[Senate Hearing 108-140]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-140
NATION'S FORESTS HEALTH PROBLEMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 1314
TO EXPEDITE PROCEDURES FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ACTIVITIES ON
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS ESTABLISHED FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND
OTHER PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, TO
IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS ESTABLISHED FROM THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN AND OTHER PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
S. 1352
TO EXPEDITE PROCEDURES FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ACTIVITIES AND
RESTORATION IN WILDLAND FIRE PRONE NATIONAL FORESTS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
H.R. 1904
TO IMPROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PLAN AND CONDUCT HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION
PROJECTS ON
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS AIMED
AT PROTECTING COMMUNITIES, WATERSHEDS, AND CERTAIN OTHER AT-RISK LANDS
FROM CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE, TO ENHANCE EFFORTS TO PROTECT WATERSHEDS
AND ADDRESS THREATS TO FOREST AND RANGELAND HEALTH, INCLUDING
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE, ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
JULY 22, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
89-739 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
Kira Finkler, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Bunning, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Kentucky.................... 3
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 6
Covington, Dr. W. Wallace, Director, Ecological Restoration
Institute, Northern Arizona University......................... 63
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 4
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Duncan, Sara, Coordinator of Intergovernmental Affairs, Denver
Water Board, Denver, CO........................................ 68
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 9
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................ 9
Martz, Hon. Judy, Governor, State of Montana, on behalf of the
Western Governors' Association................................. 14
McCarthy, Laura, Forest Trust, Sante Fe, NM...................... 52
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 10
Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Governor, State of Arizona............... 18
Nivison, Michael, Chair, Otero County Commission, Otero, NM...... 75
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 33
Robinson, Tom, Director of Government Affairs, Grand Canyon
Trust, Flagstaff, AZ........................................... 58
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 12
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 14
Vincent, Bruce, Executive Director, Communities for a Greater
Northwest, Libby, MT........................................... 70
Watson, Rebecca, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 32
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 6
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 81
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 83
NATION'S FOREST HEALTH PROBLEMS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V.
Domenici, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Now we're going to proceed with the hearing.
We have a series of panels, important testimony, and a genuine
amount of interest on the part of Senators. So I will try to be
fair but expedite.
I want to open the hearing by thanking my ranking member,
Senator Bingaman and each of committee members for taking time
to come to this hearing.
I would like to insert in the record my prepared remarks at
this moment, regarding the reality of where the jurisdiction
lies and what is going to happen with various bills. I think
you know by now that the principle bill that came over to us
from the House was referred to the Agriculture Committee by the
Parliamentarian. We thought better of trying to contest it for
a lot of reasons. They are proceeding with dispatch. They will
report a bill to the floor of the Senate soon. Soon being?
Mr. Gladics. They are going to do a markup tomorrow.
The Chairman. We have our own responsibility and, of
course, with a bill coming out of the assigned committee going
to the floor, we are going to have to decide what we do. Do we
report a bill? Do we report and send it to the floor and try to
impose it at given times on that bill? Do we try to superimpose
the entire bill with a bill of ours? Obviously, those decisions
can be made soon.
We are here today to hear testimony on the forest health
legislation and to have dialogue on the issues that seem to
keep us from dealing with the problem in our forests. The bills
that we have before us, as I have them noted, are S. 1314,
introduced by Senators Bingaman and Daschle; S. 1352 introduced
by Senators Wyden and Feinstein; H.R. 1904, the House-passed
forest health bill which I just described as being physically
and power-wise in the jurisdiction of the Ag Committee of the
Senate.
As I see it, there are a handful of key differences in the
proposals. There may be many more. But as I see it, the
appropriate number of acres for each project is the difference
in the bills. Whether the focus will be solely on wildland-
urban interface or not is an issue and the degree of equipment
limitations for the projects, the number of alternatives that
must be analyzed, and different administrative appeals
processes and court reviews, and last my analysis, whether
courts should be directed to balance short-term risk against
potential for long-term harm.
I want to thank the Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano,
for coming here to represent the Western Governors'
Association. I know it is hard to make trips like this when
your State has been in the brunt of that young fire season and
the other issues that you obviously have.
I want to thank Governor Judy Martz from the State of
Montana for coming to testify on such short notice and under
the same kind of difficulties that I have just underscored for
Governor Napolitano.
In a few minutes, we are going to hear Under Secretary of
Agriculture, Mark Rey, and Rebecca Watson, the Department of
the Interior's Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, and I also want to extend a special welcome to
Otero County, New Mexico Commissioner Mike Nivison and Ms.
Laura McCarthy of the Forest Trust in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Welcome to both of you.
Now, opening statements. If there are any, let us do them
now. Senator Bingaman, you are first.
[The prepared statements of Senators Domenici and Bunning
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator
From New Mexico
I want to open this hearing by thanking my Ranking Member Senator
Jeff Bingaman and each of the Committee members for taking the time to
come to this very important hearing.
We are here to take testimony on S. 1314--Senator Bingaman and
Daschle's forest health legislation, S. 1352--Senator Wyden and
Feinstein's forest health legislation and H.R. 1904--the House passed
forest health legislation and to discuss the issues that seem to keep
us from dealing with the forest health issue.
I want to thank the Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano for
coming here to represent the Western Governors Association. I know it
is hard to make trips like this when your State has seen the brunt of
this young fire season. I want to thank Governor Judy Martz of Montana
for coming to testify on such short notice. In recent weeks Montana has
faced the beginnings of what could be a repeat of the 2000 fire season.
In fact, I see that the Hidden Lake and Blackwall Fires are in the same
area that was so hard hit in 2000.
In a few minutes we are going to hear from our other witnesses,
including Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey and Rebecca Watson,
Department of Interior's Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources,
Lands and Mineral Management.
I also want to extend a special welcome to Otero County, New Mexico
Commissioner Mike Nivison and Ms. Laura McCarthy of the Forest Trust in
Santa Fe, New Mexico. Welcome to both of you.
Now, I want to show a ten-minute video on what is happening to our
federal forests and grass lands and I hope each of us will find a way
to get beyond the deadlock we've suffered on this issue.
We have been bickering over just about everything but the land. It
is the land and keeping that land productive and enjoyable for our
constituents that we must focus on.
Before we dim the lights, I want to show one graph that will help
put our hearing in perspective. This is a graph of the number of acres
that have burned on the National Forests each year since 1994 compared
to the number of acres harvested each year.
In six of the last nine years, fires on the National Forest burned
more acres than were harvested. In some years we've burned four and
five times what has been managed through harvesting.
Despite our debate about timber harvesting. It has been fires that
have been destroying important wildlife and fisheries habitat. Today, I
hope we will begin to worry about the agents of change that are robbing
America of its forests--insects, diseases, and fire.
After the video, we will accept other opening statements and then
proceed to our witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Bunning, U.S. Senator From Kentucky
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing on the impacts of insects, disease, weather-related
damage, and fires on public and private forest lands is important for
the protection of communities, natural resources, and forests nation
wide. I believe that assessing the factors behind the rash of recent
devastating forest fires, as well as advancing the determination of
solutions to such problems, is significant for the health and welfare
of communities, industry, and environmental treasures across America.
Kentucky boasts two national forests, the Daniel Boone National
Forest and the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area. The
preservation of these lands from forest fires and other forms of
natural detriment is of paramount importance to myself and my fellow
Kentuckians.
Kentucky has worked hard to maintain healthy forests. While I know
that western forests have been more affected by wildfires in recent
years, I hope that Kentucky's forests are not forgotten in future
forest fire programs.
I appreciate the time that our witnesses have taken today to
testify. I look forward to hearing their thoughts on fire risk
reduction and restoration practices.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
a very important issue for all of us, and I appreciate your
having the hearing and appreciate the witnesses coming.
There are some very real differences in the bills that have
been presented, in the bill that I introduced with several co-
sponsors and, of course, in the bill which has come over from
the House of Representatives, as you indicate, to the
Agriculture Committee.
I think one key area of difference, that we obviously will
have a chance to ask the witnesses about, is the whole issue of
the extent to which we need to focus these resources on the
urban-wildland interface in the areas where structures and
communities and homes are actually threatened.
Another area, of course, is the extent to which appeals
should be permitted and public participation should be
permitted in decisions about forest thinning.
Another issue that I wanted to particularly flag for the
committee is one that I have heard about in our State of New
Mexico. That is the delay which, it appears to me, has been
caused by the practice that we have talked about at several
previous hearings where the Forest Service has to borrow funds
from other accounts in order to fight the fires that they are
required to fight each year. And that borrowing from other
accounts winds up delaying forest thinning type activity,
critical projects in our State. I have a quotation from the
Forest Service in one of their communications where they said
some critical projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to a
year as a result of fire borrowing, they call it.
The legislation that I have introduced tries to correct
that or provide another mechanism for the Forest Service to get
the funds they need to fight the fires without having to take
it out of these accounts that are the accounts that ought to be
used for this forest thinning activity.
There are many other issues we will have a chance to get
into with the questions, but again I appreciate your having the
hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Anybody else? Would the Senators make them brief, please?
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, and I ask
unanimous consent that my full statement be a part of the
record.
Let me thank you for that film. I think it lays out
honestly and fairly the problems we are facing predominantly in
the West, but it is true of all of our national forests in one
form or another with one bug problem or one overgrowth, fuel-
loading in another.
In the part of that film--and I want to draw this to the
attention of the committee--you saw some standing trees, bug-
killed. That section of that film came from the Nez Perce
Forest in Idaho outside Elk City, Idaho, in the Red River
drainage. There are about 10,000 or 12,000 acres that are now
dead there and many more dying this year because of bug
infestation.
The reason that is uniquely interesting is because of a
phenomenon that happened in Idaho and Montana years ago. It
happened on August 20, 1910 in approximately the same area.
Lightning struck. The circumstances were right. The perfect
storm ensued, and 2 days later, 3 million acres were burned
across Idaho, north Idaho, and Montana. The largest single fire
ever in the history of our country, people dead, communities
burned, wildlife destroyed, and over 3 million acres gone.
The Chairman. What year?
Senator Craig. 1910, August 20, August 21.
Interestingly enough, the perfect storm is now developing
again. The same situation is at hand again in Elk City, Idaho.
There is a fire burning there as we speak about 30 miles east
of Grangeville, Idaho on the Nez Perce Forest, a few miles from
where this great fire of 1910 originally started. It is about
400 acres today. It is not in control. It was topping
yesterday, or crowning, like what you saw in the film.
I would hope that our foolishness, our clear recognition of
a problem, our inability to act last year and the year before
because of the politics in part spelled out, but also
reflective of all the legislation we have in front of us. We
are tiptoeing through the forests as they burn.
Last year at this time, about 3 million acres was already
gone for the year. This year, we are at about 1.2 million acres
already burned, Mr. Chairman. It is 100 degrees in Boise, Idaho
today. Today will make the hottest stretch of heat on record
for Idaho ever in its recorded history. The Great Basin West is
hotter than it has ever been. It is drier than it has ever
been, and we are starting to burn.
I would hope that common sense would yield to the reality
of what we are facing here or the politics would yield to the
common sense, I should say, to deal with this issue and that we
ought to move expeditiously.
I thank you for the hearing today, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator From Idaho
I want to thank Chairman Domenici for holding this hearing.
It is said that if you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it.
Given our inability to find a rational common sense solution to our
forest health disasters--we--the members of this Committee and this
Congress are signing the death warrants for millions of acres of
forests, hundreds of thousands of animals, birds, and fish--and who
knows how many communities.
On August 20 and 21 of 1910, fires consumed more than three million
acres of land in Idaho and northwestern Montana. Think of that--an area
3/4 the size of Connecticut--gone in less time than it takes us to
debate your average appropriation's bill on the floor of the Senate.
At that time it was reported that fire whorls, the size of a man's
arm, carried along on 50 mile-per-hour winds, swept through towns 50
miles to the east of these fires.
The sun was completely obscured in Billings, Montana, a town 500
miles to the east of the fires. The sky was darkened as far east as New
York State.
Our forest health problems are not isolated in the rural west. In
1989, Hurricane Hugo slammed ashore near Charleston, South Carolina and
cut a swath northwest through North Carolina into Virginia, destroying
thousands of acres of forest.
On the Francis Marion National Forest, in South Carolina, 70% of
the trees were killed. Our response was to immediately expedite the
process of cleanup, salvage, and replanting, including NEPA, and to
funnel millions of dollars into that effort.
In January 1998, more than 17 million acres of forests were heavily
damaged in an ice storm that stretched from New York State, across New
Hampshire, Vermont and into Maine. Our response was to appropriate $48
million to help the cleanup and expedite projects on the federal lands
in the area.
In the spring of 1999, when a blowdown followed by a Southern Bark
beetle epidemic ravaged the Texas National Forests, we provided
emergency exemptions that allowed managers to enter into Wilderness
Areas to sanitize the stands to slow the spread of the insects.
On July 4 of that same year, more than 600,000 acres of forests in
Northern Minnesota were blown down. Our response was to provide waivers
from NEPA to help the area begin a recovery process.
Just last year, in the Supplemental Defense Appropriations Bill, we
helped Senators Daschle and Johnson deal with forest health
emergencies, in their state, by exempting projects from all NEPA, all
appeals, and all litigation.
Each time a common sense approach was supported by this body. Each
time we reached out to our neighbors to help them deal with the forest
health problems they'd suffered.
Thanks to Senator Domenici, we've seen, in a few short minutes,
what our inaction is causing. I noted pictures of the forests around
Elk City, Idaho which is, as we speak, being destroyed by bark beetles
and quite literally the Slims fire burning less than 20 miles to the
west threatens the community as I speak.
Ask yourself if our forefathers, in times of dire emergency, would
have maintained, or relaxed, an Administrative Appeals process that is
chiefly utilized by seven or eight self-avowed anti-action groups to
stop needed projects.
Ask yourself if our forefathers, in time of emergency, would have
done away with the NEPA analysis process, or would they have made it
more complex, and time consuming, like some of the legislation we are
now considering does.
At times, I contemplate how we would have dealt with the events of
September 11, or the record tornado's of this spring, or the hurricanes
that we've suffered, if we would impose the Forest Service NEPA and
Appeals processes on the entire country. Then I thank God that we've
had more sense than that.
Many private forest landowners in your States are currently staring
down the barrel of a loaded gun. That gun is filled with insects,
disease, and fires and it is being aimed at them from neighboring
public land.
These people are having the greatest difficulty understanding why
this Senate can't come together to help all the citizens of this county
in the same manner we've responded to other natural disasters.
While I fear that the modest changes called for in H.R. 1904 will
not be enough. I have learned that every great journey starts with a
small step, and I trust each of you on this Committee will help us take
that first small step by supporting the President's Healthy Forest
Initiative.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
begin, Mr. Chairman, by commending you for your ongoing and
dogged efforts to try to get the Senate to a bipartisan
coalition of 60 votes that can get this legislation to the
President. I want to reiterate the commitment I have made to
you over the last couple of years to pull out all the stops, to
get this legislation to the President.
These fires are not natural. They are infernos, and it is
impossible to overstate the importance of this issue to the
rural West. We are going to see communities all up and down the
West turn into sacrifice zones if we do not move ahead with
this legislation.
I think you evinced, once again, your bipartisan desire to
move ahead on this when you worked with me to add the extra
money for the Fire Plan. Unfortunately, we did not finally
prevail in conference, but it is an indication of how committed
you are to getting the Senate to the common ground on this
issue, and you have my commitment to work with you.
With respect to the legislation Senator Feinstein and I
have introduced, the Community and Forest Protection Act, we
seek to balance the need for public participation with the need
to trim the bureaucratic red tape that binds the management of
our forests and aids the bugs and fires in their destruction of
these national treasures.
Suffice it to say, as I have gone about the West, Mr.
Chairman, what I have seen is again and again a sense that
people feel passionately about the right to participate in the
debate about forestry and the right to be heard, for example,
in the legal system, but they understand that there should not
be a constitutional right to a 5-year delay with respect to
these forestry decisions. So somewhere in between, as Senator
Feinstein and I have tried to do with our legislation, is the
balance.
We are hopeful that we can work with you to break the
gridlock this time. The Senate got close last time. My sense
was that we were making a fair amount of headway, and we began
to take a fair amount of shrapnel from all sides. Hopefully
this time more Senators will be willing to join you, Mr.
Chairman, in the effort to find the common ground, and you will
have my support in that cause.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would
like to welcome my Governor from the State of Montana and also
Bruce Vincent, who has more than a passing interest in this
subject as he has been involved in the wood products and the
forestry business up in northwest Montana for a long time.
I guess what is alarming to me, there is no situation worse
than people who will not hear. I want to throw out a couple of
facts. I have got a little thing I want to show you here and to
illustrate how important it is that we have healthy forests.
Healthy communities and healthy forests are interlaced, and if
you do not have one, you do not have the other, and it does not
make any difference which one you put in priority.
In 1990, we had 38 small mills in Montana. We are now in
2002 at 19. I think around 2008 we will be down to 6. That is
just fact.
There is also one other disturbing thing that is popping
up. Now, I know that we have seen everybody appeal a sale or
whatever is done on the forest. Do those appeals lead to a
different management tool or style? No, they do not. The only
thing the appeal does is stop the process, offering no other
answer to the problem that we have today.
These are actual figures. We are, on two forests in
Montana, losing more trees to disease and mortality than we are
growing in those two forests. Overall, out of nine forests, on
two forests we are losing all that we grow. Overall, of all the
growth in 1 year--now, these are 2003 figures. They aren't last
year and they aren't 10 years ago. We are losing half of that
growth just to disease and mortality.
Now, you tell me, can the taxpayer afford to subsidize a
business like that? Could you farm or ranch and lose half your
crop every year or your business? I am asking America to look
and see the facts. And I have some more in here as we go along.
But I just wanted to bring that up today because this ill-
conceived idea that appeals and the public input--and I guess I
am as much a part of the public input too, but if I ran a ranch
or a business with all public input, I would be in the poor
house. And I know what it is like to go broke because I did it
once on my own, taking nobody's advice.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. So that is how smart I am.
But I am also smart enough to know that there are a lot of
folks out here who do not have the environment or the forest
health at stake. What is at stake here is political power and
money, and it is wrong. It is wrong for the forests. It is
wrong for America, and it is wrong for the American taxpayers,
who financially have to pay the bill.
I thank the chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns, U.S. Senator From Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for
appearing here today. In particular, I would like to recognize two
people who will be testifying: First, my thanks to Gov. Judy Martz, who
is representing the Western Governor's Association, for joining us.
Your experience as Montana's governor has prepared you well to be a
witness on the importance of Healthy Forests.
Additionally, I am grateful the Committee has extended an
invitation to Bruce Vincent, from Libby, Montana. Bruce has a special
talent for bringing the concerns of resource based rural communities to
the attention of people who otherwise may not have a stake in them. He
is a champion for the hard working people so many of us on this
committee know personally, but that too many in this country--and in
this body--are trying to put out of business.
It is appropriate to have Bruce testify, because this is a hearing
that may very well define the future of a number of Montana's
communities. This hearing is about the health of our national forests
and also the health of communities dependent those national forests. It
is about finding a way to preserve the clean water, the clean air, and
the wildlife habitat the residents of Montana treasure. The communities
and the forests are tied together, since if the communities die, there
will be no infrastructure remaining to take care of those national
forests. When America's forests burn up, they make the national news.
But when America's towns and the schools and the churches close down
because there aren't any jobs left in the forests, the cameras are
nowhere to be found. It's still a tragedy, even if Montanans are the
only ones watching.
Today, there are over 190 million acres of forests at risk of
devastating wildfire. The situation is a result of a general
degradation of the health of our forests. This degradation is the
direct result of past poor management practices, which results in our
forests being more susceptible to devastating wildfire and deadly
insect infestations. The decision we need to be willing to make is to
change the direction of management, because from where I'm sitting the
current method just isn't working and it hasn't for the last 20 years.
The costs associated with wildfire suppression now reaches into the
millions per fire, totally in the billions of dollars annually.
However, fire suppression is not the only costs of the wildfire and
insect infestations. There are equally high costs associated with lost
and damaged wildlife habitat, clean air and water issues, problems of
siltation in our rivers and streams, loss of critical infrastructure,
and loss of tourism. Ask the people in the Bitterroot Valley about air
quality, and they'll tell you the worst they've ever seen was during
the fires of 2000.
Let me sketch a picture of what's happened throughout the forested
west:
in Montana, in 1990, there were 38 small, independent timber mills;
in 2002, there were 19; and,
if changes aren't made in our forest management practices, I
foresee only 6 mills in 2008.
The number of timber mills here is simply representative of our
ability to address forest health. Without forest professionals, and
experienced loggers, and the mills to process timber products, we stand
no chance of recreating a healthier forests. Of course, the mills also
provide another side benefit in the creation of good-paying jobs,
health insurance, and tax base. For both those reasons we can't stand
by and watch Montana's critical infrastructure go the way of mills in
the state of Arizona where today there are none. Without this
infrastructure we simply will not be able to address the critical
forest health issues, and other industries reliant on these mills will
begin to close their doors as well.
We must not let the healthy debate over forest health evolve into a
political debate over cutting timber. There are people who simply have
an objection to cutting down trees, but I wonder why it's all right to
burn them down. The Forest Service timber sale program is the smallest
it has been since the 1940s. We are losing more trees, wildlife
habitat, and critical healthy watersheds to fire, disease, and insects
than we impact through timber sales. Yet we continue to stand by and do
nothing to stop the destruction.
The environmental community can no longer continue to appeal and
litigate every project designed to remove hazardous fuels from the
forests under the guise of protecting the habitat of fish and wildlife;
yet, turn a blind eye on the damage that insects and fires are doing to
these same habitats.
We must provide the federal land managers with the tools needed to
address the extreme conditions of our national forests. We must address
the issues associated with delays as a result of appeals and
litigation.
Today's hearing is a critical step in providing those tools and
addressing those delays.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Any other Senators? Senator Feinstein. Senator Johnson, did
you come----
Senator Feinstein. He was here before me.
Senator Johnson. Well, I would ask simply, Mr. Chairman, if
I may submit my whole statement for the record to expedite this
hearing.
The Chairman. It will be admitted.
Senator Johnson. And I will do only that.
The Chairman. You reserve your comments?
Senator Johnson. Yes.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator
From South Dakota
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's hearing on how we can
best reduce the threat posed from catastrophic fire threatening many
communities in the West. As a Senator representing a state with
significant tracts of forestland, I am keenly aware of the acute need
to reduce fuel loads and thin overly dense forests, particularly near
communities, watersheds, and the national and state parks that dot many
western states.
Mr. Chairman, many of the Senators on this Committee understand
first-hand the devastating impact of forest fires to public and private
forestland throughout the United States. As I look around the dais,
nearly every Senator in attendance has had fires in his or her state
that have destroyed homes, threatened water supplies, and damaged the
crucial habitat of threatened and endangered species. In the Black
Hills, since 1998, nearly 10 percent of the forest land has been
exposed to wildfire. Although South Dakota contains a modest amount of
forested acres compared to other western states, 10 percent is an
astonishing amount of land.
South Dakota is somewhat cursed by geography in the sense that a
mild and relatively wet climate is a boon to the native ponderosa pine
forests and requires aggressive treatment to thin overgrown stands
susceptible to windthrow and insect infestation. The fact is the Black
Hills is a prolific producer of ponderosa pine. The forest type and
geography that produces thick stands of trees in South Dakota is
different from the environmental and forest conditions in Arizona or
Oregon. As Congress crafts a forest policy bill it is important to
recognize that different forests confront distinct sets of challenges.
We have to empower and trust that the professional land managers who
are the stewards of the public trust prescribe the best plan for
treating and managing our public lands.
In South Dakota we are beginning to see the benefits from
empowering and trusting our public land managers. Just outside of Rapid
City, S.D., the Forest Service is embarking on an aggressive plan to
treat 35,000 acres in an area heavily intermixed with residential
developments. Steep gulches and overgrown stands of ponderosa pine
could result in a devastating forest fire. It is in these areas--where
the forest meets the community--that the Forest Service must have the
authority to expedite length environmental analysis to carry out fuel
reduction projects.
While the intermix and interface communities should be treated
first, I strongly believe that if we do not treat overgrown and insect
infested lands throughout the entire ecosystem, the unnatural fire
regimes of the last few years will continue to race throughout
wilderness and back country, destroying the very environmental values,
all of us want to uphold. It is not possible nor desirable to
completely eliminate fire from a forests ecosystem. However, our
approach must not preclude addressing high-risk areas simply because
the land is isolated or separated from a community by a ridge or gully.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, it is my desire that the Senate can get
to a point where a broad collection of our colleagues can reach
consensus and pass a bill that improves forest health and safeguards
our communities.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. You are not quite so lucky. I would like
to say a few things.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
The Chairman. We always like to hear from you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, thank you, thank you.
Interestingly enough, the New York Times this morning in
the science section has a very interesting article on how a
forest stopped the fire in its track. I would like to pass it
over because I think it actually shows what Senator Wyden and I
are trying to do in our bill. You have a forest in Susanville
that has burned badly and it just stopped, and where it stopped
was where it had been thinned selectively and the underbrush
had been carried away. So if I might just pass this around.
I would also like to pass around, if I might, a comparison
of the three bills, the House bill, the Wyden-Feinstein bill,
and the Bingaman-Daschle bill, at least as we see it, and make
a few comments.
First of all, we have 57 million acres in risk of
catastrophic fire. Of the critical acreage, there are about 23
million, and California has 8.5 million of those acres. So we
could lose in a big fire a whole national forest easily. The
entire Sierra Nevada is in that category. And Senator Wyden has
a like situation.
So we decided to get together and see if we could not
produce a bill that would reduce the risk, would prioritize the
highest risk lands, would give Governors flexibility. Some
Governors might want to use their share in urban interface
areas and others would not. So what we did was we gave the
Governor the ability to use as much as 75 percent or 50 percent
of Federal resources as they saw fit in these various areas.
We also targeted high-risk fire areas.
Specifically in a couple of areas, we have simplified the
environmental assessment by providing one round of public
comment in the administrative appeals process rather than two.
We have shortened the time frame of administrative appeals from
90 to 60 days, and we have allowed the appeal-deciding officer
to make any necessary changes rather than sending the project
back to the original decision maker for further review. We
believe this will speed up the administrative process by a few
months or more and it does not eliminate public comment or
environmental analysis.
We believe our bill fully protects old growth.
The controversial area is judicial review, and I just want
to say what we have done with respect to judicial review. I
think we have encouraged courts to the maximum extent
practicable to resolve lawsuits over brush clearing projects
quickly. And the way we have done that is that we require that
litigants file suit in the same judicial district where a fuels
reduction project takes place, which will end one of the games
that takes place when people file in other districts. So the
judge in that district actually knows firsthand what the
situation is.
We have limited temporary injunctions that are typically
issued at the outside of a case to 60 days, and challenges to a
project must submit updates explaining why the injunction
should be extended.
So we hope that with these simple things, plus others, that
we have created a bill that, as Senator Wyden said, might be
able to get the 60 votes that are required in the Senate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Any other Senators?
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I am just asking permission to get the
full extent of my comments into the record.
The Chairman. It will be done.
Senator Murkowski. And just to note obviously there is a
great risk. We are at crisis proportions I think throughout the
West. When we look at our situation in Alaska, we have lost
over 5 million acres of beautiful forest in the interior in
south central Alaska to the spruce kill, just sitting there as
fuel on the forest floor. We are most concerned about it and
truly do appreciate the efforts of this committee and others to
highlight that.
We have a picture in the back. I believe this was included
in the film itself.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. But all of those trees are dead. They
are standing, dead trees.
The Chairman. How long have they been dead, Senator?
Senator Murkowski. Well, the kill takes a couple years, but
those have probably been standing--I do not know--5 years or
so. But you touch them, and they crumble. They are just waiting
to go up in smoke.
So we appreciate the attention to this issue, but it needs
to be more than just attention. We need the action. We need the
ability to go in there and do the thinning necessary, take
these trees down, do the treatment, so that we do not have my
whole State going up in smoke. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing
today regarding forest fire impacts and addressing pending legislation
related to forest health. This is a very important issue to my State of
Alaska, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's panel.
The 2000 and 2002 fire seasons have been some of the worst on
record. In 2002, Alaska alone experienced fires that burned more than
one million acres. Forest fires continue to extensive problems for many
Americans, predominantly for those living and working in the West.
There has been great damage to our forested lands from these
catastrophic wildland fires; many of which result from forests
devastated by insect and disease. Deteriorating forest and rangeland
health now affects more than 190 million acres of public land, an area
twice the size of California.
It is important to mention the damage that has been caused to
forests in Alaska, particularly in the Chugach Mountains and on the
Kenai Peninsula. (I would like to show a photo which shows the spruce
bark beetle infestation and resulting dead trees on the Kenai
Peninsula). Clearly, such an outbreak and resultant devastation to the
Kenai Peninsula, which entails public, private, state and native
corporation lands is everyone's concern in my State.
The spruce bark beetle has drastically changed the forests in my
State. Over 5 million acres of trees in south central and interior
Alaska have been lost to insects over the last 10 years. This
devastation by the spruce bark beetle is one of worst in recorded
history.
These dead and dying trees, located near many private residences,
are susceptible to fire. Coupled now with the low amount of snowfall
Alaska has received the potential for further disaster is great.
We must reduce the environmental restrictions that limit the
possibility for forest management. Our public land laws and regulations
should not make it difficult to cut down the dead or dying trees that
are nothing but potential fuel for catastrophic wildfires. Our nation's
policy has to allow for responsible forest management that includes the
ability to remove, when appropriate, wildfire fuel from forests.
I support the work, thus far, established by this Administration
under the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. The President's
Healthy Forest Initiative implements the core components of the 10-Year
Implementation Plan, endorsed by this Administration and the Western
Governors' Association last May 2002, by enhancing and improving
collaborative work with communities in active forest management. Active
forest management includes thinning trees from over-dense stands that
produce commercial or pre-commercial products, biomass removal and
utilization, and prescribed fire.
I believe that H.R. 1904, ``The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of
2003'' is a comprehensive plan focused on giving federal land managers
and their partners the tools to respond to a national forest health
crisis. The legislation directs the timely implementation of
scientifically-supported management activities to protect the health
and vibrancy of federal forest ecosystems as well as the communities
and private lands that surround them.
I look forward to hearing from our panelists today. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator, is it implicit in your putting that
picture up there that there are efforts over time to remove
those trees and they have not reached fruition because of
rules, regulations, laws, or whatever reason?
Senator Murkowski. Yes, sir, that is correct. We are in the
process of doing some of the thinning, but when you look at the
acres, the millions of acres that have been killed, and you see
what we have been able to address so far, it is truly nothing
more than a drop in the bucket.
What you are not seeing there is whether or not there are
any communities around there. We have small towns out in the
Kenai Peninsula that are surrounded by these dead and dying
trees, these tinderboxes, and we are most concerned about the
safety of the citizens and the property.
The Chairman. Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my
full statement be included in the record as if read.
The Chairman. It will be.
Senator Smith. Thank you, sir.
I would just sum up by saying that I think this whole
debate will come down to the details of judicial review, and I
think that is where we are either going to get something done
or not. In a recent court case in Oregon in which a salvage
sale was stopped, the judge in that case said, ``From an
equitable point of view, if this court had considered the case
without any reference to prior case law with respect to NEPA, I
would allow this project to go forward.'' That is what he said,
but on the basis of judicial review, as it is currently, we are
just not getting it done, and we are watching it all burn.
I think it was very telling in a silviculture study done by
the Oregon State University on the Biscuit fire which consumed
a half a million acres last summer, that report concluded I
think very accurately that there are 2 billion board feet that
should be salvaged, and if you do, the environment will be
better. You cannot do it, though, with current law, current
standards, and current judicial review.
This will be an exercise in futility if we, in fact, do not
honestly accurately address the judicial review aspect of this
bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing. As you know,
this hearing and the issues before us arrive after many years of
intensive congressional scrutiny of forest health conditions
nationwide, and how we are responding to them. This hearing also has
the mixed benefit of following several costly wildfire seasons in the
West. If we act on what we have learned, I think this Committee and
this Congress can act boldly and wisely--and our public lands will be
the better for it. If Congress chooses the path of timidity and
inaction, the federal government and our communities will continue the
hopeless struggle against the symptoms of an ever-worsening disease.
I'd like to give a brief perspective on the Healthy Forests
Initiative, which is the origin of the bills and issues before us.
President Bush came to Medford, Oregon last summer in the midst of the
nation's largest wildfire--the Biscuit Fire. He came to see first-hand
why the West was burning and to set the federal government on a faster
path to meet the goals of the Western Governors' 10-Year Strategy. In
the.shadow of a mile-high plume of smoke from the Biscuit Fire, many
Oregonians were asking for emergency treatment of high-risk areas. More
specifically, they were asking for the same federal authority that had
recently been bestowed to beetle-infested forests in South Dakota.
There in the Black Hills, federal environmental laws such as the
Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were
waived to allow forest managers to quickly reduce fuels and restore
forest health.
At the urging of then-Oregon Governor Kitzhaber, and others,
President Bush committed not to push through similar authority for the
rest of the country--a ``National Daschle,'' if you will.
Instead, the Administration and a bipartisan coalition in the House
have honored the President's commitment and have advocated reasonable
legislation that neither eliminates NEPA nor prohibits citizen lawsuits
on fuels treatment projects. I offer this background because in the
realm of what is possible, and what has already been enacted for some,
the provisions of H.R. 1904 are already a fair balance between the
immediate needs of communities and the long-term health and function of
federal forests.
On the issue of funding, I agree that we need to authorize
additional funds for fuels and forest health treatment. I expect any
bill that leaves the Senate will do so. But I also recognize that
unless those funds are deployed across the landscape to change fire
behavior, every dollar we allocate to the interface will be hijacked by
increasingly catastrophic fires in the backcountry. No amount of
thinning in the interface will reduce the economic cost of wildfires.
Nor does it reduce the risk to the lives of young fire fighters who
will be on the lines, wherever the fires are. A District Ranger from
the Davis Fire in Oregon said: ``the fire blew up like a bomb, but
where we had fuel treatment, we were able to stand and fight.''
