overcommitted to any one region of the country.
I think generally speaking because of difference in
terrains, the difference in fuel loads that the equipment issue
is one that is a little more regionalized than others. To have
people expected to come to Florida--or to the southeast I
should say, with equipment and training that is applicable to
the west or to the northeast is not always a good fit. So maybe
a little more diverse training would be in order for that. I'm
sure that's true. I told someone this morning that probably the
most common phrase I heard was ``my God, it's green. It's
burning,'' and that's not normally heard throughout the
country.
The wild and urban interface, a terrific part in Florida,
and certainly in some other states. We spent and inordinate
amount of time, and energy, and resources steering fires around
communities. That, admittedly, added to the acres burned, but
each day the team set their priorities, and each day the
priority was a protection of life, and residence, and property.
I would also add that the working relationship between the
State agency, and the Federal agency, and in this case, the
Florida Division of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service was
excellent. Bearing in mind, when you bring in a type-1 overhead
team, you get a big team and that's what you need at a time
like that.
The Forest Service, from day one and every day thereafter,
reminded us that we were the lead agency. They were there to
help, and I never saw that change That was generally true of
everyone that was there. Our sister agencies and State
Government, they did not try to second guess or preempt what
the forest agencies thought was the best strategies. We were,
indeed, dealing with wildfires in most cases. The local fire
departments did an excellent job helping us protect
communities, residences, and those type things.
I think one of the lessons learned are reminded, it was
probably already there, but it brought it into sharp focus that
there needs to be a responsible, prescribed fire program. Now
that has some issues on the other side that cannot be ignored,
but particularly in the areas in and around communities and
subdivisions, there has to be major fuel reduction efforts, and
I think you will see us in the State of Florida put forth a
great deal of effort in that regard.
When you go Palm Coast and you see 48,000 acres of one-time
woodland sprinkled with 5,000 homes and you see some homes
burned and some saved, and you know there's a difference there.
You wonder what it is. It's probably a difference and
coincidence for sure, but fuel reduction is part of the answer
there. There has to be more dispensibles based by the
homeowners. They have a responsibility here.
The wild and urban interface is an enormous challenge in
Florida, not just in Palm Coast. We put water with our
helicopter on 45 homes in a subdivision in southwest Florida
earlier in the year.
So, these are some of the things--I might have rambled a
bit here, but we're going to fine tune these. We are going to
critique these. I think also something for us to work on and I
know my Federal counterparts are certainly amenable to this,
and that is how can we be more cost effective in firefighting.
It's not cheap. It's not cheap, but when you have life and
property at risk, you go get the fire out and then you try to
come back and figure out how you can do it better and more cost
effective next time.
So, I would, again, thank all of those who helped us in
this undertaking. It's quite an experience. We'll get it back
together at some point in time, and I'm not sure if it'll be
the same old routine as far as fire preparedness goes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. L. Earl Peterson may be
found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. That was very
instructive and informative to us.
I do want you to know that I have put together a bill and
dropped it about six months ago on the urban-interface-wildland
fire suppression, and it deals directly with this issue, and it
was put together on the recommendation of foresters from the
Forest Service in the field. And so, I look forward to your
looking at it. I look forward to Florida's support on this very
important bill. It does affect that very critical area.
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. We look forward to doing that.
One thing that I neglected to say. I think FEMA came to
Florida. They were very involved. I think it was a learning
process for them and us. I suggest that I think that they will
be doing this. That they look more to being supportive in
prepositioning and getting resources in place ahead of an
urgent need, and indeed they did that in this case. It's
something that they are not accustomed to. It was a new
experience for them, but I will commend them for their efforts,
but I think one of the things that we all have to do is be
alert to the weather, the climates.
You see, Madam Chairman, what we had here was a coming
together of a unique situation, with drought indexes, with fuel
loadings, with fuel moistures, with climatic conditions all at
one time, and those fires were spotting a quarter to a half a
mile. So, that was just a terrible situation, but I think we
all need to be more prone to preplan, to preposition to move
our resources closer to where the area at risk may be before
the catastrophe occurs.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Fire suppression is so important, but fire
prevention is also very important.
Mr. Peterson it has come to my attention that you even had
to deal with some arson activities down there during those
fires.
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. We always have and I'm sure each
state does a certain amount of arson activity. There was a
period of time there that it seemed like that on a few days
that the larger part of our starts, as we would refer to, were
by arsonists. Then there was those fires that began--were human
caused by carelessness, and then there was that period of time
where the majority of were lightning caused. These fires were,
in large part, in what we call a lightning belt. So, we had all
of the above, but certainly arsonists was part of it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
The Chair recognizes my colleague, John Peterson.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
I would like to ask a question to Ms. Nelson. I was pleased
to hear that you are not opposed to thinning and salvage, and
you probably had the chance in the recent years to look at a
number of sites where this has been proposed. Could you share
with the Committee a site where maybe you would have blessed a
thinning and salvage cut
Ms. Nelson. Well, for instance, I think there are some
cases where epidemic levels of beetles might require removal--
say it was mountain pine beetle of large diameter trees,
certain number on a site, to prevent spread into adjacent
stands.
Looking at the flip side of that, for instance, the Texas
exemption that just occurred. In that case, I would not be in
support of removal because, from my understanding and again I
have not visited those sites and I have just reviewed those
materials in the record, there was no epidemic. The removal was
intended as a risk-avoidance measure in case there were
epidemic levels of infestations at some future time. And I
think in balance there, the environmental damage associated
with the salvage operation, which would occur, would outweigh
the potential benefit at some point in the future if there did
in fact--if the stand did, in fact, reach epidemic levels of
southern pine beetles.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. So you wouldn't support it
for economic reasons? I mean, to salvage the value of the
timber that was there?
Ms. Nelson. Well, let me just say that I work as a
scientist. I consult with NRDC, but I work as a research
scientist and so I wouldn't comment on whether a sale should go
forward for any particular reason. However, in the Texas
example, the justification was an environmental one for forest
health or protection of forest purposes.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. And you disagreed with that?
Ms. Nelson. Yes, I don't think that that was a valid
justification at that point in time.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. This question may not be on
this particular issue, but I guess for perspective, you know,
half of the soft-wood timber owned in America is owned by the
Federal Government. Do you support greencuts for economic
reasons or for thinning or do you support cutting of timber on
public land, personally
Ms. Nelson. On all public lands? You mean----
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. No, selected--I mean, almost
all of it is locked up. There's about 20 percent that we
actually practice forestry on of the land owned by the Federal
Government, but do you----
Ms. Nelson. If you're asking me whether I would support a
zero-cut policy on Federal lands, I would say, no.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. You don't support zero cut?
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. OK, so on some situations you
would. Is the only exception in a salvage area?
Ms. Nelson. No, I would support thinning and fuels
reductions as well, but I'm a little uncomfortable even
broaching the subject because I tend to try to avoid large
policy matters like this and just think in terms of the science
and the ecology involved. And so, I would support the removal
of live trees, and a thinning for fuel reduction if I felt that
that treatment would accomplish ecological objectives.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. OK. Last year I was out with
the Speaker and the group that toured a number of states in the
west and we flew over a 600,000 acre burn that had had a very
heavy fuel load; I thought was the most devastating ecological
disaster I had ever seen. You know, 600,000 acres where there
wasn't anything green left; where the hillsides were sliding
into the valleys; where the silt was unmeasurable. Wildlife not
existent. Everything, everything had been killed. I'm sure
insects were killed there. It took a long time to recreate a
normal ecosystem, and I haven't seen Florida yet, but I hope
to. When you have that kind of a fire, some may call it
natural, but there's nothing much natural left when the fuel
loads high and it burns with intensity. It destroys all life.
It destroys plant life. In some places I'm told the soils are
barren for many years, and so you're going to have huge amounts
of siltation. And the ecological system is just destroyed and,
I think some of those could have been prevented. I'd be
interested to know, have you ever flown over a large area like
that?
Ms. Nelson. Yes, I have, and I've worked in many of them.
I've been doing forestry research for the last 10 years. I
agree that fuels reduction is important. My concern is that
commercial sales often exacerbate fuel problems. And so, I'm
concerned----
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. How does that----
Ms. Nelson. How does that work
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. I guess I don't understand
that.
Ms. Nelson. But what ends up happening----
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. I'm from the east. Our forest
is different from yours. So, I understand the eastern forest
better than I do the western forest.
Ms. Nelson. Yes, let me explain this to you. One, of the
primary reasons why management can have the affect of
increasing fuel loadings and then increasing hazard from future
fires is that slash ends up on the ground, and managers don't
have a good way of really dealing with that because in
commercial sales the emphasis is on removing the live tree
bowls.
So, for instance, if you do a thinning, and a thinning as I
said is a vague term and all different kind of things that can
be done, the emphasis is on removing the larger trees and in
the west often times the most fire-tolerant trees. What happens
is the resulting trees have thinner bark. They're, you know,
more flammable. They're a less fire-tolerant species. The
height-to-life crown is lower, so crowning is more like to
happen. And there's abundant fine fuels on the ground, and it's
the fine, slashy fuels that really are the problem with fire
spread.
So, those are reasons why if a thinning is not conducted
properly and, in fact, many of the thinnings that are done in
eastern Washington and Oregon fit the pattern that I just
mentioned, then you end up with a stand that may be of greater
fire risk. And even though the thinning purportedly was done to
alleviate fire hazard.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. Would anyone else on the
panel like to grab that issue I mean, those of you that--I
think you all deal with softwood forests. I'd be interested to
hear your----
Mr. Ferrioli. Madam Chairman, Representative Peterson, I am
not a forest scientist, but I would like to take exception with
a couple of comments that I've heard.
First of all, there is a prescription that won't allow
harvest of trees larger than 21 inches diameter at breast
height. It's called the eastside forest screen. So, we don't
see the removal of large timber in almost any site on the
eastside forest.
Secondly, the lop and scatter system of slash removal is
very seldom used in my experience. Mostly it's bunch and burn
which means that slash other than the large woody debris that
left in profusion on those sites for nurse logs and for
ecological function--most of the slash is gathered up and
during the wet time of the year it's burned. So that we reduce
the fuel loads for standing trees, then we reduce the fuel
loads that would be residual fuel loads other than the large
woody debris that serves an ecological function.
So, it has been my experience that when we can get the
Forest Service to do fuel-load reductions, and that is a
rarity, that the prescriptions that are used to reduce the fuel
loads actually do leave a far lower risk of fire. And if I
could use a couple of photos to illustrate, this is an area
where we have about 800 stems per acre. Actually, in this area
it's about 60 percent dead. It was a beetle kill. There also
was a fire that moved through here that did a lot of this tree
mortality. This is the before picture of the Summit fire where
the fire was in an area that was left untreated; where the fuel
loads were not reduced. This is the after picture. This is part
of the 38,000 acres that burned, and, as you can see, this is a
devastated ecosystem. The ecosystem function here will be
suppressed and reduced for generations. Fuel load reduction at
this point in time could have prevented a hard burn, a more
serious ecological disruption of the area. It was not done, and
it has not been done. It's not been a regular feature of
management in an intensive way for a long period of time. We
really have ourselves to blame for that.
Fire suppression for a long period of time has allowed fuel
loads to grow in our forests--in the pine forests of eastern
Oregon and eastern Washington. The remediation of that is not
to run around with a drip torch and just burn everything. The
remediation of that is careful fuel loading and fuel load
reductions on a systematic basis across that landscape followed
by the reintroduction of slow, low-intensity, creeping fires,
cleansing fires. We seem to want to go from the problem that we
have, which is fuel load increases and relatively high stocking
levels that are stressed, immediately through the process of
devastating fires, to a process where we've reestablished a
fire in the ecosystem. You can't get there from here. You need
to go through the intermediary process of reduction of those
fuel loads.
It seems to be a problem for many in the environmental
community, because the bi-product of the reduction of fuel
loads is supportive of timber-dependent communities, and the
support of timber-dependent communities is something that's
very close to local government. I particularly worry about
that. I want to sustain the community. I can't sustain the
community unless I sustain the ecosystem. I can't get income
from the landscape unless I do fuel load reductions, and,
therefore, there's no surplus to reinvest in ecosystem
functions. The two are coefficient, and it seems like there are
some folks in the world that want to completely disconnect the
ecosystem costs which are high. Ecosystem management is
expensive, and they want to disconnect the ecosystem costs with
sustaining the local economy which produces the surplus for
reinvestment. You can't take the two apart; they're
coefficients.
And, so I would say to you just that the fuel load
reduction regimes that we would like to see implemented in the
intermountain west would, to a great degree, fire-proof our
forests; lower the danger of catastrophic fire, and allow the
reintroduction of low-intensity creeping fires. It seems like
we all want to get to the same place, and that is where fire
has an integral part in the ecosystem, but we're being
prevented from allowing that to happen, and the intermediary
tool is actually salvage logging and fuel load reductions.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. Ms. Nelson, do you want to
respond?
Ms. Nelson. Yes, I would agree with what you said about
your last statement about where we want to go, however, I don't
agree that salvage and thinning will get us there unless
prescriptions are done very differently than they are currently
being done, and the reason is because, as you mentioned, right
now, the Forest Service is not investing in the following up to
the commercial activity which is dealing with activity slash,
and I think as long as these commercial activities result in
high levels of activity slash, then we're going to be
exacerbating the problems that we have.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. Mr. Peterson, is Florida that
much different. I know it's not as old a forest, but would you
care to respond to that?
Mr. L. Earl Peterson. In many cases, in Florida, there is
very little slash left in the logging operations. I believe
that, in fact, that there needs to some organized way of
reducing the fuel loads there, but many of our harvesting
operations leave behind very little slash. Those that do is,
generally, as he indicated, is piled and burned effectively in
preparation for reforestation. So----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. Sure.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. I wanted to ask Ms. Nelson a
follow up with regards to the prescriptions that you indicated
that have not been properly employed, especially with regards
to followup. I wonder if, for the record, you could be more
specific about the prescriptions that you were talking about?
What given situations do you think that there can be thinning
and what kind of thinning and what kind of follow up?
Ms. Nelson. Well, again, I wouldn't want to specify--I
mean, it's hard to be specific about----
Mrs. Chenoweth. But that's what we're asking--excuse me--
that's what we're asking you for, specifics. We can't meet----
Ms. Nelson. Right, and that----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Wait a minute, let me finish, please, if
you don't mind. We can't meet your needs unless you help us
understand specifically.
Ms. Nelson. And I was just about to do that. It's hard in
the absence of a landscape and a specific forest example to
talk in general, but I would have to say is that we need to be
focusing on removal, in general, of small diameter material
from the forest. These are the flashy fuels. These are the
things that are, say in, below six-inch diameter. But when I
was talking of large, I was speaking of trees that are much
smaller than 20 inches still fit into my large category. So,
that is what I think the emphasis should be on: removal of the
very small stuff out there that's the flashy fuels. I think
that thinning and salvage prescriptions that focus on removing
the large fire-tolerant species will only create further
problems.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I understand that, especially in a green
forest, and the thinning of the smaller diameter, low-level
fuel load is very important, but given the example that Mr.
Ferrioli used, where there was a huge stand of diseased timber
that had been infested with insects--bark beetle, I think he
said--60 percent of it was destroyed. It was large diameter
timber, and so it was very susceptible to a very, very hot fire
that devastated stream beds, and, like he said, will take
generations to recover. How would you recommend, specifically,
that the Forest Service and the local people deal with
something like this?
Ms. Nelson. Well, I think that with bark beetle epidemics,
they're tied to climatic factors, and they've occurred
naturally in forests for long periods of time, and I think it's
not possible to entirely remove mortality from bark beetle
epidemics. In some cases, I think it may appropriate to remove
or, say, the mountain beetle on large diameter trees to prevent
spread into other areas, and I think it's just a case-by-case
basis.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So, in some cases, it's appropriate to
remove those trees.
Ms. Nelson. Yes. And under epidemic situations, but, again,
I don't think it's appropriate to, in every case, focus on
removal of large diameter trees to prevent, number one, risk of
the infestation if there's just endemic levels, and, second, I
don't think it's possible to completely reduce mortality from
epidemic levels of bark beetles. I also think that we have to
be careful about the adverse effects of removal activities
post-disturbance. So, after windthrow or fire, these stands are
particularly sensitive. Post-fire stands are very sensitive in
terms of soils and sediment into streams and already taking a
large hit, and I think we want to be very careful about
increasing degradation of those stands.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Are you familiar with the Knudsen-
Vandenberg funds?
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And those are specifically targeted for
restoration, aren't they?
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, they are. So, I think that has been
provided for, but, Mr. Ferrioli, do you have any followup?
Mr. Ferrioli. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Only that it's
been my experience, again, from personal observation that fuel
load treatments are done after recovery projects and after
salvage removal, so that by the forester's estimation and the
project estimation that there is no increase in risk for fire
for reburn. As a matter of fact, part of the prescriptions
would be to lower the fuel loading for the fires which are
flash fuels, so that they do not present a risk. So, I'm not
familiar with the regime that Ms. Nelson's describing. What
I've observed for myself on the ground following green sales
and salvage sales is that we see fuel load reductions that
would by far reduce the risk of reburn or the risk of
catastrophic fires.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do have to say that this has been
extremely interesting to me, and while I've asked some very
pointed questions, I do want to say--and I will yield to Mr.
Boyd--but I do want to say that the exchange that has gone here
has not only been interesting to me but will serve as a very
valuable, permanent record, because until we can really
understand how each other is thinking, can we really reach a
successful conclusion. And I think that we're all very, very
interested in making sure that our environment is protected for
future generations, not only from one standpoint, but from a
variety of balanced prescriptions and uses. So, although I have
focused my questions primarily at Ms. Nelson and Mr. Ferrioli,
I want to thank both of you for your very interesting and
informative answers and for your time here.
And before I yield to Mr. Boyd, I do want to ask Mr. Hill a
question about the Society of American Foresters. Has your
organization done any studies or are you aware of studies on
the effects of fuel treatments on fire?
Mr. Hill. The Society of American Foresters hasn't done
studies themselves--ourselves, but many of the members are
involved with agencies that are doing such work, particularly,
the Forest Service. We have a position of statement on fire
management that points to the seriousness of the urban-rural
interface problem. But the question, directly, is no, we have
not done any studies ourselves.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. The Chair yields to
Congressman Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. I, too,
have found this very interesting and want to thank all the
panel members. I don't want this to become a beat up on Ms.
Nelson meeting, but, Ms. Nelson, I listened to your testimony,
and it's obvious to me that you oppose salvage operations or
thinning or fuel treatments for reduction of fire danger; at
least I've been unable to gather from your comments any
specific instances where you would think those were OK. But
what I do want to do here is tell you that in your remarks you
describe the results of study of the Bear-Potato Analysis Area
by the Wenatchee National Forest--I have a copy of that study
here. Is that the study was referenced?
Ms. Nelson. I can't see it from where you are, but----
Mr. Boyd. The Environmental Assessment Bear-Potato Analysis
Area of the Tyee Fire Recovery Area?
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. OK. You cited only one portion of that study; the
part that compared the effects of fuel treatment with no fuel
treatments in areas that had not been harvested. Then, you
concluded that harvest treatment may increase the risk of fire
damage, but since you were describing non-harvested areas, your
conclusion appears to be misleading, if not, inaccurate, and I
want to read to you the conclusion that the Forest Service
wrote in the study that you quoted from: ``From this initial
review of harvest fuel treatment on the fire effects of the
Tyee fire, there may be an indication that harvested land had a
better chance to burn black when compared to non-harvested
land. However, the reader should be reminded that many factors
were not included in this review; factors like the timing of
the fire; intensity of the smoke column; weather; type of fire;
head or backing fire; terrain; aspect and slope are all impor-
tant in the resulting fire effect on a piece of land. This
review only considered whether an area was harvested or not or
fuels treated or not.'' And it continues: ``However, since a
treated and non-treated harvested area from the same time
period--1971 to 1994--would have an equal possibility to be
burned at roughly the same time, the figures in table 2--which
you did not cite--are a good indication''--I'm still quoting
from the conclusions--``are a good indication that fuels
treatment in a harvested area did reduce the fire effect.'' Let
me say that again: ``The figures in table 2 are a good
indication that fuels treatment in a harvested area did reduce
the fire effect.
What is not as clear, however, is whether a harvest itself
influenced fire behavior in any way. Perhaps, the largest study
that included modeling weather, time of day, et cetera, could
more accurately answer this question, but this is the best
conclusion possible given the time and the resources for this
study.''
Madame Chairman, I would submit a copy of this
environmental assessment that was quoted----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Boyd. [continuing] for the record, and I would also
say, Ms. Nelson, that on several occasions I've heard you refer
to the science and technology on at least a few occasions I've
heard you refer to being a scientist, and I would submit to
you, Ms. Nelson, that a scientist would not come before this
congressional committee and cite a scientific fact, just a
portion of an environmental assessment to draw a certain
conclusion, and I'm very sorry about that. I yield back.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. With that, I want to
say this panel is excused. Thank you very, very much for your
time and all the effort that each and every one of you have
made to be here. You have been before the panel for nearly 2
hours, and I very much appreciate the expertise that you've
brought to the record.
The Chair now asks that Chief Mike Dombeck, Chief of the
U.S. Forest Service in Washington, DC; Mr. Robert Joslin,
Deputy Chief, National Forest Service in Washington, DC, come
forward along with Rhey Solomon, Deputy Director, Ecosystem
Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC. It's my understanding, Mr. Solomon, that you
are simply accompanying Mr. Joslin and the Chief, right
Mr. Solomon. To my knowledge, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You do not have a prepared testimony.
Mr. Solomon. I have no prepared testimony.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Welcome back. It's been a long time since
either one of you have been before the Committee, and we are
looking forward to your testimony on this particular issue,
and, as usual, we ask that all witnesses be sworn in. So, I
wonder if you might stand and raise your hand to the square?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chief Dombeck.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DOMBECK, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I'd like to start
by saying to Congressman Boyd and our State forester, Earl
Peterson, I just really commend the heroic efforts of the
citizens of your State, the State employees, and the many
Forest Service employees, BLM employees, and other Federal fire
fighters that participated in the really tough situation you
had in your State, and I think it's just absolutely phenomenal
that they did the job that they did with a minimal amount of
human injury and under the tremendous loss we had, and I think
that demonstrates the effectiveness of the skills of our
employees, and the fact is we in the United States do have the
most effective and efficient wildland fire-fighting mechanism
in the world. The incident command system is something that's
been emulated and used in many, many cases, and it's something
that we need to continue to improve upon and analyze every
situation which we do.
Now, to the topic at hand: environmental analysis and NEPA
compliance in emergency situations on national forest system
lands, and my written testimony incorporates the concerns and
comments of both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management. As has been stated here numerous times, the
National Environmental Policy Act is our basic national charter
for protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets
goals, and provides the means for implementing policy. The
regulations issued by the Council of Environmental Quality in
1978, which implement NEPA, provide for alternative
arrangements to the normal NEPA procedure in emergency
situations.
The Forest Service and CEQ have used emergency provisions
in the CEQ regulations three times, and BLM has used the
alternative situations five times, and we're prepared to
discuss those Forest Service situations if you wish, Madame
Chairman. Generally, alternative arrangements are initiated
where a clear emergency to human health, safety, or the
environment is present, and the actions proposed is
environmentally significant as defined by the CEQ regulations.
Often, actions proposed to be taken in emergency situations do
not arise to the environmental significance level, and,
therefore, do not require alternative arrangements. For these
situations, the Forest Service follows its normal NEPA
procedures.
The Forest Service and BLM believe that the procedures we
use for requesting alternative arrangements to NEPA compliance
for emergencies work. The existing authority is appropriate and
adequate to administer our Nation's national forests and other
public lands. We appreciate the Committee's interest in
alternative arrangement provisions for NEPA, and we understand
the Committee's desire to use extraordinary processes more
broadly. We'd be happy to discuss any questions you have,
Madame Chairman, Congressman Boyd.
I have with me, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System,
Bob Joslin, who not only has worked on the ground level, the
field level of the Forest Service in all parts of the country,
including the South, but also administers the programs of the
National Forest System, and Rhey Solomon is our Deputy Director
of Ecosystem Management and is our technical expert when it
comes to NEPA, the appeals process, and those kinds of things.
So, we hope that between the three of us, the dialogue will be
helpful, and we can be as responsive as possible to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dombeck may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Chief. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Joslin.
Mr. Joslin. Madame Chairman, I did not have any statement
to make. I come with the Chief to answer any questions that I
can for you and the members of the Committee, and I appreciate
the opportunity to be here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Well, then I'll begin with
questioning, and I'll direct my questions to the Chief. How
many times has the Forest Service applied for alternative
arrangements
Mr. Dombeck. Three times.
Mrs. Chenoweth. About three times. And can you cite those
times and specific occurrences?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes, the first situation was Bull Run Lake
near Portland, Oregon, and the purpose of that was for
protection of domestic water supplies. The second time was the
situation that you mentioned in your opening statement, Madame
Chairman, the Eighth Street fire in Boise, and the third time
was the removal of the blowdown damage in the red-cockaded
woodpecker habitat in east Texas, and that was a situation
where I personally toured to view the work in progress and was
very, very pleased with what I saw just a few months ago.
Mrs. Chenoweth. As you know, NEPA was written with the
understanding that there are times when expedited processes are
needed. Also, the National Forest Management Act was written
with that in mind and even uses mandatory language that
requires the Secretary to move through the processes so we can
remove the timber that can create an explosion of disease or
insect infestation. And this is just common sense.
What doesn't make sense to us is that the Forest Service
doesn't see the need to ever use these expedited processes
other than the three cited that were allowed for in the law.
Apparently, there must be some reason, and we need to be able
to try to resolve this, because, as I review the law, the law
says the Secretary shall do certain things, and I know it's
frustrating for you, Chief, not to be able to see your agency
move quickly. We've had discussions about this, and I know how
you feel, I believe. Would you state and advise us, for the
record, why you're unable to follow the NEPA requirements as
well as NFMA requirements for moving very quickly?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, let me answer that question in a couple
of parts. Concerning the alternative arrangements, as I
understand it--and Rhey is more of an expert in this area--that
the criteria that are used are the threat to human health and
safety and violation of law is the two criteria that we apply
when we ask for alternative arrangements. The second part of
the question regarding the slowness of the process, I think we
have to go a long way to find anyone that isn't somewhat
frustrated by that, and I have continually instructed the
Forest Service, and, in fact, of my time as a BLM employee,
likewise, that BLM--we have to be relentless about simplifying
the procedures that we have. That doesn't mean that they be
simplistic or not based on science or in any way not comply
with the letter of the law from the standpoint of NEPA or the
public involvement process and that type of thing. And this is
something that there has been progress made in some areas, and
I would cite one example and that's the section 7--rather, the
consultation process with regards to the Endangered Species Act
when Jack Ward Thomas was Chief and I was the Director of BLM.
We gathered and looked for alternatives to streamline that
process, and, basically, what we did in that situation was took
a process that was a serial process and changed it to a
parallel process, and it reduced the time frames by almost
half. And, in fact, as a result of that effort, we reduced the
backlog of ESA consultations by--a backlog of about 1,200
consultations to 0 in just a matter of--what's it, about 2 or 3
years, Bob?
Mr. Joslin. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And, Rhey, I wanted to ask you since the
Chief referred to you and with your permission, Chief.
Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chief made mention of the two
criteria--human health and life--and adhering to existing law
as the criteria under which the Forest Service moves ahead on a
expedited basis, and I'm specifically referring the National
Forest Management Act in section 1611. Let me read that into
the record, because it says nothing in the subsection of this
section: ``Nothing in subsection A of this section shall
prohibit the Secretary from salvage or sanitation harvesting of
timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire,
windthrow or other catastrophes or which are in imminent danger
from insect or disease attack. The Secretary may either
substitute such timber for timber that would otherwise be sold
under the plan or, if not feasible, sell such timber over and
above the plan volume period.''
Now, it seems under existing law that we've moved to other
law and forgot the existing law that the Congress passed in the
Forest Management Act. Can you help explain that?
Mr. Solomon. Well, Madame Chairman, in response to that,
the way the Forest Service and all agencies in government have
implemented the procedures of NEPA is we believe that we can do
better decisionmaking by looking at environmental
considerations that NEPA requires us to look at and integrated
that into our processes. The provisions under NEPA that require
the emergency provisions are really aimed for immediate
emergencies and only working with the Council on Environmental
Quality for the immediate problem of that emergency, and----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Solomon, I asked you about the National
Forest Management Act, and you're talking about another Act. I
read to you from the Forest Management Act and asked you for
your opinion with regards to what I read. It gives a clear
indication that you can move ahead. I don't want to interrupt
your thinking, but I want us both to be focused on the same
thing, and then we can move to whatever else you'd like to
focus on.
Mr. Solomon. And we believe we can move with compliance
with that law through the normal NEPA process.
Mr. Dombeck. I'd like to add to that and that we do grant
emergency exemptions of stay from the administrative appeals
process, as was the situation with the Summit Fire, and I will
agree that that is a situation that--in fact, the regional
forester is looking at very, very closely as to the
instructions that Regional Forester Williams gave them out
here, as he told me, was the fact that we've got to get this
moving as quickly as we can understanding that it's a situation
that's beyond us, but then take a very close look at that
situation and what could have been done differently, as we will
be involved in similar situations in the future. So, I would
just add that we do grant stay for administrative appeals on
occasion for emergencies, specific situations.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Like what kind of emergencies?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, the Summit was an example, and I might
ask Bob if he might be aware of other situations.
