U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

50–964 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 30 AND AUGUST 4, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–110

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa

————— —————

————— —————

DOUG CRANDALL, Staff Director

ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff

JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held July 30, 1998 ..................................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Briefing paper ............................................................................................ 11

Briefing paper ............................................................................................ 75

Statements of witnesses:

Dombeck, Michael, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 73

Ferrioli, Hon. Ted, State Senator, State of Oregon, John Day, Oregon ....... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55

Hill, Lawrence, Director of Forest Policy, Society of American Foresters,

Bethesda, Maryland ...................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69

Nelson, Cara, Consulting Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council ... 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 63

Peterson, L. Earl, Florida State Forester, Division of Forestry of Tallahassee, Florida .................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 56

Additional material supplied:

Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Tyee Fire Recovery, Chelan and Entiat

Ranger Districts, Wenatchee National Forest, Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................................... 77

Text of H.R. 4375 .............................................................................................. 3

Hearing held August 4, 1998 .................................................................................. 83

Statements of Members:

Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 86

Brown, Hon. Corrine, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida ............................................................................................................ 85

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho, prepared statement of ................................................................... 84

Briefing paper ............................................................................................ 84

Statements of witnesses:

Garner, James W., State Forester, Virginia Department of Forestry,

Charlottesville, Virginia ............................................................................... 94

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 130

Hill, Barry, Associate Director, accompanied by Linda Harmon, Assistant

Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, General Accounting

Office .............................................................................................................. 87

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 188

Josephson, Wally, Wildland Fire Specialist, Office of Managing Risk and

Public Safety, U.S. Department of the Interior .......................................... 106

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 131

McDougle, Janice, accompanied by Denny Truesdale, Assistant Director

of Fire Management for Operations, Forest Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture ................................................................................................ 108

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 185
Page

IV

Additional material supplied:

Briefing paper ................................................................................................... 11

Managing Forests, Managing Fire, Report to Congress ................................ 206

National Interagency Fire Center, BLM Office of Fire & Aviation, report . 135
(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING: NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PARITY

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in

room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen

Chenoweth (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [presiding] The Subcommittee on Forests and

Forest Health will come to order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to have an oversight hearing

on H.R. 4345, a bill to authorize the continued use on national forests and other public lands of the alternative arrangements that

were approved by the Council on Environmental Quality for a

windstorm damaged National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.

Now under rule 4(g) of the Committee rules, any oral opening

statements of hearings are limited to the chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses

sooner and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore if

other members have statements, they can be included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.

This hearing will focus on H.R. 4345. This bill is a result of the

decision in March of this year by the Council on Environmental

Quality, CEQ, to grant alternative arrangements under the National Environmental Policy Act. The CEQ reducing the fuel load,

the CEQ allowed for the expedited treatment of East Texas National Forests after they had experienced a very severe windstorm

and blowdown on February 10. Immediately after the windstorm,

the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, the office responsible for management of the three national forests damaged in the

windstorm, consulted with the CEQ for an alternative arrangement

under NEPA. 40 CFR 1506.11 provides for such alternative arrangements in emergency situations. The Forest Service believed

that the time period needed for a traditional NEPA analysis would

negatively affect wildlife habitat, private property, and the overall

conditions of the forest itself. Now specifically, the Forest Service

was fearful that failure to act expeditiously would result in severe

wildfires, bark beetle infestations, and loss of subpopulation of redcockaded woodpeckers. Katy McGinty, the chairman of the CEQ,
2

sent a letter to the Forest Service on March 4 granting the expedited NEPA process.

The CEQ should be commended for this decision. Ron Hufford,

of the Texas Forestry Association, wrote in a letter to the Subcommittee: ‘‘the granted waiver has been a proactive initiative that

has allowed the removal of down timber to an effort to reduce future insect and disease epidemics as well as reducing the fuel loading in the most severely impacted areas.

The February 10 storm was brief but devastating and left the

issue of the health of the National Forests in question. The waiver

has allowed the professionals to respond to this emergency in a

timely manner.’’ And I’d like to submit this letter for the record.

Photos of the blowdown are in the members’ folders along with the

photos of other catastrophic events on other national forests.

[The information follows:]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Mrs. CHENOWETH. H.R. 4345 lists a number of other national forests that have experienced catastrophic events of a similar magnitude as the East Texas blowdown, recommending that they also

be granted expedited processes under the NEPA process. The bill

also requires the CEQ to develop and issue regulations concerning

the use of alternative arrangements on national forests. This is

crucial because the CEQ currently has no consistent requirements

for the use of alternative arrangements.

It is important to note that this bill does not override or change

any environmental law. It merely recommends that the CEQ consider granting expedited NEPA processes to other national forests

that have suffered catastrophic events and that need expedited remedial treatment. Although the CEQ has granted alternative arrangements only thirty times since 1980, many of the these were

in response to situations of similar or even lower severity than the

ones listed in H.R. 4345.

For example, one alternative arrangement was for the BLM and

the Forest Service to implement erosion control efforts after the

Eighth Street fire in the hills above Boise, Idaho. Another alternative arrangement was for the aerial spraying of pesticides in

Idaho to combat migratory grasshoppers. We know and agree that

these were legitimate circumstances for using expedited NEPA

processes. We also know that forest conditions in specific areas

across this country are in need of accelerated management in order

to prevent costly and preventable environmental and economic catastrophes. In some areas, this may mean the removal of dead and

dying trees.

Unfortunately, it has become politically incorrect to harvest trees

on Federal lands, for any reason, even when it is scientifically the

most appropriate means for protecting wildlife habitats, soils, and

private property. Hopefully, we can get beyond the political aspects

of this issue and have a serious dialogue on the merits of using expedited NEPA processes in critical forest areas.

Now, when the Ranking Minority Member comes in, I will recognize him for his statement.

And now, I’d like to introduce our first panel of witnesses: Ted

Ferrioli, Oregon State Senator from John Day, Oregon; L. Earl Peterson, Florida State Forester, Division of Forestry from Tallahassee, Florida; Cara Nelson, Consulting Ecologist, Natural Resources

Defense Council from San Francisco, California; Larry Hill, Director of Forest Policy, The Society of American Foresters from Bethesda, Maryland.

Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee rules,

they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but that your

entire record will appear in the permanent record—your entire

statement. We will also allow the entire panel to testify before we

begin questioning the witnesses.

I would like to recognize my colleague, Allen Boyd, from the

great State of Florida, and ask if he has opening statements.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chenoweth follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

This hearing will focus on National Environmental Policy Act Parity and

H.R.4345. This bill is a result of the decision in March of this year by the Council
11

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to grant ‘‘alternative arrangements’’ under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQ allowed for the expedited treatment of East Texas National Forests after they had experienced a severe windstorm

and blowdownon February 10th. Immediately after the windstorm, the National

Forests and Grasslands in Texas, the office responsible for management of the three

national forests damaged in the windstorm, consulted with the CEQ for an alternative arrangement under NEPA. 40 CFR 1506.11 provides for such alternative arrangements in emergency situations. The Forest Service believed that the time period needed for a traditional NEPA analysis would negatively affect wildlife habitat,

private property, and the overall conditions of the forest itself. Specifically, the Forest Service was fearful that failure to act expeditiously would result in severe

wildfires, bark beetle infestations, and loss of a sub-population of red-cockaded

woodpeckers. Katy McGinty, the Chairman of the CEQ, sent a letter to the Forest

Service on March 4th granting the expedited NEPA process.

The CEQ should be commended for this decision. Ron Hufford, of the Texas Forestry Association, wrote in a letter to the Subcommittee: ‘‘The granted waiver has

been a pro-active initiative that has allowed the removal of down timber in an effort

to reduce future insect and disease epidemics as well as reducing the fuel loading

in the most severely impacted areas. The February 10th storm was brief but devastating and left the issue of the health of the National Forests in question. The

waiver has allowed the professionals to respond to this emergency in a timely manner.’’ I would like to submit this letter for the record. Photos of the blowdown are

in the Members folders along with photos of other catastrophic events on other national forests.

H.R. 4345 lists a number of other national forests that have experienced catastrophic events of a similar magnitude as the East Texas blowdown, recommending

that they also be granted expedited processes under NEPA. The bill also requires

the CEQ to develop and issue regulations concerning the use of alternative arrangements on national forests. This is crucial because the CEO currently has no consistent requirements for the use of alternative arrangements. It is important to note

that this bill does not override or change any environmental law—it merely recommends that the CEQ consider granting expedited NEPA processes to other national forests that have suffered catastrophic events and that need expedited remedial treatment. Although the CEQ has granted alternative arrangements only thirty

times since 1980, many of these were in response to situations of similar or even

lower severity than the ones listed in H.R. 4345. For example, one alternative arrangement was for the BLM and Forest Service to implement erosion control efforts

after the Eighth Street Fire in the hills above Boise. Another alternative arrangement was for the aerial spraying of pesticides in Idaho to combat migratory grasshoppers. We know and agree that these were legitimate circumstances for using expedited NEPA processes. We also know that forest conditions in specific areas across

the country are in need of accelerated management in order to prevent costly and

preventable environmental and economic catastrophes. In some areas this may

mean the removal of dead or dying trees. Unfortunately, it has become politically

incorrect to harvest trees on Federal lands—for any reason—even when it is scientifically the most appropriate means for protecting wildlife habitat, soils, and private property. Hopefully, we can get beyond the political aspects of this issue and

have a serious dialogue on the merits of using expedited NEPA processes in critical

forest areas.

BRIEFING PAPER

Oversight Hearing on Fire Suppression

SUMMARY

Various forest and weather conditions have greatly increased the vulnerability of

America’s forests to wildfire. In recent years, the total number of wildfires, including

the number of large complex fires, has increased dramatically. The costs associated

with fighting these fires has risen proportionally, representing hundreds of millions

of tax-payer dollars annually. These efforts also require an ever-increasing need for

well orchestrated communications and cooperation among volunteer and municipal

fire departments, State forestry agencies, and Federal agencies with wildfire management and suppression responsibilities. The purpose of this oversight hearing is

to review these and other factors that influence the effectiveness of government efforts in wildfire preparedness and suppression.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Already this year, nearly two million acres have burned, many of those occurring

in the well-reported fires in Florida. At a Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee
12

hearing last week, Earl Peterson, the State Forester of Florida, gave high marks

to the coordinated fire fighting efforts in his state but did suggest that better coordination would have been helpful in the ordering and distribution of equipment. He

also said that better long-range planning would help in order to more effectively station people and equipment in areas of highest risk.

The GAO recently reported that wildfire preparedness and suppression expenditures by Federal land management agencies are at all time highs—over $4 billion

for the last five years. Given the recent comments by the Chief of the Forest Service

that approximately 40 million acres of agency lands are at a high risk of catastrophic fire, there is little question that these high costs are going to persist—and

very likely continue to increase—for the next couple of decades. As wildfires become

larger, hotter, and more numerous it is not only becoming more expensive to suppress them but the logistics of organizing communications and coordination among

the various state and Federal agencies is becoming exponentially more complex. The

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho serves as ‘‘The Pentagon’’

for these suppression efforts. Located at the NIFC is the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC), whose primary mission is the cost-effective and timely coordination of national emergency response. It is through NICC that all agency requests to mobilize personnel and equipment across regions are managed.

WITNESSES

Our nation’s ability to prepare for and suppress wildfires is of extreme importance, not only because these efforts represent such a huge cost to taxpayers, but

because without a maximum effort, property, and most importantly, lives will be

lost. The intent, then, of this oversight hearing is to discuss the effectiveness of our

preparedness and suppression efforts, and to try to answer a number of questions,

such as:

• What did we learn from the Florida fires? In retrospect, what could we have

done better, and conversely, what worked well? What rehab efforts are underway in the aftermath of the fires?

• How do we fund the various suppression activities? Do we spend too much in

some areas and not enough in others? Are we adequately monitoring costs? Are

we utilizing cost control measures such as contracting out certain activities to

private enterprise?

• How accurately are we predicting the location, timing and severity of wildfire

occurrences? What technologies and computer modeling are being used?

• How effective is interagency cooperation—at every level?

• What agencies or organizations are responsible for staffing levels, employee

training, equipment availability, public education, maintenance of facilities, fire

management planning. Who, ultimately, is responsible for suppression efforts,

and does this vary by land ownership?

WITNESSES

A witness list is attached

STAFF CONTACT

Doug Crandall at ext. 5-0691

STATEMENT OF HON. ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do have a statement

for the record that I’ll ask unanimous consent that be included in

the permanent record of this——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection.

Mr. BOYD. [continuing] and I’ll have a brief oral opening statement, if I might

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.

Mr. BOYD. I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, and the other

members of this Subcommittee for allowing me the privilege of sitting as part of this panel and to participate in this hearing. I also

want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for calling this oversight

hearing on ‘‘alternative arrangements’’ that have been granted by

the CEQ for emergency situations under NEPA.
13

As my colleagues are aware, the State of Florida has recently experienced a series of severe wildfires that have burned over half a

million acres and destroyed homes and timber with aggregate

value of somewhere in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars; that’s

over $250 million dollars.

In the Second Congressional District, which I represent, a majority of the affected acreage is on Federal lands; primarily two national forests. District Two has the entire Apalachicola National

Forest within its borders and also encompasses part of the Osceola

National Forest. The wildfires burned thousands of acres of

timberland within these national forests. That’s the reason I am

here today is to listen and learn about alternative arrangements.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and, particularly, Earl Peterson, who is a long-time friend and head of the

Division of Forestry in the State of Florida.

But I also want to, Madam Chairman, at this time take this opportunity to say a public thank you to all the folks from around the

Nation that sent their firefighters to Florida. I wish you could see

the outpouring of gratitude in the State of Florida for the folks that

came from all over to help us save our timberlands and our homes.

And as you know, as a result of the efforts of those people from all

over the Nation, we survived this disaster without any loss of life,

and we’re very grateful for that.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

[The statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF FLORIDA

Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to thank you and the other members of this

Subcommittee for allowing me the privilege of sitting as part of this panel and to

participate in this hearing. I would also like to thank you for calling this oversight

hearing on a very important, and it would appear, under used tool that the Council

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has in its tool box to use under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

As my colleagues are aware, the state of Florida has recently experienced a series

of devastating wildfires that burned approximately 500,000 acres, having an aggregate value of more than $276,000,000. A large majority of the land affected in the

state is located on private and state lands. However, in the Second Congressional

District, which I represent, a majority of the affected acreage is on Federal lands.

The Second Congressional District is located in the panhandle of the state, running from Panama City in the west to the middle of the Osceola National Forest

in the east. It has the entire Apalachicola National Forest within its borders and

also encompasses part of the Osceola National Forest. The wildfires have burned approximately 20,000 acres in the Osceola National Forest. Between 4,000 to 5,000

acres are classified as Wilderness Areas and most of this wood is either hardwood

or cypress. Of the 15,000 acres not classified as Wilderness, over 10,000 acres are

pine plantations. In the Apalachicola National Forest, a large majority of the 20,000

plus acres that were adversely affected lie within a Wilderness Area.

As you can imagine, time is of the utmost importance when we are trying to salvage this timber. In my experience as a steward of our land, in the warm and humid

climate of Florida, sawtimber must be removed within a 45 to 60 day period after

being destroyed by fire. Otherwise, it loses all its economic value and can only be

left to rot and fall to the ground. Pulpwood will last for a longer period of time; however, the pulpwood market is currently depressed due to a glut in the pulp market,

and the Asian financial situation. That is why I am here today to listen and learn

about the ‘‘alternative arrangements’’ that have been granted by the CEQ for emergency situations under NEPA.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today, especially Earl Peterson,

our State Forester from Florida. Working together, I believe we can take another

positive step in our stewardship of our federally owned natural resources.
14

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It was a very startling disaster and I am also

very grateful that there was no loss of life, but it is quite remarkable to be able to see the kind of response to national disasters that

we saw in this case and have seen in the past. And I share that

feeling of gratitude with you. We were even busy in Boise deploying equipment, and planes, and men to the fires. And——

Mr. BOYD. Men and women also.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Women, that’s right. Absolutely, and they’re

tough. So it’s a joy—not joyous circumstances at all that we come

together, but it’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

As this the normal process here, we ask that all of our witnesses

be placed under the oath. It’s a normal process in this Subcommittee and I believe all of you have received a notice from the

Committee that that is our process. And so, if you wouldn’t mind

standing and raising your hand to the square.

[Witnesses sworn.]

The Chair recognizes Senator Ferrioli.

STATEMENT OF TED FERRIOLI, STATE SENATOR, STATE OF

OREGON, JOHN DAY, OREGON

Mr. FERRIOLI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify in support of H.R. 4345.

My name is Ted Ferrioli. I reside at 111 Skyline Drive, John

Day, Oregon. I’m the Executive Director of Malheur Timber Operators in John Day, and I am the State Senator from Senate District

28.

Madam Chairman, Senate District 28 begins in the outskirts of

Portland and the Gresham area, and it goes across all of parts of

11 counties in Oregon all the way to the Idaho borders. So, we are

neighbors in a sense. The population there is 100,000 people in my

district. It’s 17,500 square miles. So the population density in my

district is .17 persons per square mile. So, I’m very glad to see this

rather large crowd of people here today.

I’m here today to testify about the rather dysfunctional response

by the Forest Service under the current National Environment Policy Act to a catastrophic event that occurred in our district referenced the Summit Fire, which occurred on the Long Creek Ranger District on the Malheur National Forest.

The Summit fire was caused by lighting. It started August 13,

1996 and it burned for 24 days across 37,961 acres of forestland.

It killed or damaged approximately 300 million board feet across

those 38,000 acres. Very shortly after the fire was put out, the

Summit Fire Recovery Project became the top priority of the

Malheur National Forest under direction of Forest Supervisor Carl

Pence. Mr. Pence made that the top priority pulling in staff from

the other ranger districts on the Malheur National Forest and endeavored to conduct a rather extraordinary outreach process to

bring in people to view the fire, to communicate with interested

parties and the stakeholders. As a matter of fact, tours were conducted for Members of Congress, Oregon Governor John

Kitzhaber’s Citizen Eastside Forest Health Advisory Task Force,

environmental organizations, Forest Products industry representatives, and representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service,

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff.
15

Throughout the period of planning, this forest-planning staff received continuous assurances from the regional office that the Recovery Project was on track for a speedy recovery. On August 27,

almost a year later, Forest Supervisor Pence signed a Record of Decision that created a Recovery Project treating approximately 9,500

acres—about a third of the fire area which would have produced a

100 million board feet of salvage.

Of course the Record of Decision was immediately appealed by

the environmental community in what we refer to as a ‘‘cookbook’’

type of appeal.

Despite the unprecedented communication between the Malheur

National Forest Planning Staff and the Regional Forest Planning

Staff, Regional Forester Bob Williams informed Carl Pence that

Williams could not support the Record of Decision, and gave Mr.

Pence two choices: either he would remand the project back to the

forest; or Mr.Pence could voluntarily withdraw the plan. Since voluntary withdrawal gave more options for remediation, Mr. Pence

chose the latter option.

In fact, during the next 6 months, the Malheur National Forest

Planning Staff completely rewrote the DEIS, the Environmental

Impact Statement, making major revisions, including a development of a water resources management plan which is not required

by rule or by statute. And then formal consultation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service for a Bull Trout and informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service for Steelhead. Although at that point in time, neither of those species were a listed

species.

On July 12, 1998, more than 23 months after the fire, a new

Record of Decision was issued calling for the salvage and rehabilitation of approximately 6,600 of the 38,000 acres burned with an

output of approximately a 50 million board feet.

During the intervening months, of course, the insects, and bluestain fungus, and checking severely reduced the value of the salvageable timber. In fact, if the salvage project had been conducted

in August of 1997, it would have produced about $6.9 million in

revenue for the Federal Treasury, 25 percent of which would have

gone to schools—local schools, and for the roads funds in the counties. Today, if the project was operated, or will be operated, it will

be worth approximately one-sixth of that value or about $1.1 million. So we saw a 600 percent reduction in the value of that project

over a 23-month period.

Madam Chairman, the cost of suppression for the Summit Fire

was $25,400,000, the moral equivalency of a war. The cost for the

original Draft Environmental Impact Survey was $1.2 million. The

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was ordered costs about $356,000. The project will put out $1.1 million

worth of salvageable materials. The math simply doesn’t work out.

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, while the

NEPA process may be well adapted to long-term projects or proposed management actions that are not time-sensitive, it’s very

clear to us that the NEPA process is especially inappropriate for

time-sensitive projects like fire-recovery projects where rapid deterioration and the loss of value is a predictable outcome of delay.
16

There are three suggestions that I would like the Committee to

consider. One is that if alternative arrangements are to be used in

this type of arrangement or this type of emergency as they were

for the blowdown in Texas, that those alternate arrangements be

clearly modelled and clearly delineated so that there is a easily accessible mechanism for their approval.

The second, if we are to make the NEPA process work, we need

to also provide an expedited appeal and litigation process to resolve

conflicts in a timely manner. If we had shorter statutory appeals

processes, and a shorter judicial appeal process, we could not only

have heightened access for citizen appeals and litigation, but we

would also have timely resolution. And that’s a critical factor.

The other thing is, Madam Chairman, we should modify the

NEPA process to add the full consideration of the economic values

affected by Federal decisionmaking. At present, NEPA requires the

full disclosure of the environmental values and considerations, but

does not disclose the economic impacts to local communities, and

the economic values and considerations in Federal decisionmaking.

And to be effective, we believe that NEPA needs to fully disclose

the economic impact on local communities.

Our experience has shown that catastrophic events require a

planning response that preserves the net asset value of the resources, not only to sustain our communities that depend on natural resource outputs, but simply to capture the maximum value

to pay for the cost of planning, and to pay for the cost of rehabilitation of resources damaged by wind, insects, disease, and wildfire.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrioli may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferrioli, and the

Chair will yield to Mr. Boyd to introduce Mr. Peterson.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I didn’t know I was going to get this opportunity, but I’m very

pleased. I don’t have a bio of Mr. Peterson in front of me. I can tell

you from personal experience that’s he’s been a public servant in

Florida for all his professional career and I—what 30 years, Earl

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Forty years.

Mr. BOYD. Forty years. Oh, my goodness, and within the last six

or 8 years been named head of the Division of Forestry which is

under the Department of Agriculture in the State of Florida. I’ve

had the chance to, before I was in public life, work with Earl Peterson on many occasions in their job working with timber and landowners, and they do a great job under his leadership. And I’m very

pleased to welcome Earl Peterson.

STATEMENT OF L. EARL PETERSON, FLORIDA STATE FORESTER, DIVISION OF FORESTRY OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Thank you, Congressman Boyd, members

of the Committee.

It’s a pleasure to be here today and I particularly want to say

also how appreciative we are for the assistance that came from

throughout the country in our recent siege of wildfires. The Federal

agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, the sister-state agencies throughout the country, were more than generous in their resources. With-
17

out them, it certainly would have not been possible to come

through this with the success story that we had, and with the safety record that we’re so proud of.

I’m also pleased to be here to talk a few moments about how the

Florida Division of Forestry manages its timber resources and in

particular how we deal with emergency salvage operations when

struck by natural disaster.

The Florida Division of Forestry is one of the largest land management agencies in the State of Florida. We have been managing

state forest lands for over 60 years and presently co-manage about

a million acres while at the same time we are the lead manager

on about 740,000 acres.

We have 36 state forests, approximately 55 percent of which is

suitable for pine silviculture, timber production, if you would. An

active forest management program occurs on this pine acreage and

includes prescribed burning, reforestation, and timber sales. Trees

have grown to an old age on state forests for a number of reasons,

two of which are to provide a natural ecosystem that is rapidly disappearing from the State and also to provide a special experience

for the public sector who visit state forests in order to enjoy a large

number of resource-based outdoor recreation activities. Our state

forests represent an investment by the citizens of Florida, and that

investment should produce both a natural resource heritage for the

future and an economic return.

The practice of sustainability is a cornerstone in the management of our timber resource. By using current forest inventory

data, we insure that state forests are not overcut and that the

growth will continue to exceed yield on an annual basis. Trees are

harvested through a number of silvicultural techniques, including

improvement thinnings, restoration harvests, and the latter being

the removal of offsite species that the naturally occurring species

can be restored to a particular site.

In a well-managed state forest, foresters from the division strive

to keep the trees in a healthy condition using such management

tools as prescribed burning and improvement thinnings, which I

have previously mentioned. However, due to natural processes beyond our control, unexpected and undesirable tree mortality sometimes occurs in any natural forest system. Examples are

lightning——killed trees, mortality from wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, and windstorm damage.

Because this is a natural process, if the level of tree mortality

is considered light, then sometimes no action is taken. The resulting dead snags provide homes for wildlife and help create biological

diversity in the forest system. However, when tree mortality

reaches levels where there is significant economic loss or there is

the potential for insect and disease spread, then we salvage or do

sanitation harvests and initiate a process to recoup the monetary

losses and reduce the based on the threat to spread to disease or

insects.

Although prompt action is often taken to salvage timber that has

been damaged or killed at moderate levels or in limited areas,

there is no question that the Division of Forestry will take appropriate action when major tree mortality events take place. This

statement is clearly exemplified by October 1995 Hurricane An-
18

drew which made a direct hit on Blackwater State Forest, which

is Florida’s largest state forest with 189,000 acres. Within six

months, we had salvaged 95 percent of the damaged timber, which

was approximately 50 million board feet of sawtimber.

In the spring and summer of 1997, Florida experienced the worst

outbreak of southern pine beetle in our history. This infestation

was centered in Marion and Levy County area of Central Florida.

Loblolly pine was the major species being killed, but it also moved

into slash pine and longleaf pine. The insect was indiscriminate in

attacking trees across all ownerships. The Division of Forestry took

a lead role in taking actions to control the insect outbreak plus the

salvage that followed and worked with other agencies as if we carried this out. And at the same time, we did them on our state forests in two locations.

Finally, the State of Florida had just gone through one of the

most serious outbreak of wildfires in our history. Approximately

500,000 acres burned between June 1 and late July. Of this, there

was a total of about 260,000 acres of commercial-pine timberland.

A conservative estimate is that 2,600,000 cords of damaged or firekilled timber will require salvage in the next few months. Besides

being directly involved in the total salvage effort, the Division has

approximately 14,000 acres on state forests; Tiger Bay State Forest; and Lake George State Forest in Volusia County. Once the

wildfires were controlled, we immediately moved toward damaged

appraisal and initiating salvage sales on these state forests. In 2

weeks, we sold four salvage sales and have plans to sell four more

during the third week.

The time is of essence in selling salvage timber, especially

sawtimber. In Florida’s warm climate, dead sawtimber must be utilized within a few months or it will deteriorate where it will be

worthless except for pulpwood. Pulpwood will only last a few

months longer. Because of this short timeframe, we expedite the

bid process and only give potential bidders a week or less to submit

their bids for sale. Emergency salvage sales of this nature are almost always sold on a per unit basis, which means we sell it by

the ton. A performance bond of $5,000 or more is usually required

to insure sale compliance.

A few key points for salvage operations conducted by the Division

of Forestry are that they are done in a rapid fashion to insure maximum economic return, eliminate waste and to prevent the spread

of pathogens or insects that might kill additional timber. All potential bidders are given a chance to bid on every sale so that no one

could be accused of unfair sale practices, and ongoing sales are administered closely working with the loggers comply with division

personnel.

The Division of Forestry is fortunate to have the latitude to make

these decisions about procedures and conditions for silvicultural applications, such as reforestation and timber harvesting.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of L. Earl Peterson may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. [presiding] The Chair thanks

the gentleman from Florida. With the name Peterson, you’ve got to

be OK.
19

[Laughter.]

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Thank you.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I’m Congressman Peterson

from Pennsylvania temporarily filling in for the Chair. The chairman had to leave for a few moments.

At this time, I recognize Cara Nelson, Consulting Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council for her testimony. Welcome, and

good morning.

STATEMENT OF CARA NELSON, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST,

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Ms. NELSON. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I’ll be testifying against H.R. 4345.

I work both as a research forester and as a consulting ecologist

for Natural Resources Defense Council. Natural Resources Defense

Council is a national non-profit environmental organization dedicated, among other things, to the protection of forest resources. My

work for NRDC is largely focused on issues related to fire and fuels

management in the forests of the Interior Columbia Basin in eastern Washington and Oregon.

This morning, I’d like to share my views on what I believe to be

one of the most critical issues facing forest managers today; how,

when, and where to experiment with forest restoration activities

and the related topic of requirements for environmental review of

these projects.

As strategies are developed and implemented for protecting the

fire and insect resiliency of Federal forests, it is critical that adequate attention is devoted to environmental review and that opportunities for restoration are not subverted by lack of careful planning or information, or overemphasis on short-term economic goals.

I’d like to stress three primary reasons why comprehensive environmental review is needed for all treatments that justify commercial harvests of dead, dying, and overstocked trees as forest health

measures.

First, there is a lack of scientific consensus about the efficacy of

thinning, salvage, and fuels treatment for improving fire resiliency

or ecosystem integrity. Surprisingly, little empirical research has

been conducted on the impacts of these treatments on fire behavior.

In spite of hypothesized benefits, the handful of studies that address these issues, as well as anecdotal accounts and analysis of recent fires, suggest that removal of dead, dying, and overstocked

trees may not reliably reduce fire intensity or severity. In fact in

the Pacific northwest, three recent studies of the relationship between thinning, fuels treatment, and fire behavior all found that

treatment actually exacerbated fire conditions. In all cases,

unmanaged stands had the least severe fire effects.

The second reason that thorough environmental review of management actions is so important is that the type of harvest practices employed, as well as the manner in which they are executed,

influence environmental conditions and fire and insect hazard.

Thinning, salvage, and fuel treatment are all sufficiently vague

terms that treatments can vary widely in both the techniques used

and the residual stand conditions.
20

For example, in Van Wagtendonk’s model-base study of six different approaches to fuel reduction in the Sierras, and this study

was part of the ‘‘snap’’ process, only one was predicted to reduce

the number of acres burned or fire intensity below that of untreated stands. Findings such as these provide evidence that a

careless or thoughtless approach to restoration treatments is likely

to result in more harm than good.

Third, in addition to the speculative nature of claimed ecological

benefits from removal of dead, dying, and overstocked trees, there

is ample evidence that persistent adverse impacts can and do result from salvage and thinning. These impacts include: the loss of

snags; down logs and closed canopy habitat conditions that are required by many wildlife species; damage to soil integrity; creation

of sediment which may eventually end up in our streams; increased

mortality of residual trees due to pathogens and mechanical damage; and then most importantly, increase near-term fire hazard

due, primarily, to logging slash.

These downsides to salvage and thinning need careful, conscientious evaluation and must be squarely presented to the public, sister agencies, Congress, and ultimately, decisionmakers if a responsible judgment is to be made about where, how, and at what level

experiment with logging base approaches to reducing fire and insect hazard. Failure to analyze and disclose the environmental

risks associated with these treatments may result in continued ecosystem degradation and may prevent the adoption of ecologically

sound approaches to management.