From experience we know that even where there is extensive thinning
in just the interface, such as Black Butte Ranch in Oregon, homes are
still at risk. Spot flares from explosive wildfires can and do leap
fire lines and fuel breaks. Thinning in the interface is necessary, but
it doesn't address the underlying problem any more than wearing your
seat-belt prevents you from being hit by a drunk driver. We shouldn't
mistake precaution for prevention.
With respect to judicial review of forest health projects, it is
clear that court precedent is building up like dead wood in our forests
and steering land managers from doing what's right for the land. In a
recent court case in Oregon, a fuels reduction project was enjoined not
on the merits of its reduction of fire risk, but on the technicalities
of precedent. The judge said: ``From an equitable point of view, if
this Court had considered this case without any reference to prior case
law or with respect to NEPA, I think I would allow the [project] to go
forward.''
Decisions like this have a chilling effect on land managers. It's
up to Congress to clarify our intent on laws like NEPA and concepts
like Multiple Use, and I think the judicial review provisions of H.R.
1904 are appropriate. They don't lock citizens out of the courtroom.
But their focus and timelines will keep our forest managers from being
locked in the courtroom. I think that's fair.
In closing, I would urge my colleagues to recall what Congress
meant in laws like the ``Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act.'' If we
still believe that the policy of Congress is for our national forests
to be managed for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watersheds, and
fish and wildlife--if we still believe that--then it must be clear and
visible in how we address the specter of forest health and wildfire.
In other words, it's up to Congress--not the courts or the
agencies--to set the standard of forest health. So we can act boldly,
be clear about our expectations for public lands, and improve forest
health from the ponderosa pines of Oregon to the loblolly pines of
Louisiana. Or we can be crippled by uncertainties that will never be
resolved by holding more hearings. Silviculture is a science, not a
mystery or a political riddle. Science applies lessons we've already
learned. Congress should do the same.
If Congress is timid and incomplete about forest health
legislation, we can expect no more from federal agencies. I expect a
lot from our land and from our land managers. My vote on the Senate
floor will reflect that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to
get on with the panel.
I am just frustrated by the time we have spent. We have
been at this now for several years, and while we are here
talking about these details, the fires are out there burning.
You have listed in your statement some of the things we need to
overcome, and frankly this committee has not moved either, and
it is time that we do that. So, thank you for holding this. Let
us get on with it.
The Chairman. Let me assure you now we are behind the 8-
ball not only because of what you all have told us, but the
Agriculture Committee is new at this issue, and they have a
bill, and they are going to report it. There is going to be a
powerful bill on the floor, from what I can understand,
addressing many of the issues that you all have been talking
about that has been done by that committee. And we are going to
have an opportunity to either report something out here or, in
your case, Senators, looking at Feinstein and Ron, you all are
going to be able to go down there and amend it and put in this
language and see if there are 60 votes for it because it is
going to happen during this year. And that is a synch.
What we are going to do in terms of how do we counter what
they produce, I have decided to wait and see what they produce.
Let us take a look at what they have and it will not be very
long, I tell you for sure.
Having said that, we are going to proceed now. Senator
Burns, would you introduce your Governor, please?
Senator Burns. Well, I would be happy to. She is our first
woman that was elected to the governorship of the State of
Montana and ably served as Lieutenant Governor under Governor
Racicot. We welcome you here this morning. She is a product of
Sweet Grass County, Montana, but spent most of her years in
Butte, America.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. And we welcome her here this morning.
The Chairman. All right, Governor, you may proceed.
Governor Napolitano, if your Senator has not arrived, would
you proceed immediately following Governor Martz? We welcome
you here, and I will serve as his proxy and be the one
introducing you.
Governor Napolitano. Thank you.
The Chairman. Please proceed in that fashion.
STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY MARTZ, GOVERNOR, STATE OF MONTANA, ON
BEHALF OF THE WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
Governor Martz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to each
of you on this committee. Mr. Chairman, before I even start
with the testimony, I would like to thank you on behalf of the
Western Governors' Association for being the lead on the
drought legislation also. We will support you. I know you are
introducing that on Thursday. We support you and we appreciate
you in that effort. We will give you all the help that we can
to get that legislation passed.
Beyond that, I would like to thank you, Chairman Domenici
and Senator Bingaman, Senator Burns, my Senator, and other
distinguished members of this committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to join you today to share the Western Governors'
vision of the management of public lands in the West. We
arrived today, the two Governors, one in black, one in white,
not on purpose, but we really do believe that this is a black
and white issue and it should be spoken to as such.
[Laughter.]
Governor Martz. As you know, for the past year I served as
the chair of the Western Governors' Association, representing
21 State and territorial Governors. My primary focus and my
main issue as lead Governor in that capacity has been the issue
of forest health. I do not have to tell you that this is a
highly sensitive issue. It is also one of the most important
issues I think facing the West.
In the year 2000, Montana burned over 1 million acres of
good timberland, and no one seemed to care. As I speak here
today, wildfires are raging in 12 Western States, Montana,
Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Oregon,
Washington, California, Nevada, and Alaska. As of yesterday,
the total acreage burned this wildfire seasons is approximately
1,356,000 acres. And keep in mind, in many of our States, our
real fire season does not even start until late August or early
September.
This issue is not going to go away. Just last Friday, I
signed an executive order stating that a state of emergency
exists in my State because of the threat of destructive
wildfire. It is my hope that taking this action early in the
2003 fire season, we will ensure that we do not experience the
disasters of the year 2000.
As I joined interested participants from 22 States and 3
countries last month in Missoula, Montana for the Western
Governors' Forest Health Summit, I was reminded of the
incredible opportunity we are afforded as westerners to live,
to work, and to play in this incredible corner of the globe.
There is something so very special, so very unique about our
way of life in the West. Sometimes we do not often look enough
within ourselves to understand our uniqueness, and outsiders
rarely appreciate it. But our uniqueness comes from our people
and our communities, communities whose core values are as
deeply embedded as their determination and their pride. But
make no mistake, every westerner has a vested interest and
truly desires to protect our public lands and scenic vistas.
Our lands are the fabric of our very way of life.
But in the same regard, we are cautious. We are humble
public servants, not political opportunists, and we ought to be
leading the effort to solve our land management challenges.
First and foremost, we have to end detached, impractical
management practices that have little connection to local needs
with only a superficial interest in local participation. It
does not work and it never will work. If we can work together
using input and advice from the local, county, State and
Federal Governments, we could bring about much healthier
forests and, without a doubt, create some jobs in the process.
Second, we must work tirelessly to encourage greater
cooperation between Federal agencies and States and counties.
That is truly what government should be about.
Third, we must work together to craft land management
policies that are more reflective of local consensus. We must
provide stability and predictability to our region and to our
local communities. As a part of our goal to bring stakeholders
to the table, we hosted the Forest Health Summit to address
critical forest management issues on State and Federal lands,
while ensuring the best return for our communities. The summit
brought together nearly 400 participants from all different
perspectives. Consensus recommendations were reached by the
participants, and we are now considering incorporating those
recommendations into WGA policy.
The participants recommended, among other things, a
continued emphasis on the collaborative process, as well as the
need to ensure that local communities have the infrastructure
and capability to be partners in the implementation of the 10-
year strategy plan. As the letter the Western Governors sent to
Congress on June 18 makes clear, the Western Governors are
convinced that the collaborative process, as it has been set
forth in the 10-year strategy, has been working.
We urge you, therefore, to avoid prescriptive approaches to
protect selection and prioritization. As Congress directed 3
years ago--and I quote--``key decisions should be made at the
local levels.'' We have been working hard to implement that
directive and have a plan in place to do just that.
Now I would like to discuss with you the environmental
review appeals and judicial processes. There is no getting
around it. The Governors have not been able to come to complete
agreement on what needs to be done to make the administrative
and judicial processes more efficient. This reflects to a great
extent the different circumstances we find in each of our
States. I am sure that Governor Napolitano will describe the
situation in Arizona.
But now I would like to share with you a story that many of
you know only too well. That is the story of salvage operations
in Montana on the 2000 Bitterroot forest fires. I would have
brought the Federal environmental review on Federal forestlands
after the 2000 Bitterroot fires so you could see them, but they
are just too big. They stack up this high. I am not
exaggerating by even an inch. I have carried them around our
State to show people in the State that environmental review is
this tall. These documents represent 15,000 person-days or the
equivalent of 57 man-years of work. That is right. Had one
individual created those documents, it would have taken 57
years of full-time work to complete that assessment.
Keeping this in mind, this 57 man-years of work were
completed and over $1 million was the cost to do that appeals
process, the books. It was spent to get nearly 15,000 acres of
timber out of 300,000 acres of burned, dead timber. That is all
we got out of that $1 million. Out of 57 man-hours, we got
almost 15,000 acres of burned timber out of 300,000.
And after all that work, the Federal Government still ended
up in court. The Federal review was completed well after the
State of Montana had already implemented active management
efforts to restore the health of our State lands in the same
area by the timely removal of burned timber.
Currently, 190 million acres of Federal forest and
rangeland are at an unnaturally high risk to catastrophic
wildfire, larger than all of New England combined. Of the
approximately 18 million acres of national forested Montana,
over 12 million acres are classified as condition 2, class 2
over 3, which means these lands are in critical need of
treatment.
To those of us in Montana and much of the West, it is clear
that the Federal for addressing these problems is horribly
broken. When roughly 90 percent of the decisions of the
northern region are appealed, many believe the system is ripe
for reform. These constant appeals and litigation and the
threat of these actions have led to gridlock in many parts of
the West. The time is now for real solutions.
Despite some differences between the Governors on the scope
of changes that are needed to our administrative and judicial
processes, we do have substantial agreement in many areas.
First, we urge you to recognize that effective use of the
collaborative process can help eliminate or substantially
reduce appeals and litigation.
Secondly, we encourage you to review existing law and
recent changes to administrative processes to determine if
changes in the law are necessary to expedite the protection of
high-risk communities.
Regarding judicial action, we agree that meaningful
participation should be required early in the planning process
in order to establish standing to appeal. We also agree that
should Congress consider setting new deadlines for judicial
action, you must not preclude the opportunity for meaningful
public participation.
Lastly, we concur that we would all benefit if courts could
utilize sound science to consider the long-term effects of
critical forest projects versus the effects of inaction while
awaiting judicial rulings regarding injunctions.
Other areas in which the Western Governors are in agreement
are detailed in our written testimony.
I would also like to briefly touch on the issue of Federal
funding. As you know, I testified before this committee 1 year
ago and I discussed this issue. I understand that last year
alone the Federal Government spent a little over $2 billion in
suppressing wildfires. Much of that funding was borrowed from
other accounts and was not paid back until earlier this year.
The Western Governors continue to believe that up-front
investment is fully implementing the 10-year strategy and it
will suppress costs.
We appreciate the fact that budgets are very tight right
now. However, we view this as a top priority, and we believe
both Congress and the administration believe that as well.
We appreciate the President's request recently of $289
million in supplemental wildfire suppression funding and we
urge you to pass that as quickly as possible.
But let me conclude by saying that our traditional values
can help us build a better nation. So let us work together. Let
us make our voices heard. And I thank you and I pray that God
continues to bless the hands that made Montana and this Nation
a better place to live. Thank you.
Senator Craig [presiding]. Governor, thank you very much
for that testimony.
Now let us turn to the Governor of the great State of
Arizona, Janet Napolitano.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, GOVERNOR,
STATE OF ARIZONA
Governor Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Craig,
Senator Bingaman, and other members of the panel, for the
opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Western Governors'
Association.
As was said, I am Janet Napolitano. I am the Governor of
Arizona. I am going to make a very brief statement and then ask
that you include in your record the testimony of the Western
Governors' Association with its attachments.
Senator Craig. Governors, your complete statements and any
attachments will become a part of the committee record. Thank
you.
Governor Napolitano. Very good.
I am also pleased, Senator Craig, to see that the panel
today includes two members of the Arizona Forest Health
Advisory Council, Wally Covington from Northern Arizona
University and a representative from the Grand Canyon Trust. I
think you will find their testimony insightful and very useful.
Arizona is not unique to the West, but the West is unique
to the rest of the country. 97 percent of all Federal lands are
west of the Mississippi River, and not surprisingly, 100
percent of America's wildfires so far this year have burned in
the West. Consequently, the debate over how to best restore
America's forests is a Western issue with a substantial Federal
nexus that Congress must address.
Arizona's forests like those of other Western States are
suffering from, as you said, the forest equivalent of the
perfect storm: continued drought, years of decisions to allow
the forests to become overgrown, and a major bark beetle
infestation. This perfect storm has resulted in unprecedented
fire danger, and Arizona is a prime example.
Last year, we suffered the worst wildland fire season in
modern times, as more than 600,000 acres went up in flames. So
far this year, our losses are substantial, but are expected to
be less than last year's. Last week the seasonal monsoons
finally arrived which still provide the most effective fire
suppression tool around.
If there was any good to come of the fires in Arizona, it
was that most of them occurred in the back country and posed
little threat to people, structures, and private property. Fire
fighters contained those back country fires that posed a
concern to forest health fairly quickly, and those fires that
were not raging out of control were used as tools of
restoration.
Unfortunately, we had two major exceptions: the Aspen fire
near Tucson, Arizona and most recently the Kinishba fire on the
Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Both threatened people and
property. The Aspen fire destroyed more than 320 homes and 7
businesses, 70 percent of the mountaintop hamlet of
Summerhaven. The Kinishba fire last week required the
evacuation of approximately 5,000 people and threatened more
than 30,000 inhabitants of communities in northern Arizona. The
Kinishba fire started in a remote area of the forest on the
Fort Apache Indian Reservation.
The good news in a difficult and frightening situation is
that fire fighters knew from experience they could rely on the
areas near the northern communities which had already been
treated by the Apache Tribe to help them gain control of the
fire before it ravaged the towns. The bad news is that many of
the Federal lands in this area and around other forested
communities have been virtually untouched and require
substantial treatment.
In light of the years it took to get to the perfect storm,
and as the Kinishba fire illustrates, restoring Western forests
to a healthy condition cannot happen overnight. Proper
pragmatic priorities must be established to make the best use
of limited resources.
As you discuss various remedies, please keep in mind that
we do not need to create a new plan for getting there. The plan
exists. The 10-year comprehensive strategy and implementation
plan adopted by the WGA addresses the wildland fire and
hazardous fuels situations. This plan provides the basis for
restoring our forests to healthy condition.
I urge you to focus on what is necessary to implement the
plan because mere references to the document will not help. As
you look to amend existing law and review current rules and
regulations, it is imperative that you embrace the common sense
strategy embodied in the Western Governors' plan. The plan
targets the need for collaboration and early and meaningful
participation in the process. All stakeholders, including
tribal representatives, landowners, community-based groups,
associations, environmentalists, industry, and local, State,
and Federal officials need to be engaged. Engaging stakeholders
early in the process in a meaningful way will lead to faster
implementation of good projects on the ground.
As we implement these projects, we must give priority to
treatment of forests surrounding threatened forest communities.
Indeed, the Federal Government has a public safety
responsibility to direct the resources to protect these
communities. Helping these forest communities means restoring
and protecting forests in the wildland-urban interface. Without
such treatment, these areas pose a threat to people and to
property, and many of these projects, those that involve public
safety, should fall under an expedited review process and in
many cases, if not all, be exempt from NEPA. These projects,
however, should have clearly defined parameters regarding the
definition of the wildland-urban interface and incorporate
local scientific expertise in the project design.
Existing projects in the wildland-urban interface that have
been through the review process, such as Kachina Village near
Flagstaff, Arizona, should receive full funding upon approval.
Unfortunately, too many already-approved projects wait. In the
case of Kachina Village, several months passed before less than
one-third of this more than 7,000-acre project was put out to
bid, and still more months will pass before any work gets done.
We have been lucky this year. Fire has not started near Kachina
Village which lies up-slope from a densely forested area. We
may not be so lucky next year.
Prioritizing the areas surrounding communities does not
exclude, however, treatments deeper in the forest so that
entire forest ecosystems can be restored and protected from the
eventuality of a mega-fire. These projects must be based on
good science, with the primary purpose being the restoration of
forests to sustainable health. All of this will require a
congressional commitment to put resources into our forests.
A recent study by forest economists at Northern Arizona
University estimates it would cost roughly $6 billion to
restore 12 million acres of forest in the lower nine
continental Western States that are at extremely high risk of
unnatural wildland fire. As the study further describes, we can
invest roughly $505 per acre to restore our forests or spend
four times that amount to clean up in the aftermath of a
wildland fire. The wisdom of the choice to treat forests rather
than clean up after they have been burned is obvious. It is
also consistent with the funding projections from the National
Association of State Foresters for hazardous fuel reductions.
The goal is achievable, the funding is the key.
Last year, the Forest Service spent roughly $96 million
suppressing wildland fires in Arizona, while a mere $9.6
million was targeted toward prevention activities, including
fuel reduction projects. We must change this equation and spend
money up front to save money and possibly lives and property in
return. Unfortunately, and as this committee is well aware,
budget requests for hazardous fuels reduction fall far short of
the need. Indeed, it holds a stagnant $186.1 million or a total
of $558.3 million over the past 3 years for the Forest Service.
For the same period, the National Association of State
Foresters recommended $1.4 billion.
The Western Governors have consistently advocated increased
funding through the National Fire Plan to implement all of the
actions called for in the 10-year strategy. Believe me, the
States can relate to the current fiscal situation of the
Federal Government. We have historical fiscal problems of our
own to deal with. In this case, however, we cannot afford not
to invest in forest thinning because hard experience has
already taught us that without this investment, we will pay far
more in the future for fire suppression, disaster recovery, and
loss of forest habitat.
Much has been said about the time savings that we will
achieve by streamlining the environmental review and appeals
processes. The Western Governors agree that the process can and
should be made more efficient. Nonetheless, absent appropriate
funding levels and a commitment to the Western Governors' plan,
procedural changes alone will not address the problem.
Consequently, any Federal legislation must accomplish three
things: prioritize initial resources and efforts to those areas
that pose a threat to people and property; embrace a
collaborative process to identify and plan projects that will
lead to more successful implementations; and make the necessary
investment to get the job done. And if you are looking for a
proving ground to show how to move projects forward through
planning and implementation to completion, I volunteer Arizona
to be your example.
Finally, in Arizona, like most Western States, we do not
have the infrastructure for industry to offset the costs of
forest thinning projects. We will work with industry but we
should not have to wait for industry to come. While there may
be no perfect solutions to abate the perfect storm, there are
pragmatic ones, and the Western Governors' Association has put
these before you.
That concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer
questions the committee might have, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement and a letter from the Western
Governors' Association follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Judy Martz, Governor, State of Montana
Thank you Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman and the other
distinguished members of this Committee for the invitation to appear
and to submit written testimony for today's hearing. This statement is
submitted on behalf of the Western Governors' Association by Governor
Judy Martz of Montana, Chair of the Western Governors' Association;
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Vice-Chairman; and Governors
Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, co-lead
Governors for forest health. WGA is an independent, non-partisan
organization of Governors from 18 Western States and three U.S.-Flag
Islands in the Pacific. We appreciate this opportunity to present the
views of the Western Governors.
As you are all aware, wildfires are again sweeping through much of
the West. All of us have seen the devastation wrought by these
catastrophic fires raging through many of our most precious forests and
communities. While we are all hoping that this fire season will be less
destructive than 2000 or 2002, it does not appear that the overall
situation is getting better. Unless we get a handle on this issue soon
we may find that what would have been seen as an extraordinary fire
season in the past will now be considered routine. Western Governors
are, therefore, anxious to see action taken by Congress to help
alleviate the situation.
We are, however, not just sitting back and waiting for the federal
government to take action. Western Governors have been very actively
engaged in bringing stakeholders together to seek consensus solutions
to our forest health crisis. In fact, just last month we held a Forest
Health Summit in Missoula, Montana that brought together nearly four
hundred public officials, industry representatives, environmental
groups, scientists, and other interested stakeholders. Consensus
recommendations were reached by the participants and the governors are
considering them for WGA policy. The recommendations focused on
encouraging collaborative processes consistent with the 10-Year
Strategy to address the hazardous fuels issue. Also stressed was the
need to work with local communities to ensure they have the
infrastructure and capacity to be partners in the implementation of the
10-Year Strategy and the National Fire Plan.
Western Governors are most concerned about communities at risk and
reducing the dangers posed to people, property and watersheds in the
Urban Wildland Interface. We must establish priorities for fire
prevention and protection that emphasize these areas at risk. Western
Governors are active participants in the Wildland Fire Leadership
Council (WFLC). WFLC recently adopted field guidance for identifying
and prioritizing communities at risk. This guidance was specifically
called for in the 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan and was
collaboratively developed by the National Association of State
Foresters, the federal government and a number of other interests. The
field guidance provides a process for state and locally driven
collaborative efforts to make hazardous fuel projects prioritizations
and selections that presents an alternative to topdown centralized
management. A copy is attached to this testimony for your reference.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also been watching the Congressional debate over forest
policy with great interest. We have been encouraged by the broad
bipartisan support expressed for the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and
Implementation Plan (together ``the Strategy''), which, at Congress'
direction, the Western Governors played a key role in drafting. As most
of you would recall, the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2001
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291)
required the development of a 10-year comprehensive strategy.
Specifically, the Conference Report stated that:
``The Secretaries should also work with the Governors on a
long-term strategy to deal with the wildland fire and hazardous
fuels situation, as well as the needs for habitat restoration
and rehabilitation in the Nation. The managers expect that a
collaborative structure, with the States and local governments
as full partners, will be the most efficient and effective way
of implementing a long-term program.
The managers are very concerned that the agencies need to
work closely with the affected states, including Governors,
county officials, and other citizens. Successful implementation
of this program will require close collaboration among citizens
and governments at all levels. . . The managers direct the
Secretaries to engage Governors in a collaborative structure to
cooperatively develop a coordinated, National ten-year
comprehensive strategy with the States as full partners in the
planning, decision-making, and implementation of the plan.
Key decisions should be made at local levels.''
We have been diligently following those directives. In the process,
we have been convinced that the collaborative processes established in
the Strategy represent a significant, and positive, change in the way
in which we manage our public lands and forests. Our foremost interest,
therefore, is in ensuring that legislation adopted by Congress does not
hamper the progress that has been made in fostering the collaborative
process that was set forth in the Strategy.
The bills under consideration today would begin to codify some key
elements of the Strategy, in particular by encouraging the Secretaries
of Agriculture and Interior to facilitate collaboration among
government agencies and concerned persons as early as possible and
before projects are selected and initiated. This early input can
expedite project planning and decisions, reveal problems and issues and
prompt their resolution. At a minimum, it will reduce uncertainty about
what land management proposals are contentious and why. While no
panacea, early collaboration will help to develop the trust necessary
to enable professional managers to deliver on the Forest Service's
commitment to improved forest health.
Congress ought to use this opportunity to take a step further in
energizing the collaborative process and empowering stakeholders to
actively participate in the management of their public lands. As public
officials, we (Governors, Members of Congress, Administration
officials, etc.) all need to lead the effort to encourage stakeholders
to become involved in these decisions. Congress has the additional
ability to not only encourage these efforts, but to provide both
funding and guidance to federal agencies to make these activities
possible.
Federal land managers, in conjunction with State Foresters, tribes,
local officials, and stakeholders should have the authority and the
flexibility to identify areas needing treatment while bringing together
the widest range of landowners to accomplish forest restoration on the
needed scale. Therefore, Congress should promote fuel reduction
projects that are identified by government organizations and
stakeholders through the collaborative process. Consistent with the
Strategy, priority in project selection would be given to projects that
reduce fire risk in communities at risk and the watersheds that supply
them.
Like the country as a whole, the Western Governors hold different
and sometimes conflicting opinions on what should be done to make the
administrative and judicial appeals processes more efficient. This
reflects the different circumstances we find in each of our states as
well as differences in our underlying philosophies. However, there are
some key issues upon which we have found common ground. We agree that
there are some areas where people living in the wildland-urban
interface are at extraordinary high risk. Therefore, we encourage you
to review existing law and recent changes to administrative processes
regarding high-risk communities to determine if changes in the law are
necessary to expedite the protection of these areas. We urge you to
further recognize that effective use of the collaborative process can
help eliminate or substantially reduce litigation and thereby expedite
necessary fuel treatments across the millions of acres of lands at risk
in the West and nationwide.
Regarding judicial action, we agree that meaningful participation
should be required early in the planning process in order to establish
standing to appeal. We also agree that, should Congress consider
setting new deadlines for judicial action, they must not preclude the
opportunity for meaningful public participation. Lastly, we concur that
we would all benefit if courts would utilize sound-science to consider
the long-term effects of critical forest projects versus the effects of
inaction while awaiting judicial rulings regarding injunctions.
Western Governors also believe that stewardship contracting can be
a useful tool for accomplishing hazardous fuel reduction activities. We
commend Congress for providing this authority in the FY 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Act. Assuming appropriate analysis of the pilot projects
underway is provided and proves supportive of this approach, Congress
should now authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to
enter into agreements with interested Governors for the state to work
in partnership with federal officials to implement stewardship projects
in appropriate locations throughout the state and across multiple
ownerships. The state's role in each project would be negotiated, but
could range from project planning and environmental assessment to
community outreach and contracting for treatment. Federal personnel
would retain the final decision-making authority on federal lands as
required by law. Such a partnership between state and federal
governments could accomplish vital proactive fuel treatment projects.
Monitoring and adaptive management should continue to be a part of the
stewardship program to ensure accountability and public trust in the
program.
In addition, Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species
Act needs to be accomplished more quickly and more efficiently.
Consulting on similar projects as a group (rather than individually) or
developing joint implementing regulations for consultation under the
ESA (programmatic consultation) could be used for quick and efficient
project planning. Congress should direct the federal agencies to use
these tools while assuring that the long-term protection of species is
the defining goal. As to the National Environmental Policy Act, we have
outlined in WGA policy resolution number 02-08 numerous administrative
steps that can be taken to improve this process that should be
encouraged by this Congress. For your reference, a copy of that
resolution is attached to this statement.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Western Governors have consistently advocated increased
funding, through the National Fire Plan, to implement all of the
actions called for in the Strategy. While current legislative and
administrative efforts have appropriately focused primarily on
hazardous fuels reduction, it should be noted that there are four
equally important goals outlined in the Strategy:
1. Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression;
2. Reduce Hazardous Fuels;
3. Restore Fire-Adapted Ecosystems; and,
4. Promote Community Assistance.
Western Governors believe that we must approach this problem
comprehensively. Congress must continue to play a key role in ensuring
that the Strategy is adequately funded, and that the funding actually
gets to the ground. Many of our constituents have come forward with
examples of projects that have cleared the environmental review process
but have not been implemented due to a lack of funding. It would be an
absolute tragedy for lives to be lost, or a community damaged or
destroyed simply due to a lack of funding. We appreciate the fact that
fully funding the Strategy represents a significant commitment,
particularly in these difficult budget times. However, we continue to
believe that, over the long-term, restoration and thinning to protect
homes, watersheds, and habitat is much less expensive than fighting
fires and addressing their aftermath. If the Strategy is fully funded,
therefore, suppression costs will diminish over time as communities
restore forests to their natural conditions, in part, by affording them
the necessary tools to accomplish this work.
Congress must also help find a way to avoid the vicious and
destructive cycle of borrowing from hazardous fuels reduction and other
proactive project accounts to pay for immediate fire suppression costs.
Although we understand that most of the accounts that were raided last
summer were repaid earlier this year, many proactive projects were, at
the very least, delayed by six-months or more. That is time we will
never get back, and we are simply putting more lives, communities and
habitat at risk. We must figure out a way of paying for ongoing
suppression costs without delaying much needed proactive work which, in
the end, will help reduce suppression costs, save lives, communities
and habitat. We were greatly encouraged by the Administration's recent
request of $289 million in supplemental wildfire suppression funds. We
hope that this additional funding will alleviate the need to borrow
funds from other accounts this year. We urge Congress to pass this
funding request as soon as practicable.
Thank you again, Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman and the other
distinguished members of this panel, for the opportunity to present the
views of the Western Governors.
Western Governors Association,
Denver, CO, June 18, 2003.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Committee, 328A,
RSOB, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Ranking Member, Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Committee,
328A RSOB, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, 364 SDOB
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, 364 SDOB
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Cochran, Domenici, Harkin and Bingaman: We understand
that your committees will soon be considering forest health-related
legislation. Western Governors applaud your commitment to tackle this
difficult, but vital issue. In light of the overstocked and dangerous
conditions of many of our forests and rangelands and the resulting
catastrophic wildfire seasons the West has experienced the last several
years, it is clearly a much needed and timely debate. Thank you for
your leadership on this issue.
We watched with great interest the House debate on H.R. 1904 the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. We were encouraged by the bill
drafters' inclusion of the Western Governors' Association supported
Implementation Plan and some key elements of the 10-Year Comprehensive
Strategy (together the ``Strategy'') in the bill. However, there are
some elements that require further consideration by the Senate. As you
know, the WGA helped to create the Strategy after determining that
opportunities exist to address fire risks by focusing on areas of
agreement rather than perpetuating longstanding conflicts. The Strategy
aims to guide agencies in addressing the current condition of our
forests in a collaborative and locally driven manner across all
landscapes. The Strategy has been endorsed by the Secretary of
Agriculture, and the Secretary of the Interior, as well as the Southern
Governors' Association, the Intertribal Timber Council, the National
Association of Counties, and the National Association of State
Foresters.
While we are convinced that the collaborative processes established
in the Strategy should be used both to select, on a local level, most
individual hazardous fuel reduction projects, and to set regional and
national priorities for fuel treatments, there are some areas where
people living in the wildland-urban interface are at high risk.
Therefore, the Senate should review existing law and recent changes to
administrative processes regarding high-risk communities to determine
if changes in the law are necessary to expedite the protection of these
areas. As administrative and statutory reforms are discussed, we urge
you to recognize that effective use of the collaborative process can
help expedite necessary fuel treatments across the millions of acres of
lands at risk in the West and nationwide.
Western Governors are anxious to see legislation that facilitates
achieving the goals and processes agreed to in the Strategy. Federal
land managers, in conjunction with State Foresters, tribes, local
officials and stakeholders should have authority and flexibility to
identify areas needing treatment while bringing together the widest
range of landowners to accomplish forest restoration on the needed
scale. The Senate should promote fuel reduction projects identified by
government organizations and stakeholders through the collaborative
process. Consistent with the Strategy, priority in project selection
should be given to projects that reduce fire risk in communities at
risk and the watersheds that supply them.
One means of enhancing local decision-making is to make full use of
the stewardship contracting authorization that Congress recently
provided. We commend Congress for providing this authority in the FY
2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Assuming appropriate analysis of the
pilot projects underway is provided and proves supportive of this
approach, the Senate should now authorize the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior to enter into agreements with interested
Governors for the state to work in partnership with federal officials
to implement stewardship projects in appropriate locations throughout
the state and across multiple ownerships. The state's role in each
project would be negotiated, but could range from project planning and
environmental assessment to community outreach and contracting for
treatment. Federal personnel would retain the final decision-making
authority on federal lands as required by law. Such a partnership
between state and federal governments could accomplish vital proactive
fuel treatment projects. Monitoring and adaptive management should
continue to be a part of the stewardship program to ensure
accountability and public trust in the program.
Regarding judicial action, meaningful participation should be
required early in the planning process in order to establish standing
to appeal. The collaborative approach set forth in the Strategy can
eliminate or substantially reduce litigation. Should the Senate
consider deadlines for judicial action, they must not preclude the
opportunity for meaningful public participation. Lastly, we would all
benefit if courts would utilize sound-science to consider the long-term
effects of critical forest projects versus the effects of inaction
while awaiting judicial rulings regarding injunctions.
In addition, Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species
Act needs to be accomplished more quickly and more efficiently.
Consulting on similar projects as a group (rather than individually) or
developing joint implementing regulations for consultation under the
ESA (programmatic consultation) could be used for quick and efficient
project planning. The Senate should direct the federal agencies to use
these tools. As to the National Environmental Policy Act, we have
outlined in WGA policy resolution number 02-08 numerous administrative
steps that can be taken to improve this process that should be
encouraged by this Congress.
Finally, Western Governors have consistently advocated increased
funding, through the National Fire Plan, to implement all of the
actions called for in the Strategy. If the Strategy is fully funded,
suppression costs will diminish over time as communities restore
forests to their natural conditions, in part, by affording them the
necessary tools to accomplish this work.
The WGA Forest Health Summit will provide us with additional views
from our constituents on this topic. If appropriate, we may, therefore,
submit additional WGA views to you.
Thank you again for your leadership on this vital issue. We stand
ready to work with you to speed up the process of returning our forests
to a natural and sustainable condition while protecting the West's
communities, air, water, and wildlife.
Sincerely,
Judy Martz
Governor of Montana
Chair
Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
Lead Governor for Forest Health
Bill Richardson
Governor of New Mexico
Chair
Dirk Kempthorne
Governor of Idaho
Lead Governor for Forest Health
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you very much, Governors.
Senators, we did not limit the Governors' time, but could
we try to limit our own? We still have a huge number of
witnesses. So let us start with Senator Bingaman. Do you have
some questions, please?
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I will just ask about one
issue since I know you have a great many witnesses and the
Governors have been very generous with their time here.
In the prepared testimony that you both submitted here, you
talk about the vicious and destructive cycle of borrowing from
hazardous fuels reduction and other proactive project accounts
to pay for immediate fire suppression costs. This is something
that I am trying to be sure we address in any legislation that
we wind up enacting in this area.
It strikes me that we have created this problem for
ourselves by putting the responsibility for fire fighting in
the same agency that has responsibility for these restoration
and thinning projects. Therefore, we are able to just say, as
we have been, to this agency, to the Forest Service, go find
the money in some of your other accounts in order to do the
fire fighting that is required each year, and then we will pay
you back. And eventually those other accounts are paid back to
an extent, not fully, as I understand it. I think a couple
hundred million were taken out of those accounts that have not
been paid back in the last year, but the delay that is
involved, even when the payback does come, is very substantial.