Mr. Joslin. In particular, the Summit situation, the
regional forester had come in and requested exemption of the
stay that we have in effect which is up to a 45-day timeframe
after the decision is made, so that they could go ahead and get
on with that project and not go through another winter and
another spring run-off as they already had to do as a result of
what happened. So, rather than the--the forest supervisor also
requested that, and, as a result, we agreed with him and
granted him that exemption of that stay process.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Senator Ferrioli showed us some very
telling and graphic pictures of a bark beetle kill over 60
percent of the standing trees, obviously, had already died from
bark beetle, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize
that even the green-appearing trees had been infested with bark
beetle. Why are we not seeing--in terms of prevention of
catastrophic fire and destruction to the watershed--why aren't
we seeing more implementation of 1611 prior to fires occurring?
Mr. Joslin. Well, one of the things that we've talked about
with you before--and I think that he explained that very well--
that we have 40 plus million acres out there at risk of
national forest lands that we do need to be taking a look at to
see what we can do as far as reducing those fuels as he so well
laid out in the Summit situation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But, Mr. Joslin, I'm growing increasingly
impatient with this agency just taking a look, while our
forests burn. I mean, I have been hearing that for years, and I
see no on-the-ground change. You have had my personal respect,
but I am saying to you that this--I am, personally, and this
Committee is growing increasingly impatient with the fact that
all we hear from those who may presumably oppose active on-the-
ground fire prevention techniques, we're going to study it
more; we want to look at it. We can't have that in this country
any longer, because this agency has been given one of the
Nation's most valuable resource, and we're losing it. I mean,
Mr. Ferrioli testified to the fact that to fight that fire cost
$25 million. He testified to the fact that when you add the
environmental studies and the legal costs and so forth, that
fire, alone, cost $30 million. Now, if you had to bear the
burden of all of that on timber sales, your timber sales would
look even worse than they do now, and it must be a source of
embarrassment to see that the timber fund is now in the red,
and we're not even applying all that could be applied against
the timber fund sales. I don't mean to sound impatient, but I
am. I want to see on-the-ground activity. I mean, out in the
Northwest and now down in Florida, we are hurting. We have
hundreds of thousands of acres of burned timber; hundreds of
thousands of acres of devastated timber. What used to be
magnificent stands of green timber that protected our
watersheds and our streams are now being destroyed because of
an inability to crash through and do exactly what the Congress
said we should do; not rearrange what the Congress but exactly
what the law states very simply that should be done.
Mr. Joslin. Madame Chairman, if I could, and I'd refer to
Congressman Boyd's State of Florida and Earl Peterson, we have
three national forests down there--we mentioned the Osceola and
Appalachicola, and we also have the Ocala--and Congressman Boyd
mentioned the acreages burned down there. I think that the
Ocala National Forest is probably had more management for a
longer period of time than any of the other national forests.
Those things are going on there. We had a total, I believe--and
Earl can probably verify that--383 acres is all that burned
there, and I think if you have an opportunity to see that
forest that it is one that's had some intensive work done as
you're referring to. So, I understand your impatience. We have
that impatience too, but there are some places where we are
doing some of those things.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, I look forward to seeing more results
also in the Northwest.
Mr. Dombeck. Madame Chairman, I'd like to just make a
couple of points that I think are important--Senator Ferrioli
also commented on this--and that's that our fastest growth
program is fuels treatment. In fact, we've gone from treating
about .5 million acres a year to a 1.5 million acres a year,
and we're ratcheting up our skills and pushing the budget in
that direction and have had good support for that from the
environmental community as well as the timber industry to do
the thinning work, and we'd like to be up to about 3 million
acres per year on the national forest system lands.
So, it's a program that we're not just looking the other
way. We're continuing to push that, although there's a level of
impatience there that we're not moving fast enough, and the
magnitude of work in the urban wildland interface is very, very
important. What we have to do is we have to do it in a way
where we can maintain and build credibility and build a support
base and move toward lighter on the land technologies. People
are more and more opposed to soil disturbance activities, and
the industry and the agency and other entities continue to see
great strides in improvement of technologies, and we've got to
increase the rate of application.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Chief, I'd have to share with you and share
on the record the fact that each individual forest used to be
responsible for making sure that the fuel load was reduced in
their forest plan and that disease and insect infestation were
taken care of. But when we have centralized planning and we
have goals involving a certain number of acres and we expand
those goals, that takes the authority away, it would appear,
from the unit managers, that they are not able to implement the
necessary programs that would prevent the emergencies that
we're now dealing with. The horse is probably out of the barn
in many of these areas, and, like Senator Ferrioli testified,
it's going to take generations for, even with active
management, for the forest to be rehabilitated. And I think
part of it comes back to the fact that, Chief, you testified in
your statement, you stated that rarely do these events
constitute an emergency. Since the law is so clear as to what
must be done and it isn't even--it's mandatory language; it
uses the word ``shall.'' When you're involved in windthrow or
disease or insect infestation or burns. The law has dealt with
those as an emergency, because it gave you the expedited
ability. What do you--don't you agree with that or what do you
believe constitutes an emergency?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, as I indicated earlier, I believe the
definition of emergency--and let me ask Rhey to verify this--is
basically derived through the NEPA process. Is that correct
Mr. Solomon. It's been derived by----
Mr. Dombeck. And by CEQ regulations.
Mr. Solomon. [continuing] by the 30 cases that CEQ has
approved over the years have helped define what the nature of
what they define as an emergency under the definition of NEPA.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You know what we've seen here is through an
agency that was not created and authorized by the Congress,
we've see case law at whatever level of the courts that may
have been rendered defining what an emergency is when the
Congress defined already, and I just read it to you in 1611
when and how you must move in an expedited procedure; 1611. It
is so clear, and it's being ignored, and my frustration, Chief,
even with your legal folks, this is not pushed in terms of
defending the Forest Services actions such as on the Malheur
when they needed to get in and get that destroyed timber out.
We're not seeing it come from the legal folks in terms of the
defense that is needed, and when we start relaying decisions
emanating from CEQ or other laws and ignore what is directly
written as your responsibility, no wonder we lose in court, and
no wonder we compound the problem. It creates so much
frustration, I know, for you as well it does for me.
I'd like for you to take another look at this 1611 Rhey,
and I would like to meet with you on it and discuss it with
you.
Mr. Solomon. I'd gladly do that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Congressman Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Madame Chairman; I can't wait. First
of all, I think, gentleman, I know that we'll welcome you here,
and I know that you're the messenger more so than the
policymaker in this case. I want to disclose for all here some
of my biases on this issue, and I want to do that by way of
telling you what our situation is in the second congressional
district or in north Florida. Mr. Joslin referred to three
national forests in Florida which I'm all intimately familiar
with; two of them reside in the district that I represent, and
I worked for a couple of summers in college in the other in
Ocala National Forest. Mr. Joslin, it's a beautiful area. It
has some wonderful natural springs, natural resources in it
that I spent many days, hours swimming and diving in.
But the Appalachicola National Forest is totally contained
within the Second Congressional District that I represent. It's
about 565,000 acres of forest land. Actually, it was private
land in the early 1900's; it was totally cut over, timbered
out. The Federal Government bought it, and over the last 75
years or so--I don't know those exact numbers, but I assume
it's about 75 years--has rebuilt and regrown into a wonderful,
wonderful national forest that contains the world's largest
populations of red-cockaded woodpecker, and many of us are very
proud of that.
The Osceola National Forest is about 157,000 acres around
Clean Lake City in Jacksonville. About half of that is
contained in the Second Congressional District, and it contains
probably the largest population of black bear left in the State
of Florida which we also are very proud of and we manage and
protect very carefully. Having said that, I can tell you that
some of the practices we put in place in the last few years,
after we established the world's population of the red-cockaded
woodpecker, then we began to change the silvicultural practices
which enabled us to establish that, and mostly had to do with
how we managed that forest, and, as we were making those
changes, which, actually, were ratcheting down the cutting,
timber cutting, almost to zero, we did two things to alleviate
the hardship on the local government. Obviously, there's
several hardships, one has to do with ad valorem taxes to that
government in which they fund their local governments and their
schools, and the other, of course, is the economic activity in
the local community.
We did two things: we put in place a PILK Program, Madame
Chairman--which I'm sure you are familiar with, the payment of
lower taxes--which works fairly well, but we also put in place
a 25 percent program which we said to the community to replace
what we've taken away from you, we're going to give you 25
percent in revenue of what we cut off of that land. Well, guess
what over a period of a few short years after that, we
ratcheted that cutting down to almost zero, and so it's our
school system which was collecting--I have a school system
which probably has 1,000 students in it, very small; maybe
1,500. Ten years ago, it was collecting in the neighborhood of
$400,000 and now collects about $50,000. It's a very
significant impact on that school system. So, I say that only
to lay out my biases relative to some of these issues.
Now, Chief Dombeck, if I could, go to a question and that
is the specific criteria that must be present for you to apply
for an alternative arrangement under NEPA--and I think you've
answered that there was three instances that must--one of three
that must exist: human health issues, human life, or a
violation of law. Did I get that right
Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. OK. And that's been applied for three times, I
think you answered, in the history of its existence.
Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. What was the Texas situation I mean, which one of
those criteria was present to enable us to use the alterative
arrangement in the Texas windstorm earlier this year
Mr. Dombeck. I believe two of the three. No. 1, in working
with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the red-cockaded
woodpecker situation, we would have received the jeopardy
opinion on damage to that habitat if the trees would not be
removed, and, second----
Mr. Boyd. Let me interrupt you there. That you would have
received damage to the RCW population
Mr. Dombeck. That's correct.
Mr. Boyd. And, so that would fall under a threat to human
health, human life, or a violation of law?
Mr. Dombeck. Violation of law.
Mr. Boyd. So, it doesn't have to be mankind violation of
law, it could be God's violation of law. Is that what I hear
you saying?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, I believe, I would interpret that to be
the our ability to apply a management action to mitigate a
situation; in this case, to avoid a jeopardy opinion on the
red-cockaded woodpecker.
Mr. Boyd. OK. Even though the fact that it was a disaster--
what we call an act of God, I think would be the proper term--
that would fall under your category of violation of the law. Is
that what I hear you saying And that was the criteria you used
to apply there to make sure that we got this done.
Mr. Dombeck. I'm not going to be the one to pass judgment
on an act of God and a violation of law, but the fact is that
the management activity that we could apply could enhance red-
cockaded woodpeckers habitat or prevent damage.
Mr. Boyd. What was the second criteria?
Mr. Dombeck. The second criteria was safety from the
standpoint of the roads were basically impassible and with all
the trees that were down. So, there was the need to get in
there and to clear trees from the roads, so the roads would be
passable.
Mr. Boyd. But safety wasn't one of the three criteria--I'm
sorry; didn't mean to interrupt.
Mr. Dombeck. From the standpoint of human safety.
Mr. Boyd. Human safety wasn't one of the criteria that you
mentioned. I don't know if those are written in stone or
written in regulations or law or what, but human health, was
that----
Mr. Dombeck. Health and safety.
Mr. Boyd. OK, health and safety. Well, I'm very pleased
that the folks in Texas had that opportunity to do what would
seem to be the naturally right thing to do and that is go in
and salvage and rehabilitate the forest area, but it seems like
we certainly stretched the application of the criteria in that
example, and it just leads me to wonder if we shouldn't revisit
the criteria themselves and figure out if there are not other
situations, for instance, the forest; the burns that we've had
in Florida. And my next question really leads to that. Do you
see any of those criteria that we can use to apply the
expedited process in Florida, so that we don't lose the salvage
operation
Mr. Dombeck. Well, what I would do is I would rely on
Marcia Carney, the Forest Supervisor, and the district rangers
that work there to make that determination and then to come
forward if they believe that emergency exists.
Mr. Boyd. OK. Well, that gives me some comfort, because I
had an opportunity--she's new, as you know, in our State, and I
had an opportunity to spend some time with her last weekend,
and I think she's a very professional and reasonable person who
will consider all of the criteria.
We had 20,000 acres burn--Madame Chair, do I have
additional time? We had about 20,000 acres burn in each of our
national forests. In the Appalachicola, actually, it was all
wilderness with the exception of about 15 acres, as you know.
It's interesting how that came about. Actually, those two fires
started simultaneously on the same day, and we went in the non-
wilderness area with our--you did with your equipment and put
that fire out, and it burned 15 acres. On the wilderness side,
you couldn't go in to prevent--to stop the fire, and, as you
know, it burned up about 20,000 acres of the wilderness, and my
question is this: Is that what we anticipate or want to do with
our statutes relative to the wilderness or do we have any
waiver process relative to the rules in our wilderness like we
do with the alterative arrangement that would allow us to react
to that kind of situation to prevent the fire from spreading
throughout the whole wilderness or do we consider that natural
and we're comfortable letting it go ahead and burn?
Mr. Joslin. Congressman Boyd, what we've done in the
wilderness, in particular, Florida's been a leader in that,
because the State forester, Earl Peterson, and his folks, and
the U.S. Forest Service have a long history there, and
prescribed fire and fire management, as you well know, has been
an important part of the ecosystem down there. We have plans
for each one of those wilderness areas that spells out how
we'll deal with fire; whether if it's a man-caused fire, we'll
deal with it one way; if it's a natural fire that's caused by
lightening may be dealt with another way, but there are always
provisions there. If we're having threats to external areas,
the fire going outside of the wilderness, prescriptions are all
set up there, and there are provisions, yes, if we need to get
in there with caterpillars or whatever we need to get in there
as far as suppression; that are provisions that the regional
forester can authorize their use in connection with fire
suppression activities in a wilderness.
Mr. Boyd. If I might, Madame Chairman, continue? You do
have a legal authority to weigh those rules.
Mr. Joslin. Yes, we do.
Mr. Boyd. Do you have any indication of whether this was
man-started in the Appalachicola National Forest or was it
natural?
Mr. Joslin. I do not know that. We can find that out, but
I, personally, I don't know whether that was created by
lightening or it was arson or----
Mr. Boyd. Well, let me answer what I believe, and this is
from having talked to the people that are on the ground down
there and the location that it started. Both of those started
on the highway, and they're reported to be arsonist, arson-
started, and, of course, on one side the road was non-
wilderness and the other side was wilderness, and we had 15
acres burn in the non-wilderness and the 20,000 acres burn in
the wilderness. So, I don't have clear proof that it was
arsonists, but the people who are there fighting the fires say
that that's what it was.
Mr. Joslin. Well, I'm sure that they have conducted an
investigation there to try to determine the cause of it, but,
as I say, I personally don't know. I haven't talked with anyone
or seen----
Mr. Boyd. So, does your flexibility in the rules that you
have, when it's man-started does it allow you to--is that the
situation where you would be allowed to take the equipment in
to stop it?
Mr. Joslin. Where it says started by man, we would take
aggressive action to suppress that fire.
Mr. Boyd. But that wasn't done in this case?
Mr. Joslin. Now, I don't know whether it was or wasn't.
Mr. Boyd. And that really brings me to a point. One of the
things that I have learned and I've become convinced of after
talking to the people on the ground and Marcia Carney and
others, is that we really need to give our folks on the ground
more authority to react quickly, and, obviously, you're going
to have to react very quickly in that case, because that fire,
I think, burned about 4,000 acres the first day. But we really
need to give them more authority, and one of the things I would
encourage you and Madame Chairman, this Committee, to work on
is to make sure that our people on the ground have more
authority to react quickly in those kinds of emergency
situations.
Madame Chairman, I'm sure I have other questions, but I'm
going to stop there in the interest of time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. I do want to let you
know you are welcome to submit to us any questions you would
like for us to submit to the witnesses. We usually keep the
record open for 10 working days. And, so I'd be happy to work
with you on that.
Mr. Boyd. Well, thank you, Madame Chairman, on behalf of
the people that I represent who are really taking a beating in
some of the counties where 75, 80 percent of their land is in
the national forest. Sometimes, I don't want to go home on the
weekends, because I know what's going to happen. They're going
to beat on me. I get beat on every weekend from folks are
affected by the activities or they go on in the national
forest. And we really are proud of the world's largest RCW
population, and we need to protect that, but we also need to
take into consideration the needs of the humans who live in
that area and who helped rebuild that forest from the time that
it was cut 75 years ago. So, I'll close with that.
Mr. Joslin. Congressman, if I could, I know that Liberty
County is one of those down there in your area that's heavily
impacted.
Mr. Boyd. Well, I'm grateful that you know about Liberty
County, because you're right. That's a county that I don't go
into that I don't come back with many battle scars, wounds.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to also mention and announce that
this Committee will be holding hearings in Florida on the fire
suppression, fire prevention activities that are needed. And,
Mr. Boyd, I want to invite you to be a part of that process.
You are more than welcome to join us in your area and we're
there to make sure that we hear from your constituents as well.
So, thank you for joining us today.
I wanted to ask the Chief, it's my understanding the Forest
Service wins 98 percent of all appeals upon administrative
review. Isn't that correct, about 98 percent?
Mr. Dombeck. Let me ask Rhey.
Mr. Solomon. Madame Chairman, are you talking about the
appeals that are reversed or remanded v. those that are upheld?
Is that what you mean?
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'm talking about those that are upheld.
Mr. Solomon. Yes, it's about 90 percent of those, now, are
upheld by the reviewing officer at the higher level.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And, then, of those 2 percent that go on up
and are appealed on up, you win about 98 percent of the 2--or
you win about 98 percent of those cases in the higher courts
too.
Mr. Solomon. Well, no, I'm talking the administrative
appeal process which is different than the litigation, the
court process.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I understand, Mr. Solomon, that it is
different. I had moved from the administrative process. Of
those 2 or 10 percent that are then appealed on into the court
system, the Forest Service wins about 98 percent of those cases
appealed into the district courts or on up into the higher
level of the appellate courts.
Mr. Solomon. No, those are not the statistics that I have
seen. The ones I have seen of recent cases is more around 60
percent.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That's still not a bad win ratio, and,
golly, with that in mind, I used to work on cases also before I
came to the Congress. That's not a bad win ratio, and it makes
me wonder why the Forest Service is so reticent to challenge
the legal challenges that are threatened. For instance, in the
Oregon situation, we've had the same type of situations in
Idaho. We're seeing it all over. Why is the Forest Service so
reticent to move ahead under 1611 or under the authority that
Congress have given because of a threat of lawsuit Why aren't
you being more aggressive in defending the law and defending
your agencies?
Mr. Dombeck. I would like to see the specific numbers
myself, because I have not seen them recently. But what we see
is that we see the most controversial come to the surface. As I
look at the number of decisions that are made, for example,
through the NEPA process each year, we have over 13,000
decisions are made either through the environmental impact
statement process, environmental assessment process or
categorical exclusion process. In fact, I appreciate the
compliment, because like Congressman Boyd, some days in the
Natural Resource Management business, we don't get many
compliments, but the fact is we do have a good track record on
the decisionmaking process, and the ones that come to the
surface are really the ones that are the most controversial,
and we need to focus on those and try to bring a resolution on
those as well.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Chief, I know the feeling. There are some
days even Congressman just all we hear are the complaints. So,
I certainly can sympathize with that, but in Senator Ferrioli's
testimony he said that with regards to the fire that he
testified to in the Malheur--no, it was on the Malheur, yes--
that the litigation that was brought in was, I think he termed
it cookie cutter; you know, a 32 cent stamp type of appeal.
And, so since the Forest Service deals probably in a large
number of these, each one--I guess, common sense would just say
you'd be getting used to dealing with some of these cookie
cutter-type objections that come in. Isn't that true?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, I guess I relied on the judgment of the
regional forester and the staff in Oregon on that decision, but
I'm not sure--do you have any additional information on the----
Mr. Joslin. I would say that what he referred to on the
stamp was in regard to a filing of the administrative appeals,
and in that particular case, it was the judgment of the
regional office folks that there were some significant gaps in
the initial environmental impact statement that was prepared
and that the regional forester felt that the folks needed to go
back and boost that up, recognizing full well that we'd have to
go through a winter and a run-off as we have suffered so far
going through but recognize that in order to make that decision
that he would need to do some more work on it. So, that's where
it came out back to the forester supervisor for redo.
Mrs. Chenoweth. While I haven't had a chance, and normally
you wouldn't you expect me to review your pleadings,
nevertheless, in section 1611, subsection b, as I read into the
record, the law clearly defines fire as being a catastrophe
which is an occurrence that rises even beyond an emergency.
It's a catastrophe. And then in the next line where the law
deals with insect and disease attacks--attacks of disease and
insects, it's a lower standard. But the law is pretty clear
about how the Forest Service should deal with fire. It defines
it as a catastrophe, and so, I guess that's why I get very
frustrated, and I think we heard the frustration from Senator
Ferrioli that we just hear, ``Oh well, we have to stop all the
presses and stop everything from moving ahead and restoring to
the sustained yield standard that the law requires; that we
must under Knudsen-Vandenberg funds and authority begin to
restore the forest,'' everything comes to a screeching halt,
and the law could not be more clear, and whether we are
pleading the law or what, I don't know, but based on your track
record and based on the clarity of the law and the standard by
which the law declares fire to be, we should be moving ahead
not with carelessness at all, but with, I think, more
determination.
And I think that I'm just reflecting the frustration that
we're all beginning to feel, and I hope that in Florida they
don't have to go through the frustration of not seeing
restoration projects and removal of fire destroyed timber and
the years of having to face that everyday. And then you guys
have to come up here and face me and the Committee. But my
frustration level is growing much, much more intense, and I
guess I would like to ask the Chief why the Texas situation was
so different. It was windthrow which is not described in the
law as catastrophic; fire is. But windthrow, this was a
situation, and there was some windstorm and ice, disease and
insects, of course, did set in eventually, but why was that
dealt with differently than the other situations that we all
have to face?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, let me just repeat the two criteria that
I talked about with Congressman Boyd. The human health and
safety. The human health, in this case, windthrow, roads
blocked throughout a fairly extensive area where people lived
and they have to get into those areas. Secondly, the red-
cockaded woodpecker situation. In a sense, the Endangered
Species Act worked in reverse of the way most of us are used to
seeing it work, and the fact is the way to prevent reduction of
the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat----
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'm giving you lots of time.
Mr. Dombeck. [continuing] going in there and removing the
trees around the clusters benefited the red-cockaded
woodpecker. So, there were those two criteria, and I believe
that's--so, there are a lot of significant differences between
the Summit sale and the blowdown from that standpoint.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to yield to Mr. Boyd, but I want to
ask you, Chief, yes, we have the red-cockaded woodpecker down
there, but we had steel hen; we had bow trout; we have
endangered species all over the place in the Northwest, and the
kind of pictures that Senator Ted Ferrioli showed us, it's
patently obvious that that did not constitute habitat for any
of those endangered species. In fact, the picture of the stream
was devastating. I mean, there was no stream habitat left;
nothing to shadow and shield those spawning salmon. Let me read
again in section 1611 that ``Nothing in subsection (a) which
requires that you manage the forest under a multiple yield,
sustained yield basis--I mean, that's clear what the law says,
and NEPA nor the Environmental Protection Act took that away.
In fact, the Environmental Protection Act made this entire Act
a part of that Act by reference; it didn't change it. And it
says ``Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Secretary
from salvage or sanitation of harvesting of timber stands which
are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other
catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from insect and
disease attack, period.'' It doesn't say anything about another
set of criteria that you, alone, are dealing with your
decisionmaking. I mean, that seems to be the standard while the
standard that is patently clear, and the law is being ignored.
I don't mean to fuss about this, but as a Congressman, I
cannot ignore this, and I think your feeling of success and
your level of frustration would be less, feeling of success
would be a lot of greater if we could simplify the focus of
where your protection is. I guess I become very frustrated
again when I see other criteria that you're making decisions
that departs from the actual law. Chief, do you have any
comment with regards to that?
Mr. Dombeck. Well, the--again, I think we've said--and I
certainly understand your frustration and can feel your
frustration--the alternative arrangement does not circumvent
NEPA. What it does is it expedites the activity----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Dombeck. [continuing] and that's a very important
point. The criteria for that alternative arrangement are what
I've stated as the health and human safety, the violation of
law criteria, and I would certainly be happy to, as the case in
the Boise situation and the Texas blowdown situation, just like
with the Summit situation, we're going--and the whole Florida
fire situation that Earl Peterson commented, we're going to be
taking a look at these in detail from the analysis and take a
look at where are the problems. What can be done better What
can be done different
what can we learn from this that we can apply to a situation in
the future to avoid this kind of concerned frustration as we
move forward.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me say I'm very glad that you're going
to do that, but I want you to apply that same criteria and
dedication to the Malheur and the Boise and all of the areas
that have suffered the catastrophe that we all have as defined
in 1611. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Chief, I want to
follow up on the Texas situation at some risk here of hurting
my own particular situation, because what I want to ask you at
the end is--and I want you to consider this--is there
opportunity for us to get an expedition of the NEPA process in
Florida and--but don't answer right now, because I want to
address the issue in Texas again. How many acres were in the
blowdown in Texas
Mr. Dombeck. Let me----
Mr. Boyd. We can turn to Mr. Joslin.
Mr. Joslin. We had approximately 103,000 acres.
Mr. Boyd. How many million board feet?
Mr. Joslin. Trees blew down in various degrees.
Mr. Boyd. How many million board feet of timber were
harvested?
Mr. Joslin. That's still in process. It was estimated that
the latest estimate I got from the forest supervisors there was
about 225 million. The sales that they have up and what two or
three that are left to put out would salvage about half of
that, a little over 100 million.
Mr. Boyd. All right. Now, I want to consider this. We used
the three criteria that you talked about. No. 1 is human
safety, and you said the roads were an example. If human safety
was the issue and the roads were blown over, you'd just clear
the roads. You wouldn't go in and harvest 103,000 acres, and,
second, the RCW. You're going do nothing for the RCW by
removing the salvage timber, because RCW is going to have to
have a standing tree. That RCW colony is going to have to move
another location, and it won't be able to come back to that
area for years until you're able to rehabilitate and reforest.
And, so I guess I'm sort of making a case against myself here,
but I'm making a case for having the law changed. I'm making a
case in support of Mrs. Chenoweth's legislation here that those
criteria--and they're not in the law evidently--need to be
changed.
Now, there, obviously, were political considerations here,
and I'm sure that you're not able to--I know that you're not
able to come forward and say that as a witness to the
congressional panel. But what--it's just too broad of an
application of the human safety issue to say that because the
trees are blown down the road, we've got to go harvest 103,000
acres, and it's too broad of an application of the RCW issue to
say we've got to harvest because the RCW population is in
danger. It's not going to be less endangered because you
harvested, because those RCW, the way I understand it, at least
in Appalachicola, they have to have a standing tree to be in,
and you can't replace that standing tree over night.
So, now, I want to go back to my question. Can we apply the
alternative arrangement to the fire in Florida?
Mr. Dombeck. Based upon the request that we get from the
field, we'll look at every situation, so the answer to that,
can you apply--can you request--can they request it?
Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Boyd. Would Ms. Carney be the proper person to make
that request?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. OK.
Mr. Dombeck. What I'd like to just to clarify one point on
the red-cockaded woodpecker situation there is now the--I'm
everything but a technical expert of red-cockaded--a technical
expert on red-cockaded woodpeckers, but the technical experts
tell us--and I'd be happy to arrange a more detailed briefing
for you on that--but the fact is that the actual removal of the
downed trees and there's a--every, sort of, permutation of
small areas where everything is down on the ground to where
just there are some trees are bent over and some areas where
there are clumps left, and it's sort of this sort of mosaic
that they're dealing in, and when the Fish and Wildlife Service
reviewed the quality of the habitat for the red-cockaded
woodpecker, those kinds of things they take in a situation and
clearly one of the criteria involved benefit to the increased
enhancement of the survival of red-cockaded woodpecker
colonies, and I'd be happy to arrange for a----
Mr. Boyd. I'm no technical expert either, so we probably
have about the same amount or lack of knowledge, if you will,
but I can tell that they apply in cases where we've had private
lands where we've found RCW and they came and took jurisdiction
and that in cases where wanted to cut that timber, we had to
physically move those RCW, because once you cut that timber or
once it's on the ground, that RCW cannot survive there; it has
to move. I mean, I'm no technical expert, but you don't have to
be an expert to know that they live inside of a hole in the
tree, and if it's on the ground, they won't survive there.
Mr. Dombeck. Can you add to that?
Mr. Joslin. Yes, one of the things that I just--quickly, if
I could, Madame Chairman--one of the things there that we
learned when we had the hurricane that hit the Francis Marion
National Forest a few years ago was inserts that we put in
there, because you're correct that they have to have cavities.