In conclusion, sound scientific support does not exist for broad or

generalized inferences that emergency logging operations will ameliorate fire or insect risks in our Nation’s forest.

I hope that my testimony will help dis-sway the Subcommittee

from proceeding with legislation that would abrogate the existing

NEPA process in the name of forest health emergencies. Thank you

again for the opportunity to appear and present this testimony.

[The prepared statement of Cara Nelson may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [presiding] The Chair now recognizes Mr.

Lawrence Hill, Director of Forest Policy of the Society of American

Foresters.

Welcome, Mr. Hill.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE HILL, DIRECTOR OF FOREST POLICY, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS, BETHESDA, MARYLAND

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Committee. I really

appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify on this piece

of legislation.

As director of Forest Policies for the Society, I represent our

18,000 members who constitute the scientific and educational association representing the profession of forestry in the United States.

Our primary objective is to advance the science, technology, education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of society. That’s a small ‘‘s.’’ We are ethically bound to advocate and

practice professional forestry consistent with ecologically sound

principles. I am especially pleased to submit comments on H.R.
21

4345 and wish to thank the Committee for its continued support

of professional forestry and especially its continued support of some

of SAF’s priorities.

H.R. 4345 highlights a key provision of the National Environmental Policy Act and we support that provision. The regulations

issued by the Council on Environmental Quality in 1978 provide

for alternative arrangements to normal NEPA procedure in an

emergency situation. The CEQ regulations state: ‘‘where emergency

circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant

environmental impact without observing the provisions of these

regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult

with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the

Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain

subject to NEPA review.

In addition to this direction, we understand that individual Forest Service and BLM units are required to consult with their respective Washington offices about emergencies that may result in

a request for an alternative arrangement from CEQ. Additionally,

Federal agencies seeking alternative arrangements should provide

CEQ with a complete description of the needs for such an arrangement at the time of the request.

These provisions are worthwhile and allow for a rapid, yet cautious, response to situations that clearly should be treated as emergencies. The environmental laws of the Nation are some of the

most comprehensive in the world, yet at times they can slow actions intended to mitigate harm to the environment. The wisdom

of the authors of these laws, and particularly NEPA, and regulations is clearly shown in the emergency provisions. At times, the

environment is better with action than with inaction.

What appears to be absent from the alternative arrangement

procedures granted by CEQ is some sense of direction and criteria

for how and when these procedures should be granted—excuse

me—and when these procedures should be applied. The best person

to determine whether the situation warrants alternative arrangements from CEQ is the on-the-ground manager. The people intimately involved in the day-to-day management of a forest know

what the situation is, and how quickly it needs correction. The additional guidance CEQ is required to develop under this bill should

provide land managers in all the Federal land-management agencies with a better understanding of when and how they should request these expedited procedures. Therefore, SAF supports the provisions of the bill. This guidance would also ensure that directions

are made consistently over time, and that all parties interested in

the decisions have a clear understanding of how and why they were

made.

We cannot comment on the specific locations of the National Forests for which this bill requests that CEQ and the Forest Service

develop alternative arrangements under NEPA. However, we are

encouraged that the bill merely requests, and does not require, the

Forest Service to develop alternative arrangements for these areas.

Although SAF has heard from some of its members that there are

many locations in the national forest and public domain lands that

are in need of emergency treatment, and we believe the decision to
22

seek alternative arrangements from CEQ should rest with the

agencies and the on-the-ground managers on a case-by-case basis.

Thanks again for this opportunity to testify and I, as the others,

would be pleased to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill, and we look

forward to your answers to some of our questions. I do want to let

you know, Mr. Peterson, had to step out, momentarily, but will be

back very shortly.

Chairman is going to step out of order and with unanimous consent I’m going to issue a statement. Because this issue is so very

important to the northwest, to those of who live there, and work

there, and actually see on the ground the devastating affects of the

lack of decisionmaking ability for one reason or another.

And I’d like to address my comments to Ms. Nelson. In your testimony, you criticized reports of successful fire-hazard reduction as

being almost entirely anecdotal. You then cited as an example the

thin stand in Tiger Creek in the Boise National Forest, which survived the 1992 Foothills fire. I can tell you that the Subcommittee

visited that site last year and the Boise Forest explained to us why

that particular stand survived.

Let me explain that to you. It was only because the thinning had

removed enough material between the larger pine trees to eliminate the fire ladder that had previously existed, and when the fire

reached that stand, it dropped to the ground, burning the ground

fuels but not reaching the crowns of the trees. The evidence was

very compelling and, as expected, only in this area was the fire

similar to historical fire behavior for the Boise National Forest.

You then said thinning was not effective at reducing fire intensity and severity on Rabbit Creek fire also in the Boise National

Forest where some 200,000 acres burned in 1994. I must point out

that it sounds like your observation is anecdotal.

As you didn’t cite any scientific reports or other explanations for

your conclusions, however, assuming your description of this fire is

correct, which it is not, I must point out that many other factors

influence how fire burns including the intensity of the vegetation,

and so on. In fact, I am told by forestry experts that thinning tree

densities are substantially the reason why forest fire don’t crown.

I would appreciate if you could provide me with additional information on the Rabbit Creek fire from your perspective, scientific,

actual information such as the type of thinning that was done, the

fire weather, and other factors that influenced the fire behavior in

that particular fire.

Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Boyd for questions.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Maybe I should open up with a question of Mr. Peterson about

some of the practices that you use—the State of Florida uses and

you’re authorized by the State through its legislature to use. And

I noticed in your testimony that you said sawtimber must be utilized within a few months. Can you be more specific on that timeframe, and also is that different in Florida, and why?

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Yes, sir.
23

Florida’s climate makes it very conducive to an early beget of

blue stain. Sawtimber depends on the time of year, but within 30

to 45 days, you need to move that out or it will become less valuable and have to revert to pulpwood because of the inset of blue

stain and other deteriorations. That time would be greater in the

winter, of course, when weather is not so warm and humid.

Mr. BOYD. So, this is the time of the year that it would be most

critical?

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Absolutely. Yes.

Mr. BOYD. There’s another problem we have in the south they

don’t have in other places and that is the southern pine beetle.

What happens in terms of outbreaks of southern pine beetle after

fire damage?

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Well, the stress occasioned by the fire on

trees often make them very susceptible to the infestation of the

southern pine beetle and, of course, when that occurs as we have

learned from experience, it spreads and it’s imperative that you get

in and remove the damage of the infested trees, along with a buffer, all around them to limit the spread and further destruction of

the forest.

Mr. BOYD. OK, let it be noted in the record that we did have a

severe outbreak of southern pine beetle in the Osceola National

Forest within the last couple years.

Madam Chairman, I’ve spent all of my professional life in agriculture and part of that has been the—I’m a timber owner. I’m a

land owner that has plant some virgin pines on it and also planted

pine plantations. And I’ve spent all of my professional life managing that for, basically, three things: one is aesthetic value; two

is wildlife habitat; and three is also economic production. They are

not in conflict with each other. I can tell you. And so, I think the

things that I’ve read, and I want to turn to Ms. Nelson now, if I

might. I didn’t get through all of your testimony because I didn’t

get a copy of it until I received it when I got here, but I read part

of it.

Ms. NELSON. OK.

Mr. BOYD. And I must tell you that I’m somewhat shocked because it goes against everything that—the years that I’ve spent in

the business, it goes against what we know to be true and what

works. And I want to read to you. Well, first of all, let me ask you

this question and then I’m going to read part from your testimony.

I guess I understand from your testimony that you feel like there

should be one, no thinning in any national forest land.

Ms. NELSON. No, that’s not true.

Mr. BOYD. OK, that’s not true.

OK, second, you feel there should be no fuel treatments.

Ms. NELSON. No, that’s not true either.

Mr. BOYD. That’s not true. OK.

Ms. NELSON. I feel that we must be very careful in implementing

both thinning and fuels treatments, and I’ve cited in my testimony—there is a long list of citations of studies that have been

done that show that the way in which fuels treatment is conducted

makes a large difference in the resultant insect and fire hazard in

the residual stand.
24

Mr. BOYD. Well, I guess I didn’t get to the part where you said

that thinning or fuel treatment might be OK. I mean, I just read

the part where you were making the case that it increased fire

risks. So, then would it also be safe to say that you would be

against any salvage operations in damage—whether that be fire

damage?

Ms. NELSON. Same answer to all three of those questions is

that——

Mr. BOYD. OK.

Ms. NELSON. [continuing] with all of these treatments, they need

to be designed for specific reasons on specific sites and carefully

conducted. And that’s why environmental review is so important.

Mr. BOYD. But I gathered from your testimony that the length

of the environmental review would be so long that in the case of

Florida here, where we have, there would be no value to the salvage operation

Ms. NELSON. If the sales are being conducted for forest health

reasons or environmental reasons, then if that’s the case, then I

don’t see any emergency reason to proceed. Now, if the primary objective of the sale is economics, then I think that should be clearly

stated and that there may be a need to, on a 6-month time period,

you know, recover economic value. However, with the case in

Texas, from my understanding and again—you know, I’m not familiar with the forests down there, but from the record, the record

states that the purpose of the sales was to protect the surrounding

resources and—you know, the ecological integrity of the stand. And

there’s no reason to expedite the removal of trees for that purpose.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I notice my red light comes on, but

I would ask unanimous consent to have additional time since we

don’t seem to have a large crowd here on the Committee.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Please proceed Mr. Boyd.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Well, for the record, let me tell you that the 15,000 acres that

burned in the Osceola National Forest here in the last sixty days

that was outside of the wilderness area—there’s about 5,000 in the

wilderness area, 15,000 outside the wilderness area, primarily was

pine plantations. I spent several hours with Marcia Carney, who is

the State Forester for U.S. Forest Service, last weekend touring

those sites and talking with her about what her vision was for

what should be done. And she and I agreed that those pine plantations would best be salvaged and replanted in longleaf pine. By the

way, those are slash pines. Those are pine plantations which, obviously we—when I say plantations, I mean man planted them. But

if you don’t do a salvage operation pretty quickly, those logs will

fall over a period of time and make reforestation, rehabilitation almost impossible. So, I want that to be shown as part of the record,

that if you don’t get in there in some reasonable period of time and

do the salvage operation, then reforestation and rehabilitation becomes very difficult.

Now, I want to turn to the other members and I know you probably have not had a chance to read Ms. Nelson’s statement, and I

want to ask you to consider this statement. And I read from Ms.

Nelson’s statement on page two, third paragraph: ‘‘results from a

study of the effectiveness of fuels treatment on previously non-har-
25

vested lands in the Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Wenatchee

National Forest, Washington provides evidence that harvest treatments may increase risk of fire damage. In this study, the Forest

Service evaluated the effects of past fuel treatments on fire severity. Before wildfire in 1994, approximately 2,021 acres of the fire

that had not been previously logged were treated for fuels with mechanical removal and/or prescribed burning.’’ And then she goes on

to describe using percentages that says those areas that had fuel

treatments prior to the fire had greater damage than those that did

not have fuel treatments prior to the fire.

Mr. Hill, let me ask you. What would be your reaction to that

statement?

Mr. HILL. Well, I’d have to wonder what some of the fire conditions were at the time the experiment was conducted: you know,

wind temperature; was the fuel spread; was it piled for burning; or

just exactly what happened—I’m really not familiar with that particular study.

Mr. BOYD. But you certainly couldn’t make a statement carte

blanche—a general statement across the board that land that had

fuel treatments on it was more likely to be—have a higher mortality in case of fire, could you

Mr. HILL. That’s correct.

Mr. BOYD. OK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.

I have some questions for Mr. Ferrioli.

In your discussion and in your testimony, you discussed how appeals and litigation can be used to slow or stop Forest Service discussions, but often it seems that just a threat of a lawsuit seems

to stop everything.

Mr. FERRIOLI. Oh, thank you, Madam Chairman.

It has been our experience that the Forest Service is extremely

risk adverse, and it seems that even the mention of an appeal can

send our planners into a paroxysm of self-analysis, and it seems to

make the process very protracted. In the case of the Summit Fire

Recovery Project, there were numerous instances where members

of the environmental community said in response to proposals in

scoping ‘‘If you do that, we’ll sue you.’’ And I believe that made the

agency very, very careful to the point of even dereliction of their

duty to be timely.

We heard today that there’s a great concern that a revision of the

NEPA process might make planning thoughtless or careless. Planning does not need to be thoughtless or careless to be timely, and

that’s the biggest problem. When the agency is so averse to appeals

or lawsuits that they fail to carry out their duties which are serving the people and protecting the land by moving forward on these

projects, the communities definitely suffer.

In the case of the Summit Fire Recovery Project, what should

have probably taken 6 months, took 24 months. We still have not

seen the end of it. The appeal that was filed is one that we’ve seen

templated and used in dozens of other appeals. The response from

the agency is as if they’ve never seen this kind of an approach before. They treat every appeal the same. Anybody that’s willing to

invest in a word processing program and a $.32 stamp can virtually

bring a planning process to a halt.
26

And in the case of the deterioration that Mr. Boyd mention, I can

assure him that although his concern with southern pine beetles,

we must have Yankee pine beetles in the Oregon area——

[Laughter.]

[continuing] because our pine beetles attack with the same kind

of ferocity. We have the same blue stain, and checking, and deterioration—very rapid deterioration of our pine stocks.

I’ll just show for illustration purposes, this is a blue-stained log.

It’s about 33 inches in diameter. After 24 months, you can see that

the blue stain almost approaches the center of the heartwood. This

log would have been relatively valuable if harvested within 6

months of the fire. Today, it has deteriorated to the point where

it is just about pulpwood.

[Photograph.]

The same thing with this particular piece. This round is about

33 inches in diameter. You can see that the round is almost split

all the way to the heartwood. Blue stain goes right to the

heartwood, and there is ample evidence of pine bore beetle damage

to this wood.

[Photograph.]

I do believe that there’s a coefficient between environmental concerns and economic concerns, and it seems that there’s a desire on

the part of some folks in the environmental community to completely disconnect environmental considerations from economic considerations. But one of the things that we need to focus on is the

kind of damage that we see as a result of these fires.

This is a devastated, class-one stream in the Summit Fire Recovery area. It is habitat to bull trout, and it’s habitat to steelhead.

This is approximately 24 months after the fire. You can see that

we still have exposed mineral soils. You can see that the treatments that should have been done in this area which would have

been reducing the standing wood to lower the risk of reburn have

not been done; that we have not had reforestation; and that the native vegetation has not returned to this area. This is after 24

months.

So I would submit to you that the failure to take appropriate and

timely action can contribute to a long-lasting environmental degradation that does effect and impact species like steelhead, bull

trout and other anadromous species. This is just one of the riparian

areas that were devastated by that fire.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Senator Ferrioli, it seems down at the Forest

Service does treat fire when it’s actually occurring. It’s an emergency, and then after the fire is over, it’s no longer an emergency.

Mr. FERRIOLI. Madam Chairman, if I could comment?

We had 24 days of very intensive fire response. We spent a million dollars a day putting that fire out. At the end of the Fire Recovery Project, we should have had about 3 to 6 months, a period

of time for scoping, planning for the recovery project and implementation. Due to the inexplicable responses of the Forest Service

to the idea that they might have an appeal or the idea that somebody might sue, we saw that process protracted to 24 months. It

just seems that the moral equivalency of war is what we bring to

putting the fire out. We spent 24 months and about $1.7 million

in planning for rehabilitation. To date, we’ve done nothing on the
27

ground. So, you could say that there is a tremendous race for fire

suppression and then an interminable process for planning and recovery.

And in the meantime, we see continuing resource degradation.

The community stands to lose significantly. We have about 600 jobs

at stake in keeping the mills open in our community. Our schools

are already on a 4-day school week. The value of this project has

dropped six-fold, meaning there will less dollars for schools, and

roads in the counties. And the volume under contract in our community is between 3 and 6 months.

So, we literally have a situation after the fire where the Forest

Service seems to be engaged in a round-robin of planning while the

community’s needs are not met and environmental degradations

pile up.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator.

Ms. Nelson, you mentioned that there were some times when forest restoration or thinning is acceptable. Are you referring to the

Van Wagtendonk Study of 1996?

Ms. NELSON. I’m not referring that study as an example of when

treatments would be called for. I used that study as an example

that the way in which a treatment is done, meaning the techniques—specific techniques that are used have variable effects. So,

for instance in that study, one of the treatments that was part of

the experiment was lop and scatter and——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Lop and scatter

Ms. NELSON. [continuing] lop and scatter. It’s a standard fueltreatment practice.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you explain for the record what lop and

scatter is?

Ms. NELSON. Sure. It’s an approach where the materials, tops of

trees and branches, are scattered around the site, and this is a

standard fuel treatment. The other kinds of treatments that were

investigated by Van Wagtendonk—we have some model-base study

prepared as part of the Sierra, Nevada Ecosystem Project, included

prescribed burning, chipping, I believe. I think there were six treatments in all, and lop and scatter came out as the results of study

indicated that lop and scatter on these stands would increase flame

land and rate of spread of the fire.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Of course——

Ms. NELSON. Now, the reason that I mentioned the study in the

first place was not to say that fuel treatment should not be done,

but that environmental review is important because, you know, in

the Sierras and those areas we would want to make sure that lop

and scatter treatments are not being done on that site.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You do admit in your testimony that this

model was constructed, but this has never applied in a natural setting

Ms. NELSON. Well, the treatments have been applied in a natural

setting, and I think why, as Mr. Hill mentioned in his response——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now let me back up here.

Ms. NELSON. OK.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want you to answer my question because in

your statement and let me quote to you——

Ms. NELSON. Yes.
28

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] ‘‘given that the studies’ conclusions are based on models that have not been tested in natural settings, results must be interpreted cautiously.’’

Ms. NELSON. Yes, and that’s how I view, as a scientist, I take a

very cautious view on when and how much inference you can make

from scientific studies. Now the interesting thing with this topic in

general is that there are very few studies that have been conducted

at all. So, this is the reason that we need to rely on modelling studies. If there were results from on-the-ground studies, that would

provide further——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So, we have a heavy fuel-load situation, and

the only thing that you recommend in order to avoid the heavy fire

that damages the soil creates a crowning effect is lop and scatter?

Ms. NELSON. The only thing that I recommend?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Recommend, the thinning?

Ms. NELSON. Oh, no. You must have misheard what I said previously. I said lop and scatter increased rates of spread and flame

land. So that would not be a good technique——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Alright.

Ms. NELSON. [continuing] in these particular forests in the Sierras.

Now, I don’t say that there’s one approach that I would recommend or not recommend in every situation. My point is that

there is no blanket prescriptions that we can use for all stands,

number one. And No. 2, that using the wrong treatments can result

in higher risks because of activity fuels, as Mr. Hill mentioned previously. Activity fuels is the main problem with the implementation

of treatments.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Let me ask you.

Ms. NELSON. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Given a situation where there has been 9

years of drought, the forests are stressed because of lack of moisture, there is heavy fuel load on the forest floor, what kind of

thinning techniques would you recommend, specifically?

Ms. NELSON. Well, I would need to know more specifically about

the stand than what you just told me. However, I would, No. 1—

would not do anything on an emergency basis. And No. 2, I think

the most important thing about this whole topic is that there is a

need for more information about where to go with this incredibly

large problem that we have as forest-free community.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Peterson, the Subcommittee is having a hearing on fire readiness next week, and since we have you here now, we’d like to have

you talk freely about the fires in Florida. I’d like for you to please

feel free to share any important lesson learned. From your perspective with the Committee, and for the permanent record, I’d really

like for you to elaborate on where you think we are most effective.

Where you think we’re the weakest, and on the quality of our

equipment, people, and the communications And finally, I’d like to

ask you what do you think we need to do to be better prepared for

similar or worst occurrences in the future, God forbid

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
29

Those are profound questions. If I can—but before I do that, if

I might. I would just like to say that my experience with the Federal land managers are that they the people at the ground level

would like to move more expeditiously and effectively in dealing

with situations such as fire, disease, insects outbreak, but because

of the fear, because of the threat of challenges, they feel their

hands are tied. That things just have been said here today—the

classic example which I have is 1995 when Opal hit Blackwater, we

got our 50 million border feet out within six months and our neighbor across the way, the Conecult National Forest, they were only

able to begin by the time we got through.

So, I think the local managers for the Federal agencies are very

interested in being more aggressive in dealing with these problems,

but they just feel like the process won’t permit it.

The fires in Florida have been a challenge that I think has been

well met by all. It’s one of those things, Madam Chairman, that I

don’t think any state can meet either staff or equipped for that

magnitude in that complexity of fire. I think there has to be a lot

of lessons learned from this and I wish I had this opportunity

about 3 or 4 weeks from now because the fires have barely stopped,

and we are now in the process of critiquing, evaluating, and what

went well, and what didn’t go quite so well.

I will say that it was a classic example of good working relationships between, local, State, and Federal agencies. We had personnel in the state from every state except two, and most of those

probably except for the southeast were Federal employees. We had

about 5,175 out-of-state people in Florida at one time or another

during this siege.

Bringing in those people and that equipment is a challenge of

monumental proportions. I think there needs to be a better coordination between the ordering agencies to be sure that the right

equipment is ordered. I think it also needs to refine the process so

that there is not duplication, for example.

In Florida, if you say I’m going to send ten dossiers, you really

haven’t helped me. You’ve got to send me ten dossiers that are lowground pressure, white track. So, there’s much room to refine the

process of ordering to avoid duplications. We also had and I would

hasten to say that I’m not suggesting that any of these are major

problems except they just bear our attention. I think we need to

solidify the resource-ordering process more closely than we have in

the past so that we centralize to avoid the duplication; to avoid the

wrong resources being ordered. That’s an area I think we can.

Certainly within the State of Florida, there’s some things that we

will do different, but I think also, Madam Chairman, that this is

a classic example of what, particularly the southern group of State

Foresters, has been saying for a number of years and that is catastrophic fires are not, and should not, be considered unique to any

one region of the country. It’s a matter of time. It’s a matter of time

when any one region can have it and our policy, our strategies, and

our operational designs should be developed along those lines, not

overcommitted to any one region of the country.

I think generally speaking because of difference in terrains, the

difference in fuel loads that the equipment issue is one that is a

little more regionalized than others. To have people expected to
30

come to Florida—or to the southeast I should say, with equipment

and training that is applicable to the west or to the northeast is

not always a good fit. So maybe a little more diverse training

would be in order for that. I’m sure that’s true. I told someone this

morning that probably the most common phrase I heard was ‘‘my

God, it’s green. It’s burning,’’ and that’s not normally heard

throughout the country.

The wild and urban interface, a terrific part in Florida, and certainly in some other states. We spent and inordinate amount of

time, and energy, and resources steering fires around communities.

That, admittedly, added to the acres burned, but each day the team

set their priorities, and each day the priority was a protection of

life, and residence, and property.

I would also add that the working relationship between the State

agency, and the Federal agency, and in this case, the Florida Division of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service was excellent. Bearing

in mind, when you bring in a type–1 overhead team, you get a big

team and that’s what you need at a time like that.

The Forest Service, from day one and every day thereafter, reminded us that we were the lead agency. They were there to help,

and I never saw that change That was generally true of everyone

that was there. Our sister agencies and State Government, they

did not try to second guess or preempt what the forest agencies

thought was the best strategies. We were, indeed, dealing with

wildfires in most cases. The local fire departments did an excellent

job helping us protect communities, residences, and those type

things.

I think one of the lessons learned are reminded, it was probably

already there, but it brought it into sharp focus that there needs

to be a responsible, prescribed fire program. Now that has some

issues on the other side that cannot be ignored, but particularly in

the areas in and around communities and subdivisions, there has

to be major fuel reduction efforts, and I think you will see us in

the State of Florida put forth a great deal of effort in that regard.

When you go Palm Coast and you see 48,000 acres of one-time

woodland sprinkled with 5,000 homes and you see some homes

burned and some saved, and you know there’s a difference there.

You wonder what it is. It’s probably a difference and coincidence

for sure, but fuel reduction is part of the answer there. There has

to be more dispensibles based by the homeowners. They have a responsibility here.

The wild and urban interface is an enormous challenge in Florida, not just in Palm Coast. We put water with our helicopter on

45 homes in a subdivision in southwest Florida earlier in the year.

So, these are some of the things—I might have rambled a bit

here, but we’re going to fine tune these. We are going to critique

these. I think also something for us to work on and I know my Federal counterparts are certainly amenable to this, and that is how

can we be more cost effective in firefighting. It’s not cheap. It’s not

cheap, but when you have life and property at risk, you go get the

fire out and then you try to come back and figure out how you can

do it better and more cost effective next time.

So, I would, again, thank all of those who helped us in this undertaking. It’s quite an experience. We’ll get it back together at
31

some point in time, and I’m not sure if it’ll be the same old routine

as far as fire preparedness goes.

[The prepared statement of Mr. L. Earl Peterson may be found

at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. That was very instructive and informative to us.

I do want you to know that I have put together a bill and

dropped it about six months ago on the urban-interface-wildland

fire suppression, and it deals directly with this issue, and it was

put together on the recommendation of foresters from the Forest

Service in the field. And so, I look forward to your looking at it.

I look forward to Florida’s support on this very important bill. It

does affect that very critical area.

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. We look forward to doing that.

One thing that I neglected to say. I think FEMA came to Florida.

They were very involved. I think it was a learning process for them

and us. I suggest that I think that they will be doing this. That

they look more to being supportive in prepositioning and getting resources in place ahead of an urgent need, and indeed they did that

in this case. It’s something that they are not accustomed to. It was

a new experience for them, but I will commend them for their efforts, but I think one of the things that we all have to do is be alert

to the weather, the climates.

You see, Madam Chairman, what we had here was a coming together of a unique situation, with drought indexes, with fuel loadings, with fuel moistures, with climatic conditions all at one time,

and those fires were spotting a quarter to a half a mile. So, that

was just a terrible situation, but I think we all need to be more

prone to preplan, to preposition to move our resources closer to

where the area at risk may be before the catastrophe occurs.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Fire suppression is so important, but fire prevention is also very important.

Mr. Peterson it has come to my attention that you even had to

deal with some arson activities down there during those fires.

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. We always have and I’m sure each state

does a certain amount of arson activity. There was a period of time

there that it seemed like that on a few days that the larger part

of our starts, as we would refer to, were by arsonists. Then there

was those fires that began—were human caused by carelessness,

and then there was that period of time where the majority of were

lightning caused. These fires were, in large part, in what we call

a lightning belt. So, we had all of the above, but certainly arsonists

was part of it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

The Chair recognizes my colleague, John Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I thank the chairman.

I would like to ask a question to Ms. Nelson. I was pleased to

hear that you are not opposed to thinning and salvage, and you

probably had the chance in the recent years to look at a number

of sites where this has been proposed. Could you share with the

Committee a site where maybe you would have blessed a thinning

and salvage cut

Ms. NELSON. Well, for instance, I think there are some cases

where epidemic levels of beetles might require removal—say it was
32

mountain pine beetle of large diameter trees, certain number on a

site, to prevent spread into adjacent stands.

Looking at the flip side of that, for instance, the Texas exemption

that just occurred. In that case, I would not be in support of removal because, from my understanding and again I have not visited those sites and I have just reviewed those materials in the

record, there was no epidemic. The removal was intended as a riskavoidance measure in case there were epidemic levels of infestations at some future time. And I think in balance there, the environmental damage associated with the salvage operation, which

would occur, would outweigh the potential benefit at some point in

the future if there did in fact—if the stand did, in fact, reach epidemic levels of southern pine beetles.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. So you wouldn’t support it for

economic reasons? I mean, to salvage the value of the timber that

was there?

Ms. NELSON. Well, let me just say that I work as a scientist. I

consult with NRDC, but I work as a research scientist and so I

wouldn’t comment on whether a sale should go forward for any particular reason. However, in the Texas example, the justification

was an environmental one for forest health or protection of forest

purposes.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. And you disagreed with that?

Ms. NELSON. Yes, I don’t think that that was a valid justification

at that point in time.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. This question may not be on

this particular issue, but I guess for perspective, you know, half of

the soft-wood timber owned in America is owned by the Federal

Government. Do you support greencuts for economic reasons or for

thinning or do you support cutting of timber on public land, personally

Ms. NELSON. On all public lands? You mean——

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. No, selected—I mean, almost

all of it is locked up. There’s about 20 percent that we actually

practice forestry on of the land owned by the Federal Government,

but do you——

Ms. NELSON. If you’re asking me whether I would support a zerocut policy on Federal lands, I would say, no.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. You don’t support zero cut?

Ms. NELSON. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. OK, so on some situations you

would. Is the only exception in a salvage area?

Ms. NELSON. No, I would support thinning and fuels reductions

as well, but I’m a little uncomfortable even broaching the subject

because I tend to try to avoid large policy matters like this and just

think in terms of the science and the ecology involved. And so, I

would support the removal of live trees, and a thinning for fuel reduction if I felt that that treatment would accomplish ecological objectives.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. OK. Last year I was out with

the Speaker and the group that toured a number of states in the

west and we flew over a 600,000 acre burn that had had a very

heavy fuel load; I thought was the most devastating ecological disaster I had ever seen. You know, 600,000 acres where there wasn’t
33

anything green left; where the hillsides were sliding into the valleys; where the silt was unmeasurable. Wildlife not existent. Everything, everything had been killed. I’m sure insects were killed

there. It took a long time to recreate a normal ecosystem, and I

haven’t seen Florida yet, but I hope to. When you have that kind

of a fire, some may call it natural, but there’s nothing much natural left when the fuel loads high and it burns with intensity. It

destroys all life. It destroys plant life. In some places I’m told the

soils are barren for many years, and so you’re going to have huge

amounts of siltation. And the ecological system is just destroyed

and, I think some of those could have been prevented. I’d be interested to know, have you ever flown over a large area like that?

Ms. NELSON. Yes, I have, and I’ve worked in many of them. I’ve

been doing forestry research for the last 10 years. I agree that fuels

reduction is important. My concern is that commercial sales often

exacerbate fuel problems. And so, I’m concerned——

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. How does that——

Ms. NELSON. How does that work

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I guess I don’t understand

that.

Ms. NELSON. But what ends up happening——

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I’m from the east. Our forest

is different from yours. So, I understand the eastern forest better

than I do the western forest.

Ms. NELSON. Yes, let me explain this to you. One, of the primary

reasons why management can have the affect of increasing fuel

loadings and then increasing hazard from future fires is that slash

ends up on the ground, and managers don’t have a good way of

really dealing with that because in commercial sales the emphasis

is on removing the live tree bowls.

So, for instance, if you do a thinning, and a thinning as I said

is a vague term and all different kind of things that can be done,

the emphasis is on removing the larger trees and in the west often

times the most fire-tolerant trees. What happens is the resulting

trees have thinner bark. They’re, you know, more flammable.

They’re a less fire-tolerant species. The height-to-life crown is

lower, so crowning is more like to happen. And there’s abundant

fine fuels on the ground, and it’s the fine, slashy fuels that really

are the problem with fire spread.