I do not know if either of you have had a chance to look at
the proposal that I have included in the bill that I introduced
to try to have direct authority to go and borrow from the
Treasury. In order to fight fires, the Forest Service would be
authorized to go ahead and borrow from the Treasury rather than
having to take it out of their own accounts. Is that a
solution? Is there a better solution out there? Let me ask
Governor Napolitano first and then Governor Martz if you have
any thoughts on that.
Governor Napolitano. Yes, Senator Bingaman. I think that it
is a solution that ought to be examined. I think the key
problem is one you put your finger on; there is no new money
that is being added to the forest issue. And the forest issue
is not just fighting fires, it is restoring forests to health.
It is hazardous fuels reduction on a fairly extensive level. To
simply kind of move shells around within the Forest Service
budget will not get us to where we need to go. So providing for
a direct authorization from the Treasury, whatever other kind
of mechanism that would provide the additional resources that
are necessary to really deal with this problem has got to be
very important. In my view unless those additional resources
are not found or allocated here, we will not accomplish what
needs to be accomplished in the Western States.
Senator Bingaman. Governor Martz.
Governor Martz. Senator, I think that you would be the best
judge of where the money should come from, but absolutely it
should come from different sources I believe because you have
to do both of those things simultaneously. As the fires are
burning, you should be treating other lands that have been
burned. You should be stabilizing stream beds, rehabilitating
habitat, looking to see where you can replant vegetation. So I
absolutely believe the funding should not be pulled from that
one source. It should not be either/or. It has to be both at
the same time.
Senator Bingaman. I will stop with that, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
The Chairman. First of all, let me say while I tend to
agree, Senator Bingaman, with your request that we try to find
a way so we do not borrow money, I hope we do not try to solve
this issue by figuring that that is the solution to find a
source of money. That is not the solution because the problem
is bigger than not having the money. The problem is that we
cannot get it done even if we had the money because of rules,
regulations, and holdups.
For instance, let me move ahead with Governor Martz for a
minute. Over 1.1 million acres burned in northern Idaho and
Montana, most of which was in your State. You have had 2 years
to watch the Forest Service, NEPA, and appeals process work for
Montana. Has it worked to your satisfaction?
Governor Martz. Absolutely not. It has not.
The Chairman. It seems to me that both S. 1314 and S. 1352
rely on the use of limited categorical exclusions to streamline
the NEPA and appeals process while H.R. 1904 streamlines NEPA,
the appeals process, and the judicial review. Would the
approach proposed in S. 1314 and S. 1352 have been adequate in
terms of what you faced in Montana after the 2000 fires?
Governor Martz. Not in its entirety, no.
The Chairman. The courts have played a major role in
slowing and stopping the projects in your State.
Governor Martz. They have. And 90 percent of the projects
that we needed to do work and still need to do work on, the
courts have stopped and the appeals have stopped the process.
The Chairman. Would we be wasting our time if we passed
legislation that fails to address the judicial problems of
balance of harms and the need to expedite decisions on
hazardous fuel and insect mitigation?
Governor Martz. Absolutely.
The Chairman. I see from the daily fire reports that the
fire season is well underway. I know that your State also
suffered horrific insect attacks and you have repeatedly asked
Congress to take steps to help your State. You have now been in
office for 2\1/2\ years. You are still waiting.
In California, Governor Davis declared an emergency in
several counties and directed landowners to remove dead and
dying trees or face having the county complete the work. Since
your State is so heavily federalized, have you considered
declaring an emergency on the Federal lands in your State so
the counties could begin to clean up?
Governor Martz. Yes, Senator, we have talked about that. We
have not done that yet. New Mexico did that also either last
year or the year before last, and it was effective. It is
something that we still talk about and it may be something that
we have to do if we cannot get a process that works. We had
last week 56 new fire starts in one day. Yesterday we had 22 in
addition to those 56, for another additional 54,000 acres. So
something has to be done. We cannot wait. Here we are another
year since I have been here. Last year we were having pretty
much the same conversation.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Governor Napolitano, so far this year Arizona has burned
over 147,000 acres, 1,200 fires. Last year 3,200 fires burned
629,000 acres, most of which occurred in the Rodeo-Chediski
fire. Is that the right way to say that?
Governor Napolitano. Yes.
The Chairman. And does the Western Governors' Association
think that just putting a shaded fuel break for one-half mile
around each community or the wildland-urban interface area is
sufficient to deal with this situation?
Governor Napolitano. No, it does not for a couple of
reasons. One is that you need to have treatments deeper in the
forests, and you are going to hear about that from the panel of
experts that will be before you this morning. You need to place
a priority--and I think all three of the bills you mentioned do
place a priority--on the area around communities because there
you are protecting people and property. But really a holistic
treatment requires you to go deeper into the forest ecosystems.
Secondly, as Governor Martz alluded to and as I think has
been alluded to by the panel, simply dealing with the wildland-
urban interface will not help without some additional resources
put into fires in the West.
The Chairman. Now, Governors, assume we are going to try to
address the issue of resources so that you do not have that as
an answer here. The Forest Service, NEPA, and administrative
appeals process seem, at least to me, to make it impossible to
react to these insect epidemics in a timely manner. Does the
Western Governors' Association support the streamlining of the
Forest Service process of dealing with insect and disease
outbreaks, even if it means cutting down and selling some of
the larger dead, infected trees?
Governor Napolitano. Yes. The Western Governors' position,
Senator Domenici, is that there should be administrative
changes to NEPA and other review processes to deal with and
help deal with the large amount of acreage that has been
infested either by the bark beetle or by some other parasite.
The Chairman. I thank you so much for your absolute
honesty.
Is the Western Governors' Association convinced that any of
the three bills that we are discussing today is sufficient to
deal with the mega-insect and disease complexes that we face in
many of our States?
Governor Napolitano. Are you asking me, Senator?
The Chairman. Yes, Governor Napolitano.
Governor Napolitano. I think there are elements in all
three bills that, properly melded together, would actually
replicate what the 10-year strategy is, and that plan is before
you and has been bought into, as it were, by all the
stakeholders in this process.
The Chairman. Thank you so very much.
Fellow Senators.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governors, it is very good to have you, and I cannot ever
pass up an opportunity to try to look for the common ground. We
have got a Democrat and Republican here.
Governor Martz, I think you made the point. You were here a
year ago and we are now having the same conversation. It just
kind of goes on and on. I will offer to both of you my sense is
that we could resolve everything else if we can get there on
judicial review. I think that I can really see the end in
sight, the 60 votes, if we can get over the judicial review
aspect of this.
Senator Feinstein and I have spent a lot of time trying to
talk to all of the parties in the South and the West and have
really two key elements in our judicial reform proposal. The
two key elements are, first, prevent venue-shopping so that
people cannot traipse all over the countryside looking for a
court that would be hospitable to them. So the first thing we
do is prevent venue-shopping away from the Federal district
court where the land in question lies.
The second significant change to us is requiring with the
temporary injunctions to have to come back every 60 days, so
you do not just get to chew up eons of time ongoing toward
infinity I guess, and with this kind of updating process, a
court can see that people are really working in good faith and
trying to move ahead.
My question to both of you is do you share the view of
Senator Feinstein and me that these two changes in judicial
review would make a real difference as the Congress tries to
tackle it. That is going to be the first question. I am going
to ask you one other, but the first I would like to have is the
two of you on the record on the two key reforms and the effort
we have produced and your judgment about whether that would
make a real difference on the issue which I think is the
sticking point.
Governor Napolitano.
Governor Napolitano. Senator Wyden, before responding to
your question, let me suggest a framework in which to answer
the question and that is that should the legislation passed by
the Congress provide for meaningful early participation by
public stakeholders and then the requisite limit on standing,
which the WGA does support, then we can get to some of these
other judicial review questions.
Now, the WGA has not taken a position on this particular
bill, but speaking as the Governor of Arizona, I would say on
the record that I support the limitation on, as you describe
it, venue-shopping so that the actions are brought in the areas
that are directly affected by the proposed projects.
Secondly, with respect to limiting TRO's to 60 days, that
does not seem to me unreasonable if you can get into Federal
court. I would say lastly, however, that in my experience in
Arizona the major cause of delay, if you were to plot these
things on a time bar, is not once you get into Federal court.
It is before you actually get into Federal court.
Senator Wyden. Governor Martz.
Governor Martz. Mr. Chairman, Senator, I really believe
that as we look at time lines, I am not sure whether your time
lines are right or whether they are wrong. I just know when we
keep delaying things as the beetles work--we do not even have
the biomass to work with to use it for anything, to heat
schools, to do anything.
So I have a suggestion that we will be talking about at the
next Western Governors' Association meeting that I really
believe our judicial system, the way it is set up to deal with
this issue, we should have someone that will deal with not only
the letter of the law, but the intent of the law so that we can
move forward instead of having to go back, whether it is 60
days or 30 days. It does not take a beetle very long to do what
has been done to Alaska. In fact, we were up there with the
President in Oregon at the Biscuit fire, and the fire had
occurred 2 weeks before we were there and could hear the
beetles as we stood there. I think you might have been there
when we were there.
But I really believe that whether it is to appoint an
authority that has judiciary authority like a magistrate or
magistrates that would work--this is not something the Western
Governors have talked about yet. So I am telling you something
that I believe in my heart. We need to change the way we are
doing business.
Senator Wyden. But in your opinion, Governor, because we
are going to just keep struggling to try to find a way to end
the conversation--I do not want you back here in another year.
Governor Martz. I do not want to come back in a year.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. You said it well.
Well, Senator Feinstein and I have spent a lot of time on
the judicial review question. Governor Napolitano, a Democrat,
said our two elements would make a real difference. I would
just like you on the record.
Governor Martz. It would move us. It would move us. We need
to be moved. We need to move.
Senator Wyden. We will be working very closely with you and
I appreciate the constructive way you have proceeded.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Bingaman has a question.
Senator Bingaman. Let me just ask. We had a report done by
the General Accounting Office on the issue of what is delaying
decisions by the Forest Service. They said that for the fiscal
years 2001 and 2002, there were a total of 762 decisions by the
Forest Service to go forward with forest thinning and that 23
of those went to court, 3 percent; that 21 of the 23 were
timber sales, and the Forest Service lost 22 of the 23 that
went to court.
I am just asking if either of you have had a chance to look
at that report because it strikes me, if they are right--I do
not disagree that it is an important issue for us to talk about
judicial review, but it does not seem to me that that is the
core of the problem in delay. If 3 percent of the decisions are
being appealed to the courts, that cannot possibly be the total
problem that we are dealing with.
Governor Napolitano, then Governor Martz.
Governor Napolitano. Senator Bingaman, yes, that was the
reason I said at the end of my remarks with Senator Wyden that
when you look at the time bar of how these cases normally go,
the biggest expanse of time is normally spent at the agency
level. And that is why the WGA has advocated for streamlining
that administrative process.
But in terms of the venue-shopping, I genuinely think that
is a good idea for a whole host of reasons.
And on the 60-day reporting on a TRO, I do not know about
New Mexico, but in Arizona we have many standing orders in our
Federal courts on other areas where on any kind of TRO you have
to come back to the court and say what is happening and keep
the court up to date. So this would be merely a way for those
few cases that are in judicial review to make sure they are
moving along.
Senator Bingaman. Are you saying that most of the TRO's in
these other areas expire at the end of 60 days if you do not
take action, if the court does not----
Governor Napolitano. It really depends on the case, Senator
Bingaman, but it is not unusual in our Federal courts to have
some kind of time limit and report back when you are dealing
with a TRO, but more frequently a preliminary injunction.
Senator Bingaman. I certainly understand the reporting-back
requirement, but usually the court's order does not lose its
effect after a certain period of time. I do not think there are
many instances where Congress has legislated the end of a court
order after a certain period of time. I do not believe. Maybe I
am wrong about that.
Governor Napolitano. An important distinction.
Senator Bingaman. Governor Martz.
Governor Martz. Mr. Chairman, Senator, that number, when I
read the number--and I did read this some time ago when that
came out. It baffled me because in Montana 90 percent of our
sales are appealed.
Senator Bingaman. But that is administrative appeal, as I
understand it.
Governor Martz. Yes.
Senator Bingaman. And they have acknowledged that in the
same report that I am asking about. 90 percent of the decisions
which are subject to appeal do go into an administrative
appeal, but they have gone on to say that very few go on to
court.
Governor Martz. The end result is the same. The time that
we waste through those processes. It is time wasted as far as
the timber goes and the value of the wood and the use of the
wood. That is after a fire. But if we are talking about forest
health, which I think we are talking about mostly today--all of
this has to do with fires, but if we are talking about forest
health, if the money is spent previous to the fire and the
appeals can be stopped so we can get some of this wood out, get
some of the underbrush, we will be a lot further ahead.
Senator Bingaman. I agree with that. I think we have a
tendency in Congress to always say if the Federal courts would
just do what is right, that would solve the problem. I do not
really think that the Federal courts are the main cause of the
catastrophic fire problem that we have in the West or our
inability to deal with it.
The Chairman. I do not know how we want to handle the rest.
Time is really running, and I have a particular personal
problem about my time I want to share with the Senators.
But before I do, I want to say to Senator Bingaman, Senator
Bingaman, I do not agree with your conclusion. I do believe the
GAO study is off the mark. I do not believe it addresses the
right issue, as is frequently the case with the GAO, and I am
not prepared to tell you how, but I will, if that is necessary,
at our next hearing.
I do believe the court system is, overall and what is
happening in how it is being used, significantly responsible
for the problem. Now, I do not know whether I would use any
other word, the ``principle'' one or the like. But it is really
a part of the problem that must be solved regardless of this
small number that the GAO concludes has been affected. I do not
agree with that conclusion, having talked to so many people
that seem right off to say that is incredible. There is
obviously, in my opinion, something wrong with the focus of the
study that we will have to look at and study a little more.
Now, Senators, not that these witnesses are not
professional, they certainly are, but we have a whole batch of
professional witnesses. Can we agree now to limit the time of
the questioning of the Governors and proceed with the panels,
except the Senator from Arizona, you ought to be heard. You
have your Governor here.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I want
to apologize for not being able to be here to introduce the
Governor. Obviously, she makes a presentation on her own
without my introduction, but as a matter of courtesy, I want to
thank her for being here, for her interest in this issue, for
her testimony, and I wish I could have said some words by way
of introduction in the beginning.
It is important for us to hear from our Governors. In
Arizona we experience the fire season a little earlier than
most other States because of the dryness and the rise in
temperatures earlier than in most States. The Governor has been
very, very involved, really from the time that she was elected,
in this very serious issue facing our State. We have had
conversations about it. We will have many more, and I
appreciate very much her being here and representing the
Western Governors today, as well as Governor Martz, but I
especially want to express my appreciation to our Governor from
Arizona, Janet Napolitano.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Governors. We very much
appreciate your coming, and your testimony was most relevant.
Now we will have panel number 2, Mark Rey, Under Secretary,
and Ms. Rebecca Watson, Assistant Secretary, both of them from
the U.S. Department, one Agriculture and one Interior.
Let me announce to the Senators that Senator Burns is going
to preside, and you can do that, Senator, from either there or
take my seat, whichever your prefer. I have been asked to go
the Leader's office regarding the energy bill, so hold me
excused.
Before I leave, I would like to ask if the Commissioner
from New Mexico, Mr. Mike Nivison--where is the commissioner?
Let me just tell you that I will not be here to ask you
questions because I have been called off, but thank you for
coming, and we look forward to your testimony.
We will take the two government witnesses now, Senator
Burns and fellow Senators. Thank you for the participation.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns [presiding]. I do not know who outranks who
here. They keep pointing at one another. Thank you for coming
this morning, and we will take the testimony of Ms. Watson this
morning. Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA WATSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND AND
MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Watson. Good morning, Senator Burns and members of the
committee.
We would like to thank the committee for inviting us to
address the issue of forest health once again. The U.S. Forest
Service and the Interior Department have submitted a joint
statement for the record. It describes the administrative
initiatives we have put in place to address forest and
rangeland health, but we believe that more needs to be done.
This spring, President Bush called on Congress to move
quickly to pass the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to assist
the administration in accomplishing its Healthy Forest
Initiative, a common sense approach to improve the health of
our forests and rangelands.
Approximately 190 million acres are in need of active
management because of the accumulation of dense undergrowth,
diseased and insect-infested trees, and the presence of highly
flammable weeds. Population growth into the wildland-urban
interface complicates management. Treatment of these conditions
can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, improve the
health of our public lands, and protect local watersheds.
Insects. While native insects have been present in our
forests historically, changes in forest density, composition,
and structure caused by fire exclusion have resulted in
extensive insect outbreaks. Dense forests stressed by drought
conditions are more susceptible to insect and disease mortality
and, in turn, these forests are more vulnerable to fire.
Weeds. At least 25 million acres of the Great Basin in
Nevada, Utah, and Idaho are dominated by cheatgrass. Invasive
species such as cheatgrass often replace native grass following
wildfires, increasing the fire risk and frequency and reducing
forage for wildlife and domestic stock.
Wildland-urban interface. The movement of people into our
wildlands complicates the management of these lands. One study
estimated that in the lower 48 States, 12 million people live
within 1 mile of lands managed by the Department of the
Interior or the Forest Service. Many of these communities are
at risk of severe wildland fire. Examples of this threat are
found in every State of the Nation. This photo depicts the San
Bernardino area of California where tree mortality from insects
and drought grew rapidly from 100 acres in August 2002 to
350,000 acres in less than a year, by April 2003. Similar
forest conditions exist in Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, and
Colorado. Fire risk threatens about $10 billion in property and
30,000 dwellings.
The goal of the Healthy Forest Initiative and the
legislation discussed today is to prevent catastrophic
wildfires and to improve land health in a meaningful time
frame. Common sense forest health improvements result in less
damaging fires. In contrast to the intense crown fire shown in
this photo that occurred in the untreated areas of the Squires
Peak fire in Oregon, four stands that were thinned experienced
low intensity fire that remained in the forest's understory. I
too read the article in the New York Times this morning--and I
do commend it to the committee--discussing the benefits of
thinning and prescribed fire.
In conclusion, this is not only a Federal land issue. As
you can see from the bar graph distribution depicting fire
activity this season, about 75 percent of the reported fires
and 40 percent of the acreage burned this year have occurred on
non-Federal lands. We need to address this issue across
agencies and work with tribes, States, and counties. That is
the reason we are supporting a flexible, comprehensive, and
collaborative approach to reducing fire risk and improving land
health.
We thank the committee for your continued interest in
addressing forest health issues, and we will continue working
with you on a common sense piece of legislation to address this
crisis.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
Secretary Rey.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. I think from the discussion that we have among you
on the committee and with the Governors, there are broad areas
of agreement and that the devil is in the details. I lost the
coin toss, so I get to talk about the details of the three
bills, and hopefully, by the time we complete that, you will
not view me as the devil.
H.R. 1904 would materially improve the processes which now
significantly contribute to costly delays and allow the timely
implementation of critical fuels reduction projects. It would
allow the agencies to focus their efforts on the proposed
alternatives that they would have to analyze in proposing
hazardous fuel reduction projects, and it would also require
the Secretary to establish an administrative appeals process
for these projects as an alternative to the current
legislatively mandated process. It would also clarify the
standard for injunctive relief against actions that are
necessary to restore fire-adapted forests or rangelands and
would provide clear time frames for judicial review.
The balance of our statement for the record goes through
the other provisions in H.R. 1904 that we find helpful and
laudable. I will submit for the record of the committee's
deliberation the administration's statement of policy that was
issued upon full House consideration of H.R. 1904. We have
indicated our support for H.R. 1904 and our hope that it will
be passed quickly.
As well, I will submit for the record of the committee's
deliberations the detailed comments of our Office of General
Counsel on S. 1314 and S. 1352. And while the administration
appreciates the emphasis in S. 1314 and S. 1352 on the
wildland-urban interface, these bills impose restrictions that
would likely impede rather than facilitate implementation of
the hazardous fuel reduction processes.
In particular, the requirement that sets a hard limit on
hazardous fuel reduction projects in specific areas, as
proposed by both bills, is actually contrary to the 10-year
comprehensive strategy and implementation plan which calls for
projects to be implemented at the local level in a broad,
collaborative manner. Indeed, rather than giving the Governors
more options, those provisions might result in giving them less
options in prioritizing where they want the treatments to be
made if those priorities, as they are expressed through the
collaborative process, are in conflict with 70/30 limits in S.
1314 and S. 1352.
In addition, S. 1352 focuses on forest lands and not other
woodlands and rangelands managed by the BLM and the Forest
Service. Many communities at risk from catastrophic wildland
fire may not be bordered by forests. Also, by the terms of its
title, S. 1314 would apply only to Western national forests
created from the public domain, and not national forests in the
East and in the South with significant insect infestation
problems that were created as a result of the Weeks Act or
other subsequent legislative authorities. So it is a more
limited bill from a regional stance.
The public participation provisions in S. 1352 seem to
duplicate existing processes. It is unclear how or whether the
petition provision, which in essence is an appeals process,
fits within the expedited appeals process that is also provided
for in the bill.
It is also unclear whether the Secretary's decision in
response to a petition is reviewable. Since the bill is silent
on the matter, the courts would likely interpret a Secretarial
decision in that regard to be reviewable, thereby creating
another opportunity for judicial challenges even to the
question of what areas we treat without regard to how, when,
and under what circumstances we treat them.
Both S. 1314 and S. 1352 establish categorical exclusions
from detailed NEPA documentation for certain fuels reduction
projects. USDA and the Department of the Interior agencies have
already completed such a comprehensive review of hazardous fuel
reduction activities and have established by rule two new
categorical exclusions. Because the agencies' categorical
exclusions for hazardous fuel treatment and post-fire
rehabilitation are new and just now being implemented, we
believe that legislation on this matter is neither necessary
nor, as it might be the case in S. 1314, if it is read by the
courts to confuse the application of our existing authority to
issue categorical exclusions under current law, even helpful.
Also, S. 1314 places significant limitations on the
implementation of stewardship contracting authorized by section
323 of Public Law 108-7. We are still in the public comment
phase on joint agency guidance for stewardship contracting, so
we would oppose subsequent legislation restricting our ability
to consider what you have just recently asked us to do.
With regard to judicial review provisions in S. 1352, I
think based on the Senators' interest, we ought to review those
for you for the record.
With regard to venue-shopping, venue-shopping is a unique
problem when the agency action being challenged is multi-
jurisdictional in reach, such as a forest plan that affects a
national forest that lies in two or more judicial districts.
But with regard to specific projects, which these bills
reference, both of them, S. 1352 and S. 1314, venue-shopping
has not proven to be that big a problem. Indeed, because of the
standing requirements that courts have imposed to show local
interest and harm and local people who have demonstrated
interest in harm in a project that is being challenged, today
plaintiffs that are challenging individual projects almost
always bring them in the venue where the project is occurring.
With regard to the time limits on preliminary injunctions
or TRO's--and I think S. 1352 covers both--it could be helpful
to have the courts revisit those, but without any subsequent
guidance as to what they are to do, it will rest entirely on
the individual jurist to decide whether the notification is at
all meaningful to his or her deliberations. Certainly if the
circumstance that is changing in the field is the ignition of a
fire, by that time notifying the judge that things have changed
is not going to do much good in terms of informing his decision
on how he might like to proceed. And indeed, we have
circumstances today where areas that have been affected by
injunctions, like the Jimtown Project on the Deer Lodge
National Forest in Montana, in fact burned while the injunction
and deliberations were pending.
In conclusion, the administration is deeply committed to
seeing a piece of legislation pass as soon as possible. The
President has spoken directly and eloquently to that.
It is, however, as well our expectation that when Congress
does pass a piece of legislation in this area, there will be a
significant expectation that things on the ground will change
dramatically and that work will be done faster and better and
cheaper. And we will bear the burden of that expectation. So if
the legislation does not result in that kind of an outcome
being possible, then our land managing agencies will be set up
to fail, and that is something that we cannot let happen.
So with that, I would conclude by indicating we are
interested in continuing to work with the committee and with
the Senate to try produce a piece of legislation that will meet
that expectation and allow for more rapid treatment to occur on
the ground so that we do not have to return next year to
discuss this matter. Thank you very much.
[The prepared joint statement of Ms. Watson and Mr. Rey
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture and Rebecca Watson, Assistant
Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman: On May 20, 2003, President Bush called on Congress to
move as quickly as possible to pass the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
of 2003 (H.R. 1904) and get it to his desk for signature. We appreciate
your willingness to schedule this hearing today on H.R. 1904 and two
other forest health bills, S. 1314, and S. 1352. The Departments of
Agriculture (USDA) and the Interior (DOI) strongly support H.R. 1904.
We would like to work with the Committee to make technical amendments
to clarify and strengthen H.R. 1904. The Administration opposes S. 1314
and S. 1352 because the focus of these bills is too narrow and because
neither bill contains the flexible, comprehensive approach to forest
health and hazardous fuels reductions set out in H.R. 1904.
BACKGROUND
The need for action to restore our Nation's public forests and
rangelands to long-term health has never been greater. Catastrophic
fires are just one consequence of the deteriorating forest and
rangeland health that now affects more than 190 million acres of public
land, an area twice the size of California. Last year alone, wildfires
burned over 7.2 million acres of public and private lands, leading to
the destruction of over 800 structures and the evacuation of tens of
thousands of people from hundreds of communities. Although wildland
fire activity so far this year has been one-third less than the average
of the last ten years, we have seen some indications of the potential
for destructive wildfires. On June 17, 2003, the Aspen Fire blew out of
the Pusch Ridge Wilderness in southern Arizona and overwhelmed the
community of Summerhaven, Arizona destroying 329 homes, businesses and
other structures. This fire was declared contained on July 15, 2003,
nearly a month after it started. We are seeing some critical situations
in the southwest, and northward. Large portions of thirteen western
states and parts of Alaska and Hawaii have the potential for above
average fire activity this fire season.
In addition to fire, Federal forests and rangelands across the
country face unusually high threats from the spread of invasive species
and insect attacks. Insects and pathogens have historically existed in
our forests and rangelands. However, the frequency, extent and timing
of recent outbreaks are out of the ordinary. Changes in tree stand
density, as well as in species composition and structure, due to
decades of excluding or immediately suppressing fire, the lack of
active management, and extended drought, are factors that have
significantly affected insect infestation outbreak patterns. The result
is the death of millions of trees across millions of acres in
California, Utah, Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, the Mid-Atlantic
States and the South. Often when these areas burn with uncharacteristic
intensity, they become very susceptible to invasive species, further
prolonging poor forest and rangeland health.
While Federal, State and local land managers have attempted to
restore forest and rangeland health and prevent these catastrophic
wildfires and infestations, their efforts have been severely hampered
by unnecessary and costly procedural delays that can prevent them from
acting in a timely manner to protect communities and avert ecological
crises. Excessive analysis, ineffective public involvement, and
management inefficiencies trap land managers in costly procedural
delays, where, in some cases, a single project can take years to move
forward. In the meantime, communities, wildlife habitat and forests and
rangelands continue to suffer. Fires and insect infestations that begin
on public lands can spread to private lands as well, causing
significant property damage and threats to public health and safety.
The Aspen fire in Arizona is a case in point.
Recognizing the impending crisis, President Bush proposed the
Healthy Forests Initiative in August 2002. The President directed
Federal agencies to develop several administrative and legislative
tools to restore deteriorated Federal lands to healthy conditions and
assist in executing core components of the National Fire Plan. Since
the President's announcement last August, Federal agencies have taken
several regulatory steps to implement components of the Healthy Forests
Initiative.
The Secretaries have taken several administrative actions to
accomplish these objectives, which include the following:
Endangered Species Act Guidance--On December 11, 2002, the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) issued joint guidance
documents to facilitate and improve the design, review,
approval and implementation of HFI projects. The guidance
allows multiple projects to be grouped into one consultation
and provides direction on how to consider and balance potential
short- and long-term beneficial and adverse impacts to
endangered species when evaluating projects. The goal is to
recognize that project-specific, short term adverse impacts
need to be weighed against the longer-term watershed level
benefits such projects will achieve.
CEQ Memorandum & Model Environmental Assessment Projects--CEQ
Chairman Connaughton issued guidance addressing the preparation
of model environmental assessments (EA) for fuels treatment
projects. The guidance addresses the purpose and content of an
EA, specifically, that EAs should be focused and concise. These
guidelines are now being applied on both Forest Service and DOI
agency fuels treatment projects and some of these model EAs are
now out for public comment.
Appeals Process Reform--Both USDA and DOI made rule changes
designed to encourage early and meaningful public participation
in project planning, while continuing to provide the public an
opportunity to seek review or appeal project decisions. This
allows more expedited application of hazardous fuels reduction
projects.
Categorical Exclusions (CE)--Both USDA and DOI have established new
categorical exclusions, as provided under the National
Environmental Policy Act, for certain hazardous fuels reduction
projects and for post-fire rehabilitation projects. These new
CEs shorten the time between identification of hazardous fuels
treatment and restoration projects and their actual
accomplishment on the ground. The agencies have compiled an
extensive scientific record demonstrating that similar projects
did not result in significant environmental effects either
individually or cumulatively.
Proposed Section 7 Counterpart Regulation--FWS and NOAA Fisheries
have proposed Section 7 joint counterpart regulations under the
ESA to improve Section 7 consultation procedures for projects
that support the National Fire Plan. The proposed regulations
would provide, in some situations, an alternative, to the
existing Section 7 consultation process by authorizing the
agencies to make certain determinations without project-
specific consultation and concurrence of the FWS and NOAA
Fisheries.
The recently passed Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003
(P.L. 108-7) contains stewardship contracting authority, which gives
agency land managers a critical tool to implement projects necessary to
achieve land management goals. This provision allows the BLM and the
Forest Service to enter into long-term stewardship contracts with the
private sector, non-profit organizations, local communities, and other
entities. In FY 2003, the Bureau of Land Management will implement
stewardship contracting on a limited basis, and the Forest Service will
implement stewardship contracting much as it did during the pilot
program. Joint agency guidance for long-term implementation is
currently out for public comment. For the permanent authority,
programmatic direction will include, among other things, descriptions
of goals, monitoring, and treatment of receipts.
We believe these administrative actions will provide Federal land
managers with important tools they need to restore these lands to a
condition where they can resist disease, insects, and catastrophic
fire. However, the Administration believes that the additional tools
and authorities that are provided in H.R. 1904 are still needed to
address the severity of forest health conditions in a meaningful
timeframe.
H.R. 1904
Title I of H.R. 1904 would improve processes which now
significantly contribute to costly delays, and allow timely
implementation of critical fuels reduction projects. The title would
provide more efficient procedures for USDA and the DOI to plan and
conduct hazardous fuels projects on up to 20 million acres of Federal
land that are most at-risk from wildfires while preserving public input
in agency decision-making. The title would allow the agencies to focus
the proposed alternatives they would have to analyze for proposed
hazardous fuels reduction projects, but otherwise would maintain
requirements for public notice and input. We believe this authority
would provide the agencies with the latitude necessary to reduce the
risk of damage to communities and municipal water supplies and at-risk
Federal lands from catastrophic wildfires. Projects would be selected
through a collaborative process involving local, tribal, state, Federal
and non-governmental entities as described in the 10-Year Comprehensive
Strategy and Implementation Plan. National program allocations and
local project selections would attempt to optimize wildfire risk
mitigation over time. Title I would require the Secretary of
Agriculture to establish an administrative review process for these
projects as an alternative to the current legislatively mandated
appeals process. The title also would clarify the standard for
injunctive relief against actions that are necessary to restore fire-
adapted forests or rangelands and would provide timeframes for judicial
review.
Title II of H.R. 1904, which parallels already exiting authority,
would authorize a $25 million grant program for each of the fiscal
years 2004 through 2008. The Secretaries would be authorized to make
grants to persons who own or operate a facility that uses biomass or to
make grants to persons to offset the cost of projects to add value to
biomass. This authority would help encourage investment in energy
generation and other commercial utilization of low value or non-
merchantable biomass, including wood, chips, brush, thinnings, and
slash removed to reduce hazardous fuels, to reduce the risk of disease
or insect infestation, or to contain disease or insect infestation.
Title III of H.R. 1904 would authorize a $15 million program within
the Forest Service for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008, to
provide State forestry agencies technical, financial and related
assistance for the purpose of expanding State capacity to address
watershed issues on non-Federal forested lands. This authority, which
parallels existing authority, would allow USDA and DOI to work
collaboratively with other interests to manage and conserve non-
Federally forested lands.
Title IV of H.R. 1904 would require the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior, with the assistance of universities and forestry
schools, to develop an accelerated program on certain Federal lands to
combat infestations by bark beetles, including Southern pine beetles,
hemlock woolly adelgids, emerald ash borers, red oak borers, and white
oak borers. This title also would authorize the Secretaries to conduct
applied silvicultural assessments on certain Federal lands. An
assessment of a site of not more than 1,000 acres would be deemed to be
categorically excluded from further documentation under the National
Environmental Policy Act. We believe this will allow us to quickly
design and test methods of responding to insect outbreaks.
Title V of H.R. 1904 authorizes a $15 million Healthy Forests
Reserve Program within the Forest Service working in cooperation with
the Secretary of the Interior, for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2008 for the purposes of protecting, restoring and enhancing
degraded forest ecosystems on private lands to promote the recovery of
threatened and endangered species. This authority also parallels
existing authority for the Forest Service.
Title VI of H.R. 1904 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
carry out a comprehensive program to inventory, monitor, characterize,
assess and identify forest stands nationwide. In carrying out such a
program, the Secretary would also be directed to develop an ``early
warning system'' for potential catastrophic threats to forests. Title
VI authorizes $5 million for each of the fiscal years 2004 through
2008.
S. 1314 AND S. 1352
While the USDA and DOI appreciate the emphasis in S. 1314 and S.
1352 on the wildland-urban interface, these bills impose restrictions
that would likely impede rather than facilitate implementation of
hazardous fuels reduction projects. The restrictions in S. 1314 and S.