We immediately started doing some of that and had birds that
came to those. The other part that's critical over there too is
the removal of that material to reduce the risk of fire in not
only the clusters but also in the foraging areas, and that's
very critical in connection with red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much. I wish Ms. Nelson was still
here to hear that, but she's, obviously, gone. No she's not,
there she is. She slipped back in, thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Boyd. Congressman Boyd, I hate to
interrupt you, but I have just gotten word that the procession
for the slain officers is now crossing the 14th Street Bridge,
and they will be arriving at the Lincoln Memorial just
momentarily, and I know both of us are required at other
places, and so, with that, I do want to say under these sad
circumstances, we're going to need to adjourn the meeting, and,
as usual, the record will remain open for
10 working days. If any of you wish to supplement your
testimony, you are welcome to. We will be submitting additional
questions, and I do want to let you know that the procession
will be on the Hill very shortly. With that, this hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Ted Ferrioli, State Senator, Oregon State Senate
Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, the purpose of my
testimony will be to illustrate the current, dysfunctional
response of the Forest Service under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) to catastrophic events, illustrated by
circumstances of the Summit Fire, located on the Long Creek
Ranger District, Malheur National Forest in Grant County,
Oregon.
The Summit fire was caused by lightning on August 13, 1996.
Over 24 days, the fire burned across 37,961 acres of mixed
conifer forestlands, damaging riparian and roadless areas,
leaving a mosaic of fire-killed timber estimated at
approximately 300 million board feet.
After reviewing the likelihood of appeal and litigation,
Malheur National Forest Supervisor Carl Pence ordered
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a
costly and intensive procedure authorized under NEPA. At the
same time, Mr. Pence elevated the Summit Fire Recovery Project
to the top priority for the forest, set a deadline of September
1997 for its completion and discontinued planning efforts for
most other management activities on the Malheur. Mr. Pence also
called for temporary assignment of most district planning
personnel to the recovery project.
During the draft phases of the Summit Fire Recovery
Project, Malheur National Forest Planning Staff engaged in an
extraordinary process of outreach and involvement with the
community. Orientation tours of the fire area were contacted
for Members of Congress, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber's
Citizen Advisory Panel on Eastside Forest Health,
environmentalists, forest products industry representatives,
Forest Service Regional Office staff, representatives of the
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service staff.
Throughout this period, Malheur National Forest Planning
Staff and the community received assurances from Region 6
Planning Staff that other than ``minor concerns,'' the Recovery
Project was ``on track.''
On August 27, 1997, Forest Supervisor Carl Pence signed a
Record of Decision that was immediately appealed by the
environmental community using what can be described as a
``cookbook'' appeal. The alternative selected by Supervisor
Pence would have treated approximately 9,500 acres, producing
an estimated 108 million board feet of salvage.
Despite unprecedented communication between Malheur
National Forest and Region 6 Planning Staff, Supervisor Pence
was notified that Regional Forester Bob Williams could not
support the Recovery Project. Supervisor Pence was offered two
choices, either have the Record of Decision (ROD) remanded to
the Malheur National Forest, or voluntarily withdraw the ROD.
Since voluntary withdrawal offered more flexibility for
remediation, Pence chose the latter option.
Over the next six months, Malheur National Forest Planning
Staff rewrote the Summit Fire Recovery Project and prepared a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Major revisions to
the project included development of a Water Resources
Management Plan, Consultation with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
for Bull Trout, Informal Consultation with National Marine
Fisheries Service for Steelhead and revision of the proposed
treatment in riparian areas.
On July 12, 1998, more than 23 months after the Summit
Fire, a new Record of Decision was issued calling for salvage
and rehabilitation of approximately 6,600 acres producing about
50 million board feet of timber.
During the intervening months, insects and blue stain
fungus have infested the stands and sever checking has occurred
significantly reducing the value of salvageable timber. The
project, if conducted in August 1997, could have produced
$6,912,000 according to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (page 2-21). Today, if operated as proposed, the
project will produce approximately one sixth of that amount, or
$1,150,000 according to the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement issued July 12, 1998 (page S-6).
The cost of suppression for the Summit Fire was
$25,400,000. Planning for this project cost approximately
$1,209,893 for the original DEIS and additional $356,432 for
the Supplemental DEIS.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, while the NEPA
process works well for proposed management actions that are not
time-sensitive it is wholly inappropriate for management
actions in areas devastated by windthrow or infestations of
insects and disease. The NEPA process is especially
inappropriate for fire recovery projects where rapid
deterioration and loss of value is the predictable outcome of
delay.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, you know that
a healthy economy and a healthy ecosystem are coefficients in
the equation of sustainability. The NEPA process was intended
to disclose elements of critical thinking and analysis leading
to decision-making. Instead, it has become bureaucratized to
the point where it threatens both the ecosystem and local
economies. In reviewing the NEPA process, I would suggest three
actions that could be of immediate benefit:
Require the Council of Environmental Quality to
provide an easily accessible mechanism for approval of
``Alternative Arrangements.'' The use of ``AIternative
Arrangements,'' as was done in March, 1998 for salvage of
nearly 300 million board feet of blowdown in Texas should
become a model for meeting NEPA requirements when treating
catastrophic fire, dead, downed and severely root-sprung trees
whenever these conditions occur.
Provide an expedited appeal and litigation process to
resolve potential conflicts in a timely manner. Creating a
shorter statutory appeal process with final adjudication,
followed by brief judicial appeal period with a statutorily
mandated deadline for final adjudication would not only provide
heightened access for citizen appeals and litigation but timely
resolution, as well.
Modify the NEPA process to add full consideration of
economic values affected by Federal decision making At present,
NEPA requires full disclosure of environmental values and
considerations but does not disclose economic values and
considerations in Federal decision making. To be effective,
NEPA must also feature full disclosure of economic
considerations so that parties affected by Federal decisions
will have assurance that the cost, benefits and affects will be
fully disclosed.
These amendments to the NEPA process would greatly reduce delays in
processing time-sensitive recovery projects following windthrow,
infestations of insects and disease and catastrophic fire.
Our experience has shown that catastrophic events require a
planning response that preserves the net asset value of the resource,
not only to sustain communities that depend on natural resource
outputs, but also to capture the maximum value to pay for
rehabilitation of resources damaged caused by wind, insects, disease
and wildfire.
______
Statement of L. Earl Peterson, Director, Division of Forestry, Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to tell you
how the Florida Division of Forestry manages its timber
resources and in particular how we deal with emergency salvage
operations when struck by natural disasters.
The Florida Division of Forestry is one of the largest land
management agencies in the State of Florida. We have been
managing state forests for over 60 years and presently co-
manage an additional half million acres of other public land.
All of these tracts are managed under the multiple-use concept,
which includes timber production.
There are 36 state forests managed under the Division's
direct guidance and the land base of these tracts exceeds
740,000 acres. Approximately 55 percent of this total (410,000
acres) is suitable for pine silviculture. An active forest
management program occurs on this pine acreage and includes
prescribed burning, reforestation and timber sales. Trees are
grown to an old age on state forests for a number of reasons,
two of which are to provide a natural ecosystem that is rapidly
disappearing from the State and also to provide a special
experience to the public sector who visit state forests in
order to enjoy a large number of resource-based outdoor
recreation activities. Our state forests represent an
investment by the citizens of Florida, and that investment
should produce both a natural resource heritage for the future
and an economic return.
The practice of sustainability is a cornerstone in the
management of the timber resource. By using current forest
inventory data, we insure that state forests are not overcut
and that growth will continue to exceed yield on an annual
basis. Trees are harvested through a number of silvicultural
techniques, including improvement thinnings and restoration
harvests, the latter being the removal of off-site species so
that the naturally occurring species can be restored to a
particular site.
In a well-managed state forest, foresters for the Division
strive to keep the trees in a healthy condition using such
management tools as prescribed burning and improvement
thinnings, which I previously mentioned. However, due to
natural processes beyond our control, unexpected and
undesirable tree mortality is continually occurring in the
natural forest system. Examples are lightning killed trees,
mortality from wildfire, insect and disease outbreaks and
windstorm damage.
Because this is a natural process, if the level of tree
mortality is considered light, then oftentimes no action is
taken. The resulting dead snags provide homes for wild-
life and help create biological diversity in the forest system.
However, when tree mortality reaches levels where there is
significant economic loss or there is the potential for insect
and disease spread, then salvage and/or sanitation harvests are
initiated to recoup monetary losses and to reduce the threat of
additional tree mortality.
Although prompt action is often taken to salvage timber
that has been damaged or killed at moderate levels or in a
limited area, there is no question that the Division of
Forestry will take action when major tree mortality events take
place. This statement is based on recent occurrences on
Florida's state forests. In October, 1995, Hurricane Opal made
a direct hit on Blackwater River State Forest, which is
Florida's largest state forest at 189,000 acres. Within 6
months we had salvaged an estimated 95 percent of the damaged
timber, which was approximately 50 million board feet of
sawtimber.
In the spring and summer of 1997, Florida experienced the
worst outbreak of southern pine beetle activity in the history
of the State. The infestation was centered in the Marion and
Levy County area of Central Florida. Loblolly pine was the
major species being killed but considerable slash pine and
longleaf pine also died. The insect was indiscriminate in
attacking trees across all ownership lines including state
parks, state forest, national forest, municipal, forest
industry and lands owned by private individuals. The Division
of Forestry took a lead role in taking actions to control this
insect outbreak plus salvaged all infested timber in Goethe
State Forest in Levy County and spearheaded salvage efforts on
other state-owned lands.
Finally, the State of Florida has just gone through the
most serious outbreak of wildfires to have occurred in recent
times. Approximately 500,000 acres burned between June 1st and
early July. Of this total an estimated 260,000 acres is
commercial pine timberland. A conservative estimate is that
2,600,000 cords of damaged or fire-killed timber will require
salvaging in the next four months. Besides being directly
involved in the total salvage effort, the Division of Forestry
had approximately 14,000 acres burn on Tiger Bay and Lake
George State Forests in Volusia County. Once the wildfires were
controlled, we immediately moved toward damage appraisal and
initiating salvage sales on these 2 state forests. In two weeks
we sold 4 salvage sales and had plans to sell 4 more during the
third week.
Time is of the essence when selling salvage timber,
especially sawtimber. In Florida's warm climate, dead sawtimber
must be utilized within a few months or it will deteriorate to
where it can only be used for pulpwood. Pulpwood will only last
a few months longer. Because of this short time frame we
expedite the bid process and only give potential bidders a week
or less to submit their bid for a sale. Emergency salvage sales
of this nature are almost always sold on a per unit basis,
which means the wood is sold by the ton. A performance bond of
$5,000.00 or more is usually required to insure sale
compliance. Foresters spend considerable time administering the
sales to insure all loads are accounted for and that all
conditions of sale are being followed.
A few key points for salvage operations conducted by the
Division of Forestry are that they are done in a rapid fashion
to insure maximum economic return, eliminate waste and to
prevent further spread of pathogens or insects that might kill
additional timber. All potential bidders are given a chance to
bid on every sale so that we cannot be accused of unfair sale
procedures, and ongoing sales are administered closely to
insure loggers comply with the conditions of sale.
The Florida Division of Forestry is fortunate to have good
latitude in making decisions about procedures and conditions
for silvicultural applications, such as reforestation and
timber harvesting. We have the responsibility and authority to
utilize the best known science for taking inventory, projecting
growth and yield, and scheduling harvests based on site
productivity and ecosystem requirements. Internally, we have
administrative procedures to ensure good business applications,
provide equitable bidding processes, and satisfy audit
scrutiny. However, during times of emergency as previously
described, we are allowed to accelerate that process in order
to minimize economic losses.
BID PROCEDURE FOR WILDFIRE TIMBER SALES
Tiger Bay and Lake George State Forests
July 15, 1998
Based on conversations with Rene' Ash (who talked with Mike
Gresham), we can expedite the timber sales on these two state
forests. I agreed with her that we would implement the
following procedure:
(1) Fax or E-Mail a written sale specifications sheet to all
interested bidders for each timber sale. We can also fax a sale
map and bid form.
(2) Give prospective bidders two days (or some other
predetermined time) to fax their completed bid form back to
Tiger Bay State Forest Headquarters.
(3) Waive the need for a minimum acceptable bid. Analyze the
returned bids to make sure all bidders can meet the conditions
of the sale. Contact the high bidder and confirm their bid and
try to negotiate a higher price if the opportunity presents
itself. If the top 2 or more bids are similar, or if there is
no distinct winner, contact the bidders with the highest bid
and negotiate the best price from one of them. Analyzation of
bid results and any negotiations will be coordinated between
TBSF/LGSF staff and State Lands Section staff.
(4) Prepare the approval memorandum to L. Earl Peterson and
obtain his approval of the recommended high bidder.
(5) Waive the 3 day posting period if the successful bidder can
start logging immediately. Otherwise, post the results for 3
working days.
(6) Overnight 4 copies of the executed timber sale agreement to
the State Lands Section. We will deliver it to Mike Gresham's
office the day it is received and notify TBSF Headquarters once
it is fully executed.
By: John O'Meara
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.011
Statement of Cara Ritchie Nelson, Consulting Ecologist, Natural
Resources Defense Council
Good morning, Madam Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to
appear and address the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health on the
subject of emergency exemptions from the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) for salvage sales, and your discussion draft bill. My name
is Cara Nelson. I have over ten years of professional experience
researching the effects of management on forest ecosystems. For the
last 4 years, I have worked both as a staff and a consulting ecologist
for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a national,
non-profit environmental organization dedicated, among other things, to
the protection of forest resources. During this time, my work has
largely focused on issues related to fire and fuels management in
forests of the Interior Columbia River Basin in eastern Washington and
Oregon. My educational background includes a B.S. in Ecology from the
Evergreen State College in Washington State and a Masters degree in
Forest Ecology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In addition,
I am in the process of completing a Ph.D. in Forest Ecosystems Analysis
at the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources in
Seattle.
In summary, despite persistent calls for emergency ``forest
health'' treatments, current scientific understanding of forest
ecosystems and data from past salvage projects do not provide a basis
for aggressive post-disturbance logging. There is very little solid
scientific support for claims that salvage and other removal of
commercial timber for ``restoration'' purposes effectively restores
fire resilience or ecosystem integrity. On the contrary, significant
scientific evidence demonstrates that serious, adverse impacts can and
do result from salvage and commercial thinning. For these reasons,
careful design, analysis, and environmental review of post-disturbance
management activities are especially important. Broad ``emergency''
exemptions from NEPA, as proposed in the discussion draft of July 7,
1998, would severely undercut this environmental review, thereby
decreasing the likelihood of effective restoration of forest ecosystems
and increasing the likelihood of continued forest degradation. A case
in point is the recent NEPA exemption to expedite salvage logging on
Federal forestlands in Texas, authorized after the February 1998
windstorms. The Forest Supervisor requested that emergency action be
authorized to address concerns about wildfire and southern pine beetle
damage. Hovever, the scientific record does not support that emergency
waiver.
Very little empirical research has been conducted on the impacts of
salvage, thinning, and fuels treatment on fire behavior. In spite of
hypothesized benefits, the handful of studies that address these
issues, as well as anecdotal accounts and analyses of recent fires,
suggest that removal of dead, dying, and overstocked trees does not
reliably reduce fire intensity or severity. In fact, in some instances
treatments intended to reduce fire intensity and hazard may have the
opposite effect.
For example, at least three recent studies of the relationship
between thinning and impels treatment and fire behavior found that
treatment exacerbated fire conditions. The results of one of these
studies, conducted by Huff et al. (1995) in the Interior Columbia River
Basin in Washington and Oregon, suggest that all logging, including
thinning, tends to increase fire Howard: ``In general, rate of spread
and flame length were positively correlated with the proportion of area
logged. All harvest techniques were associated with increasing rate of
spread and flame length . . . [emphasis added].'' Thinned stands
generally were positively correlated with fire intensity as measured by
rate of spread and flame length.
Similarly, results from a study of the effectiveness of fuels
treatment on previously non-harvested lands in the Bear-Potato Analysis
Area of the Wenatchee National Forest, Washington provides evidence
that harvest treatments may increase risk of fire damage. In this
study, the Forest Service evaluated the effects of past fuel treatments
on fire severity (U.S. Forest Service 1995). Before wildfire in 1994,
approximately 2021 acres of the fire area that had not been previously
logged were treated for fuels with mechanical removal and/or prescribed
burning. Forty three percent of areas that were treated to reduce fuels
experienced high mortality, compared with 37 percent of the areas that
were not treated for fuels. Only 10 percent of the areas treated for
fuels experienced low mortality, suggesting that fuels treatment on
non-harvested lands may increase the risk of high severity fire.
There is also evidence from a study conducted in the Klamath region
of California that stand density reduction through harvest treatments
may not result in lower fire intensity and severity. Weatherspoon and
Skinner (1995) found higher levels of crown scorch in thinned stands
than in adjacent stands that had not been thinned. Unmanaged stands had
the least severe fire effects.
Reports of successful fire hazard reduction focus on thinning of
small diameter trees, but are almost entirely anecdotal. For example,
thinned ponderosa pine for-
ests in Tiger Creek, a 2,500-acre drainage on the Boise National Forest
in Idaho, are reported to have survived the 1992 Foothill Fire with
minimal tree mortality (Blatner et al. 1994). However, this anecdotal
evidence is of limited utility, especially when counter-examples are
readily available. For example, thinning was not effective at reducing
fire intensity and severity during another fire on the Boise, the
Rabbit Creek fire, which burned roughly 200,000 acres on the north fork
of the Boise River drainage during the summer of 1994. The burn created
a mosaic of forest conditions. Some open ponderosa pine stands,
considered to be fire resistant, were destroyed. Some stands considered
highly susceptible did not experience high intensity burns (Peter Kolb,
pers. com.). I am only aware of one study in which thinning was found
to moderate fire behavior. During the 1994 Tyee fires, Wenatchee
National Forest study stands that were thinned to below a specified
crown bulk density burned at lower intensity and with less severe
effects than stands that had not been thinned (Agee 1996).
Results of a recent modeling study in Sierran forests indicate that
the type of ``restoration'' treatment employed, as well as the manner
in which it is executed, will influence environmental conditions and
fire hazard. In that study of six different ``restoration'' treatments
that involved harvesting, only one treatment technique was predicted to
reduce the number of acres burned or fire intensity (Van Wagtendonk
1996). Given that the study's conclusions are based on models that have
not been tested in natural settings, results must be interpreted
cautiously. However, findings such as these provide evidence that a
careless or thoughtless approach to ``restoration'' treatments has a
greater probability of increasing degradation and fire damage than of
decreasing it.
Though a number of factors, some listed below, help to explain how
salvage and thinning can exacerbate fire risks, one is worth singling
out here. A natural divergence exists between what increases the
profitability of logging operations and what might reduce fuel loading.
Typically, rates of spread and intensity of forest fires are most
affected by so called `fine fuels,' the small branches, tree tops, and
needles that have no commercial value. Unless careful and commercially
unattractive treatment of these fuels is undertaken, removal of larger
trees not only does not get at the primary engine of future fires, it
concentrates fine fuels into potentially explosive ``logging slash.''
With respect to arguments about the need for salvage and thinning
to reduce threats from insects, the scientific literature is more
complicated. What is clear is that any credible claim about potential
beneficial impacts from logging would have to account for numerous
site-specific factors. These include (1) tree species composition, age
and size structure, and spacing, (2) the biology, ecology, and
population levels of the insect species that occur or are predicted to
occur on the site, including the interactions among species, (3) the
nature and extent of disturbance events, and (4) local climatic
conditions. Thus, generalities about the need for and potentially
desirable effects of salvage and thinning treatments across sites and/
or conditions are not scientifically responsible. Detailed, specific,
expert review and analysis are needed, and blanket solutions should not
be expected to be successful.
In addition to the speculative nature of claimed ecological
benefits from removal of ``dead and dying'' trees, scientific evidence
demonstrates that persistent, adverse impacts can and do result from
these practices. These impacts include:
loss of snag and down log habitat required by many
wildlife species (Thomas 1979, Bull 1994) and soil organisms
(Amaranthus et al. 1989);
simplification of forest structure (FEMAT 1993);
increased soil erosion and compaction (Klock 1975,
Marton and Hare 1990);
loss of important sources of nutrients and organic
material, with the concomitant reduction of long-term
productivity (Jurgensen et al. 1990; Graham et al. 1994);
increased near term fire hazard due to high loads of
fine fuels (needles, branches, and tree tops) associated with
the removal of large stems; and
increased spread of non-native plants into burned
areas (Harrod 1994).
Other post-disturbance practices, particularly active planting and
seeding of non-native species, also have been shown to be detrimental
(Taskey et al. 1989, Amaranthus et al. 1993). In short, by removing
important structures and exacerbating stresses caused by natural
disturbance, post-disturbance logging and other management activities
impair the ability of ecosystems to recover (Beschta et al. 1995).
Similarly, although our current understanding of the ecological
effects of ``forest health'' thinning is incomplete available evidence
indicates that thinning operations, even when carefully conducted, can
and do result in significant adverse ecological impacts, including:
reduced habitat quality for sensitive species
associated with cool, moist microsites or closed canopy forests
(FEMAT 1993);
damage to soil integrity through increased erosion and
compaction (Harvey et al. 1994, Meurisse and Geist 1994);
creation of sediment which may eventually be delivered
to streams (Beschta 1978, Grant and Wolff 1991);
increased mortality of residual trees due to pathogens
and mechanical damage (Hagle and Schmitz 1993);
increased near-term fire hazard, due to (1) addition
of high levels of activity fuels (Fahnestock 1968) that may
influence fire behavior for up to 30 years (Huff et al. 1995,
Wilson and Dell 1971), (2) decreases in height to live crown
ratios, mean diameter sizes, and bark thickness, resulting from
removal of large diameter rather than small diameter trees, and
(3) creation of warmer, drier microclimatic conditions
(Countryman 1955, Rothermal 1983);
dependence on an excessive number and density of roads
(Henjum et al 1994, Megahan et al. 1994).
In the preceding paragraphs, I have discussed how (1) there is a
lack of scientific consensus about the consequences of harvest-based
``restoration'' treatments, (2) in many instances, these treatments may
increase fire severity and intensity, (3) some treatments have a
greater probability of reducing fire intensity and severity than do
others, and (4) commercial salvage and thinning have significant
environmental downsides. These downsides need careful, conscientious
evaluation and must be squarely presented to the public, sister
agencies, Congress, and ultimately decision-makers, if a responsible
judgment is to be made about where, how, and at what level to
experiment with logging based forest ``restoration.'' This is
particularly true given the indisputable role that past logging and
`professional expertise' has played in degrading Federal forests.
Post-disturbance logging should be subject to stronger restrictions
and environmental review procedures than those governing other logging
and management activities. Additional guidelines are necessary because
(1) post-burn soils are generally more sensitive to degradation than
other soils, all else being equal (Perry 1995) and (2) protection of
post-burn habitats may be critical for maintaining viable populations
of species that rely on snags and coarse woody debris or are sensitive
to watershed degradation (Beschta et al. 1995). Prior to treatment,
there should be a full analysis of the potential for increased fire
hazard and the short and long term effects of restoration treatments on
soils, pathogen transmission, and terrestrial or aquatic species.
Failure to analyze and disclose the environmental risks associated with
these treatments may result in continued ecosystem degradation and may
prevent the adoption of ecologically sound approaches to management of
degraded stands.
The NEPA exemption that the Forest Service was granted due to a
perceived emergency need for tree removal to control southern pine
beetle populations and wildfire after the February 1998 Texas windstorm
is an excellent example of the danger of emergency exemptions. Although
the record does not support an ecologically valid need for emergency
actions, the exemption short-circuited meaningful environmental
analysis that could have influenced management decisions and prevented
activities that are likely to further damage remnant stands.
A primary reason for the Forest Service's request for the exemption
was concern over southern pine beetle (SPB). However, the Forest
Service's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Texas windstorm tree
removal project recognizes that although SPB may invade individual
damaged trees, there is no increased threat to the forest resource base
of an SBP epidemic as a result of the windstorm: ``Previous large-scale
storm damage in pine forests across the south has resulted in little or
no increase in SPB activity over expected levels . . . Storm damage
does not initiate or increase the severity of SPB epidemics, but may
shift the distribution of infestations, as stands previously classified
as high hazard may become low hazard stands due to storm impacts . . .
In stands where a large percentage of pine overstory was blown down,
SPB infestations initiated in leaners or other susceptible pines have
little chance to spread (Clarke and Starkey 1998)''. Furthermore,
removal of large down material will not affect population densities of
SPB, as this species generally does not attack downed logs. Because the
agency failed to show an impending risk of SPB epidemic as a result of
the storm, its position that lack of access for beetle control due to
dead and dying trees constitutes an emergency situation is unfounded.
In addition to concern over southern pine beetle damage, the Forest
Service also justified the need for expedited tree removal as wildfire
protection. However, the Forest Service's proposed tree removal
activity is not likely to reduce the flammability of these stands.
Removing large stems of standing and downed wood this sum-
mer will not mitigate the primary fire hazard created by the large
volume of fine fuels. Large coarse woody debris retains moisture,
requires more energy to ignite and combust, and may reduce fire spread
by smoldering rather than burning. While large debris has relatively
low flammability, the increased loading of fine fuels (needles, tree
tops, and branches), generated both from the storm as well as from the
salvage operations, directly contributes to higher rates of fire
intensity and rapid fire spread. Effective treatment of small diameter
fine fuels would be a more reasonable approach to increasing fire
resilience than removal of large diameter standing dead and downed
trees.
Despite the importance of fine fuels to fire behavior, the Forest
Service's emergency activities do not include an adequate plan for
their treatment. Although the two action alternatives described in the
EA do provide for fuel treatment activities, these alternatives do not
specify that activity fuels must be addressed in all areas where tree
removal occurs. In addition, the EA does not evaluate the environmental
impacts associated with different fuel reduction techniques.
Furthermore, the EA proposes using lop and scatter treatments that may
actually exacerbate fire behavior. Research by Van Wagtendonk (1996) in
the Sierran forests suggests that lopping and scattering fine fuels may
be among the least effective fuel treatment methods and may result in
stands with significantly higher rates of fire spread, fireline
intensities, and flame lengths than both untreated stands and stands
treated using other techniques.
The Texas tree removal project is not likely to have a beneficial
effect on insect or fire risk or hazard. Moreover adverse effects
associated with the removal of a substantial number of large diameter
standing dead and downed trees, inadequate treatment of fine fuels, and
adverse impacts of harvest practices suggest that salvage activities
may substantially degrade remnant stands. Had further environmental
review of proposed actions been conducted, there might have been an
opportunity for the development and adoption of more ecologically sound
management alternatives.
In conclusion, sound scientific support does not exist for broad or
generalized inferences that emergency logging operations will
ameliorate fire or insect risks in our nation's forests. If anything,
the opposite is true. I hope that my testimony will help dissuade the
Subcommittee from proceeding with legislation that would abrogate the
existing NEPA process in the name of ``forest health emergencies.''
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear and present this
testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee
may have, within my area of expertise.
References
Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire
behavior. Presented at the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management
Conference, Redding CA, January 16-18, 1996.
Amaranthus, M.P, J.M. Trappe, and D.A. Perry. 1989. Long-term
productivity and the living soil. Pages 36-52 in D.A. Perry, R.
Meurisse, B. Thomas, R. Miller, J. Boyle, J. Means, C.R. Perry, and
R.F. Powers, eds. Maintaining Long-term Productivity of Pacific
Northwest Forest Ecosystems. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
----------, J.M. Trappe, and D.A. Perry. 1993. Moisture, native
regeneration, and Pinus lambertiana seedling survival, growth, and
mycorrhiza formation following wildfire and grass seeding. Restoration
Ecology September: 188-195.
Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-tenn pattems of sediment production
following road construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range.
Water Resources Research 14:1011-1016.
----------, C.A. Frissell, R. Gresswell, R. Hauer, J.R. Karr, G.W.
Minshall, D.A. Perry, and J.J. Rhodes. 1995. Wildfire and salvage
logging: Recommendations for ecologically sound post-fire salvage
logging and other post-fire treatments on Federal lands in the West.
Unpublished manuscript, Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR.
Blatner, K.A., C.E. Keegan, J. O'Laughlin, D.L. Adams. 1994. Forest
health management policy: a case study in southwestern Idaho. in R.N.
Sampson and D.L. Adams (eds.) Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the
Inland West. The Haworth Press, Inc.
Bull, E.L: 1994. Conserving wildlife habitat. Pages 37-38 in R.L.
Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes.
General Technical Report PNW GTR-330, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
Clarke, Stephen and Dale Starkey. 1998. Forest health evaluation of
storm damage on the national forests in Texas. Appendix B of the
Environmental Assessment for Tree Removal from the February 10, 1998
Windstorm, Angela, Sabine, and Sam Houston National Forests. USDA
Forest Service, Region 8.
Countryman, C.M. 1955. Old-growth conversion also converts fire
climate. Pages 158-160 in Proceedings of the Society of American
Foresters Annual Meeting.
Fahnestock, G.R. 1968. Fire hazard from pre-commercially thinning
ponderosa pine. Research Paper 57, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region Station, Portland, OR.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest
ecosystem management: An ecological, economic and social assessment.
Report of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. National Park Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Portland, OR and Washington, D.C.
Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn,
and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests
of the Rocky Mountains. Research Paper INT-RP-477, U.S. Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Grant, G.E., and A.L. Wolff. 1991. Long-term patterns of sediment
transport after timber harvest, western Cascade Mountains, Oregon, USA.