So, those are reasons why if a thinning is not conducted properly

and, in fact, many of the thinnings that are done in eastern Washington and Oregon fit the pattern that I just mentioned, then you

end up with a stand that may be of greater fire risk. And even

though the thinning purportedly was done to alleviate fire hazard.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Would anyone else on the

panel like to grab that issue I mean, those of you that—I think you

all deal with softwood forests. I’d be interested to hear your——

Mr. FERRIOLI. Madam Chairman, Representative Peterson, I am

not a forest scientist, but I would like to take exception with a couple of comments that I’ve heard.

First of all, there is a prescription that won’t allow harvest of

trees larger than 21 inches diameter at breast height. It’s called

the eastside forest screen. So, we don’t see the removal of large

timber in almost any site on the eastside forest.
34

Secondly, the lop and scatter system of slash removal is very seldom used in my experience. Mostly it’s bunch and burn which

means that slash other than the large woody debris that left in profusion on those sites for nurse logs and for ecological function—

most of the slash is gathered up and during the wet time of the

year it’s burned. So that we reduce the fuel loads for standing

trees, then we reduce the fuel loads that would be residual fuel

loads other than the large woody debris that serves an ecological

function.

So, it has been my experience that when we can get the Forest

Service to do fuel-load reductions, and that is a rarity, that the prescriptions that are used to reduce the fuel loads actually do leave

a far lower risk of fire. And if I could use a couple of photos to illustrate, this is an area where we have about 800 stems per acre.

Actually, in this area it’s about 60 percent dead. It was a beetle

kill. There also was a fire that moved through here that did a lot

of this tree mortality. This is the before picture of the Summit fire

where the fire was in an area that was left untreated; where the

fuel loads were not reduced. This is the after picture. This is part

of the 38,000 acres that burned, and, as you can see, this is a devastated ecosystem. The ecosystem function here will be suppressed

and reduced for generations. Fuel load reduction at this point in

time could have prevented a hard burn, a more serious ecological

disruption of the area. It was not done, and it has not been done.

It’s not been a regular feature of management in an intensive way

for a long period of time. We really have ourselves to blame for

that.

Fire suppression for a long period of time has allowed fuel loads

to grow in our forests—in the pine forests of eastern Oregon and

eastern Washington. The remediation of that is not to run around

with a drip torch and just burn everything. The remediation of that

is careful fuel loading and fuel load reductions on a systematic

basis across that landscape followed by the reintroduction of slow,

low-intensity, creeping fires, cleansing fires. We seem to want to go

from the problem that we have, which is fuel load increases and

relatively high stocking levels that are stressed, immediately

through the process of devastating fires, to a process where we’ve

reestablished a fire in the ecosystem. You can’t get there from here.

You need to go through the intermediary process of reduction of

those fuel loads.

It seems to be a problem for many in the environmental community, because the bi-product of the reduction of fuel loads is supportive of timber-dependent communities, and the support of timber-dependent communities is something that’s very close to local

government. I particularly worry about that. I want to sustain the

community. I can’t sustain the community unless I sustain the ecosystem. I can’t get income from the landscape unless I do fuel load

reductions, and, therefore, there’s no surplus to reinvest in ecosystem functions. The two are coefficient, and it seems like there

are some folks in the world that want to completely disconnect the

ecosystem costs which are high. Ecosystem management is expensive, and they want to disconnect the ecosystem costs with sustaining the local economy which produces the surplus for reinvestment. You can’t take the two apart; they’re coefficients.
35

And, so I would say to you just that the fuel load reduction regimes that we would like to see implemented in the intermountain

west would, to a great degree, fire-proof our forests; lower the danger of catastrophic fire, and allow the reintroduction of low-intensity creeping fires. It seems like we all want to get to the same

place, and that is where fire has an integral part in the ecosystem,

but we’re being prevented from allowing that to happen, and the

intermediary tool is actually salvage logging and fuel load reductions.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Ms. Nelson, do you want to respond?

Ms. NELSON. Yes, I would agree with what you said about your

last statement about where we want to go, however, I don’t agree

that salvage and thinning will get us there unless prescriptions are

done very differently than they are currently being done, and the

reason is because, as you mentioned, right now, the Forest Service

is not investing in the following up to the commercial activity

which is dealing with activity slash, and I think as long as these

commercial activities result in high levels of activity slash, then

we’re going to be exacerbating the problems that we have.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Mr. Peterson, is Florida that

much different. I know it’s not as old a forest, but would you care

to respond to that?

Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. In many cases, in Florida, there is very

little slash left in the logging operations. I believe that, in fact, that

there needs to some organized way of reducing the fuel loads there,

but many of our harvesting operations leave behind very little

slash. Those that do is, generally, as he indicated, is piled and

burned effectively in preparation for reforestation. So——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Sure.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I wanted to ask Ms. Nelson a follow up with regards to the prescriptions that you indicated that

have not been properly employed, especially with regards to followup. I wonder if, for the record, you could be more specific about

the prescriptions that you were talking about? What given situations do you think that there can be thinning and what kind of

thinning and what kind of follow up?

Ms. NELSON. Well, again, I wouldn’t want to specify—I mean, it’s

hard to be specific about——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But that’s what we’re asking—excuse me—

that’s what we’re asking you for, specifics. We can’t meet——

Ms. NELSON. Right, and that——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Wait a minute, let me finish, please, if you

don’t mind. We can’t meet your needs unless you help us understand specifically.

Ms. NELSON. And I was just about to do that. It’s hard in the

absence of a landscape and a specific forest example to talk in general, but I would have to say is that we need to be focusing on removal, in general, of small diameter material from the forest.

These are the flashy fuels. These are the things that are, say in,

below six-inch diameter. But when I was talking of large, I was

speaking of trees that are much smaller than 20 inches still fit into

my large category. So, that is what I think the emphasis should be
36

on: removal of the very small stuff out there that’s the flashy fuels.

I think that thinning and salvage prescriptions that focus on removing the large fire-tolerant species will only create further problems.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I understand that, especially in a green forest,

and the thinning of the smaller diameter, low-level fuel load is very

important, but given the example that Mr. Ferrioli used, where

there was a huge stand of diseased timber that had been infested

with insects—bark beetle, I think he said—60 percent of it was destroyed. It was large diameter timber, and so it was very susceptible to a very, very hot fire that devastated stream beds, and, like

he said, will take generations to recover. How would you recommend, specifically, that the Forest Service and the local people

deal with something like this?

Ms. NELSON. Well, I think that with bark beetle epidemics,

they’re tied to climatic factors, and they’ve occurred naturally in

forests for long periods of time, and I think it’s not possible to entirely remove mortality from bark beetle epidemics. In some cases,

I think it may appropriate to remove or, say, the mountain beetle

on large diameter trees to prevent spread into other areas, and I

think it’s just a case-by-case basis.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So, in some cases, it’s appropriate to remove

those trees.

Ms. NELSON. Yes. And under epidemic situations, but, again, I

don’t think it’s appropriate to, in every case, focus on removal of

large diameter trees to prevent, number one, risk of the infestation

if there’s just endemic levels, and, second, I don’t think it’s possible

to completely reduce mortality from epidemic levels of bark beetles.

I also think that we have to be careful about the adverse effects

of removal activities post-disturbance. So, after windthrow or fire,

these stands are particularly sensitive. Post-fire stands are very

sensitive in terms of soils and sediment into streams and already

taking a large hit, and I think we want to be very careful about

increasing degradation of those stands.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are you familiar with the Knudsen-Vandenberg funds?

Ms. NELSON. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And those are specifically targeted for restoration, aren’t they?

Ms. NELSON. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, they are. So, I think that has been provided for, but, Mr. Ferrioli, do you have any followup?

Mr. FERRIOLI. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Only that it’s

been my experience, again, from personal observation that fuel load

treatments are done after recovery projects and after salvage removal, so that by the forester’s estimation and the project estimation that there is no increase in risk for fire for reburn. As a

matter of fact, part of the prescriptions would be to lower the fuel

loading for the fires which are flash fuels, so that they do not

present a risk. So, I’m not familiar with the regime that Ms. Nelson’s describing. What I’ve observed for myself on the ground following green sales and salvage sales is that we see fuel load reductions that would by far reduce the risk of reburn or the risk of catastrophic fires.
37

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do have to say that this has been extremely

interesting to me, and while I’ve asked some very pointed questions, I do want to say—and I will yield to Mr. Boyd—but I do want

to say that the exchange that has gone here has not only been interesting to me but will serve as a very valuable, permanent

record, because until we can really understand how each other is

thinking, can we really reach a successful conclusion. And I think

that we’re all very, very interested in making sure that our environment is protected for future generations, not only from one

standpoint, but from a variety of balanced prescriptions and uses.

So, although I have focused my questions primarily at Ms. Nelson

and Mr. Ferrioli, I want to thank both of you for your very interesting and informative answers and for your time here.

And before I yield to Mr. Boyd, I do want to ask Mr. Hill a question about the Society of American Foresters. Has your organization done any studies or are you aware of studies on the effects of

fuel treatments on fire?

Mr. HILL. The Society of American Foresters hasn’t done studies

themselves—ourselves, but many of the members are involved with

agencies that are doing such work, particularly, the Forest Service.

We have a position of statement on fire management that points

to the seriousness of the urban-rural interface problem. But the

question, directly, is no, we have not done any studies ourselves.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much. The Chair yields to

Congressman Boyd.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. I, too,

have found this very interesting and want to thank all the panel

members. I don’t want this to become a beat up on Ms. Nelson

meeting, but, Ms. Nelson, I listened to your testimony, and it’s obvious to me that you oppose salvage operations or thinning or fuel

treatments for reduction of fire danger; at least I’ve been unable to

gather from your comments any specific instances where you would

think those were OK. But what I do want to do here is tell you that

in your remarks you describe the results of study of the Bear-Potato Analysis Area by the Wenatchee National Forest—I have a

copy of that study here. Is that the study was referenced?

Ms. NELSON. I can’t see it from where you are, but——

Mr. BOYD. The Environmental Assessment Bear-Potato Analysis

Area of the Tyee Fire Recovery Area?

Ms. NELSON. Yes.

Mr. BOYD. OK. You cited only one portion of that study; the part

that compared the effects of fuel treatment with no fuel treatments

in areas that had not been harvested. Then, you concluded that

harvest treatment may increase the risk of fire damage, but since

you were describing non-harvested areas, your conclusion appears

to be misleading, if not, inaccurate, and I want to read to you the

conclusion that the Forest Service wrote in the study that you

quoted from: ‘‘From this initial review of harvest fuel treatment on

the fire effects of the Tyee fire, there may be an indication that

harvested land had a better chance to burn black when compared

to non-harvested land. However, the reader should be reminded

that many factors were not included in this review; factors like the

timing of the fire; intensity of the smoke column; weather; type of

fire; head or backing fire; terrain; aspect and slope are all impor-
38

tant in the resulting fire effect on a piece of land. This review only

considered whether an area was harvested or not or fuels treated

or not.’’ And it continues: ‘‘However, since a treated and non-treated harvested area from the same time period—1971 to 1994—

would have an equal possibility to be burned at roughly the same

time, the figures in table 2—which you did not cite—are a good indication’’—I’m still quoting from the conclusions—‘‘are a good indication that fuels treatment in a harvested area did reduce the fire

effect.’’ Let me say that again: ‘‘The figures in table 2 are a good

indication that fuels treatment in a harvested area did reduce the

fire effect.

What is not as clear, however, is whether a harvest itself influenced fire behavior in any way. Perhaps, the largest study that included modeling weather, time of day, et cetera, could more accurately answer this question, but this is the best conclusion possible

given the time and the resources for this study.’’

Madame Chairman, I would submit a copy of this environmental

assessment that was quoted——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. BOYD. [continuing] for the record, and I would also say, Ms.

Nelson, that on several occasions I’ve heard you refer to the science

and technology on at least a few occasions I’ve heard you refer to

being a scientist, and I would submit to you, Ms. Nelson, that a scientist would not come before this congressional committee and cite

a scientific fact, just a portion of an environmental assessment to

draw a certain conclusion, and I’m very sorry about that. I yield

back.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. With that, I want to say

this panel is excused. Thank you very, very much for your time and

all the effort that each and every one of you have made to be here.

You have been before the panel for nearly 2 hours, and I very much

appreciate the expertise that you’ve brought to the record.

The Chair now asks that Chief Mike Dombeck, Chief of the U.S.

Forest Service in Washington, DC; Mr. Robert Joslin, Deputy

Chief, National Forest Service in Washington, DC, come forward

along with Rhey Solomon, Deputy Director, Ecosystem Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC. It’s my understanding, Mr. Solomon, that you are simply accompanying Mr. Joslin and the Chief, right

Mr. SOLOMON. To my knowledge, yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You do not have a prepared testimony.

Mr. SOLOMON. I have no prepared testimony.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Welcome back. It’s been a long time since either one of you have been before the Committee, and we are looking forward to your testimony on this particular issue, and, as

usual, we ask that all witnesses be sworn in. So, I wonder if you

might stand and raise your hand to the square?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chief Dombeck.
39

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DOMBECK, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DOMBECK. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I’d like to start

by saying to Congressman Boyd and our State forester, Earl Peterson, I just really commend the heroic efforts of the citizens of your

State, the State employees, and the many Forest Service employees, BLM employees, and other Federal fire fighters that participated in the really tough situation you had in your State, and I

think it’s just absolutely phenomenal that they did the job that

they did with a minimal amount of human injury and under the

tremendous loss we had, and I think that demonstrates the effectiveness of the skills of our employees, and the fact is we in the

United States do have the most effective and efficient wildland firefighting mechanism in the world. The incident command system is

something that’s been emulated and used in many, many cases,

and it’s something that we need to continue to improve upon and

analyze every situation which we do.

Now, to the topic at hand: environmental analysis and NEPA

compliance in emergency situations on national forest system

lands, and my written testimony incorporates the concerns and

comments of both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. As has been stated here numerous times, the National

Environmental Policy Act is our basic national charter for protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets goals, and provides the means for implementing policy. The regulations issued by

the Council of Environmental Quality in 1978, which implement

NEPA, provide for alternative arrangements to the normal NEPA

procedure in emergency situations.

The Forest Service and CEQ have used emergency provisions in

the CEQ regulations three times, and BLM has used the alternative situations five times, and we’re prepared to discuss those

Forest Service situations if you wish, Madame Chairman. Generally, alternative arrangements are initiated where a clear emergency to human health, safety, or the environment is present, and

the actions proposed is environmentally significant as defined by

the CEQ regulations. Often, actions proposed to be taken in emergency situations do not arise to the environmental significance

level, and, therefore, do not require alternative arrangements. For

these situations, the Forest Service follows its normal NEPA procedures.

The Forest Service and BLM believe that the procedures we use

for requesting alternative arrangements to NEPA compliance for

emergencies work. The existing authority is appropriate and adequate to administer our Nation’s national forests and other public

lands. We appreciate the Committee’s interest in alternative arrangement provisions for NEPA, and we understand the Committee’s desire to use extraordinary processes more broadly. We’d be

happy to discuss any questions you have, Madame Chairman, Congressman Boyd.

I have with me, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, Bob

Joslin, who not only has worked on the ground level, the field level

of the Forest Service in all parts of the country, including the

South, but also administers the programs of the National Forest

System, and Rhey Solomon is our Deputy Director of Ecosystem
40

Management and is our technical expert when it comes to NEPA,

the appeals process, and those kinds of things. So, we hope that between the three of us, the dialogue will be helpful, and we can be

as responsive as possible to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dombeck may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Chief. The Chair recognizes Mr. Joslin.

Mr. JOSLIN. Madame Chairman, I did not have any statement to

make. I come with the Chief to answer any questions that I can

for you and the members of the Committee, and I appreciate the

opportunity to be here.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Well, then I’ll begin with questioning, and I’ll direct my questions to the Chief. How many times

has the Forest Service applied for alternative arrangements

Mr. DOMBECK. Three times.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. About three times. And can you cite those

times and specific occurrences?

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, the first situation was Bull Run Lake near

Portland, Oregon, and the purpose of that was for protection of domestic water supplies. The second time was the situation that you

mentioned in your opening statement, Madame Chairman, the

Eighth Street fire in Boise, and the third time was the removal of

the blowdown damage in the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in

east Texas, and that was a situation where I personally toured to

view the work in progress and was very, very pleased with what

I saw just a few months ago.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. As you know, NEPA was written with the understanding that there are times when expedited processes are

needed. Also, the National Forest Management Act was written

with that in mind and even uses mandatory language that requires

the Secretary to move through the processes so we can remove the

timber that can create an explosion of disease or insect infestation.

And this is just common sense.

What doesn’t make sense to us is that the Forest Service doesn’t

see the need to ever use these expedited processes other than the

three cited that were allowed for in the law. Apparently, there

must be some reason, and we need to be able to try to resolve this,

because, as I review the law, the law says the Secretary shall do

certain things, and I know it’s frustrating for you, Chief, not to be

able to see your agency move quickly. We’ve had discussions about

this, and I know how you feel, I believe. Would you state and advise us, for the record, why you’re unable to follow the NEPA requirements as well as NFMA requirements for moving very quickly?

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, let me answer that question in a couple of

parts. Concerning the alternative arrangements, as I understand

it—and Rhey is more of an expert in this area—that the criteria

that are used are the threat to human health and safety and violation of law is the two criteria that we apply when we ask for alternative arrangements. The second part of the question regarding the

slowness of the process, I think we have to go a long way to find

anyone that isn’t somewhat frustrated by that, and I have continually instructed the Forest Service, and, in fact, of my time as a
41

BLM employee, likewise, that BLM—we have to be relentless about

simplifying the procedures that we have. That doesn’t mean that

they be simplistic or not based on science or in any way not comply

with the letter of the law from the standpoint of NEPA or the public involvement process and that type of thing. And this is something that there has been progress made in some areas, and I

would cite one example and that’s the section 7—rather, the consultation process with regards to the Endangered Species Act when

Jack Ward Thomas was Chief and I was the Director of BLM. We

gathered and looked for alternatives to streamline that process,

and, basically, what we did in that situation was took a process

that was a serial process and changed it to a parallel process, and

it reduced the time frames by almost half. And, in fact, as a result

of that effort, we reduced the backlog of ESA consultations by—a

backlog of about 1,200 consultations to 0 in just a matter of—

what’s it, about 2 or 3 years, Bob?

Mr. JOSLIN. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And, Rhey, I wanted to ask you since the

Chief referred to you and with your permission, Chief.

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chief made mention of the two criteria—

human health and life—and adhering to existing law as the criteria

under which the Forest Service moves ahead on a expedited basis,

and I’m specifically referring the National Forest Management Act

in section 1611. Let me read that into the record, because it says

nothing in the subsection of this section: ‘‘Nothing in subsection A

of this section shall prohibit the Secretary from salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged

by fire, windthrow or other catastrophes or which are in imminent

danger from insect or disease attack. The Secretary may either

substitute such timber for timber that would otherwise be sold

under the plan or, if not feasible, sell such timber over and above

the plan volume period.’’

Now, it seems under existing law that we’ve moved to other law

and forgot the existing law that the Congress passed in the Forest

Management Act. Can you help explain that?

Mr. SOLOMON. Well, Madame Chairman, in response to that, the

way the Forest Service and all agencies in government have implemented the procedures of NEPA is we believe that we can do better

decisionmaking by looking at environmental considerations that

NEPA requires us to look at and integrated that into our processes.

The provisions under NEPA that require the emergency provisions

are really aimed for immediate emergencies and only working with

the Council on Environmental Quality for the immediate problem

of that emergency, and——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Solomon, I asked you about the National

Forest Management Act, and you’re talking about another Act. I

read to you from the Forest Management Act and asked you for

your opinion with regards to what I read. It gives a clear indication

that you can move ahead. I don’t want to interrupt your thinking,

but I want us both to be focused on the same thing, and then we

can move to whatever else you’d like to focus on.

Mr. SOLOMON. And we believe we can move with compliance with

that law through the normal NEPA process.
42

Mr. DOMBECK. I’d like to add to that and that we do grant emergency exemptions of stay from the administrative appeals process,

as was the situation with the Summit Fire, and I will agree that

that is a situation that—in fact, the regional forester is looking at

very, very closely as to the instructions that Regional Forester Williams gave them out here, as he told me, was the fact that we’ve

got to get this moving as quickly as we can understanding that it’s

a situation that’s beyond us, but then take a very close look at that

situation and what could have been done differently, as we will be

involved in similar situations in the future. So, I would just add

that we do grant stay for administrative appeals on occasion for

emergencies, specific situations.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Like what kind of emergencies?

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, the Summit was an example, and I might

ask Bob if he might be aware of other situations.

Mr. JOSLIN. In particular, the Summit situation, the regional forester had come in and requested exemption of the stay that we

have in effect which is up to a 45-day timeframe after the decision

is made, so that they could go ahead and get on with that project

and not go through another winter and another spring run-off as

they already had to do as a result of what happened. So, rather

than the—the forest supervisor also requested that, and, as a result, we agreed with him and granted him that exemption of that

stay process.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Senator Ferrioli showed us some very telling

and graphic pictures of a bark beetle kill over 60 percent of the

standing trees, obviously, had already died from bark beetle, and

it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that even the green-appearing trees had been infested with bark beetle. Why are we not

seeing—in terms of prevention of catastrophic fire and destruction

to the watershed—why aren’t we seeing more implementation of

1611 prior to fires occurring?

Mr. JOSLIN. Well, one of the things that we’ve talked about with

you before—and I think that he explained that very well—that we

have 40 plus million acres out there at risk of national forest lands

that we do need to be taking a look at to see what we can do as

far as reducing those fuels as he so well laid out in the Summit

situation.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But, Mr. Joslin, I’m growing increasingly impatient with this agency just taking a look, while our forests burn.

I mean, I have been hearing that for years, and I see no on-theground change. You have had my personal respect, but I am saying

to you that this—I am, personally, and this Committee is growing

increasingly impatient with the fact that all we hear from those

who may presumably oppose active on-the-ground fire prevention

techniques, we’re going to study it more; we want to look at it. We

can’t have that in this country any longer, because this agency has

been given one of the Nation’s most valuable resource, and we’re

losing it. I mean, Mr. Ferrioli testified to the fact that to fight that

fire cost $25 million. He testified to the fact that when you add the

environmental studies and the legal costs and so forth, that fire,

alone, cost $30 million. Now, if you had to bear the burden of all

of that on timber sales, your timber sales would look even worse

than they do now, and it must be a source of embarrassment to see
43

that the timber fund is now in the red, and we’re not even applying

all that could be applied against the timber fund sales. I don’t

mean to sound impatient, but I am. I want to see on-the-ground activity. I mean, out in the Northwest and now down in Florida, we

are hurting. We have hundreds of thousands of acres of burned

timber; hundreds of thousands of acres of devastated timber. What

used to be magnificent stands of green timber that protected our

watersheds and our streams are now being destroyed because of an

inability to crash through and do exactly what the Congress said

we should do; not rearrange what the Congress but exactly what

the law states very simply that should be done.

Mr. JOSLIN. Madame Chairman, if I could, and I’d refer to Congressman Boyd’s State of Florida and Earl Peterson, we have three

national forests down there—we mentioned the Osceola and

Appalachicola, and we also have the Ocala—and Congressman

Boyd mentioned the acreages burned down there. I think that the

Ocala National Forest is probably had more management for a

longer period of time than any of the other national forests. Those

things are going on there. We had a total, I believe—and Earl can

probably verify that—383 acres is all that burned there, and I

think if you have an opportunity to see that forest that it is one

that’s had some intensive work done as you’re referring to. So, I

understand your impatience. We have that impatience too, but

there are some places where we are doing some of those things.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, I look forward to seeing more results

also in the Northwest.

Mr. DOMBECK. Madame Chairman, I’d like to just make a couple

of points that I think are important—Senator Ferrioli also commented on this—and that’s that our fastest growth program is fuels

treatment. In fact, we’ve gone from treating about .5 million acres

a year to a 1.5 million acres a year, and we’re ratcheting up our

skills and pushing the budget in that direction and have had good

support for that from the environmental community as well as the

timber industry to do the thinning work, and we’d like to be up to

about 3 million acres per year on the national forest system lands.

So, it’s a program that we’re not just looking the other way.

We’re continuing to push that, although there’s a level of impatience there that we’re not moving fast enough, and the magnitude

of work in the urban wildland interface is very, very important.

What we have to do is we have to do it in a way where we can

maintain and build credibility and build a support base and move

toward lighter on the land technologies. People are more and more

opposed to soil disturbance activities, and the industry and the

agency and other entities continue to see great strides in improvement of technologies, and we’ve got to increase the rate of application.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Chief, I’d have to share with you and share

on the record the fact that each individual forest used to be responsible for making sure that the fuel load was reduced in their forest

plan and that disease and insect infestation were taken care of.

But when we have centralized planning and we have goals involving a certain number of acres and we expand those goals, that

takes the authority away, it would appear, from the unit managers,

that they are not able to implement the necessary programs that
44

would prevent the emergencies that we’re now dealing with. The

horse is probably out of the barn in many of these areas, and, like

Senator Ferrioli testified, it’s going to take generations for, even

with active management, for the forest to be rehabilitated. And I

think part of it comes back to the fact that, Chief, you testified in

your statement, you stated that rarely do these events constitute

an emergency. Since the law is so clear as to what must be done

and it isn’t even—it’s mandatory language; it uses the word ‘‘shall.’’

When you’re involved in windthrow or disease or insect infestation

or burns. The law has dealt with those as an emergency, because

it gave you the expedited ability. What do you—don’t you agree

with that or what do you believe constitutes an emergency?

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, as I indicated earlier, I believe the definition

of emergency—and let me ask Rhey to verify this—is basically derived through the NEPA process. Is that correct

Mr. SOLOMON. It’s been derived by——

Mr. DOMBECK. And by CEQ regulations.

Mr. SOLOMON. [continuing] by the 30 cases that CEQ has approved over the years have helped define what the nature of what

they define as an emergency under the definition of NEPA.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know what we’ve seen here is through an

agency that was not created and authorized by the Congress, we’ve

see case law at whatever level of the courts that may have been

rendered defining what an emergency is when the Congress defined

already, and I just read it to you in 1611 when and how you must

move in an expedited procedure; 1611. It is so clear, and it’s being

ignored, and my frustration, Chief, even with your legal folks, this

is not pushed in terms of defending the Forest Services actions

such as on the Malheur when they needed to get in and get that

destroyed timber out. We’re not seeing it come from the legal folks

in terms of the defense that is needed, and when we start relaying

decisions emanating from CEQ or other laws and ignore what is directly written as your responsibility, no wonder we lose in court,

and no wonder we compound the problem. It creates so much frustration, I know, for you as well it does for me.

I’d like for you to take another look at this 1611 Rhey, and I

would like to meet with you on it and discuss it with you.

Mr. SOLOMON. I’d gladly do that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Congressman Boyd.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madame Chairman; I can’t wait. First of

all, I think, gentleman, I know that we’ll welcome you here, and

I know that you’re the messenger more so than the policymaker in

this case. I want to disclose for all here some of my biases on this

issue, and I want to do that by way of telling you what our situation is in the second congressional district or in north Florida. Mr.

Joslin referred to three national forests in Florida which I’m all intimately familiar with; two of them reside in the district that I represent, and I worked for a couple of summers in college in the other

in Ocala National Forest. Mr. Joslin, it’s a beautiful area. It has

some wonderful natural springs, natural resources in it that I

spent many days, hours swimming and diving in.

But the Appalachicola National Forest is totally contained within

the Second Congressional District that I represent. It’s about

565,000 acres of forest land. Actually, it was private land in the
45

early 1900’s; it was totally cut over, timbered out. The Federal Government bought it, and over the last 75 years or so—I don’t know

those exact numbers, but I assume it’s about 75 years—has rebuilt

and regrown into a wonderful, wonderful national forest that contains the world’s largest populations of red-cockaded woodpecker,

and many of us are very proud of that.

The Osceola National Forest is about 157,000 acres around Clean

Lake City in Jacksonville. About half of that is contained in the

Second Congressional District, and it contains probably the largest

population of black bear left in the State of Florida which we also

are very proud of and we manage and protect very carefully. Having said that, I can tell you that some of the practices we put in

place in the last few years, after we established the world’s population of the red-cockaded woodpecker, then we began to change

the silvicultural practices which enabled us to establish that, and

mostly had to do with how we managed that forest, and, as we

were making those changes, which, actually, were ratcheting down

the cutting, timber cutting, almost to zero, we did two things to alleviate the hardship on the local government. Obviously, there’s

several hardships, one has to do with ad valorem taxes to that government in which they fund their local governments and their

schools, and the other, of course, is the economic activity in the

local community.

We did two things: we put in place a PILK Program, Madame

Chairman—which I’m sure you are familiar with, the payment of

lower taxes—which works fairly well, but we also put in place a 25

percent program which we said to the community to replace what

we’ve taken away from you, we’re going to give you 25 percent in

revenue of what we cut off of that land. Well, guess what over a

period of a few short years after that, we ratcheted that cutting

down to almost zero, and so it’s our school system which was collecting—I have a school system which probably has 1,000 students

in it, very small; maybe 1,500. Ten years ago, it was collecting in

the neighborhood of $400,000 and now collects about $50,000. It’s

a very significant impact on that school system. So, I say that only

to lay out my biases relative to some of these issues.

Now, Chief Dombeck, if I could, go to a question and that is the

specific criteria that must be present for you to apply for an alternative arrangement under NEPA—and I think you’ve answered

that there was three instances that must—one of three that must

exist: human health issues, human life, or a violation of law. Did

I get that right

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.

Mr. BOYD. OK. And that’s been applied for three times, I think

you answered, in the history of its existence.

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.

Mr. BOYD. What was the Texas situation I mean, which one of

those criteria was present to enable us to use the alterative arrangement in the Texas windstorm earlier this year

Mr. DOMBECK. I believe two of the three. No. 1, in working with

the Fish and Wildlife Service on the red-cockaded woodpecker situation, we would have received the jeopardy opinion on damage to

that habitat if the trees would not be removed, and, second——
46

Mr. BOYD. Let me interrupt you there. That you would have received damage to the RCW population

Mr. DOMBECK. That’s correct.

Mr. BOYD. And, so that would fall under a threat to human

health, human life, or a violation of law?

Mr. DOMBECK. Violation of law.

Mr. BOYD. So, it doesn’t have to be mankind violation of law, it

could be God’s violation of law. Is that what I hear you saying?

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, I believe, I would interpret that to be the

our ability to apply a management action to mitigate a situation;

in this case, to avoid a jeopardy opinion on the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Mr. BOYD. OK. Even though the fact that it was a disaster—

what we call an act of God, I think would be the proper term—that

would fall under your category of violation of the law. Is that what

I hear you saying And that was the criteria you used to apply there

to make sure that we got this done.

Mr. DOMBECK. I’m not going to be the one to pass judgment on

an act of God and a violation of law, but the fact is that the management activity that we could apply could enhance red-cockaded

woodpeckers habitat or prevent damage.

Mr. BOYD. What was the second criteria?

Mr. DOMBECK. The second criteria was safety from the standpoint of the roads were basically impassible and with all the trees

that were down. So, there was the need to get in there and to clear

trees from the roads, so the roads would be passable.