1352 that limit funding of hazardous fuels reduction treatments to
areas within an arbitrary, one size fits all distance from a community
may have unintended adverse consequences. For example, in several
recent incidents, communities have been threatened by fires that began
outside the fuel treatment limits proposed in S. 1314 and S. 1352, and
then moved close to--or through--communities. Resources in the path of
the fires including watersheds, local infrastructure and wildlife
habitat suffered damage that also affected these communities. The
requirement to limit hazardous fuels reduction projects to the area
proposed by these bills is actually contrary to the 10 Year
Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan which calls for projects
to be implemented at the local level in a broad collaborative manner.
In addition, Federal land managers need the flexibility to conduct
hazardous fuels reduction and restoration treatments in areas
identified by application of sound science and land management
experience, rather than by an arbitrary distance.
In addition, S. 1352 focuses on forested lands, and not the other
woodlands and rangelands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service.
Many communities at risk from catastrophic wildland fire may not be
bordered by forests. Other vegetation types, such as grasslands in
condition class 1, and especially grasslands and shrublands infested
with invasive species may pose more serious risks to individual
communities than condition class 3 forested lands. It would be better
to allow for the exercise of informed management flexibility by agency
professionals with local collaboration, to identify the specific high
risk areas based on actual conditions in that area.
Additionally, the public participation provisions in S. 1352 seem
to duplicate existing processes. Further, S. 1352 provides for a
petition process during scoping or public comment. It is unclear how or
whether the petition provision, which is an appeals process, fits with
the expedited appeals process also provided for in the bill. Both the
DOI and the USDA have public notice and NEPA scoping processes already
in place. Those processes assure opportunities for public input. In
addition, allowing a petitioner to seek protective designation for
large trees or old growth has the potential to create controversy on a
tree-by-tree basis. We need to focus on hazardous fuels reduction
projects based on science, not on individual trees.
Both S. 1314 and S. 1352 establish categorical exclusions from
detailed NEPA documentation for certain fuels reduction projects.
Categorical exclusions are, in general, established by rulemaking
procedures to provide for more efficient review of actions for which an
agency has sufficient information to find that, except where there are
extraordinary circumstances, the category of actions do not,
individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the
environment. USDA and DOI agencies have already completed such a
comprehensive review of hazardous fuels reduction activities and
established by rule 2 new categorical exclusions. Because the agencies'
categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels treatment and post fire
rehabilitation are new and just now being implemented, we believe that
legislation on this matter is not necessary at this time.
Also, S. 1314 places significant limitations on implementation of
the stewardship contracting authorized by section 323 of P.L. 108-7
(the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003). We believe this
impedes our goal of restoring forest and rangeland health cost-
effectively. Stewardship contracting authority is a much needed tool to
help agencies address the enormity of the forest and rangeland health
challenge. It is based on collaboration and cost effective fuels
treatment. Both USDA and DOI have begun to implement this authority. We
are still in the public comment phase on joint agency guidance for
stewardship contracting.
S. 1314 would prohibit the ability of the Secretary of Agriculture
to implement the Administration's Competitive Sourcing Initiative. The
Administration strongly opposes this provision. A Statement of
Administrative Policy issued July 16, 2003 concerning restrictions to
competitive sourcing found in H.R. 2691, the Department of Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2004, recommended the
President veto the bill if the final version contained this
restriction.
S. 1314 would also establish a mandatory spending account to cover
excessive fire suppression costs for the Forest Service. The
Administration opposes the creation of this type of mandatory spending
account because there is uncertainty about how it would affect the
agency's ability to transfer funds from other accounts for emergency
fire suppression activities.
Finally, S. 1352 authorizes grants for biomass utilization, but
limits eligibility to facilities located within the boundaries of an
eligible community. An eligible facility should be defined as one that
supports an eligible community, but it should not be restricted to
those facilities located within the boundaries of the community. In
order to lessen transportation costs, an operator may decide to locate
its facility closer to where the biomass is found, rather than the
community where it is to be processed. What is important to the
community is that such a facility is close enough to allow for
reasonable commuting by employee residents of the community.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, USDA and DOI are committed to working with Congress,
State, local and tribal officials and the public to advance common-
sense solutions to protect communities and people, and to restore
forest and rangeland health. All of the bills considered today are
based on the premise that active management is necessary to restore and
maintain healthy forests in some areas, and that the current legal and
regulatory framework does not allow this management to occur in a
timely way. Overall, we find that H.R. 1904 provides the much needed
authorities sought by the President's Healthy Forest Initiative to
achieve these goals. We strongly support H.R. 1904 and look forward to
working with the Committee as it moves through the legislative process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these three bills. We
will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I just have one question. Last year the Congress provided
sufficiency language to allow a number of projects on the Black
Hills National Forest to move forward without NEPA, appeals, or
litigation. Now we are talking about that. Can you tell me what
progress has been made on those projects under those
circumstances?
Mr. Rey. All of those projects are proceeding on the
schedule that was agreed to as part of the legislation. We will
be submitting to the Congress this week our second report, as
the legislation required. I will submit that for the record of
the committee's deliberations. What that report will show is
that the projects that were laid out in the legislation are
proceeding on the time schedule that we anticipated they would
be completed in.
Senator Burns. Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much for being here.
Let me ask about one of the issues I asked the Governors
about, and that is, how do we solve this problem of the Forest
Service having to borrow from the accounts that are intended to
be spent for these types of thinning activities and use that
money in order to fight fires? Then we have gotten into this
pattern where we borrow from those accounts, we fight the
fires, and then 6 months or a year later, we come back and
restore some or all of that money. I think it is fair to say
that in the last year or 2, it has been some rather than all of
that money.
I gather you take exception to what I have proposed in the
bill I introduced which says there should be direct authority
to borrow from the Treasury. What alternative do you suggest,
if you do object to what I have proposed? What other way is
there to fix this problem?
Mr. Rey. We have two alternatives that we would suggest for
your consideration. One was an alternative that was proposed in
last year's administration budget proposal and that was the
creation of a government-wide emergency contingency reserve.
But another equally valid alternative is to deal with the issue
through supplemental appropriations bills.
The system that we are operating under now served us
reasonably well for a number of years. It is not serving us
well now. I think we would agree with you in that regard. It
served us well in years when we had outstanding trust fund
balances from which we could borrow without having diminished
working program funds. Those balances have not been repaid over
the years, and so they have been drawn down now, which presents
us with the problem of borrowing from program funds.
However, we have installed new software to compile real-
time expenditure reports from all of our fire incidents so we
can now give you a real-time estimate of where we are in the
fire fighting funding process in any given year which should
conceivably give the Congress more than adequate time to
respond if there is a need for additional money through the
passage of a supplemental. Indeed, if the Congress passes the
supplemental that is currently pending before the August
recess, we will not likely have to borrow anything through the
month of August and maybe beyond or maybe at all, depending on
how the fire season unfolds.
So those are two other alternatives. The supplemental one,
of course, imposes a greater burden on the appropriators, but
it also imposes a greater degree of oversight on the part of
the Congress over what we are doing. I think the problem with
simply just giving us the authority to go borrow it out of the
Treasury is that it leaves both the appropriators and the
budget committees catching up in the next cycle with what we
have done without the kind of oversight that you ought to
demand from us.
Senator Bingaman. Well, let me just say I think it is a
question of do we want to leave the appropriators without the
oversight or do we want to delay the projects. That is sort of
the situation we find ourselves in right now. I would be
inclined to go ahead and give you the authority to borrow the
funds and do the work that is needed to keep these projects on
track rather than assume that Congress is going to pass a
supplemental appropriation bill every time there is a bad fire
season. I just do not know that that is a realistic
expectation.
Let me ask one other subject. We had a little discussion
with the Governors about the extent of the court interference
with the decisions that are being made, the extent to which the
courts are the problem. Let me just give you some figures, and
then if you could check these. You probably do not have the
information right here, but obviously if you do, I would like
to hear it, but otherwise just check them and get back to me.
This is information again from this GAO report. In the two
States of New Mexico and Arizona, where Senator Kyl and Senator
McCain and Senator Domenici and I are most interested, 91
percent of the acreage covered by decisions involving fuel
reduction activities were categorically excluded from NEPA
review, according to what they determined. 78 percent of the
decisions involving fuel reduction activities were
categorically excluded from NEPA review, and 91 percent of the
decisions went unchallenged. There was not a single case that
was litigated during the 2 years that they looked into. Is that
consistent with what you have found, or would you like a chance
to review that?
Mr. Rey. We have parsed the data a little bit more closely.
I have come to believe that GAO reports are like onions. When I
worked on that side of the dias, they were useful to make
agency administrators cry. Now that I am on this side of the
dais, you have to peel the layers off to really get to exactly
what is being said.
Senator Bingaman. Usually peeling layers off makes me cry
when I am cleaning onions.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rey. What GAO did was a total, all guts and feathers
computation of projects to evaluate the impact of appeals, and
they included both projects that were covered by categorical
exclusions, prescribed burnings, personal use fuel wood
projects, as well as a number of others. And those are never
appealed. So consequently, if you kick those into the database,
you are going to find a lower frequency of appeals.
If you focus on the projects that are both necessary and
controversial, which are mechanical fuels treatment projects,
thinning, some commercial timber sales, you get a different
picture. There what you find is roughly 59 percent were
appealed. Indeed, in that universe, even 52 percent of those
kinds of projects in the wildland-urban interface were
appealed. So even in areas where we believe there is the most
agreement on proceeding, we are still seeing a significant
amount of appeals.
Senator Bingaman. Let me just ask this. This must just be a
mistake that GAO made because they determined that in the two
States, Arizona and New Mexico, in the 2 years, fiscal year
2001 and fiscal year 2002, there was not a single decision that
was litigated. And you say that is wrong.
Mr. Rey. No. We have not gotten to that. Their numbers on
the number of cases that were litigated is correct, 23
lawsuits. On the one hand, you can say that that is a
relatively insignificant number of the total inasmuch as it is
only 3 percent. But there are three things that I think are
worth noting about those lawsuits.
First of all, those are the largest projects, projects like
Rodeo-Chediski recovery, and of course, that is being litigated
now. It is not in GAO's database because it is 2003. You will
find that virtually all of our large 2002 post-fire recovery
projects are being litigated, without exception, virtually all.
McNally will be litigated. Star fire, which is 2000, will be
litigated. Rodeo-Chediski is already being litigated. I have no
doubt that Biscuit will be litigated once we actually produce a
decision there. So that is the first thing. The big ones, the
ones that matter, the ones that have the most significant
effects on the ground, positive or negative, depending on your
point of view, are the ones that are going to be litigated.
Secondly----
Senator Bingaman. So these are post-fire salvage----
Mr. Rey. Right. In this particular instance, yes.
Senator Bingaman. You are saying those are the ones that
get litigated.
Mr. Rey. That is right.
Secondly, the lawsuits have precedential value so that when
we get an adverse decision, we have to adjust our program of
work to account for what the judge has told us to do or not to
do.
And that brings me to my third point, which is those
precedents involve real-world changes in how we do business and
how fast we can execute activities. In the Bitterroot, we
essentially rewrote the record of decision inside Judge
Molloy's courtroom to the specifications that occurred during
the settlement negotiations that ensued after the litigation. I
am not saying that is bad or good. I signed the settlement
agreement, so I guess by definition I agreed to some measure of
it. But that does not mean that the work that is getting done
on the ground and the work that gets done subsequently, as we
look at what we faced in Bitterroot, is going to get done
quickly. So very few lawsuits can have very significant
effects.
I think there is a fourth point to be made about delays,
both delays with regard to lawsuits which can be significant,
extending over years, as well as delays in the case of
administrative appeals that decide within 90 days. 90 days does
not sound like a lot. But most of these projects have time-
sensitive windows of operation on the ground. Some of those are
driven by weather. You cannot do work after a certain time at
certain elevations, or in the converse, you cannot do work
after certain periods of time when you are in fire season
because it is too dangerous to have crews in the woods doing
the work. Some of those time windows are driven by endangered
species concerns.
So if the 90-day delay knocks you out of a time window, it
is not a 90-day delay, it is a 1-year delay because you are
going to have to wait until the next window opens during the
next operating season to do that work. So it is a different
perspective than we bring to that here if you think about it in
the context of what our field managers face.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Bingaman. I totally agree
with that. Of course, we better come up and mention about the
KV fund that used to establish quite a lot of funds for fire
fighting and those kind of things.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to go back to the situation on the Kenai
Peninsula in Alaska, Mr. Rey. As I had mentioned before, we are
talking over 5 million acres of spruce bark beetle kill
throughout the State. Four million of that we believe is around
the Kenai area in south central Alaska. Ninety-four thousand
acres are in the Chugach National Forest. I had mentioned in
response to Chairman Domenici's question as to how much of this
is being treated, and my comment, I think was, it is just
literally a drop in the bucket.
But as I understand the fuel treatments to date in the
areas on the Kenai, in and around the Chugach, we have got a
little over 8,400 acres on the Chugach National Forest. We have
treated 500 acres in and around Cooper Landing and only 200
acres in and around Moose Pass. Again, these are the pictures
that we had seen earlier. So out of 4 million acres, we are
talking about being able to treat a couple of hundred acres
around one community, 500 acres around another community, and
in total in the Chugach only a little over 8,400 acres.
Now, I understand that the Kenai area has been reclassified
from a condition class 1 to a condition class 3. Can you
explain to me how the reclassification is going to help us deal
with additional treatments or making the treatments happen in
these areas and how the legislation that is before us can get
us to the point where we can actually start making a difference
out there?
Mr. Rey. The Kenai was originally classified as condition
class 1 because of the long duration of fire frequency. Fire
visits the Kenai Peninsula on the average of once every 150
years.
There are two things that go into condition class
designations, though, fire frequency as well as stand
condition. Once we had pandemic stand mortality, as a result of
the spruce bark beetle infestation, our field scientists
believed that it was appropriate to reclassify the Kenai as
condition class 3.
The principal benefit of that will be that it will allow us
to use the categorical exclusions that we finalized last month
on the Kenai Peninsula to accelerate the program of work that
we have underway by reducing the amount of NEPA analysis and
consequent funding and time that would be required to do that
work. And I think that will have a material effect in getting
more work done in critical areas on the Kenai.
At the same time, I do not want to leave a misimpression in
your mind. We are not going to treat 4 million acres on the
Kenai. The program of work on the Kenai is going to be
concentrated in trying to make sure that we have as much
protection as possible including secure escape routes for the
communities on the Kenai Peninsula. Treating the totality of
the area is a virtual impossibility in large part because there
is little or nothing to be done with the dead trees that are on
there.
There was the potential some years ago to try to use the
existing infrastructure on the Kenai Peninsula--by
infrastructure, I mean mill infrastructure--to accelerate the
rate of treatment. At that time, the larger treatments that
were proposed for the Moose Pass area were both appealed and
subsequently litigated, thereby snuffing out that opportunity,
and the mill infrastructure that could have made use of that
material is now gone.
Senator Murkowski. So with H.R. 1904, in addition to
helping with the judicial review and NEPA process, you are
hopeful that we will be able to address some of the issues that
we have seen on the Kenai then?
Mr. Rey. Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Rey. Both through H.R. 1904 and through some of the
administrative mechanisms that we have already got underway.
Senator Burns. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank both of
our witnesses. I think you have heard me say repeatedly, you
have heard Senator Feinstein say repeatedly we want to get a
bill. We want to get a significant measure passed. I believe
that the House bill does not have 60 votes to get out of the
U.S. Senate.
Now, I want to give you, Secretary Rey, the chance to
disagree with that. If you think you've got 60 votes, I would
like you to tell us that now. But if you do not, give me your
sense about what the bottom line issues are as we try to move
ahead now to get a bipartisan coalition of 60 votes and get it
to the President's desk. So do you think there is 60 votes in
the Senate for H.R. 1904?
Mr. Rey. I will defer to your judgment. Since I have moved
to this side of the dais, I do not trust my ability as a vote
counter anymore.
Senator Wyden. What do you think if I am right that are
not? I am quite certain there are not. What do you think are
the bottom line issues to get the 60 votes?
Mr. Rey. I think you narrowed the issue to the one that
will be the most difficult to resolve in your colloquy with the
Governors in that I think, as you look across the details in
these bills, most of them probably can work their way through
to a conclusion but for the question of what, if anything, to
do with judicial review. I think what we have said to your
staff in discussions that we have had with them is that to us,
given the current disposition of jurisprudence in this area,
judicial review is where you can give us the most help. I
appreciate that that is a very difficult ask because it is not
an easy issue to address because the judicial process is
something that a lot of people do not want tampered with.
It is, however, something that Congress has dealt with in
the past, not seldom, but often when circumstances warranted.
There are 11 different instances in the past where Congress has
flatly prohibited the issuance of injunctive relief in
different areas of law where the Congress felt that was a
necessary predicate to serve a larger public purpose. There are
seven other instances where Congress imposed statutory
provisions prescribing findings and conditions for injunctive
relief or dictating the terms of relief. There are seven other
instances where Congress imposed statutory limitations on the
duration of injunctive relief, somewhat similar to what is
proposed in your legislation. There are five other instances
where statutory deadlines for seeking judicial review were
imposed, hard deadlines, as is the case in H.R. 1904. There
were three instances where statutory provisions were passed
requiring courts to give weight to certain factors or findings
when a court issued injunctive relief as H.R. 1904 would
propose. And there are four other instances where statutes
prescribed other special procedures for requests for injunctive
relief.
So this is not an area where Congress has legislated
infrequently. It is an area where Congress has legislated
carefully, to be sure, but where there were overriding societal
concerns that needed to be addressed. And it is an unpleasant
challenge before us, but the threshold question is what do we
want to protect more? The current judicial process or the
forests?
Senator Wyden. Well, I appreciate your saying you agree
with me that that is the key issue and obviously we are going
to work with you on it. Senator Feinstein and I have made it
clear that we are committed to looking at balance changes in
this area.
I will tell you that I think there are other areas where
the administration is going to have to be open. I, for example,
would like to hear you say for the record that you are open
some old growth protection. That is not in H.R. 1904.
Obviously, that is something of great concern not just in the
West but here in the Congress. Is the administration open to
including some old growth protection as part of an effort to
get a balanced bill that would have 60 votes?
Mr. Rey. We are open to addressing the old growth issue as
virtually all of our forest plans do. I do not look at it as an
issue that is intrinsically related to the one that is
addressed in these bills, but we are not averse to talking
about the issue either in the context of this legislation or
some other bill that deals with the issue more directly.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Rey, I wrote you recently about the silviculture
study of Oregon State University's College of Forestry in which
they outlined the ecological consequences of the Biscuit fire.
I am wondering if you have seen that, know of it, and if there
is any way you are planning to incorporate its scientific
findings into rehabilitating the Biscuit area.
Mr. Rey. I have seen both your letter and the study, and
the study is being evaluated by the team that is developing the
environmental impact statement for the Biscuit fire recovery,
which at present is scheduled to be released sometime in
November of this year, the draft EIS. So their findings will be
considered.
The county commissioners who helped put together the study,
in cooperation with Oregon State University, had asked for a
more specific request and that is that the plan of work that
they lay out as what believe to be the most appropriate
alternative for the Biscuit fire recovery be included as an
alternative in the draft environmental impact statement, and I
have asked our review team to look at that question as well.
I suspect that one of the things we may come back to the
county commissioners with is if they want that alternative put
through the analytical process, as part of the EIS, which could
be done, that they offset part of the cost of that perhaps
using some of the county schools title II money for that
purpose. So that is what I have asked our review team to
consider.
Senator Smith. Mr. Secretary, earlier in my opening
statement, I quoted from Judge Haggerty in an opinion that he
enjoined salvage fuels reductions in eastern Oregon. He
indicated that, left to himself, he would not have done that,
but that he felt bound by precedent, by NEPA to stop this.
Judge Molloy also enjoined salvage in the Bitterroot Mountains
of Montana, and yet Judge Martone of Arizona allowed salvage of
the Rodeo fire to move forward based on long-term forest health
benefits.
I wonder if you can compare these decisions in the
Northwest versus the Southwest. Is there any rationale or
consistency to them, and what can we learn from them as we try
to get right this judicial review issue?
Mr. Rey. They were looking at some different things. Both
Judge Haggerty and Judge Molloy were looking at a request for a
preliminary injunction and balancing the harms associated with
issuing or not that injunction request. Judge Martone was
looking at the amount of deference that should be granted to
our interpretation of what our own categorical exclusions mean,
and so they had a little bit different question before them,
applying somewhat different standards of jurisprudence thereto.
In Judge Martone's case, there is a certain amount of
deference to be granted the agencies even in the Ninth Circuit
when the question is how well an agency is interpreting its own
regulations. In the case of Judge Haggerty and Judge Molloy,
they were being presented what is the more classical question
of a project that is challenged. There are alleged impacts
associated with the project should an injunction issue. And the
long track of jurisprudence that has evolved over 40 years on
that question has evolved as a result of challenges to
commercial timber sales. So over time judges have developed the
respectable view in evaluating whether a preliminary injunction
to a commercial timber sale should issue or not, that you
cannot uncut a tree, so therefore we ought to enjoin the sale
while we talk about it.
Now today if a plaintiff wants to challenge a fuels
treatment project or a fire recovery project, even though the
facts are different, it is in their interest to present the
facts to look as closely as they can to the facts that you
would see in a commercial timber sale to elicit from the judge
the same result. And that is the result that Judge Haggerty
issued notwithstanding his concerns or qualms for doing so
because he felt he was bound by the precedent of the existing
jurisprudence that has developed over the past 40 years.
What H.R. 1904 does, in asking the courts or directing the
courts to look at this a little differently, is that in
layman's terms, it tries to balance the valid proposition that
you cannot uncut a tree against the equally valid proposition
that you cannot unburn a forest. And that is why we think the
provision is useful.
Senator Smith. On H.R. 1904, I believe I have heard you
opine that the administration is for that bill.
Mr. Rey. We have indicated our support for the measure.
Senator Smith. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think I also
heard you say that you will for us, on a scientific basis, as
much as you can pull away the politics, evaluate the Wyden-
Feinstein bill and Senator Bingaman's bill as well, the
Bingaman-Daschle bill. There are a lot of Senators here because
this is so critically important an issue and we really want to
get something done. We want to do as much as is possible. So
your opinion on that from a scientific perspective would be
very much appreciated.
Mr. Rey. We will do the comparison both from the issues of
science but also on the issues of procedure and law which, in
the case of all three bills, since they are process bills, are
actually the more important questions.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rey, I thought your comments were very interesting. I
for one would certainly be prepared to add to any bill, ours or
any other, the programs you mentioned on page 8 and 9 of your
written remarks. There are five specific programs there that I
think are advantageous and should be included in virtually any
bill that passes.
Secondly, I would like to mention, if I might, a letter
from the forester, Mr. Bosworth, dated July 21, and an attached
memorandum, which is the National Fuel Treatment Priorities
that he sent out, clearly points out that funding would be
targeted on a priority basis to the wildland-urban interface
and areas in condition classes 2 or 3 in fire regimes 1, 2, or
3 with highest risk reduction potential.
I would like to talk to my cosponsor about changing our
language to include that language in the bill and specifically
to giving the Governor of the State--we confine it, but I would
willing to let the Governor of a State, in consultation with
the Federal Government, set the actual percentage. If a
Governor wanted to take it all in one area versus another
area--this goes back to discussions that we, Senator Wyden,
have had with Senator Kyl because his State's configuration and
needs are somewhat different from California. Yet, as Ms.
Watson pointed out, we have got a half a million acres just
waiting to blow up, infested with bark beetles. That clearly
has to have a priority in the State. And the Governor certainly
would be one to know that in conjunction with the national
entities. So I for one would have some flexibility there.
I think when it comes right down to it, H.R. 1904 will not
find 60 votes, and I think we go to the administrative appeals
and the judicial process as the two areas really of contention.
There, Mr. Rey, we have tried to go as far as we possibly
could. I consulted all the way along on this bill with The
Wilderness Society to try to see that we would have something
that might be acceptable. I do not think they accept changing
the temporary injunction to 60 days, but I would even go to 30
days because there is an emergency out there. I think we have
set with administrative appeals, if you take your categorical
exclusion language in the beginning of your written remarks on
page 5 and your appeals process reform, it would seem to me
that--let me say this.
One of the reasons there is so much objection, I have
found, to changing the judicial review is because other
organizations are worried that codifying a change would get the
camel's nose under the tent and there would be changes
forthcoming in a host of different areas so that it becomes a
very tricky issue once you get into it and understand the
concerns of a myriad of other agencies.
But I think a TRO ought to go fast. You either make your
point or you do not make your point. I think what we have done
with respect to the administrative changes is that essentially
we sped up the process in three ways. One round of public
comment, not three or two. Shortening the appellate process
from 90 to 60 days. That is a codification, and allowing the
appeals officer to make the changes rather than remanding the
project I think are considerable improvements. You disagree,
Mr. Rey?
Mr. Rey. On that particular point, I do not. Where S. 1352
presents the best benefits are in the specific areas that you
have identified, that is to say, with projects that require
environmental assessments to give the reviewing officer who is
reviewing a project under appeal the authority to issue a new
record of decision and to move it forward into litigation. So
that is a helpful change.
What I tried to do is to look at all three bills in their
totality to try to evaluate which of them was going to give our
scientists and land managers the most opportunity and the most
tools to effect a change in the situation that we currently
face on the ground. If we look at the bills in their totality,
then I am afraid I must say it is not close. H.R. 1904 gives us
more to work with.
At the same time, there are helpful elements of all three
bills, and the nature of the discussion will be to try to blend
those together as best we can to achieve a result.
Senator Feinstein. Is it true that essentially what you
want is that the agency would not be required to consider any
less environmentally damaging alternative to a project? And an
appeal would not be present. There would be no appeal?
Mr. Rey. No. The latter is not the case. The former I would
express slightly differently.
What H.R. 1904 does is to say that in the context of a
fuels reduction project, what you are really evaluating is
should you do the project or not and that those are the two
alternatives that are most squarely on the table and that you
can look at some mitigating measures for the going forward
alternative and array some of those without creating a whole
range of alternatives. Now, let me explain why that is
important.
A typical environmental impact statement today has anywhere
from 6 to 15 alternatives. Let us say the average is nine,
because that is probably about what it is. Each of those
alternatives is subject to a full analysis which chews up
analytical time, the expertise of people on the ground,
computer time to array the alternatives so that the requirement
of NEPA to consider a full range of alternatives is fairly met.
And on commercial projects, particularly large, complicated
ones, that has become the norm and appropriately so.
In this case, what we are really talking about is are we
going to do a treatment in a particular location or are we not.
If we are, we can talk about some mitigating measures to inform
the public of what we might do and discuss those. But those are
the two alternatives that are really important for the public
to evaluate and to make an assessment as to whether it is
justified to pursue this particular project.
Now, an average EIS costs the Forest Service today about
$1.5 million to $2 million, and you can divide that cost
roughly equally among the alternatives that we are forced to
evaluate because that is where most of the cost consideration
comes in. So if you do the simple math and you take a project
from nine alternatives on the average to two alternatives, you
are going to save roughly two-thirds of the cost of doing the
project, which we hope allows us to then do more projects more
quickly.
So on that particular part of H.R. 1904, we think there is
some utility to what is being proposed, just as I think there
is some utility to the proposition in S. 1352 that on a project
on appeal, the reviewing officer should be able, instead of
remand and starting it over, to actually change the project and
then allow it to go forward. I view those as both helpful
alternatives.
Senator Feinstein. My time has expired and I really
appreciate that. Could I just quickly ask, are you saying then
that what you want are reduced number of alternatives?
Mr. Rey. What I am saying is that that is an approach in
H.R. 1904 that we support. It is certainly not the only way to
expedite our procedures.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Senator Kyl. In my estimation we have wasted
too much time with the first two panels. I would like to get
the debate started on the next one, and that is going to take
another hour. So you folks who want to give up lunch, why,
welcome to the caucus.
Senator Kyl.
Senator Kyl. I appreciate that interesting introduction of
my effort to further elucidate the issues, Mr. Acting Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kyl. I would like to make three points if I could
and ask Mr. Rey a question by showing you something you are not
going to be able to see very well, but I want to pass it
around. This is an infrared satellite photograph of a portion
of the Rodeo-Chediski fire of Arizona just about a year ago,
and it makes two points and I think I am going to ask Mr. Rey
about the third.
The first point that it makes is that thinning and
prescribed burning have a dramatic effect in stopping and
slowing down fires. You cannot see it very well from a
distance, but on just one area here, the red is dead. The green
is still alive. This area here is an area that was treated. Mr.
Chairman, you can see that. The red goes right up to it and
stops. There are other areas in there too. I have flown it, I
have walked it, and I have seen it. The evidence is
incontrovertible that these kinds of projects stop the fires as
well as to provide all the other benefits to healthy forests.
The second thing--and I know Senator Feinstein is on the
way out and I will give you a personalized copy of this. But
what it also shows is that thin area treatments, whether they
be urban-wildland interface or protecting roads or utility
lines or watersheds, frequently do not work. This photograph is
replete with examples of small area treatments, maybe a half a
mile wide or a mile wide. You cannot see them from a distance,
but here is one right here. They simply frequently do not stop
a fire that has gotten out of control. You can see that the red
has totally inundated that area, notwithstanding the fact that
it was treated. There are a variety of reasons for that, mostly
having to do with the dynamics of a big, dramatic fire that is
frequently plume-driven or influenced. It simply moves too fast
and too dramatically to be stopped by these smaller area
treatments, so you need large-area treatment.
Now, the third thing that I want to illustrate by this--and
this gets to the question I want to ask you, Mr. Rey--is about
a third of this fire occurred on the White Mountain Apache
Indian Reservation. They immediately set to work complying with
the same environmental laws that you all have to comply with at
the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture. They did their work in analyzing the environmental
impact of a salvage operation and proceeded to do the salvage
operation, and they have completed their salvage operation,
salvaging about 60 percent of what they had hoped to be able to
salvage. And we have yet to start salvage on the Forest
Service.
It seems to me that there is a reason why that goes
directly to your testimony, Mr. Rey. While the same
environmental considerations drive both the Apache Tribe and
the Forest Service to decide what to do and how to do it, it is
very difficult to sue the Apache Tribe either administratively
or legally. It is not hard at all to sue the U.S. Forest
Service or the Department of the Interior.
So the Forest Service smartly said, we are going to start
with a categorical exclusion, some roads, trails, utility
corridors, and some other areas that are very narrow and at
least get that salvage operation underway. Boom. Hit with a
lawsuit from a group from New Mexico, and it was not until
about 2 weeks ago that Judge Martone's ruling came down saying
you can proceed with that little, itty-bitty piece of Forest
Service. I do not think they have started that yet.
But you all have not even completed the environmental
review for the vast area, and I was just up there this last
Saturday, and I was told that bluing is already occurring on
some of this timber. The first time you could get in there
would be the fall, and it may be too late--it already is too
late--for much of it.
You indicated in your testimony that you are having to
spend a lot of time, energy, and money on preparing these
projects so that they will not only enable you to win in court
if they are ever appealed, but to withstand the administrative
appeals or to ward them off. I presume that the difference in
the amount of time it took for the Apaches and the Forest
Service is partially reflected by the different kinds of work
that you decided to do in order to try get around--not get
around, but to provide an incentive for people not to sue or to
win the lawsuits.
So really a two-part question. What did occasion such a
great delay for salvage of this area that the Apaches have now
already finished salvaging on? And secondly, what are the kinds
of things in the legislation, primarily the bill H.R. 1904,
that are the kinds of things that would help to solve this
specific kind of problem illustrated by this specific fire?
Mr. Rey. I think you have outlined the differences
accurately. It is a difference in expectation for what will
happen once a final decision is made. The tribe is, as you
said, subject to the substantive requirements of the same laws
that we are, but they are unlikely to be challenged once their
decision is final. We, on the other hand, are almost certainly
going to be challenged and in expectation and in anticipation
of that, we do a lot more analysis and procedural work, which
may not materially affect the substantive outcome of the
decision at all.
Five years from now, we can go take a look. We can test the
hypothesis. We can look at the Apache ground we can look at the
Forest Service ground. I am willing to tell you now, just
predicting the outcomes, that the Apache ground is going to
look better.
What has taken so long so far is the clear certainty that
upon challenge, we would need an EIS that would withstand
judicial review, and that would require us to develop a full
range of alternatives, a detailed cumulative effects analysis,
and all of the other portions of what case law under NEPA has
required over time.
The one help that H.R. 1904 provides is in narrowing that
range of alternatives, we could save a considerable amount of
time and money than we have already invested in this particular
project without likely changing the substance of what we would
propose. So that is the essence of it.
The second thing in H.R. 1904 that would be helpful is that
when that EIS is challenged, as it would almost certainly be,
the standard that the judge would use to decide whether a
preliminary injunction should issue, when he is faced with that
question as a result of the question that Judge Martone was
faced with in the pending litigation, we have a better chance
of prevailing.
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Kyl. We are going to call
our next panel in. I have a couple of questions, but I will
address them to you in writing. I thank you for coming this
morning.
I am embarrassed for this committee. The next panel is the
one that should be heard, and those are the people on the
ground. Who cares whose nose is under the tent, when we have
been operating under the present system for 30 years and we
know the results and we know the situation where we find
ourselves, and they do not have guts enough to change it.
Thank you for coming this morning. I appreciate that very
much. And you are right. Do they want to protect the process,
or do they want to protect the forests? It is pretty simple to
me. I do not know. Maybe I ain't very smart, but it is pretty
simple to this Senator. Thank you for coming this morning.
We will call the next panel. We have Ms. Laura McCarthy who
is with the Forest Trust out of Santa Fe, New Mexico; Dr. Wally
Covington, Ecological Restoration Institute of Northern Arizona
University; Mr. Mike Nivison, county commissioner from Otero,
New Mexico; Bruce Vincent, Communities for the Great Northwest
out of Libby, Montana; Ms. Sara Duncan, Denver Water
Development; Tom Robinson, Grand Canyon Trust from Flagstaff,
Arizona. And that looks like it.
Thank you for coming today. I know the importance of this
because it is a very important issue to your communities. So we
are just going to ramble right on through. Then I will have to,
some way, get the information out to the rest of the Senators.