Pages 31-40 in Sediment and stream water quality in a changing
environment: Trends and explanations. IAHS Publication 203. Proceedings
of the Symposium, 11-24 August 1991, Vienna, Austria.
Hagle, S., and R. Schmitz. 1993. Managing root disease and bark
beetles. Pages 209-228 in T.D. Schowalter and G.M. Filip, eds. Beetle-
Pathogen Interactions in Conifer Forests. Academic Press, New York.
Harrod, R.J. 1994. Practices to reduce and control noxious weed
invasion. Pages 47-50 in R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of
stressed sites, and processes. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330,
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Harvey, A.E. 1994. Integrated roles for insects, diseases and
decomposers in fire dominated forests of the inland western United
States: Past, present, and future forest health. Pages 211-220 in R.N.
Sampson and D.L. Adams, eds. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the
Inland West. The Haworth Press, Inc., New York.
Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz,
S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwitt, and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim protection
for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: National
forests east of the Cascades crest, Oregon and Washington. The Wildlife
Society Technical Review 94-2.
Huff, M.H., R.D. Ottmar, E. Alvarado, R.E. Vihnanek, J.F. Lehmkuhl,
P.F. Hessburg, and R.L. Everett. 1995. Historical and current
landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: linking
vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke
production. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, GTR-355. Portland, Oregon.
Jurgensen, M.F., A.E. Harvey, and R.T. Graham. 1990. Soil organic
matter, timber harvesting, and forest productivity in the Inland
Northwest. In S.P. Gessel, D.S. Lacate, G.F. Weetman, and R.F. Powers,
eds. Sustaining productivity of forest soils. Proceedings of the 7th
North American Forest Soils Conference, 24-28 July, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver.
Klock, G.O. 1975. Impact of five post-fire salvage logging systems
on soils and vegetation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 30:78-
81.
Marton, R.A., and D.H. Hare. 1990. Runoff and soil loss following
the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Great Plains-Rock Mountain Geographic
Journal 18(1):1-8.
Megahan, W.F. L.L. Irwin, and L.L. LaCabe. 1994. Forest roads and
forest health. Pages 97-99 in R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration
of stressed sites, and processes. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330,
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Meurisse, R.T., and J.M. Geist. 1994. Conserving soil resources.
Pages 50-58 in R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed
sites, and processes. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330, U.S. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Perry, D.A. 1995. Unpublished declaration on forest health. March
4, 1995. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Rothermal, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of
forest and range fires. General Technical Report INT-143, U.S. Forest
Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT.
Taskey, R.D., C.L. Curtis, and J. Stone. 1989. Wildfire, rye grass
seeding, and watershed rehabilitation. Pages 115-125 in N.H. Berg, ed.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management. 26-28
October, Sacramento, CA. General Technical Report PSW-109, U.S. Forest
Service Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Thomas, J.W., ed. 1979. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation
Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and
Washington. Agriculture Handbook 553. U.S. Forest Service, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Initial review of silvicultural
treatments and fire effects on Tyee fire. Appendix A, Environmental
Assessment for the Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Tyee Fire, Chelan
and Entiat Ranger Districts, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA.
Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model
to test fuel treatments. Pp.1155-1166. In. Status of the Sierra Nevada,
Vol II. University of CA, Davis, CA.
Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors
associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfire in
northern California. Forest Science. 41:430-451.
CURRICULUM VITAE JULY 1998
Education
B.S. Ecology. 1990. The Evergreen State College, Olympia,
Washington.
M.S. Forestry. 1996. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Ph.D. Forestry. Degree anticipated 1999. Ecosystem Science and
Conservation Division, College of Forest Resources, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Professional Experience
1994-present: Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council, San
Francisco, California. Develop and promote plans for ecological
management of forests in the Interior Columbia Basin (on staff through
1995, consulting from 1995 until present).
1995-present: Research Assistant, Ecosystem Science and
Conservation Division, College of Forest Resources, University of
Washington. Conduct research on the ecology, demography, and physiology
of late-seral herbs native to mid-elevation forests of the western
Washington Cascades.
1991-1994: Research Assistant, Botany Department, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Conducted research on the decline of eastern hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis), white cedar, and Canadian yew (Taxus canadensis) in
the upper Midwest.
1988-1991: Forest Ecology Consultant, Olympia, Washington.
Conducted research related to protection of old growth forest stands on
national forests in Washington and Oregon based on ecological
significance, for implementation of Forest Service Land and Resource
Management Plans.
Grants, Honors, and Awards
1998: Washington Native Plant Society grant for research on the
physiological and demographic consequences of timber harvest for late
successional forest herbs.
1994: Leopold Chapter, Society for Conservation Biology,
Conservation Award.
1995: Co-author of USDA competitive grant to study declines in
hemlock, cedar and yew in the upper Midwest.
1992-1993: Graduate scholarship in Conservation Biology from the
Pew Charitable Trust Foundation and the University of Wisconsin.
1992: USFS North Central Forest Experiment Station grant to study
hemlock regeneration failure.
1991: National Audubon Society Distinguished Service Recognition.
Professional Societies
Society for Conservation Biology Society of American Foresters
Ecological Society of America
American Institute for Biological Sciences
Publications and Reports
Belsky, J.B., Evan Frost, Nathaniel Lawrence, and Cara R. Nelson.
1998. Comments on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project's Eastside Draft Environmental Impact statement. 65 pages.
Halpern, C.B., S.A. Evans, C.R. Nelson, D. McKenzie, D.E. Hibbs,
E.K. Zenner, and M.A. Geyer. (In press) Response of forest plant
communities to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention: an
overview of a long-term experiment. Northwest Science.
Nelson, C.R. 1996. Hemlock regeneration failure in the Nicolet
National Forest, WI. MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin--Madison. 96
pages.
Nelson, C.R., J. Belsky, R. Brown, E. Frost, B. Keeton, P.
Morrison, M. Scurlock, G. Wooten. 1995. Key elements for ecological
planning: management principles, rec-
ommendations, and guidelines for Federal lands east of the Cascade
crest in Oregon and Washington. Public record. Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project. Walla Walla, WA. 113 pages.
Nelson, C.R., N. Lawrence, R. L. Peters, R. L. Dewey, W. J. Snape,
S. Yassa, T. Uniak. 1995. Revised comments on the proposed rule for
national forest system land and resource management planning; 36 C.F.R.
Parts 215, 217, and 219; 60 Fed. Reg. 18886 et seq. (April 13, 1995).
Public record. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 58 pages.
Nelson, C.R., and W. Mahler. 1990. An ecological survey of the
late-seral stage forests surrounding the Nolan Creek watershed.
Unpublished report to the Washington DNR's Old Growth Commission,
Olympia, Washington. 34 pages.
______
Statement of Lawrence Hill, Director of Forest Policy, Society of
American Foresters
Madam Chairman, my name is Larry Hill. I am the Director of Forest
Policy for the Society of American Foresters (SAF). The more-than-
18,000 members of the Society constitute the scientific and educational
association representing the profession of forestry in the United
States. SAF's primary objective is to advance the science, technology,
education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of
society. We are ethically bound to advocate and practice land
management consistent with ecologically sound principles. I am
especially pleased to submit comments on the NEPA Parity Act. I wish to
thank the Committee for its continued support of professional forestry
and its continued support of SAF's priorities.
The NEPA Parity Act highlights a key provision of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that SAF supports. The regulations
issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ or Council) in 1978
provide for alternative arrangements to normal NEPA procedure in an
emergency situation. The CEQ regulations state:
Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an
action with significant environmental impact without observing
the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking
the action should consult with the Council about alternative
arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such
arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate
impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA
review. 640 C.F.R 1506.11)
In addition to this direction, we understand that individual Forest
Service and BLM units are required to consult with their respective
Washington offices about emergencies that may result in a request for
an alternative arrangement from CEQ. Additionally, Federal agencies
seeking alternative arrangements should provide CEQ with a complete
description of the needs for such an arrangement at the time of the
request.
These provisions are worthwhile and allow for rapid yet cautious
responses to situations that clearly should be treated as emergencies.
The environmental laws of this nation are some of the most
comprehensive in the world, yet at times they can slow actions intended
to mitigate harm to the environment. The wisdom of the authors of these
laws and regulations is clearly shown in these emergency provisions. At
times, the environment is better with action than with inaction.
Unfortunately, procedures developed with the best of intentions to
protect the environment have resulted in some harm.
What appears to be absent from the alternative arrangement
procedures granted by CEQ is some sense of direction and criteria for
how and when these procedures should be applied. The best person to
determine whether the situation warrants alternative arrangements from
CEQ is the on-the-ground land manager. The people intimately involved
in the day-to-day management of a forest know what the situation needs,
and how quickly it needs correction. The additional guidance CEQ is
required to develop under this bill should provide land managers in all
the Federal agencies with a better understanding of when and how they
should request these expedited procedures. Therefore SAF supports these
provisions of the bill. This guidance would also ensure that these
decisions are made consistently over time, and that all parties
interested in the decisions have a clear understanding of how and why
they were made.
We cannot comment on the specific locations in the National Forests
for which this bill requests that CEQ and the Forest Service develop
alternative arrangements under NEPA. We are, however, encouraged that
the bill merely requests, and does not require, the agencies to develop
alternative arrangements for these areas and public domain lands.
Although SAF has heard from some of its members that there are
locations in need of emergency treatment, we believe the decision to
seek alter-
native arrangements from CEQ should rest with the Forest Service and
its on-the-ground managers on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have at this time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.013
Statement of Mike Dombeck, Chief, USDA Forest Service
MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
Thank you for the opportunity to join you to discuss your
legislation for alternative arrangements for environmental analysis and
NEPA compliance in emergency situations on the National Forest System.
My testimony also incorporates the concerns and comments of the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM).
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is our basic national
charter for protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets
goals, and provides the means for implementing the policy. The
regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in
1978 which implement NEPA provide for alternative arrangements to the
normal NEPA procedure in an emergency situation. The CEQ regulations
state:
Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an
action with significant environmental impact without observing
the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking
the action should consult with the Council about alternative
arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such
arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate
impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA
review. (40 C.F.R. 1506.11).
The Forest Service NEPA procedures supplement this guidance by
instructing Forests to consult with th Washington Office of the Forest
Service on emergencies, other than fire, that may require consultation
with CEQ about an alternative arrangement. The BLM also requires
Washington Office and Departmental clearance prior to requesting
alternative arrangements with CEQ.
Examples of Emergencies
The Forest Service and CEQ have used the emergency provision in the
CEQ regulations on three occasions, and the BLM has used it five times.
My testimony will highlight the Forest Service's examples.
Due to severe drought in the summer of 1992, the City of Portland
requested permission from the Mt. Hood National Forest to pump 1.7
billion gallons of water from Bull Run Lake to meet the emergency needs
of the City for domestic water supplies. The Forest Service believed
that such action would create increased sediments within the drinking
water supply as well as reduce lake levels sufficient to kill fish and
significantly alter the ecology of the lake.
CEQ concurred with the Forest Service that an emergency situation
existed, and agreed that the Forest Service could proceed with a
drawdown of the lake prior to NEPA documentation. The alternative
arrangements were for the Forest Service to prepare an Environmental
Assessment (EA) after the emergency action was taken. An EA was
prepared during the drawdown period, but after the initial action was
begun.
Pumping of Bull Run Lake began on September 12 and continued until
September 28, 1992. Approximately 0.5 billion gallons were pumped from
the lake during that period. Much needed rain fell during late
September through early October removing the need for further emergency
withdrawals. The lake began to fill to pre-emergency levels by mid-
October.
In 1996, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
found it necessary to take immediate action in the Cascade Resource
Area and the Boise National Forest in Idaho. These areas included
multiple watersheds adjacent to the City of Boise. Over fifteen
thousand acres of Federal, state, and private lands were burned in the
human-caused Eighth Street Fire which started on August 26, 1996. After
the fire was extinguished, immediate rehabilitation was needed to
minimize the threats to human life and property, deterioration of water
quality and loss of soil productivity that could have resulted from
flooding, mudslides and debris torrents from the burned area. The area
was critical because of its location in a key watershed which functions
as the primary ground water recharge area for the Boise Front aquifer,
the source of groundwater wells for municipal use for the City of Boise
and other municipalities. In addition, increased runoff potential
threatened buildings and homes immediately below the burned area.
Application of the emergency NEPA provisions to the Eighth Street
Fire was supported by a combination of unique circumstances. First,
recent historic events showed the potential for damage. Fires in the
same general area in the 1950's followed by a moderate rainstorm
resulted in flooding of a large portion of Boise, including the
downtown corridor. Second, local and state governments were consulted
and supportive of the actions proposed. Third, the project received
extensive public review and support. Finally, as would have been
required under NEPA, alternative treatments were discussed and
potential impacts to wilderness and threatened or endangered species
were reviewed.
This year, the Forest Service again requested alternative
arrangements with CEQ for emergency actions to restore immediately
portions of the approximately 103,000 acres of forested lands on the
National Forests and Grasslands in Texas damaged by the February 10,
1998, windstorm. The windstorm caused varying degrees of damage. The
agency believed it would take up to six months using normal NEPA
procedures before actions would be initiated to restore the damaged
ecosystem including red cockaded woodpecker and bald eagle critical
habitat. This delay could have resulted in further habitat loss for
these threatened and endangered species by potential fires and bark
beetle attack. The Forest Service was concerned that delayed action
would critically impact 1998 success rates with the red-cockaded
woodpecker and bald eagle nesting habitat, and we were also concerned
that the delay would cause undue risk to adjacent private property from
potential fire and insect damage.
Alternative arrangements initiated with CEQ concurrence are only
appropriate when a clear emergency to human health, safety or the
environment is present, and the action proposed is environmentally
significant as defined by the CEQ regulations. Often, actions proposed
to be taken in emergency situations do not rise to the environmental
significance level, and therefore, do not require alternative
arrangements. For these situations, the Forest Service follows its
normal NEPA procedures.
Generally, there are three components of a proposal by the Forest
Service to CEQ for an alternative arrangement. First, the public is
provided an opportunity to comment on the project. Second, the
environmental analysis that goes into the decision making process is
documented. And third, there are provisions for monitoring and
adjustments as we proceed with the project, including an evaluation of
the project once it is completed. The BLM follows similar procedures
and such review is well documented as in the case of the Eighth Street
Fire.
In each of the three cases where this alternative arrangement was
requested, a catastrophe had created an emergency situation requiring
immediate and significant action. Each case clearly demonstrates
interagency coordination and agreement regarding the urgency of the
need for immediate action and clear disclosure to the public of that
need. There was also strong support from involved State and Federal
agencies for the proposed activities.
Numerous catastrophic events occur each year affecting National
Forest System and other public lands. Rarely, however, do these events
constitute an emergency. The fact that only three referrals for
alternative arrangements have been made by the Forest Service to CEQ
since 1978 is evidence that such referrals are only done in unique
circumstances. I am proud that these alternative arrangements were well
coordinated with CEQ and allowed for a quick response.
Discussion of Legislation
While the Forest Service recognizes the catastrophic nature of some
of the events described in the bill, we do not support the approach of
elevating these areas to an emergency status which would require
alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance because they are not
emergencies. The NEPA requirements have been valuable in integrating
environmental considerations into agency planning for the past 30
years. The Forest Service has only used the alternative arrangements
three times in the last 20 years, demonstrating that this provision is
not necessary for a broad array of projects.
In conclusion, the Forest Service and BLM believe that the
procedure we use for requesting alternative arrangements to NEPA
compliance for emergencies works. The existing authority is appropriate
and adequate to administer our nation's 192 million acres of National
Forests, and other public lands. We appreciate the Committee's interest
in the alternative arrangements provision of NEPA, and we understand
the Committee's desire to use this extraordinary process more broadly.
But, we believe the current process is working well. Thank you, Madam
Chairman, I would welcome any questions the Subcommittee may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.021
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FIRE SUPPRESSION
----------
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.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 order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on fire
suppression. Under rule 4(g) of the Committee rules, any oral
opening statements in hearings are limited to the chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member, and this will allow us to hear
from our witnesses sooner and help our members keep to their
schedules. Therefore, if other members have statements, they
can be included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.
This Subcommittee has held several hearings on wildfire
issues, usually with a focus on forest health conditions and
forestry practices. But today, we are going to take a close
look at the activities surrounding firefighting itself, mostly
from the aspect of interagency coordination and cooperation.
How well do the various State and local agencies work together?
How well do they work together with the Federal agencies? Who
is responsible for staffing levels, employee training, fire
forecasting, equipment availability, and all other aspects of
wildfire preparedness and suppression?
We will examine that today, as well as, what did we learn
from our experiences in the State of Florida? These are the
types of questions that we will be exploring today.
I am very happy to welcome to this Committee my colleagues
Corrine Brown and Allen Boyd who are both here representing
their good State, the State of Florida, who just recently
experienced the devastating fires down there. So we are very
happy to welcome them and concentrate today, focusing on what
happened in Florida.
This is an extremely important and timely topic for a
number of reasons: first, because it represents a huge cost to
the American taxpayer. The GAO reports that Federal land
management agencies spent over $4 billion in the last 5 years
in firefighting activities, and this doesn't include the
military costs of borrowed personnel and equipment, the costs
to our States, or the costs in regards to the loss of private
property.
This issue is important, however, not just because of the
costs in terms of dollars, but for the costs in terms of
wildlife habitat that is lost, and most importantly, for the
loss of human lives, which we have experienced in the West in
firefighting. We have a moral responsibility to make sure that
we are doing absolutely everything we can to effectively
prepare and fight wildfires, and I am looking forward to
working with the agencies in this regard.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho
This Subcommittee has held several hearings on wildfire
issues, usually with a focus on forest health conditions and
forestry practices. Today, we are going to take a close look at
the activities surrounding firefighting itself, mostly from the
aspect of interagency coordination and cooperation. How well do
the various state and local agencies work together? Who is
responsible for staffing levels, employee training, fire
forecasting, equipment availability, and all the other aspects
of wildfire preparedness and suppression? And what did we learn
from our experiences in Florida? These are the types of
questions we will be exploring today.
This is an extremely important and timely topic for a
number of reasons: First, because it represents a huge cost to
the American taxpayer. The GAO reports that Federal land
management agencies spent over four billion dollars in the last
five years in fire fighting activities--and this does not
include the military costs of borrowed personnel and equipment,
the costs to states, or the costs in regards to loss of
property. This issue is important, however, not just because of
the costs in terms of dollars, but for the costs in terms of
wildlife habitat lost, and most importantly, for the loss of
human lives. We have a moral responsibility to make sure that
we are doing everything we can to effectively prepare for and
fight wildfires--and I am looking forward to working with the
agencies in this regard.
BRIEFING PAPER
SUMMARY
Various forest and weather conditions have greatly
increased the vulnerability of America's forests to wildfire.
In recent years, the total number of wildfires, including the
number of large complex fires, has increased dramatically. The
costs associated with fighting these fires has risen
proportionally, representing hundreds of millions of tax-payer
dollars annually. These efforts also require an ever-increasing
need for well orchestrated communications and cooperation among
volunteer and municipal fire departments, State forestry
agencies, and Federal agencies with wildfire management and
suppression responsibilities. The purpose of this oversight
hearing is to review these and other factors that influence the
effectiveness of government efforts in wildfire preparedness
and suppression.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Already this year, nearly two million acres have burned,
many of those occurring in the well reported fires in Florida.
At a Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee hearing last week,
Earl Peterson, the State Forester of Florida, gave high marks
to the coordinated fire fighting efforts in his state but did
suggest that better coordination would have been helpful in the
ordering and distribution of equipment. He also said that
better long-range planning would help in order to more
effectively station people and equipment in areas of highest
risk.
The GAO recently reported that wildfire preparedness and
suppression expenditures by Federal land management agencies
are at all time highs--over $4 billion for the last five years.
Given the recent comments by the Chief of the Forest Service
that approximately 40 million acres of agency lands are at a
high risk of catastrophic fire, there is little question that
these high costs are going to persist--and very likely continue
to increase--for the next couple of decades. As wildfires
become larger, hotter, and more numerous it is not only
becoming more expensive to suppress them but the logistics of
organizing communications and coordination among the various
state and Federal agencies is becoming exponentially more
complex. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise,
Idaho serves as ``The Pentagon'' for these suppression efforts.
Located at the NIFC is the National Interagency Coordination
Center (NICC), whose primary mission is the cost-effective and
timely coordination of national emergency response. It is
through NICC that all agency requests to mobilize personnel and
equipment across regions are managed.
Our nation's ability to prepare for and suppress wildfires
is of extreme importance, not only because these efforts
represent such a huge cost to taxpayers, but because without a
maximum effort, property, and most importantly, lives will be
lost. The intent, then, of this oversight hearing is to discuss
the effectiveness of our preparedness and suppression efforts,
and to try to answer a number of questions, such as:
What did we learn from the Florida fires? In
retrospect, what could we have done better, and conversely,
what worked well? What rehab efforts are underway in the
aftermath of the fires?
How do we fund the various suppression activities? Do
we spend too much in some areas and not enough in others? Are
we adequately monitoring costs? Are we utilizing cost control
measures such as contracting out certain activities to private
enterprise?
How accurately are we predicting the location, timing
and severity of wildfire occurrences? What technologies and
computer modeling are being used?
How effective is interagency cooperation--at every
level?
What agencies or organizations are responsible for
staffing levels, employee training, equipment availability,
public education, maintenance of facilities, fire management
planning. Who, ultimately, is responsible for suppression
efforts, and does this vary by land ownership?
WITNESSES
A witness list is attached
STAFF CONTACT
Doug Crandall at ext. 5-0691
Mrs. Chenoweth. I will depart from any normal procedure
here and I would like to recognize, without objection, Mr. Boyd
and Ms. Brown for any opening comments that they may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORRINE BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Brown. Good morning and thank you, Madam Chairperson,
for holding this meeting. I am grateful for the opportunity to
offer testimony today.
As you know, Florida has suffered from disastrous
wildfires, the worst that we have had in 50 years. More than
500,000 acres have burned in Florida over the past 2 months,
and the economic impact has been incredible. Firefighters from
across the country have helped us out in Florida, and we are
grateful for their efforts. The coordinated effort was
exceptional. I know that there were many nights that the agency
chiefs did not even begin to conference with each other until 2
or 3 in the morning, and I talked to several of them during
that time. They did a yeoman's job, and we in Florida are proud
that all of the agencies were so successful.
For the purpose of this morning's hearing, I have contacted
several of the fire chiefs from Florida who know best how the
response to their natural disaster actually worked, and I would
like to submit my full remarks for the record. I would like to
take this opportunity to highlight some of the issues that they
have raised to me.
For the most part, the fire chiefs said that the
coordination between local, State and Federal agencies worked
exceptionally well. This was by far the most common response
that I have heard. There were very few problems they shared,
but those that they shared I will share with you today.
It appeared that the No. 1 problem involved communications
between all of the parties involved. There was no communication
link established specifically for the firefighters' efforts, so
we had many firefighters carrying several radios at a time in
order to maintain a line of communication. My understanding is
that each depart-
ment worked with equipment that was not compatible, so there
was no single frequency to use.
Another problem involved liability. I understand that some
of the firefighters brought in from other parts of the country
were actually not allowed to assist because they did not have a
red card, which can only be received after a week-long training
session. I was told that most of the firefighters participating
didn't hold this particular card.
Also the most useful resource was the helicopters because
they saved valuable time, although there were not always enough
helicopters on hand. This was the resource most in need.
Finally, because it was always the local team that
responded for the first several hours to any emergency, there
is a big need for additional training and resources at this
level. I have heard from several chiefs that more direct
funding to local communities to better prepare for these
emergencies would be beneficial to the communities.
Many of our local firefighters had to fight the wildfires
in gear that was made for structural fires. This caused a
frequent occurrence of heat exhaustion for those who didn't
have the light gear to fight the fire outside.
In closing, I would like to say that our firefighters were,
for the most part, pleased with the U.S. Forest Service and
were incredibly grateful for the nationwide assistance.
Thank you for the time and the attention that you are
providing this morning for this meeting, and I have more
lengthy comments that I would like to submit to the record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered. I thank you,
Ms. Brown. Those were very interesting comments.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Boyd.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I would like
to submit my written statement which is more lengthy than the
one I will give orally.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this
hearing, and thank you for calling this oversight hearing on
Federal fire suppression activities and efforts which
obviously, as Ms. Brown has stated, is a very timely issue in
our State due to the recent wildfires that have affected
Florida. The State of Florida has experienced wildfires that
burned over half a million acres, destroyed 125 homes, timber
and property with an estimated dollar value loss of nearly $400
million.
Unlike Ms. Brown's district, where most of the fires were
on State and private land, in the Second Congressional
District, which I represent, the majority was on Federal lands.
District Two has the entire Apalachicola National Forest within
its borders, and also encompasses part of the Osceola National
Forest. The wildfires have burned thousands of acres of
timberland within these national forests. The reason that I am
here today is to listen to these panel experts about
suppression efforts and activities.
I would be remiss if I did not at this point express the
gratitude of all of the people of the State of Florida for the
efforts made on their behalf to put out the fires by
firefighters from all over the Nation. There was not a Friday
that I did not go through my airport in Tallahassee when I
didn't bump into dozens and dozens of firefighters coming in
from all over the country. This happened 6 or 7 weeks in a row,
and I want the rest of the country to know how grateful we are
for your assistance in coming and putting out those fires, or
else our damage would have been much greater.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today, and
I believe, working together, we can take another policy step in
the stewardship of our wonderful natural resources.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. We have tried to take
numerous steps to try to prevent the kind of catastrophe that
we saw in Florida and have seen in California in the past. I
welcome your participation.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now I will introduce our first panel.
The Chair welcomes Mr. Barry Hill, the Associate Director
of Energy, Resources and Science Issues for the General
Accounting Office; and Mr. Hill is accompanied by Linda Harmon,
Assistant Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, also
from the General Accounting Office.
As explained in our former hearings, it is the intention of
the chairman to place all outside witnesses under the oath.
This is a formality of the Committee that is meant to assure
open and honest discussion and should not affect the testimony
given by witnesses. I believe all of the witnesses were
informed of this before appearing here today, and they have
each been provided with a copy of our Committee rules.
Now if the witnesses--Mr. Hill and Ms. Harmon, if you would
please stand and raise your arm.
Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF BARRY HILL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ACCOMPANIED BY
LINDA HARMON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENERGY, RESOURCES AND SCIENCE
ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We are pleased to be
here and to have the opportunity to discuss wildfire activities
and expenditures of the major Federal land management agencies,
that being the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
the Fish and Wildlife Service. If I may, I would like to
briefly summarize my prepared statement and submit the full
text of my statement for the record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hill. First, let me discuss the amount of funds spent
on wildfire preparedness and suppression activities, and then I
will discuss the assistance provided to state firefighting
efforts.
Federal land management agencies spent about $4.4 billion
on wildfire activities for fiscal years 1993 through 1997. Of
this amount, $2.1 billion was spent for preparedness and $2.3
billion for suppression. Wildfire preparedness activities are
those actions taken before the onset of a wildfire. These
activities include providing fire management programs through
training, planning, staffing and providing firefighting
equipment. Wildfire preparedness also includes programs to
reduce flammable materials on the forest floor, such as fallen
trees and dry underbrush.
As you can see from the chart on my immediate right, total
expenses for wildlife preparedness increased from $371 million
in fiscal year 1993 to $483 million in fiscal year 1997. During
this period the Forest Service spent the most, $1.4 billion,
followed by the Bureau of Land Management at $350 million.
The largest preparedness expenses were for personnel, $1.2
billion, while the second largest expense category was for
services and supplies, $541 million.
Suppression activities include actions taken to put out
wildfires, including the use of firefighting personnel and
equipment. For fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the land
management agencies spent about $2.3 billion on wildfire
suppression. As shown by the other chart that we brought,
wildfire suppression expenditures varied greatly, depending on
the number and intensity of wildfires during a given year, and
ranged from a low of $187 million in fiscal year 1993 to a high
of $858 million in fiscal year 1994.
Of these five Federal land management agencies, the Forest
Service spent the most on wildfire suppression for this period,
about $1.7 billion, followed by the Bureau of Land Management
at $360 million. The largest expense category was for services
and supplies, about $1.2 billion, while the second largest
expense category was for personnel at $941 million.
Now, allow me to discuss Federal assistance to states.
For fiscal years 1993 through 1997 the five land management
agencies provided assistance to state and local firefighting
efforts through cooperative agreements, provided grants valued
at $83 million and loaned excess Federal property worth about
$700 million. The activities covered by these grants and
cooperative agreements include fire prevention, environmental
education, training, and developing procedures for fighting
fires. The Forest Service administers two grant programs that
provide funds for states for wildfire preparedness activities:
the Rural Fire Prevention and Control and the Rural Community
Fire Protection programs. Both programs are matching programs;
that is, the entities receiving the grants must match them in
dollar amounts or in in-kind contributions. For fiscal years
1993 through 1997, the Forest Service provided a total of $69
million to the states through these two programs.
The Forest Service also manages the Federal Excess Personal
Property Program which loans excess property to state and local
firefighters. The types of excess property range from shovels
to helicopters. Most of this property are trucks that can be
readily converted to tankers or pumpers. Other common items
loaned include generators, pumps, fire hoses, breathing
apparatus and personal protective clothing.
During fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the Forest Service
loaned excess Federal personal property valued at about $700
million to states for use in wildfire preparedness activities.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you or other members may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
The Chair yields to Mr. Boyd for questions.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and just a
couple of questions to clarify what we have before us.
Mr. Hill, the chart that you have closest to you there, the
preparedness portion of that, I assume, is fire prevention
activities such as prescribed burning and any other kinds of
activities. Would you be prepared to go into a little more
detail about that or would I need to ask somebody from the
Forest Service?
Mr. Hill. I don't have a breakdown of those expenses. It
would certainly include planning, staffing, putting equipment
in place; and it would also include some fuel management
efforts as well.
Mr. Boyd. Prescribed burning?
Mr. Hill. That's right.
Mr. Boyd. Do you derive anything from this in terms of the
money spent on the preparedness side compared to the
suppression side? Obviously, the number of fires that we have
are directly related to the weather and other activities,
primarily weather. But do you derive anything from the figures
in terms of relation between preparedness and then losses or
suppression, cost of suppression?
Mr. Hill. Well, as you can see, in preparedness, there is
more stability. There has been an increase over the 5-year
period because you can plan for those level of activities a
little better than for the suppression costs, which basically
you are at the mercy of Mother Nature.
You have good fire years and bad fire years. And as you can
see by the other chart, 1994 and 1996 were particularly bad
fire years which would drive those suppression costs up. But
there has been an increase over the 5-year period for the
preparedness costs, which shows you that there are increased
efforts at fuel management and prescribed burns in order to
reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, which drive costs up
when they do occur.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Hill, I assume that your conclusion would be,
and it is not too scientific, but when we have done a better
job with preparedness, the suppression costs go down, which
they have appeared to do over the last 4 years?
Mr. Hill. There is no question that the better you do on
the preparedness, presuppression end of it, the better off you
are going to be in terms of minimizing the catastrophic fires.
But I should say that the inventory of fuel that is on the
floor now--I think the Forest Service estimates it at 39
million acres--that needs fuel management efforts, and so there
is still a lot to be done on that front.
Mr. Boyd. Madam Chairman, one more question if you might
indulge me?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Certainly.
Mr. Boyd. There are no figures on rehab after wildfire. Do
you have anything to share on that, and the costs?
Mr. Hill. They are included in the suppression costs. I
don't have any on hand. I will defer to Ms. Harmon and see if
she has anything.
Mr. Boyd. I'll tell you what, why don't we wait for her
statement.
Mr. Hill. She will not have a statement.
Mr. Boyd. Then can you answer that?
Ms. Harmon. What we have from the Department of Interior,
which does not include the costs associated with the Forest
Service, for the period of 1993 to 1997, was approximately $52
million.
Mr. Boyd. In rehabilitation?
Ms. Harmon. Right. That would be included in the
suppression costs.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you.
That you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Boyd; and we will return for
another round of questions, if you have them for the GAO.
Mr. Hill, your staff is also in the process of doing a
pretty comprehensive evaluation on the question of forest
health conditions as related to many things--fire suppression
and fire preparedness and so forth--but based on your
preliminary observations, do you see a continuation of current
fire trends and the associated costs in fighting the fires that
we have had to deal with in the last 7 years?
Mr. Hill. It is certainly hard to predict that because a
lot of that is dependent on weather conditions that you are
going to face, but certainly that trend seems to be continuing.
And the trend is caused by years and years of suppressing
natural wildfires, which in the past 7 or 8 years Federal land
management agencies have come to realize perhaps was not the
best wildfire management technique to be using.
So there are a lot more of the prescribed burns, mechanical
clearings, efforts to reduce the fuels that are laying on the
forest floors right now, particularly in the western portions
of the country, which seems to have the biggest buildup of
those fuels on the floor right now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Hill, your charts are very interesting
and certainly very telling. We have also heard the number $4.4
billion for the overall expenditures over the last 5 years. In
your best sense, how accurate do you think the figures are that
we are using? Are you able to get the information that you need
to give us an idea about how much is really being spent under
these emergency conditions?
Mr. Hill. I can't say I have a lot of confidence in those
numbers. The numbers we are presenting are the numbers that we
were provided and were obtained from the Federal land
management agencies themselves, and we have not had an
opportunity to verify that data.
I think it is further complicated by the fact that when you
have these joint cooperative efforts and the Federal and state
and local governments are sharing equipment, sharing resources,
and basically whatever able bodies you can have go in there to
fight these fires, it is sometimes difficult to sift through
the costs and come up with some firm figures.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How accurately do you think they are
monitoring the costs, and what do you think we can do to help
you to be able to get a better understanding of the exact
costs? What needs to be done in terms of the kind of
expenditures that are made during these emergency conditions in
terms of analyzing costs?
Ms. Harmon. I think it is important to take a look at what
is the process that both the Forest Service and the Department
of Interior use to expend some of the money. What are their
contracting procedures? Are there enough controls in place to
ensure that the proper costs are being recorded and being
reported?
Now, so far, we really haven't done any work in that
particular area, but I think that would be something that would
be very important, is taking a look at what are the processes
and how are the funds being expended by the various agencies.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That particular subject is of great
interest to me, so I look forward to working with you on that.
Mr. Hill, in your opinion, are the land management agencies
spending sufficient resources on land wildfire programs and are
they, in your opinion, expending them efficiently?
Mr. Hill. It is hard to give a concrete answer in that we
really did not audit or assess the spending levels; and it is
also particularly hard when you consider the total costs
involved in wildfire, including the preparedness activities and
suppression activities, as well as fuel management and
rehabilitation costs.
What we do know, though, is that there does seem to be a
problem with the fuel loads on the forest floors; and Congress
has responded, in all fairness, to that by increasing the
appropriations provided over the last 5 years. And the land
management agencies continue to increase their efforts on the
presuppression fronts. However, when you want to determine the
adequacy of funding, as Ms. Harmon mentioned, you have to look
at how efficiently and effectively they are spending the money
in terms of personnel, equipment--where are they deploying it?
It is a difficult question that certainly warrants further
investigation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Along that line of thinking, Mr. Hill, does
the Federal Government train the local and State firefighters?
Are they involved in that training and preparedness aspect?
Mr. Hill. The Federal Government works with the states, and
they put on national firefighting training courses. They have
established a committee in which the states participate. These
courses are put on at a national level, and the states do send
their staff to attend these courses, but they do reimburse the
Federal Government for the full cost of the training. However,
I might mention that they are allowed to use the grant money to
pay for some or all of these training costs.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Schaffer from
Colorado for questioning.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have a number of questions. Just in terms of the
mechanics of suppressing and putting out forest fires, in the
aftermath of these forest fires, what kind of exchange takes
place between your operation and the Forest Service as a whole?
Are there lessons that we learn in fighting fires that help us
with respect to management?
Mr. Hill. I am not sure I understand your question. In
terms of GAO's feedback that we get from the Federal land
management agencies?
Mr. Schaffer. The fuels buildup information, what happens
with that kind of information if we are able to determine, for
example, that management and reduction and potentially
hazardous fuel levels have a financial benefit to the American
people from a suppression perspective, what happens? Does that
information--is it packaged or compiled in a way that is useful
for land managers within the Forest Service?
And a secondary question, in your estimation, is it ever
utilized in an effective way?
Mr. Hill. I can't give a firm answer to that; we have not
looked at the program in that depth. But they do go through a
planning process where they run various models based on fires
that have occurred, fuels that are on the ground; and their
budget requests and the equipment and the staff that they
deploy are based in large part on these yearly plans that they
put together. Now, how adequate those plans are, we have not
investigated that at this point.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask then, in terms of an assessment of
preventable expenditures of what could have been saved through
sound land management practices, has the GAO ever taken any
kind of look at which fires may have been preventable and how
much might have been saved if we had been able to successfully
prevent forest fires from occurring, again in the aftermath of
analyzing certain fires that may have occurred recently?
Mr. Hill. GAO has never done that, to my knowledge. You
might want to direct that question to the Forest Service and
Department of Interior people.
Mr. Schaffer. In your report and in your testimony you
indicated that the Forest Service manages the Federal Excess
Property program that loans excess Federal property to State
and local firefighters. Does the Forest Service have adequate
controls over this equipment so it knows how much equipment is
loaned to which States and is it able to get the equipment back
when the States no longer need it?
Mr. Hill. We have not looked at the specific controls that
they have in place in regard to this particular program. It
should be noted, though, that they have had difficulty in--they
have in the past and currently have difficulty in terms of the
adequacy of their controls over inventory accounting of
property, plant and equipment. Whether this particular excess
property is included in that category or not, we are uncertain
at this time.
Here again, I think--you should ask that question to the
Forest Service officials. But they have had difficulty and
continue to have difficulty accounting for all of their plant,
property and inventory.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me go back to the previous question that
I asked and try it from a somewhat different angle; and that
is, just when it comes to suppression costs, it varies pretty
greatly from year to year. Is there any way to be able to
determine or statistically discover any methods that might be
utilized in stabilizing these costs for a year-to-year period?
Mr. Hill. I think the greater the investment you make in
the presuppression area, the preparedness area, in terms of
reducing that fuel on the ground, then the better chance you
have of avoiding the large catastrophic fires.
I think we have learned over the last 7 to 10 years that
these forest wildfires are a natural occurrence in our nation's
forests, or in any forests, for that matter, and if you
suppress them or presuppress them to the point you don't have
them, when you do have a fire it is a large, catastrophic fire
which destroys the forest. So the more you clear out that fuel,
hopefully, the more control you will have over the suppression.
Mr. Schaffer. That issue really seems to be a key one in my
mind. If there has not been any assessment of what we might
save through sound forest management practices, removing
excessive fuel buildup, also in the resource cost, ahead of
time, in many other areas of government we are able to take
legislation to the floor and have some idea of what the
taxpayers may realize in savings if we take a certain
preventive action up front; and it sounds to me like there has
been no analysis on that basis, at least as far as GAO is
concerned.
What would it take, in your mind, to move that process
forward?
Mr. Hill. Well, I think you are going to have to get a good
assessment as to what the situation is in our nation's forests,
and we have not looked at what the Forest Service and other
Federal land management agencies have done. We know that there
is a problem out in the interior west--eastern Washington,
eastern Oregon, Idaho, western Montana. There is a significant
problem out there that they are trying to deal with.
On the other hand, I think the southeast has been dealt
with perhaps a little more effectively in terms of there have
been more presuppression activities which have occurred that
have prevented major fires. Obviously, Mother Nature does not
always cooperate, as witnessed by the fire which occurred in
Florida recently.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
Your comments were very interesting, Mr. Hill, and I think
it is a very interesting time that we are living through.
Certainly the urban interface with the wildland areas is
something that we need to look at very, very carefully, because
these were the areas that Ms. Brown specifically referred to
where there is a greater potential in losing private property,
homes and a threat to human life.
While we were fortunate in Florida not to lose lives, Mr.
Boyd indicated in his opening statement that there were 125
homes lost; and in recent California fires, there have been
hundreds and hundreds of homes lost.
And so I know that the GAO is involved in doing a much
greater in-depth study, especially based on what we are all
learning here today, and I hope that we can concentrate first
on that urban wildland interface; and, of course, moving into
the situation where weather conditions, drought conditions,
rain forest conditions, typical geographic conditions will lend
itself to protecting an area from devastating forest fires as
well as the fuel load on the forest floor or preventing them
through Mother Nature's conditions. Certainly, Florida was ripe
for that, and I look forward to hearing from our State Forester
from Florida.
But based on what we are hearing today, Mr. Hill, I do look
forward to working with you and putting our entire staff at
your--if you need them, just call. This is a very, very
important issue to us all, and I believe it is a very important
national issue.
I always appreciate your good work, Mr. Hill, and I thank
you for being with us. And Ms. Harmon, thank you very much.
So with that, I will recognize the second panel which is
only one witness, but we have been looking forward to hearing
from Mr. James Garner, the State Forester, Virginia State
Department of Forestry in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Mr. Garner, welcome. As is normally the situation here and
as was explained in our--to our first panel of witnesses, we
normally ask our witnesses to be sworn in, so I wonder if you
might stand and raise your hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Garner, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. GARNER, STATE FORESTER, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
Mr. Garner. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am Jim Garner,
State Forester of Virginia, and I am here today representing
the National Association of State Foresters. I served as
President of the association in 1995, and I have served both as
a board member and as chairman of the association's fire
protection committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
the wildfire suppression efforts in the United States.
I have attached, for the record, a report entitled,
``Managing Forests, Managing Fire: A Report to the Congress on
the Status of Wildfire Management in the United States.'' This
was a cooperative effort of the National Association of State
Foresters and the American Forest & Paper Association.
The Department of Forestry is the primary agency for
wildland fire control in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Like my
colleagues in other State forestry agencies, we work closely
with local fire departments, State agencies and Federal
wildland fire agencies, including the USDA Forest Service.
We also work through an interstate compact agreement to
share resources in times of critical need, and in my view,
these relationships are a model of intergovernmental
cooperation. There are few key points worth noting.
First, the local fire departments are the first line of
defense against wildfire in this Nation. Volunteer departments
predominate in the rural areas, and it is critical that they be
well trained, staffed and equipped to provide that initial
attack on wildfires.
The southern region of the United States, as was
demonstrated dramatically in Florida, experiences more fire
starts than any other part of the Nation. An effective network
of trained local departments, however, helps keep the costs
down by catching these fires when they are small. More
importantly, as housing developments encroach into our forests,
the jobs of these firefighters become more dangerous
complicated and more expensive.
The second important feature is the well-trained and -
equipped firefighting crews across the country that can be
dispatched as needed. This is due to careful coordination by
regional coordinating centers, interstate fire compacts and,
when necessary, through the National Interagency Fire Center,
NIFC, in your own home State of Idaho, Madam Chairman.
During the recent fire situation in Florida, every State
except two had firefighters, equipment or overhead teams in
Florida. My department sent four bulldozers, two Hummers and 42
people with all of the support equipment. We were also the
leaders of a task force of fire department engine companies
that went to Florida. We were assigned in northeast Florida and
placed under a unified command under the direction of the
Florida Division of Forestry.
Thanks to the efforts of the National Wildfire Coordinating
Center, NWCG, the State and Federal firefighting agencies all
train using the same standards and basically on the same
equipment, so this allows our resources to use and be familiar
with each other when we meet somewhere across this Nation.
The third part of our effort is the State Foresters working
closely with USDA Forest Service on several programs which keep
this front line of defense active and well prepared: the State
Fire Assistance Program and the Volunteer Fire Assistance
Program. Both are managed by the USDA Forest Service Fire and
Aviation.
And third, the Federal Excess Personal Property Program,
which you have heard mentioned previously and in which we
cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service.
I think the Excess Property Program is the most innovative
of the three. Through a cooperative agreement with the Forest
Service, provided by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act,
State Foresters are able to screen property, primarily former
military equipment, at the excess level and not the surplus
level. This equipment, which ranges from aircraft to trucks to
mobile command centers to clipboards, is reconditioned either
by the State or by the local fire departments and put directly
in service protecting homes and property from wildfire.
Last year, in Virginia, we were able to get $116,000 worth
of excess property, which we turned over to local fire
departments.
Two points of the Excess Property Program are worth bearing
in mind. By using the program, we are greatly extending the
life of vehicles and other equipment which the taxpayers have
already paid for. States and localities add value to this
equipment, and there is a tremendous pride in keeping their
equipment in service. There is a--on the report that I
mentioned, on page 15, there is a picture and an example of one
of those trucks that was used by a small community in Virginia.
The last point I would like to make, Madam Chairman, is
that we will never rid this Nation of wildfire. We can,
however, take prudent steps through programs that we have
mentioned to cut costs and save lives and property. We can
manage our lands to reduce fire dangers. However, as the events
have shown in Florida, sometimes many factors will come
together which will nullify the positive impact of prescribed
burning and proper forest management.
The growth of the wildland-urban interface, which in and of
itself causes numerous complicating factors, has turned what
would have been a straightforward firefighting task into a
tremendous exercise of emergency management. And until Mother
Nature changes the weather pattern, the only thing that stood
between the citizens of Florida and the wildfire was our
national firefighting force. And situations like Florida push
those forces to the limit.
We appreciate your support and we look forward to working
with you and the rest of the Committee to see that these
programs are supported. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garner may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Garner. Your testimony was
very interesting, and I very much appreciate your comments
about the imminent concerns that we have over the wildland-
urban interface.
We do have some legislation pending before this Congress,
that has made its way through this Committee, that would help
take care of that, and so I would like to work with you
personally on that particular legislation. It was suggested by
the Forest Service, and it deals with a new form of management,
an overall landscaping management, rather than a contract-by-
contract management.
So I think it is very forward looking, and I look forward
to hearing your thoughts about it.
Mr. Garner. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to say that your comments about
the book put out by AF&PA are good. I noticed in here that
there was a comment delivered by Department of Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt in Boise, Idaho, where he stated, ``By
using all of the tools that we have--carefully thinning excess
young trees, igniting prescribed fires, managing land for fire,
controlling invasive and exotic weed species--we must take
steps to reduce the fuels.''
And Jack Ward Thomas in a hearing in Boise, Idaho, on
August 29, 1994 made this statement and I think he really wraps
it up. Fires are ``too hot, destructive, dangerous and too
ecologically, economically, aesthetically, and socially
damaging to be tolerable. We cannot, in my opinion, simply step
back and wait for nature to take its course.''
I think that is very interesting, plus the comparative
pictures that are in this book. It is very instructive. Thank
you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer for his comments.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a number of
questions.
You mentioned the importance of interstate agreements in
firefighting. How often do you send crews out of State?
Mr. Garner. Normally, we have at least one crew going
somewhere out of State once a year. We, a week after Florida,
sent a task force to Texas.
Mr. Schaffer. Is Virginia typical of other States in this
regard, do you think?
Mr. Garner. Yes, I think so. We are all available to help
each other.
Mr. Schaffer. Where do you typically send your crews?
Mr. Garner. In the past, most have been going to the
Western States, but 2 years ago we sent a large contingency to
Texas with equipment when Texas had their problem in 1996.
Mr. Schaffer. Is the training adequate so that firefighters
trained in the Southeast, for example, are well prepared to
fight forest fires of different types, say, in the Northwest or
Southern California?
Mr. Garner. I don't think training is ever totally
adequate. We do the best we can. We try to prepare them to
fight fires safely and know what is going on, but I don't
believe that we are ever adequately trained to where I sleep
all night when it is dry.
Mr. Schaffer. You asked the Committee to help ensure that
programs for wildland supplier programs are adequately
supported. How are out-of-State programs funded?
Mr. Garner. If it is through one of the compacts; the
receiving State reimburses the sending State for expenses.
Mr. Schaffer. Does a State agency have to pay all of its
crew expenses when crews are sent out of State? Or if your
State receives help, do you have to cover all of their costs?
Mr. Garner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. Do the State-Federal assistance programs you
mentioned help cover these costs?
Mr. Garner. They help.
Mr. Schaffer. Are they adequately funded?
Mr. Garner. No, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. Can you give us some sense of scale?
Mr. Garner. It is relative. Florida, I doubt that they have
even totaled up the bill yet, and that is on a scale of 10, and
to other States it might be on a scale of 1.
Every case and every summer and every spring is going to be
different, and I don't have a good answer except that when it
happens to us in Virginia, I doubt that I have enough in my
budget to handle it.
Mr. Schaffer. Are within-State operations adequately
funded?
Mr. Garner. Probably not.
Mr. Schaffer. Do the agencies have sufficient personnel?
Mr. Garner. Probably not.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me continue on some other questions that
I have been waiting to ask you.
You mentioned the challenges of the wild and urban
interface and how serious an issue that is. Can you elaborate
on that?
Mr. Garner. In my opinion, it is probably the most serious
thing that has faced us in the wildfire arena in my 40 years of
work, because when you place homes and property and lives in
the forest, you immediately shift tactics of how you approach
the fire. Instead of trying to drop back to what would be a
safe fire line, you go immediately to protect homes and people
and their property, and that puts you in harm's way in a
different manner. Therefore, the training that I had in the
agency, growing up in the agency, is no longer valid; and the
technology--we have to grasp the technology.
Mr. Schaffer. Does any one agency bear the responsibility
for the wildland-urban interface initial response?
Mr. Garner. Generally, it is the State forestry agencies in
the States that are predominantly private land. But that is a
cooperative effort with the local fire department. It can't be
done by one single group.
Mr. Schaffer. The Federal policy is consistent with what
you just described. Do you think that is an appropriate policy
and one that ought to be maintained?
Mr. Garner. I believe so, yes, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. Are local agencies and fire departments
adequately prepared for that challenge?
Mr. Garner. No, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. And should there be some Federal response in
addressing that level of preparedness that you just described,
or is this one that ought to be left to the States?
Mr. Garner. I think we need some help. We need help and
expertise and new technology and funding when the individual
State needs it.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Garner, Mr. Schaffer's questions are ones that--as you
have ascertained by now, are ones that the chairman is
concentrating on, and while I still have you on the witness
stand, I wonder if I might ask you to work with your other
State Foresters in cooperation with this Committee to make sure
that the Congress can pass legislation which will focus on that
critical urban-wildland interface problem that we have.
Will you work with me and other members of this Committee
and our staff?
Mr. Garner. Yes, ma'am. We are at your disposal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you share with me the belief that time
is not on our side; that it is something that we need to deal
with probably in a manner which will bring us results by next
year?
Mr. Garner. Yes, ma'am. Please do.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is very interesting that in my State of
Idaho right now our former United States Secretary of Interior,
Cecil Andrus, former Idaho Governor, is on television right now
in paid spots by the Bureau of Land Management urging people to
be very, very careful in making sure that fires are not set
carelessly because we have such a high, heavy fuel load because
of the cheat grass that can be grazed in the springtime, but
after July it turns very brown and brittle and heavy and
creates such hot fires that even 2 years ago we lost lives
fighting just grass fires.
So as you can imagine, that is a concern that I share even
with the former Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Andrus. So I
look forward to working with you very closely on this issue.
Mr. Garner. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Garner, thank you for coming today.
I want to take a slightly different direction with my
questioning, and first of all tell you that our State Forester
Earl Peterson was here testifying before this Committee, and I
want to take this opportunity to thank you personally on behalf
of the people from the State of Florida for what you did.
You remarked in your previous remarks that you had sent as
many firefighters as you could turn loose into Florida, and
much of our destroyed property was on private and commercial
timberlands. And the 126 homes that were destroyed, I am sure
that we would have more destroyed if it wasn't for the efforts
of the folks from around the country, including those from
Virginia that came, and I just want to promise you if the shoe
is ever on the other foot, that we will do our part in seeing
that we share our resources, too.
Thank you.
Mr. Garner. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Boyd. I wanted to take a direction here which is a
little bit different. I am sure that Virginia is like most
other States in that publicly held forest lands come under--I
mean, there is a great deal of pressure to change the
silvicultural practices and harvesting practices which have
been traditional, once they come into public ownership.
What management tools or silviculture practices are you
using in the Commonwealth of Virginia to keep your forest
healthy and to keep fire suppression down?
Mr. Garner. Are you referring to forest management
practices?
Mr. Boyd. Exactly.
Mr. Garner. We are heavily promoting thinning, particularly
as it relates to area around the interface. By reducing the
number of stems, you have reduced the opportunity of fire to
travel from treetop to treetop. We have an active program going
on now with developers that we try to thin.
The prescribed burning program, we need to promote that and
to enhance it and encourage it more. The national forests in
Virginia started last year; they really have gone big guns on
this.
Mr. Boyd. I am referring mostly to timber--to forest land
that is in your jurisdiction, State forests, and what you do in
your State forest.
Mr. Garner. Thinning. Mostly thinning because part of our
State forest is in the hardwood--on the hardwood sites, and
therefore, we have to be very judicious how we prescribe
burning hardwoods.
In many of our pine stands, we have started an active
program of thinning and burning the understory. We are not
quite as flat nor as pine-oriented as your State, Mr. Boyd, so
therefore we deal mostly with smaller acreages, even in our
State forest. But we are actively trying to get a prescribed
burning program up and running in our State forest.
Mr. Boyd. So you have an active thinning program which is a
very important management tool in terms of keeping your forest
lands healthy?
Mr. Garner. Absolutely.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Garner, we heard testimony here last week
from one of our witnesses that--and she tried to make the case
that thinning, particularly thinning and even prescribed
burning was not a practice that would assist in management of
the possibility of fire. In other words, it didn't necessarily
cause a situation that you would have less fires.
Would you care to comment on that from your perspective as
a lifelong forester? You are certainly not in the position that
you are in without having some scientific expertise in terms of
forest management.
Mr. Garner. If I understand your question, it was, will
thinning and active management connected with prescribed
burning reduce fire?
Mr. Boyd. That is it.
Mr. Garner. It will reduce the impact of the fire and
severity of fire, and it gives you a fighting chance of
stopping the fire when it is unwanted. I can't imagine why it
wouldn't work.
Mr. Boyd. OK. That was sort of my reaction, too. I wanted
to make sure that I got the expert's reaction.
One of the things that we recognized with the fires in
Florida, in those areas where we had not prescribe-burned, and
these were on private lands or State lands, we did not
prescribe-burn because of public pressure around highways and
around developments--and you are nodding and smiling. You are
familiar with that kind of a situation?
We immediately recognized when we got into this terrible
drought situation and the fires broke out, that the worst fires
were in those areas where we had not prescribe-burned.
Actually, since they were in the areas that were highly
populated, that is where we lost our homes.
What are you doing in Virginia to deal with that kind of
situation and that public pressure that comes from not to
prescribe-burn?
Mr. Garner. Not much more than your State Forester,
unfortunately, because of the public reaction to the smoke, the
fear of fire, the lack of understanding of prescribed burning
is out there, and I think the biggest thing we can do is have
support from members from your Committee--you certainly have
more visibility than a State Forester--to say that it is OK,
and it is a necessary thing for the forest health, and it is a
necessary thing for the protection of their own property, and
that we as professionals can and do know how to manage the
smoke.
Mr. Boyd. Well, I hope that we will do some followup and
bring some data, some statistics from our own experience that
will be helpful to States all around the country.
I have one more question, Madam Chairman, if you will
indulge me.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please proceed.
Mr. Boyd. Do you have a national forest in Virginia?
Mr. Garner. One.
Mr. Boyd. Do you think giving increased flexibility to the
local or State Forester who is in charge of that national
forest is helpful in terms of managing or reacting to these
kinds of situations like we had in Florida?
Mr. Garner. Of course, that is an administrative decision
over another agency, but I am one who believes in pushing
decisionmaking right down to the lowest possible level because
that is where you solve problems.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Garner. One thing that
we learned from the fires in Florida on our national lands was,
once the fire started and the local, on-the-ground forester had
no authority to make decisions on how to deal with that, once
it went up to the chain and came back, 24 to 48 hours had
passed. We had fires that were burning upwards of 4- and 5,000
acres a day, once they started, so that was the point that I
wanted to make.
You've answered it very succinctly, I think, in terms of
lowest--push the decisionmaking down as low as you can is the
proper way to respond?
Mr. Garner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Peterson from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Peterson. Welcome, Mr. Garner. I am from Pennsylvania
to the north of you; and I am sure that you have worked with
Jim Grace, our forester from Pennsylvania.
I come from the finest hardwood forests in America,
northern tier Pennsylvania, where oak and cherry doesn't get
any better than that, and I don't find many people willing to
argue with me about that.
What do you think about the Forest Service recently
stepped-up burn program of the hardwood forests, especially
where they are trying to favor oak and hickory stands?
Mr. Garner. I think it is a great thing.
Mr. Peterson. You think it is working well?
Mr. Garner. They are just getting started in our State, but
I think it is needed. And if we want to maintain the CC
composition and the diversity of the complex, I think it had to
be.
Mr. Peterson. When I was growing up, I was one--where I
come from, they are not really mountains, but they are hills. I
was one hill away from a stream where there was a railroad
track, and every year there was a prescribed burn where the
steam run locomotives would spew out sparks, and if you had a
dry spring, we had smoke all spring for a week or two until
those fires would be put out; and it is one of the finest oak
forests in the region from that.
How do you work with volunteer fire companies? I come from
the most rural part of Pennsylvania, most rural district east
of the Mississippi, and volunteer fire departments are a vital
part of fighting fires. Do you have some plan of working with
your volunteers?
Mr. Garner. Yes, sir. As I noted in my remarks, in our
opinion, and I think this is true of all of the State Foresters
in the South, the local volunteer fire departments are a front
line of defense. They are the first out. They keep the acreage
small. They are out there day and night, and we couldn't--I
would be afraid to go back to Virginia without them.
Mr. Peterson. Do you somehow help them with State resources
in funding?
Mr. Garner. The biggest help that we give them is trucks,
houses, equipment. That has got to be one of the most
beneficial programs in the relationship between Federal
Government and the State government. We have a small grant
program that is administered by the U.S. Forest Service through
the States. It is small one, but you can take a rural company
and give them a few dollars, and you have seen what they can
do.