Mr. BOYD. But safety wasn’t one of the three criteria—I’m sorry;

didn’t mean to interrupt.

Mr. DOMBECK. From the standpoint of human safety.

Mr. BOYD. Human safety wasn’t one of the criteria that you mentioned. I don’t know if those are written in stone or written in regulations or law or what, but human health, was that——

Mr. DOMBECK. Health and safety.

Mr. BOYD. OK, health and safety. Well, I’m very pleased that the

folks in Texas had that opportunity to do what would seem to be

the naturally right thing to do and that is go in and salvage and

rehabilitate the forest area, but it seems like we certainly stretched

the application of the criteria in that example, and it just leads me

to wonder if we shouldn’t revisit the criteria themselves and figure

out if there are not other situations, for instance, the forest; the

burns that we’ve had in Florida. And my next question really leads

to that. Do you see any of those criteria that we can use to apply

the expedited process in Florida, so that we don’t lose the salvage

operation

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, what I would do is I would rely on Marcia

Carney, the Forest Supervisor, and the district rangers that work

there to make that determination and then to come forward if they

believe that emergency exists.

Mr. BOYD. OK. Well, that gives me some comfort, because I had

an opportunity—she’s new, as you know, in our State, and I had

an opportunity to spend some time with her last weekend, and I

think she’s a very professional and reasonable person who will consider all of the criteria.
47

We had 20,000 acres burn—Madame Chair, do I have additional

time? We had about 20,000 acres burn in each of our national forests. In the Appalachicola, actually, it was all wilderness with the

exception of about 15 acres, as you know. It’s interesting how that

came about. Actually, those two fires started simultaneously on the

same day, and we went in the non-wilderness area with our—you

did with your equipment and put that fire out, and it burned 15

acres. On the wilderness side, you couldn’t go in to prevent—to

stop the fire, and, as you know, it burned up about 20,000 acres

of the wilderness, and my question is this: Is that what we anticipate or want to do with our statutes relative to the wilderness or

do we have any waiver process relative to the rules in our wilderness like we do with the alterative arrangement that would allow

us to react to that kind of situation to prevent the fire from spreading throughout the whole wilderness or do we consider that natural

and we’re comfortable letting it go ahead and burn?

Mr. JOSLIN. Congressman Boyd, what we’ve done in the wilderness, in particular, Florida’s been a leader in that, because the

State forester, Earl Peterson, and his folks, and the U.S. Forest

Service have a long history there, and prescribed fire and fire management, as you well know, has been an important part of the ecosystem down there. We have plans for each one of those wilderness

areas that spells out how we’ll deal with fire; whether if it’s a mancaused fire, we’ll deal with it one way; if it’s a natural fire that’s

caused by lightening may be dealt with another way, but there are

always provisions there. If we’re having threats to external areas,

the fire going outside of the wilderness, prescriptions are all set up

there, and there are provisions, yes, if we need to get in there with

caterpillars or whatever we need to get in there as far as suppression; that are provisions that the regional forester can authorize

their use in connection with fire suppression activities in a wilderness.

Mr. BOYD. If I might, Madame Chairman, continue? You do have

a legal authority to weigh those rules.

Mr. JOSLIN. Yes, we do.

Mr. BOYD. Do you have any indication of whether this was manstarted in the Appalachicola National Forest or was it natural?

Mr. JOSLIN. I do not know that. We can find that out, but I, personally, I don’t know whether that was created by lightening or it

was arson or——

Mr. BOYD. Well, let me answer what I believe, and this is from

having talked to the people that are on the ground down there and

the location that it started. Both of those started on the highway,

and they’re reported to be arsonist, arson-started, and, of course,

on one side the road was non-wilderness and the other side was

wilderness, and we had 15 acres burn in the non-wilderness and

the 20,000 acres burn in the wilderness. So, I don’t have clear proof

that it was arsonists, but the people who are there fighting the

fires say that that’s what it was.

Mr. JOSLIN. Well, I’m sure that they have conducted an investigation there to try to determine the cause of it, but, as I say, I

personally don’t know. I haven’t talked with anyone or seen——
48

Mr. BOYD. So, does your flexibility in the rules that you have,

when it’s man-started does it allow you to—is that the situation

where you would be allowed to take the equipment in to stop it?

Mr. JOSLIN. Where it says started by man, we would take aggressive action to suppress that fire.

Mr. BOYD. But that wasn’t done in this case?

Mr. JOSLIN. Now, I don’t know whether it was or wasn’t.

Mr. BOYD. And that really brings me to a point. One of the

things that I have learned and I’ve become convinced of after talking to the people on the ground and Marcia Carney and others, is

that we really need to give our folks on the ground more authority

to react quickly, and, obviously, you’re going to have to react very

quickly in that case, because that fire, I think, burned about 4,000

acres the first day. But we really need to give them more authority,

and one of the things I would encourage you and Madame Chairman, this Committee, to work on is to make sure that our people

on the ground have more authority to react quickly in those kinds

of emergency situations.

Madame Chairman, I’m sure I have other questions, but I’m

going to stop there in the interest of time.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. I do want to let you

know you are welcome to submit to us any questions you would

like for us to submit to the witnesses. We usually keep the record

open for 10 working days. And, so I’d be happy to work with you

on that.

Mr. BOYD. Well, thank you, Madame Chairman, on behalf of the

people that I represent who are really taking a beating in some of

the counties where 75, 80 percent of their land is in the national

forest. Sometimes, I don’t want to go home on the weekends, because I know what’s going to happen. They’re going to beat on me.

I get beat on every weekend from folks are affected by the activities

or they go on in the national forest. And we really are proud of the

world’s largest RCW population, and we need to protect that, but

we also need to take into consideration the needs of the humans

who live in that area and who helped rebuild that forest from the

time that it was cut 75 years ago. So, I’ll close with that.

Mr. JOSLIN. Congressman, if I could, I know that Liberty County

is one of those down there in your area that’s heavily impacted.

Mr. BOYD. Well, I’m grateful that you know about Liberty County, because you’re right. That’s a county that I don’t go into that

I don’t come back with many battle scars, wounds.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to also mention and announce that

this Committee will be holding hearings in Florida on the fire suppression, fire prevention activities that are needed. And, Mr. Boyd,

I want to invite you to be a part of that process. You are more than

welcome to join us in your area and we’re there to make sure that

we hear from your constituents as well. So, thank you for joining

us today.

I wanted to ask the Chief, it’s my understanding the Forest Service wins 98 percent of all appeals upon administrative review. Isn’t

that correct, about 98 percent?

Mr. DOMBECK. Let me ask Rhey.
49

Mr. SOLOMON. Madame Chairman, are you talking about the appeals that are reversed or remanded v. those that are upheld? Is

that what you mean?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I’m talking about those that are upheld.

Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, it’s about 90 percent of those, now, are

upheld by the reviewing officer at the higher level.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And, then, of those 2 percent that go on up

and are appealed on up, you win about 98 percent of the 2—or you

win about 98 percent of those cases in the higher courts too.

Mr. SOLOMON. Well, no, I’m talking the administrative appeal

process which is different than the litigation, the court process.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I understand, Mr. Solomon, that it is different.

I had moved from the administrative process. Of those 2 or 10 percent that are then appealed on into the court system, the Forest

Service wins about 98 percent of those cases appealed into the district courts or on up into the higher level of the appellate courts.

Mr. SOLOMON. No, those are not the statistics that I have seen.

The ones I have seen of recent cases is more around 60 percent.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That’s still not a bad win ratio, and, golly,

with that in mind, I used to work on cases also before I came to

the Congress. That’s not a bad win ratio, and it makes me wonder

why the Forest Service is so reticent to challenge the legal challenges that are threatened. For instance, in the Oregon situation,

we’ve had the same type of situations in Idaho. We’re seeing it all

over. Why is the Forest Service so reticent to move ahead under

1611 or under the authority that Congress have given because of

a threat of lawsuit Why aren’t you being more aggressive in defending the law and defending your agencies?

Mr. DOMBECK. I would like to see the specific numbers myself,

because I have not seen them recently. But what we see is that we

see the most controversial come to the surface. As I look at the

number of decisions that are made, for example, through the NEPA

process each year, we have over 13,000 decisions are made either

through the environmental impact statement process, environmental assessment process or categorical exclusion process. In fact,

I appreciate the compliment, because like Congressman Boyd, some

days in the Natural Resource Management business, we don’t get

many compliments, but the fact is we do have a good track record

on the decisionmaking process, and the ones that come to the surface are really the ones that are the most controversial, and we

need to focus on those and try to bring a resolution on those as

well.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Chief, I know the feeling. There are some days

even Congressman just all we hear are the complaints. So, I certainly can sympathize with that, but in Senator Ferrioli’s testimony

he said that with regards to the fire that he testified to in the

Malheur—no, it was on the Malheur, yes—that the litigation that

was brought in was, I think he termed it cookie cutter; you know,

a 32 cent stamp type of appeal. And, so since the Forest Service

deals probably in a large number of these, each one—I guess, common sense would just say you’d be getting used to dealing with

some of these cookie cutter-type objections that come in. Isn’t that

true?
50

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, I guess I relied on the judgment of the regional forester and the staff in Oregon on that decision, but I’m not

sure—do you have any additional information on the——

Mr. JOSLIN. I would say that what he referred to on the stamp

was in regard to a filing of the administrative appeals, and in that

particular case, it was the judgment of the regional office folks that

there were some significant gaps in the initial environmental impact statement that was prepared and that the regional forester

felt that the folks needed to go back and boost that up, recognizing

full well that we’d have to go through a winter and a run-off as

we have suffered so far going through but recognize that in order

to make that decision that he would need to do some more work

on it. So, that’s where it came out back to the forester supervisor

for redo.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. While I haven’t had a chance, and normally

you wouldn’t you expect me to review your pleadings, nevertheless,

in section 1611, subsection b, as I read into the record, the law

clearly defines fire as being a catastrophe which is an occurrence

that rises even beyond an emergency. It’s a catastrophe. And then

in the next line where the law deals with insect and disease attacks—attacks of disease and insects, it’s a lower standard. But the

law is pretty clear about how the Forest Service should deal with

fire. It defines it as a catastrophe, and so, I guess that’s why I get

very frustrated, and I think we heard the frustration from Senator

Ferrioli that we just hear, ‘‘Oh well, we have to stop all the presses

and stop everything from moving ahead and restoring to the sustained yield standard that the law requires; that we must under

Knudsen-Vandenberg funds and authority begin to restore the forest,’’ everything comes to a screeching halt, and the law could not

be more clear, and whether we are pleading the law or what, I

don’t know, but based on your track record and based on the clarity

of the law and the standard by which the law declares fire to be,

we should be moving ahead not with carelessness at all, but with,

I think, more determination.

And I think that I’m just reflecting the frustration that we’re all

beginning to feel, and I hope that in Florida they don’t have to go

through the frustration of not seeing restoration projects and removal of fire destroyed timber and the years of having to face that

everyday. And then you guys have to come up here and face me

and the Committee. But my frustration level is growing much,

much more intense, and I guess I would like to ask the Chief why

the Texas situation was so different. It was windthrow which is not

described in the law as catastrophic; fire is. But windthrow, this

was a situation, and there was some windstorm and ice, disease

and insects, of course, did set in eventually, but why was that dealt

with differently than the other situations that we all have to face?

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, let me just repeat the two criteria that I

talked about with Congressman Boyd. The human health and safety. The human health, in this case, windthrow, roads blocked

throughout a fairly extensive area where people lived and they

have to get into those areas. Secondly, the red-cockaded woodpecker situation. In a sense, the Endangered Species Act worked

in reverse of the way most of us are used to seeing it work, and
51

the fact is the way to prevent reduction of the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I’m giving you lots of time.

Mr. DOMBECK. [continuing] going in there and removing the trees

around the clusters benefited the red-cockaded woodpecker. So,

there were those two criteria, and I believe that’s—so, there are a

lot of significant differences between the Summit sale and the

blowdown from that standpoint.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want to yield to Mr. Boyd, but I want to ask

you, Chief, yes, we have the red-cockaded woodpecker down there,

but we had steel hen; we had bow trout; we have endangered species all over the place in the Northwest, and the kind of pictures

that Senator Ted Ferrioli showed us, it’s patently obvious that that

did not constitute habitat for any of those endangered species. In

fact, the picture of the stream was devastating. I mean, there was

no stream habitat left; nothing to shadow and shield those spawning salmon. Let me read again in section 1611 that ‘‘Nothing in

subsection (a) which requires that you manage the forest under a

multiple yield, sustained yield basis—I mean, that’s clear what the

law says, and NEPA nor the Environmental Protection Act took

that away. In fact, the Environmental Protection Act made this entire Act a part of that Act by reference; it didn’t change it. And it

says ‘‘Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Secretary from salvage or sanitation of harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or

which are in imminent danger from insect and disease attack, period.’’ It doesn’t say anything about another set of criteria that you,

alone, are dealing with your decisionmaking. I mean, that seems to

be the standard while the standard that is patently clear, and the

law is being ignored.

I don’t mean to fuss about this, but as a Congressman, I cannot

ignore this, and I think your feeling of success and your level of

frustration would be less, feeling of success would be a lot of greater if we could simplify the focus of where your protection is. I guess

I become very frustrated again when I see other criteria that you’re

making decisions that departs from the actual law. Chief, do you

have any comment with regards to that?

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, the—again, I think we’ve said—and I certainly understand your frustration and can feel your frustration—

the alternative arrangement does not circumvent NEPA. What it

does is it expedites the activity——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.

Mr. DOMBECK. [continuing] and that’s a very important point.

The criteria for that alternative arrangement are what I’ve stated

as the health and human safety, the violation of law criteria, and

I would certainly be happy to, as the case in the Boise situation

and the Texas blowdown situation, just like with the Summit situation, we’re going—and the whole Florida fire situation that Earl

Peterson commented, we’re going to be taking a look at these in detail from the analysis and take a look at where are the problems.

What can be done better What can be done different
52

what can we learn from this that we can apply to a situation in

the future to avoid this kind of concerned frustration as we move

forward.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Let me say I’m very glad that you’re going to

do that, but I want you to apply that same criteria and dedication

to the Malheur and the Boise and all of the areas that have suffered the catastrophe that we all have as defined in 1611. Mr.

Boyd.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Chief, I want to follow up on the Texas situation at some risk here of hurting my own

particular situation, because what I want to ask you at the end is—

and I want you to consider this—is there opportunity for us to get

an expedition of the NEPA process in Florida and—but don’t answer right now, because I want to address the issue in Texas again.

How many acres were in the blowdown in Texas

Mr. DOMBECK. Let me——

Mr. BOYD. We can turn to Mr. Joslin.

Mr. JOSLIN. We had approximately 103,000 acres.

Mr. BOYD. How many million board feet?

Mr. JOSLIN. Trees blew down in various degrees.

Mr. BOYD. How many million board feet of timber were harvested?

Mr. JOSLIN. That’s still in process. It was estimated that the latest estimate I got from the forest supervisors there was about 225

million. The sales that they have up and what two or three that

are left to put out would salvage about half of that, a little over

100 million.

Mr. BOYD. All right. Now, I want to consider this. We used the

three criteria that you talked about. No. 1 is human safety, and

you said the roads were an example. If human safety was the issue

and the roads were blown over, you’d just clear the roads. You

wouldn’t go in and harvest 103,000 acres, and, second, the RCW.

You’re going do nothing for the RCW by removing the salvage timber, because RCW is going to have to have a standing tree. That

RCW colony is going to have to move another location, and it won’t

be able to come back to that area for years until you’re able to rehabilitate and reforest. And, so I guess I’m sort of making a case

against myself here, but I’m making a case for having the law

changed. I’m making a case in support of Mrs. Chenoweth’s legislation here that those criteria—and they’re not in the law evidently—

need to be changed.

Now, there, obviously, were political considerations here, and I’m

sure that you’re not able to—I know that you’re not able to come

forward and say that as a witness to the congressional panel. But

what—it’s just too broad of an application of the human safety

issue to say that because the trees are blown down the road, we’ve

got to go harvest 103,000 acres, and it’s too broad of an application

of the RCW issue to say we’ve got to harvest because the RCW population is in danger. It’s not going to be less endangered because

you harvested, because those RCW, the way I understand it, at

least in Appalachicola, they have to have a standing tree to be in,

and you can’t replace that standing tree over night.

So, now, I want to go back to my question. Can we apply the alternative arrangement to the fire in Florida?
53

Mr. DOMBECK. Based upon the request that we get from the field,

we’ll look at every situation, so the answer to that, can you apply—

can you request—can they request it? Absolutely, yes.

Mr. BOYD. Would Ms. Carney be the proper person to make that

request?

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes.

Mr. BOYD. OK.

Mr. DOMBECK. What I’d like to just to clarify one point on the

red-cockaded woodpecker situation there is now the—I’m everything but a technical expert of red-cockaded—a technical expert on

red-cockaded woodpeckers, but the technical experts tell us—and

I’d be happy to arrange a more detailed briefing for you on that—

but the fact is that the actual removal of the downed trees and

there’s a—every, sort of, permutation of small areas where everything is down on the ground to where just there are some trees are

bent over and some areas where there are clumps left, and it’s sort

of this sort of mosaic that they’re dealing in, and when the Fish

and Wildlife Service reviewed the quality of the habitat for the redcockaded woodpecker, those kinds of things they take in a situation

and clearly one of the criteria involved benefit to the increased enhancement of the survival of red-cockaded woodpecker colonies, and

I’d be happy to arrange for a——

Mr. BOYD. I’m no technical expert either, so we probably have

about the same amount or lack of knowledge, if you will, but I can

tell that they apply in cases where we’ve had private lands where

we’ve found RCW and they came and took jurisdiction and that in

cases where wanted to cut that timber, we had to physically move

those RCW, because once you cut that timber or once it’s on the

ground, that RCW cannot survive there; it has to move. I mean, I’m

no technical expert, but you don’t have to be an expert to know

that they live inside of a hole in the tree, and if it’s on the ground,

they won’t survive there.

Mr. DOMBECK. Can you add to that?

Mr. JOSLIN. Yes, one of the things that I just—quickly, if I could,

Madame Chairman—one of the things there that we learned when

we had the hurricane that hit the Francis Marion National Forest

a few years ago was inserts that we put in there, because you’re

correct that they have to have cavities. We immediately started

doing some of that and had birds that came to those. The other

part that’s critical over there too is the removal of that material

to reduce the risk of fire in not only the clusters but also in the

foraging areas, and that’s very critical in connection with redcockaded woodpeckers.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much. I wish Ms. Nelson was still

here to hear that, but she’s, obviously, gone. No she’s not, there she

is. She slipped back in, thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Boyd. Congressman Boyd, I hate to interrupt you, but I have just gotten word that the procession for the

slain officers is now crossing the 14th Street Bridge, and they will

be arriving at the Lincoln Memorial just momentarily, and I know

both of us are required at other places, and so, with that, I do want

to say under these sad circumstances, we’re going to need to adjourn the meeting, and, as usual, the record will remain open for
54

10 working days. If any of you wish to supplement your testimony,

you are welcome to. We will be submitting additional questions,

and I do want to let you know that the procession will be on the

Hill very shortly. With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject

to the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
55

STATEMENT OF TED FERRIOLI, STATE SENATOR, OREGON STATE SENATE

Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, the purpose of my testimony will

be to illustrate the current, dysfunctional response of the Forest Service under the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to catastrophic events, illustrated by circumstances of the Summit Fire, located on the Long Creek Ranger District, Malheur

National Forest in Grant County, Oregon.

The Summit fire was caused by lightning on August 13, 1996. Over 24 days, the

fire burned across 37,961 acres of mixed conifer forestlands, damaging riparian and

roadless areas, leaving a mosaic of fire-killed timber estimated at approximately 300

million board feet.

After reviewing the likelihood of appeal and litigation, Malheur National Forest

Supervisor Carl Pence ordered preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS), a costly and intensive procedure authorized under NEPA. At the same time,

Mr. Pence elevated the Summit Fire Recovery Project to the top priority for the forest, set a deadline of September 1997 for its completion and discontinued planning

efforts for most other management activities on the Malheur. Mr. Pence also called

for temporary assignment of most district planning personnel to the recovery

project.

During the draft phases of the Summit Fire Recovery Project, Malheur National

Forest Planning Staff engaged in an extraordinary process of outreach and involvement with the community. Orientation tours of the fire area were contacted for

Members of Congress, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber’s Citizen Advisory Panel on

Eastside Forest Health, environmentalists, forest products industry representatives,

Forest Service Regional Office staff, representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff.

Throughout this period, Malheur National Forest Planning Staff and the community received assurances from Region 6 Planning Staff that other than ‘‘minor concerns,’’ the Recovery Project was ‘‘on track.’’

On August 27, 1997, Forest Supervisor Carl Pence signed a Record of Decision

that was immediately appealed by the environmental community using what can be

described as a ‘‘cookbook’’ appeal. The alternative selected by Supervisor Pence

would have treated approximately 9,500 acres, producing an estimated 108 million

board feet of salvage.

Despite unprecedented communication between Malheur National Forest and Region 6 Planning Staff, Supervisor Pence was notified that Regional Forester Bob

Williams could not support the Recovery Project. Supervisor Pence was offered two

choices, either have the Record of Decision (ROD) remanded to the Malheur National Forest, or voluntarily withdraw the ROD. Since voluntary withdrawal offered

more flexibility for remediation, Pence chose the latter option.

Over the next six months, Malheur National Forest Planning Staff rewrote the

Summit Fire Recovery Project and prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement. Major revisions to the project included development of a Water Resources Management Plan, Consultation with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for Bull

Trout, Informal Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service for Steelhead

and revision of the proposed treatment in riparian areas.

On July 12, 1998, more than 23 months after the Summit Fire, a new Record of

Decision was issued calling for salvage and rehabilitation of approximately 6,600

acres producing about 50 million board feet of timber.

During the intervening months, insects and blue stain fungus have infested the

stands and sever checking has occurred significantly reducing the value of salvageable timber. The project, if conducted in August 1997, could have produced

$6,912,000 according to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (page 2-21).

Today, if operated as proposed, the project will produce approximately one sixth of

that amount, or $1,150,000 according to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued July 12, 1998 (page S-6).

The cost of suppression for the Summit Fire was $25,400,000. Planning for this

project cost approximately $1,209,893 for the original DEIS and additional $356,432

for the Supplemental DEIS.

Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, while the NEPA process works

well for proposed management actions that are not time-sensitive it is wholly inappropriate for management actions in areas devastated by windthrow or infestations

of insects and disease. The NEPA process is especially inappropriate for fire recovery projects where rapid deterioration and loss of value is the predictable outcome

of delay.

Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, you know that a healthy economy and a healthy ecosystem are coefficients in the equation of sustainability. The

NEPA process was intended to disclose elements of critical thinking and analysis
56

leading to decision-making. Instead, it has become bureaucratized to the point

where it threatens both the ecosystem and local economies. In reviewing the NEPA

process, I would suggest three actions that could be of immediate benefit: • Require the Council of Environmental Quality to provide an easily accessible

mechanism for approval of ‘‘Alternative Arrangements.’’ The use of ‘‘AIternative

Arrangements,’’ as was done in March, 1998 for salvage of nearly 300 million

board feet of blowdown in Texas should become a model for meeting NEPA requirements when treating catastrophic fire, dead, downed and severely rootsprung trees whenever these conditions occur.

•Provide an expedited appeal and litigation process to resolve potential conflicts

in a timely manner. Creating a shorter statutory appeal process with final adjudication, followed by brief judicial appeal period with a statutorily mandated

deadline for final adjudication would not only provide heightened access for citizen appeals and litigation but timely resolution, as well.

• Modify the NEPA process to add full consideration of economic values affected

by Federal decision making At present, NEPA requires full disclosure of environmental values and considerations but does not disclose economic values and

considerations in Federal decision making. To be effective, NEPA must also feature full disclosure of economic considerations so that parties affected by Federal decisions will have assurance that the cost, benefits and affects will be fully

disclosed.

These amendments to the NEPA process would greatly reduce delays in processing time-sensitive recovery projects following windthrow, infestations of insects

and disease and catastrophic fire.

Our experience has shown that catastrophic events require a planning response

that preserves the net asset value of the resource, not only to sustain communities

that depend on natural resource outputs, but also to capture the maximum value

to pay for rehabilitation of resources damaged caused by wind, insects, disease and

wildfire.

STATEMENT OF L. EARL PETERSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES

MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to tell you how the Florida Division of Forestry manages its timber resources and in particular how we deal with

emergency salvage operations when struck by natural disasters.

The Florida Division of Forestry is one of the largest land management agencies

in the State of Florida. We have been managing state forests for over 60 years and

presently co-manage an additional half million acres of other public land. All of

these tracts are managed under the multiple-use concept, which includes timber

production.

There are 36 state forests managed under the Division’s direct guidance and the

land base of these tracts exceeds 740,000 acres. Approximately 55 percent of this

total (410,000 acres) is suitable for pine silviculture. An active forest management

program occurs on this pine acreage and includes prescribed burning, reforestation

and timber sales. Trees are grown to an old age on state forests for a number of

reasons, two of which are to provide a natural ecosystem that is rapidly disappearing from the State and also to provide a special experience to the public sector who visit state forests in order to enjoy a large number of resource-based outdoor

recreation activities. Our state forests represent an investment by the citizens of

Florida, and that investment should produce both a natural resource heritage for

the future and an economic return.

The practice of sustainability is a cornerstone in the management of the timber

resource. By using current forest inventory data, we insure that state forests are

not overcut and that growth will continue to exceed yield on an annual basis. Trees

are harvested through a number of silvicultural techniques, including improvement

thinnings and restoration harvests, the latter being the removal of off-site species

so that the naturally occurring species can be restored to a particular site.

In a well-managed state forest, foresters for the Division strive to keep the trees

in a healthy condition using such management tools as prescribed burning and improvement thinnings, which I previously mentioned. However, due to natural processes beyond our control, unexpected and undesirable tree mortality is continually

occurring in the natural forest system. Examples are lightning killed trees, mortality from wildfire, insect and disease outbreaks and windstorm damage.

Because this is a natural process, if the level of tree mortality is considered light,

then oftentimes no action is taken. The resulting dead snags provide homes for wild-
57

life and help create biological diversity in the forest system. However, when tree

mortality reaches levels where there is significant economic loss or there is the potential for insect and disease spread, then salvage and/or sanitation harvests are

initiated to recoup monetary losses and to reduce the threat of additional tree mortality.

Although prompt action is often taken to salvage timber that has been damaged

or killed at moderate levels or in a limited area, there is no question that the Division of Forestry will take action when major tree mortality events take place. This

statement is based on recent occurrences on Florida’s state forests. In October, 1995,

Hurricane Opal made a direct hit on Blackwater River State Forest, which is Florida’s largest state forest at 189,000 acres. Within 6 months we had salvaged an estimated 95 percent of the damaged timber, which was approximately 50 million board

feet of sawtimber.

In the spring and summer of 1997, Florida experienced the worst outbreak of

southern pine beetle activity in the history of the State. The infestation was centered in the Marion and Levy County area of Central Florida. Loblolly pine was the

major species being killed but considerable slash pine and longleaf pine also died.

The insect was indiscriminate in attacking trees across all ownership lines including

state parks, state forest, national forest, municipal, forest industry and lands owned

by private individuals. The Division of Forestry took a lead role in taking actions

to control this insect outbreak plus salvaged all infested timber in Goethe State Forest in Levy County and spearheaded salvage efforts on other state-owned lands.

Finally, the State of Florida has just gone through the most serious outbreak of

wildfires to have occurred in recent times. Approximately 500,000 acres burned between June 1st and early July. Of this total an estimated 260,000 acres is commercial pine timberland. A conservative estimate is that 2,600,000 cords of damaged or

fire-killed timber will require salvaging in the next four months. Besides being directly involved in the total salvage effort, the Division of Forestry had approximately 14,000 acres burn on Tiger Bay and Lake George State Forests in Volusia

County. Once the wildfires were controlled, we immediately moved toward damage

appraisal and initiating salvage sales on these 2 state forests. In two weeks we sold

4 salvage sales and had plans to sell 4 more during the third week.

Time is of the essence when selling salvage timber, especially sawtimber. In Florida’s warm climate, dead sawtimber must be utilized within a few months or it will

deteriorate to where it can only be used for pulpwood. Pulpwood will only last a few

months longer. Because of this short time frame we expedite the bid process and

only give potential bidders a week or less to submit their bid for a sale. Emergency

salvage sales of this nature are almost always sold on a per unit basis, which means

the wood is sold by the ton. A performance bond of $5,000.00 or more is usually

required to insure sale compliance. Foresters spend considerable time administering

the sales to insure all loads are accounted for and that all conditions of sale are

being followed.

A few key points for salvage operations conducted by the Division of Forestry are

that they are done in a rapid fashion to insure maximum economic return, eliminate

waste and to prevent further spread of pathogens or insects that might kill additional timber. All potential bidders are given a chance to bid on every sale so that

we cannot be accused of unfair sale procedures, and ongoing sales are administered

closely to insure loggers comply with the conditions of sale.

The Florida Division of Forestry is fortunate to have good latitude in making decisions about procedures and conditions for silvicultural applications, such as reforestation and timber harvesting. We have the responsibility and authority to utilize the

best known science for taking inventory, projecting growth and yield, and scheduling

harvests based on site productivity and ecosystem requirements. Internally, we have

administrative procedures to ensure good business applications, provide equitable

bidding processes, and satisfy audit scrutiny. However, during times of emergency

as previously described, we are allowed to accelerate that process in order to minimize economic losses.

BID PROCEDURE FOR WILDFIRE TIMBER SALES

TIGER BAY AND LAKE GEORGE STATE FORESTS

JULY 15, 1998

Based on conversations with Rene’ Ash (who talked with Mike Gresham), we can

expedite the timber sales on these two state forests. I agreed with her that we

would implement the following procedure:
58

(1) Fax or E-Mail a written sale specifications sheet to all interested bidders for

each timber sale. We can also fax a sale map and bid form.

(2) Give prospective bidders two days (or some other predetermined time) to fax

their completed bid form back to Tiger Bay State Forest Headquarters.

(3) Waive the need for a minimum acceptable bid. Analyze the returned bids

to make sure all bidders can meet the conditions of the sale. Contact the high

bidder and confirm their bid and try to negotiate a higher price if the opportunity presents itself. If the top 2 or more bids are similar, or if there is no distinct winner, contact the bidders with the highest bid and negotiate the best

price from one of them. Analyzation of bid results and any negotiations will be

coordinated between TBSF/LGSF staff and State Lands Section staff.

(4) Prepare the approval memorandum to L. Earl Peterson and obtain his approval of the recommended high bidder.

(5) Waive the 3 day posting period if the successful bidder can start logging immediately. Otherwise, post the results for 3 working days.

(6) Overnight 4 copies of the executed timber sale agreement to the State Lands

Section. We will deliver it to Mike Gresham’s office the day it is received and

notify TBSF Headquarters once it is fully executed.