Ms. Laura McCarthy please. We are looking forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF LAURA McCARTHY, FOREST TRUST,
SANTA FE, NM
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you for the opportunity. I was a Forest
Service fire fighter and a NEPA planner for 12 years, and for
the last 7 years I have directed programs at the Forest Trust
in New Mexico. The trust's professional forestry staff are on
the ground and in communities seeing daily the challenges that
wildfire creates.
As we have been talking about, Western forests are adapted
to wildfire. Our efforts to reduce fire risk must leave room
for fire to play its natural role. If we replace fire
suppression with another uniform, one-size-fits-all set of
practices, then 50 years from now we may find that we have
created a new, unintended crisis.
I will summarize seven brief concerns about the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act, the details of which are in my written
testimony.
First, the Forest Trust has reviewed the science behind
fuel reduction treatments and found only tenuous, empirical
support for the idea that thinning alone will reduce fire risk.
The research is much more certain about the beneficial effects
of prescribed fire, but that is the more difficult practice to
implement.
I do not want to get into dueling science because, after
listening to all the discussion this morning, we really need to
seek common ground. I guess I want to make the point that we
need to act now and we need to recognize the limits of our
data. So what the means to me is that research,
experimentation, and adaptive management must be integrated
into the national fuel reduction program so that we can develop
the science as we go and make sure that our treatments are
effective.
Second, H.R. 1904 proposes old solutions to the insect
problem, solutions that we already know will not work. The
science about bark beetles and wildfire and the interactions
between them is even less developed than research about the
effects of thinning. We do know two things: first, that bark
beetle populations typically explode with normal drought
cycles, usually about twice per century; and second, that
preemptive salvage ahead of insect infestation, as was done in
the 1970's and 1980's with the spruce budworm and the spruce
bark beetle, will hinder forest recovery in the long run.
The categorical exclusion in H.R. 1904 for salvage of trees
that may be infested is risky. We advocate a moderate approach
that funds research on new, integrated pest management
treatments and ensures the application on the ground.
My third point is that H.R. 1904 and S. 1352 rely on
national scale condition class data to determine where to
expedite NEPA. This is a mistake. The scientists who develop
condition class are clear that their national data are not
accurate at the scale used to locate projects. H.R. 1904 uses
condition class to set de facto priorities. The priority
setting process in the 10-year implementation plan will become
irrelevant.
I have to add that yesterday, because of the travel airline
industry, I had a 2-hour meeting with an official with the
Department of Homeland Security in the Sandia National Lab, and
we discussed human-ignited wildfire as a terrorist strategy.
And I am very serious about this because consider the scenario
where we have drought conditions. Just consider that. It is a
low-tech action, but 10 people in 10 strategic locations could
really hurt this country. As a forester, I would hate to see
that happen. I do not have anything concrete to offer on this
topic today, that is, the homeland security, but I just want to
say that in the process of setting national priorities, we need
for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to be
working with the Department of Homeland Security to consider
the threats, the vulnerability and the consequences from a
national security perspective.
Fourth, H.R. 1904 does nothing to benefit the rural
communities that depend on forests for their livelihoods, at
least from the perspective of the Southwest. The bill makes a
simplistic assumption that removing barriers to forest industry
will pay for fuel reduction work, but in a region that has
already lost its forest infrastructure, the bill does not
consider the economic interests of our local communities. to
address the needs of people in the rural West, the legislation
must directly target forest-dependent communities.
Fifth, in light of the discussion today, this might be
surprising, but in my view and my experience, the expedited
NEPA process will hurt some communities' ability to be heard.
The possibility of appeal, though almost never used by
communities, gives them leverage to raise their concerns over
and over until they are addressed. The steps to expedite NEPA
in H.R. 1904 should be scaled back significantly, not
eliminated, but scaled back.
Sixth, we all recognize that communities need protection,
and with help from the Department of Homeland Security, we will
address the threats to our population. The flexibility in S.
1352 is important. We also need to build into legislation a
mechanism to shift resources from community protection, as that
is accomplished, to wildland forest treatments because we need
to do both. The question is the sequencing, the timing.
And finally, normal forest growth can return fuel loads
back to pretreatment levels within 15 years. So we are going to
be back where we started if we do not maintain our investment.
We must require long-term plans to clean out fuels as they
accumulate through natural process in areas that we have
invested in with treatments. Otherwise, the next generation is
going to find themselves facing the same set or perhaps a
different set of related fire problems that we are trying to
solve today.
That concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura McCarthy, Forest Trust, Santa Fe, NM
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I have worked for the U.S. Forest Service
as a firefighter and a NEPA planner, and I now direct the policy
program at the Forest Trust in New Mexico. The Forest Trust operates
several programs that include consulting forestry on private lands, a
research center, and technical assistance to forest-dependent
communities.
Western forests are adapted to wildfire. It is important that our
efforts to reduce fire risk leave room for fire to play its natural
role. If we replace fire suppression with another, widespread and
uniform set of practices, then 50-100 years from now we may find out
that we have created a new, unintended forest crisis. I don't think
anyone wants to make that mistake and I will explain the basis for our
concerns in this testimony.
RESEARCH ON FUEL REDUCTION TREATMENTS
We need to take action that is based on the best information we can
gather. At the same time, we must be realistic about the certainty of
the information we have before us. Ever since the Forest Service
proposed fuel reduction treatments in the Southwest, the Forest Trust
wanted to understand the scientific foundation for the hypothesis that
fuel reduction treatments will modify fire behavior in overstocked
forests. Over a four-year period we examined more than 250 research
papers covering prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, a combination of
thinning and fire and commercial logging. The primary findings were:
1. The current research is, in general, inconclusive with
respect to the effectiveness of mechanical thinning in changing
wildfire behavior. This is because study methods and research
results vary greatly. Only one quantitative empirical study has
been completed.
2. The effectiveness of prescribed burning in changing post-
treatment wildfire behavior is clearly demonstrated in many
studies.
3. The limited number of studies that investigated the
effectiveness of thinning and prescribed burning in combination
produced equivocal results. More research is needed before firm
conclusions can be reached.
4. We found no published scientific research on the positive
effects of commercial logging on post-treatment fire behavior.
These and other findings in the Forest Trust report led us to
conclude that a significant investment is needed in basic and applied
research to provide a credible scientific basis for the design,
implementation, and evaluation of alternative treatment methods. As an
example of the kind of research that is needed, the literature review
showed that tree density, which is the main variable controlled by
foresters through thinning, is only one of several factors affecting
fire behavior. The distance from the ground to the base of the tree
crown, and the amount and arrangement of surface vegetation and dead
woody material, also play important roles, although research has not
yet provided information about how these interrelated factors alter
fire behavior. Currently, fuels management focuses on reducing tree
density and not on influencing the other factors that affect fire
behavior.
The Forest Trust surveyed the prescriptions in use for ponderosa
pine fuel treatments in the Southwest and found that about half of the
thinning prescriptions focused only on tree density. Many of these
prescriptions did not include specifications for modifying crown base
height, surface vegetation, or dead materials. The survey also found
many excellent prescriptions from projects in places like Flagstaff,
Arizona where the Ecological Restoration Institute is located. Yet most
public lands do not double as research forests. The simplicity and lack
of variety of the prescriptions in use, coupled with the tenuous
scientific support for tree density as a factor that significantly
influences fire behavior, is therefore cause for concern.
What This Means for Legislation
H.R. 1904, S. 1314 and S. 1352 seek to expedite fuel reduction
treatments because of the social imperative to reduce the wildfire risk
to communities. Since there is inconclusive evidence that thinning
alone will reduce fire risk, we have an opportunity to use the
expedited treatments to help forest managers test specific combinations
of thinning and prescribed fire treatments through rigorous
experimentation that develops site- and weather-specific data. In
addition, we need to require that research, experimentation, and
adaptive management are integrated into our national fuels reduction
program. Only by doing so will we be able to determine which fuel
treatments are effective and where they should be employed. Science and
adaptive management will also help us identify and cease ineffective
practices.
INSECT MORTALITY AND WILDFIRE RISK
The wildfire situation is complicated by the interaction of
wildfire, drought and insects, whose populations have reached epidemic
proportions in many states. Western bark beetles are native insects
that grow to epidemic levels about twice per century, corresponding
with natural cycles of drought. The current epidemic of bark beetles is
exacerbated by past management--the same practices that increased the
risk of catastrophic wildfire. The narrow range of treatments
prescribed for a wide variety of forest ecosystems in the last century
simplified many forests, thereby weakening the forests' resilience to
natural increases in insect populations.
As with thinning, we need to use the best information available to
us. Unfortunately, we know even less about beetle-wildfire interactions
than we do about the effects of thinning on fire behavior. The
correlation between beetle-kill and increased fire risk is not well
quantified in the scientific literature, and the results of recent
studies are equivocal. For example, a 2003 study in the journal Ecology
noted that little quantitative research has been conducted to test the
hypothesis that insect mortality increases fire risk. The study looked
at subalpine forests in Colorado and produced results that ``do not
support the long-standing notion that insect-caused mortality increases
fire risk.'' The study found no increase in the number of wildfire
ignitions, but did not look at increases in fire severity because of
the difficulty of controlling experimental variables such as weather.
Wildfire behavior in forests that have sustained insect mortality
is also not well understood. For example, experienced foresters in the
Southwest concur that the fire risk in insect-killed pinon pine trees
decreases in 2-3 years, as soon as the needles have dropped, a
phenomenon that is also true for Englemann spruce. In contrast, insect-
killed ponderosa pine trees become more flammable, because the insects
stimulate pitch to concentrate in the tree boles and flammability
remains high until the pitch decomposes. The differences in fire
behavior of various tree species affected by insect mortality are not
well quantified. Forest managers need this information to know when and
how to develop treatment plans and to anticipate areas of higher fire
risk after insect outbreaks.
Field experience also tells us that thinning to reduce fuel loads
could inadvertently spread bark beetles in areas with live trees.
Thinning, to foresters, means the cutting of live trees to reduce
forest density and to increase the resilience of the remaining forest.
Thinning generates substantial slash, and the attraction of bark
beetles to slash is well documented. The timing of thinning and the
treatment of slash during a beetle epidemic are critical. As a result,
some Districts in the Southwest are adding controls on the timing of
slash disposal to their contracts and prohibiting thinning during the
insect breeding season.
Preemptive salvage of trees that may face insect mortality is an
old practice, but it will not solve our problem. To foresters, salvage
means the cutting of dead or damaged trees to recover their economic
value. Preemptive salvage means cutting or thinning trees before they
are damaged to obtain economic value, with a secondary benefit of
lowering overall stocking and improving forest resilience. However,
preemptive salvage that we have conducted in the past, in Western
forests with spruce bark beetles and in Eastern forests with spruce
budworm, has had poor results. The salvage harvests in these examples
removed most, if not all, of the trees of economic value, including the
sources of seed and shade for future regeneration. The forests in these
examples did not regenerate adequately and the preemptive salvage
depleted the long-term timber supply.
Preemptive salvage in areas affected by western bark beetles that
are in drought conditions will likely fail. The freshly cut trees,
presence of slash, and current conditions of overstocking and drought
will allow the insect populations to increase and kill the rest of the
stand, and could make regeneration difficult in the face of continuing
drought.
What This Means for Legislation
H.R. 1904 includes both research and categorical exclusions for
preemptive salvage of trees in areas that are, or may be, vulnerable to
insect attack. The salvage could minimize economic losses, but it also
may increase the intensity of the insect problem by creating new
breeding grounds in the slash. A more reasonable solution, found in S.
1314, is to make funds available for information gathering programs on
native and non-native insects that impact large areas of forest and to
apply this information to the local management of insect-infested
areas.
CONDITION CLASS
The national-scale fire regime condition class data should not be
used to locate local projects to reduce forest fuels. Fire regime
condition class was developed by the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station for the purpose of ``providing national-level data on
the current condition of fuel and vegetation.'' Examples of national-
level data are: (1) summaries of the total acres at risk of wildfire;
and (2) total acres of forests that have missed two or more natural
cycles of fire. The scientists who developed the national-scale data
explicitly state in their report and on their web site that the data
are not accurate at the scale used to locate projects to reduce forest
fuels. Yet this is exactly how most of the legislation that has been
introduced would use condition class.
The Forest Trust tested the accuracy of condition class using the
published national data and maps of current vegetation on the Santa Fe
National Forest. Our test corroborated the authors' concern that
condition class may be inaccurate at the project level. Thus, use of
condition class to site projects may result in significant errors that
will allow many high-risk forests to be overlooked while low-risk areas
are treated.
Instead of using national condition class data to decide which
areas of forest need fuel reduction treatments most and where to
expedite NEPA, we should be using the process of priority setting that
has come out of the Western Governor's Association 10-Year
Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. Steps to carry out the
priority setting actions in the Implementation Plan are already
underway. The Departments of Agriculture and Interior, National
Association of State Foresters, and National Association of Counties
signed a memorandum of understanding in January 2003 to jointly develop
a process to identify and prioritize fuel reduction treatments. The
National Association of State Foresters is close to finalizing standard
criteria for identifying high risk communities and high priority
projects across the nation. These criteria will enable the states to
produce collaborative plans in a short time and to involve all levels
of government and interested stakeholders in deciding which forests
should be treated each year. The process will be led by the states and
will not be encumbered by NEPA. Projects on federal land that are
selected as priorities will be subject to NEPA, but the review process
should be smoother because of the public support for high priority
projects.
What This Means for Legislation
H.R. 1904 will allow NEPA exemptions for hazardous fuel reduction
projects in condition classes 2 and 3. The proposal has two problems.
First, the national condition class data are not accurate enough to be
used to determine project locations. If condition class is used to
decide where projects should be expedited, planners will be faced with
the difficult decision of correcting the data by hand, or waiting three
or more years for the next iteration of more accurate condition class
data. Second, there is not sufficient funding to meet all of the fuel
reduction needs in condition class 2 and 3 forests. The projects that
are easiest to get through NEPA will be the first to be funded. The
link between NEPA exemptions and condition class in H.R. 1904 will
create a de facto priority setting process that will make irrelevant
the Comprehensive Strategy, and efforts at collaboration and planning
at the state and local level.
COMMUNITIES
From our experience in New Mexico and with community-based forestry
partners in other parts of the United States, we have learned that
people in forest-dependent communities care about three things: (1)
protecting their homes and property; (2) obtaining living-wage
employment in the forest; and (3) restoring the health and resilience
of both their communities and forests. H.R. 1904 makes the assumption
that removing barriers for forest industry by increasing access to wood
will improve local economies and help pay for fuel reduction work. Yet
this assumption is too simplistic. We have learned from past experience
that forest-based economic developers encounter many barriers including
contracting procedures, consistent supply, and investment in value-
added processing. To address the needs of people in the rural West, we
need legislation that directly benefits economically disadvantaged,
forest-dependent communities.
What This Means for Legislation
S. 1314 and S. 1352 both contain provisions that will stimulate
local economic development and create markets for the by-products of
hazardous fuel reduction. The essential components of legislation to
benefit rural communities are: (a) an emphasis in the hazardous fuel
reduction program on projects that benefit small businesses that add
value to small diameter wood and woody debris; (b) consistent use of
local preference and best value contracting; and (c) equal priority in
the ranking process for poor communities that do not have the economic
resilience (such as homeowner's insurance and investment assets) to
survive a wildfire.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
H.R. 1904 addresses the ``process predicament,'' as it has been
called by the Forest Service, despite several studies to the contrary.
The General Accounting Office and Northern Arizona University published
studies indicating that appeals are not causing significant delays to
project implementation. In fact, there is increasing evidence that
insufficient funding for hazardous fuel reduction projects that are
``NEPA ready'' is the cause of delays. Our research staff has
repeatedly been told by District personnel in New Mexico and Arizona
that projects that cleared NEPA, and were therefore on our list to
survey, were on hold because of insufficient funding. Our experience,
coupled with the studies about the appeals, leads us to conclude that
expedited NEPA procedures will not result in significant increases in
the rate of fuel reduction treatment. Rather, we fear that the changes
to NEPA in H.R. 1904 will trigger a public backlash and weaken social
acceptance of fuel reduction treatments, causing additional delays.
The appeals process is also important to communities, although they
use it differently than other interest groups. Residents use the NEPA
process to communicate their concerns to agency personnel about
projects that will affect areas of forest they care about. Communities
use the possibility of appeal as leverage to assure their concerns are
heard. In one New Mexico example, a number of residents in Lama were
upset with a Forest Service proposal to thin forest adjacent to their
community in order to protect the town of Questa, 5 miles to the
northeast. Nearly all of the forest south of Lama had burned in the
1996 Hondo Fire, and the residents worried that the proposed new
thinning would ruin the little forest they had left. The Forest Service
had difficulty understanding Lama's concerns at first, but the NEPA
process meant they had to listen. Eventually, and with the aid of a
Collaborative Forest Restoration Program grant, the community and
Forest Service found a solution that would protect homes in Lama and
Questa and preserve the forest values at risk.
What This Means for Legislation
The NEPA exemptions in H.R. 1904 will protect most hazardous fuel
reduction projects from appeal, eliminate the development of
alternatives in environmental assessments, and limit judicial review.
The unfortunate fallout from these provisions of H.R. 1904, which are
intended to speed up ``process,'' will be to weaken public trust, erode
social acceptance of hazardous fuel reduction, and clog the courts with
disputes that could be resolved in 90 days through the current appeals
process. The provisions for expedited process in H.R. 1904 should be
scaled back to limited modifications of appeal procedures and the use
of categorical exclusions in community protection zones and municipal
watersheds.
SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES
The Forest Trust believes that first and foremost, communities must
be protected from catastrophic wildfire. Accordingly, most hazardous
fuel reduction funds should, in the short-run, be allocated to protect
communities. The funding ratio should be re-authorized at specified
intervals to ensure that there is a shift to forest restoration
treatments as community protection is achieved. The level of funding
allocated will determine the rate of transition from community
protection to forest restoration.
Keeping forests healthy will require an up-front investment in fuel
reduction and restoration and a commitment to managing future fuel
accumulations. Some scientists estimate that 15 years after thinning
and slash disposal, new forest growth will create fuel accumulations
that are back up to the pre-thinned level. A regular program of
prescribed burning and wildfire use, coupled with thinning in some
instances, will maintain fuel loads at normal levels and prevent
natural fires from becoming catastrophic. This management strategy is
essential to contain fire suppression costs over the long-run. If we do
not require and fund these maintenance treatments, the current federal
investment in hazardous fuel reduction will be lost.
What This Means for Legislation
Allocate the majority of fuel reduction funding for community
protection and the remainder to restoration of wildland forests. Review
and re-authorize the percentages periodically. State flexibility should
be built into the percentage allocation, as in S. 1352, so that
restoration projects in wildland forests are not excluded where they
are needed. H.R. 1904 and S. 1352 do not address the need for
maintenance treatments to prevent excess fuel accumulation after the
initial fuel reduction activity. A section on long-term maintenance, as
in S. 1314, requiring managers to plan prescribed fire and wildland
fire use in treated areas, is essential to restore natural fire regimes
and to ensure that future generations do not find themselves saddled
with the same fire problem we face today.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Tom Robinson who is from the Grand Canyon Trust,
Flagstaff, Arizona. Thank you for coming today, by the way.
STATEMENT OF TOM ROBINSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
GRAND CANYON TRUST, FLAGSTAFF, AZ
Mr. Robinson. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify. My name is Tom Robinson and I am the director of
government affairs at the Grand Canyon Trust. We are a regional
conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring
the canyons and forests of the Colorado Plateau. We have a long
and proud history of seeking pragmatic solutions to difficult
environmental problems.
My verbal remarks are intended to supplement what I have
submitted for the record.
We remain perhaps the only environmental advocacy group in
the Nation proactively working to restore ecologically degraded
forests. We look forward to the time when our fire-adapted
Ponderosa pine forests in northern Arizona are restored to a
condition where fire is allowed to play its natural role as a
frequent, but low intensity visitor.
Our founding of the now famous Greater Flagstaff Forest
Collaborative is illustrative of our strong belief that fully
restored forests at the large landscape level will require
restored public trust in the agencies who manage them. For the
past 6 years, we have staked out the radical middle which, as
you know, is a very precarious place to be. We believe that
H.R. 1904 will destroy our ability to hold the middle ground.
It will do so by further eroding public trust which is very
hard earned. When an agency that has had great difficulty
meeting the letter and spirit of our Magna Carta environmental
law, the National Environmental Policy Act, is then allowed to
operate with less public involvement and fewer constraints,
public trust is destroyed at all levels. Forest restoration
activities that would allegedly benefit forest ecosystems,
particularly at a large landscape level, and human communities
should not need to be shielded from a law whose very goals are
to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and
his environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment, to enrich the
understanding of ecological systems and natural resources.
Large landscape restoration is a new discipline which will
require more information, not less information.
We add our voice to the loud chorus of people calling for
Congress to prioritize community protection. It is here where
we find the greatest convergence of need and sociopolitical
agreement. This is the place to target millions of dollars
immediately.
Why do we believe this if our main goal is large landscape
forest restoration? We view community protection in the context
of ecological restoration. Communities that are relatively
fire-safe or fire-adapted will be a prerequisite to extensive
applications of prescribed fire that ecological restoration
will require. Fire-adapted communities provide citizens with
the reduced risk and confidence to embrace extensive
applications of restorative wildland fire and similarly provide
land managers with a relative freedom from risk.
This must be the Forest Service's mission in the dry West
and the agency must not be allowed to stray from this mission.
In Arizona, the Forest Service continues to facilitate the
cutting of 200-year-old fire-adapted Ponderosa pines on the
north rim of the Grand Canyon wile homes in southern Arizona
burn for lack of fuels treatment money right now. This
management behavior destroys public trust and it must stop.
Finally, appeals and litigation have not been a problem for
our work in northern Arizona. When one of our projects was
challenged, the appeals process did its job and resolved
careless agency errors. I am amazed that nobody here has
discussed what we consider to be the number one problem, the
inability of the Forest Service to follow good and well-
reasoned Federal laws. I think the Rodeo-Chediski situation is
a good example. What happened there--and I am not going to
defend the challenge that the Forest Service received--once
again, was that the agency issued categorical exclusions that
were beyond the scope of existing authority. They went beyond
the law and they were challenged. The judge basically leaned on
two of them, and on the third one, he basically said, that one
is too large for your authority. You have to go back and do an
EIA. Once again, that proves my contention. If they had stayed
within the scope of authority, they may have been challenged,
but it would not have gotten very far.
This is why we have proposed a super-NEPA team in the
regional office with funding attached to it so the agency can
do its job and can issue lawful decisions.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Robinson, Director of Government Affairs,
Grand Canyon Trust, Flagstaff, AZ
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Tom
Robinson and I am the Director of Government Affairs at Grand Canyon
Trust. Grand Canyon Trust is a regional conservation organization
dedicated to protecting and restoring the canyon country of the
Colorado Plateau. We have a long and proud history of seeking pragmatic
solutions to difficult environmental problems.
Throughout the past century domestic livestock grazing, fire
suppression, industrial logging and climate have caused many fold
increases in small trees and other forest fuels in the dry ponderosa
pine forests of the southern Colorado Plateau. Today, when combined
with favorable weather and climate conditions, these fuels are
facilitating increasingly large, severe, and ecologically anomalous
stand replacing fires that can threaten ecological and human
communities. Though similar histories have caused similar conditions in
other frequent fire adapted dry forests in the interior west, there is
no more dramatic or extensive example of these phenomena than in the
ponderosa forests of the Mogollon Rim country in northern Arizona.
It's in these forests around Flagstaff, Arizona, that Grand Canyon
Trust has been working to restore degraded and fire prone ponderosa
forests since 1997. Our efforts include founding the Greater Flagstaff
Forests Partnership (GFFP) in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service
and subsequently becoming involved in all aspects of ecological
restoration and hazardous fuels reduction--from project design,
implementation and monitoring to hiring thinning contractors and
providing low-interest loans to local small-diameter wood processors.
We are intimately familiar with the innumerable details of this work
and have invested significant institutional resources toward seeing
these programs to fruition. Grand Canyon Trust remains one of the very
few environmental groups proactively working to thin and burn degraded
frequent fire adapted forests in the western United States.
Our testimony addresses reoccurring themes from the various
legislative proposals now before the Senate. We will also discuss
elements and priorities we believe are appropriate for legislation in
2003. Our testimony is based on our experience and the ecological,
social, and economic circumstances of northern Arizona. The points we
raise may or may not be applicable to other parts of the country with
different ecological, social, and economic circumstances.
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) AND FUELS REDUCTION
The Healthy Forests Initiative and some legislation being
considered in the Senate are in part predicated on the notion that
detailed environmental and public reviews required by implementing
regulations of NEPA are slowing fuels reduction. In our experience this
isn't the case. In Flagstaff, the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership
and Coconino National Forest have about 14,000 acres of NEPA cleared
thinning and/or burning ready to implement. 6300 of these acres have
been NEPA cleared for more than two years. As of June 2003 about 1800
acres have been implemented (at least partially). NEPA approved acres
exceed acres treated by approximately 12,200 acres. NEPA planning
exceeds implementation by an average of approximately 2400 acres per
year. Environmental and public reviews set forth in regulations
implementing NEPA are not delaying fuels treatments. Circumventing
detailed NEPA analysis, as some 2003 wildfire legislation seeks to do,
is unlikely to improve the timeliness or effectiveness of hazardous
fuels reduction projects where we work.
Though we do not believe that the Forest Service is mired in a
``process predicament'', we do believe that the quality of NEPA
planning could be improved. There are systematic management and
personnel problems within the Forest Service unrelated to the
regulatory environment of NEPA that affect the quality, effectiveness,
and efficiency of planning. These include (1) fragmented and delayed
analyses due to personnel transfers and/or re-assignments (most notably
to fight fire); (2) inadequate staffing levels and prioritization; and,
(3) lack of relevant expertise (law, conservation biology) utilized
during the planning process. These problems can result in avoidable
mistakes, unlawful decisions, and analyses that are at best marginally
commensurate to the guiding intent of NEPA or to contemporary
principles of conservation science.
Notwithstanding these problems, NEPA planning far outpaces fuels
reduction implementation in Flagstaff and the notion that circumventing
detailed NEPA analyses will improve the timeliness or effectiveness of
hazardous fuels reduction projects is, in our experience, baseless.
Thus, we do not support the idea of streamlining NEPA planning in order
to facilitate hazardous fuels reduction treatments.
APPEALS AND FUELS REDUCTION
The Healthy Forests Initiative and some legislation being
considered in the Senate are in part predicated on the notion that the
administrative appeals process is slowing fuels reduction. We believe
this assertion represents an incomplete and incorrect view of the
administrative appeals process.
In our experience, administrative appeals have not delayed projects
beyond the standard review period when those appeals were found to have
no merit. The only case in which an administrative appeal significantly
delayed a GFFP projects is when appellants correctly identified
avoidable and careless mistakes committed during the planning process--
mistakes rendering the Forest Service's NEPA decision unlawful. In this
case, the administrative appeals process did exactly what it was
designed to do: it provided a process to administratively resolve a
legitimate dispute. As long as the Forest Service continues rendering
unlawful decisions, we believe that the administrative appeals process
is the best mechanism by which to administratively resolve legitimate
disputes before they go to court.
Our experience is generally consistent with two independent reports
released in 2003 that also fail to support the notion that the
administrative appeals process is to blame for slow implementation of
fuels projects. A report released by the GAO \1\ found that that during
FY 2001 and 2002 only 24% of fuels reduction projects were appealed,
79% of those appeals were processed within 90 days. In contrast, only
3% of fuels reduction projects were litigated, but 43% of these were
still in court at the time of the GAO survey. In total, 95% of all
projects reviewed were ready for implementation within the standard 90-
day review period. The Northern Arizona University Ecological
Restoration Institute's report titled ``Analyzing USDA Forest Service
Appeals'' \2\ found that, despite claims that appeals are impeding
hazardous fuels reduction projects, theirs was the first effort to
actually systematically analyze the appeals process. Their preliminary
analysis revealed that (1) the appeals process is used by a broad range
of interests including grazing permittees, timber companies,
conservation groups and citizens, (2) the total number of appeals filed
annually has been decreasing since 1998, and (3) about 1/3 of appeals
are filed by individual citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Accounting Office. 2003. Information on Forest Service
Decisions Involving Fuels Reduction Activities. GAO-03-689-R.
\2\ Cortner, H. and J. Vaughn. 2003. Analyzing USDA Forest Service
Appeals. Northern Arizona University Ecological Restoration Institute.
Available online at: http://www.eri.nau.edu/pdf/FS-appeals-
database.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative proposals before the Senate implicitly raise a
fundamental question regarding our expectations of federal agencies:
Should we expect federal agencies, as we do the citizenry, to follow
federal laws and regulations? Or should we instead accommodate unlawful
agency decisions by shielding them from laws, or, worse yet, from well
established standards of judicial review? As a matter of principle and
public accountability, we believe the former is the responsible course.
Based on our experience and the aforementioned independent reports,
we believe that proponents of exempting hazardous fuels reduction
projects from administrative appeals have failed to provide evidence
that meets standards we believe are appropriate to promulgating
legislation.
improving the timeliness and effectiveness of hazardous fuels reduction
Although there are literally millions of acres of frequent fire
adapted forest at risk of ecologically anomalous stand replacing
wildfires in the southwestern and western United States, the resources
available to implement hazardous fuels reduction projects are limited.
For example, the Arizona governor's office recently identified
230,000 acres of federal, tribal, state and private lands in and around
Arizona's most threatened communities, transportation and utility
corridors in need of hazardous fuels reduction treatments at an
estimated cost of over $230 million.\3\ It's paramount then that we
carefully direct limited resources toward the highest priority lands.
The question at hand is not where hazardous fuels reduction is needed;
rather, it is where and how we prioritize hazardous fuels treatments
within the constraints of limited time, resources, and sociopolitical
agreement this year as a first step toward resolving the larger western
wildfire issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ State of Arizona Executive Office of Governor Janet Napolitano.
Press Release: GOVERNOR NAPOLITANO ISSUES EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION ON
BARK BEETLE DEVASTATION, CALLS ON PRESIDENT BUSH TO PROVIDE FUNDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because 824 homes and structures have burned in Arizona wildfires
in the past 18 months, because there is broad national consensus that
avoiding further losses like those Arizona has experienced should be
the first priority of federal forest and fuels management, and because
time, resources, and political agreement are limited for goals
exceeding that of protecting communities, we believe an appropriate
goal for legislation in 2003 is to begin hazardous fuels work in
communities at risk. Toward those ends we provide the following
recommendations:
Reduce home/structure ignitability: Legislation should facilitate
and/or establish programs that assist and encourage homeowners
to reduce the ignitability of homes and structures through a
combination of vegetation and fuels management and, when
necessary, replacing flammable building materials. This should
include a combination of market based incentives, low interest
loan programs, and grants programs for homeowners and homeowner
associations.
Prioritize fuels treatments for the WUI: Legislation should
prioritize hazardous fuels reduction across ownerships within
the Wildland Urban Interface and in watersheds containing
municipal water supply systems. Legislation should not preclude
hazardous fuels reduction treatments within high priority lands
in frequent fire adapted forests outside the WUI. Those lands
should be identified and prioritized according to standardized
methodologies on a state by state basis and their funding and
implementation generally should not precede work inside the
WUI. Legislation should require that communities establish
long-term fuels management plans and schedules.
Direct funding to hazardous fuels treatments: Legislators must
recognize that fuels treatments are expensive will not occur
unless there is money to implement them. Even fuels treatments
that employ commercial thinning regularly exceed $500 per acre.
Legislation must provide money to fund hazardous fuels projects
and must be directed toward specific acres according to
specific priorities and implementation timelines.
Use existing planning authorities: Rather than establishing
duplicative expedited procedures, legislation should encourage
agencies to employ existing hazardous fuels categorical
exclusion authorities when conducting hazardous fuels reduction
projects on federal land within the Wildland Urban Interface.
These authorities allow federal agencies to categorically
exclude from detailed NEPA analysis thinning projects up to
1000 acres in size and prescribed burning projects up to 2000
acres in size. If expedited procedures are enacted, which we
discourage, they should be strictly confined to within .5 miles
of communities at risk.
Limitations: Legislation should ensure that all hazardous fuels
projects adhere to land and resource management plans, protect
old and large trees, not compromise roadless area or wilderness
area values.
Follow the Comprehensive Strategy: Legislation should be explicitly
framed in terms of the four goals and three guiding principles
of the Western Governor's Association 10-Year Strategy
Implementation Plan for collaboratively reducing wildfire risks
to communities and the environment. Legislation should include
total acreage limitations and a five year sunset provision.
Our position does not preclude our support for ecologically
cautious restoration of frequent fire adapted forests distant from
communities. Indeed, we're an environmental group and these forests
most concern our mission. We believe that true ecological restoration
must become the next paradigm for federal management of frequent fire
adapted forests if we believe that social and economic elements of
sustainability ultimately depend on sustainable ecosystems. Grand
Canyon Trust views community protection in the context of ecological
restoration. Communities that are relatively fire safe, or fire
adapted, will be a prerequisite to extensive applications of prescribed
fire that ecological restoration will require (and this is to say
nothing of the immediate need to protect communities from the high
intensity wildfires that, unfortunately, are a future inevitability in
southwestern forests). Fire adapted communities provide citizens with
the reduced risk and confidence to embrace extensive applications of
restorative wildland fire, and similarly provide land managers with the
relative freedom from risk to conduct burns in a safer social and
political context.
We also believe restoration planning requires an ability to
evaluate and track local treatment scenarios within a regional
ecological context in order to systematically prioritize limited
resources and analyze effects. Restoration planning will also require a
rationale and transparent decision making environment that allows
stakeholders to ``negotiate values'' by comparing the relative costs,
benefits, and uncertainties of different treatment scenarios. Our
inability to understand these implications fuels much of the
controversy surrounding restoration of wildlands. In short, we believe
ecological restoration will require combining the best of NEPA's
guidance with state-of-the-art spatial data, models, decision support
tools, and discursive democratic processes. This is radically different
than normal Forest Service project planning, and far exceeds the scope
of legislative proposals being considered today.