Mr. Peterson. I am going to be meeting in a few weeks--and
the Allegheny National Forest, which is 550,000 acres, is in my
dis-
trict, and 20 fire departments are asking to meet with me, that
are part of the forest and who fight fires there. And they have
never been able to use the resources from the timber cuts; the
25 percent that goes back, that is not allowable use.
Would you support language changed to the Federal level
that part of that money could go back to those fire departments
to help them?
Mr. Garner. I will come back to the way that I answered Mr.
Boyd's question: Push the decision to the lowest level, and let
the localities decide. At least give them the opportunity to
have the flexibility.
Mr. Peterson. It would be an allowable use for the local
department if they wanted to buy equipment or provide training,
because volunteer firefighters are a breed of their own. They
give their lives. It is almost a religion with them.
If you teach them--fighting structure fires is altogether
different than fighting forest fires, and I wonder if we
concentrate enough on teaching them how to fight forest fires
or giving them the tools?
Mr. Garner. We don't.
Mr. Peterson. See, they are a resource not on the payroll
52 weeks a year. A little money buys you an awful lot with
volunteer fire departments. Would you recommend that we in
Washington look at making sure that where the fires are in the
districts, that the volunteers are a more integral part and
receive the training and equipment that they need?
Mr. Garner. Yes, sir. Part of the Forest Service budget has
a line for the volunteer fire assistance program which I think
needs your support.
Mr. Peterson. You would suggest expanding that?
Mr. Garner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. OK. How do you determine what funds and
staffing levels you need for a given year?
Mr. Garner. Hmm, I guess a lot of it is determined by our
fire history and the acres that in Virginia I am responsible to
protect. But the new factor has been, now, how many homes are
in those acres that were not there years ago.
And so you look at history and you know your resources. You
know the availability of other outside fire resources. It is an
art, not a science, as to how you determine how well prepared
are we. Then take what we have and focus on training and focus
on outside resources, outside of government, the forest
industry, volunteer fire departments, schools and universities.
Any warm body you can find, and then train and equip them.
One of the biggest concerns that I have is giving them
personal protection equipment. We all need to address that.
Mr. Peterson. We have 50 senators in Pennsylvania and 250
house members, and we had about six people that gave a damn
what was in the forest service budget, that even looked at it,
that wouldn't scream--that would scream if there were cuts or
kept flat-funded for a decade.
Do you find that in your State?
Urban America loves the forest. They love to travel and
hike in the forests, but they don't want to spend any money
making sure that they are whole?
Mr. Garner. I think that there are only a few in the
legislature who look at and understand and appreciate the
forestry package in any budget.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Garner, I want to conclude with just a
couple of questions and followup with the line of questioning
that Mr. Boyd began. And I would also yield to him after I
finish these two questions for any additions that he may wish
to make.
As a State Forester in Virginia, take a situation that I
have been informed about that occurred in Florida, and I ask
you, as a State Forester, to speak not just for Virginia but
for the association or for other State Foresters who have been
highly trained in terms of not only firefighting but State
forestry and silvicultural science.
Mr. Garner, I have been informed that in Florida there were
two fires that occurred almost simultaneously. Both occurred
opposite of each other on a--across from one another on a road.
On one side of the road there was an area that had more access
and it could be accessed by multiple agencies, and so they lost
a total of 18 acres in this area.
On the other side of the road, it was a wilderness area and
fire could only be fought by the Federal Forest Service, so we
had a turf question here. And while on one side of the road
they lost 18 acres, on the other side of the road in a
wilderness area where tourists like to come and view the
wilderness, we allowed a situation to develop where the result
was that 20,000 acres burned.
So we look at the difference between 18 acres in an area
that was more easily accessible and probably by more than one
agency. On the other side, it wasn't accessible and only one
agency can handle it.
My question is this. Given that scenario--and that is
tragic; I think anyone would have to admit that is tragic--and
even though Florida's vegetation recovers more quickly than the
east slope of the Cascades and on into the Rockies, because we
are drier out there, nevertheless, it still takes its toll for
several years. The landscape will never look the same.
And so, given that scenario, wouldn't it be better if there
could, ahead of time, be developed a cooperative agreement so
that those agencies, whether it is the State or local agencies,
are able to access any fire within the borders of the State to
try to suppress it and contain it before it develops into such
a huge fire that it is very destructive?
Is that an area that we in the Congress should be looking
at, more agency cooperation between the State and the Federal
Forest Service, so that if--as a State Forester who has command
and control of fire suppression over your own State lands, if
you could also be given the ability to, under some sort of
contract, be able to contain fires on Federal land? Would you
look favorably at that, or what would your thinking be, Mr.
Garner?
Mr. Garner. I would look favorably at that as one State
Forester, and I suspect that many of my colleagues would also.
The wildernesses east of the Mississippi are a lot
different than the wilderness in your area because they are
smaller, they are more fragmented; and there is a tremendous--
normally, a tremendous population around those smaller
wildernesses. And so, there-
fore, whether it be insect, disease, fire, whatever, the impact
of eastern wilderness spills over into the private arena, and
that can be threatening, as we have seen with both fire,
insect, and disease.
The lack of flexibility, the lack of the agencies to be
able to deal with whatever is going on in that particular
wilderness is really hamstringing all of us who are interested
in natural resources, and I use that in its broadest context--
forest health, for whatever endangered species.
It could be in the case that you outline simply because the
fire could not be contained, we may have lost an endangered
species that that land had been set aside to protect. And so
policy issues sometimes need to rest with the man on the
ground, or the woman on the ground, with the expert.
And what fits West Coast doesn't fit East Coast in all
cases when we are dealing with natural resources, and I think
there is a real danger there.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to yield to Mr. Boyd, but I do
want to say, in every case, whether it is the East Coast or the
West Coast, the destruction of endangered species habitat is
very sad when we are not able to contain fire or prepare ahead
of time by removing unnecessary fuel load that--to see it
destroy not only the habitat but the species itself.
Another thing that you touched on, and I do want to
elaborate, is the fact that in Florida and in the Eastern
States your wilderness designations are more fragmented and
they do abut up to multiple-use and sometimes urban interfaces.
And so, you know, in order to protect private property and
human lives, as well as protect endangered species and their
habitat, I do think that we need to be a little more forward
looking in terms of looking ahead to prevent these very, very
hot fires. And I do want to say that prescribed burnings under
the proper conditions are very important, and--but I believe it
has to be the proper conditions.
Mr. Garner. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. With that, I will yield for a couple more
minutes to Mr. Boyd, if he has any final questions.
Mr. Boyd. I think you have asked the pertinent question,
Madam Chairman, but let me just say to Mr. Garner and also to
the next panel, because I think we would want to ask them some
questions about this particular issue so they may prepare; the
scenario that you just described, Madam Chairman, happened in
the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida, which is in the
Second Congressional District, and we believe that the fires
which were both started adjacent to a highway running through
the national forest were started by an arsonist, and the fire
actually on the nonwilderness side we put out after it burned
15 acres.
The fire on the wilderness side, according to the numbers
that I have in front of me, which are from the State of
Florida, burned 24,600 acres.
Again, we believe that since they were both started on the
highway simultaneously, in the same area, that it was arson. We
don't have solid proof of that, but I want to thank you, Mr.
Garner, for your fine presentation.
Mr. Garner. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Garner, I just have one final question
that I need to ask you while you are here.
How do you, as a professional manager, manage the smoke
when you prescribe-burn on your State lands?
Mr. Garner. Let me kind of qualify that first.
In Virginia, we have very few acres of State lands; 77
percent of the forest land in Virginia is owned by private
individuals such as yourself. So we do a lot of burning for the
private landowner, but smoke management is all formulated on
weather conditions as well as the fuels of the floor, depending
on the objective that you want to accomplish.
An understory burn for reduction of habitat, you don't need
the intensity of fire as you do after a logging job to clean up
the slash. You have to know your mixing height and your whole
spectrum of atmospheric changes that is going on.
Is the smoke going to go up and dissipate, down and
dissipate? Be careful that you don't burn in the fall of the
year because at night you get an inversion and you get a lot of
smoke on the road, which is dangerous.
We start with the weatherman, who predicts as best he can
what the weather conditions are going to be; and knowing what
that smoke will do under that given set of weather conditions
is critical in managing not only the smoke, but the fire as
well.
So we just don't go out and light a match and turn around
and pick up a cup of coffee and watch it burn. It is a
scientific process.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Garner, if groups like the Sierra Club
and Heartwood win the argument that they are making of zero cut
on public land, what will happen to our public forests?
Mr. Garner. I think that they will sit there and be used by
a few for their own benefit, and that a lot of stewardship of
natural resources will go to waste.
I think that as a second part of that, our products that we
demand from the forest have got to come from somewhere and we,
as a nation with the scientific and professional know-how and
the climate to have productive forests, do we say that we lock
up ours and then do we go to some undeveloped Third World
country that can ill afford an ecological disaster because they
don't have the resources? Is that right, that we lock up a
resource that we know how to manage and know how to care for,
and push that which--we are not going to change our need for
forest products, I don't think, in this country.
As long as the demand is there, the wood has got to come
from somewhere, and I think this Nation has the scientific and
professional ability to nurture all of our natural resources
without putting an ecological disaster on some other nation.
Mr. Peterson. Coming from the East, I thank you, and we
deal with more hardwoods than we do softwoods, but that varies
up and down the coast of this country. But it is a product that
we can be producing. Many of the outdoor sports deal with land
where some timber has been marketed or some thinning has been
done. In our area, we had the tornadoes in 1985 which took down
mile-wide paths of mature oak and cherry trees, just twisted
them apart and laid them on the ground. The thick forests that
have grown there and the wildlife species that we didn't see
before, because it is the kind of habitat that they need, it is
interesting to watch that grow; and that is 20, 30 feet high a
decade later, and the creatures that now use that as their
home, it has been interesting to watch.
All of that happens, but the point that I want to make is
that we have a very strong argument made in this country by
groups that want zero cut on public land, and I thank you for
your testimony on that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Garner, for your instructive
and informative testimony.
Mr. Garner. Thank you for having me.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank you for this information, and it is
a permanent part of our record. And I do want you to know that
our record will remain open for 10 working days. Should you
wish to add anything to your testimony, my staff would be happy
to work with you on that.
With that, again I want to thank you for your valuable time
here and I will now call the third panel.
Mr. Garner. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. As they are taking the witness table, I
want to say that our third panel will be comprised of Wally
Josephson, Wildland Fire Specialist, Office of Managing Risk
and Public Safety, U.S. Department of the Interior; Janice
McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief for State and Private
Forestry, Forest Service; and Ms. McDougle is accompanied by
Denny Truesdale, Assistant Director of Fire Management for
Operations, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
You have all been here many times before, and so I will
administer the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. We open our testimony with Mr. Josephson.
STATEMENT OF WALLY JOSEPHSON, WILDLAND FIRE SPECIALIST, OFFICE
OF MANAGING RISK AND PUBLIC SAFETY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Josephson. Madam Chairman and members of the Committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Interior's planning and budgeting
process of the wildland management program. The Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and are four land
management agencies within the Department of Interior with fire
management programs. These agencies work in close cooperation
on budgeting, planning and implementation activities related to
fire management.
The Department's Wildland Fire Management Program is guided
by the principles and policies of the Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy and Program Review, adopted by the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior in December 1995. The
program ensures the capability to provide a safe and cost-
effective fire management organization. Fires are suppressed at
minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety and
benefit and values to be protected consistent with resource
objectives.
Funds for the Department's Wildland Fire Management Program
are appropriated to the Bureau of Land Management and are made
available by allocation to the National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The
Department's Wildland Fire Management Program is composed of
two activities--wildland fire preparedness and wildland fire
operations.
Fire preparedness involves the readiness and capability of
the Department to suppress fire in a safe and cost-effective
program. Staffing levels, training, fire planning, equipment,
maintenance facilities, prevention activities and the
interagency coordination all fall within the category of fire
preparedness. The fire management plan is the guide for
budgeting and managing wildland fire preparedness activity. The
primary analysis tool of the fire plan is an economic marginal
cost analysis, combined with a threshold analysis which is used
to determine the most efficient level, which we call MEL. MEL
represents the funding necessary to provide the most cost-
efficient and technically effective fire management program
that meets land management objectives while minimizing the
total cost of both suppression and resource damage associated
with wildland fire.
The fire operations portion of the program funds the
development and implementation of the emergency suppression,
emergency rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction operations,
and fire severity programs. Emergency suppression includes all
management actions taken to suppress wildland fires in a safe
and cost-effective manner. Emergency rehabilitation is carried
out to prevent any further land degradation and resource damage
to lands impacted by unplanned wildland fire or suppression
activities.
Rehabilitation funds are also used to reduce any residual
public health and safety risk that may result from wildland
fires. Hazardous fuel reduction operations use fire and
mechanical treatments as management tools to reduce fuel
loadings and restore fire to its natural role in the ecosystem.
Commercial activities, such as timber harvest and small
wood product sales, are used whenever commodity production can
be used in an environmentally sound manner to achieve the same
objectives.
Wildland fires occur unexpectedly and create an emergency
in which firefighters must respond rapidly to minimize risk and
damage. Despite public expectations, when the combination of
excessive fuel buildup, steep topography, extreme weather
conditions, multiple ignitions and extreme fire behavior occur,
it is impossible to immediately suppress all fires. Firefighter
and public safety must best be met with the adequate
preparation and interagency coordination of supplies and
services and safe, but aggressive implementation of fire
control tactics provide for our ability to suppress fires.
To meet these needs, the BLM, in cooperation with other DOI
bureaus, the Forest Service and the National Weather Service,
maintains and operates the National Interagency Fire Center at
Boise, Idaho. The NIFC provides logistical support through its
coordination center for the coordinated movement of suppression
resources when local capabilities are exceeded. Response to
requests are based upon the concepts of closest forces and
total mobility which seek to dispatch the closest available
qualified resource regardless of agency affiliation.
We were asked by the Committee to identify both jobs well
done and lessons learned as a result of the wildfires in
Florida. While review of the past actions may lead to
improvements, Florida fires did not indicate a major need to
revamp our procedures. The Department of Interior and the
coordination center, for the most part, served primarily as a
support function. Most of the Florida fires, including most
high profile and highly publicized fires were under the control
of the State.
Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the Congress for the
direction and support that you have provided us in the
Department of Interior. This concludes my statement.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That you, Mr. Josephson. Very interesting.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Josephson may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And now the Chair recognizes Janice
McDougle.
STATEMENT OF JANICE McDOUGLE, ACCOMPANIED BY DENNY TRUESDALE,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FIRE MANAGEMENT FOR OPERATIONS, FOREST
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. McDougle. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
Committee. I am Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief for
State and Private Forestry, with responsibility for fire and
aviation, forest health and cooperative forestry programs. I am
accompanied today by Denny Truesdale, who is our Assistant
Director for Fire and Aviation Management for Operations.
I would like, Madam Chairman, to submit my formal testimony
for the record and briefly summarize my remarks.
The wildfire suppression program in the United States is in
partnership with a broad array of Federal agencies, State,
tribal and local government and private companies. Its first
priority is in protecting human life. When a fire occurs, we
respond immediately. We implement attack strategies. We
identify additional resources needed, and we expand the
organization, as needed, to protect people and property.
Several factors influence an effective and safe fire
suppression program, including the expansive wildland urban
interface, hazardous fuel conditions, the increasingly broad
array of partners involved in suppression, and the increased
role for the Forest Service in providing international
assistance.
We have an outstanding track record. The Federal
firefighting agencies have consistently suppressed 98 percent
of all wildfires during initial attack; only 2 percent of all
fires account for the greatest cost and the most acreage
burned. The five Federal Wildland Fire Management Agencies: the
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs,
are strengthening the common features of their respective
wildland fire management planning processes.
Initial attack analysis and planning are the backbone of
our success. The National Fire Management Analysis System is a
model we use to identify the most efficient firefighting
organization. Developed locally to determine what mix and
distribution of initial attack resources will provide a cost-
effective fire suppression program, the results of the local
analysis are aggregated into the national program. This assures
the most responsive organization possible.
When initial attack fails and local resources are not
capable of controlling one or more wildfires, we shift to
extended attack and assign national resources such as incident
management teams and interagency Hotshot crews, and large
airtankers.
In 1998, the Federal agencies are fully staffed for the
fire season. We have adequate resources in every region for
effective suppression, assuming that this is, and will be, an
average year. The Florida effort affirmed the value of a
prescribed fire program to create more fire tolerant ecosystems
and better protect homes and improvements. It also reinforced
the value of our safety program. In Florida we even had to
educate crews from other regions of the health and fire threats
unique to Florida.
The Forest Service's fire suppression program is
professional. It is responsive to the concerns and needs of
partners, and it is based on the continuous study of historical
fire occurrences and risk. We are very proud of this program,
its value to the public and the firefighters who work endless
days and get great satisfaction from the protection of people
and resources.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you Ms. McDougle.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McDougle may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer, the
gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. McDougle, when it comes to the controlled burns, what
kind of resources do you find that you need to devote to
helping--assisting in managing these controlled burns? Is there
any----
Ms. McDougle. You are talking about our fuels program? Is
that what you are talking about?
Mr. Schaffer. On those occasions when we increase--for
example, we increased rather dramatically, to the extent of
about 400 percent, the amount of public lands that are slated
for controlled burns. When we do that, I assume that there is
some kind of prevention-suppression personnel that are needed
to help contain and maintain and make sure that those burns are
controlled.
I guess my question is, how much in the way of personnel do
we consume in managing controlled burns?
Ms. McDougle. Acres are identified by our field personnel.
We don't do that out of the Washington office.
We estimate that in fiscal year 1999 we will treat about
1.4 million acres out there nationally just within the Forest
Service. But fuels treatment is an interagency priority, and
other land management agencies will do that as well. By the
year 2005, we estimate that we will be burning up to about 3
million acres a year--treating 3 million acres a year, and that
is probably as much as we can do with smoke considerations.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask you, in Colorado, for example,
there are stakeholders who are constantly negotiating how many
acres might be subject to active management. To your knowledge,
have administrative appeals of forest plans or timber sales
made action necessary to prevent dangerous fires?
Ms. McDougle. I am not clear what you are asking. Can
appeals apply to all of our ground disturbing activities? That
is just part of the process. Beyond that, I am not sure.
Mr. Schaffer. There are proposals to expand the acreage
that would be under a managed category. As long as there are
administrative appeals pending, presumably there is not much in
the way of management that takes place on those occasions. Is
this as a result of the policies of the departments that we are
unable to go ahead and begin managing these lands for fire
prevention in ways that might----
Ms. McDougle. I can't speak to specific activities in
Colorado, but my overall answer is no.
Mr. Schaffer. The last part of your answer?
Ms. McDougle. My overall answer is no.
Mr. Schaffer. You don't believe that there are any?
Ms. McDougle. I really would prefer to speak to specifics,
but I am not sure what you are talking about here.
Mr. Schaffer. You are not sure about the impact of the
administrative appeals process on the ability to begin managing
land?
Ms. McDougle. We have been living with administrative
appeals process for many years, so I am struggling here.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you believe it has any delay at all on our
ability to engage active management plans that might be useful
in suppressing or preventing wildfires?
Ms. McDougle. The process itself is not new. Maybe the
number of appeals you are getting out there may have changed,
but the process, we have lived with. We factor it into our day-
to-day activities, and it is applied much broader than what you
are talking about here.
Mr. Schaffer. So you don't believe that the length of time
that these appeals take to be resolved has any impact?
Ms. McDougle. It depends on how many you get. Some, you get
few and some you get lots. It varies from decision to decision.
Mr. Schaffer. What steps are we taking to better predict
where forest fires are likely to occur?
Ms. McDougle. There are about 40 million acres that are at
high risk for fires, big fires. We will have those numbers
refined later on this fall and have a clearer idea of where
they are. We also already have a map, a national map, that lays
out across ownership those areas that are at high risk for
mortality from insect and disease; and once we are able to
merge that information, it will help us tremendously in
determining our priorities.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Ms. McDougle, I want to express my appreciation to the
folks that work for you, all of the way down to the last
firefighter. Certainly we don't have any quarrel with them.
They do an outstanding job, and I know that is under your
leadership and we are very grateful. We are not always pleased
with the policy sometimes, and that is primarily what I want to
discuss today.
I am not mean or bad or anything, I want you to know that,
but I do have some very serious questions about the policy.
First of all, I want to lay out the situation that we have
in north Florida. One of the reasons that I ask Chairman
Chenoweth, and she agreed to let me come sit because--we have
three national forests in Florida, two of them are in the
Second Congressional District, the Apalachicola National
Forest, southwest of Tallahassee, and the Osceola National
Forest, which is between Tallahassee and Jacksonville and
Gainesville.
The Apalachicola National Forest is a very special place.
You may or may not know that it contains--I forget the exact
acreage--almost 600,000 acres. It was actually a piece of land
that was clear-cut back in the early 1900's, in those days when
we did some silly things in terms of our natural resources. But
through a sensible management program over the last 70 or 80
years, we have managed to rehabilitate that and bring it back
to a vibrant, live forest that today houses the world's largest
red-cockaded woodpecker population, and we are very proud of
that.
There have been--for your information, there has been a lot
of controversy in north Florida about forest management
practices there, primarily--well, basically how we manage it
and how we have cut the timber. As you may know, there has been
a restriction of timber cutting in the last few years; it has
almost come down to nothing. Even though the fact that the plan
we have been on for the last 70 or 80 years had gotten us to a
very good point to wildlife habitat and a natural setting that
we are very proud of in the last 10 or 15 years, we suddenly
want to change that. And it has created some real problems in
some of the communities that I represent, primarily with the
local governments in terms of the tax revenue that they have
been receiving.
As you know, we put in place two programs to offset those
abnormal tax issues for the local communities. One was the
PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, Program, which still exists,
and the other was a 25 percent program. But most of the people
that you talk to about the 25 percent program, they will kind
of laugh at you and say, the Federal Government really pulled
one over on us; they said, we are going to give you 25 percent
of everything that we cut, but then they reduced the cutting to
practically nothing. And we have school systems--I have one
school system which is in deep trouble because of the loss of
those funds. I give you that as kind of a background to let you
know where I am coming from.
I have spent all of my professional life in agriculture.
Part of that was forestry management. I managed for three
specific purposes. One was for aesthetic value, economic
production and wildlife habitat. I believe they are not
incompatible. I believe they are compatible, and I have
struggled understanding this great debate that we have going on
between the extreme environmental community and the extreme
economic community, if you understand what I mean.
Ms. McDougle. Yes, I do.
Mr. Boyd. Now, I get to the questions, and thank you, Madam
Chairman, for indulging me on that. I wanted everybody to
understand the lay of the land.
The situation that was described earlier about the two
fires that started on the highway, what is your reaction to
that? First, if you will, just give me your reaction and then
let me ask some specific questions.
Ms. McDougle. My understanding of that situation was that
it was not--it was not described to me as a wilderness issue.
It was described to me as swamp burning and the inability to
get equipment, heavy equipment, into the area, and it was also
a safety issue. And that is why the decision was made to let it
go.
Mr. Boyd. If it was described as a swamp issue, someone
inaccurately described it. One side of the road was
wilderness--and we can look at the maps afterwards--and the
other side was not. Because of the inability of the person on
the ground to understand what authority they had or didn't
have, then we had a situation that burned about 24,000 acres.
And actually at the end of that it was beginning to threaten
some populated areas on the west side.
So that really leads me to the issue about the authority
that people have on the ground, and I have had this discussion
with Ms. Marcia Kearney, who is your new national State Forest
Supervisor, and I spent some time 2 weeks ago looking and
observing the burned areas.
One of the things that I would like to see come out of this
is more flexibility for the people on the ground who need to
make decisions quickly, because it has to come to your office.
It takes 24 to 48 hours. You have got something that is totally
out of control by then. In 48 hours, those fires had burned
10,000 acres.
Give me your reaction to more flexibility on the ground.
Ms. McDougle. The things--and Denny can speak to the
command issue. When things come to us, we send them back. We
don't try to second-guess decisions out there. We can't. And we
entrust our incident commanders with responsibility and
authority to do the right thing.
And so, yes, people do come to us. We do get calls, but we
send them to the field.
Mr. Boyd. Madam Chairman, if you will indulge me for one
more question, then I will quit for the time being.
Under what circumstances are the wilderness rules--could we
have gone in and stopped that fire with all resources that we
had available when we first discovered it? Are there within the
law provisions which allow us to waive rules?
Ms. McDougle. For a big fire, sure.
Mr. Boyd. Who would have to make that waiver?
Ms. McDougle. I am not sure, but we believe that the
regional foresters have the authority to make that call.
Again, we don't.
Mr. Boyd. That is not what the regional foresters are
telling me, and that is something that maybe we can work
together on, to clarify that authority.
Ms. McDougle. OK.
Mr. Boyd. My point is that there ought to be clear rules
about when we can use that waiver, and we ought to give that
authority either to the local forester in charge of that forest
or your State Forester who can be there in a matter of hours
under any circumstances. Maybe that is something that we can
work together on, because it definitely--in this case, we
burned about 24,000 acres that probably could have been
prevented.
Madam Chairman, I will defer any other questions until
later on if we have more time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Josephson, we heard from the Forest
Service that they estimate that 40 million acres of their land
are at risk for catastrophic fires. What would be the figure on
the land that you manage?
Mr. Josephson. I don't have a figure at this time, but I
can provide one in the future.
Mr. Peterson. That is not a figure that you have heard
talked about? Is there is a process for developing one?
Mr. Josephson. Yes, we are in the process of coming up with
a figure.
Mr. Peterson. Do you think that it is sizable, like the
Forest Service?
Mr. Josephson. I am sure that it is significant in acreage,
yes.
Mr. Peterson. Is there a plan being developed to shrink it?
It seems like 40 million acres, one agency that is at risk for
catastrophic fire, that is a destructive fire.
Mr. Josephson. Yes. We are trying to set in place a program
to manage the fuels and reduce the fuel loading.
Mr. Peterson. But as has been discussed here, there have
been some policy shifts in the last few years that some feel
make it really impossible to manage the fuel load. You can't
remove fuel without cutting it or doing something with it. If
we are moving toward a zero-cut policy, and there has certainly
been a lot of evidence toward that, how do you manage the fuel
load if, above you, decisions are being made that we are not
going to cut trees?
Mr. Josephson. I think you have to look at each situation
and develop a plan to manage that particular piece of ground,
and it has to be done at the local level.
Mr. Peterson. But we have already found out that local
people are not making those decisions, are not allowed to make
those decisions.
Mr. Josephson. At least for the Department of Interior, the
local manager is the one who develops the fuel management
program and the plans to modify the fuels on the ground.
Mr. Peterson. And then he has to get approval from
Washington?
Mr. Josephson. No, it is generally the next level higher
which signs off on the approval.
Mr. Peterson. The regional?
Mr. Josephson. Depending on the agency, whether it is
regional or State level.
Mr. Peterson. If I can switch to Ms. McDougle.
I don't mean to sound harsh, because it is not personal,
but there are those who give your agency just A-pluses in
fighting fires and moving fast and working hard and
coordinating; but they give very bad grades on the efforts to
minimize fires.
Do you find policies that you have no control over prevent
you from really doing that job?
Ms. McDougle. I am not sure that I understand what you are
saying. What do you mean, efforts to minimize fires?
Mr. Peterson. You admit you are 40 million acres at risk
for catastrophic fires?
Ms. McDougle. Yes.
Mr. Peterson. There are many who feel that the Forest
Service is failing at carrying out the role to lower that
number and to prevent these catastrophic fires by doing what is
necessary.
Ms. McDougle. I think that our acres targeted for reduction
in our budgets reflect just the opposite, and Congress has been
very supportive in supporting our budget increases to do that.
And we are--yes, we are meeting the targets which we have
identified.
Mr. Peterson. That may be more current, but I am speaking
of historic, in the last few years. Are you--you have had an
increase in the last year or two?
Ms. McDougle. Yes.
Mr. Peterson. So you are shifting policy and coming back to
the burn policy?
Ms. McDougle. I think we know more about fire ecology now,
and that is not unique to the Forest Service. That is true of
all land management agencies. We have capped fire out of the
ecosystem, and now we are paying for it. We thought that was
the right thing to do at the time, and now we are learning
differently. I don't think that it is a matter of being
irresponsible; it is how much science we know about fire
ecology, and we know more now.
Mr. Peterson. I agree, but there are those who believe that
never in the history of these agencies has there been as much
influence from nonscientists who are in powerful policymaking
decisions. Many feel that they have veered from science to
political agendas, and that the Forest Service and the
Department of Interior have not been able to manage, that sound
science has been moved away from; and we are finding that
didn't work.
Ms. McDougle. That hasn't been an issue in fire.
Mr. Peterson. You don't think policies from leaders of this
country have had an impact in preventing catastrophic fires?
Ms. McDougle. The Forest Service is not out here by itself
making these calls and establishing these priorities.
I think the fire business among the agencies is probably
one of the best models of how this should work, and it works
very, very well.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I would agree with you once we have the
fire. Many people do not agree with you in preventing those
fires, and I will conclude with that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. McDougle, I am going to continue on
that line of questioning, because we do have some very specific
concerns about how the U.S. Forest Service reacts in its
decisionmaking processes with those who are on the ground,
those who are at the site of the fire, and the decisions that
are made.