By: John O’Meara
59
60
61
62
63

STATEMENT OF CARA RITCHIE NELSON, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST, NATURAL

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Good morning, Madam Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to appear

and address the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health on the subject of emergency exemptions from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for salvage

sales, and your discussion draft bill. My name is Cara Nelson. I have over ten years

of professional experience researching the effects of management on forest ecosystems. For the last 4 years, I have worked both as a staff and a consulting ecologist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a national, nonprofit environmental organization dedicated, among other things, to the protection

of forest resources. During this time, my work has largely focused on issues related

to fire and fuels management in forests of the Interior Columbia River Basin in

eastern Washington and Oregon. My educational background includes a B.S. in

Ecology from the Evergreen State College in Washington State and a Masters degree in Forest Ecology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In addition, I am

in the process of completing a Ph.D. in Forest Ecosystems Analysis at the University of Washington’s College of Forest Resources in Seattle.

In summary, despite persistent calls for emergency ‘‘forest health’’ treatments,

current scientific understanding of forest ecosystems and data from past salvage

projects do not provide a basis for aggressive post-disturbance logging. There is very

little solid scientific support for claims that salvage and other removal of commercial

timber for ‘‘restoration’’ purposes effectively restores fire resilience or ecosystem integrity. On the contrary, significant scientific evidence demonstrates that serious,

adverse impacts can and do result from salvage and commercial thinning. For these

reasons, careful design, analysis, and environmental review of post-disturbance

management activities are especially important. Broad ‘‘emergency’’ exemptions

from NEPA, as proposed in the discussion draft of July 7, 1998, would severely undercut this environmental review, thereby decreasing the likelihood of effective restoration of forest ecosystems and increasing the likelihood of continued forest degradation. A case in point is the recent NEPA exemption to expedite salvage logging

on Federal forestlands in Texas, authorized after the February 1998 windstorms.

The Forest Supervisor requested that emergency action be authorized to address

concerns about wildfire and southern pine beetle damage. Hovever, the scientific

record does not support that emergency waiver.

Very little empirical research has been conducted on the impacts of salvage,

thinning, and fuels treatment on fire behavior. In spite of hypothesized benefits, the

handful of studies that address these issues, as well as anecdotal accounts and analyses of recent fires, suggest that removal of dead, dying, and overstocked trees does

not reliably reduce fire intensity or severity. In fact, in some instances treatments

intended to reduce fire intensity and hazard may have the opposite effect.

For example, at least three recent studies of the relationship between thinning

and impels treatment and fire behavior found that treatment exacerbated fire conditions. The results of one of these studies, conducted by Huff et al. (1995) in the Interior Columbia River Basin in Washington and Oregon, suggest that all logging, including thinning, tends to increase fire Howard: ‘‘In general, rate of spread and

flame length were positively correlated with the proportion of area logged. All harvest techniques were associated with increasing rate of spread and flame length . . .

[emphasis added].’’ Thinned stands generally were positively correlated with fire intensity as measured by rate of spread and flame length.

Similarly, results from a study of the effectiveness of fuels treatment on previously non-harvested lands in the Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Wenatchee National Forest, Washington provides evidence that harvest treatments may increase

risk of fire damage. In this study, the Forest Service evaluated the effects of past

fuel treatments on fire severity (U.S. Forest Service 1995). Before wildfire in 1994,

approximately 2021 acres of the fire area that had not been previously logged were

treated for fuels with mechanical removal and/or prescribed burning. Forty three

percent of areas that were treated to reduce fuels experienced high mortality, compared with 37 percent of the areas that were not treated for fuels. Only 10 percent

of the areas treated for fuels experienced low mortality, suggesting that fuels treatment on non-harvested lands may increase the risk of high severity fire.

There is also evidence from a study conducted in the Klamath region of California

that stand density reduction through harvest treatments may not result in lower

fire intensity and severity. Weatherspoon and Skinner (1995) found higher levels of

crown scorch in thinned stands than in adjacent stands that had not been thinned.

Unmanaged stands had the least severe fire effects.

Reports of successful fire hazard reduction focus on thinning of small diameter

trees, but are almost entirely anecdotal. For example, thinned ponderosa pine for-
64

ests in Tiger Creek, a 2,500-acre drainage on the Boise National Forest in Idaho,

are reported to have survived the 1992 Foothill Fire with minimal tree mortality

(Blatner et al. 1994). However, this anecdotal evidence is of limited utility, especially when counter-examples are readily available. For example, thinning was not

effective at reducing fire intensity and severity during another fire on the Boise, the

Rabbit Creek fire, which burned roughly 200,000 acres on the north fork of the

Boise River drainage during the summer of 1994. The burn created a mosaic of forest conditions. Some open ponderosa pine stands, considered to be fire resistant,

were destroyed. Some stands considered highly susceptible did not experience high

intensity burns (Peter Kolb, pers. com.). I am only aware of one study in which

thinning was found to moderate fire behavior. During the 1994 Tyee fires,

Wenatchee National Forest study stands that were thinned to below a specified

crown bulk density burned at lower intensity and with less severe effects than

stands that had not been thinned (Agee 1996).

Results of a recent modeling study in Sierran forests indicate that the type of

‘‘restoration’’ treatment employed, as well as the manner in which it is executed,

will influence environmental conditions and fire hazard. In that study of six different ‘‘restoration’’ treatments that involved harvesting, only one treatment technique was predicted to reduce the number of acres burned or fire intensity (Van

Wagtendonk 1996). Given that the study’s conclusions are based on models that

have not been tested in natural settings, results must be interpreted cautiously.

However, findings such as these provide evidence that a careless or thoughtless approach to ‘‘restoration’’ treatments has a greater probability of increasing degradation and fire damage than of decreasing it.

Though a number of factors, some listed below, help to explain how salvage and

thinning can exacerbate fire risks, one is worth singling out here. A natural divergence exists between what increases the profitability of logging operations and what

might reduce fuel loading. Typically, rates of spread and intensity of forest fires are

most affected by so called ‘fine fuels,’ the small branches, tree tops, and needles that

have no commercial value. Unless careful and commercially unattractive treatment

of these fuels is undertaken, removal of larger trees not only does not get at the

primary engine of future fires, it concentrates fine fuels into potentially explosive

‘‘logging slash.’’

With respect to arguments about the need for salvage and thinning to reduce

threats from insects, the scientific literature is more complicated. What is clear is

that any credible claim about potential beneficial impacts from logging would have

to account for numerous site-specific factors. These include (1) tree species composition, age and size structure, and spacing, (2) the biology, ecology, and population

levels of the insect species that occur or are predicted to occur on the site, including

the interactions among species, (3) the nature and extent of disturbance events, and

(4) local climatic conditions. Thus, generalities about the need for and potentially

desirable effects of salvage and thinning treatments across sites and/or conditions

are not scientifically responsible. Detailed, specific, expert review and analysis are

needed, and blanket solutions should not be expected to be successful.

In addition to the speculative nature of claimed ecological benefits from removal

of ‘‘dead and dying’’ trees, scientific evidence demonstrates that persistent, adverse

impacts can and do result from these practices. These impacts include:

• loss of snag and down log habitat required by many wildlife species (Thomas

1979, Bull 1994) and soil organisms (Amaranthus et al. 1989);

• simplification of forest structure (FEMAT 1993);

• increased soil erosion and compaction (Klock 1975, Marton and Hare 1990);

• loss of important sources of nutrients and organic material, with the concomitant reduction of long-term productivity (Jurgensen et al. 1990; Graham et al.

1994);

• increased near term fire hazard due to high loads of fine fuels (needles,

branches, and tree tops) associated with the removal of large stems; and

• increased spread of non-native plants into burned areas (Harrod 1994).

Other post-disturbance practices, particularly active planting and seeding of nonnative species, also have been shown to be detrimental (Taskey et al. 1989,

Amaranthus et al. 1993). In short, by removing important structures and exacerbating stresses caused by natural disturbance, post-disturbance logging and other

management activities impair the ability of ecosystems to recover (Beschta et al.

1995).

Similarly, although our current understanding of the ecological effects of ‘‘forest

health’’ thinning is incomplete available evidence indicates that thinning operations,

even when carefully conducted, can and do result in significant adverse ecological

impacts, including:
65

• reduced habitat quality for sensitive species associated with cool, moist

microsites or closed canopy forests (FEMAT 1993);

• damage to soil integrity through increased erosion and compaction (Harvey et

al. 1994, Meurisse and Geist 1994);

• creation of sediment which may eventually be delivered to streams (Beschta

1978, Grant and Wolff 1991);

• increased mortality of residual trees due to pathogens and mechanical damage

(Hagle and Schmitz 1993);

• increased near-term fire hazard, due to (1) addition of high levels of activity

fuels (Fahnestock 1968) that may influence fire behavior for up to 30 years

(Huff et al. 1995, Wilson and Dell 1971), (2) decreases in height to live crown

ratios, mean diameter sizes, and bark thickness, resulting from removal of large

diameter rather than small diameter trees, and (3) creation of warmer, drier

microclimatic conditions (Countryman 1955, Rothermal 1983);

• dependence on an excessive number and density of roads (Henjum et al 1994,

Megahan et al. 1994).

In the preceding paragraphs, I have discussed how (1) there is a lack of scientific

consensus about the consequences of harvest-based ‘‘restoration’’ treatments, (2) in

many instances, these treatments may increase fire severity and intensity, (3) some

treatments have a greater probability of reducing fire intensity and severity than

do others, and (4) commercial salvage and thinning have significant environmental

downsides. These downsides need careful, conscientious evaluation and must be

squarely presented to the public, sister agencies, Congress, and ultimately decisionmakers, if a responsible judgment is to be made about where, how, and at what

level to experiment with logging based forest ‘‘restoration.’’ This is particularly true

given the indisputable role that past logging and ‘professional expertise’ has played

in degrading Federal forests.

Post-disturbance logging should be subject to stronger restrictions and environmental review procedures than those governing other logging and management activities. Additional guidelines are necessary because (1) post-burn soils are generally

more sensitive to degradation than other soils, all else being equal (Perry 1995) and

(2) protection of post-burn habitats may be critical for maintaining viable populations of species that rely on snags and coarse woody debris or are sensitive to watershed degradation (Beschta et al. 1995). Prior to treatment, there should be a full

analysis of the potential for increased fire hazard and the short and long term effects of restoration treatments on soils, pathogen transmission, and terrestrial or

aquatic species. Failure to analyze and disclose the environmental risks associated

with these treatments may result in continued ecosystem degradation and may prevent the adoption of ecologically sound approaches to management of degraded

stands.

The NEPA exemption that the Forest Service was granted due to a perceived

emergency need for tree removal to control southern pine beetle populations and

wildfire after the February 1998 Texas windstorm is an excellent example of the

danger of emergency exemptions. Although the record does not support an ecologically valid need for emergency actions, the exemption short-circuited meaningful

environmental analysis that could have influenced management decisions and prevented activities that are likely to further damage remnant stands.

A primary reason for the Forest Service’s request for the exemption was concern

over southern pine beetle (SPB). However, the Forest Service’s Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Texas windstorm tree removal project recognizes that although SPB may invade individual damaged trees, there is no increased threat to

the forest resource base of an SBP epidemic as a result of the windstorm: ‘‘Previous

large-scale storm damage in pine forests across the south has resulted in little or

no increase in SPB activity over expected levels . . . Storm damage does not initiate

or increase the severity of SPB epidemics, but may shift the distribution of infestations, as stands previously classified as high hazard may become low hazard stands

due to storm impacts . . . In stands where a large percentage of pine overstory was

blown down, SPB infestations initiated in leaners or other susceptible pines have

little chance to spread (Clarke and Starkey 1998)’’. Furthermore, removal of large

down material will not affect population densities of SPB, as this species generally

does not attack downed logs. Because the agency failed to show an impending risk

of SPB epidemic as a result of the storm, its position that lack of access for beetle

control due to dead and dying trees constitutes an emergency situation is unfounded.

In addition to concern over southern pine beetle damage, the Forest Service also

justified the need for expedited tree removal as wildfire protection. However, the

Forest Service’s proposed tree removal activity is not likely to reduce the flammability of these stands. Removing large stems of standing and downed wood this sum-
66

mer will not mitigate the primary fire hazard created by the large volume of fine

fuels. Large coarse woody debris retains moisture, requires more energy to ignite

and combust, and may reduce fire spread by smoldering rather than burning. While

large debris has relatively low flammability, the increased loading of fine fuels (needles, tree tops, and branches), generated both from the storm as well as from the

salvage operations, directly contributes to higher rates of fire intensity and rapid

fire spread. Effective treatment of small diameter fine fuels would be a more reasonable approach to increasing fire resilience than removal of large diameter standing

dead and downed trees.

Despite the importance of fine fuels to fire behavior, the Forest Service’s emergency activities do not include an adequate plan for their treatment. Although the

two action alternatives described in the EA do provide for fuel treatment activities,

these alternatives do not specify that activity fuels must be addressed in all areas

where tree removal occurs. In addition, the EA does not evaluate the environmental

impacts associated with different fuel reduction techniques. Furthermore, the EA

proposes using lop and scatter treatments that may actually exacerbate fire behavior. Research by Van Wagtendonk (1996) in the Sierran forests suggests that

lopping and scattering fine fuels may be among the least effective fuel treatment

methods and may result in stands with significantly higher rates of fire spread,

fireline intensities, and flame lengths than both untreated stands and stands treated using other techniques.

The Texas tree removal project is not likely to have a beneficial effect on insect

or fire risk or hazard. Moreover adverse effects associated with the removal of a

substantial number of large diameter standing dead and downed trees, inadequate

treatment of fine fuels, and adverse impacts of harvest practices suggest that salvage activities may substantially degrade remnant stands. Had further environmental review of proposed actions been conducted, there might have been an opportunity for the development and adoption of more ecologically sound management alternatives.

In conclusion, sound scientific support does not exist for broad or generalized inferences that emergency logging operations will ameliorate fire or insect risks in our

nation’s forests. If anything, the opposite is true. I hope that my testimony will help

dissuade the Subcommittee from proceeding with legislation that would abrogate

the existing NEPA process in the name of ‘‘forest health emergencies.’’ Thank you

again for the opportunity to appear and present this testimony. I would be pleased

to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have, within my area of expertise.

REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. Presented at

the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA, January

16-18, 1996.

Amaranthus, M.P, J.M. Trappe, and D.A. Perry. 1989. Long-term productivity and

the living soil. Pages 36-52 in D.A. Perry, R. Meurisse, B. Thomas, R. Miller, J.

Boyle, J. Means, C.R. Perry, and R.F. Powers, eds. Maintaining Long-term Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

—————, J.M. Trappe, and D.A. Perry. 1993. Moisture, native regeneration, and

Pinus lambertiana seedling survival, growth, and mycorrhiza formation following

wildfire and grass seeding. Restoration Ecology September: 188-195.

Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-tenn pattems of sediment production following road construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research

14:1011-1016.

—————, C.A. Frissell, R. Gresswell, R. Hauer, J.R. Karr, G.W. Minshall, D.A.

Perry, and J.J. Rhodes. 1995. Wildfire and salvage logging: Recommendations for

ecologically sound post-fire salvage logging and other post-fire treatments on Federal lands in the West. Unpublished manuscript, Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene,

OR.

Blatner, K.A., C.E. Keegan, J. O’Laughlin, D.L. Adams. 1994. Forest health management policy: a case study in southwestern Idaho. in R.N. Sampson and D.L.

Adams (eds.) Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. The Haworth

Press, Inc.

Bull, E.L: 1994. Conserving wildlife habitat. Pages 37-38 in R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. General Technical Report PNW

GTR-330, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Clarke, Stephen and Dale Starkey. 1998. Forest health evaluation of storm damage on the national forests in Texas. Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment
67

for Tree Removal from the February 10, 1998 Windstorm, Angela, Sabine, and Sam

Houston National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Region 8.

Countryman, C.M. 1955. Old-growth conversion also converts fire climate. Pages

158-160 in Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters Annual Meeting.

Fahnestock, G.R. 1968. Fire hazard from pre-commercially thinning ponderosa

pine. Research Paper 57, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region Station,

Portland, OR.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic and social assessment. Report of the

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Portland, OR and Washington, D.C.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. PageDumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains.

Research Paper INT-RP-477, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

Grant, G.E., and A.L. Wolff. 1991. Long-term patterns of sediment transport after

timber harvest, western Cascade Mountains, Oregon, USA. Pages 31-40 in Sediment

and stream water quality in a changing environment: Trends and explanations.

IAHS Publication 203. Proceedings of the Symposium, 11-24 August 1991, Vienna,

Austria.

Hagle, S., and R. Schmitz. 1993. Managing root disease and bark beetles. Pages

209-228 in T.D. Schowalter and G.M. Filip, eds. Beetle-Pathogen Interactions in

Conifer Forests. Academic Press, New York.

Harrod, R.J. 1994. Practices to reduce and control noxious weed invasion. Pages

47-50 in R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes.

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Harvey, A.E. 1994. Integrated roles for insects, diseases and decomposers in fire

dominated forests of the inland western United States: Past, present, and future forest health. Pages 211-220 in R.N. Sampson and D.L. Adams, eds. Assessing Forest

Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. The Haworth Press, Inc., New York.

Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright,

S.A. Beckwitt, and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: National forests east of the Cascades crest, Oregon

and Washington. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 94-2.

Huff, M.H., R.D. Ottmar, E. Alvarado, R.E. Vihnanek, J.F. Lehmkuhl, P.F.

Hessburg, and R.L. Everett. 1995. Historical and current landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke production. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station, GTR-355. Portland, Oregon.

Jurgensen, M.F., A.E. Harvey, and R.T. Graham. 1990. Soil organic matter, timber harvesting, and forest productivity in the Inland Northwest. In S.P. Gessel, D.S.

Lacate, G.F. Weetman, and R.F. Powers, eds. Sustaining productivity of forest soils.

Proceedings of the 7th North American Forest Soils Conference, 24-28 July, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Klock, G.O. 1975. Impact of five post-fire salvage logging systems on soils and

vegetation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 30:78-81.

Marton, R.A., and D.H. Hare. 1990. Runoff and soil loss following the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Great Plains-Rock Mountain Geographic Journal 18(1):1-8.

Megahan, W.F. L.L. Irwin, and L.L. LaCabe. 1994. Forest roads and forest health.

Pages 97-99 in R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Meurisse, R.T., and J.M. Geist. 1994. Conserving soil resources. Pages 50-58 in

R.L. Everett, ed. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. General

Technical Report PNW-GTR-330, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station.

Perry, D.A. 1995. Unpublished declaration on forest health. March 4, 1995. Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Rothermal, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range

fires. General Technical Report INT-143, U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT.

Taskey, R.D., C.L. Curtis, and J. Stone. 1989. Wildfire, rye grass seeding, and watershed rehabilitation. Pages 115-125 in N.H. Berg, ed. Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management. 26-28 October, Sacramento, CA. General

Technical Report PSW-109, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station.
68

Thomas, J.W., ed. 1979. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation Wildlife

Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agriculture Handbook 553. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Initial review of silvicultural treatments and fire effects

on Tyee fire. Appendix A, Environmental Assessment for the Bear-Potato Analysis

Area of the Tyee Fire, Chelan and Entiat Ranger Districts, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA.

Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel

treatments. Pp.1155-1166. In. Status of the Sierra Nevada, Vol II. University of CA,

Davis, CA.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated

with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfire in northern California. Forest

Science. 41:430-451.

CURRICULUM VITAE JULY 1998

Education

B.S. Ecology. 1990. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington.

M.S. Forestry. 1996. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Ph.D. Forestry. Degree anticipated 1999. Ecosystem Science and Conservation

Division, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle.

Professional Experience

1994-present: Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California. Develop and promote plans for ecological management of forests

in the Interior Columbia Basin (on staff through 1995, consulting from 1995 until

present).

1995-present: Research Assistant, Ecosystem Science and Conservation

Division, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Conduct research on the ecology, demography, and physiology of late-seral herbs native to midelevation forests of the western Washington Cascades.

1991-1994: Research Assistant, Botany Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Conducted research on the decline of eastern hemlock (Tsuga

canadensis), white cedar, and Canadian yew (Taxus canadensis) in the upper Midwest.

1988-1991: Forest Ecology Consultant, Olympia, Washington. Conducted research related to protection of old growth forest stands on national forests in Washington and Oregon based on ecological significance, for implementation of Forest

Service Land and Resource Management Plans.

Grants, Honors, and Awards

1998: Washington Native Plant Society grant for research on the physiological

and demographic consequences of timber harvest for late successional forest herbs.

1994: Leopold Chapter, Society for Conservation Biology, Conservation Award.

1995: Co-author of USDA competitive grant to study declines in hemlock, cedar

and yew in the upper Midwest.

1992-1993: Graduate scholarship in Conservation Biology from the Pew Charitable Trust Foundation and the University of Wisconsin.

1992: USFS North Central Forest Experiment Station grant to study hemlock regeneration failure.

1991: National Audubon Society Distinguished Service Recognition.

Professional Societies

Society for Conservation Biology Society of American Foresters

Ecological Society of America

American Institute for Biological Sciences

Publications and Reports

Belsky, J.B., Evan Frost, Nathaniel Lawrence, and Cara R. Nelson. 1998. Comments on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project’s Eastside

Draft Environmental Impact statement. 65 pages.

Halpern, C.B., S.A. Evans, C.R. Nelson, D. McKenzie, D.E. Hibbs, E.K. Zenner,

and M.A. Geyer. (In press) Response of forest plant communities to varying levels

and patterns of green-tree retention: an overview of a long-term experiment. Northwest Science.

Nelson, C.R. 1996. Hemlock regeneration failure in the Nicolet National Forest,

WI. MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin—Madison. 96 pages.

Nelson, C.R., J. Belsky, R. Brown, E. Frost, B. Keeton, P. Morrison, M. Scurlock,

G. Wooten. 1995. Key elements for ecological planning: management principles, rec-
69

ommendations, and guidelines for Federal lands east of the Cascade crest in Oregon

and Washington. Public record. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project. Walla Walla, WA. 113 pages.

Nelson, C.R., N. Lawrence, R. L. Peters, R. L. Dewey, W. J. Snape, S. Yassa, T.

Uniak. 1995. Revised comments on the proposed rule for national forest system land

and resource management planning; 36 C.F.R. Parts 215, 217, and 219; 60 Fed. Reg.

18886 et seq. (April 13, 1995). Public record. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 58 pages.

Nelson, C.R., and W. Mahler. 1990. An ecological survey of the late-seral stage

forests surrounding the Nolan Creek watershed. Unpublished report to the Washington DNR’s Old Growth Commission, Olympia, Washington. 34 pages.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE HILL, DIRECTOR OF FOREST POLICY, SOCIETY OF

AMERICAN FORESTERS

Madam Chairman, my name is Larry Hill. I am the Director of Forest Policy for

the Society of American Foresters (SAF). The more-than-18,000 members of the Society constitute the scientific and educational association representing the profession

of forestry in the United States. SAF’s primary objective is to advance the science,

technology, education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of society.

We are ethically bound to advocate and practice land management consistent with

ecologically sound principles. I am especially pleased to submit comments on the

NEPA Parity Act. I wish to thank the Committee for its continued support of professional forestry and its continued support of SAF’s priorities.

The NEPA Parity Act highlights a key provision of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) that SAF supports. The regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ or Council) in 1978 provide for alternative arrangements

to normal NEPA procedure in an emergency situation. The CEQ regulations state:

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations,

the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to

actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review. 640 C.F.R 1506.11)

In addition to this direction, we understand that individual Forest Service and

BLM units are required to consult with their respective Washington offices about

emergencies that may result in a request for an alternative arrangement from CEQ.

Additionally, Federal agencies seeking alternative arrangements should provide

CEQ with a complete description of the needs for such an arrangement at the time

of the request.

These provisions are worthwhile and allow for rapid yet cautious responses to situations that clearly should be treated as emergencies. The environmental laws of

this nation are some of the most comprehensive in the world, yet at times they can

slow actions intended to mitigate harm to the environment. The wisdom of the authors of these laws and regulations is clearly shown in these emergency provisions.

At times, the environment is better with action than with inaction. Unfortunately,

procedures developed with the best of intentions to protect the environment have

resulted in some harm.

What appears to be absent from the alternative arrangement procedures granted

by CEQ is some sense of direction and criteria for how and when these procedures

should be applied. The best person to determine whether the situation warrants alternative arrangements from CEQ is the on-the-ground land manager. The people

intimately involved in the day-to-day management of a forest know what the situation needs, and how quickly it needs correction. The additional guidance CEQ is required to develop under this bill should provide land managers in all the Federal

agencies with a better understanding of when and how they should request these

expedited procedures. Therefore SAF supports these provisions of the bill. This guidance would also ensure that these decisions are made consistently over time, and

that all parties interested in the decisions have a clear understanding of how and

why they were made.

We cannot comment on the specific locations in the National Forests for which

this bill requests that CEQ and the Forest Service develop alternative arrangements

under NEPA. We are, however, encouraged that the bill merely requests, and does

not require, the agencies to develop alternative arrangements for these areas and

public domain lands. Although SAF has heard from some of its members that there

are locations in need of emergency treatment, we believe the decision to seek alter-
70

native arrangements from CEQ should rest with the Forest Service and its on-theground managers on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.
71
72
73

STATEMENT OF MIKE DOMBECK, CHIEF, USDA FOREST SERVICE

MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

Thank you for the opportunity to join you to discuss your legislation for alternative arrangements for environmental analysis and NEPA compliance in emergency situations on the National Forest System. My testimony also incorporates the

concerns and comments of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is our basic national charter for

protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets goals, and provides the

means for implementing the policy. The regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 1978 which implement NEPA provide for alternative

arrangements to the normal NEPA procedure in an emergency situation. The CEQ

regulations state:

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations,

the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to

actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review. (40 C.F.R. 1506.11).

The Forest Service NEPA procedures supplement this guidance by instructing

Forests to consult with th Washington Office of the Forest Service on emergencies,

other than fire, that may require consultation with CEQ about an alternative arrangement. The BLM also requires Washington Office and Departmental clearance

prior to requesting alternative arrangements with CEQ.

Examples of Emergencies

The Forest Service and CEQ have used the emergency provision in the CEQ regulations on three occasions, and the BLM has used it five times. My testimony will

highlight the Forest Service’s examples.

Due to severe drought in the summer of 1992, the City of Portland requested permission from the Mt. Hood National Forest to pump 1.7 billion gallons of water from

Bull Run Lake to meet the emergency needs of the City for domestic water supplies.

The Forest Service believed that such action would create increased sediments within the drinking water supply as well as reduce lake levels sufficient to kill fish and

significantly alter the ecology of the lake.

CEQ concurred with the Forest Service that an emergency situation existed, and

agreed that the Forest Service could proceed with a drawdown of the lake prior to

NEPA documentation. The alternative arrangements were for the Forest Service to

prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) after the emergency action was taken.

An EA was prepared during the drawdown period, but after the initial action was

begun.

Pumping of Bull Run Lake began on September 12 and continued until September

28, 1992. Approximately 0.5 billion gallons were pumped from the lake during that

period. Much needed rain fell during late September through early October removing the need for further emergency withdrawals. The lake began to fill to pre-emergency levels by mid-October.

In 1996, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) found it necessary to take immediate action in the Cascade Resource Area and the Boise National Forest in Idaho. These areas included multiple watersheds adjacent to the

City of Boise. Over fifteen thousand acres of Federal, state, and private lands were

burned in the human-caused Eighth Street Fire which started on August 26, 1996.

After the fire was extinguished, immediate rehabilitation was needed to minimize

the threats to human life and property, deterioration of water quality and loss of

soil productivity that could have resulted from flooding, mudslides and debris torrents from the burned area. The area was critical because of its location in a key

watershed which functions as the primary ground water recharge area for the Boise

Front aquifer, the source of groundwater wells for municipal use for the City of

Boise and other municipalities. In addition, increased runoff potential threatened

buildings and homes immediately below the burned area.

Application of the emergency NEPA provisions to the Eighth Street Fire was supported by a combination of unique circumstances. First, recent historic events

showed the potential for damage. Fires in the same general area in the 1950’s followed by a moderate rainstorm resulted in flooding of a large portion of Boise, including the downtown corridor. Second, local and state governments were consulted

and supportive of the actions proposed. Third, the project received extensive public

review and support. Finally, as would have been required under NEPA, alternative

treatments were discussed and potential impacts to wilderness and threatened or

endangered species were reviewed.
74

This year, the Forest Service again requested alternative arrangements with CEQ

for emergency actions to restore immediately portions of the approximately 103,000

acres of forested lands on the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas damaged

by the February 10, 1998, windstorm. The windstorm caused varying degrees of

damage. The agency believed it would take up to six months using normal NEPA

procedures before actions would be initiated to restore the damaged ecosystem including red cockaded woodpecker and bald eagle critical habitat. This delay could

have resulted in further habitat loss for these threatened and endangered species

by potential fires and bark beetle attack. The Forest Service was concerned that delayed action would critically impact 1998 success rates with the red-cockaded woodpecker and bald eagle nesting habitat, and we were also concerned that the delay

would cause undue risk to adjacent private property from potential fire and insect

damage.

Alternative arrangements initiated with CEQ concurrence are only appropriate

when a clear emergency to human health, safety or the environment is present, and

the action proposed is environmentally significant as defined by the CEQ regulations. Often, actions proposed to be taken in emergency situations do not rise to the

environmental significance level, and therefore, do not require alternative arrangements. For these situations, the Forest Service follows its normal NEPA procedures.

Generally, there are three components of a proposal by the Forest Service to CEQ

for an alternative arrangement. First, the public is provided an opportunity to comment on the project. Second, the environmental analysis that goes into the decision

making process is documented. And third, there are provisions for monitoring and

adjustments as we proceed with the project, including an evaluation of the project

once it is completed. The BLM follows similar procedures and such review is well

documented as in the case of the Eighth Street Fire.

In each of the three cases where this alternative arrangement was requested, a

catastrophe had created an emergency situation requiring immediate and significant

action. Each case clearly demonstrates interagency coordination and agreement regarding the urgency of the need for immediate action and clear disclosure to the

public of that need. There was also strong support from involved State and Federal

agencies for the proposed activities.

Numerous catastrophic events occur each year affecting National Forest System

and other public lands. Rarely, however, do these events constitute an emergency.

The fact that only three referrals for alternative arrangements have been made by

the Forest Service to CEQ since 1978 is evidence that such referrals are only done

in unique circumstances. I am proud that these alternative arrangements were well

coordinated with CEQ and allowed for a quick response.

Discussion of Legislation

While the Forest Service recognizes the catastrophic nature of some of the events

described in the bill, we do not support the approach of elevating these areas to an

emergency status which would require alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance because they are not emergencies. The NEPA requirements have been valuable

in integrating environmental considerations into agency planning for the past 30

years. The Forest Service has only used the alternative arrangements three times

in the last 20 years, demonstrating that this provision is not necessary for a broad

array of projects.

In conclusion, the Forest Service and BLM believe that the procedure we use for

requesting alternative arrangements to NEPA compliance for emergencies works.