Ecological restoration also raises policy, funding, implementation,
monitoring, and long-term management issues. True ecological
restoration of frequent fire adapted forests would address all factors
that have contributed to ecosystem decline, including the removal of
larger and older trees, overgrazing, and ubiquitous fire suppression.
Sadly, we are still contending with all of these stress factors in
National Forests of the Southwest today. Until we address these issues
we will not return to healthier forests, fire hazard reduction will be
only a temporary affair, and future generations will ultimately be
saddled with the same perils of ecosystem neglect that we're contending
with today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee
today.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Tom.
Now we move to Dr. Wally Covington, Ecological Restoration
Institute, Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff, Arizona.
How good is your football team going to be this year?
STATEMENT OF DR. W. WALLACE COVINGTON, DIRECTOR, ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION INSTITUTE, NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
Dr. Covington. Well, I do not know. We will see.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Covington. It is always a roll of the dice, but we will
soon know, Montana being one of our playmates.
Well, thank you very much for inviting me to testify again
on this very important problem of forest health. I am Regents'
Professor of Forest Ecology. My appointment is in the School of
Forestry at Northern Arizona University and I direct the
Ecological Restoration Institute. Governor Napolitano pointed
out that I serve on her Forest Health Advisory Council. Before
that, I served on Governor Hull's in the State. I have recently
been invited to serve on Governor Richardson's New Mexico
Forest Health Council and, of course, agreed to do so. I will
travel anywhere I can to try to help solve this very important
problem.
I have a Ph.D. in forest ecosystem analysis from Yale
University, an M.S. in ecology from the University of New
Mexico, and have been involved in this work now for close to 30
years, 28 years now. My work is focused primarily on
restoration of the dry forests of the West, first, through
prescribed burning alone and then through combinations of
prescribed burning, thinning, and other treatments as ways to
effectively and efficiently restore forest health.
I have two major points. First is that we need to move
forward with large-scale restoration-based fuel treatments, not
just thinning and not just around urban interfaces, but we need
to tackle the whole problem. We need to do it very rapidly.
My second point is that a comprehensive restoration should
be addressed not just thinning alone or reintroducing fire, but
also looking at the other major sources of ecosystem
degradation that are in place throughout the forests of the
West. If we merely treat the symptom of unwanted fire behavior,
we are condemning ourselves and our progeny to be plagued by
continuing problems in the future, species extinction, rare
species becoming even rarer yet, and unwanted and unnatural
disturbance regimes. So with that then, we need to move forward
with large-scale restoration-based fuel treatments.
The rate of increase in destruction of our western forests
is really alarming. I think we are familiar with that.
Currently the pace of our treatments, our comprehensive
restoration treatments is way out of whack with the amount of
forest areas that we are losing to these severe catastrophic
fires and unnatural bark beetle outbreaks in some types.
I advocate using what I consider to be a reasonable
assumption that our treatments should be at least on the pace
and at the scale that these disturbances are occurring. If we
wind up protecting just the urban areas and the rest of the
landscape is destroyed, which is a path that we are flirting
with right now, people are not going to want to live in the
West. People are living in the West to live in wild landscapes.
The second point that I would make is that we need to do
landscape assessments. In a landscape assessment, one of the
areas that clearly will come out as needing treatments are
places that people live. They are kind of nest sites for human
beings. But we will also find, I think, that people will value
wilderness areas, national parks, hot spots for biological
diversity. And down in our country, Mexican spotted owl nest
sites are especially threatened by these large wildfires. So
these priorities I think need to be set by collaborative groups
at the local level, much as the Flagstaff Forest Partnership
that Tom Robinson alluded to earlier.
The next point I would make--Laura made this one--is that
clearly we have a good bit of knowledge, but in solving this
problem, we need to bring the best research and science
integrated in an adaptive management process to learn while we
are doing. And it needs to be a fairly formal adaptive
management process, not just tinkering with things, but
coupling treatments with monitoring and evaluation.
So with that, I think, for the sake of saving some time, I
will just conclude here, that it really is necessary that we
think clearly about this, use the best science that is
available. We need to be careful about how we define, for
example, restoration treatments. What is a restoration? We need
to be careful about using the term ``old growth.'' The term
``old growth'' can be defined artificially, as often is the
case. A multi-story kind of dense forest stand in the case of
Ponderosa pine is a contemporary definition of old growth
stands in Ponderosa pine. It is a completely unnatural
phenomenon. We need to be careful to use as our reference
points, I think, natural conditions.
So finally, I would conclude with just saying again,
knowing what we know now, I think it would be grossly negligent
for us not to move forward rapidly. I think we can do this. We
are doing this in some situations. We need to expand it vastly.
I know that the three bills that are being considered now are
all trying to achieve that. There are certainly elements in
each bill that will help us to do that, and I would just urge
the committee to move forward apace and help us solve this big
problem.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Covington follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. W. Wallace Covington,
Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University
Chairman Domenici, and members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on forest health problems and to offer some
solutions. Many of you have seen me before this Committee in the past.
I look forward to the day when my testimony will no longer be needed
because we are implementing restoration treatments at the pace and
scale commensurate with the problem.
My name is Wallace Covington. I am Regents' Professor of Forest
Ecology at Northern Arizona University and Director of the Ecological
Restoration Institute. I have been a professor teaching and researching
fire ecology and restoration management at NAU since 1975. I am a
member of Governor Janet Napolitano's Arizona Forest Health Advisory
Council. My role on that committee is to help develop guiding
principles for the design and implementation of restoration-based fire
fuel reduction and forest health projects based on the best available
science. In addition I am a member of the National Commission on
Science for Sustainable Forestry.
I have a Ph.D. in forest ecosystem analysis from Yale University
and an M.S. in ecology from the University of New Mexico. Over the past
27 years I have taught graduate and undergraduate courses in research
methods, ecological restoration, ecosystem management, fire ecology and
management, forest management, range management, wildlife management,
watershed management, recreation management, park and wildland
management, and forest operations research. I have been working in
long-term research on fire ecology and management in ponderosa pine and
related ecosystems since I moved to Northern Arizona University in
1975. In addition to my publications on forest restoration, I have co-
authored scientific papers on a broad variety of topics in forest
ecology and resource management including research on fire effects,
prescribed burning, thinning, operations research, silviculture, range
management, wildlife effects, multiresource management, forest health,
and natural resource conservation.
I will focus my remarks on two important changes that are needed to
reverse the trend of increasing catastrophic wildfires.
First, we need to move forward with large scale restoration-based
fuel treatments that are commensurate with the threat of
catastrophic fire.
Second, we need to use comprehensive restoration-based treatments
as opposed to just thinning trees. If we don't we are merely
treating a symptom, condemning ourselves to be plagued by
continuing problems in the future, and will lose the
opportunity to solve many of the problems associated with
degraded forest ecosystems--including bark beetles and disease.
We Need To Move Forward With Large Scale Restoration-Based Fuel
Treatments That Are Commensurate With the Wildfire Threat
The accelerating increase in the severity and size of wildfires in
the West indicates that average annual losses over the next two decades
will be in excess of 5-10 million acres per year. Using the reasonable
assumption that preventative restoration treatments should at least be
at the pace and scale of losses to severe stand replacing fire, one
would conclude that we should be treating 5-10 million acres per year.
Our current pace and scale is woefully inadequate given the scope of
the problem. Unless we accelerate treatments rapidly and immediately we
will never get ahead of the problem.
The fires of 2000, 2002 and now 2003 have focused policy attention
on the need to create defensible perimeters around communities in the
wildland/urban interface. Without a doubt communities should be a
priority for protection. However, defining a community as only homes
misses the whole reason why people live in forest communities.
My hometown, Flagstaff, Arizona is a tourist dependent community.
In the summer it is a cool haven for people from Phoenix to escape
oppressive heat. In the winter it is a playground for skiers and snow-
based recreation. The town is populated by people who often choose to
make less money in return for the non-monetary value of living in an
exquisitely beautiful place. A fire of the magnitude of the Rodeo/
Chediski fire--almost half a million acres--would destroy one of the
communities most important natural assets. The aesthetic and economic
value of the forest is immeasurable. Imagine Flagstaff, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, Durango, Colorado or any other mountain town surrounded by a
sea of blackened trunks. The spiritual, social and economic value of
being there is gone.
Besides the inextricable link of people to the forest, there are
many important environmental and resource benefits provided by forests,
such as water, wildlife, recreation and wood fiber. To protect these
values will require landscape scale treatments in the greater forest.
The Need for Landscape Assessments To Identify Key Elements of the
Landscape for Protection
The logical and efficient way to strategically and comprehensively
address the threat of unnatural wildfire is to look at the problem from
a landscape perspective. Using a collaborative community process with a
definite timeframe, we can identify important elements of the landscape
for protection, identify the location and type of restoration fuel
breaks that would reduce the risk of unnatural fire, and prioritize
areas for treatments. Areas that are at highest risk or where we can
gain the greatest advantage for fire protection would logically be
treated first. This type of approach is not widely used but should be
so that limited resources are used effectively.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROVIDES THE PROPER FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
Working at the landscape scale concerns some individuals and
organizations. However, there is an approach that will ensure that we
are learning from and evolving treatments based on best available
information--it is a ``learning by doing'' approach known as active
adaptive management. No one is talking about tinkering here and this
isn't just some new fangled academic idea. Adaptive management is
rooted deep in theory and practice, having sprung from the evolutionary
operations approach long used in optimizing complex chemical
engineering problems. Crawford S. Holling (University of Florida) and
Carl Walters (University of British Columbia) and their intellectual
``offspring'' have developed this approach as a tried and true
procedure for solving complex resource management problems, monitoring
and evaluating a range of policy options, and then feeding resulting
knowledge back into the ongoing resource management endeavor.
There are quantifiable approaches to adaptive management. However,
a ``soft systems'' approach might be most appropriate for restoration
of ponderosa pine and related frequent fire landscapes. This is an
approach used by the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership. The
Partnership is attempting to plan and implement restoration-based fuel
reduction projects on 100,000 acres in and around Flagstaff. The
Partnership is engaged in planning for its third major treatment--an
area of 30,000 acres. Information learned from the monitoring of
earlier treatments applied in 1998 is being used to design the next
series of treatments.
The safest way to advance treatment design and implementation is to
apply scientifically rigorous adaptive management principles. By
scientifically rigorous I mean that the design of landscape scale
restoration treatments must be based on:
1. Comprehensive awareness of solid science (not
ideologically driven, selective citation of existing
knowledge).
2. Implementing large-scale, adaptive management experiments
to test ideas.
3. Monitoring fundamental parameters to determine treatment
effectiveness.
4. Objective scientific analysis of the results.
5. Further adaptation of management experiments suggested by
these monitoring observations.
6. Sharing, publicizing and publishing results for lay
audiences, policy makers, resource management professionals,
and the scientific community.
We need to use comprehensive restoration-based treatments as
opposed to just thinning trees. If we don't we are merely treating a
symptom, condemning ourselves to be plagued by the problem again in the
future, and will lose the opportunity to solve many of the problems
associated with degraded forest ecosystems.
I am gravely concerned that in our urgency to treat forests
quickly, we will do it incorrectly by focusing solely on removing
trees. If we do that we will squander the opportunity to provide a
comprehensive solution to all the problems confronting degraded
forests.
We have been in open revolt against nature in the dry forests of
the West since settlement. It is time to start managing in harmony with
natural tendencies. Science-based forest restoration treatments are
consistent with natural tendencies. Comprehensive restoration is
superior to forest thinning alone for one significant reason--
restoration treatments simultaneously improve forest health (the
underlying cause of catastrophic fire) while reducing fire risk.
Restoration treatments permit the safe reintroduction of low intensity
ground fire that we can let burn without threatening people and homes
and most importantly plays a vital role in restoring the forest.
RESTORATION HAS MANY BENEFITS
The benefits of ecological restoration and diligent land
stewardship in ponderosa pine and related ecosystems are many and they
are sustainable indefinitely. Ecological restoration:
1. Eliminates unnatural forest insect and disease outbreaks--
such as the current bark beetle epidemic;
2. Enhances native plant and animal biodiversity;
3. Protects critical habitats for threatened or endangered
species;
4. Improves watershed function and sustainability;
5. Enhances natural beauty of the land;
6. Improves resource values for humans, not just for current,
but also for future generations.
DESIGNING RESTORATION TREATMENTS
There is no ``one size fits all'' restoration treatment.
Intelligent restoration treatments are based on the historic conditions
of the land. We know that ponderosa pine forests in the Southwest
burned frequently with the net effect of killing small trees and
enhancing fewer, large trees. We know that the real diversity of the
ponderosa pine forest is below your knees in the grasses and shrubs and
that they need fire and light to survive. We also know that the
Southwest is prone to periods of sustained drought and that there are
only so many trees per acre that can be sustained in an arid climate.
Ecological restoration should strive towards emulating, insofar as
is practical natural ecosystem patterns and processes. In the
discipline of ecological restoration we refer to these natural
conditions as ``reference conditions''. In most cases for ponderosa
pine forests this includes fewer trees per acre; retaining older trees
and removing the excess trees thus opening up the forest canopy to
promote increased numbers and species of plants and grasses.
Research across the Intermountain West has shown that restoration
treatments substantially reduce fire hazard by thinning trees to
decrease tree canopy density, break up interconnected canopy fuels,
raise the crown base height, and then reduce accumulated forest floor
fuels and debris with prescribed fire. Where tree density is great,
fire alone is inadequate. Without thinning, fire can lead to increased
mortality, especially among old growth trees. This is the typical case
over most of the ponderosa pine type throughout the West.
Restoration thinning enhances the productivity (growth) of trees,
allowing young trees to develop old-growth characteristics such as
large size and full crowns. Perhaps most importantly, restoration has
been shown to increase rapidly the productivity of native understory
grasses and herbs, the species that make up 90-99% of the plant
biological diversity in western fire-adapted forests. The resources
provided by abundant understory vegetation--seeds, flowers, fruits, and
cover--translate into key wildlife habitat components. For example, the
number of butterfly species and individuals increased within two years
in Arizona sites that had received ecological restoration treatments.
Our research in cooperation with land management agencies and
community groups shows that restoration treatments are operationally
sound. There are some very simple restoration-based sideboards for
designing alternative prescriptions that are straightforward and well
supported. They include:
1. Retain all trees which predate settlement;
2. Retain post-settlement trees needed to re-establish pre-
settlement structure;
3. Thin and remove excess trees;
4. Rake heavy fuels from base of trees;
5. Burn to emulate natural disturbance regime;
6. Seed with natives/control exotics.
WE KNOW WHAT TO DO AND IT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE
I have great faith in our scientific understanding of how to
restore degraded forest. Yet I am frustrated that with so much
knowledge at hand we remain mired in ideological disputes. Recently,
the School of Forestry at Northern Arizona University completed an
economic study analyzing the cost of restoration versus taking no
action in ponderosa pine forests. This preliminary analysis shows that
it is cost effective to spend up to $505/acre to restore forests to
prevent catastrophic fire and avoid associated fire suppression costs.
In other words, if we spend money to restore forests now, we will avoid
spending that much on just suppression, rehabilitation and lost timber
value in the future. This figure doesn't even take into account what is
spent on lost property, lost property taxes, lost fire fighter lives
and the full reality of losses associated with catastrophic fire. Based
on this figure, a back of the envelope assessment shows that to treat
the condition class 3 lands identified in the Intermountain West (and
we really wouldn't want to treat all those acres of different forest
types) it would cost $6 billion dollars. With our annual suppression
costs rising to above $1 billion per year, and an annual federal budget
that exceeds two trillion dollars the logic to spend the money and get
this done is overwhelming.
In conclusion I want to say exactly what I have said to Congress
before. Knowing what we now know, it would be grossly negligent for our
generation not to move forward with large scale restoration-based fuel
treatments in the dry forests of the West. Inaction is clearly the
greatest threat to the long-term sustainability of these western
ecosystems.
Thank you for the privilege to speak before the Committee.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Dr. Covington.
And I would say that your full statement will be made part
of the record, so if you want to summarize. Ms. Sara Duncan,
Denver, Colorado.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, may I just interrupt one second?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Senator Kyl. I have a luncheon meeting to chair, as you
know, and you are supposed to be there too. So I am going to go
do that, and I will keep your seat warm for you, but may I
apologize to the remainder of the panel for leaving before I
hear your testimony and thank especially the two Arizonans who
are here. Despite some conflicting views, I value both of their
friendship and advice and I hope that we will continue to
receive it in a significant quantity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Sara Duncan, please. Water Department, Denver.
STATEMENT OF SARA DUNCAN, COORDINATOR OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS, DENVER WATER BOARD, DENVER, CO
Ms. Duncan. Yes. Denver Water supplies water to one in four
citizens in Colorado, approximately 1.2 million people. Of
these people that you are talking about in the wildlife-urban
interface, I am sure that it has not been considered that
municipal watersheds in the forests are as or more impacted
than these communities that are in the forests. It is
absolutely critical that whatever legislation is passed, that
it address the urban-wildlife interface as well as the
municipal watersheds. They are not mutually exclusive. The
enabling act of the Forest Service, in fact, gave them that
very specific task of protecting and developing municipal
watersheds.
Denver Water, unfortunately, has become the poster child as
victims of Forest Service management. We have suffered six
fires in the last 6 years in our Upper South Platte drainage. I
have attached to my testimony exhibit A that will show where
those fires occurred, and I would hope that both my testimony
and the photographs become part of the permanent record.
In addition, we have really as a defensive measure also
been a group that has been trying to restore ecologically
degraded forests. Before the Hayman fire started, we did quite
a bit of restoration work around our Cheesman Reservoir, and it
was interesting. When the fire hit, those areas that we had not
treated burned like crazy. Those 80 or so acres out of the
138,000 acres burned by the Hayman fire last year that were
treated and the fuel was removed, every building that was in
there was left standing. Some of the trees will be lost, for
sure, but every building was left standing. In fact, I would
invite this committee to come and see us as the petri dish of
forest fires except that I know that you all have in your own
areas further examples of what the devastation of forest fires
can do.
Enough blame has been laid at the Forest Service so that we
know that their policies have not worked well, but we also feel
that Congress has contributed to the problem. Not to mince
words, we think taking decision making away from trained
professionals has been a bad idea and has really contributed to
the problem.
In addition, we feel that decision making has been weighted
toward recreation and non-use instead of the multiple use
sustained yield that has been part of the Forest Service mantra
for years until recently.
And finally, we feel that we need a clear political
statement that money, a realistic time table--not 10 years, not
20 years, but we are probably talking about generations to
clear up this problem--and the appreciation of forest
management must be implemented.
I know that you will think I am ungrateful for coming and
criticizing Congress when you were kind enough to invite me,
but we are also very sympathetic to what you have to do in the
balancing. We do not want to say that the environmental
considerations are not important, but the idea of not having a
clear forest engagement--and I did not hear anyone from the
Forest Service say this. It was not in the film to begin with--
that looks at municipal watersheds that are in the forests
really fails to protect the source of water. And source water
protection was a great part of the 1996 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act. We know Congress is concerned about it, and
we want to make sure in your decision making that you account
for it.
No action is not palatable. It is not environmentally
responsible. We think that Congress needs to take an action and
we hope that we can contribute to it, but we are talking about
the health and safety not only of our forests, but also of our
citizens. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duncan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sara Duncan, Coordinator of Intergovernmental
Affairs, Denver Water Board, Denver, CO
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing
me to appear before you to address the important issue of forest health
and municipal water supply. The Denver Water Board is a municipal
corporation that supplies water to over one million people: that is one
of four people who live in Colorado. Denver Water's supply is dependent
on water generated within the boundaries of watersheds located on
Forest Service and other public lands. Denver's water system gathers
diffuse surface flows originating on public watersheds and moves the
water to treatment plants and drinking water systems sometimes located
as much as 80 miles away from the water's origin.
Since 1996, Denver Water has been the victim of six fires in its
Upper South Platte watershed, a major water supply and delivery system
for Denver Water. [see Exhibit ``A''] * The effects of these fires on
Denver's system have varied, but the overall result is one of vitiated
water quality. For example, approximately twenty miles of the South
Platte River is subject to fire erosion that has resulted in severely
reduced water quality, high stream turbidity, and diminished reservoir
capacity due to erosion and foreign debris caused by the fire. The cost
to date of mitigating fire impacts is in excess of $5,600,000 with an
anticipation of higher costs to be paid in part by our customers [see
Exhibit ``B''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All exhibits have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to maintain the physical integrity of water and of water
collection systems, it is imperative that public lands are in a
condition that does not contaminate water or impair the ability to move
water to its place of beneficial use. [see Exhibit ``C'']. An ongoing
federal commitment is necessary in order to limit the damage to
municipal watersheds from fire.
As a result of dealing with forest fires, Denver Water views the
three bills before you, S. 1314, S. 1352, and H.R. 1904, and finds the
following observation apply to all three bills and may be useful in
your decision-making on what contributes to a healthy forest:
Fuel reduction can control or limit fires--Select cutting and fuel
reduction limited damage to Denver Water's property during the
recent Hayman Fire. The Hayman fire completely consumed trees
on acreage surrounding Denver Water's Cheesman Reservoir. At
Cheesman Reservoir where Denver Water used Forest Service
recommended techniques, fire intensity was diminished and four
caretaker houses, an office and maintenance facilities survived
the fire and stand today in a sea of charred trees and
blackened soil: Of the 8,000 acres Denver Water owns at the
Cheesman site almost everything burned to extinction except for
the treated area. The techniques favored in the Forest Health
legislation did work in this limited instance. We had more
forest management to do at Cheesman, but the Hayman fire got
there first.
Impacts of a forest fire on a municipal population are not limited
to the wildland/urban interface--Any legislation that limits
forest health techniques to an area within 1/2 mile of an at-
risk community or in the wildland/urban interface would fail to
provide water source protection. In the west, municipal
watersheds cover many, many square miles and are located far
away from the city service area. Denver water relies on
watersheds over 80 miles from its treatment plants. Other major
water suppliers have supplies stretched over even longer
distances. If legislation limits the application of forest
health techniques to a certain mileage it would diminish the
effect of federal relief from wildfire problems.
Cooperative projects should receive first priority in funding--
Denver Water along with state and federal forest agencies
developed a process for forest management on the Upper South
Platte drainage that served the needs of all agencies involved.
Implementation of the plan was not in place at the time of the
Hayman fire except for a small parcel at Cheesman Reservoir.
Cooperative efforts such as this should be given the highest
priority and sufficient funding to respond to immediate
hazards.
A realistic time limit to deal with forest problems is needed--It
is estimated the life of Denver Water's reservoirs impacted by
the fire will be reduced by forty years due to increased
sediment. Dredging of Cheesman Reservoir will solve some
problems, but will not prevent the continued inflow of
sediment. Erosion and attendant water quality degradation will
occur for the next thirty years. Ten years is a short time to
assure forest health when it took over a century of Forest
Service policies to create the present fuel-loading problem.
The 10-year implementation process endorsed by the Western
Governor's Association incorporated in all bills under
discussion should be treated as the first step in a long-range
response to responsible forest management.
Funding must be spent to address all forest issues, including
watersheds--It seems irresponsible to spend funds for forest
health within 1/2 mile of the wildlife/urban interface when
adverse conditions in a municipal watershed could impair water
for many people outside this limited area. Both S. 1314 and S.
1352 fail to recognize the tremendous costs involved in
addressing fire damage and the benefit from protecting
watershed that serve large populations. For example, dredging
costs to Denver Water's reservoir most impaired by sediment and
other debris created by fires on the South Platte are estimated
in the $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 range. The water serves 1/4
of Colorado's population, and therefore the benefits of
improved forest health to Denver Water's watershed would affect
a large number of people.
Denver's Board of Water Commissioners has declined to take a
position on the process of public review and NEPA compliance contained
in all bills. It is Denver's expectation that whatever legislation is
passed will provide a sufficient opportunity to assure technical
compliance with existing laws as well as the flexibility to respond to
forest management emergencies.
Denver Water is aware that fire is a natural phenomenon on forest
lands. However, two of the recent fires were man-caused, and all fires
have been difficult to control due to forest conditions. We appreciate
your efforts to address the issues of fire, forest health, municipal
benefits and environmental concerns. If Denver's experience can be a
useful tool in addressing these issues, please consider us a resource.
Denver Water would be happy to provide you with any information you
need.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
Mr. Bruce Vincent who is with Communities for a Great
Northwest from my State of Montana. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE VINCENT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT NORTHWEST, LIBBY, MT
Mr. Vincent. Thanks, Senator. It has been a long day. Thank
you for hanging in there with us.
I am a fourth generation Montanan and a third generation
practical applicator of academic forest management theory. That
is what I call a logger. I moved back to Montana after
completing college and I moved back for two environmental
reasons. The first environmental reason was the natural
environment. You know where we live. Stunning scenery,
wonderful wildlife, clean air, clean water, tree-shrouded
mountains. That is why I like living in Libby.
I also moved back for the cultural environment. The last
vestige of what built the greatest Nation on earth is alive and
well in our rural timber towns. Hard-working, hard-playing,
community-oriented, family-oriented, church-oriented, school-
oriented people inhabit the town that I call home and thousands
of timber communities around America.
I quickly learned, though, that there is a third
environment that is going to dictate the health of the first
two, and that third environment is the political environment
and the political environment in timber towns for the last 15
years has been sometimes destructive, oftentimes violent, and
it is leading us to a juncture in the road that is going to
have a conclusion.
I heard a lot of debate around the room today, good
discussion. We have had this discussion since 1988 that I know
of, vigorous discussion. In 1988 we had a log haul to Darby,
Montana. We had a log haul because we were concerned with the
abuse of the appeals process that was stymieing management and
we were afraid that the Bitterroot Forest was going to burn
down. In 2000 it did.
In 1988, we also had a log haul, a rally. The Silver Fire
Roundup it was called in the Siskiyou area of Oregon, Grants
Pass. We were there because of the appeals process that was
being abused and we were afraid that the area was going to burn
down. In 2002 it did.
In 1995, we went to Phoenix. We were in Phoenix because we
were afraid that the largest contiguous stand of pine trees on
the planet was falling into disrepair and because of systematic
abuse of the appeals and citizen participation process, it was
going to burn to the ground. In 2002 it did.
I live in the area that Senator Craig explained was a site
of the largest recorded fire in North American history, 3
million acres in actually essentially 6 hours of firestorm. You
have a couple of hundred fires started. Let them smolder for a
couple of weeks and then blast it with some 75-mile-an-hour
winds, and it makes the Rodeo look like a picnic. There are now
a quarter million people living in the immediate area of that
burn in 1910, and we are very fearful. We have been fearful for
15 years, and now it is time for something to happen.
I have given you my complete report. I would like it to be
part of the record, Senator. There are some things in H.R. 1904
that we support. Anything that is going to take aggressive
action to actually do something is going to be supported by the
communities that are at risk in this discussion.
Particularly the area of judicial reform, something in the
appeals and judiciary have got to change or we are never going
to get anything on the ground. Senator Daschle was the Majority
Leader of this esteemed body and he saw that he needed put an
umbrella of protection over local resolution in his State in
order to actually implement anything. South Dakota is not the
only State that needs that protection. We have got to do
something.
H.R. 1904 recognizes that doing nothing does have
consequences. All of us recognize that. It addresses a number
of other things and I address them in my comments. But I am not
here to do much more than just plead. I am here to plead
because it is time for help, not rhetoric, not flowing words,
but help. It is time for action. Those of us who live in the
combat zone know the politics of this issue. We know it all too
well.
We also know that in politics reality does not have a great
to do with what happens in the outcome. It is actually the
public's perception of reality that dictates, and that reminds
me of Will Rogers' old statement. It ain't what you don't know
that's a problem; it's what you know that ain't so that's a
problem.
In American forestry there is a lot that the American
public historically has not known. They have known a lot that
ain't so. Well, you know what? They are not stupid. They are
learning, and I think America is tired. I think America is
tired and ready for some new leadership. They are tired as they
watch forestry unfold 500,000 acres of smoke and fire at a
time. They are tired of watching disease and insect
infestations explode on public lands and land in their private
forest treasures. They are tired about arguing about wildlife
habitat and then watching such habitat be managed into
oblivion. They are tired of watching the clean water sources of
the future be vaporized. Those of us who live in the forest
that you guys are debating right now plead with you to show the
leadership and statesmanship that we need now to move forward.
It is going to be possible you are going to meager action.
You are going to take meager action that is politically
expedient, but do nothing to substantially improve the ability
of the forest managers to manage on the ground. We beg you to
not go that route because ultimately where we live reality is
the dictator, and right now that dictator is managing our
forests and will continue to do so until this body helps us fix
our problems. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vincent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Vincent, Executive Director, Communities
for a Greater Northwest, Libby, MT
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I am honored and
sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify before you. Today I
would like to both thank you, and plead with you.
I am a fourth generation Montanan and a third generation practical
applicator of academic forest management theory, a logger. I am co-
owner of Vincent Logging, a small family business in Libby, Montana. I
serve as the volunteer President of Communities for a Great Northwest
(CGNW), a non-profit group dedicated to educating its members and the
public about the difficult choices we face in trying to provide for
humankind while protecting the environment. CGNW membership includes
hundreds of farming, ranching, mining, and logging families and rural
main street businesses and elected bodies that live in the area that
would be impacted by the President's Healthy Forest Initiative.
I moved back to Montana after competing college for two
environmental reasons. First, I moved back because of the natural
environment of clean air, clean water, abundant wildlife and beautiful
tree shrouded, snow covered mountains. Secondly I moved back because of
the cultural environment filled with the hard working, hard playing,
community oriented, family oriented, school oriented people of our
rural resource managing area.
I soon learned that it a third environment that would dictate the
health of the natural and cultural environment I love and that is the
political environment. The last 15 years of destructive, sometimes
violent debate over the future of what we all love our forests--has led
us to a political crossroads in which the future of our forests and
forest families will be determined.
As we move through this critical juncture in domestic forest
history, I'd like to thank the Senate and House members that have been
steadfast in moving H.R. 1904 forward. This legislation takes some
critically important steps toward restoring the long term forest health
of our nation. It is time for those steps to be taken.
Areas of particular concern addressed include:
H.R. 1904 strengthens the ability of local managers to implement
common sense forest health restoration programs.
Because of our love of the forest environment, those who live in
forested areas have engaged in tens of thousands of hours of local
debate over what we want the future to look like in our forests.
Through consensus groups, collaborative groups, National Forest
Congress Groups, sustainable community groups we have spent the last
decade learning to find local resolution on countless forest health
management issues.
These local achievements in resolution are the cornerstone of hope
for the future forest ecosystems of America and while we have been able
to find common ground in locality after locality, the litigative nature
of the environmental conflict industry has disallowed implementation of
our work.
H.R. 1904 modernizes and expedites the appeals framework and legal
framework.
Tragically, in countless areas including northwestern Montana, we
have seen our work at resolution and our ground treatments to deal with
our forest health problems halted by court decisions based not upon
environmental concerns or infractions but based upon procedural
technicalities raised by out of the area litigants. Our outdated,
archaic system of procedures has turned into a lucrative money pit for
those inclined to destroy our local collaborative attempts in the legal
form of a scud-missile-from-afar.
I'd like to applaud Senator Daschle for having the courage one year
ago to protect from this type of outside litigation his state's local
resolution processes within the Black Hills. However, South Dakota is
not the only state needing this protection.
While using softer techniques than Senator Daschle was compelled to
use, H.R. 1904 modernizes and expedites the appeals framework and legal
framework within which we resolve forest issues and move toward
implementation. It does so without compromising on the public's right
to involvement in those processes.
H.R. 1904 recognizes that doing nothing may have consequences.
In the face of the legal onslaught against management of our
forests, the insect, disease, wind throw and fire mortality on our
nations public and private forestlands has skyrocketed during the last
decade. Scientists have made their concerns known both to the Forest
Service and to Congress at numerous hearings. They have been telling us
of our problem in publication after publication including the 1999 GAO
Report that stated that the single biggest environmental threat facing
the interior west's forest was forest, habitat and watershed loss due
to single-event, catastrophically huge, catastrophically hot fires.
On our forest, the Kootenai, the U.S. Forest Service estimates a
growth rate of some 492 million board feet of timber per year. They
also estimate a mortality rate of around 300 million board feet per
year. With human management removal never reaching those lofty numbers
and averaging only 60 million board feet for the last decade we've been
stacking up some impressive tonnages of fuel in our forest. That's why
we are one of those interesting red blotches on the map of forest
health problems.
This fuel is a source of great fear in our area. While political
winds are blowing this discussion of forest health all over the map
from year to year one thing remains certain: We can pretend the fuel
buildup does not exist, but reality is the ultimate dictator and our
watersheds, our endangered species habitat, our game habitat, our view
sheds, our recreation areas, our air sheds and our hopes of leaving a
healthy forest for future generations are all paying the price of that
pretending.
Sadly, we are watching daily as our fears are borne true in the
Bitterroot fires of Montana, the Rodeo fire of Arizona, the Hayman fire
of Colorado, the Biscuit fire of Oregon and the unnamed fires yet to
visit our lands this summer.
H.R. 1904 directs the court system to analyze the long and short
term impacts of letting ``nature take it's course'' when considering
injunctive relief.
H.R. 1904 recognizes that our forest health problem is national in
scope.
Forest health issues abound throughout the nation. While fire is a
major concern in the West, the destruction of public and private forest
lands and the ensuing destruction of watersheds and critical habitat
for wildlife have reached epidemic proportions in the Southeast, the
Midwest and the East.
The situation has grown so dire that wildlife conservation groups
have now joined in asking the federal government to correct the
direction of America's forest management and have stated that they
``believe that the prevention of uncharacteristic fires, insect
infestations and disease outbreaks is essential to sustain fish and
wildlife populations and other elements of healthy ecosystems and is,
therefore, in the public interest.''
H.R. 1904 would support the thorough study and monitoring of forest
health issues on public and private lands. H.R. 1904 also recognizes
that private landowners need assistance in studying and dealing with
their forest health management issues and provides support for such
action.
H.R. 1904 recognizes that much of the forest health problem lies
beyond the Wildland Urban Interface.
While directing funding and treatment regimes to concentrate early
on treatments close to at risk communities, H.R. 1904 rightly allows
the local managers to broaden forest health management to include areas
of concern outside the immediate areas of human habitation. This is
imperative for two reasons.