I do want to read the following questions, because they
were questions that were submitted to me by Congresswoman
Tillie Fowler, whose district also was impacted very heavily by
the fires; and this goes to the line of questions that Mr.
Peterson was involved in, and that is the Forest Service
activities and decisionmaking on the ground when the fire is in
process.
Ms. Fowler submitted the following question:
During the Florida fires, a Super Scooper aircraft, a can
Canadair CL-215 firefighting aircraft was sent down from North
Carolina to help fight the fires. Unfortunately, this asset was
not properly used during the Florida fires. Although it is able
to successfully complete over nine drops of water each hour, it
was only used efficiently for 1 day. It spent 3 days on the
ground and at least 1 day flying on the same schedule as the
slower tankers.
Why was this firefighting aircraft used so inefficiently?
And the fires began on Memorial Day weekend and the Super
Scooper was not brought into those fires until a month later,
when it only had to come from North Carolina. What was the
reason for the delay in requesting this aircraft and bringing
it down to Florida?
Finally, although the company that makes this aircraft is
based in Canada, it does have production facilities in the
United States, and we should, as a matter of fact, be able to
use any aircraft available to us that would be more responsive
in terms of its capabilities in putting out large fires like
the one that we have been referring to in the wilderness areas.
There seemed to be to Mrs. Fowler and to the people in
Florida and the reports that the Congressmen there have gotten
there seemed to be some resistance from the Forest Service to
bring in these aircraft to fight the fires.
What was the reason for the objections to the use of this
aircraft?
Ms. McDougle. Madam Chairman, I am going to let Denny
Truesdale respond to that since he was down there. But I would
like to say that I had several personal conversations with Ms.
Fowler, not specific to the Super Scooper, but to the
availability of helicopters, and I immediately called the
incident commander and said, talk to this lady and he did.
So we were responsive to her in a number of ways, but as
to--and I know that the State Forester for Florida was the one
who initially requested the Super Scooper.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Therein lay the problem.
Mr. Truesdale, please proceed.
Mr. Truesdale. Thank you. I tried to take notes as you went
through the questions, but if I miss one, please refresh my
memory.
The first question regarded the efficiency or, in the
Congressperson's words, the inefficiency when she asked the
question. That was a very complex situation down there in
Florida. I have talked to the State Forester, Earl Peterson,
and I believe, according to his information, there was more
firefighting aircraft in the State of Florida working at one
time than has ever occurred in the history of firefighting
within the State. Combine that with the smoky conditions, the
weather conditions which make it very difficult to fly, and the
inefficiencies of all kinds of aircraft, whether they are the
large retardant bombers used extensively in the West, the
small, single-engine airtankers which are similar to crop
dusters, those sorts of things that are used throughout the
East very effectively; and so inefficiencies are bound to occur
under those situations because of the inability to fly.
The aircraft itself had some difficulty getting pilots that
were approved by FAA to fly in the U.S., and I believe FEMA was
able to work with the FAA and get those pilots certified to
work in Florida for that emergency. That took a few days in the
delay.
We believe that the mix of aircraft which was ordered by
the incident commanders on the ground, both Federal, State and
local firefighters, needed to match the local conditions there;
and we had that full range of aircraft there, including the
loan of the Super Scooper from North Carolina. We still had
many other aircraft available in the West that, because of the
congestion of the air space there, we were unable to move into
Florida. And we feel that the Canadian aircraft is a good
product that, in some circumstances, has a very effective use
in places in the United States; and it is used within the
United States in such circumstances.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Truesdale. I am not sure
that we got the answer that we were looking for with regards to
how the question was framed.
It seems only logical that if air congestion of a number of
aircraft was the question, if you have one aircraft that can do
10 times the work of other smaller aircraft, that we would
utilize that one aircraft, especially when we have a wilderness
area, for instance, that is on fire, we can only fight it from
the air, there are 24,000 acres that ultimately were lost.
This appears to be the situation of maybe some turf
battles. I hope that didn't happen. But it gives every
appearance of being.
So for us, for the American people, Mr. Truesdale, I would
love--I would not just love it, I would ask that you submit to
this Committee and to Mrs. Fowler and to the rest of the
congressional delegation a complete report on how aircraft were
deployed and utilized, who was in control, who were making the
command decisions down there, and who was cooperating with whom
in terms of how the Federal and the State foresters were
cooperating with one another.
It will be very instructive to us in the future because I
hear the same complaints in Boise sometimes. Aircraft are
brought in and they are embargoed right there in Boise, and
they cannot be used by their owners for other purposes and they
sit on the ground. So this would be a very good opportunity to
bring more understanding as to the problem that Mrs. Fowler has
pointed out, and it will enable all of us to be able to avoid
that problem in the future.
Even though it is a Canadian aircraft, there should have
been very little reason for it to be used only a minimal amount
of time; and there should have been very little reason for it
to have taken a month for it to be called from North Carolina.
So naturally the Committee has questions about it, and so we do
look forward to a more detailed report.
Do you have any comments with regards to the detailed
report that this chairman is asking for?
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Truesdale. No.
First of all, we will be happy to respond to your request.
We are in the process with the State agencies, the other
agencies who responded, in looking at the entire mobilization
down there, the process that brought the people from throughout
the United States, as well as some of the individual fires; and
we will add that into our list of items that we need to review
and report back to you.
I probably was not very clear in some of my earlier
statements here, and let me add just one more comment.
Even though the CL-215 is an aircraft, an airplane, it is
most comparable in firefighting use with the large helicopters,
the Sikorskys, the Sky Cranes, what we call Type 1 or heavy-
lift helicopters; they drop at approximately the same speed.
Although helicopters can actually hover, they usually maintain
some forward speed. They fly slowly and have quick turnaround
times. They can use the same water sources that the Super
Scoopers use. They are more maneuverable than aircraft because
they can be directed more precisely because of their ability to
fly so slowly.
My comparison with the need for the incident commanders to
make a decision on the type of aircraft was a tradeoff for a
similar category in dropping ability between the Type 1
aircraft and the Canadian aircraft. The Type 1 helicopters we
have, I don't know what the numbers are, but 20, 30, 40 are on
contract throughout the United States. There were numerous Type
1 helicopters in the State of Florida dropping both for the
Forest Service on Federal fires, for the State on State-
protected fires; and I think they were also used cooperatively
with the counties. So our comparison would be more with the
Type 1 helicopter than with the 2,000-, 3,000-gallon water
retardant aircraft.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Truesdale. I look forward to
receiving that report within 30 days.
Mr. Truesdale. We will get you a report within 30 days. The
completeness and the specificity that you asked for, I am not
sure that all of the reviews will be completed by that time,
but within 30 days we will let you know the status of the
information that we have. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Within 30 days I would like to see in the
report the evidence that you have worked with the State
forester in trying to find out where the breakdown was or what
is perceived as a breakdown.
So I would like to see in that report within 30 days the
fact that you have coordinated with the State and what your
report is.
I will also be working through Mr. Boyd to receive a like
report from the State forester.
Would you be willing to assist the Committee in that, Mr.
Boyd?
Mr. Boyd. Absolutely, Madam Chairman.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right.
I have a couple more questions. It has been mentioned in
the newspaper, Mrs. Fowler also wanted us to mention this, that
perhaps the command structure for fighting the fires was in a
state of confusion throughout some of the time that the fires
were burning, and the communication between coordinating
agencies was not all that it should be during an emergency
situation. This was her last comment, and I do--would expect
that in the report you will be able to respond to these
concerns and what we can do in the future to improve it.
Now, going back to some of my questions, I have two
questions for you. What role did we play this year in the fires
in Mexico and last year in the fires in Indonesia, Ms.
McDougle?
Ms. McDougle. Well, Denny Truesdale accompanied a group to
Mexico, so I would like for him to speak to that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right.
Mr. Truesdale. I will go to Indonesia first. I did not go
to Indonesia. The assistance to Indonesia was a combination of
Department of Defense, U.S. military assets, aircraft, the C-
130's and MAFFS units--and I didn't come prepared with the
acronym, but it is Mobile Aviation Firefighting Systems or
something. It is the systems that slide into the C-130 which
drop retardant, which make cargo-carrying aircraft retardant
aircraft, and we supplied a few technical experts and personnel
to assist the Indonesian Government in utilizing those
aircraft, and we may have provided some other technical advice.
But for practical purposes, that was the extent of the
assistance to Indonesia.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What about the fire in Mexico this year?
Mr. Truesdale. The fire in Mexico this year was a little
more extensive. The Mexican Government requested technical
experts in the same issue we have just been talking about, the
use of helicopters and aviation resources to fight fires and
assist with planning, fire detection and mapping, that sort of
thing. And then the use of the incident command system and the
coordination process we use to manage fires.
We sent approximately--and when I say ``we,'' it is the
interagency wildfire community. This included State of Texas
employees, government of Mexico employees, Department of
Interior employees, not just the Forest Service. We sent
approximately 100 people to Mexico over about a 6-week period
to assist them.
The fires in Mexico, while related to the fires in Florida
because of the commonality of the weather--extreme drought and
the fact that fires had not occurred in Florida for 50 years--
this was the worst, as Mr. Boyd stated. The same is true with
Mexico except in the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca, and some of
the areas down there, fires had never occurred to that extent
in the history of the people down there. There is a wide range
of reasons for that, which I am not an expert on, but because
of the remoteness of the area--unlike Florida, Chiapas and
Oaxaca are extremely mountainous and remote--and the use of
helicopters was needed to get people to the fires and the use
of the infrared mapping aircraft was necessary to assist the
Mexican and the Guatemalan Governments in locating where the
fires were.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Did we deploy personnel like our Hotshots
down there?
Mr. Truesdale. No. All of the firefighters, the people like
the Hotshot crews that go out and fight the fire were Mexicans.
They did not request any assistance, just the technical
assistance and those activities already described.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Truesdale, I will address this question
to you or Ms. McDougle, whoever wishes to answer it.
Our Hotshot crews are the pride of the Forest Service, and
as you know, Hotshot crews were deployed out of Boise into
Florida even.
And as you know, the Boise Hotshot crew, which is in my
mind the premier of the premiers, was put on hold, and I have a
lot of my Hotshots in Boise counting needles on trees and doing
landscape gridding, and I am not one bit happy about it; I am a
very unhappy camper about that.
I do want assurance from you, Ms. McDougle, that our Boise
Hotshot Crew will be up and operating full speed again in a
very short period of time. I would like to know how soon we are
going to get them up and operating and get those very highly
skilled and highly trained men back doing what they have been
trained to do instead of counting needles and laying out
landscape grids.
Ms. McDougle. We believe that they will be back next year.
We don't think that we can do it any sooner than that, and as I
understand, the investigations are still ongoing. So we have to
let that play out, and then we can regroup.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You know, let me just say for the record
that this is very frustrating for me. There was an incident
that could have been a criminal violation that happened between
a couple of people, but that is absolutely no excuse for doing
away with one of the best Hotshot crews in the Nation. The
program should go on while investigating with regards to the
conduct of two people who probably, or may have, conducted
themselves inappropriately, that investigation should go on
uninterrupted; and I have given the Forest Service several
months' time and have urged the Congress to stay out of this,
but I am growing increasingly impatient if I continue to hear
that because of an ongoing investigation, because of the
violation that two people were involved in, that that is not
sufficient reason to give me--not to give me dates specific and
times as to the degree that we are going to see this very, very
important Hotshot crew reinstituted.
I am, as you can tell, growing increasingly impatient. I
want to know dates. I want to know when those people are going
to be back to work doing what they have been trained for. When
will you have that answer for me?
Last time I asked for direct answers, I said, ``Close of
business by tomorrow or I am going to have subpoenas ready.'' I
am not prepared to do that yet, but I am getting awful close,
because Boise has had a tremendous amount of fire. We have an
area there where 600,000 acres have burned, and the fires on
the Boise foothills threaten our homes every other year.
Ms. McDougle. Well, Madam Chairman, I believe that we have
been responsive to your capability in Idaho. We have
supplemented what you have there. No, it isn't the Hotshot
crew, but in terms of the equipment and the people that we have
deployed to your State for this season, I thought that you were
satisfied with what we have done today.
Now----
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have been satisfied to date, but I do
want to open it up again to find out when it is that we will
have these people back on duty.
Ms. McDougle. I understand. And I am not convinced that it
is two people. I don't know how this is going to turn out. I
don't know who, if anybody, is going to be indicted. I know
that it is out of our hands; it is in the Justice Department.
We have no control over it, so I am not comfortable at this
point in time in moving ahead with that until I have some
assurances that I am doing the right thing with the right
people; and that is all that I am saying. I understand your
desire, and I believe that we can be responsive to it in a way
that you desire. But I am just not comfortable right now,
because I don't know how this is going to play out. I have no
idea.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just want us together as a Congress and
as an agency to always keep the goal in mind, and I think we
would have to agree on the fact that government's ultimate
responsibility is to make sure that necessary services are
fulfilled and--necessary services being fighting fire; and when
we see skilled people who are not under indictment being laid
off to count needles on trees, that does not make me very
sanguine at all.
Ms. McDougle. I understand.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So the program has to go on. Ms. McDougle,
I know you share that with me, the fact that that necessary
program is gone.
So I look forward to staying in touch with you and your
staff on that as we proceed.
Ms. McDougle. I would be happy to.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
Ms. McDougle. You are welcome.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would like to ask the gentleman from
Colorado if he has any other questions.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to shift gears
for just a minute.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The gentleman from Florida. Please proceed.
Mr. Boyd. Ms. McDougle, do you agree with the press
accounts that forest roads greatly assisted in the suppression
of fires in Florida?
Ms. McDougle. I am sorry?
Mr. Boyd. Do you agree with the press accounts that forest
roads greatly assisted with the fighting of the fires that we
had in Florida?
Ms. McDougle. I don't know that. I have not seen those
press accounts, but we do--we are aware that that access to
fires is very important, yes.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Truesdale is shaking his head, yes. I guess
that means that you agree with those press accounts.
Mr. Truesdale. Yes. Again, I am not familiar with the
specific ones, but roads are a very effective barrier many
times in fighting fires.
Mr. Boyd. Having seen the--partially seen the fires in the
Osceola National Forest, I can assure you that they were the
key in us preventing the spread of that into private lands and
into populated areas.
Ms. McDougle, I have had discussions with Mr. Peterson, who
is our State Forester with your people, Ms. Kearney, who is
your State Forester in the national forests of Florida, the
people who came in from other States, the local firefighters,
and I think overall that most everybody agrees that the
coordinated effort that was made in Florida was good, and I
want to lay that out, that we feel that way.
I think any time that you do, that you experience--have a
new experience, and in Florida that was something new for us.
We haven't had a spread of wildfires of that magnitude in
Florida since I can remember in my lifetime, so we are breaking
new ground down there. Any time you break new ground, obviously
you make some mistakes, and obviously you want to evaluate what
happened and how you can do it better next time.
I have had this discussion with Mr. Peterson. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Peterson came before this Committee last week and,
overall, he gave high marks to the coordinated efforts that
were done in Florida; and a lot of that was done through your
office and the folks that work for you.
However, he did say that he felt that better coordination
could be done in the area of equipment ordering and placement
and that kind of thing, and that there was an ongoing
evaluation with your folks. Also, long-range planning in order
to more effectively pre-position people and equipment,
particularly when we got into the situation where the fire
started breaking out.
And I have had these discussions with Ms. Kearney, and it
is something I think that you all have learned and I am sure
that is going to be a part of your evaluation process and your
report. So I won't ask any questions about that. I think that
you all, I am sure that you all will have that evaluation
process done, and you will get a report to us, and it will be a
very positive thing for all of us.
Rehab efforts, I want to talk about rehab efforts,
rehabilitation. Mr. Peterson stated before this Committee that
rehabilitation efforts on State lands had begun even prior to
the time that all of the fires were out. Salvage timber sales,
for example, were already being prepared and he was about to
let bids on salvage timber sales.
What is the status of rehab efforts on our national lands?
Ms. McDougle. We sent a team down--yesterday, in fact--to
take a look; we sent our technical experts on that, to take a
look at it. I think Osceola is probably the only one where
there could be some salvage opportunities, but we don't know
that yet. We will be meeting with our forest employees and
Marcia Kearney, who is the Forest Supervisor for the national
forest of Florida, as well as Mr. Peterson, to come up with
some assessment of salvage opportunities.
Mr. Boyd. Well, I think that is a pretty good analysis of
an update, because I talked to Mr. Lawrence, who is an Osceola
National Forest forester, probably 10 days ago--this is after
all the fires were out--and he explained to me at that time
that August 3rd would be the date that the assessment team came
in. That was yesterday. You said they went in, and it would
take them at least a week to 10 days to do that work, and then
we had a NEPA process to go through.
I can tell you, Ms. McDougle, that in Florida when all of
that is done, said and done, 60 days from now, there won't be
any need for any salvage rehabilitation effort because the
timber will be of no value, because that is the way it is in
the Southeast; with our high humidity, we get the blue stain.
And, you know, we haven't started this process.
The fires have been out for a month now. We are today
beginning our assessment. We are going to do that assessment
for 10 days, and then we are going to go through a 45-day NEPA
process, and then we might as well not have done all that.
So my question to you is, is there something to be learned
from this? Can we work together to change this process somehow
or another, so that the rehabilitation effort will mean
something to us?
Ms. McDougle. Oh, I don't know if the process needs
changing or if we need to better engage those who have
regulatory authority over some of these things, like we did for
the Texas blow-down effort and others. There was some real
partnership that occurred with, for example, CEQ and the Forest
Service in that effort; and that was a forest health issue, and
it worked.
So I think you just need, the folks you need to get
involved, involved as soon as possible, and work something out
that is meaningful. We do have red-cockaded woodpecker habitat
down there that has been destroyed. There is a need to move
urgently if that is at all possible, but I understand that the
market has bottomed out down there.
Mr. Boyd. Well, the market on the pulpwood side has
bottomed out and probably not much there, but on the sawn
timber side--and of course the pulpwood can stand for a long
period of time, but on the sawn timber side, that is where our
timing is of the essence; and the markets are still holding up
pretty good because we can move that pretty far away at a
reasonable cost.
So my question to you is, who is it--and you suggested that
we work with the appropriate people. Tell me who the
appropriate people are.
Ms. McDougle. First, we need to wait for the assessment to
be completed to see what they really need. I don't know that
yet.
Mr. Boyd. When will the assessment be completed?
Ms. McDougle. They are working on it now. I don't know. I
can get back to you with that.
Mr. Boyd. OK. Mr. Lawrence told me it would take a week. Is
that----
Ms. McDougle. I won't second-judge that. I don't know. It
just depends on how much they are looking at.
Mr. Boyd. So then, next week sometime we could get back
together and figure out who we need to go to to expedite?
Ms. McDougle. We can give you some sense of how long it is
going to take to finish that this week, so we can do that.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to followup on that quickly, because in addition to
the 60 days of assessment and evaluation that goes on, as this
administrative appeals process that I mentioned in our last
round of questioning, because that is the next stage that tends
to tie up salvage operations for timber sales and so on, and
the appeals process, the duration has nothing to do with how
many appeals there may be.
It is a consistent process in every single case. When this
timber is dead or is dying, the time for analysis, decisions
and the appeals, and sometimes the litigation that you pile on
top of that, can be so long that you lose any value in the
timber.
Let me ask, do you agree with that? Previously you said you
didn't agree or didn't believe that the administrative appeals
process had any impact on the ability to treat damaged acreage,
and so you have heard an immediate example in Florida.
And again, Congressman Boyd's example didn't really
contemplate the appeals process where some environmental group,
I guarantee, is going to come and submit--because somebody, I
am sure, thinks that cinder-coated pieces of wood out in the
middle of a dead forest is somehow useful and needs to stay as
it is. But once that occurs, you are talking about I don't know
how many months, but a long, long time.
I want to ask you one more time. Do you believe that there
is some need to review or evaluate the appeals process at the
administrative level?
Ms. McDougle. I don't think you should look at the appeals
process in and of itself, alone, as a stand----
Mr. Schaffer. Let me just stop you there, because we agree
on that point. I am talking about the total duration of time an
immediate evaluation, which can take up to 60 days including
NEPA process, and then an appeals process established that
exists beyond that.
So let's not look at it in and of itself, let's look at it
in its totality.
Ms. McDougle. The Secretary of Agriculture already has a
committee of scientists taking a look at recommendations to
totally overhaul our planning process. I presume that that is
one of the things that they are looking at as well, although I
have not seen the result of their work.
They are slated to be done in a couple of months, I
believe, but I am not absolutely sure on that. I think early
fall they will have completed their work, and I would suggest
that we give that process an opportunity to play out to see if
they have done something for us.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me move on to some other questions.
One is, I would like to get a sense for where we are headed
with budget requests, with budget outlays, and what is the
value of a dollar we spend in your agency on suppression and
preparedness for the public.
Let us talk in terms of trends. Where do you see the
conditions across the country? Are we--it is my sense that we
are seeing more volatile lands, more conducive to wildfires. Do
you agree with that assessment?
Ms. McDougle. I just testified that we believe we have
about 40 million acres that are at high risk of catastrophic
fire.
Mr. Schaffer. Is that more than the previous year, more
than previous years, if you can take a look at where we have
headed over a longer period of time?
Ms. McDougle. We are in the process now of refining that
number. It could be more, it could be less. I don't know yet.
Mr. Schaffer. Have we done these kinds of analyses 5 years
ago, 3 years ago?
Ms. McDougle. Not as well as we are doing them now.
Mr. Schaffer. So do we have any sense whether there are
more or less volatile wildlands that are susceptible to
wildfires today than, let's just say, last year?
Ms. McDougle. We have a better sense of where they are.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, what is that sense?
Ms. McDougle. Intermountain West.
Mr. Schaffer. No, I mean what is the sense of which
direction we are headed? Are our national forests becoming more
volatile, susceptible to wildfires, or less?
Ms. McDougle. Well, I would say, probably more, because
fuels are continuing to buildup.
Mr. Schaffer. Has there ever been any effort to try to
quantify the value of the 40 million acres? For example, I know
how many acres that is, but in terms of the value of those
acres to the American people, not just in resource value, but
also in the cost of putting out wildfires in those areas, has
there ever been any kind of analysis if we spend a dollar up
front how much are we going to save potentially in the coming
year?
Mr. Truesdale. If I may, sir, part of the analysis that we
use in our budget, that Mr. Josephson talked about also for the
Department of the Interior, uses a model that gives us a
benefit cost of protecting the national forests. And the
benefit is that if we are at the most efficient level
organization, if we put a dollar--if we spend a dollar on
protection, the presuppression organization, we are saving a
dollar in suppression costs in resource damages. And that model
has been used for 10, 15 years in order to determine an
efficient level of budgeting for our presuppression
organizations.
So we do the benefit cost from that sort of side of it.
Mr. Schaffer. In terms of various agencies, different
Federal agencies, State agencies, and private lands, do we have
any kind of an analysis of where our fire--our wildfire
problems are worse and where they seem to be more easily
contained or controlled, or maybe prevented altogether?
Mr. Truesdale. A combination of things. With the 40 million
acres that Janice just described that are at risk, the
individual fire histories, most areas, including States and
some local organizations, have fire history maps that they have
used to determine lightning patterns, for example, or patterns
that become obvious when you look at them, but where the roads
go through the forests, where people have access where fires
may start, where people live, where the wildlife interface is.
Mr. Schaffer. How about on an agency-by-agency basis? And
the reason I ask--I will stop, because I have expired my
allotted time here.
This Subcommittee did a field hearing in Idaho and Oregon,
and one of the things that made a big impression on me was that
I didn't realize that forest fires sometimes stop along a
straight line and the only difference between where the fire
burned intensely and where it stopped was that the Forest
Service owned the land that burned to the ground and private
interests owned the ground that is still green.
And what it suggests to me is that--right along the
property line is where the fire stops, and what it suggests to
me is that your job changes from property owner to property
owner across the country. So this 40 million acres, can you
tell me whether the majority of these acres are Federal lands
and whether they are managed by the Forest Service or BLM or
some other Federal agency, or by State-held lands, or whether
it is possibly owned by private lands? My sense, without having
done the research, is that the greatest risk of wildfires is on
Federal lands, federally managed lands, and I guess I want to
get a sense of whether I am close to the mark or whether we
know that at all.
Ms. McDougle. That 40 million acres is Forest Service lands
only.
Mr. Schaffer. So this is all forest that you have estimated
here?
Ms. McDougle. Yes.
Mr. Schaffer. OK. Step away from the 40 million then, and
in terms of where our greatest risks of wildfires are across
the country, do we know what category of ownership those lands
fall into?
Mr. Truesdale. Well, if you look at the State of Florida,
for example, the risk that occurred over the past 2 or 3
months, if you use acreage, 12.5 percent was national forest
system's land and the rest was private or perhaps some other
Federal lands down there. But the majority in Florida impacted
State and private landowners instead of national forest
systems.
In the West, probably just in some parts of your State, for
example, where the majority of a particular area is Federal
land, then the risk would be higher on the Federal. But in
Florida, the risk was highest on the State lands.
Ms. McDougle. And to add to that, the State of Florida has
one of the most aggressive fuels treatment programs in the
country. Florida burns about 2 million acres a year. To give
you some sense of Forest Service, for instance, we burn about
1.2 million acres a year, nationwide. Florida burns about 2 and
still, they have this problem. Had they not had this aggressive
fuels effort ongoing to the State, it could have been a lot
worse than it was.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Truesdale, would you share with the
Committee the value of our volunteers and how we can help them?
Mr. Truesdale. I agree with the State forester from
Virginia that they are an extremely valuable part of the fire
protection throughout the United States. We--from a Federal
agency standpoint, we rely on them also as partners in fighting
fires on national forest system lands.
The Department of the Interior--I know Wally will say the
same thing--uses volunteer and State organizations, and we have
found that they have been very effective as the initial attack
on many, many wildland fires throughout the wild-urban
interface, even on Federal lands.
Mr. Peterson. What do we currently do to help them be
prepared and equipped, because--well, next week, in the next 2
weeks at some point in time, as soon as I get a clear date, I
am going to be meeting with 20 volunteer fire departments that
protect the INF, and they are looking for help.
What should I tell them?
Mr. Truesdale. The two programs that were outlined in the
GAO report that provide assistance, one, primarily to the State
forester to assist in developing the training, communications
equipment, those sorts of things for the organizations and the
Rural Volunteer Fire Program, a program that specifically funds
small rural volunteer fire departments; the Federal Excess
Personal Property Program where those groups are able, through
the State forester--and I apologize, I don't know your State
forester, but he runs a very good program, I am sure--to manage
that program that brings those Federal assets down to those
volunteer areas.
I think those are some of the best programs that we have at
our disposal to assist those folks not only in training and
education to help them make that transition from a structural
fire department to a wildland, but also to get the equipment,
which is different.
I believe Ms. Brown in her statement said, one of the
biggest problems they had in Florida, or maybe not the biggest,
but one of the problems they experienced in Florida were the
structural firefighters that, in many cases that you are
speaking of, did not have the lightweight, no-mix fire
protection clothing that they should have had for fighting
wildland fires, and making that transition not just simply to
use their structural protection equipment, but have specialized
training. That is a very big help to those areas.
Mr. Peterson. So State foresters administer those programs?
Mr. Truesdale. Yes.
Mr. Peterson. Back to the issue of prevention, the Forest
Service uses an example--I don't have the numbers from the
other agency, but you used to cut about 12 billion board-feet a
year, and you have about--plus salvage, which was--2 to 3
billion board-feet is what I have been told. Currently, you are
cutting about 3 billion board-feet a year, which includes
salvage. And people tell me that we really don't cut much green
timber anymore, salvage dominates the program.
I guess the question I want to ask, with that direction we
are heading in, do you really have the ability to thin out
forests that are overcrowded and impacted by insects and
disease and drought?
Ms. McDougle. We are currently working on an effort to do
just that, to deal with that issue, as well as the fuels issue.
The problem is, we have done all of the easy stuff and what is
left in there is the small-diameter wood that we don't have
good markets for.
Our Madison, Wisconsin, lab is working and has done a lot
of work, for instance, in Southeast Alaska with the communities
to develop--help them develop markets for the small-diameter
wood. And we are putting together for our--as we work on our
fiscal year 2000 budget, a real initiative we believe, not only
to deal with the forest health issue, but to create jobs in
these communities.
Mr. Peterson. But still, my question was a little different
than that.
I asked you, with your cut being about 3 billion board-feet
a year in your average salvage--that is, after the fact; that
is, after timber has died for some reason, or dying, has
historically been there--does that allow you--the amount of
timber you are cutting per year, does that allow you to thin
forests that need thinning?
Ms. McDougle. In addition to that, sure, if we get the
budgets to do so.
Mr. Peterson. But you don't--if, you are not getting them
presently?
Ms. McDougle. Well, I don't know that. I don't know that.
Mr. Peterson. Well, how about last year?
Ms. McDougle. Well, last year we did not have this
initiative, and we have been involving the administration in
the development of it, and so we think that there will be
support this time.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Josephson, would you like to speak to BLM
land and the Interior Department?
Mr. Josephson. I would have to defer to the BLM. If you
would ask that question, we will be glad to get back to you
with an answer.