The existing authority is appropriate and adequate to administer our nation’s 192

million acres of National Forests, and other public lands. We appreciate the Committee’s interest in the alternative arrangements provision of NEPA, and we understand the Committee’s desire to use this extraordinary process more broadly. But,

we believe the current process is working well. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I

would welcome any questions the Subcommittee may have.
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
(83)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FIRE SUPPRESSION

TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest

Health will come order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on fire

suppression. Under rule 4(g) of the Committee rules, any oral opening statements in hearings are limited to the chairman and the

Ranking Minority Member, and this will allow us to hear from our

witnesses sooner and help our members keep to their schedules.

Therefore, if other members have statements, they can be included

in the hearing record under unanimous consent.

This Subcommittee has held several hearings on wildfire issues,

usually with a focus on forest health conditions and forestry practices. But today, we are going to take a close look at the activities

surrounding firefighting itself, mostly from the aspect of interagency coordination and cooperation. How well do the various State

and local agencies work together? How well do they work together

with the Federal agencies? Who is responsible for staffing levels,

employee training, fire forecasting, equipment availability, and all

other aspects of wildfire preparedness and suppression?

We will examine that today, as well as, what did we learn from

our experiences in the State of Florida? These are the types of

questions that we will be exploring today.

I am very happy to welcome to this Committee my colleagues

Corrine Brown and Allen Boyd who are both here representing

their good State, the State of Florida, who just recently experienced

the devastating fires down there. So we are very happy to welcome

them and concentrate today, focusing on what happened in Florida.

This is an extremely important and timely topic for a number of

reasons: first, because it represents a huge cost to the American

taxpayer. The GAO reports that Federal land management agencies spent over $4 billion in the last 5 years in firefighting activities, and this doesn’t include the military costs of borrowed personnel and equipment, the costs to our States, or the costs in regards to the loss of private property.

This issue is important, however, not just because of the costs in

terms of dollars, but for the costs in terms of wildlife habitat that
84

is lost, and most importantly, for the loss of human lives, which we

have experienced in the West in firefighting. We have a moral responsibility to make sure that we are doing absolutely everything

we can to effectively prepare and fight wildfires, and I am looking

forward to working with the agencies in this regard.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

This Subcommittee has held several hearings on wildfire issues, usually with a

focus on forest health conditions and forestry practices. Today, we are going to take

a close look at the activities surrounding firefighting itself, mostly from the aspect

of interagency coordination and cooperation. How well do the various state and local

agencies work together? Who is responsible for staffing levels, employee training,

fire forecasting, equipment availability, and all the other aspects of wildfire preparedness and suppression? And what did we learn from our experiences in Florida?

These are the types of questions we will be exploring today.

This is an extremely important and timely topic for a number of reasons: First,

because it represents a huge cost to the American taxpayer. The GAO reports that

Federal land management agencies spent over four billion dollars in the last five

years in fire fighting activities—and this does not include the military costs of borrowed personnel and equipment, the costs to states, or the costs in regards to loss

of property. This issue is important, however, not just because of the costs in terms

of dollars, but for the costs in terms of wildlife habitat lost, and most importantly,

for the loss of human lives. We have a moral responsibility to make sure that we

are doing everything we can to effectively prepare for and fight wildfires—and I am

looking forward to working with the agencies in this regard.

BRIEFING PAPER

SUMMARY

Various forest and weather conditions have greatly increased the vulnerability of

America’s forests to wildfire. In recent years, the total number of wildfires, including

the number of large complex fires, has increased dramatically. The costs associated

with fighting these fires has risen proportionally, representing hundreds of millions

of tax-payer dollars annually. These efforts also require an ever-increasing need for

well orchestrated communications and cooperation among volunteer and municipal

fire departments, State forestry agencies, and Federal agencies with wildfire management and suppression responsibilities. The purpose of this oversight hearing is

to review these and other factors that influence the effectiveness of government efforts in wildfire preparedness and suppression.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

Already this year, nearly two million acres have burned, many of those occurring

in the well reported fires in Florida. At a Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee

hearing last week, Earl Peterson, the State Forester of Florida, gave high marks

to the coordinated fire fighting efforts in his state but did suggest that better coordination would have been helpful in the ordering and distribution of equipment. He

also said that better long-range planning would help in order to more effectively station people and equipment in areas of highest risk.

The GAO recently reported that wildfire preparedness and suppression expendi- tures by Federal land management agencies are at all time highs—over $4 billion

for the last five years. Given the recent comments by the Chief of the Forest Service

that approximately 40 million acres of agency lands are at a high risk of catastrophic fire, there is little question that these high costs are going to persist—and

very likely continue to increase—for the next couple of decades. As wildfires become

larger, hotter, and more numerous it is not only becoming more expensive to suppress them but the logistics of organizing communications and coordination among

the various state and Federal agencies is becoming exponentially more complex. The

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho serves as ‘‘The Pentagon’’

for these suppression efforts. Located at the NIFC is the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC), whose primary mission is the cost-effective and timely coordination of national emergency response. It is through NICC that all agency requests to mobilize personnel and equipment across regions are managed.

Our nation’s ability to prepare for and suppress wildfires is of extreme importance, not only because these efforts represent such a huge cost to taxpayers, but
85

because without a maximum effort, property, and most importantly, lives will be

lost. The intent, then, of this oversight hearing is to discuss the effectiveness of our

preparedness and suppression efforts, and to try to answer a number of questions,

such as:

• What did we learn from the Florida fires? In retrospect, what could we have

done better, and conversely, what worked well? What rehab efforts are underway in the aftermath of the fires?

• How do we fund the various suppression activities? Do we spend too much in

some areas and not enough in others? Are we adequately monitoring costs? Are

we utilizing cost control measures such as contracting out certain activities to

private enterprise?

• How accurately are we predicting the location, timing and severity of wildfire

occurrences? What technologies and computer modeling are being used?

• How effective is interagency cooperation—at every level?

• What agencies or organizations are responsible for staffing levels, employee

training, equipment availability, public education, maintenance of facilities, fire

management planning. Who, ultimately, is responsible for suppression efforts,

and does this vary by land ownership?

WITNESSES

A witness list is attached

STAFF CONTACT

Doug Crandall at ext. 5-0691

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I will depart from any normal procedure here

and I would like to recognize, without objection, Mr. Boyd and Ms.

Brown for any opening comments that they may have.

STATEMENT OF HON. CORRINE BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Ms. BROWN. Good morning and thank you, Madam Chairperson,

for holding this meeting. I am grateful for the opportunity to offer

testimony today.

As you know, Florida has suffered from disastrous wildfires, the

worst that we have had in 50 years. More than 500,000 acres have

burned in Florida over the past 2 months, and the economic impact

has been incredible. Firefighters from across the country have

helped us out in Florida, and we are grateful for their efforts. The

coordinated effort was exceptional. I know that there were many

nights that the agency chiefs did not even begin to conference with

each other until 2 or 3 in the morning, and I talked to several of

them during that time. They did a yeoman’s job, and we in Florida

are proud that all of the agencies were so successful.

For the purpose of this morning’s hearing, I have contacted several of the fire chiefs from Florida who know best how the response

to their natural disaster actually worked, and I would like to submit my full remarks for the record. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the issues that they have raised to me.

For the most part, the fire chiefs said that the coordination between local, State and Federal agencies worked exceptionally well.

This was by far the most common response that I have heard.

There were very few problems they shared, but those that they

shared I will share with you today.

It appeared that the No. 1 problem involved communications between all of the parties involved. There was no communication link

established specifically for the firefighters’ efforts, so we had many

firefighters carrying several radios at a time in order to maintain

a line of communication. My understanding is that each depart-
86

ment worked with equipment that was not compatible, so there

was no single frequency to use.

Another problem involved liability. I understand that some of the

firefighters brought in from other parts of the country were actually not allowed to assist because they did not have a red card,

which can only be received after a week-long training session. I

was told that most of the firefighters participating didn’t hold this

particular card.

Also the most useful resource was the helicopters because they

saved valuable time, although there were not always enough helicopters on hand. This was the resource most in need.

Finally, because it was always the local team that responded for

the first several hours to any emergency, there is a big need for additional training and resources at this level. I have heard from several chiefs that more direct funding to local communities to better

prepare for these emergencies would be beneficial to the communities.

Many of our local firefighters had to fight the wildfires in gear

that was made for structural fires. This caused a frequent occurrence of heat exhaustion for those who didn’t have the light gear

to fight the fire outside.

In closing, I would like to say that our firefighters were, for the

most part, pleased with the U.S. Forest Service and were incredibly

grateful for the nationwide assistance.

Thank you for the time and the attention that you are providing

this morning for this meeting, and I have more lengthy comments

that I would like to submit to the record.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered. I thank you,

Ms. Brown. Those were very interesting comments.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Boyd.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I would like

to submit my written statement which is more lengthy than the

one I will give orally.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing, and thank you for calling this oversight hearing on Federal fire

suppression activities and efforts which obviously, as Ms. Brown

has stated, is a very timely issue in our State due to the recent

wildfires that have affected Florida. The State of Florida has experienced wildfires that burned over half a million acres, destroyed

125 homes, timber and property with an estimated dollar value loss

of nearly $400 million.

Unlike Ms. Brown’s district, where most of the fires were on

State and private land, in the Second Congressional District, which

I represent, the majority was on Federal lands. District Two has

the entire Apalachicola National Forest within its borders, and also

encompasses part of the Osceola National Forest. The wildfires

have burned thousands of acres of timberland within these national

forests. The reason that I am here today is to listen to these panel

experts about suppression efforts and activities.
87

I would be remiss if I did not at this point express the gratitude

of all of the people of the State of Florida for the efforts made on

their behalf to put out the fires by firefighters from all over the Nation. There was not a Friday that I did not go through my airport

in Tallahassee when I didn’t bump into dozens and dozens of firefighters coming in from all over the country. This happened 6 or

7 weeks in a row, and I want the rest of the country to know how

grateful we are for your assistance in coming and putting out those

fires, or else our damage would have been much greater.

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today, and I believe, working together, we can take another policy step in the

stewardship of our wonderful natural resources.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. We have tried to take

numerous steps to try to prevent the kind of catastrophe that we

saw in Florida and have seen in California in the past. I welcome

your participation.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now I will introduce our first panel.

The Chair welcomes Mr. Barry Hill, the Associate Director of Energy, Resources and Science Issues for the General Accounting Office; and Mr. Hill is accompanied by Linda Harmon, Assistant Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, also from the General Accounting Office.

As explained in our former hearings, it is the intention of the

chairman to place all outside witnesses under the oath. This is a

formality of the Committee that is meant to assure open and honest discussion and should not affect the testimony given by witnesses. I believe all of the witnesses were informed of this before

appearing here today, and they have each been provided with a

copy of our Committee rules.

Now if the witnesses—Mr. Hill and Ms. Harmon, if you would

please stand and raise your arm.

Mr. Hill.

STATEMENT OF BARRY HILL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ACCOMPANIED BY LINDA HARMON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENERGY,

RESOURCES AND SCIENCE ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We are pleased to be

here and to have the opportunity to discuss wildfire activities and

expenditures of the major Federal land management agencies, that

being the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Fish and

Wildlife Service. If I may, I would like to briefly summarize my

prepared statement and submit the full text of my statement for

the record.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. HILL. First, let me discuss the amount of funds spent on

wildfire preparedness and suppression activities, and then I will

discuss the assistance provided to state firefighting efforts.

Federal land management agencies spent about $4.4 billion on

wildfire activities for fiscal years 1993 through 1997. Of this

amount, $2.1 billion was spent for preparedness and $2.3 billion for
88

suppression. Wildfire preparedness activities are those actions

taken before the onset of a wildfire. These activities include providing fire management programs through training, planning,

staffing and providing firefighting equipment. Wildfire preparedness also includes programs to reduce flammable materials on the

forest floor, such as fallen trees and dry underbrush.

As you can see from the chart on my immediate right, total ex- penses for wildlife preparedness increased from $371 million in fiscal year 1993 to $483 million in fiscal year 1997. During this period

the Forest Service spent the most, $1.4 billion, followed by the Bureau of Land Management at $350 million. The largest preparedness expenses were for personnel, $1.2 billion, while the second largest expense category was for services and

supplies, $541 million.

Suppression activities include actions taken to put out wildfires,

including the use of firefighting personnel and equipment. For fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the land management agencies spent

about $2.3 billion on wildfire suppression. As shown by the other

chart that we brought, wildfire suppression expenditures varied

greatly, depending on the number and intensity of wildfires during

a given year, and ranged from a low of $187 million in fiscal year

1993 to a high of $858 million in fiscal year 1994.

Of these five Federal land management agencies, the Forest

Service spent the most on wildfire suppression for this period,

about $1.7 billion, followed by the Bureau of Land Management at

$360 million. The largest expense category was for services and

supplies, about $1.2 billion, while the second largest expense category was for personnel at $941 million.

Now, allow me to discuss Federal assistance to states.

For fiscal years 1993 through 1997 the five land management

agencies provided assistance to state and local firefighting efforts

through cooperative agreements, provided grants valued at $83

million and loaned excess Federal property worth about $700 million. The activities covered by these grants and cooperative agreements include fire prevention, environmental education, training,

and developing procedures for fighting fires. The Forest Service administers two grant programs that provide funds for states for

wildfire preparedness activities: the Rural Fire Prevention and

Control and the Rural Community Fire Protection programs. Both

programs are matching programs; that is, the entities receiving the

grants must match them in dollar amounts or in in-kind contributions. For fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the Forest Service provided a total of $69 million to the states through these two programs.

The Forest Service also manages the Federal Excess Personal

Property Program which loans excess property to state and local

firefighters. The types of excess property range from shovels to helicopters. Most of this property are trucks that can be readily converted to tankers or pumpers. Other common items loaned include

generators, pumps, fire hoses, breathing apparatus and personal

protective clothing.

During fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the Forest Service loaned

excess Federal personal property valued at about $700 million to

states for use in wildfire preparedness activities.
89

Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be

happy to respond to any questions that you or other members may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

The Chair yields to Mr. Boyd for questions.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and just a

couple of questions to clarify what we have before us.

Mr. Hill, the chart that you have closest to you there, the preparedness portion of that, I assume, is fire prevention activities

such as prescribed burning and any other kinds of activities. Would

you be prepared to go into a little more detail about that or would

I need to ask somebody from the Forest Service?

Mr. HILL. I don’t have a breakdown of those expenses. It would

certainly include planning, staffing, putting equipment in place;

and it would also include some fuel management efforts as well.

Mr. BOYD. Prescribed burning?

Mr. HILL. That’s right.

Mr. BOYD. Do you derive anything from this in terms of the

money spent on the preparedness side compared to the suppression

side? Obviously, the number of fires that we have are directly related to the weather and other activities, primarily weather. But do

you derive anything from the figures in terms of relation between

preparedness and then losses or suppression, cost of suppression?

Mr. HILL. Well, as you can see, in preparedness, there is more

stability. There has been an increase over the 5-year period because you can plan for those level of activities a little better than

for the suppression costs, which basically you are at the mercy of

Mother Nature.

You have good fire years and bad fire years. And as you can see

by the other chart, 1994 and 1996 were particularly bad fire years

which would drive those suppression costs up. But there has been

an increase over the 5-year period for the preparedness costs,

which shows you that there are increased efforts at fuel management and prescribed burns in order to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, which drive costs up when they do occur.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Hill, I assume that your conclusion would be, and

it is not too scientific, but when we have done a better job with preparedness, the suppression costs go down, which they have appeared to do over the last 4 years?

Mr. HILL. There is no question that the better you do on the preparedness, presuppression end of it, the better off you are going to

be in terms of minimizing the catastrophic fires. But I should say

that the inventory of fuel that is on the floor now—I think the Forest Service estimates it at 39 million acres—that needs fuel management efforts, and so there is still a lot to be done on that front.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, one more question if you might indulge me?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Certainly.

Mr. BOYD. There are no figures on rehab after wildfire. Do you

have anything to share on that, and the costs?
90

Mr. HILL. They are included in the suppression costs. I don’t

have any on hand. I will defer to Ms. Harmon and see if she has

anything.

Mr. BOYD. I’ll tell you what, why don’t we wait for her statement.

Mr. HILL. She will not have a statement.

Mr. BOYD. Then can you answer that?

Ms. HARMON. What we have from the Department of Interior,

which does not include the costs associated with the Forest Service,

for the period of 1993 to 1997, was approximately $52 million.

Mr. BOYD. In rehabilitation?

Ms. HARMON. Right. That would be included in the suppression

costs.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you.

That you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Boyd; and we will return for

another round of questions, if you have them for the GAO.

Mr. Hill, your staff is also in the process of doing a pretty comprehensive evaluation on the question of forest health conditions as

related to many things—fire suppression and fire preparedness and

so forth—but based on your preliminary observations, do you see

a continuation of current fire trends and the associated costs in

fighting the fires that we have had to deal with in the last 7 years?

Mr. HILL. It is certainly hard to predict that because a lot of that

is dependent on weather conditions that you are going to face, but

certainly that trend seems to be continuing. And the trend is

caused by years and years of suppressing natural wildfires, which

in the past 7 or 8 years Federal land management agencies have

come to realize perhaps was not the best wildfire management

technique to be using.

So there are a lot more of the prescribed burns, mechanical

clearings, efforts to reduce the fuels that are laying on the forest

floors right now, particularly in the western portions of the country, which seems to have the biggest buildup of those fuels on the

floor right now.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hill, your charts are very interesting and

certainly very telling. We have also heard the number $4.4 billion

for the overall expenditures over the last 5 years. In your best

sense, how accurate do you think the figures are that we are using?

Are you able to get the information that you need to give us an

idea about how much is really being spent under these emergency

conditions?

Mr. HILL. I can’t say I have a lot of confidence in those numbers.

The numbers we are presenting are the numbers that we were provided and were obtained from the Federal land management agencies themselves, and we have not had an opportunity to verify that

data.

I think it is further complicated by the fact that when you have

these joint cooperative efforts and the Federal and state and local

governments are sharing equipment, sharing resources, and basically whatever able bodies you can have go in there to fight these

fires, it is sometimes difficult to sift through the costs and come up

with some firm figures.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How accurately do you think they are monitoring the costs, and what do you think we can do to help you to
91

be able to get a better understanding of the exact costs? What

needs to be done in terms of the kind of expenditures that are

made during these emergency conditions in terms of analyzing

costs?

Ms. HARMON. I think it is important to take a look at what is

the process that both the Forest Service and the Department of Interior use to expend some of the money. What are their contracting

procedures? Are there enough controls in place to ensure that the

proper costs are being recorded and being reported?

Now, so far, we really haven’t done any work in that particular

area, but I think that would be something that would be very important, is taking a look at what are the processes and how are the

funds being expended by the various agencies.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That particular subject is of great interest to

me, so I look forward to working with you on that.

Mr. Hill, in your opinion, are the land management agencies

spending sufficient resources on land wildfire programs and are

they, in your opinion, expending them efficiently?

Mr. HILL. It is hard to give a concrete answer in that we really

did not audit or assess the spending levels; and it is also particularly hard when you consider the total costs involved in wildfire,

including the preparedness activities and suppression activities, as

well as fuel management and rehabilitation costs.

What we do know, though, is that there does seem to be a problem with the fuel loads on the forest floors; and Congress has responded, in all fairness, to that by increasing the appropriations

provided over the last 5 years. And the land management agencies

continue to increase their efforts on the presuppression fronts.

However, when you want to determine the adequacy of funding, as

Ms. Harmon mentioned, you have to look at how efficiently and effectively they are spending the money in terms of personnel, equipment—where are they deploying it? It is a difficult question that

certainly warrants further investigation.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Along that line of thinking, Mr. Hill, does the

Federal Government train the local and State firefighters? Are they

involved in that training and preparedness aspect?

Mr. HILL. The Federal Government works with the states, and

they put on national firefighting training courses. They have established a committee in which the states participate. These courses

are put on at a national level, and the states do send their staff

to attend these courses, but they do reimburse the Federal Government for the full cost of the training. However, I might mention

that they are allowed to use the grant money to pay for some or

all of these training costs.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Schaffer from

Colorado for questioning.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I have a number of questions. Just in terms of the mechanics of

suppressing and putting out forest fires, in the aftermath of these

forest fires, what kind of exchange takes place between your operation and the Forest Service as a whole? Are there lessons that we

learn in fighting fires that help us with respect to management?
92

Mr. HILL. I am not sure I understand your question. In terms of

GAO’s feedback that we get from the Federal land management

agencies?

Mr. SCHAFFER. The fuels buildup information, what happens

with that kind of information if we are able to determine, for example, that management and reduction and potentially hazardous fuel

levels have a financial benefit to the American people from a suppression perspective, what happens? Does that information—is it

packaged or compiled in a way that is useful for land managers

within the Forest Service?

And a secondary question, in your estimation, is it ever utilized

in an effective way?

Mr. HILL. I can’t give a firm answer to that; we have not looked

at the program in that depth. But they do go through a planning

process where they run various models based on fires that have occurred, fuels that are on the ground; and their budget requests and

the equipment and the staff that they deploy are based in large

part on these yearly plans that they put together. Now, how adequate those plans are, we have not investigated that at this point.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me ask then, in terms of an assessment of

preventable expenditures of what could have been saved through

sound land management practices, has the GAO ever taken any

kind of look at which fires may have been preventable and how

much might have been saved if we had been able to successfully

prevent forest fires from occurring, again in the aftermath of analyzing certain fires that may have occurred recently?

Mr. HILL. GAO has never done that, to my knowledge. You might

want to direct that question to the Forest Service and Department

of Interior people.

Mr. SCHAFFER. In your report and in your testimony you indicated that the Forest Service manages the Federal Excess Property

program that loans excess Federal property to State and local firefighters. Does the Forest Service have adequate controls over this

equipment so it knows how much equipment is loaned to which

States and is it able to get the equipment back when the States

no longer need it?

Mr. HILL. We have not looked at the specific controls that they

have in place in regard to this particular program. It should be

noted, though, that they have had difficulty in—they have in the

past and currently have difficulty in terms of the adequacy of their

controls over inventory accounting of property, plant and equipment. Whether this particular excess property is included in that

category or not, we are uncertain at this time.

Here again, I think—you should ask that question to the Forest

Service officials. But they have had difficulty and continue to have

difficulty accounting for all of their plant, property and inventory.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me go back to the previous question that I

asked and try it from a somewhat different angle; and that is, just

when it comes to suppression costs, it varies pretty greatly from

year to year. Is there any way to be able to determine or statistically discover any methods that might be utilized in stabilizing

these costs for a year-to-year period?

Mr. HILL. I think the greater the investment you make in the

presuppression area, the preparedness area, in terms of reducing
93

that fuel on the ground, then the better chance you have of avoiding the large catastrophic fires.

I think we have learned over the last 7 to 10 years that these

forest wildfires are a natural occurrence in our nation’s forests, or

in any forests, for that matter, and if you suppress them or

presuppress them to the point you don’t have them, when you do

have a fire it is a large, catastrophic fire which destroys the forest.

So the more you clear out that fuel, hopefully, the more control you

will have over the suppression.

Mr. SCHAFFER. That issue really seems to be a key one in my

mind. If there has not been any assessment of what we might save

through sound forest management practices, removing excessive

fuel buildup, also in the resource cost, ahead of time, in many other

areas of government we are able to take legislation to the floor and

have some idea of what the taxpayers may realize in savings if we

take a certain preventive action up front; and it sounds to me like

there has been no analysis on that basis, at least as far as GAO

is concerned.

What would it take, in your mind, to move that process forward?

Mr. HILL. Well, I think you are going to have to get a good assessment as to what the situation is in our nation’s forests, and we

have not looked at what the Forest Service and other Federal land

management agencies have done. We know that there is a problem

out in the interior west—eastern Washington, eastern Oregon,

Idaho, western Montana. There is a significant problem out there

that they are trying to deal with.

On the other hand, I think the southeast has been dealt with

perhaps a little more effectively in terms of there have been more

presuppression activities which have occurred that have prevented

major fires. Obviously, Mother Nature does not always cooperate,

as witnessed by the fire which occurred in Florida recently.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.

Your comments were very interesting, Mr. Hill, and I think it is

a very interesting time that we are living through. Certainly the

urban interface with the wildland areas is something that we need

to look at very, very carefully, because these were the areas that

Ms. Brown specifically referred to where there is a greater potential in losing private property, homes and a threat to human life.

While we were fortunate in Florida not to lose lives, Mr. Boyd

indicated in his opening statement that there were 125 homes lost;

and in recent California fires, there have been hundreds and hundreds of homes lost.

And so I know that the GAO is involved in doing a much greater

in-depth study, especially based on what we are all learning here

today, and I hope that we can concentrate first on that urban

wildland interface; and, of course, moving into the situation where

weather conditions, drought conditions, rain forest conditions, typical geographic conditions will lend itself to protecting an area from

devastating forest fires as well as the fuel load on the forest floor

or preventing them through Mother Nature’s conditions. Certainly,

Florida was ripe for that, and I look forward to hearing from our

State Forester from Florida.
94

But based on what we are hearing today, Mr. Hill, I do look forward to working with you and putting our entire staff at your—if

you need them, just call. This is a very, very important issue to us

all, and I believe it is a very important national issue.

I always appreciate your good work, Mr. Hill, and I thank you

for being with us. And Ms. Harmon, thank you very much.

So with that, I will recognize the second panel which is only one

witness, but we have been looking forward to hearing from Mr.

James Garner, the State Forester, Virginia State Department of

Forestry in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Mr. Garner, welcome. As is normally the situation here and as

was explained in our—to our first panel of witnesses, we normally

ask our witnesses to be sworn in, so I wonder if you might stand

and raise your hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Garner, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. GARNER, STATE FORESTER, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, CHARLOTTESVILLE,

VIRGINIA

Mr. GARNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am Jim Garner,

State Forester of Virginia, and I am here today representing the

National Association of State Foresters. I served as President of

the association in 1995, and I have served both as a board member

and as chairman of the association’s fire protection committee. I

appreciate the opportunity to discuss the wildfire suppression efforts in the United States.

I have attached, for the record, a report entitled, ‘‘Managing Forests, Managing Fire: A Report to the Congress on the Status of

Wildfire Management in the United States.’’ This was a cooperative

effort of the National Association of State Foresters and the American Forest & Paper Association.

The Department of Forestry is the primary agency for wildland

fire control in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Like my colleagues

in other State forestry agencies, we work closely with local fire departments, State agencies and Federal wildland fire agencies, including the USDA Forest Service.

We also work through an interstate compact agreement to share

resources in times of critical need, and in my view, these relationships are a model of intergovernmental cooperation. There are few

key points worth noting.

First, the local fire departments are the first line of defense

against wildfire in this Nation. Volunteer departments predominate in the rural areas, and it is critical that they be well trained,

staffed and equipped to provide that initial attack on wildfires.

The southern region of the United States, as was demonstrated

dramatically in Florida, experiences more fire starts than any other

part of the Nation. An effective network of trained local departments, however, helps keep the costs down by catching these fires

when they are small. More importantly, as housing developments

encroach into our forests, the jobs of these firefighters become more

dangerous complicated and more expensive.

The second important feature is the well-trained and -equipped

firefighting crews across the country that can be dispatched as
95

needed. This is due to careful coordination by regional coordinating

centers, interstate fire compacts and, when necessary, through the

National Interagency Fire Center, NIFC, in your own home State

of Idaho, Madam Chairman.

During the recent fire situation in Florida, every State except

two had firefighters, equipment or overhead teams in Florida. My

department sent four bulldozers, two Hummers and 42 people with

all of the support equipment. We were also the leaders of a task

force of fire department engine companies that went to Florida. We

were assigned in northeast Florida and placed under a unified command under the direction of the Florida Division of Forestry.

Thanks to the efforts of the National Wildfire Coordinating Center, NWCG, the State and Federal firefighting agencies all train

using the same standards and basically on the same equipment, so

this allows our resources to use and be familiar with each other

when we meet somewhere across this Nation.

The third part of our effort is the State Foresters working closely

with USDA Forest Service on several programs which keep this

front line of defense active and well prepared: the State Fire Assistance Program and the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program. Both

are managed by the USDA Forest Service Fire and Aviation.

And third, the Federal Excess Personal Property Program, which

you have heard mentioned previously and in which we cooperate

with the U.S. Forest Service.

I think the Excess Property Program is the most innovative of

the three. Through a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service, provided by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, State Foresters are able to screen property, primarily former military equipment, at the excess level and not the surplus level. This equipment,

which ranges from aircraft to trucks to mobile command centers to

clipboards, is reconditioned either by the State or by the local fire

departments and put directly in service protecting homes and property from wildfire.

Last year, in Virginia, we were able to get $116,000 worth of excess property, which we turned over to local fire departments.

Two points of the Excess Property Program are worth bearing in

mind. By using the program, we are greatly extending the life of

vehicles and other equipment which the taxpayers have already

paid for. States and localities add value to this equipment, and

there is a tremendous pride in keeping their equipment in service.

There is a—on the report that I mentioned, on page 15, there is

a picture and an example of one of those trucks that was used by

a small community in Virginia.

The last point I would like to make, Madam Chairman, is that

we will never rid this Nation of wildfire. We can, however, take

prudent steps through programs that we have mentioned to cut

costs and save lives and property. We can manage our lands to reduce fire dangers. However, as the events have shown in Florida,

sometimes many factors will come together which will nullify the

positive impact of prescribed burning and proper forest management.

The growth of the wildland-urban interface, which in and of itself

causes numerous complicating factors, has turned what would have

been a straightforward firefighting task into a tremendous exercise
96

of emergency management. And until Mother Nature changes the

weather pattern, the only thing that stood between the citizens of

Florida and the wildfire was our national firefighting force. And

situations like Florida push those forces to the limit.

We appreciate your support and we look forward to working with

you and the rest of the Committee to see that these programs are

supported. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garner may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Garner. Your testimony was

very interesting, and I very much appreciate your comments about

the imminent concerns that we have over the wildland-urban interface.

We do have some legislation pending before this Congress, that

has made its way through this Committee, that would help take

care of that, and so I would like to work with you personally on

that particular legislation. It was suggested by the Forest Service,

and it deals with a new form of management, an overall landscaping management, rather than a contract-by-contract management.

So I think it is very forward looking, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts about it.

Mr. GARNER. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to say that your comments about

the book put out by AF&PA are good. I noticed in here that there

was a comment delivered by Department of Interior Secretary

Bruce Babbitt in Boise, Idaho, where he stated, ‘‘By using all of the

tools that we have—carefully thinning excess young trees, igniting

prescribed fires, managing land for fire, controlling invasive and

exotic weed species—we must take steps to reduce the fuels.’’

And Jack Ward Thomas in a hearing in Boise, Idaho, on August

29, 1994 made this statement and I think he really wraps it up.

Fires are ‘‘too hot, destructive, dangerous and too ecologically, economically, aesthetically, and socially damaging to be tolerable. We

cannot, in my opinion, simply step back and wait for nature to take

its course.’’