First, our watersheds, our wildlife habitat, our recreation areas
and our forest health problems do not exist in a vacuum around our
towns our forests consist of large and small dynamic and inter-
connected ecosystems that must be dealt with as a whole.
Second, fires do not always start near urban areas. Consider the
fire that roared into Showlow, Arizona, 30 miles wide with flames
licking 300 feet in the air. Small buffers around our communities will
not safeguard our water, our habitat, our air or our people.
H.R. 1904 recognizes that restoring forest health includes dealing
positively with biomass.
The materials removal regimes that will be necessary to achieve
forest health goals will yield materials that currently have little
market value. However, these materials have potential for positive
economic and environmental use in value-added manufacturing and
electrical generation and H.R. 1904 includes grant monies that will
jump-start the process of realizing this potential.
H.R. 1904 thankfully addresses many other issues that forest
managers tell us will enable them to do a better job of stewarding the
forests we live in and love.
As in the past when I've come to DC, in addition to thanking you
for working on our issue, I come with a plea for help. Not nice words,
not flowing rhetoric. Help. Help for the Forest I live in and love and
help for the forest communities of our nation.
Senators, it is time for action. Those of us who live in the combat
zone of this political issue know what needs to be done--including
mechanical removal of decades of fuel buildup in a traveling mosaic
that minimizes the chances that natural fire occurrences will generate
catastrophically huge, catastrophically hot fire. This removal can be
followed by prescribed fires that give us the many benefits that cool,
ground hugging fires bring to our ecosystems. We have proof that this
process has potential in areas like this summer's fire near Helena,
Montana, and season 2000's fire near Eureka, Montana, where we have
seen lower, ground hugging fire in managed areas and ferociously hot
fires in areas left unmanaged.
It is physically possible to restore the health of the forests of
our nation. The question before you is whether or not it is politically
possible. We understand the politics of the debate. We also understand
that in politics reality is secondary to the public's perception of
reality. When it comes to forests, the old Will Rogers line comes to
mind: ``It ain't what you don't know that is a problem; it's what you
know that ain't so that is a problem.''
Historically, the American public knew a lot that ``ain't so''
about our forest issues--but the American public is not stupid. The
truth about our forest realities has never been clearer to them and
with each tragic loss of forest the picture becomes even more clear.
However, it is going to take leadership and statesmanship to move
common sense reform of forest management processes through our elected
bodies.
America is ready for this new leadership. America is tiring of
watching as forestry unfolds in 500,000 acres swaths of fire and smoke
across the western landscape. America is tiring of watching the disease
and insect infestations explode off of public lands and into their
private forest treasures. America is tired of arguing about wildlife
habitat and then watching such habitat be mismanaged into oblivion.
America is growing concerned about clean water sources for the future
and does not enjoy watching much of the source of that water fall into
disrepair.
Those of us who live in the forests you are debating plead with you
to show the necessary leadership and statesmanship now. It is certainly
possible that you will take meager actions that are politically
expedient but do nothing to substantially improve our forest manager's
ability to do the right thing on the ground. We beg you to not go that
route.
We ask instead that you choose to do what the American people of
2025 will be thankful for. We ask that you take action that our
children and their children will be thankful for. We ask that you take
action that modernizes the management process and restores common sense
approaches to the forest health issues currently plaguing us.
H.R. 1904 is a great step in the right direction. Please, move on
this bill. Every day that you wait adds to our problem. Every day that
you wait compromises our ability to promise future generation's healthy
wildlife habitat, healthy watersheds, healthy air sheds, and beautiful
view sheds.
It has been an honor and a privilege to come before you today.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
Now we move to Mr. Mike Nivison, County Commissioner. I am
an old county commissioner, so welcome. I am going to listen
very closely to you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NIVISON, CHAIR,
OTERO COUNTY COMMISSION, OTERO, NM
Mr. Nivison. Well, I am going to be speaking on behalf of
some of your constituents from Montana as well.
I know the GAO report and many scientists such as Dr.
Covington have predicted what is happening was going to happen.
We violated some principles of economic development in the
fact that our infrastructure to take care of these problems has
now been degradated. Senator Kyl and Senator Domenici, we share
something in common. We have one mill left in each State. Both
of those are Indian mills. I would suggest, as was suggested
earlier, how can the Native Americans take care of their
problem when I have 100,000 acres in the middle of my national
forest that they possess that is totally restored when I cannot
do that around the perimeter of that. They use best management
practices and the same laws that exist for the National Forest
Service.
We ask the question about is it lack of money, is it
environmentalism. There are a lot of answers. I know in your
State of Montana, Senator, in talking with the mills up there,
20 billion board feet of timber comes in from Canada every year
and we are only able to cut less than 2 billion board feet of
our resource in this country. It is something that we have got
to address.
We put together a program called the CPR program which
stands for National County Partnership Restoration. We have
embraced several States. The original States were New Mexico,
Arizona, and Colorado. Since, we have legislation in the State
of Montana. We have legislation pending in Wyoming. We are
working with South Dakota and have been invited to Alaska by
Richard Coose who is also a 33-year retiree of the National
Retired Association of Foresters who is also a commissioner up
there who is concerned.
The CPR program has moved forward. In the last couple of
years that we have come back to Washington, we have been unable
to be embraced by the agency and funded to the extent that this
project would require. We would hope to move this CPR program
across the West. As Laura mentioned in her testimony, this is
not a one-size-fits-all. The concept of the CPR program is to
create a skeleton and let each community put its own clothes on
it. We work with the 29 forested counties in Montana, as well
as the Governor and Senator Laible. I have an addendum to my
testimony in the full packet from those folks.
Senator Burns. It will be made part of the record, by the
way.
Mr. Nivison. Okay.
Really, the Montana Coalition of Forested Counties would
like to see their infrastructure maintained. We cannot fix this
problem without that.
The National Fire Plan has $3.2 billion in it, and I would
suggest if we could get this down to the local level to where
the problems are, the money would get on the ground. I think
there has been a suggestion through the Governors that this be
done. The agency has a problem distributing the money. It would
eliminate that. It would eliminate the tug of war in Congress
between States to be eliminated by distribution on affected
areas in affected States.
I also feel that this National Fire Plan money--it does not
put Congress in the dilemma of finding new money. That money
does exist already.
States, local governments, tribes have the authority and
responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of their
citizens. I am sure as a past county commissioner that was the
echo that you would hear. The Federal Government needs to
enlist these and the grant universities and do this
outsourcing. Without this local collaboration, we are not going
to get anywhere.
As many people here have said, I think people on the ground
and in the trenches, as I am, are losing sight that anything is
going to get done. I am here also today to plead to get out of
this gridlock and out of this analysis paralysis. We need to
savor our existing infrastructure. We need to fix trade
agreements. We need to use best science that does exist. We
need to treat all areas of the forests to create good
watersheds, air quality, and good wildlife habitat.
I believe that the policies need to be streamlined all
across the board because it is just not happening. All my
communities in my county--their watersheds are at risk. I have
examples of a 640-gallon-a-minute spring that is now less than
40 that feeds the community. They cannot find new water. In my
town, we punched seven new wells last year. We do not have
adequate water supplies. Unless we address these big
watersheds, we have a problem.
I believe as a Nation we have a national environmental
disaster. I think in all areas we have the ability to fund and
fix hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and fires in large cities,
our 911. We need to see this for what this is. There is a
Ground Zero in New York City, but I would suggest to you that
we have a Ground Zero in our national forests. This is
something that needs to be treated as such. I, as Governor
Martz, do not want to come back here next year. I have lost 120
structures in the last 3 years. We need action and we need
leadership.
And I want to thank you for inviting me to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nivison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Nivison, Chair,
Otero County Commission, Otero, NM
Dear Sir: The reports and a host of creditable scientists have
alerted the public to the fact that large catastrophic fires would
occur. Reports show that 60 percent of the forest is dead or diseased
across the West. Several problems face our natural resource in the
forest.
The first principal of economic development is to take care of
existing business and diversify. We are violating this principal and
our natural resource infrastructure has now been critically degraded.
In addition, new infrastructure to handle small diameter has yet to be
developed.
Two mills exist in Region III, New Mexico and Arizona; these are
tribal mills. What is it that Native Americans understand that cannot
be implemented by the Federal Government? In the Lincoln National
Forest, the Mescalero Tribe has shown us the way to manage the forest
effectively. Using Best Management Practices, the Mescalero Tribe is
restoring their forest and is doing so with the same laws that exist on
the National Forest land. In the past, there were 23 mills in Arizona
alone; now only one tribal mill exists, The White Mountain Apache.
Is the problem radical environmentalism? Is it lack of money or
trade agreements that allow 20 billion board feet of lumber to cross
the border of Canada when only two (2) billion of our own renewable
resource is going to be harvested? I would suggest that all of these
and many more have contributed to what is now an environmental
disaster.
The Western Governors and Congress have asked for collaborative
groups to be formed, based on sound science and expressed in a ten year
plan. The National Forest County Partnership Restoration known as CPR
was formed three years ago in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. Since
this time, many other states such as Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and
South Dakota have engaged in this collaboration. As the CPR moves
forward we find ourselves in a dilemma. The thresholds set forth by the
WGA and Congress has been met with accountability, always taking the
high road. The partnership felt it had responded to the fullest
possible extent.
In the past three years the agency at a National level has been
unable to invest itself fully and completely in this co-partnership
with State and Local government. Only total trust and cooperation at
all levels can create a partnership. The CPR program has three forests
mentioned in the line item ``Hazardous Fuel Reductions in the National
Fire Plan'' and as yet has not been fully funded and embraced.
The National Fire Plan is $3.2 billion, which I believe needs to be
re-described to reflect an emphasis on restoration and prevention.
Instead of reacting to symptoms we need to take care of the problem.
The question that needs to be answered is how can the agency get the
money to State and Local Governments and Tribes to help them solve this
environmental disaster.
Congress set up the National Fire Plan Money for the Western
Governors. If money were sent to the affected governors, Local
Governments and Tribes it would do the following:
1. It would put the money at the local and state level where
the problems are. The money would ``Get on the ground'' where
it should be.
2. It would allow the problem not be an agency problem in
monetary distribution. Instead, Congress would direct it the
affected areas.
3. It would allow Congress to avoid the political tug-of-war
from State to State as those decisions would be made by
assessment and need for diseased watershed and catastrophic
fire; then to be distributed to the affected states.
4. The National Fire Plan money is existing money and
requires no ``New'' funds from Congress, only redirection.
5. States, Local Governments and Tribes have the authority
and responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of their
citizens plus the ability to exchange monies and contract with
the Federal Government. Federal government enlists land grant
universities and special expertise as needed (outsourcing).
I believe we have ``Local'' agency cooperation but unless we come
to terms with this disaster and an action plan is implemented
immediately we will fail. Recognition and funding at all government
levels must occur while the momentum and integrity of the many people
across the Nation who have dedicated themselves to this mission are
still intact. My fear, as I interact with local leadership, is many are
losing sight of hope.
The agency has recognized the ``Analysis paralysis'' but has
remained in ``Gridlock'' in terms of the scope of this enormous task.
Outside influences are to blame but the agency must also recognize and
correct its own institutional weakness. And have ``The will'' to move
forward with co-partners. Agencies cannot do business as usual but must
develop a willingness to seek help outside its own borders. This
problem is bigger then all of us, so it will take all of us to fix it.
On the Lincoln, I have had to declare five emergencies in the last
several years. All are Forest related and are devastating to our local
economy and families. As elected officials we are charged with the
health, safety and welfare of our citizens. We cannot accomplish this
without the cooperation of our neighbors:
1. We need to save our existing infrastructure.
2. Fix trade agreements ``Charity begins at home.''
3. Use best science (it does exist).
4. Treat all areas of our forest in order to maintain good
water sheds, good air quality, and good wildlife habitat.
5. Create a mosaic on the landscape to accommodate all
species instead of single species managing.
6. NEPA's purpose is to protect the environment and stimulate
the health and welfare of man.
Current rules and policies do not allow us to act in a timely
fashion. We need to maintain the integrity of the law but streamline
and re-think policies to be effective. We have 130,000 NEPA compliant
acres on the Lincoln but cannot treat because of lack of funding or
lengthy process.
Over 120 structures have been lost on the Lincoln National Forest
in the past three years. No family will be made whole; of the seven
families I monitored, only two remain intact because of fire related
causes. One of my sheriffs who was waiting to rebuild until the
flooding stopped from the Scott Able fire, will never get to move home;
he passed away just a few months ago of cancer.
I have many communities whose water and watersheds are at risk. One
example would be a community with a 640 GPM spring that now flows less
than 40 GPM. The question is asked: Should we treat the urban
interface, wild lands, watersheds or wild life habituate? My answer to
you is all the above. I do believe this can be accomplished. All of New
Mexico is at risk from water shortage; we are a land-water based
culture; without water the land is worthless.
This Nation has an environmental disaster. In all other areas we
have the will to fund and fix hurricanes, tornados, flood and fires in
our large cities. We need to see this for what it is. New York has its
Ground Zero, I would tell you today this is what we face in our
National Forest. We look to you for leadership. An action to start now
embracing all Federal, State, Local Governments and Tribes.
Senator Burns. Thank you, commissioner, and I appreciate
your testimony.
Mr. Robinson, does this figure up in the Kootenai National
Forest concern you when our annual growth is around 42 million
cubic feet a year and we lose 97.3 million cubic feet to
mortality and disease?
Mr. Robinson. I really cannot comment on that because I do
not know the situation.
Senator Burns. Why can you not comment on it?
Mr. Robinson. Because I do not know the forest that well.
Senator Burns. It does not make any difference. I gave you
the figure. Does this concern you as a figure of forests? I do
not care. We can move it to the Grand Canyon. On a forest down
there. If I gave you that figure, would that concern you?
Mr. Robinson. Well, oftentimes forest mortality is higher
than forest growth. It depends on the situation.
Senator Burns. In other words, you do not care.
Mr. Robinson. No. What I am saying is that it is not always
an unnatural situation, and it depends on the situation. I did
not say I did not care.
Senator Burns. Okay.
Does that concern you, Ms. McCarthy?
Ms. McCarthy. It does. As a forester, you have to look at
the balance between growth and mortality and use the science
about the natural process of insect cycles and figure out if
the cause is related to human actions and then take an
integrated pest management approach. It is of concern and it
would require some treatment, but what that treatment is I
could not specify.
Senator Burns. Would you give that same advice to a corn
farmer in Iowa?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually I think that is where the
integrated----
Senator Burns. Insect cycles and----
Ms. McCarthy. But that is where the insect pest management
strategy comes from. It came from agriculture and it has been
applied successfully in forestry.
Senator Burns. It is not working in the Custer or the
Kootenai.
I just throw them out there because I think when you look
at a case-by-case basis and communities, I will say again--and
I think the Under Secretary for Agriculture hit it on, are you
going to protect the process or are you going to protect the
forests? And do you care about the people who work there? That
is what is boils down to. I heard a lot of community people
here who have the same kind of concerns.
So we will look at your testimony. We will leave the record
open for comments from the other Senators. I will let them ask
their own questions. They will probably do it through
correspondence. And if you would reply to that. You would also
reply to the committee so that we can have you on record.
Again, I am embarrassed for the committee because we went a
little too long. We spent too much time with probably folks--I
would have rather had a debate right here at this table because
that is the way I do it over in Commerce, but I'm not in
control here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. So we are going to leave it like it is.
But if you will respond to the committee, why, we will take
that response very seriously. And again, thank you for coming.
Mr. Vincent. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time this hearing went to press.]
Question From Senator Kyl for Tom Robinson
Question 1. Mr. Robinson had indicated that homes in southern
Arizona burned for lack of fuels treatment money. Please substantiate
this.
______
Questions From Senator Bunning for Panel II
Question 1. The recent rash of wildfire outbreaks that have
occurred in the western United States have turned our focus on wildfire
prevention and forest restoration studies and initiatives. However,
many states in other areas of the country also boast forests that have
been and will be subject to forest fires. Kentucky, in particular, is
home to two large forest areas: the Daniel Boone National Forest and
the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area. How will any
restoration-based fire fuel reduction and forest health projects
address the different geographical needs of these regions?
Question 2. There has been concern raised over the allocation of
funds for fire fuel reduction projects. Some citizens fear that too
much money will be diverted away from developing wildfire protection in
and around communities and instead utilized for backwoods thinning and
fuel reduction projects. The concern has been raised that such a
distribution of funds will leave many communities that surround forests
vulnerable to fire. How will any restoration-based fuel reduction and
forest health projects address the need to provide protection for the
areas immediately around communities, in addition to deep forest and
backwoods areas?
______
Questions From Senator Campbell for Sarah Duncan
Question. How long does it take after a fire before you can go back
to business as usual in delivering Denver residents' their water?
Question. What is the best way for Congress to address the issue of
improving forest health and ensuring adequate water supplies?
______
Questions From Senator Campbell for Mark Rey
Question. For many years, EPA classified Denver as not meeting
clean air standards. I understand that several factors probably
contributed to Denver's air problems. However, the way I understand it,
clean air regulations do not take wildfire effects into consideration.
Question. Could you please talk a little bit about the bad health
effects fires have on people and cities' ability to meet clean air
requirements?
Question. Biomass is becoming an important alternative to
traditional sources of energy. The language in H.R. 1904 provides
incentives for using biomass byproducts for energy production, yet
includes certain limits. It seems that some larger cities do not fit
into the preferred community definition but will be considered as a
``Person.''
Question. Some cities that fall outside the 50,000 person limit in
H.R. 1904 are considering installing biomass units as an
environmentally sound part of their energy mix. However, the costs of
the fuel may inhibit this course. What is your opinion on broadening
the language so that cities with populations greater than 50,000 people
can benefit under this bill?
______
Questions From Senator Murkowski for Mark Rey
Question 1. A recent Report by the General Accounting Office
addressed appeals involving fuels reduction projects on national forest
system lands. The study focused on the number of hazardous fuels
reduction projects that were appealed and/or litigated during FY 2001
and FY 2002 and found that opponents of forest thinning appealed 590 of
all hazardous fuels reduction projects eligible for appeal under the
FS's appeal statute. How will H.R. 1904 alleviate this apparent
administrative gridlock?
Question 2. The landownerships of the Kenai Peninsula, where there
is extensive spruce bark beetle damage, consists of lands owned by the
federal government, the state, private individuals, University trust
lands, and native corporations. In what way will H.R. 1904, ``The
Healthy Forest Restoration Act'' assist these landowners in reducing
uncontrolled fire risks and achieving healthier stands of trees?
Question 3. I recently learned that the Kenai lands managed by the
US Forest Service were reclassified as Condition Class 3 from Condition
Class 1. Can you explain to me the rationale for this re-classification
and will these lands be fully covered for treatment eligibility under
H.R. 1904?
Question 4. Title II of H.R. 1904 addresses biomass and the lack of
current markets for the volumes of by-products being generated as a
result of the necessary large-scale preventive treatment activities.
How will this title assist landowners on the Kenai, both public and
private, in creating opportunities for biomass projects? In addition,
what is the Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior
doing in regards to biomass utilization to date on the Kenai Peninsula?
Question 5. You mentioned during this hearing that the forested
lands on the Kenai (in particular, on the Chugach National Forest) are
dead with little possibility of treatment. Can you explain why
treatment cannot occur on these public lands? Are there any incentives
in H.R. 1904 to create fuels reduction projects on timber which is no
longer deemed marketable?
Question 6. What grant programs are available under the State &
Private Forestry Program of the U.S. Forest Service in Alaska that can
allow for fuels reduction or biomass incentive programs for private and
native corporation landowners?
Question 7. For fuels treatment projects on federal lands in the
State of Alaska, in particular, on the Kenai Peninsula, is it your
opinion that in order for any of these initiatives to take place, a
pubic access infrastructure would be required or, are there creative
ways to still treat such lands without an extensive road system?
______
Questions From Senator Murkowski for Rebecca Watson
Question 1. Can you tell me how H.R. 1904 will allow for expedited
fuels treatment projects on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and what
fuel treatment projects, to date, have been accomplished on the refuge?
Question 2. The landownerships of the Kenai Peninsula, where there
is extensive spruce bark beetle damage, consists of lands owned by the
federal government, the state, private individuals, University trust
lands, and native corporations. In what way will H.R. 1904, ``The
Healthy Forest Restoration Act'' assist these landowners in reducing
uncontrolled fire risks and achieving healthier stands of trees?
Question 3. Title II of H.R. 1904 addresses biomass and the lack of
current markets for the volumes of by-products being generated as a
result of the necessary large-scale preventive treatment activities.
How will this title assist landowners on the Kenai, both public and
private, in creating opportunities for biomass projects? In addition,
what is the Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior
doing in regards to biomass utilization to date on the Kenai Peninsula?
Question 4. For fuels treatment projects on federal lands in the
State of Alaska, in particular, on the Kenai Peninsula, is it your
opinion that in order for any of these initiatives to take place, a
pubic access infrastructure would be required or, are there creative
ways to still treat such lands without an extensive road system?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA
The Nature Conservancy's Involvement with Fire Restoration. Over
the past 40 years the Conservancy has been engaged in a wide variety of
ecological management activities, including managing thousands of
prescribed fires to restore ecosystem health at hundreds of sites
across the United States. Our restoration work relies on working with
partners, applying credible science and using an adaptive management
approach.
Policy Recommendations. Based on our on-the-ground experience, we
recommend:
Hazardous Fuels Reduction projects should be prioritized in the
wildland-urban interface and water supply areas. Although
projects will be selected primarily because of public safety,
they also can provide important lessons for ecosystem
restoration in larger landscapes.
The agencies should begin conducting a small number of ecosystem
restoration projects outside the wildland-urban interface.
These areas should be selected based on a clear and compelling
need for ecological restoration as well as their value in
demonstrating how agencies, communities, and scientists can
work cooperatively in planning and taking action on a landscape
scale. Expedited approval processes are not necessary or
appropriate in those areas.
In non-WUI projects, and where possible in the WUI, agencies must
set ecosystem restoration goals and apply adaptive management
principles, including: improving collaboration, working from a
landscape-scale perspective, setting measurable ecological
objectives and desired future conditions, identifying
uncertainties, monitoring to ensure that objectives are being
met and uncertainties addressed, and then assessing and
adapting practices where necessary. Our own experience and the
history of natural resource management clearly show that well
meaning managers will make mistakes and that large-scale
restoration is fraught with uncertainty. Adaptive management
will allow us to move forward with much needed restoration
while reducing unintended consequences and maximizing learning.
The result will be better investment of taxpayer funds,
healthier ecosystems and safer communities.
Congress needs to devote significantly more resources to
appropriate treatment and restoration of altered fire regimes
in fire-adapted ecosystems. Continuing to divert scarce public
funds for suppression will result in higher long-teen costs,
both ecological and financial.
Congress should consider some form of subsidy to develop facilities
to utilize small diameter biomass at appropriate locations. In
the long run, the absence of markets for millions of tons of
small diameter trees that currently have little economic value
will be a major barrier to restoration of larger landscapes.
The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to protecting the biological
diversity of life on Earth. The Conservancy has more than one million
individual members and programs in all 50 states and 30 countries. Our
conservation work is grounded in sound science, strong partnerships
with other landowners, and tangible results at local places. Please
visit our website at nature.org.
CONTACT: Louise Milkman, 703-247-3675, [email protected]
______
Statement of Center for Native Ecosystems, Colorado Mountain Club,
Colorado Wild, High Country Citizens' Alliance, Western Resource
Advocates, Western Slope Environmental Resource Council, and The
Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, seven conservation organizations throughout the
state of Colorado, Center for Native Ecosystems, Colorado Mountain
Club, Colorado Wild, High Country Citizens' Alliance, Western Resource
Advocates, Western Slope Environmental Resource Council, The Wilderness
Society, would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide
recommendations and comments on H.R. 1904, the ``Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003'' on behalf of the more than 44,000 members and
supporters of our organizations in the state of Colorado.
Responsible wildfire legislation will build on existing consensus
that mitigating the risk to communities targets limited resources to
communities themselves and recognizes that environmental and public
participation laws do not create undue project delays. We have grave
concerns that H.R. 1904 stands in sharp contrast to this widespread
consensus and echo the concerns raised by over 50 locally-elected
Colorado officials in letters addressed to Rep. Scott McInnis and/or
Senators Wayne Allard and Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
Based on our experience with forest and fire management practices
in Colorado, we offer the following set of recommendations followed by
our specific concerns with H.R. 1904.
FIRE AND FUEL REDUCTION ON NATIONAL FOREST LANDS IN COLORADO:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The goal of national fire policy should be to reduce the threat of
fires to humans and homes, and to restore forests to a more natural
fire regime. We recommend several specific ways to achieve this goal:
Protect Life and Property
Protecting lives, homes and communities should be the highest
priority of our national fire policy. To prevent loss of lives and
homes, fire safety efforts should focus on maintaining defensible space
in the immediate vicinity of homes in the wildland-urban interface.
Where fire poses an immediate threat to homes and communities, it
should be suppressed.
Implement Forest Service Program that Prioritizes the Wildland-
Urban Interface. Equally important, but currently lacking, is a
Forest Service policy that prioritizes prescribed burning and
thinning in the wildland-urban interface. For example, in a
letter to Regional Forester Rick Cables, Rep. Mark Udall
recently questioned why the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest
Service implemented a scant 38% of fuel reduction projects in
the wildland-urban interface.
The GAO has frequently questioned the Forest Service's fiscal
and performance accountability. In a January 2002 report,
Severe Wildland Fires, Leadership and Accountability Needed to
Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources, the GAO simply could
not tell whether the Forest Service had focused nearly $800
million in National Fire Plan funds on the wildland urban
interface or somewhere else. In 2001, the Forest Service even
opposed a provision in the Interior Appropriations bill that
would have required it to spend a modest 60% of its fire plan
funding in the wildland-urban interface.
Create Defensible Space around Homes and Communities. The Forest
Service's own studies show that the best way to protect homes
in forested areas is to create defensible space in the
immediate vicinity of the structure (i.e., thinning trees,
removing underbrush, etc.) and to build with non-flammable
materials (i.e., metal roofs, fire-resistant glass, etc.).
Specifically, the research of Jack Cohen of the Forest
Service's Fire Sciences Laboratory shows that these measures
within 40 meters of a structure are the most important factors
determining whether that structure will survive a forest fire--
and that fuel reduction measures in the distant backcountry
have little impact on a structure's fate (Cohen, Jack D. 2000.
Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland-urban
interface. Journal of Forestry 98(3): 15-21).
Provide Incentives for Landowners to Reduce Fire Risk around Homes.
To help homeowners create and maintain defensible space around
their homes, we need programs (at the state, county, and/or
municipal level) that provide incentives and resources to help
landowners refurbish their houses with non-flammable materials
and conduct fuel reduction measures on their properties. Given
the huge sums being spent fighting fires such measures could be
more cost-effective for taxpayers, as well as reduce the loss
of property and the risk to firefighters who are putting their
lives on the line to save peoples' homes.
Urge Counties to Adopt Fire-Wise Zoning and Building Codes. Already
1.3 million Colorado residents, 30% of the State's population,
live in forested areas considered to be at high risk from
forest fires. And the challenge of protecting lives and
property from fire is only going to grow as development
increases in Colorado's wildland-urban interface. To counter
this trend, municipalities and counties need to: (1) develop
and implement sensible land-use planning that directs new
building out of harm's way; and (2) adopt fire-wise building
codes that require the use of nonflammable construction
materials and fire-smart landscaping.
Maintain an Effective Firefighting Force. It is essential to
maintain a highly trained and adequately supported fire
suppression force to protect lives and property. We support the
funding necessary to maintain an effective community protection
firefighting program.
Restore Ecological Health
In the backcountry, where human lives and property are not at risk,
the focus of our national forest policy should be to restore natural
fire cycles and forest conditions. Fuel reduction efforts should focus
on the use of prescribed fire to restore natural fire cycles and, where
ecologically necessary, thinning smaller trees and underbrush.
Commercial logging of bigger, older trees for fire-risk reduction is
NOT scientifically justified.
Acknowledge Fire's Role. Federal land managers should adopt
comprehensive management plans that acknowledge the natural
role fire plays in maintaining forest ecosystems, and that they
educate the public on the importance of natural fire regimes.
Where lives and property are not at stake fire suppression
should be undertaken only under limited circumstances, such as
when fire threatens critical or rare components of ecosystems
(such as old growth forest and endangered species habitat)
while these elements are being restored to healthy levels.
Return Forests to Natural Conditions and Fire Cycles, Specific to
Each Forest Type. In certain fire-evolved forest types--such as
lower-elevation ponderosa pine--fire suppression and other
activities including livestock grazing and logging large trees
have allowed stand densities to increase above natural or pre-
European-settlement era conditions. In such fire-dependent
forest types, we support vegetation ``treatments''--such as
thinning and prescribed fire--as necessary to restore natural
conditions and processes.
We note, however, that forest ecosystem types with longer
fire cycles have not been significantly impacted by the past
century of fire suppression and are thus well within their
historic range of natural variability in terms of stand
densities. For example, high-elevation Englemann spruce-
subalpine fir forests typically burn every 300-400 years, are
still at natural densities, and thus do not need to be
``restored.'' It is only in the lower elevation forests in the
wildland-urban interface, where fuel reduction is needed to
reverse a century of human fire suppression, that thinning
would be appropriate for these forest types.
Utilize Prescribed Fire Where Safe and Appropriate. In terms of
restoring natural conditions and processes, obviously fire
itself is the most natural restoration mechanism and has been
shown to be particularly effective at reducing fuel loads. (The
Hayman Fire, which appeared to stop when it reached the
Polhemus Prescribed Burn area and the Schoonover Wildfire area,
may be a good illustration of this point.) However, where there
is a high risk of a stand-replacing fire (i.e., a fire that
burns so hot that it kills virtually all vegetation and may
damage soils) or an uncontrollable fire that would threaten the
wildland-urban interface, some mechanical thinning may be
appropriate in certain forest types before conducting
prescribed burning.
It is also essential that prescribed burning be implemented
only when and where conditions will allow for its safe use.
While prescribed burning does contribute to air pollution and
can aggravate the health of people with asthma and breathing
difficulties, it generally results in far less pollution than
uncontrolled forest fires. We believe that the federal agencies
should significantly increase the annual amount of acreage
which is prescribed burned, and urge states to cooperate and
support these efforts.
Protect Old and Large Trees. In circumstances where science
dictates that mechanical thinning is necessary to reduce fuel
loads before fire can be safely reintroduced, such restoration
treatments should protect old and large trees. In addition to
being more fire-resistant, larger trees and old-growth forests
are a scarce and important ecological value in Colorado's
lower-elevation forests and should be preserved.
Keep Roadless Areas Wild. Roadless areas are critical wildlands,
and are generally healthier ecosystems than logged and roaded
areas. Forest Service studies have found that of the 89 million
acres of National Forestlands that have a moderate to high risk
of stand-replacing fires, less than 16 percent are in
inventoried roadless areas. In addition, roadless areas tend to
be farther from homes and communities and thus are not usually
at issue in wildland-urban interface fuel reduction efforts. We
therefore take issue with the timber industry exploiting the
public's fear about forest fires to promote commercial logging
in roadless areas. Such traditional logging would not reduce
the risk of fire adversely affecting humans and their
properties, and actually can increase forest flammability.
Furthermore, building more logging roads into the backcountry
only increases the risk of wildfires as most fires are started,
whether deliberately or inadvertently, by humans along forest
roads--e.g., from hot catalytic converters on vehicles,
discarded cigarettes, or abandoned campfires.
However, while we oppose commercial logging in roadless areas
because of the wildland, recreation and wildlife values that
logging destroys, we do not oppose restoration treatments--
including mechanical thinning where scientifically justified--
in certain ecosystems (low elevation, dry forest types with
frequent low intensity fire regimes) where these treatments are
necessary to restore natural conditions and processes, and
where such treatments can be undertaken while maintaining or
improving roadless character. We note, however, that scientists
are still in disagreement over what level of intervention is
necessary to restore different forest types, and the Forest
Service has proposed few roadless projects to date that meet
this restoration goal. We also note that there are tens of
millions of acres of forest lands adjacent to communities and
homes outside of roadless areas that can and should be treated
first. The Forest Service estimates that there is at least 20
years of fuel reduction work that is needed just within the
wildland-urban interface Any fuel reduction or forest
restoration projects in roadless areas must avoid construction
of new roads, and should preserve the wild character of the
landscape.
Build Public Support for Forest Restoration and Fire Management
In order to restore the public's faith in federal land management,
the Forest Service should focus its efforts where there is public
consensus, pursue only scientifically justified projects, include the
public in designing and implementing fuel reduction and forest
restoration projects, design projects to maximize learning by setting
up experiments and control areas and applying adaptive management, and
continue to build scientific understanding of fire and forest
management.
Focus on Areas of Consensus. There is virtual agreement by all
interests--in both the public and scientific arenas--on the
need to pursue important fuel reduction efforts in the
wildland-urban interface to reduce risk in the immediate
vicinity of homes and communities. The federal agencies should
therefore focus their efforts and resources there, rather than
wasting money and political goodwill on controversial and
scientifically questionable logging projects in the
backcountry. By avoiding, or at least greatly reducing,
controversy and pursuing consensus projects, the federal
agencies would be more efficient, effective, and would help to
build a successful track record and rebuild public faith and
support. There is at least two decades of fuel reduction work
to do in the wildland-urban interface alone--meanwhile
scientists could be researching and creating public consensus
on the more complex and controversial issues of restoring
natural fire cycles in the backcountry.
Don't Cut Out the Public. ``Streamlining'' compliance with
environmental laws that guarantee public input and review as a
way of speeding fuel reduction projects is a shortsighted
approach that would likely lead to the approval of ill-
considered and poorly designed projects, could result in huge
delays due to litigation, and would destroy opportunities to
build consensus around projects that could benefit both the
public and the land. We strongly oppose legislation aimed at
broadly limiting the application of environmental laws for fuel
reduction or salvage projects. Improved public education is
also critical to creating understanding and support for the
restoration of fire's role in forests. This education would not
happen under laws where the public has little or no input on
proposed projects.