Mr. Peterson. Would you get that information for me?
Mr. Josephson. Be glad to.
Mr. Peterson. I have no further questions.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. In followup to Mr. Peterson's line of
questioning, actually in the Congress we have increases for
Forest Service funding every year, so I urge those of you who
have to take the hard questions here in this Committee to look
to your administrative heads to make sure that the money we
allocate is properly spent on those very necessary programs.
It is not always easy to be here in front of the Committee
when the buck stops with you, but I appreciate your candid
answers, and I look forward to receiving your reports.
I do want to say, Mr. Josephson, I am not going to let you
off the hook. I do have some questions for you. Your expertise
is in fuels management and fire; isn't it?
Mr. Josephson. Wildland fires, that's right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Wildland fires. I do want to say, in Idaho,
right where we have the National Interagency Fire Command
Center that deploys information, as well as personnel and
equipment, all over the United States and sometimes, when it is
required, beyond our borders, we have a situation that is
developing that I mentioned earlier that has required our
former Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, former Governor
Cecil Andrus, to take to the airwaves with BLM public service
spots admonishing people that because we have 400 percent fuel
load in the cheat grass to be very careful about making sure
that there is no human-caused fire. Well, that is good, but
that is only a small part of the problem.
No. 1, we do have a 400 percent fuel load in that cheat
grass that not only occupies the landscape south and east and
west of Boise, but also north where fires that start can move
very quickly into private land, and as we have seen in the
past, move onto public Federal Forest Service land.
So when I was back there this weekend, we had the oddity of
having rainstorms in August in Boise, which is normally very
arid and dry. But when we have dry rainstorms or thunderstorms
move through our areas, we take an awful lot of lightning
strikes, and that is when so many of our fires are started in
that cheat grass area.
Now, cheat grass, as you know, contains a certain chemical
composition and a certain oil that when it burns, once it dries
out, it burns very, very hot, and winds begin to perpetuate
their own weather system because of the fire, and so it becomes
a massive fire.
As you know, Mr. Josephson, when fire begins on Federal
land, if it moves to State land or to private land, there is no
liability on the part of the Federal Government as to whether
they have properly tried to contain the fire early on in order
to prevent it moving onto someone else's land. But if fire
starts on private land or State land, if it moves into the
Federal land, then the Federal Government has been given the
authority to hold those people liable who did not contain the
fire properly when it was on their private land or State land.
That seems to be a situation that is way, way out of balance.
So with that in mind, Mr. Josephson, wouldn't it be
advisable for the Secretary to be given the authority to
control those fuel loads while they are still controllable? For
instance, in the interface between urban and wildland areas,
wouldn't it be advisable for the Secretary of Interior to be
given the authority by Congress to take care of those fuel
loads, either by mowing or grazing or plowing fuel breaks, or
whatever it is, around the areas so that fire would not move
from the Federal land on to other lands, so fire will not move
so quickly that we lose lives like we did a couple years ago?
Would you agree that that is a proper authority to be given
from this Congress to the Secretary?
Mr. Josephson. I believe the authority is already at the
local level, and they can do interface work with the local
communities; and if that includes plowing around the
communities or doing prescribed burns in local areas, that is
an option they can do at this time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Perhaps they can, but it has not been
spelled out clearly enough in the law that they are willingly
using it, and that is why we have seen the fires in that very
area that contains the National Interagency Fire Command
Center. I mean, it is just ironic that right there in Boise,
Idaho, we have had tremendously destructive fires. And so--
because it has not been spelled out perfectly clearly that the
Secretary has this authority to make those on-the-ground
decisions, it has not been done; and so, therefore, we have
lost property and we have lost lives with fires that began in
those flatlands where there was a high fuel load of cheat
grass.
And this, we are--we are naturally very concerned because
of the 400 percent increase in the growth of cheat grass; and
it has not been contained when it could have been, in the
springtime, either by mowing or grazing or whatever it might be
that the Secretary determines would be the proper method to
control the fuel load.
So would you be willing to work with the Congress and a lot
of people nationwide who are interested in making sure that
that interface is protected? Would the BLM be willing to work
with us on achieving that goal?
Mr. Josephson. Yes, we would be willing to work with you to
protect the local communities.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And to control the fuel load that does
buildup, in large part because of weather, either drought
conditions or heavier than normal water years when we have a
heavier fuel load? Will you work with us to control those
fuels?
Mr. Josephson. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Josephson.
Before I close the hearing, I want to yield for another
question from Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Again, I thank the chairwoman for holding this
hearing. I am glad that you have those questions for Mr.
Josephson. I certainly didn't want him to feel like he had been
slighted by this panel.
Ms. McDougle, I have one final question before we do close.
Can you tell me that the United States Forest Service will seek
alternative authorities for the Florida fire like they did in
Texas?
Ms. McDougle. No, I can't tell you that, because I don't
know what the need is yet. I have to wait until the field
people identify them, and then we will take a look and see what
is needed to do that. But I have not seen what they have
identified yet; it has not been submitted.
I assure you that I will get back with you later on this
week and let you know when we can expect something.
Mr. Boyd. OK. So that is the assessment team that is in
there now doing that work, that went in yesterday, that Mr.
Lawrence told me should take a week or so?
Ms. McDougle. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. OK. That is a reasonable answer, and if you
would, if we could communicate later in the week as that
assessment team does it work, that would be helpful, because I
would like to work with you to do what is best for the health
of that national forest.
Ms. McDougle. Understood.
Mr. Boyd. And that includes salvage efforts before those
stems rot. And I would like to be able to help you do that.
Thank you.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to thank the panelists very much for
your valuable time. We have held you here for a long time.
This has become an issue that is no longer just contained
in the Pacific Northwest or the Southwest, but is now a
nationwide problem. So we probably come together more often and
for longer, extended periods of time than we had hoped for.
But, again, thank you for your time. I look forward to the
reports being submitted to us, and I do want to remind the
witnesses that we will have additional questions for you that
we will submit in writing, and the record will remain open for
10 working days should you wish to add anything to your
testimony.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. With that, again I want to thank you, and
the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of James W. Garner, State Forester, Commonwealth of Virginia,
representing the National Association of State Foresters
Good morning, I am Jim Garner, State Forester of Virginia,
and I am here this morning representing the National
Association of State Foresters. I served as President of the
Association in 1995, and have served both as a member and
chairman of the Association's Forest Fire Protection Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the role of the States
in wildfire suppression and management, and to share our
perspective on how the system works and how it could be
improved. I have attached a copy for the record of a report,
entitled Managing Forests, Managing Fire: A Report to the
Congress on the Status of Wildfire Management in the United
States. This report was a cooperative effort of the National
Association of State Foresters and the American Forest and
Paper Association. It lays out in layman's terms the basic
structure of interagency cooperation and highlights the roles
of local fire departments in fire suppression, and I commend it
to your attention.
The Department of Forestry is the primary agency for
wildland fire control in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Like our
colleagues in other State Forestry agencies, we work closely
with local fire departments, other State agencies, and the
Federal wildland fire agencies including the USDA Forest
Service and agencies in the Department of the Interior. We also
work through interstate agreements to share resources in times
of critical need. In my view, these relationships are a model
of intergovernmental cooperation. There a few key features
worth noting.
First, local fire departments are the first lines of
defense against wildfire throughout the Nation. Volunteer
departments are predominant in rural areas, and it is critical
that they be well trained, staffed, and equipped to provide
initial attack on wildfires. The southern region of the United
States, as was demonstrated dramatically by the recent events
in Florida, experiences more fire starts than any other region.
An effective network of trained local departments, however,
helps keep costs down by catching most fires when they are
small.
For instance, in Virginia we had 1,242 fire starts last
year, but thanks to early and aggressive suppression, our
average fire was only 4 acres. Without well-equipped and
trained local departments, our average fire size, and the costs
of suppression, would be much higher. Right now, in Texas,
local fire departments are coping with literally hundreds of
starts each day, and they have in many cases avoided large,
expensive ``project'' fires.
There are over 26,000 rural volunteer fire departments in
the United States. To convert these small departments into full
time, paid firefighters would cost over $30 billion. More
importantly, as housing developments encroach into wildlands,
the jobs of these firefighters become more dangerous, more
complicated, and more expensive.
The second positive feature of our cooperative program is
that trained and well-equipped wildfire fighting crews from
across the country can be dispatched wherever they are needed.
This is due to careful coordination by regional coordination
centers, interstate fire compacts, and, when necessary, through
the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in your home State
of Idaho. During the recent fire situation in Florida, every
State except two had firefighters, equipment, or overhead in
Florida. My Department sent four bulldozer units, 2 Hummers,
and 42 people with support vehicles to Florida. They were
assigned to fires in Northeast Florida, and were placed under a
unified command under the direction of the Florida Division of
Forestry. Thanks to the efforts of the National Wildfire
Coordinating Group (NWCG), States and Federal firefighting all
train our crews using the same standards and similar equipment.
This enables firefighting resources to be used throughout the
country, and helps states with frequent wildfires by giving
their crews on the ground, practical experience.
When a fire year becomes extremely busy, State crews and
equipment can make up a large portion of the resources that are
dispatched nationally. In 1996, for example, every State
dispatched at least some overhead personnel to fires out of
State. It is also important to keep in mind that many, if not
most, of the firefighters who make up State fire crews are also
volunteer firefighters in the communities.
Third, the State Foresters work closely with the USDA
Forest Service on several programs that help keep our front
lone of defense well equipped and trained. Three programs help
us achieve this; the State Fire Assistance Program and the
Volunteer Fire Assistance Program, both managed by the USDA
Forest Service's Fire and Aviation Management staff, and,
third, the Federal Excess Personal Property Program (FEPP),
which we cooperate with the Forest Service in implementing.
The FEPP program is perhaps the most innovative of the
three. Through a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service
provided for by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, State
Foresters are able to screen property, primarily former
military equipment, at the Excess level, rather than the
surplus level. This equipment, which ranges from aircraft to
trucks, to mobile command posts to clipboards, is reconditioned
either by the State or by local fire departments and put
directly into service protecting homes and property from
wildfire. On average, about $140 million worth of FEPP is
annually distributed to the State. For instance, in Virginia,
we acquired $116,000 worth of equipment through the FEPP
program last year.
Two other points about FEPP are worth bearing in mind. By
using this program, we are greatly extending the useful life of
vehicles and other equipment that the taxpayers have already
paid for. States and localities add value to FEPP and have
tremendous pride in keeping the equipment in service. Second,
by allowing State forestry agencies to screen at the Federal
level and distribute the equipment in their States, it is put
to more effective use than would be the case if the nation's
thousands of fire departments had to sift and screen through
all of the items that are put on the excess list annually.
The last point I'd like to make is that we will never rid
this Nation of wildfire. We can, however take prudent steps
through the programs I've discussed to reduce costs and protect
lives and property. We can manage our lands to reduce fire
dangers by thinning overstocked forests and carefully using
prescribed fire. However, as events in Florida have shown,
sometimes many factors will come together to create a dangerous
and complicated wildfire situation. Unprecedented drought all
but nullified the positive impacts of prescribed fire use and
careful forest management. The growth of the wildland urban
interface, which in and of itself is caused by numerous,
complicated factors, turned what would have been
straightforward fire fighting tasks into tremendously expensive
exercises in emergency management. And until Mother Nature
changes the weather pattern, the only thing standing between
the citizens of Florida and the fires was our national fire
fighting forces. Situations like Florida can push these forces
to the limit.
We appreciate your support for wildland fire management,
and we look forward to working with you and the rest of the
Committee to see that the programs that help with this effort
are adequately supported.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) has
been-awarded the following Federal Grants and Cost Share
Agreements:
1. Federal Award Grant No. 98-G-037 was awarded on January 12,
1998 in the amount of $15,000 to NASF from the State and
Private Forestry Deputy Area of the USDA Forest Service.
2. Federal Award Grant No. 98-G-032 was awarded on December 8,
1997 in the amount of $251,000 to NASF from the State and
Private Forestry Deputy Area of the USDA Forest Service.
3. Federal Award Grant No. 98-G-039 was awarded on January 12,
1998 in the amount of $10,000 to NASF from the State and
Private Forestry Deputy Area of the USDA Forest Service.
4. Federal Award Grant No. 98-G-038 was awarded on January 12,
1998 in the amount of $10,000 to NASF from the State and
Private Forestry Deputy Area of the USDA Forest Service.
5. Federal Award Grant No. 95-G-201 was awarded on October 5,
1995 in the amount of $20,000 to NASF from the State and
Private Forestry Deputy Area of the USDA Forest Service.
6. Challenge Cost Share Agreement No. #08-98-S&PF-CCS-01 was
awarded on July 15, 1998 to NASF from the Southern Region of
the USDA Forest Service.
Any further information concerning the above five Federal Award
Grants may be directed to NASF at the above telephone number.
______
Statement of Wallace Josephson, Wildland Fire Specialist, Department of
Interior, Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of the
Interior's planning and budgeting processes for the Wildland fire
management program. The Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service
are the four land management agencies within the Department of Interior
with fire management programs. These agencies work in close cooperation
on budgeting, planning, and implementation activities related to fire
management.
The Department's wildland fire management program is guided by the
principles and policies of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
and Program Review, adopted by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior in December, 1995. The program ensures the capability to
provide safe, cost-effective fire management by providing appropriate
planning, staffing, training, and equipment. Fires are suppressed at
minimum cost considering firefighter and public safety and benefits and
values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives. The
Wildland fire program also recognizes that fire is a critical natural
process and must be integrated into resource-management plans and
activities at a landscape scale, across agency boundaries, based on the
best science and technology available. Whether discussing prescribed
fire or emergency suppression of uncontrolled wildland fire, let me
emphasize that the protection of human life and public safety is the
number one priority in all aspects of the wildland fire management
program.
Funds for the Department's Wildland Fire Management Program are
appropriated to the BLM and are made available by allocation to the
Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
A small portion is also allocated to the Office of the Secretary for
program coordination activities. The Department's Wildland Fire
Management Program is composed of two activities, Wildland Fire
Preparedness and Wildland Fire Operations, which I will summarize.
Wildland Fire Preparedness
Wildland fire preparedness involves the readiness and capability of
the Department to provide safe, cost effective fire management
programs. Staffing levels, training, fire management planning,
equipment availability, provision and maintenance of support facilities
(such as air tanker bases and supply warehouses), prevention activities
(such as public awareness and education), and interagency coordination
all fall within the category of fire preparedness.
The Fire Management Plan is the guide for budgeting and managing
the wildland fire preparedness activity. The primary analysis tool in
the Fire Plan is an economic marginal cost analysis combined with a
threshold analysis which is used to determine the Most Efficient Level
(MEL). MEL represents the funding necessary to provide the most cost-
efficient and technically effective fire management program that meets
land management objectives while minimizing the total cost of both
suppression and resource damage associated with uncontrolled wildland
fire. In other words, given the workload of an average annual fire
season, we determine the most efficient organization and estimate the
cost of supporting that organization at the least total cost to the
taxpayer. Fire planning and the calculations of MEL are updated
annually to reflect such things as changes in resource objectives,
values to be protected, land acquisition, increasing human-caused fire
occurrence associated with population growth, especially in the
wildland/urban interface, continued hazardous fuels build-up, and the
current year's field conditions. Fire Plans are developed by local
field offices and aggregated at the Washington office to identify
national needs.
Whenever efficiencies can be gained, Interior agencies enter into
cooperative agreements with other Federal, state, Tribal, and local
governments to exchange protection responsibilities and share scarce
resources. Preparedness resources are established in advance of fire
emergencies based on analysis of historic needs to ensure our
``readiness to respond.''
Wildland Fire Operations
The Wildland Fire Operations portion of the wildland fire
management program funds the development and implementation of the
emergency suppression, emergency rehabilitation, hazardous fuel
reduction operations, and fire severity programs. Emergency suppression
includes all management actions taken to suppress wildland fires in a
safe and cost effective manner. Emergency rehabilitation is carried out
to prevent any further land degradation and resource damage to lands
impacted by unplanned wildland fire or suppression activities.
Emergency rehabilitation funds are also used to reduce any residual
public health and safety risks that may result from uncontrolled
wildland fires. Hazardous fuel reduction operations use fire and
mechanical treatments as management tools to reduce fuel loadings and
restore fire to its natural role in the ecosystem. Commercial
activities, such as timber harvest or small wood product sales, are
used whenever commodity production can be used in an environmentally
sound manner to achieve the same objectives.
The organizational structure developed during the fire planning
process is based on the average annual workload because it is not cost
efficient to develop a fire organization for the most severe fire
season that occurs in a decade. Therefore, when abnormal conditions do
occur, suppression funds can be used upon request to increase local
preparedness capabilities. Such extraordinary capabilities may include
a temporary increase in firefighters or fire engines, propositioning of
personnel and equipment in areas of abnormally high risk, or standby
aircraft availability.
The overall goal of wildland fire operations is to protect natural
resources for defined management objectives and to preserve their
capability to contribute goods, services, and amenities to the Nation.
For fiscal year 1999, DOI's budget request of just over $140 million
dollars for wildland fire operations is based upon the last ten-year
average for emergency suppression and rehabilitation, plus an addition
for projected hazardous fuel reduction projects.
Coordination and Dispatch of Suppression Forces
Uncontrolled wildland fires occur unexpectedly and create an
emergency in which firefighters must respond rapidly to minimize risk
and damage. Despite public expectations, when the combination of
excessive fuel build-up, topography, extreme weather conditions,
multiple ignitions, and extreme fire behavior occur, it is impossible
to immediately suppress all fires. Firefighter and public safety, and
the ability to contain the spread of fires, can best be met only with
adequate preparation ahead of time, excellent interagency coordination
of personnel, supplies and required services, and safe but aggressive
implementation of fire control tactics. To meet these needs, the BLM,
in cooperation with the other DOI Bureaus, the Forest Service, and the
National Weather Service, maintains and operates the National
Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho. NIFC provides
logistical support for the coordinated movement of suppression forces
when local capabilities are exceeded. Other national services provided
by NIFC include a cache for firefighting supplies, equipment and
radios, a technical support group for communications, remote sensing
programs, and the National fire training development center.
The National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) resides at NIFC
and is staffed jointly by the BLM and Forest Service. NICC sits at the
top of a three-tiered firefighting coordination pyramid. When activity
warrants, NICC operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. NICC is also
an ``all-risk'' coordination center, and can provide support in
response to other emergencies such as floods, hurricanes, and
earthquakes.
The three-tiered coordination system operates under established
ordering protocols. Federal, state, and Tribal dispatch centers located
throughout the United States generally receive the first requests for
personnel, equipment, and supplies in response to emergency situations.
When local dispatch offices can no longer fill requests, they turn to
one of eleven Geographic Area Coordination Centers (GACCs) to fill the
requests. When GACCs can no longer meet the requests, either because
they are supporting multiple incidents or are competing for resources,
requests for equipment and supplies are referred to the NICC. NICC
coordinates supplies and resources across the entire United States, and
also has the authority to obtain or provide support for incidents in
foreign countries. When the nation's fire business involves multiple
geographic areas and resources are no longer plentiful, the National
Multi-agency Coordinating Group establishes national priorities for
personnel, equipment, and supplies. Response to requests is based upon
the concepts of ``closest forces'' and ``total mobility'' which seek to
dispatch the closest available qualified resource, regardless of agency
affiliation. The Fire Center and its NICC component are recognized
around the world as a premier organization for wildland fire management
and the coordination and dispatch of resources, supplies, and technical
knowledge in support of emergency situations.
Florida Support
We were asked by the Committee to identify both jobs well done and
lessons learned as a result of the recent devastating uncontrolled
wildland fires in the state of Florida. Review of the total Federal
response to the Florida fires has barely begun. Wildfire season
typically shifts around the nation in response to seasonal weather
patterns. As is illustrated this year, fires in Florida have been
followed by extreme conditions in Texas and Oklahoma. It appears the
fire season is following the typical pattern and severe fire control
conditions are shifting to the Northern Rockies, the Pacific Northwest,
and the Great Basin states. Our focus at this time of the year is
staying ahead of the curve. While review of past actions can always
show us potential for improvement, the Florida fires did not indicate a
major need for changing our programs or processes. The DOI and NICC,
for the most part, served primarily in a support function. Most of the
Florida fires, including most of the high profile, highly publicized
fires, were under the control of the State. The NICC, with the support
of both the military and private sector, did an excellent job of
coordinating the transportation of western crews and equipment to
support their actions.
Conclusion
Madam chairman, I would like to thank the Congress for its
direction and support for interagency coordination and collaboration in
regard to the overall Federal fire management program. We continue to
strive to conduct an integrated, intergovernmental approach to the
management of wildland fire, as endorsed by our 1995 fire management
policy program and review. It is our belief that we provide world class
capabilities for the suppression of uncontrolled wildland fire. We hope
to extend this highly successful approach into our prescribed fire
program as well.
This concludes my statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions
the Committee may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.071
Statement of Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief, STate and Private
Forestry, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
I am Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief for State and Private
Forestry with responsibility for fire and aviation, forest health, and
cooperative forestry programs. I am accompanied by Denny Truesdale, our
Assistant Director of Fire and Aviation Management for Operations. The
wildfire suppression program in the United States is a partnership with
a broad array of Federal agencies, state, tribal, and local
governments, and private companies; its first priority is protecting
human life.
As you requested, I will briefly discuss the highly organized and
strategic approach of the Forest Service's wildfire suppression
program. When a fire occurs, we respond immediately, implement attack
strategies, identify additional resources needed, and expand the
organization as needed to protect people and property.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy resulted from a 1995
interagency review, which I have provided for the record. This policy
is applied on all Forest Service and Department of Interior managed and
protected lands and has four priorities: (1) firefighter safety and
public safety is the highest goal; (2) we support the role of fire in
restoring and sustaining healthy ecosystems; (3) we integrate fire
management into land management planning, and (4) the policy stress of
improving fire and aviation accountability within the Forest Service.
Several factors influence an effective and safe fire suppression
program, including the expansive wildland/urban interface, hazardous
fuel conditions, the increasingly broad array of partners involved in
suppression, and the increased role for the Forest Service in providing
international assistance.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
We have an outstanding track record. The Federal fire fighting
agencies have consistently suppressed 98 percent of all wildfires
during initial attack; only 2 percent of all fires account for the
greatest cost and most acreage burned.
We rely on strong cooperation with the states, providing equipment
and funds to help states help us. The USDA cooperative fire program
currently has more than $800 million in surplus Federal property on
loan to state and local governments for use in fire suppression. USDA
annually provides approximately $15 million in cost-share grants to
strengthen state programs, and an additional $2 million to help train
and equip volunteer firefighters in rural towns.
The Forest Service is a world leader in fire behavior and
management research. We have an ongoing research program on the effects
of fire on vegetation and wildlife, smoke management, and reducing fire
hazard by finding markets for small diameter trees.
The five Federal wildland fire management agencies, the Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, are strengthening the
common features of their respective wildland fire management planning
processes. This structure is a nationally recognized decision-making,
planning, operational, and logistics structure that all wildland
firefighters understand, and use. It includes an incident commander and
their operations and support staffs, providing a framework for wildland
firefighters to respond to any incident. It has the flexibility to
expand staff and organization as an incident becomes more or less
complex.
INITIAL ATTACK
Initial attack analysis and planning is the backbone of our
success. The National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) is a
model we use to identify the most efficient firefighting organization.
Developed locally to determine what mix and distribution of initial
attack resources will provide a cost effective fire suppression
program, the results of the local analyses are aggregated into the
national program. This assures the most responsive organization
possible.
The NFMAS model takes local suppression resource productivity,
historical fire occurrence, hazards and values at risk, interagency
commitments, and fire management objectives, and projects estimated
fire suppression costs and net changes to natural resource values.
Wildland/urban interface areas become a priority for the commitment of
resources because of the private property values at risk. The budget
for the most efficient preparedness organization identified by the
analysis is the one that results in the lowest program cost, including
losses, over time. This information is provided to decisionmakers in
the development of program budgets and the effects of alternative
budget levels can be analyzed.
Once we identify the best mix of resources within available budget,
forest supervisors provide the identified number of crews, engines,
helicopters, or other initial attack resources, including airtankers
needed to respond to the normal fire season. Average fire seasons have
been established through our assessment and planning processes. That
average season has a beginning and ending date, anticipated days of
each kind of burning risk, as well as norms for the intensity with
which a fire would burn.
Effectiveness of a suppression program is directly related to local
fuel treatment efforts. The value of prescribed fire as a tool to
change wildfire behavior was demonstrated in Florida where treated
areas were defensible but fire crews had to retreat from flames in
untreated areas.
When predicted or actual burning conditions exceed those we expect
and wildfire ignitions are imminent, when fire season starts early, or
extend beyond normal, local units can request additional funds from the
Washington Office to increase their level of fire preparedness through
our fire severity program, which allows for additional staffing for
serious fire risk outside of the normal season.
EXTENDED ATTACK
When initial attack fails, and local resources are not capable of
controlling one or more wildfires, we shift to extended attack and
assign national resources such as Incident Management Teams,
Interagency Hotshot Crews, large airtankers, and infrared detection
aircraft to the fire.
We are conducting interagency studies regarding the national shared
resources used in extended attack. We are assessing the most efficient
staffing levels; best procurement methods of airtankers, medium and
large helicopters, and smokejumpers; and the improvements we need to
make to support facilities. Studies have been completed on the most
efficient medium and large helicopters and large airtanker support
needed for the national fire suppression program. The studies have also
identified that the location and quality of base facilities is as
important as the aircraft themselves. Other studies are underway that
will provide managers with options for management of smokejumpers,
helitack, and rappel crews as well as aircraft support and base
locations. All will be used to improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of the national suppression program.
NATIONAL INTERAGENCY PROGRAM
The protection of people and resources is very complex in today's
world. Planning and coordination occur at all levels to assure the safe
delivery of an interagency fire suppression program. The National
Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise has dispatched over 35,000
people at one time in response to fires across the United States. NIFC,
the heart of the national fire suppression program, serves as a
coordination, dispatch, communications, and warehouse center for all
wildland fire agencies. At the center, the Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs are collocated and work closely with state and
tribal foresters. Center directors serve as a national Multi-Agency
Coordinating Group to improve technology, skills, equipment, integrate
wildland/urban interface concerns, and program delivery, resulting in
better suppression response and reduced costs.
THE 1998 SEASON
In 1998 the Federal agencies are fully staffed for the fire season.
We have adequate resources in every region for effective suppression,
assuming that this is, and will be, an average year.
Florida has experienced extreme fire behavior and significant
losses to property and resources due to extended drought, which caused
highly flammable fuels. In late May and early June, Florida got a
highly unusual amount of dry lightning, and suffered its most severe
fire season since 1985. At the request of State Forester Earl Peterson,
we provided Federal assistance which at the peak, totaled 1200 fire
managers, 27 Interagency Hotshot Crews, 22 suppression crews, 165
engines, 4 tractors, and 98 aircraft. The Florida Division of Forestry
and the local Forest Supervisor established a unified area command
structure to assist in prioritizing suppression efforts and suppressed
almost a half million acres of wildfire in very complex environment
with minimal losses ant injuries. The success this year can be compared
to the losses in the 1985 fires when more homes and businesses were
lost in a day than over the 1998 month-long siege. The Forest Service
still has 75 personnel assisting in closeout of the Florida fires.
The Florida efforts affixed value of a prescribed fire program to
create more fire tolerant ecosystems and better protect homes and
improvements. It also reinforced the value of our safety program. In
Florida, we had to educate crews from other regions of the health and
fire threats unique to Florida.
The other high profile fire situation this year took place in
Mexico and Central America. The U.S. Agency for International
Development, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance coordinated the U.S.
response. Mexico requested the most assistance, including technical
assistance, large helicopters, an incident management team, an infrared
aircraft, 3,000 sets of personal protective equipment, and
communications equipment. We also assisted Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.
The 1998 fire season has occurred locally, with few situations
where national incident command teams were dispatched in more than one
region simultaneously. A total of 75,932 acres of National Forest
System lands burned during the month of July which began with fire
danger in the very high to extreme categories in Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas, Georgia, Colorado, Utah, California, and Florida. In Florida the
drought was one of the most severe experienced in the past 50 years,
and firefighters battled on average of 70-80 new fires each day.
Three National Fire Prevention teams were active during the month
of July in Florida, Utah, and Texas where team members worked with
state, county, and local fire service organizations to reduce the
potential number of human-caused fires.
Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Southern Arizona,
Washington, and Oregon are currently experiencing increased fire
activity. The 90 day outlook indicates that the extreme southern tip of
California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, western Texas, and
southwestern Utah are most likely to have increased fire activity
because they are predicted to be warmer and drier than normal over that
period. We will take actions needed to assure that adequate resources
are available for dispatch within, and to, that region.
The remainder of the United States is experiencing fewer than
normal wildfires for this time of year. More than one-half of the fires
occurred in the southern part of the United States. In many areas, the
lower than normal fire danger can be attributed to unusual spring rain
and snow.
CLOSING
The Forest Service fire suppression program is professional,
responsive to the concerns and needs of partners, and based on the
continuous study of historical fire occurrence and risk. We are very
proud of the program, its value to the public, and the firefighters who
work endless days, and get great satisfaction from the protection of
people and resources.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0964.118