I think that is very interesting, plus the comparative pictures

that are in this book. It is very instructive. Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer for his comments.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a number

of questions.

You mentioned the importance of interstate agreements in firefighting. How often do you send crews out of State?

Mr. GARNER. Normally, we have at least one crew going somewhere out of State once a year. We, a week after Florida, sent a

task force to Texas.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Is Virginia typical of other States in this regard,

do you think?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, I think so. We are all available to help each

other.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Where do you typically send your crews?

Mr. GARNER. In the past, most have been going to the Western

States, but 2 years ago we sent a large contingency to Texas with

equipment when Texas had their problem in 1996.
97

Mr. SCHAFFER. Is the training adequate so that firefighters

trained in the Southeast, for example, are well prepared to fight

forest fires of different types, say, in the Northwest or Southern

California?

Mr. GARNER. I don’t think training is ever totally adequate. We

do the best we can. We try to prepare them to fight fires safely and

know what is going on, but I don’t believe that we are ever adequately trained to where I sleep all night when it is dry.

Mr. SCHAFFER. You asked the Committee to help ensure that

programs for wildland supplier programs are adequately supported.

How are out-of-State programs funded?

Mr. GARNER. If it is through one of the compacts; the receiving

State reimburses the sending State for expenses.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Does a State agency have to pay all of its crew

expenses when crews are sent out of State? Or if your State receives help, do you have to cover all of their costs?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Do the State-Federal assistance programs you

mentioned help cover these costs?

Mr. GARNER. They help.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Are they adequately funded?

Mr. GARNER. No, sir.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Can you give us some sense of scale?

Mr. GARNER. It is relative. Florida, I doubt that they have even

totaled up the bill yet, and that is on a scale of 10, and to other

States it might be on a scale of 1.

Every case and every summer and every spring is going to be different, and I don’t have a good answer except that when it happens

to us in Virginia, I doubt that I have enough in my budget to handle it.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Are within-State operations adequately funded?

Mr. GARNER. Probably not.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Do the agencies have sufficient personnel?

Mr. GARNER. Probably not.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me continue on some other questions that I

have been waiting to ask you.

You mentioned the challenges of the wild and urban interface

and how serious an issue that is. Can you elaborate on that?

Mr. GARNER. In my opinion, it is probably the most serious thing

that has faced us in the wildfire arena in my 40 years of work, because when you place homes and property and lives in the forest,

you immediately shift tactics of how you approach the fire. Instead

of trying to drop back to what would be a safe fire line, you go immediately to protect homes and people and their property, and that

puts you in harm’s way in a different manner. Therefore, the training that I had in the agency, growing up in the agency, is no longer

valid; and the technology—we have to grasp the technology.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Does any one agency bear the responsibility for

the wildland-urban interface initial response?

Mr. GARNER. Generally, it is the State forestry agencies in the

States that are predominantly private land. But that is a cooperative effort with the local fire department. It can’t be done by one

single group.
98

Mr. SCHAFFER. The Federal policy is consistent with what you

just described. Do you think that is an appropriate policy and one

that ought to be maintained?

Mr. GARNER. I believe so, yes, sir.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Are local agencies and fire departments adequately prepared for that challenge?

Mr. GARNER. No, sir.

Mr. SCHAFFER. And should there be some Federal response in addressing that level of preparedness that you just described, or is

this one that ought to be left to the States?

Mr. GARNER. I think we need some help. We need help and expertise and new technology and funding when the individual State

needs it.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Mr. Garner, Mr. Schaffer’s questions are ones that—as you have

ascertained by now, are ones that the chairman is concentrating

on, and while I still have you on the witness stand, I wonder if I

might ask you to work with your other State Foresters in cooperation with this Committee to make sure that the Congress can pass

legislation which will focus on that critical urban-wildland interface problem that we have.

Will you work with me and other members of this Committee

and our staff?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, ma’am. We are at your disposal.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you share with me the belief that time is

not on our side; that it is something that we need to deal with

probably in a manner which will bring us results by next year?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, ma’am. Please do.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It is very interesting that in my State of Idaho

right now our former United States Secretary of Interior, Cecil

Andrus, former Idaho Governor, is on television right now in paid

spots by the Bureau of Land Management urging people to be very,

very careful in making sure that fires are not set carelessly because we have such a high, heavy fuel load because of the cheat

grass that can be grazed in the springtime, but after July it turns

very brown and brittle and heavy and creates such hot fires that

even 2 years ago we lost lives fighting just grass fires.

So as you can imagine, that is a concern that I share even with

the former Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Andrus. So I look forward

to working with you very closely on this issue.

Mr. GARNER. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Boyd.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Garner, thank you for coming today.

I want to take a slightly different direction with my questioning,

and first of all tell you that our State Forester Earl Peterson was

here testifying before this Committee, and I want to take this opportunity to thank you personally on behalf of the people from the

State of Florida for what you did.

You remarked in your previous remarks that you had sent as

many firefighters as you could turn loose into Florida, and much

of our destroyed property was on private and commercial

timberlands. And the 126 homes that were destroyed, I am sure
99

that we would have more destroyed if it wasn’t for the efforts of

the folks from around the country, including those from Virginia

that came, and I just want to promise you if the shoe is ever on

the other foot, that we will do our part in seeing that we share our

resources, too.

Thank you.

Mr. GARNER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BOYD. I wanted to take a direction here which is a little bit

different. I am sure that Virginia is like most other States in that

publicly held forest lands come under—I mean, there is a great

deal of pressure to change the silvicultural practices and harvesting practices which have been traditional, once they come into

public ownership.

What management tools or silviculture practices are you using in

the Commonwealth of Virginia to keep your forest healthy and to

keep fire suppression down?

Mr. GARNER. Are you referring to forest management practices?

Mr. BOYD. Exactly.

Mr. GARNER. We are heavily promoting thinning, particularly as

it relates to area around the interface. By reducing the number of

stems, you have reduced the opportunity of fire to travel from treetop to treetop. We have an active program going on now with developers that we try to thin.

The prescribed burning program, we need to promote that and to

enhance it and encourage it more. The national forests in Virginia

started last year; they really have gone big guns on this.

Mr. BOYD. I am referring mostly to timber—to forest land that

is in your jurisdiction, State forests, and what you do in your State

forest.

Mr. GARNER. Thinning. Mostly thinning because part of our

State forest is in the hardwood—on the hardwood sites, and therefore, we have to be very judicious how we prescribe burning hardwoods.

In many of our pine stands, we have started an active program

of thinning and burning the understory. We are not quite as flat

nor as pine-oriented as your State, Mr. Boyd, so therefore we deal

mostly with smaller acreages, even in our State forest. But we are

actively trying to get a prescribed burning program up and running

in our State forest.

Mr. BOYD. So you have an active thinning program which is a

very important management tool in terms of keeping your forest

lands healthy?

Mr. GARNER. Absolutely.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Garner, we heard testimony here last week from

one of our witnesses that—and she tried to make the case that

thinning, particularly thinning and even prescribed burning was

not a practice that would assist in management of the possibility

of fire. In other words, it didn’t necessarily cause a situation that

you would have less fires.

Would you care to comment on that from your perspective as a

lifelong forester? You are certainly not in the position that you are

in without having some scientific expertise in terms of forest management.
100

Mr. GARNER. If I understand your question, it was, will thinning

and active management connected with prescribed burning reduce

fire?

Mr. BOYD. That is it.

Mr. GARNER. It will reduce the impact of the fire and severity of

fire, and it gives you a fighting chance of stopping the fire when

it is unwanted. I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t work.

Mr. BOYD. OK. That was sort of my reaction, too. I wanted to

make sure that I got the expert’s reaction.

One of the things that we recognized with the fires in Florida,

in those areas where we had not prescribe-burned, and these were

on private lands or State lands, we did not prescribe-burn because

of public pressure around highways and around developments—and

you are nodding and smiling. You are familiar with that kind of a

situation?

We immediately recognized when we got into this terrible

drought situation and the fires broke out, that the worst fires were

in those areas where we had not prescribe-burned. Actually, since

they were in the areas that were highly populated, that is where

we lost our homes.

What are you doing in Virginia to deal with that kind of situation and that public pressure that comes from not to prescribeburn?

Mr. GARNER. Not much more than your State Forester, unfortunately, because of the public reaction to the smoke, the fear of fire,

the lack of understanding of prescribed burning is out there, and

I think the biggest thing we can do is have support from members

from your Committee—you certainly have more visibility than a

State Forester—to say that it is OK, and it is a necessary thing for

the forest health, and it is a necessary thing for the protection of

their own property, and that we as professionals can and do know

how to manage the smoke.

Mr. BOYD. Well, I hope that we will do some followup and bring

some data, some statistics from our own experience that will be

helpful to States all around the country.

I have one more question, Madam Chairman, if you will indulge

me.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Please proceed.

Mr. BOYD. Do you have a national forest in Virginia?

Mr. GARNER. One.

Mr. BOYD. Do you think giving increased flexibility to the local

or State Forester who is in charge of that national forest is helpful

in terms of managing or reacting to these kinds of situations like

we had in Florida?

Mr. GARNER. Of course, that is an administrative decision over

another agency, but I am one who believes in pushing decisionmaking right down to the lowest possible level because that is

where you solve problems.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Garner. One thing that we

learned from the fires in Florida on our national lands was, once

the fire started and the local, on-the-ground forester had no authority to make decisions on how to deal with that, once it went up to

the chain and came back, 24 to 48 hours had passed. We had fires
101

that were burning upwards of 4- and 5,000 acres a day, once they

started, so that was the point that I wanted to make.

You’ve answered it very succinctly, I think, in terms of lowest—

push the decisionmaking down as low as you can is the proper way

to respond?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Peterson from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PETERSON. Welcome, Mr. Garner. I am from Pennsylvania to

the north of you; and I am sure that you have worked with Jim

Grace, our forester from Pennsylvania.

I come from the finest hardwood forests in America, northern tier

Pennsylvania, where oak and cherry doesn’t get any better than

that, and I don’t find many people willing to argue with me about

that.

What do you think about the Forest Service recently stepped-up

burn program of the hardwood forests, especially where they are

trying to favor oak and hickory stands?

Mr. GARNER. I think it is a great thing.

Mr. PETERSON. You think it is working well?

Mr. GARNER. They are just getting started in our State, but I

think it is needed. And if we want to maintain the CC composition

and the diversity of the complex, I think it had to be.

Mr. PETERSON. When I was growing up, I was one—where I come

from, they are not really mountains, but they are hills. I was one

hill away from a stream where there was a railroad track, and

every year there was a prescribed burn where the steam run locomotives would spew out sparks, and if you had a dry spring, we

had smoke all spring for a week or two until those fires would be

put out; and it is one of the finest oak forests in the region from

that.

How do you work with volunteer fire companies? I come from the

most rural part of Pennsylvania, most rural district east of the

Mississippi, and volunteer fire departments are a vital part of

fighting fires. Do you have some plan of working with your volunteers?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir. As I noted in my remarks, in our opinion,

and I think this is true of all of the State Foresters in the South,

the local volunteer fire departments are a front line of defense.

They are the first out. They keep the acreage small. They are out

there day and night, and we couldn’t—I would be afraid to go back

to Virginia without them.

Mr. PETERSON. Do you somehow help them with State resources

in funding?

Mr. GARNER. The biggest help that we give them is trucks,

houses, equipment. That has got to be one of the most beneficial

programs in the relationship between Federal Government and the

State government. We have a small grant program that is administered by the U.S. Forest Service through the States. It is small one,

but you can take a rural company and give them a few dollars, and

you have seen what they can do.

Mr. PETERSON. I am going to be meeting in a few weeks—and

the Allegheny National Forest, which is 550,000 acres, is in my dis-
102

trict, and 20 fire departments are asking to meet with me, that are

part of the forest and who fight fires there. And they have never

been able to use the resources from the timber cuts; the 25 percent

that goes back, that is not allowable use.

Would you support language changed to the Federal level that

part of that money could go back to those fire departments to help

them?

Mr. GARNER. I will come back to the way that I answered Mr.

Boyd’s question: Push the decision to the lowest level, and let the

localities decide. At least give them the opportunity to have the

flexibility.

Mr. PETERSON. It would be an allowable use for the local department if they wanted to buy equipment or provide training, because

volunteer firefighters are a breed of their own. They give their

lives. It is almost a religion with them.

If you teach them—fighting structure fires is altogether different

than fighting forest fires, and I wonder if we concentrate enough

on teaching them how to fight forest fires or giving them the tools?

Mr. GARNER. We don’t.

Mr. PETERSON. See, they are a resource not on the payroll 52

weeks a year. A little money buys you an awful lot with volunteer

fire departments. Would you recommend that we in Washington

look at making sure that where the fires are in the districts, that

the volunteers are a more integral part and receive the training

and equipment that they need?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir. Part of the Forest Service budget has a

line for the volunteer fire assistance program which I think needs

your support.

Mr. PETERSON. You would suggest expanding that?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. PETERSON. OK. How do you determine what funds and staffing levels you need for a given year?

Mr. GARNER. Hmm, I guess a lot of it is determined by our fire

history and the acres that in Virginia I am responsible to protect.

But the new factor has been, now, how many homes are in those

acres that were not there years ago.

And so you look at history and you know your resources. You

know the availability of other outside fire resources. It is an art,

not a science, as to how you determine how well prepared are we.

Then take what we have and focus on training and focus on outside

resources, outside of government, the forest industry, volunteer fire

departments, schools and universities. Any warm body you can

find, and then train and equip them.

One of the biggest concerns that I have is giving them personal

protection equipment. We all need to address that.

Mr. PETERSON. We have 50 senators in Pennsylvania and 250

house members, and we had about six people that gave a damn

what was in the forest service budget, that even looked at it, that

wouldn’t scream—that would scream if there were cuts or kept flatfunded for a decade.

Do you find that in your State?

Urban America loves the forest. They love to travel and hike in

the forests, but they don’t want to spend any money making sure

that they are whole?
103

Mr. GARNER. I think that there are only a few in the legislature

who look at and understand and appreciate the forestry package in

any budget.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you very much.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Garner, I want to conclude with just a

couple of questions and followup with the line of questioning that

Mr. Boyd began. And I would also yield to him after I finish these

two questions for any additions that he may wish to make.

As a State Forester in Virginia, take a situation that I have been

informed about that occurred in Florida, and I ask you, as a State

Forester, to speak not just for Virginia but for the association or

for other State Foresters who have been highly trained in terms of

not only firefighting but State forestry and silvicultural science.

Mr. Garner, I have been informed that in Florida there were two

fires that occurred almost simultaneously. Both occurred opposite

of each other on a—across from one another on a road. On one side

of the road there was an area that had more access and it could

be accessed by multiple agencies, and so they lost a total of 18

acres in this area.

On the other side of the road, it was a wilderness area and fire

could only be fought by the Federal Forest Service, so we had a

turf question here. And while on one side of the road they lost 18

acres, on the other side of the road in a wilderness area where

tourists like to come and view the wilderness, we allowed a situation to develop where the result was that 20,000 acres burned.

So we look at the difference between 18 acres in an area that

was more easily accessible and probably by more than one agency.

On the other side, it wasn’t accessible and only one agency can

handle it.

My question is this. Given that scenario—and that is tragic; I

think anyone would have to admit that is tragic—and even though

Florida’s vegetation recovers more quickly than the east slope of

the Cascades and on into the Rockies, because we are drier out

there, nevertheless, it still takes its toll for several years. The landscape will never look the same.

And so, given that scenario, wouldn’t it be better if there could,

ahead of time, be developed a cooperative agreement so that those

agencies, whether it is the State or local agencies, are able to access any fire within the borders of the State to try to suppress it

and contain it before it develops into such a huge fire that it is very

destructive?

Is that an area that we in the Congress should be looking at,

more agency cooperation between the State and the Federal Forest

Service, so that if—as a State Forester who has command and control of fire suppression over your own State lands, if you could also

be given the ability to, under some sort of contract, be able to contain fires on Federal land? Would you look favorably at that, or

what would your thinking be, Mr. Garner?

Mr. GARNER. I would look favorably at that as one State Forester, and I suspect that many of my colleagues would also.

The wildernesses east of the Mississippi are a lot different than

the wilderness in your area because they are smaller, they are

more fragmented; and there is a tremendous—normally, a tremendous population around those smaller wildernesses. And so, there-
104

fore, whether it be insect, disease, fire, whatever, the impact of

eastern wilderness spills over into the private arena, and that can

be threatening, as we have seen with both fire, insect, and disease.

The lack of flexibility, the lack of the agencies to be able to deal

with whatever is going on in that particular wilderness is really

hamstringing all of us who are interested in natural resources, and

I use that in its broadest context—forest health, for whatever endangered species.

It could be in the case that you outline simply because the fire

could not be contained, we may have lost an endangered species

that that land had been set aside to protect. And so policy issues

sometimes need to rest with the man on the ground, or the woman

on the ground, with the expert.

And what fits West Coast doesn’t fit East Coast in all cases when

we are dealing with natural resources, and I think there is a real

danger there.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to yield to Mr. Boyd, but I do want

to say, in every case, whether it is the East Coast or the West

Coast, the destruction of endangered species habitat is very sad

when we are not able to contain fire or prepare ahead of time by

removing unnecessary fuel load that—to see it destroy not only the

habitat but the species itself.

Another thing that you touched on, and I do want to elaborate,

is the fact that in Florida and in the Eastern States your wilderness designations are more fragmented and they do abut up to

multiple-use and sometimes urban interfaces. And so, you know, in

order to protect private property and human lives, as well as protect endangered species and their habitat, I do think that we need

to be a little more forward looking in terms of looking ahead to prevent these very, very hot fires. And I do want to say that prescribed burnings under the proper conditions are very important,

and—but I believe it has to be the proper conditions.

Mr. GARNER. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. With that, I will yield for a couple more minutes to Mr. Boyd, if he has any final questions.

Mr. BOYD. I think you have asked the pertinent question,

Madam Chairman, but let me just say to Mr. Garner and also to

the next panel, because I think we would want to ask them some

questions about this particular issue so they may prepare; the scenario that you just described, Madam Chairman, happened in the

Apalachicola National Forest in Florida, which is in the Second

Congressional District, and we believe that the fires which were

both started adjacent to a highway running through the national

forest were started by an arsonist, and the fire actually on the nonwilderness side we put out after it burned 15 acres.

The fire on the wilderness side, according to the numbers that

I have in front of me, which are from the State of Florida, burned

24,600 acres.

Again, we believe that since they were both started on the highway simultaneously, in the same area, that it was arson. We don’t

have solid proof of that, but I want to thank you, Mr. Garner, for

your fine presentation.

Mr. GARNER. Thank you.
105

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Garner, I just have one final question that

I need to ask you while you are here.

How do you, as a professional manager, manage the smoke when

you prescribe-burn on your State lands?

Mr. GARNER. Let me kind of qualify that first.

In Virginia, we have very few acres of State lands; 77 percent of

the forest land in Virginia is owned by private individuals such as

yourself. So we do a lot of burning for the private landowner, but

smoke management is all formulated on weather conditions as well

as the fuels of the floor, depending on the objective that you want

to accomplish.

An understory burn for reduction of habitat, you don’t need the

intensity of fire as you do after a logging job to clean up the slash.

You have to know your mixing height and your whole spectrum of

atmospheric changes that is going on.

Is the smoke going to go up and dissipate, down and dissipate?

Be careful that you don’t burn in the fall of the year because at

night you get an inversion and you get a lot of smoke on the road,

which is dangerous.

We start with the weatherman, who predicts as best he can what

the weather conditions are going to be; and knowing what that

smoke will do under that given set of weather conditions is critical

in managing not only the smoke, but the fire as well.

So we just don’t go out and light a match and turn around and

pick up a cup of coffee and watch it burn. It is a scientific process.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Peterson?

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Garner, if groups like the Sierra Club and

Heartwood win the argument that they are making of zero cut on

public land, what will happen to our public forests?

Mr. GARNER. I think that they will sit there and be used by a

few for their own benefit, and that a lot of stewardship of natural

resources will go to waste.

I think that as a second part of that, our products that we demand from the forest have got to come from somewhere and we,

as a nation with the scientific and professional know-how and the

climate to have productive forests, do we say that we lock up ours

and then do we go to some undeveloped Third World country that

can ill afford an ecological disaster because they don’t have the resources? Is that right, that we lock up a resource that we know

how to manage and know how to care for, and push that which—

we are not going to change our need for forest products, I don’t

think, in this country.

As long as the demand is there, the wood has got to come from

somewhere, and I think this Nation has the scientific and professional ability to nurture all of our natural resources without putting an ecological disaster on some other nation.

Mr. PETERSON. Coming from the East, I thank you, and we deal

with more hardwoods than we do softwoods, but that varies up and

down the coast of this country. But it is a product that we can be

producing. Many of the outdoor sports deal with land where some

timber has been marketed or some thinning has been done. In our

area, we had the tornadoes in 1985 which took down mile-wide

paths of mature oak and cherry trees, just twisted them apart and

laid them on the ground. The thick forests that have grown there
106

and the wildlife species that we didn’t see before, because it is the

kind of habitat that they need, it is interesting to watch that grow;

and that is 20, 30 feet high a decade later, and the creatures that

now use that as their home, it has been interesting to watch.

All of that happens, but the point that I want to make is that

we have a very strong argument made in this country by groups

that want zero cut on public land, and I thank you for your testimony on that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Garner, for your instructive

and informative testimony.

Mr. GARNER. Thank you for having me.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank you for this information, and it is a

permanent part of our record. And I do want you to know that our

record will remain open for 10 working days. Should you wish to

add anything to your testimony, my staff would be happy to work

with you on that.

With that, again I want to thank you for your valuable time here

and I will now call the third panel.

Mr. GARNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. As they are taking the witness table, I want

to say that our third panel will be comprised of Wally Josephson,

Wildland Fire Specialist, Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety, U.S. Department of the Interior; Janice McDougle, Associate

Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, Forest Service; and

Ms. McDougle is accompanied by Denny Truesdale, Assistant Director of Fire Management for Operations, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

You have all been here many times before, and so I will administer the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. We open our testimony with Mr. Josephson.

STATEMENT OF WALLY JOSEPHSON, WILDLAND FIRE SPECIALIST, OFFICE OF MANAGING RISK AND PUBLIC SAFETY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. JOSEPHSON. Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to

discuss the Department of Interior’s planning and budgeting process of the wildland management program. The Bureau of Land

Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife

Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and are four land management agencies within the Department of Interior with fire management programs. These agencies work in close cooperation on

budgeting, planning and implementation activities related to fire

management.

The Department’s Wildland Fire Management Program is guided

by the principles and policies of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review, adopted by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior in December 1995. The program ensures the

capability to provide a safe and cost-effective fire management organization. Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety and benefit and values to be protected

consistent with resource objectives.
107

Funds for the Department’s Wildland Fire Management Program

are appropriated to the Bureau of Land Management and are made

available by allocation to the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Department’s

Wildland Fire Management Program is composed of two activities—wildland fire preparedness and wildland fire operations.

Fire preparedness involves the readiness and capability of the

Department to suppress fire in a safe and cost-effective program.

Staffing levels, training, fire planning, equipment, maintenance facilities, prevention activities and the interagency coordination all

fall within the category of fire preparedness. The fire management

plan is the guide for budgeting and managing wildland fire preparedness activity. The primary analysis tool of the fire plan is an

economic marginal cost analysis, combined with a threshold analysis which is used to determine the most efficient level, which we

call MEL. MEL represents the funding necessary to provide the

most cost-efficient and technically effective fire management program that meets land management objectives while minimizing the

total cost of both suppression and resource damage associated with

wildland fire.

The fire operations portion of the program funds the development

and implementation of the emergency suppression, emergency rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction operations, and fire severity

programs. Emergency suppression includes all management actions

taken to suppress wildland fires in a safe and cost-effective manner. Emergency rehabilitation is carried out to prevent any further

land degradation and resource damage to lands impacted by unplanned wildland fire or suppression activities.

Rehabilitation funds are also used to reduce any residual public

health and safety risk that may result from wildland fires. Hazardous fuel reduction operations use fire and mechanical treatments as management tools to reduce fuel loadings and restore fire

to its natural role in the ecosystem.

Commercial activities, such as timber harvest and small wood

product sales, are used whenever commodity production can be

used in an environmentally sound manner to achieve the same objectives.

Wildland fires occur unexpectedly and create an emergency in

which firefighters must respond rapidly to minimize risk and damage. Despite public expectations, when the combination of excessive

fuel buildup, steep topography, extreme weather conditions, multiple ignitions and extreme fire behavior occur, it is impossible to

immediately suppress all fires. Firefighter and public safety must

best be met with the adequate preparation and interagency coordination of supplies and services and safe, but aggressive implementation of fire control tactics provide for our ability to suppress fires.

To meet these needs, the BLM, in cooperation with other DOI

bureaus, the Forest Service and the National Weather Service,

maintains and operates the National Interagency Fire Center at

Boise, Idaho. The NIFC provides logistical support through its coordination center for the coordinated movement of suppression resources when local capabilities are exceeded. Response to requests

are based upon the concepts of closest forces and total mobility
108

which seek to dispatch the closest available qualified resource regardless of agency affiliation.

We were asked by the Committee to identify both jobs well done

and lessons learned as a result of the wildfires in Florida. While

review of the past actions may lead to improvements, Florida fires

did not indicate a major need to revamp our procedures. The Department of Interior and the coordination center, for the most part,

served primarily as a support function. Most of the Florida fires,

including most high profile and highly publicized fires were under

the control of the State.

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the Congress for the direction and support that you have provided us in the Department

of Interior. This concludes my statement.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That you, Mr. Josephson. Very interesting.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Josephson may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And now the Chair recognizes Janice

McDougle.

STATEMENT OF JANICE McDOUGLE, ACCOMPANIED BY DENNY

TRUESDALE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FIRE MANAGEMENT

FOR OPERATIONS, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of

the Committee. I am Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief for

State and Private Forestry, with responsibility for fire and aviation, forest health and cooperative forestry programs. I am accompanied today by Denny Truesdale, who is our Assistant Director for

Fire and Aviation Management for Operations.

I would like, Madam Chairman, to submit my formal testimony

for the record and briefly summarize my remarks.

The wildfire suppression program in the United States is in partnership with a broad array of Federal agencies, State, tribal and

local government and private companies. Its first priority is in protecting human life. When a fire occurs, we respond immediately.

We implement attack strategies. We identify additional resources

needed, and we expand the organization, as needed, to protect people and property.

Several factors influence an effective and safe fire suppression

program, including the expansive wildland urban interface, hazardous fuel conditions, the increasingly broad array of partners involved in suppression, and the increased role for the Forest Service

in providing international assistance.

We have an outstanding track record. The Federal firefighting

agencies have consistently suppressed 98 percent of all wildfires

during initial attack; only 2 percent of all fires account for the

greatest cost and the most acreage burned. The five Federal

Wildland Fire Management Agencies: the Forest Service, Bureau of

Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, are strengthening the common

features of their respective wildland fire management planning

processes.

Initial attack analysis and planning are the backbone of our success. The National Fire Management Analysis System is a model
109

we use to identify the most efficient firefighting organization. Developed locally to determine what mix and distribution of initial attack resources will provide a cost-effective fire suppression program, the results of the local analysis are aggregated into the national program. This assures the most responsive organization possible.

When initial attack fails and local resources are not capable of

controlling one or more wildfires, we shift to extended attack and

assign national resources such as incident management teams and

interagency Hotshot crews, and large airtankers.

In 1998, the Federal agencies are fully staffed for the fire season.

We have adequate resources in every region for effective suppression, assuming that this is, and will be, an average year. The Florida effort affirmed the value of a prescribed fire program to create

more fire tolerant ecosystems and better protect homes and improvements. It also reinforced the value of our safety program. In

Florida we even had to educate crews from other regions of the

health and fire threats unique to Florida.

The Forest Service’s fire suppression program is professional. It

is responsive to the concerns and needs of partners, and it is based

on the continuous study of historical fire occurrences and risk. We

are very proud of this program, its value to the public and the firefighters who work endless days and get great satisfaction from the

protection of people and resources.

Madam Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I would be

happy to answer any questions.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you Ms. McDougle.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McDougle may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer, the

gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Ms. McDougle, when it comes to the controlled burns, what kind

of resources do you find that you need to devote to helping—assisting in managing these controlled burns? Is there any——

Ms. MCDOUGLE. You are talking about our fuels program? Is that

what you are talking about?

Mr. SCHAFFER. On those occasions when we increase—for example, we increased rather dramatically, to the extent of about 400

percent, the amount of public lands that are slated for controlled

burns. When we do that, I assume that there is some kind of prevention-suppression personnel that are needed to help contain and

maintain and make sure that those burns are controlled.

I guess my question is, how much in the way of personnel do we

consume in managing controlled burns?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Acres are identified by our field personnel. We

don’t do that out of the Washington office.

We estimate that in fiscal year 1999 we will treat about 1.4 million acres out there nationally just within the Forest Service. But

fuels treatment is an interagency priority, and other land management agencies will do that as well. By the year 2005, we estimate

that we will be burning up to about 3 million acres a year—treating 3 million acres a year, and that is probably as much as we can

do with smoke considerations.
110

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me ask you, in Colorado, for example, there

are stakeholders who are constantly negotiating how many acres

might be subject to active management. To your knowledge, have

administrative appeals of forest plans or timber sales made action

necessary to prevent dangerous fires?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I am not clear what you are asking. Can appeals

apply to all of our ground disturbing activities? That is just part

of the process. Beyond that, I am not sure.

Mr. SCHAFFER. There are proposals to expand the acreage that

would be under a managed category. As long as there are administrative appeals pending, presumably there is not much in the way

of management that takes place on those occasions. Is this as a result of the policies of the departments that we are unable to go

ahead and begin managing these lands for fire prevention in ways

that might——

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I can’t speak to specific activities in Colorado,

but my overall answer is no.

Mr. SCHAFFER. The last part of your answer?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. My overall answer is no.

Mr. SCHAFFER. You don’t believe that there are any?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I really would prefer to speak to specifics, but

I am not sure what you are talking about here.

Mr. SCHAFFER. You are not sure about the impact of the administrative appeals process on the ability to begin managing land?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. We have been living with administrative appeals process for many years, so I am struggling here.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Do you believe it has any delay at all on our ability to engage active management plans that might be useful in suppressing or preventing wildfires?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. The process itself is not new. Maybe the number

of appeals you are getting out there may have changed, but the

process, we have lived with. We factor it into our day-to-day activities, and it is applied much broader than what you are talking

about here.

Mr. SCHAFFER. So you don’t believe that the length of time that

these appeals take to be resolved has any impact?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. It depends on how many you get. Some, you get

few and some you get lots. It varies from decision to decision.

Mr. SCHAFFER. What steps are we taking to better predict where

forest fires are likely to occur?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. There are about 40 million acres that are at

high risk for fires, big fires. We will have those numbers refined

later on this fall and have a clearer idea of where they are. We also

already have a map, a national map, that lays out across ownership those areas that are at high risk for mortality from insect and

disease; and once we are able to merge that information, it will

help us tremendously in determining our priorities.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Boyd.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Ms. McDougle, I want to express my appreciation to the folks

that work for you, all of the way down to the last firefighter. Certainly we don’t have any quarrel with them. They do an outstanding job, and I know that is under your leadership and we are

very
111

grateful. We are not always pleased with the policy sometimes, and

that is primarily what I want to discuss today.