Pursue Scientific Understanding by Appointing a Fire Review Panel.
In order to learn as much as possible about fire behavior, we
support directing State Foresters to convene an impartial, non-
partisan, scientific panel of fire and forest ecology experts
to help clarify the lessons to be learned from recent fires--as
requested by Rep. Udall of the Layman fire. In Colorado, the
Hayman, Coal Seam, and Missionary Ridge fires occurred in areas
with different ecosystem types that had been managed
differently by federal and other land management agencies,
including areas where previous forest fires had occurred and
where some fuel treatment had been conducted. Examination of
the behavior of these fires, the factors that led to their
intensity, and the way the fires behaved when they encountered
these previously affected or treated areas will be instructive
in designing future risk-reduction projects, to the benefit of
both land managers and the public, and will move us beyond the
``blame game'' to pursuing scientifically based solutions.
Convene a Stakeholders Forum to Build Consensus on Future Fuel
Reduction Projects. Another mechanism for building public
consensus would be for State Foresters to convene a meeting of
stakeholders to reach agreement on where, when, and what fuel
reduction treatments are appropriate. This would build on
recent efforts (e.g., the 1998 Forest Health summit convened by
Colorado's then-Governor Romer) that reach consensus that
forest health management efforts should be directed at the
``red zone'' (AKA the wildland-urban interface).
THE HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003, H.R. 1904, FAILS TO
ADDRESS
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS
The scope of H.R. 1904 is extremely broad, applying to virtually
all forested landscapes in the United States through the bill's various
titles. However, as Title I of the bill is most focused on providing
legislative direction for forest fire management pertaining
communities-at-risk, our review focuses on the provisions of this Title
alone.
H.R. 1904 Fails to Prioritize Community Protection
The Forest Service has limited resources. The best way to reduce
the risks of fires to homes and lives is to focus on forest areas
immediately around communities.
H.R. 1904 does not focus scarce federal funding and resources where
they would do the most good: in the Community Protection Zone
adjacent to at-risk communities. Instead, the bill will
continue to allow the Forest Service and Department of Interior
to conduct misguided logging projects deep in the backcountry
in the name of ``fuel reduction.'' In fact, these plans would
provide more help to timber companies than to fire-threatened
and cash-starved communities.
Through block grants to states, responsible legislation will
provide funds for fuel reduction on private, state and tribal
lands--which comprise 85 percent of the forested land near
vulnerable communities--as well as on federal lands. This
approach would put the limited available funds to use where
they are most effective: at the sites where forest fires pose a
real threat to human lives and homes.
H.R. 1904 does not, however, prioritize projects that would create
a crucial defensible space around western communities. Instead
it calls for logging 20 million acres of federal lands, often
far from any community, and provides virtually no funding for
fuel reduction on non-federal lands. What scant funds the bill
provides to local communities are buried within new programs in
the bill that are not dedicated to protecting communities from
forest fires.
H.R. 1904 Unnecessarily Restricts Meaningful Public Participation and
Binds the Hands of an Independent Judiciary
There is also significant concern about the chilling effect that
H.R. 1904 would have on the basic democratic principal of public
participation in the management of public lands.
Academic and government research refutes notions that environmental
and public participation laws interfere with the timely implementation
of fuel reduction projects. Two General Accounting Office (GAO) reports
and an independent study by Northern Arizona University point to the
fact that the overwhelming majority of fuel reduction projects proceed
unobstructed within the 90-day period allowed by law.
The bill seeks to eliminate the most important part of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)--the requirement that
alternatives to agency actions be considered. The Council on
Environmental Quality has called this consideration of
alternatives the ``heart of NEPA.''
H.R. 1904 also seeks to significantly interfere with our nation's
independent judiciary. It requires a court to limit preliminary
injunctions of logging projects carried out under the bill to
45 days, unless the court affirmatively acts to renew the
injunctions. It also seeks to force any courts, including
appellate courts, to issue a final ruling on a case in 100
days. It even attempts an astounding change in the American
legal standard that governs how courts determine equitable
relief for an injured party.
In sum, solutions to the problem of severe wildfire risk currently
exist that are rooted in consensus rather than controversy. These
explicitly prioritize community protection and recognize that public
participation and environmental laws play a critical role in
safeguarding the public's interests in the management of their lands.
Any responsible wildfire legislation must specifically direct federal
land management agencies and appropriate funding to address community
risk mitigation in an open and democratic process. Unfortunately, H.R.
1904 fails to address either of these criteria at the expense of
communities and lives.
The problem of increased fuel loading near homes and communities
did not appear overnight. Likewise, this problem will not be solved
overnight. Rather, a well designed program of treatments in the highest
priority areas, designed and implemented with public consensus, will,
over time, protect our at-risk communities and restore our forests to a
more natural state.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide to the committee our
comments and recommendations.
______
Addendum to Mike Nivison Testimony Submitted by Ron Christensen,
Chairman, Eastern Arizona Counties Organization
It is with grave concern for the future of our forests and
communities that I provide these comments on the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act of 2003.
While this act is a good start toward addressing regulatory
roadblocks to on-the-ground Forest Restoration, we believe that truly
effective and timely restoration can be accomplished with this
legislation by addressing the following points:
The 20,000,000 acre limitation of acreage provision in Section
102(c) limits the National Forests to treating a small
percentage of high fire risk forested lands in the United
States. Section 201 of this bill notes that 190,000,000 acres
are at risk of catastrophic fire in the near future. We
therefore request that the limitation of acreage provision be
either stricken or raised to 190,000,000 acres.
Section 102(d) eliminates vast areas in critical need of treatment,
and needs to be stricken. Acts, such as the Endangered Species
Act, National Wilderness Preservation, and Congressional
establishments of at-risk Wildlife Refugees encumber vast acres
of forest lands, several of which are near communities and
other critical infrastructure.
To provide more flexibility to the Secretary in emergency
situations, we request that you amend Title I, Section 104(a)
of the bill to add language allowing the Secretary to issue
categorical exclusions under NEPA for those areas deemed by the
Secretary to be in an emergency situation, as defined by
regulation.
Section 105 can be further strengthened and avoid excessive delays
by including language that allows projects to commence at the
time the decision document is signed, regardless of any attempt
for a person(s) to seek administrative redress.
We agree with and fully support the Biomass project provision of
Title II, and encourage this Congress to both authorize and
allocate the $25,000,000 appropriation.
Arizona's Governor and forested counties have declared a state of
emergency due to insect infestations impacting almost one
million acres of public and private land. Therefore, we request
that new language be added to Section 401(b), Section 402, and
Section 403(a) that specifies the impact of Western insects
including the Western Bark Beetle, IPS, Roundhead Pine Beetle,
and exotic Spruce Aphid.
______
Jamestown, CO, May 21, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: H.R. 1904
Dear Senator Campbell: This week, the House passed H.R. 1904 and
this measure will soon be before the Senate. The Town Government of
Jamestown is opposed to the measure in it's present form and it is our
hope that it can be amended to include provisions that will ensure that
federal dollars are spent first and foremost on defending homes and
communities. Good legislation should focus resources in the Community
Protection Zone in the following ways:
1. emphasize educating the public about measures they can
take to make their homes and property safe from wildfire;
2. provide funding to communities to conduct thinning
projects on and immediately adjacent to their property in the
Community Protection Zone;
3. encourage programs that foster cooperation between
communities, State agencies and federal agencies to best
protect property and lives.
Unfortunately, H.R. 1904 does not provide local communities with
the necessary tools to mitigate risk from future fires. Despite the
fact that 85% of the land within the Community Protection Zone is non-
federal, H.R. 1904 channels funds to federal land projects. We
respectfully request that you work to amend the legislation to
prioritize protecting communities through locally-based initiatives.
Sincerely,
Kenneth F. Lenarcic,
Mayor.
______
Aspen, CO, June 2, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Wayne Allard,
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Re: ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act''
Dear Senators: As you know, fires wreaked havoc in a number of
Colorado communities last year, highlighting the need to support
communities in their efforts to safeguards home, lives, and property. I
am writing to ask you to amend the ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act''
by including provisions that provide communities with the resources
they need to safeguard lives and property. As I see it, good
legislation should focus resources in the Community Protection Zone in
the following ways:
1. emphasize educating the public about measures they can
take to make their homes & property cafe from wildfire;
2. provide funding for communities to conduct thinning
projects on and immediately adjacent to their property in the
Community Protection Zone;
3. encourage programs that foster cooperation between
communities, state agencies and federal agencies to best
protect property and lives.
Unfortunately, the ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act' does not
provide local communities with the necessary tools to mitigate risk
from future fires. Despite the fact that 85 percent of the land within
the Community Protection Zone is state; private, or tribal, this bill
channels resources to federal lands, providing no support to
communities for locally-based mitigation initiatives that are so
desperately needed. This will not protect lives or communities. Please
amend the legislation to prioritize homes and lives.
Sincerely,
Terry Paulson,
Aspen City Council Member.
______
Boulder, CO, June 19, 2003.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Healthy Forests Restoration Act
Dear Senator Campbell: As a Boulder City Council member, last year
I witnessed a wildfire come perilously close to destroying homes of
many Boulder citizens. The wildfire was not on federal land, but on
privately and city owned land. This episode illustrates that it is the
local communities that are on the front line in fighting many
wildfires. The wonderful rain have received this year has created an
abundance of growth that later this summer turn into fuel for even
greater wildfires. Funding for local communities is absent From
Representative McGinnis' ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act.''
I urge you to consider the amending of the bill to provide funding
to at risk communities in fighting wildfires so that wildfires in these
interface zones receive some degree of priority.
Very truly yours,
Dan W. Corson.
______
Town of Hayden,
Hayden, CO, June 23, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Healthy Forests Restoration Act
Dear Senator Campbell: As you know, fires wreaked havoc in a number
of Colorado communities last year, highlighting the need to support
communities in their efforts to safeguard homes, lives and property.
The Hayden Town Board of Trustees is writing to ask you to amend the
``Healthy Forests Restoration Act'' by including provisions that
provide communities with the resources they need to safeguard lives and
property. As we see it, good legislation should focus resources in the
Community Protection Zone in the following ways:
1. emphasize educating the public about measures they can
take to make their homes and property safe from wildfire;
2. provide funding for communities to conduct thinning
projects on and immediately adjacent to their property in the
Community Protection Zone;
3. encourage programs that foster cooperation between
communities, state agencies and federal agencies to best
protect property and lives.
Unfortunately, the ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act'' does not
provide local communities with the necessary tools to mitigate risks
from future fires. Despite the fact that 85 percent of the land within
the Community Protection Zone is state, private or tribal, this bill
channels resources to federal lands, providing no support to
communities for locally-based mitigation initiatives that are so
desperately needed. This will not protect lives or communities. Please
amend the legislation to prioritize homes and lives.
Sincerely,
Charles G. Grobe,
Mayor.
______
Garfield County,
Board of County Commissioners,
Glenwood Springs, CO, June 25, 2003.
Hon. Wayne Allard,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allard: I am writing this letter as a Garfield County
Commissioner, however not on behalf of my Board of County
Commissioners. I would like to thank you for your leadership and
efforts to find a solution to the threat wildfires pose to our
communities in Colorado. There are approximately 50 bills in front of
you this year on this issue, I am certain that some address the concern
specifically and others need further scrutiny, I am writing
specifically about H.R. 1904. If the Senate is going to pass a wild
land fire mitigation bill, please make sure it is targeted to meet that
goal and not become a broad authorization for timber extraction.
If the goal is to protect communities and municipal water supplies
from wildfire impact, why target remote forests rather than
concentrating on a range of solutions for populated areas? H.R. 1904
enables millions of acres to be considered for ``fuels reduction
projects''.
Many of the fires in the west do not occur in areas of dense pine
forest-land. For example, the Coal Seam Fire in Glenwood Springs last
summer spread because of wind conditions and was fueled primarily with
scrub oak and grass. Existing wind and wind generated from the fire
caused it to jump a railroad corridor, the Colorado River an Interstate
and a roadway, totaling approximately 1/2 mile. During a fire, embers
fly, logs roll downhill and extreme wind conditions are created by the
fire itself, each of these occurrences cause these fires to spread.
Even in dense forest areas, I am not convinced that ``fuels reduction
projects'' will prevent the risk of fire or would even significantly
slow a fire down that had the momentum of the Coal Seam or Hayman
Fires, unless we allow extreme clear-cutting and even that would not
eliminate the risk of a fire jumping to another wooded area.
H.R. 1904 places a great deal of emphasis on natural resource
extraction for commercial use; for this reason, I believe it should be
referred to as a commercial forest biomass extraction bill to better
define the discussion Congress should be having. The implications of a
bill dealing with wild land fire mitigation and the enhancement of
commercial activity in our forests are quite different.
The impacts if increased logging projects may include disturbance
to wildlife and ecosystems, an increase in roadways, heavy traffic,
noise increased pollution and viewscape concerns. If ``fuels reduction
projects'' are encouraged throughout the west in National Forests, on
BLM land and in Wilderness areas and at the same time we establish a
grant program to improve the commercial value of forest biomass, for
economic reasons, use will realistically go beyond healthy forest
efforts.
I am concerned that H.R. 1904 will not adequately enable
communities and homeowners to mitigate the risk of future wildfires.
Please consider the approximately 49 other wild land fire mitigation
bills coming before you and support one that emphasizes the following:
1. Educating the public about measures they can take to make
their homes and property safe from wildfire;
2. Provide funding to communities to conduct thinning
projects on and immediately adjacent to their property in the
Community Protection Zone;
3. Encourage programs that foster cooperation between
communities, state agencies and federal agencies to best
protect property and lives.
I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Tresi Houpt,
Garfield County Commissioner.
______
Eagle County Board of Commissioners,
Eagle, CO, July 1, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Healthy Forests Restoration Act
Dear Senator Campbell: As an Eagle County Commissioner, I
understand the dangers of fire in our national forests. I have seen
first hand last summers Durango and Glenwood Springs' fires damage to
local communities. I am writing to ask you to amend the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 by including provisions that provide
communities with the resources they need to safeguard lives and
property. These are the same recommendations from the Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments.
Please provide direction to federal land managers to establish
local multi jurisdictional wildlife mitigation working groups comprised
of elected officials from affected municipalities and counties and
policy level personnel from fire districts and state and federal land
and resource management agencies to:
1. Assesses wildfire hazards and assess community with
respect to risks and vulnerabilities.
2. Emphasize educating the public about measures they can
take to make their homes & property safe from wildfire;
3. Provide funding for communities to conduct thinning
projects on and immediately adjacent to their property in the
Community Protection Zone;
I am in agreement to the ``how to'' of addressing wildfire
mitigation. However, I do not think that it is appropriate land
managers to develop and implement wildfire mitigation actions
unilaterally.
Respectfully,
Arn M. Menconi,
Eagle County Commissioner.
______
Costilla County Commissioners,
San Luis, CO, July 16, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Wayne Allard,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: H.R. 1904, ``Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003'' (HFRA)
Dear Senators Allard and Campbell: As you know, widespread forest
fires damaged property throughout Colorado during last year's drought,
emphasizing the need to support local communities in efforts to
safeguard homes and property. However, the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act passed by the House of Representatives in May 2003 does not ensure
any increased protection for communities at risk from fires. Protecting
communities and property must be the top priority for any federal fire
legislation. We are writing this letter to express dissatisfaction with
the ``Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003'' and are asking you to
help protect forested lands adjacent to homes and communities by:
1. Including provisions in companion senate legislation to
provide communities with resources to safeguard property from
devastating wildfires in interface areas of high forest fire
risk.
2. Rejecting the bill's reliance on scaling back the National
Environmental Protection Act because reducing public
participation is not a valid way to mitigate forest fire risk
to property.
This bill virtually ignores community prioritization and does not
establish any criteria to asses the risk of property loss from forest
fires in wild land-urban interface areas, With local, state and federal
budgets struggling to make ends meet, it is important that we make
every dollar count in protecting communities and homes from forest fire
risk. This means directing resources where they are most needed to save
property! the Community Protection Zone--the forested areas adjacent to
homes and communities. While debate over wildfires has centered on the
management of National Forests, almost 85% of the land within the
Community Protection Zone is private, state or tribal. To protect homes
and communities, federal legislation must provide grant opportunities
to states and local governments for fuel wood reduction projects within
the Community Protection Zone on private lands.
______
Montana Coalition of Forest Counties,,
July 17, 2003.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Re: What H.R. 1904 means to Montana
Honorable Senators: As Chairman of the Montana Forest Counties
Coalition, and a County Commissioner I applaud you today for your
consideration of the President's Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003.
Western States and local rural communities need the relief
necessary in H.R. 1904 immediately. Congress needs to act and act in a
decisive manner to bring us assistance with NEPA and judicial review.
Currently in Montana even the salvage projects identified on previous
fires have been litigated and stopped on minor technicalities. These
projects are not being stopped by those with legitimate concern about
the project, but by those radical few that hope to see the complete
demise of the wood products industry in our state. H.R. 1904 would
address this problem by requiring the prompt filing of lawsuits and by
requiring the courts to consider the full range of effects.
The situation in Montana is real and imminent; we have only 9
remaining small independent mills left in the state to even deal with
the problem when relief comes. Loss of our mill infrastructure commits
us to the let it burn alternative, an alternative that is not
acceptable considering Montana has 1.4 million acres identified in
Condition Class 3, and over 10 million acres in need of some form of
treatment.
I strongly urge you to support H.R. 1904 and appreciate your
consideration of this proactive piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Donna J Sevalstad,
Chairman.
______
Ketchikan, AK, July 17, 2003.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act. I support H.R. 1904 and the direction
it provides for the federal agencies and public in starting to restore
healthy forests. It needs to be passed quickly and without
modification.
I am serving my sixth year as an elected Ketchikan, Alaska Borough
Assembly member. I have been a professional forester over 40 years and
currently serve as the Chair of the Alaska Section of the Society of
American Foresters. I retired from the US Forest Service with 33 years
of service in Wyoming, Colorado, and Alaska. I provide my comments from
the experience and perspective of a local elected official, a
professional forester, and a retired employee.
We are dramatically seeing the results of ``let mother nature
manage'' our nations forestlands for the last two decades. The annual
destruction of millions of acres of forestland by uncontrolled
wildfires, insects, and disease is the result of no, to little, to
delaying management of the forest. The ongoing loss of many small
communities economy, infrastructure, and families is the result of no,
to little, to delaying management of the forestlands these communities
have depended on for decades. All of this totally unnecessary!
Active and timely forest management based on science, common sense,
local knowledge, and local management will provide healthy forestlands.
Healthy forests will not prevent fires, or insect infestations, or
diseases from occurring. But, managed healthy forests will minimize the
damage and cost of these destructive occurrences. Forest management
activities such as thinning to maintain the desired tree densities
should in the long run pay for the activity. The local management goals
for an area or watershed, be the goal for community protection, water
production, wildlife habitat, or other resource goal will determine the
desired tree density and size.
Forest management goals and activities must be planned and executed
in cooperation with local communities. The provisions of the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act will help bring science, common sense, and local
cooperation back to the timely management of our nation's public lands.
I applaud the President, the Senate, and House for supporting this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Coose,
Assembly Member.
______
Montana State Senate,
Helena, MT, July 17, 2003.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Re: Healthy Forests Act of 2003
Honorable Committee Members: In the summer of 2000 Montana suffered
one of the most catastrophic fire seasons since the fires of 1910. Not
only was the fire devastating to our forests, watersheds and
communities, but it was unnecessary. In the Bitterroot National Forest
we lost over 300,000 acres of timberland and over 70 homes. The
litigated compromise between the Forest Service, logging industry and
environmental groups resulted in just over 14,000 acres of timber
restoration on Federal lands and the law suits continue.
This cycle of burn, litigate and vacillate, must end. Our National
Forests, our National treasure is in jeopardy from management paralysis
as a result of the Forest Service's inability to manage these forests.
It is not that the Forest Service is unwilling to manage the forests,
but just that they are unable as a result of the mistrust between the
various polarized factions. How many homes must be lost, how many lives
disrupted, how many acres destroyed and how many watersheds decimated
before we say ``that's enough''? Now is the time to proceed forward
with the National Forest County Partnership Restoration Program (CPR
program for short).
Congress has asked us for a direction in the management of our
forests and the CPR program is our response. It is a collaborative
effort among agencies, environmental groups and local communities to
resolve forest conflict and to focus on restoring our forests. CPR is
``bottom up, rather than top down management program'' that allows
local communities, along with state and federal agencies to address the
health of our National Forests utilizing the best available science.
During Montana's 2003 legislative session we passed Senate Joint
Resolution 7 which supports the National Forest County Partnership
Restoration Program that was established by the 106th Congress for
implementation in National Forests in Montana and other Western States.
Montana is ready to proceed, ready again to manage our forests, but we
need your help. Our nation spends billions of dollars on fire
suppression, isn't it time to spend a small percentage of that money on
restoration? Restoration today will reduce the severity of fires
tomorrow, improve our watersheds, protect our habitat and most
importantly secure our communities. Please fund a Western States CPR
program to protect and preserve our National Treasure!
Most sincerely,
Senator Rick Laible,
Montana Senate.
______
Navajo County Board of Supervisors,
Holbrook, AZ.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman: The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest County
Partnership Restoration (CPR) Program is pleased to comment on our
efforts to bring all of our agencies and stakeholders together to
resolve the Western Forest Health Issue.
Last year our CPR Partners in Arizona lost nearly one half million
acres of beautiful forests, had entire communities destroyed and over
20,000 people driven into the night. We are continuously under siege
from wildfire threat, as we watch our forests dying around us.
To solve this crisis will take years. And, our approach will never
be effective until we accomplish three goals. First, federal, tribal,
state, county and local governments must sit at the table as equal
partners and perform their prescribed roles under their authorities
with maximum effectiveness. Second, the effort must not be piecemeal,
but comprehensive, at the level of entire State, National and Tribal
Forests. That is, we must act to restore a 1 million acre National
Forest, even though the watershed treatments occur 1000 acres at a
time. And, third, it is unfortunate that the federal treasury must
issue the funds for the crisis. However, it is a federal public issue,
and we are fortunate to have whatever funds we can to combat this
crisis, and the willingness of all levels of government to be engaged.
These funds should be available, as determined necessary, to all
governments that are committed to this common effort.
Sincerely,
Pete Shumway,
Supervisor, Navajo County, AZ.
______
Sweetwater County Conservation District,
Farson, WY, July 18, 2003.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici: On November 8th and 9th, 2002, the
Sweetwater County Conservation District participated in the National
Forest County Partnership Restoration Program (CPR) conference held in
Rawlins, Wyoming. The Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts and
the National Association of Forest Service Retirees hosted the
conference. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of the
Interior, local and State governments, and federal agency personnel
were represented with members of the Public from around the West and
Alaska also in attendance.
The Sweetwater County Conservation District participated in the
Rawlins Conference to learn how to better utilize limited resources in
coordinated efforts with federal agencies.
Sweetwater County, Wyoming comprises almost seven million acres of
predominately semi-arid desert. The Bureau of Land Management
administers approximately five million acres of that with about 96,000
acres administered by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. We bring this information to the Committee Members'
attention from a perspective that Western desert villages,
municipalities, industries and wildlife are fully dependent on our
Nation's forested lands for our water resource, even though we may not
be situated in an Urban/Wildfire location. Our desert stream water
comes from the Upper Green River Basin of the Colorado River System and
travels hundreds of miles from watersheds in the National Forests prior
to reaching our desert areas. Without healthy forests, our desert lands
are at risk; together these affect our entire ecosystems.
Wyoming has been blessed the past three fire seasons with having no
disastrous fires as have recently occurred in our sister States of
Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Oregon. Forests in Wyoming
do suffer though from the same effects of insect infestation,
vegetative disease and excess fuel buildup. (We currently have 10
wildfires burning in Wyoming.) These are parallel conditions that
resulted in the Rodeo-Chediski, Bitterroot, Biscuit and Hayman fires.
It is only a matter of time before Wyoming's Medicine Bow National
Forest, Bighorn National Forest or Shoshone National Forest go up in
smoke and devastate vast amounts of wildlife, critical wildlife habitat
and the municipal watersheds that go hand in hand with that landscape.
The Sweetwater County Conservation District has asked Otero County,
New Mexico County Commissioner Michael Nivison to include our
perspective in his testimony to your Committee on July 22, 2003. The
Healthy Forest Restoration Act being debated should be viewed as a
bipartisan effort in the same way that interdependencies are found
between high elevation desert lands and National Forests. Our mutual
dependency on forest health and on each other can only serve as an
example of the critical need for Congress to implement a strategy that
local, State, Tribal and federal governments or agencies can
efficiently use to work toward healthy forests that benefit the entire
landscape and ultimately our Nation.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Thoman,
Chairman.
______
Board of County Commissioners,
Montrose County, CO, July 18, 2003.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman: Our collaborative working group of the Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forest County Partnership Restoration
Program (CPR), is pleased to comment to your Committee on our efforts
toward forest restoration.
Of greatest importance, Congress and the Administration need to
fully embrace the expanded involvement of tribal, state, county and
local governments in this effort. We feel all governments must be
respected as full partners in this process. All governments must be
invited into a shared governance setting to address this National
Emergency. It seems most difficult to make this happen. Their roles and
authorities are always different, but we must make them equal partners
in the common task. Procedures must be developed to improve these
partnership interactions.
The county governments in the CPR Program are committed to their
partnership in resolving this emergency, and we will continue to work
at making our collaborative partnerships stronger.
Sincerely,
David Ubell,
Commissioner.
______
Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition,
Rapid City, SD, July 18, 2003.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: The Black Hills Regional Multiple Use
Coalition represents a diverse spectrum of stakeholders who advocate
for the sustained multiple-use management of the Black Hills National
Forest in South Dakota and Wyoming. Among our 38 member groups are
livestock and . agricultural producers, motorized and non-motorized
recreationists, sportsmen, forest products companies, and community
economic development interests. We write today to plead for the help of
you and your colleagues in passing comprehensive, meaningful
legislation that would empower the U.S. Forest Service to protect the
forests our members cherish and depend upon from the onslaught of
insect epidemics and catastrophic wildfire.
In the last three years, over 280,000 acres of the 1.2 million-acre
Black Hills National Forest were either scorched by wildfire or
seriously infested with forest insects. The Forest Service estimates
that still another staggering 466,000 acres of our forest have grown
significantly outside their historic fire regime and stand at high risk
to catastrophic wildfire. Epidemic populations of mountain pine beetle
killed approximately 300,000 trees in 2001, up 2700 percent from levels
only three years prior. Recent inventories show that yet another
370,000 trees were killed by this insect last year, and forecasting
data collected by Forest Service entomologists project only more doom
and gloom to come. The Forest Service, arrested within a straight
jacket of conflicting procedure, analysis, and statute, is simply
accomplishing too little, too slowly to alleviate these threats to our
forests.
As you may already know, the Black Hills National Forest faced an
insect and wildfire problem so abysmally severe, and remedial action
through conventional Forest Service procedures faced barriers so
insurmountable, that a site-specific piece of legislation was necessary
to begin to break the impasse. The South Dakota Congressional
Delegation convened a group of forest stakeholders, including our
organization, which eventually crafted a compromise that would allow
expeditious thinning and fuels reduction on roughly 8,000 acres of
beetle-infested and high wildfire risk areas, in exchange for
additional Wilderness designation in the Black Hills. After five months
of arduous negotiation, this compromise was included as an amendment to
the Supplemental Defense Appropriations Bill of 2002 and came to be
known as the ``Black Hills Fire Prevention Agreement.''
Though it was and continues to be the subject of much controversy,
we believe a louder and more important statement was made in the
necessity of this legislation's passage: the `process' is broken. There
is simply no reason, especially in the face of a situation so dire as
Beaver Park's was, that a special Act of Congress should be required
each time the Forest Service sees the need to implement a project for
the protection of basic public safety and forest resources.
To illustrate this point further, the Black Hills legislation of
2002 also mandated the completion of a comprehensive Environmental
Impact Statement, called the ``Elk, Bugs & Fuel'' EIS, to address the
breadth of the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the northern Black
Hills. The legislation only authorized insect- and fire-risk reduction
treatments on 8,000 acres of our forest, a small `band-aid' for the
gaping wound of tens of thousands of acres currently infested or at-
risk, the EIS was to implement something closer to a `cure' and do so
on a required completion timeline of July 31, 2003.
Recently, the Forest Service published a Draft of ``Elk, Bugs &
Fuel.'' Because of the egregious length of time required to complete
the various aspects of Forest Service analyses, and the absence of
latitude available to the Forest Service to prioritize fuels and insect
treatment objectives, the project is doomed to ineptitude. Through its
assessment, the Forest Service estimated that 79 percent of the 44,000+
acres it analyzed were at moderate or high risk to catastrophic fire,
and 61 percent were at moderate or high risk to mountain pine beetle
infestation. The forest management activities ``Elk, Bugs & Fuel''
proposes to execute would decrease these risks by an embarrassingly
insufficient nine and three percent, respectively.
The Forest Service is in need of a vehicle through which they can
prioritize forest health and wildfire risk reduction treatments, and
implement these treatments in an expeditious fashion. We cannot `think
small' when it comes to addressing forest health; these problems exist
because entire landscapes are ecologically out of whack. The Forest
Service must, as a product of whatever legislation is eventually
passed, be able to complete comprehensive forest health projects like
``Elk, Bugs & Fuel'' 1) quicker, and 2) better.
Much of the debate on the issue of forest health legislation has
revolved around ``where'' and ``how'' the Forest Service should be
allowed to complete projects under expedited procedures, primarily as
this relates to the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). However, when
deliberating upon this issue it is important to remember several
fundamental considerations.
First, commensurate with the landscape-scale of the forest health
problem is the scale of the impacts that catastrophic fire and insect
events wreak upon the forest resource and the public. Water quality,
air quality, wildlife habitat, scenic values, and forest infrastructure
all suffer from the effects of unnatural fires and rampant forest
disease outbreaks. This means that, although a given wildfire may not
directly threaten homes and communities, these publics will nonetheless
have to endure polluted drinking supplies, flooding and landslides,
chronic respiratory ailments, decreased property values, slumping
tourism-based economics, and `homeless' Threatened or Endangered
species. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to approach this
situation by heavily prioritizing treatments wthin the WUI, while
balancing this emphasis with addressing the equally important broader
forest resource and multiple-use concerns that may exist outside areas
formally defined as WUI.
Second, a `canned', one-size-fits-all definition of WUI will simply
never work. As difficult as the proposition of `trusting the Forest
Service' is to swallow for many, ourselves included, resource managers
must be allowed to do their jobs. With all due respect, Congress cannot
anticipate all the on-the-ground resource concerns involved in the
crafting and implementation of a forest project. Often, for instance, a
definition of WUI based upon an arbitrary distance from the city limits
of identified at-risk communities would fail to include anything but
private land ownership over which the Forest Service simply has no
management influence. Such a definition would also necessarily be
insensitive to concerns like slope, topography, existing fuels
conditions and forest type, not to mention excluding unincorporated
municipalities and subdivisions that do not fall under the formal
definition of a ``community.''
Thank you for your time and consideration, we hope you and your
colleagues see fit to bring legislative pragmatism to bear on this very
desperate situation.
Sincerely,
Tom Troxel,
Director.
______
Forest Trust,
Santa Fe, NM, August 4, 2003.
Hon. Pete Domenici, Chair,
Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on July 22, 2003 about forest health and fire legislation. I
wish to make one additional set of comments for the Committees'
consideration related to the practice of ``fire borrowing.''
In bad fire years when the Forest Service expenditures for fire
suppression exceed the budgeted amount, the agency borrows funds from
other programs. As USDA Undersecretary Mark Rey explained, the
borrowing practice worked when the Forest Service had Knutsen-
Vanderberg funds to borrow from, but with the decline of the timber
sale programs these funds have not been replenished and the Forest
Service must borrow from its other program funds. The problem is that
the programs whose funds are ``borrowed'' are critical to reducing
fuels and are important if we are going to reduce the suppression of
catastrophic wildfires. The fire borrowing practice has direct impacts
on small businesses that comprise much of the workforce for the fuel
reduction treatments .
I will provide you with two examples from 2002 in New Mexico that
illustrate why the fire borrowing practice needs to be stopped:
1. Las Humanas Cooperative in the East Manzano Mountains has a
forestry services business that depends largely on fuel reduction
projects on the Cibola-National Forest. The Forest Service worked for
several years to complete the NEPA documentation for the Thunderbird
fuel reduction and restoration project. Las Humanas expected to bid on
the Thunderbird project in 2002 and had the workforce in place to do
the job. The funds for the contract were borrowed during the 2002 fire
season. As a result, the contract was not advertised until after the
2003 budget for the Forest Service was passed in March 2003. After this
6-month delay, Las Humanas had lost part of its workforce and had to
shoulder the expense of training new employees.
2. American Forest Products is a small business in Cuba, New Mexico
that was awarded a grant through the Collaborative Forest Restoration
Program. The grant funds were borrowed in the 2002 fire season and
provided a major setback to American Forest Products. This fledging
business has received over $300,000 in assistance from the Economic
Action Program for purchase of equipment to chip forest biomass from
thinning projects, and a pilot gasification plant from the Forest
Products Lab that runs on chips and heats the local schools. The
diverted funds were needed to perform thinning that would provide the
biomass for the chips, the gasifer, and the school heat. The diverted
funds were also intended to keep a local crew employed in the woods
after a 3-month training period that was paid for with funds from the
National Forest Foundation. American Forest Products could not keep the
crew employed after the grant funds were diverted, and they found other
work. Once the grant was finally awarded in March 2003, American Forest
Products had to spend some of the treatment dollars on training of new
employees.
The fire borrowing practice hurts small businesses and hinders the
national effort to reduce forest fuels. With the fire situation
intensifying in the Northern Rockies, and fire borrowing already
starting with 2003 funds because the House did not provide emergency
funds, the Congress needs to take action to prevent this practice in
the future.
Thank you for considering these comments about fire borrowing. We
appreciate the opportunity to contribute our experiences to the
Committee record.
Sincerely,
Laura McCarthy,
Program Director.