I am not mean or bad or anything, I want you to know that, but

I do have some very serious questions about the policy.

First of all, I want to lay out the situation that we have in north

Florida. One of the reasons that I ask Chairman Chenoweth, and

she agreed to let me come sit because—we have three national forests in Florida, two of them are in the Second Congressional District, the Apalachicola National Forest, southwest of Tallahassee,

and the Osceola National Forest, which is between Tallahassee and

Jacksonville and Gainesville.

The Apalachicola National Forest is a very special place. You

may or may not know that it contains—I forget the exact acreage—

almost 600,000 acres. It was actually a piece of land that was clearcut back in the early 1900’s, in those days when we did some silly

things in terms of our natural resources. But through a sensible

management program over the last 70 or 80 years, we have managed to rehabilitate that and bring it back to a vibrant, live forest

that today houses the world’s largest red-cockaded woodpecker population, and we are very proud of that.

There have been—for your information, there has been a lot of

controversy in north Florida about forest management practices

there, primarily—well, basically how we manage it and how we

have cut the timber. As you may know, there has been a restriction

of timber cutting in the last few years; it has almost come down

to nothing. Even though the fact that the plan we have been on for

the last 70 or 80 years had gotten us to a very good point to wildlife habitat and a natural setting that we are very proud of in the

last 10 or 15 years, we suddenly want to change that. And it has

created some real problems in some of the communities that I represent, primarily with the local governments in terms of the tax

revenue that they have been receiving.

As you know, we put in place two programs to offset those abnormal tax issues for the local communities. One was the PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, Program, which still exists, and the other

was a 25 percent program. But most of the people that you talk to

about the 25 percent program, they will kind of laugh at you and

say, the Federal Government really pulled one over on us; they

said, we are going to give you 25 percent of everything that we cut,

but then they reduced the cutting to practically nothing. And we

have school systems—I have one school system which is in deep

trouble because of the loss of those funds. I give you that as kind

of a background to let you know where I am coming from.

I have spent all of my professional life in agriculture. Part of that

was forestry management. I managed for three specific purposes.

One was for aesthetic value, economic production and wildlife habitat. I believe they are not incompatible. I believe they are compatible, and I have struggled understanding this great debate that we

have going on between the extreme environmental community and

the extreme economic community, if you understand what I mean.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Yes, I do.

Mr. BOYD. Now, I get to the questions, and thank you, Madam

Chairman, for indulging me on that. I wanted everybody to understand the lay of the land.
112

The situation that was described earlier about the two fires that

started on the highway, what is your reaction to that? First, if you

will, just give me your reaction and then let me ask some specific

questions.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. My understanding of that situation was that it

was not—it was not described to me as a wilderness issue. It was

described to me as swamp burning and the inability to get equipment, heavy equipment, into the area, and it was also a safety

issue. And that is why the decision was made to let it go.

Mr. BOYD. If it was described as a swamp issue, someone inaccurately described it. One side of the road was wilderness—and we

can look at the maps afterwards—and the other side was not. Because of the inability of the person on the ground to understand

what authority they had or didn’t have, then we had a situation

that burned about 24,000 acres. And actually at the end of that it

was beginning to threaten some populated areas on the west side.

So that really leads me to the issue about the authority that people have on the ground, and I have had this discussion with Ms.

Marcia Kearney, who is your new national State Forest Supervisor,

and I spent some time 2 weeks ago looking and observing the

burned areas.

One of the things that I would like to see come out of this is

more flexibility for the people on the ground who need to make decisions quickly, because it has to come to your office. It takes 24

to 48 hours. You have got something that is totally out of control

by then. In 48 hours, those fires had burned 10,000 acres.

Give me your reaction to more flexibility on the ground.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. The things—and Denny can speak to the command issue. When things come to us, we send them back. We don’t

try to second-guess decisions out there. We can’t. And we entrust

our incident commanders with responsibility and authority to do

the right thing.

And so, yes, people do come to us. We do get calls, but we send

them to the field.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, if you will indulge me for one more

question, then I will quit for the time being.

Under what circumstances are the wilderness rules—could we

have gone in and stopped that fire with all resources that we had

available when we first discovered it? Are there within the law provisions which allow us to waive rules?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. For a big fire, sure.

Mr. BOYD. Who would have to make that waiver?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I am not sure, but we believe that the regional

foresters have the authority to make that call.

Again, we don’t.

Mr. BOYD. That is not what the regional foresters are telling me,

and that is something that maybe we can work together on, to clarify that authority.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. OK.

Mr. BOYD. My point is that there ought to be clear rules about

when we can use that waiver, and we ought to give that authority

either to the local forester in charge of that forest or your State

Forester who can be there in a matter of hours under any circumstances. Maybe that is something that we can work together
113

on, because it definitely—in this case, we burned about 24,000

acres that probably could have been prevented.

Madam Chairman, I will defer any other questions until later on

if we have more time.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right, Mr. Boyd.

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Josephson, we heard from the Forest Service

that they estimate that 40 million acres of their land are at risk

for catastrophic fires. What would be the figure on the land that

you manage?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. I don’t have a figure at this time, but I can provide one in the future.

Mr. PETERSON. That is not a figure that you have heard talked

about? Is there is a process for developing one?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. Yes, we are in the process of coming up with a

figure.

Mr. PETERSON. Do you think that it is sizable, like the Forest

Service?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. I am sure that it is significant in acreage, yes.

Mr. PETERSON. Is there a plan being developed to shrink it? It

seems like 40 million acres, one agency that is at risk for catastrophic fire, that is a destructive fire.

Mr. JOSEPHSON. Yes. We are trying to set in place a program to

manage the fuels and reduce the fuel loading.

Mr. PETERSON. But as has been discussed here, there have been

some policy shifts in the last few years that some feel make it really impossible to manage the fuel load. You can’t remove fuel without cutting it or doing something with it. If we are moving toward

a zero-cut policy, and there has certainly been a lot of evidence toward that, how do you manage the fuel load if, above you, decisions

are being made that we are not going to cut trees?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. I think you have to look at each situation and

develop a plan to manage that particular piece of ground, and it

has to be done at the local level.

Mr. PETERSON. But we have already found out that local people

are not making those decisions, are not allowed to make those decisions.

Mr. JOSEPHSON. At least for the Department of Interior, the local

manager is the one who develops the fuel management program

and the plans to modify the fuels on the ground.

Mr. PETERSON. And then he has to get approval from Washington?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. No, it is generally the next level higher which

signs off on the approval.

Mr. PETERSON. The regional?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. Depending on the agency, whether it is regional

or State level.

Mr. PETERSON. If I can switch to Ms. McDougle.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, because it is not personal, but there

are those who give your agency just A-pluses in fighting fires and

moving fast and working hard and coordinating; but they give very

bad grades on the efforts to minimize fires.

Do you find policies that you have no control over prevent you

from really doing that job?
114

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I am not sure that I understand what you are

saying. What do you mean, efforts to minimize fires?

Mr. PETERSON. You admit you are 40 million acres at risk for

catastrophic fires?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON. There are many who feel that the Forest Service

is failing at carrying out the role to lower that number and to prevent these catastrophic fires by doing what is necessary.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I think that our acres targeted for reduction in

our budgets reflect just the opposite, and Congress has been very

supportive in supporting our budget increases to do that. And we

are—yes, we are meeting the targets which we have identified.

Mr. PETERSON. That may be more current, but I am speaking of

historic, in the last few years. Are you—you have had an increase

in the last year or two?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON. So you are shifting policy and coming back to the

burn policy?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I think we know more about fire ecology now,

and that is not unique to the Forest Service. That is true of all

land management agencies. We have capped fire out of the ecosystem, and now we are paying for it. We thought that was the

right thing to do at the time, and now we are learning differently.

I don’t think that it is a matter of being irresponsible; it is how

much science we know about fire ecology, and we know more now.

Mr. PETERSON. I agree, but there are those who believe that

never in the history of these agencies has there been as much influence from nonscientists who are in powerful policymaking decisions. Many feel that they have veered from science to political

agendas, and that the Forest Service and the Department of Interior have not been able to manage, that sound science has been

moved away from; and we are finding that didn’t work.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. That hasn’t been an issue in fire.

Mr. PETERSON. You don’t think policies from leaders of this country have had an impact in preventing catastrophic fires?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. The Forest Service is not out here by itself making these calls and establishing these priorities.

I think the fire business among the agencies is probably one of

the best models of how this should work, and it works very, very

well.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, I would agree with you once we have the

fire. Many people do not agree with you in preventing those fires,

and I will conclude with that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. McDougle, I am going to continue on that

line of questioning, because we do have some very specific concerns

about how the U.S. Forest Service reacts in its decisionmaking

processes with those who are on the ground, those who are at the

site of the fire, and the decisions that are made.

I do want to read the following questions, because they were

questions that were submitted to me by Congresswoman Tillie

Fowler, whose district also was impacted very heavily by the fires;

and this goes to the line of questions that Mr. Peterson was involved in, and that is the Forest Service activities and decisionmaking on the ground when the fire is in process.
115

Ms. Fowler submitted the following question:

During the Florida fires, a Super Scooper aircraft, a can

Canadair CL–215 firefighting aircraft was sent down from North

Carolina to help fight the fires. Unfortunately, this asset was not

properly used during the Florida fires. Although it is able to successfully complete over nine drops of water each hour, it was only

used efficiently for 1 day. It spent 3 days on the ground and at

least 1 day flying on the same schedule as the slower tankers.

Why was this firefighting aircraft used so inefficiently? And the

fires began on Memorial Day weekend and the Super Scooper was

not brought into those fires until a month later, when it only had

to come from North Carolina. What was the reason for the delay

in requesting this aircraft and bringing it down to Florida?

Finally, although the company that makes this aircraft is based

in Canada, it does have production facilities in the United States,

and we should, as a matter of fact, be able to use any aircraft

available to us that would be more responsive in terms of its capabilities in putting out large fires like the one that we have been referring to in the wilderness areas.

There seemed to be to Mrs. Fowler and to the people in Florida

and the reports that the Congressmen there have gotten there

seemed to be some resistance from the Forest Service to bring in

these aircraft to fight the fires.

What was the reason for the objections to the use of this aircraft?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Madam Chairman, I am going to let Denny

Truesdale respond to that since he was down there. But I would

like to say that I had several personal conversations with Ms.

Fowler, not specific to the Super Scooper, but to the availability of

helicopters, and I immediately called the incident commander and

said, talk to this lady and he did.

So we were responsive to her in a number of ways, but as to—

and I know that the State Forester for Florida was the one who

initially requested the Super Scooper.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Therein lay the problem.

Mr. Truesdale, please proceed.

Mr. TRUESDALE. Thank you. I tried to take notes as you went

through the questions, but if I miss one, please refresh my memory.

The first question regarded the efficiency or, in the

Congressperson’s words, the inefficiency when she asked the question. That was a very complex situation down there in Florida. I

have talked to the State Forester, Earl Peterson, and I believe, according to his information, there was more firefighting aircraft in

the State of Florida working at one time than has ever occurred in

the history of firefighting within the State. Combine that with the

smoky conditions, the weather conditions which make it very difficult to fly, and the inefficiencies of all kinds of aircraft, whether

they are the large retardant bombers used extensively in the West,

the small, single-engine airtankers which are similar to crop dusters, those sorts of things that are used throughout the East very

effectively; and so inefficiencies are bound to occur under those situations because of the inability to fly.

The aircraft itself had some difficulty getting pilots that were approved by FAA to fly in the U.S., and I believe FEMA was able to
116

work with the FAA and get those pilots certified to work in Florida

for that emergency. That took a few days in the delay.

We believe that the mix of aircraft which was ordered by the incident commanders on the ground, both Federal, State and local

firefighters, needed to match the local conditions there; and we had

that full range of aircraft there, including the loan of the Super

Scooper from North Carolina. We still had many other aircraft

available in the West that, because of the congestion of the air

space there, we were unable to move into Florida. And we feel that

the Canadian aircraft is a good product that, in some circumstances, has a very effective use in places in the United States;

and it is used within the United States in such circumstances.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Truesdale. I am not sure that

we got the answer that we were looking for with regards to how

the question was framed.

It seems only logical that if air congestion of a number of aircraft

was the question, if you have one aircraft that can do 10 times the

work of other smaller aircraft, that we would utilize that one aircraft, especially when we have a wilderness area, for instance, that

is on fire, we can only fight it from the air, there are 24,000 acres

that ultimately were lost.

This appears to be the situation of maybe some turf battles. I

hope that didn’t happen. But it gives every appearance of being.

So for us, for the American people, Mr. Truesdale, I would love—

I would not just love it, I would ask that you submit to this Committee and to Mrs. Fowler and to the rest of the congressional delegation a complete report on how aircraft were deployed and utilized, who was in control, who were making the command decisions

down there, and who was cooperating with whom in terms of how

the Federal and the State foresters were cooperating with one another.

It will be very instructive to us in the future because I hear the

same complaints in Boise sometimes. Aircraft are brought in and

they are embargoed right there in Boise, and they cannot be used

by their owners for other purposes and they sit on the ground. So

this would be a very good opportunity to bring more understanding

as to the problem that Mrs. Fowler has pointed out, and it will enable all of us to be able to avoid that problem in the future.

Even though it is a Canadian aircraft, there should have been

very little reason for it to be used only a minimal amount of time;

and there should have been very little reason for it to have taken

a month for it to be called from North Carolina. So naturally the

Committee has questions about it, and so we do look forward to a

more detailed report.

Do you have any comments with regards to the detailed report

that this chairman is asking for?

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. TRUESDALE. No.

First of all, we will be happy to respond to your request. We are

in the process with the State agencies, the other agencies who responded, in looking at the entire mobilization down there, the process that brought the people from throughout the United States, as

well as some of the individual fires; and we will add that into our

list of items that we need to review and report back to you.
117

I probably was not very clear in some of my earlier statements

here, and let me add just one more comment.

Even though the CL–215 is an aircraft, an airplane, it is most

comparable in firefighting use with the large helicopters, the Sikorskys, the Sky Cranes, what we call Type 1 or heavy-lift helicopters;

they drop at approximately the same speed. Although helicopters

can actually hover, they usually maintain some forward speed.

They fly slowly and have quick turnaround times. They can use the

same water sources that the Super Scoopers use. They are more

maneuverable than aircraft because they can be directed more precisely because of their ability to fly so slowly.

My comparison with the need for the incident commanders to

make a decision on the type of aircraft was a tradeoff for a similar

category in dropping ability between the Type 1 aircraft and the

Canadian aircraft. The Type 1 helicopters we have, I don’t know

what the numbers are, but 20, 30, 40 are on contract throughout

the United States. There were numerous Type 1 helicopters in the

State of Florida dropping both for the Forest Service on Federal

fires, for the State on State-protected fires; and I think they were

also used cooperatively with the counties. So our comparison would

be more with the Type 1 helicopter than with the 2,000-, 3,000-gallon water retardant aircraft.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Truesdale. I look forward to

receiving that report within 30 days.

Mr. TRUESDALE. We will get you a report within 30 days. The

completeness and the specificity that you asked for, I am not sure

that all of the reviews will be completed by that time, but within

30 days we will let you know the status of the information that we

have. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Within 30 days I would like to see in the report the evidence that you have worked with the State forester in

trying to find out where the breakdown was or what is perceived

as a breakdown.

So I would like to see in that report within 30 days the fact that

you have coordinated with the State and what your report is.

I will also be working through Mr. Boyd to receive a like report

from the State forester.

Would you be willing to assist the Committee in that, Mr. Boyd?

Mr. BOYD. Absolutely, Madam Chairman.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right.

I have a couple more questions. It has been mentioned in the

newspaper, Mrs. Fowler also wanted us to mention this, that perhaps the command structure for fighting the fires was in a state

of confusion throughout some of the time that the fires were burning, and the communication between coordinating agencies was not

all that it should be during an emergency situation. This was her

last comment, and I do—would expect that in the report you will

be able to respond to these concerns and what we can do in the future to improve it.

Now, going back to some of my questions, I have two questions

for you. What role did we play this year in the fires in Mexico and

last year in the fires in Indonesia, Ms. McDougle?
118

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Well, Denny Truesdale accompanied a group to

Mexico, so I would like for him to speak to that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right.

Mr. TRUESDALE. I will go to Indonesia first. I did not go to Indonesia. The assistance to Indonesia was a combination of Department of Defense, U.S. military assets, aircraft, the C–130’s and

MAFFS units—and I didn’t come prepared with the acronym, but

it is Mobile Aviation Firefighting Systems or something. It is the

systems that slide into the C–130 which drop retardant, which

make cargo-carrying aircraft retardant aircraft, and we supplied a

few technical experts and personnel to assist the Indonesian Government in utilizing those aircraft, and we may have provided

some other technical advice.

But for practical purposes, that was the extent of the assistance

to Indonesia.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. What about the fire in Mexico this year?

Mr. TRUESDALE. The fire in Mexico this year was a little more

extensive. The Mexican Government requested technical experts in

the same issue we have just been talking about, the use of helicopters and aviation resources to fight fires and assist with planning, fire detection and mapping, that sort of thing. And then the

use of the incident command system and the coordination process

we use to manage fires.

We sent approximately—and when I say ‘‘we,’’ it is the interagency wildfire community. This included State of Texas employees, government of Mexico employees, Department of Interior employees, not just the Forest Service. We sent approximately 100

people to Mexico over about a 6-week period to assist them.

The fires in Mexico, while related to the fires in Florida because

of the commonality of the weather—extreme drought and the fact

that fires had not occurred in Florida for 50 years—this was the

worst, as Mr. Boyd stated. The same is true with Mexico except in

the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca, and some of the areas down

there, fires had never occurred to that extent in the history of the

people down there. There is a wide range of reasons for that, which

I am not an expert on, but because of the remoteness of the area—

unlike Florida, Chiapas and Oaxaca are extremely mountainous

and remote—and the use of helicopters was needed to get people

to the fires and the use of the infrared mapping aircraft was necessary to assist the Mexican and the Guatemalan Governments in

locating where the fires were.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Did we deploy personnel like our Hotshots

down there?

Mr. TRUESDALE. No. All of the firefighters, the people like the

Hotshot crews that go out and fight the fire were Mexicans. They

did not request any assistance, just the technical assistance and

those activities already described.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Truesdale, I will address this question to

you or Ms. McDougle, whoever wishes to answer it.

Our Hotshot crews are the pride of the Forest Service, and as

you know, Hotshot crews were deployed out of Boise into Florida

even.

And as you know, the Boise Hotshot crew, which is in my mind

the premier of the premiers, was put on hold, and I have a lot of
119

my Hotshots in Boise counting needles on trees and doing landscape gridding, and I am not one bit happy about it; I am a very

unhappy camper about that.

I do want assurance from you, Ms. McDougle, that our Boise

Hotshot Crew will be up and operating full speed again in a very

short period of time. I would like to know how soon we are going

to get them up and operating and get those very highly skilled and

highly trained men back doing what they have been trained to do

instead of counting needles and laying out landscape grids.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. We believe that they will be back next year. We

don’t think that we can do it any sooner than that, and as I understand, the investigations are still ongoing. So we have to let that

play out, and then we can regroup.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, let me just say for the record that

this is very frustrating for me. There was an incident that could

have been a criminal violation that happened between a couple of

people, but that is absolutely no excuse for doing away with one of

the best Hotshot crews in the Nation. The program should go on

while investigating with regards to the conduct of two people who

probably, or may have, conducted themselves inappropriately, that

investigation should go on uninterrupted; and I have given the Forest Service several months’ time and have urged the Congress to

stay out of this, but I am growing increasingly impatient if I continue to hear that because of an ongoing investigation, because of

the violation that two people were involved in, that that is not sufficient reason to give me—not to give me dates specific and times

as to the degree that we are going to see this very, very important

Hotshot crew reinstituted.

I am, as you can tell, growing increasingly impatient. I want to

know dates. I want to know when those people are going to be back

to work doing what they have been trained for. When will you have

that answer for me?

Last time I asked for direct answers, I said, ‘‘Close of business

by tomorrow or I am going to have subpoenas ready.’’ I am not prepared to do that yet, but I am getting awful close, because Boise

has had a tremendous amount of fire. We have an area there

where 600,000 acres have burned, and the fires on the Boise foothills threaten our homes every other year.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Well, Madam Chairman, I believe that we have

been responsive to your capability in Idaho. We have supplemented

what you have there. No, it isn’t the Hotshot crew, but in terms

of the equipment and the people that we have deployed to your

State for this season, I thought that you were satisfied with what

we have done today.

Now——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have been satisfied to date, but I do want

to open it up again to find out when it is that we will have these

people back on duty.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I understand. And I am not convinced that it is

two people. I don’t know how this is going to turn out. I don’t know

who, if anybody, is going to be indicted. I know that it is out of our

hands; it is in the Justice Department.

We have no control over it, so I am not comfortable at this point

in time in moving ahead with that until I have some assurances
120

that I am doing the right thing with the right people; and that is

all that I am saying. I understand your desire, and I believe that

we can be responsive to it in a way that you desire. But I am just

not comfortable right now, because I don’t know how this is going

to play out. I have no idea.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just want us together as a Congress and as

an agency to always keep the goal in mind, and I think we would

have to agree on the fact that government’s ultimate responsibility

is to make sure that necessary services are fulfilled and—necessary

services being fighting fire; and when we see skilled people who are

not under indictment being laid off to count needles on trees, that

does not make me very sanguine at all.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I understand.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So the program has to go on. Ms. McDougle,

I know you share that with me, the fact that that necessary program is gone.

So I look forward to staying in touch with you and your staff on

that as we proceed.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I would be happy to.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. You are welcome.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to ask the gentleman from Colorado if he has any other questions.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to shift gears

for just a minute.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The gentleman from Florida. Please proceed.

Mr. BOYD. Ms. McDougle, do you agree with the press accounts

that forest roads greatly assisted in the suppression of fires in Florida?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I am sorry?

Mr. BOYD. Do you agree with the press accounts that forest roads

greatly assisted with the fighting of the fires that we had in Florida?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I don’t know that. I have not seen those press

accounts, but we do—we are aware that that access to fires is very

important, yes.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Truesdale is shaking his head, yes. I guess that

means that you agree with those press accounts.

Mr. TRUESDALE. Yes. Again, I am not familiar with the specific

ones, but roads are a very effective barrier many times in fighting

fires.

Mr. BOYD. Having seen the—partially seen the fires in the Osceola National Forest, I can assure you that they were the key in us

preventing the spread of that into private lands and into populated

areas.

Ms. McDougle, I have had discussions with Mr. Peterson, who is

our State Forester with your people, Ms. Kearney, who is your

State Forester in the national forests of Florida, the people who

came in from other States, the local firefighters, and I think overall

that most everybody agrees that the coordinated effort that was

made in Florida was good, and I want to lay that out, that we feel

that way.

I think any time that you do, that you experience—have a new

experience, and in Florida that was something new for us. We
121

haven’t had a spread of wildfires of that magnitude in Florida since

I can remember in my lifetime, so we are breaking new ground

down there. Any time you break new ground, obviously you make

some mistakes, and obviously you want to evaluate what happened

and how you can do it better next time.

I have had this discussion with Mr. Peterson. As a matter of fact,

Mr. Peterson came before this Committee last week and, overall,

he gave high marks to the coordinated efforts that were done in

Florida; and a lot of that was done through your office and the

folks that work for you.

However, he did say that he felt that better coordination could

be done in the area of equipment ordering and placement and that

kind of thing, and that there was an ongoing evaluation with your

folks. Also, long-range planning in order to more effectively pre-position people and equipment, particularly when we got into the situation where the fire started breaking out.

And I have had these discussions with Ms. Kearney, and it is

something I think that you all have learned and I am sure that is

going to be a part of your evaluation process and your report. So

I won’t ask any questions about that. I think that you all, I am

sure that you all will have that evaluation process done, and you

will get a report to us, and it will be a very positive thing for all

of us.

Rehab efforts, I want to talk about rehab efforts, rehabilitation.

Mr. Peterson stated before this Committee that rehabilitation efforts on State lands had begun even prior to the time that all of

the fires were out. Salvage timber sales, for example, were already

being prepared and he was about to let bids on salvage timber

sales.

What is the status of rehab efforts on our national lands?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. We sent a team down—yesterday, in fact—to

take a look; we sent our technical experts on that, to take a look

at it. I think Osceola is probably the only one where there could

be some salvage opportunities, but we don’t know that yet. We will

be meeting with our forest employees and Marcia Kearney, who is

the Forest Supervisor for the national forest of Florida, as well as

Mr. Peterson, to come up with some assessment of salvage opportunities.

Mr. BOYD. Well, I think that is a pretty good analysis of an update, because I talked to Mr. Lawrence, who is an Osceola National

Forest forester, probably 10 days ago—this is after all the fires

were out—and he explained to me at that time that August 3rd

would be the date that the assessment team came in. That was

yesterday. You said they went in, and it would take them at least

a week to 10 days to do that work, and then we had a NEPA process to go through.

I can tell you, Ms. McDougle, that in Florida when all of that is

done, said and done, 60 days from now, there won’t be any need

for any salvage rehabilitation effort because the timber will be of

no value, because that is the way it is in the Southeast; with our

high humidity, we get the blue stain. And, you know, we haven’t

started this process.

The fires have been out for a month now. We are today beginning

our assessment. We are going to do that assessment for 10 days,
122

and then we are going to go through a 45-day NEPA process, and

then we might as well not have done all that.

So my question to you is, is there something to be learned from

this? Can we work together to change this process somehow or another, so that the rehabilitation effort will mean something to us?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Oh, I don’t know if the process needs changing

or if we need to better engage those who have regulatory authority

over some of these things, like we did for the Texas blow-down effort and others. There was some real partnership that occurred

with, for example, CEQ and the Forest Service in that effort; and

that was a forest health issue, and it worked.

So I think you just need, the folks you need to get involved, involved as soon as possible, and work something out that is meaningful. We do have red-cockaded woodpecker habitat down there

that has been destroyed. There is a need to move urgently if that

is at all possible, but I understand that the market has bottomed

out down there.

Mr. BOYD. Well, the market on the pulpwood side has bottomed

out and probably not much there, but on the sawn timber side—

and of course the pulpwood can stand for a long period of time, but

on the sawn timber side, that is where our timing is of the essence;

and the markets are still holding up pretty good because we can

move that pretty far away at a reasonable cost.

So my question to you is, who is it—and you suggested that we

work with the appropriate people. Tell me who the appropriate people are.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. First, we need to wait for the assessment to be

completed to see what they really need. I don’t know that yet.

Mr. BOYD. When will the assessment be completed?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. They are working on it now. I don’t know. I can

get back to you with that.

Mr. BOYD. OK. Mr. Lawrence told me it would take a week. Is

that——

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I won’t second-judge that. I don’t know. It just

depends on how much they are looking at.

Mr. BOYD. So then, next week sometime we could get back together and figure out who we need to go to to expedite?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. We can give you some sense of how long it is

going to take to finish that this week, so we can do that.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Schaffer.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I want to followup on that quickly, because in addition to the 60

days of assessment and evaluation that goes on, as this administrative appeals process that I mentioned in our last round of questioning, because that is the next stage that tends to tie up salvage

operations for timber sales and so on, and the appeals process, the

duration has nothing to do with how many appeals there may be.

It is a consistent process in every single case. When this timber

is dead or is dying, the time for analysis, decisions and the appeals,

and sometimes the litigation that you pile on top of that, can be

so long that you lose any value in the timber.
123

Let me ask, do you agree with that? Previously you said you

didn’t agree or didn’t believe that the administrative appeals process had any impact on the ability to treat damaged acreage, and

so you have heard an immediate example in Florida.

And again, Congressman Boyd’s example didn’t really contemplate the appeals process where some environmental group, I

guarantee, is going to come and submit—because somebody, I am

sure, thinks that cinder-coated pieces of wood out in the middle of

a dead forest is somehow useful and needs to stay as it is. But once

that occurs, you are talking about I don’t know how many months,

but a long, long time.

I want to ask you one more time. Do you believe that there is

some need to review or evaluate the appeals process at the administrative level?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I don’t think you should look at the appeals

process in and of itself, alone, as a stand——

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me just stop you there, because we agree on

that point. I am talking about the total duration of time an immediate evaluation, which can take up to 60 days including NEPA

process, and then an appeals process established that exists beyond

that.

So let’s not look at it in and of itself, let’s look at it in its totality.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. The Secretary of Agriculture already has a committee of scientists taking a look at recommendations to totally

overhaul our planning process. I presume that that is one of the

things that they are looking at as well, although I have not seen

the result of their work.

They are slated to be done in a couple of months, I believe, but

I am not absolutely sure on that. I think early fall they will have

completed their work, and I would suggest that we give that process an opportunity to play out to see if they have done something

for us.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me move on to some other questions.

One is, I would like to get a sense for where we are headed with

budget requests, with budget outlays, and what is the value of a

dollar we spend in your agency on suppression and preparedness

for the public.

Let us talk in terms of trends. Where do you see the conditions

across the country? Are we—it is my sense that we are seeing more

volatile lands, more conducive to wildfires. Do you agree with that

assessment?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. I just testified that we believe we have about 40

million acres that are at high risk of catastrophic fire.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Is that more than the previous year, more than

previous years, if you can take a look at where we have headed

over a longer period of time?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. We are in the process now of refining that number. It could be more, it could be less. I don’t know yet.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Have we done these kinds of analyses 5 years

ago, 3 years ago?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Not as well as we are doing them now.

Mr. SCHAFFER. So do we have any sense whether there are more

or less volatile wildlands that are susceptible to wildfires today

than, let’s just say, last year?
124

Ms. MCDOUGLE. We have a better sense of where they are.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, what is that sense?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Intermountain West.

Mr. SCHAFFER. No, I mean what is the sense of which direction

we are headed? Are our national forests becoming more volatile,

susceptible to wildfires, or less?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Well, I would say, probably more, because fuels

are continuing to buildup.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Has there ever been any effort to try to quantify

the value of the 40 million acres? For example, I know how many

acres that is, but in terms of the value of those acres to the American people, not just in resource value, but also in the cost of putting out wildfires in those areas, has there ever been any kind of

analysis if we spend a dollar up front how much are we going to

save potentially in the coming year?

Mr. TRUESDALE. If I may, sir, part of the analysis that we use

in our budget, that Mr. Josephson talked about also for the Department of the Interior, uses a model that gives us a benefit cost of

protecting the national forests. And the benefit is that if we are at

the most efficient level organization, if we put a dollar—if we spend

a dollar on protection, the presuppression organization, we are saving a dollar in suppression costs in resource damages. And that

model has been used for 10, 15 years in order to determine an efficient level of budgeting for our presuppression organizations.

So we do the benefit cost from that sort of side of it.

Mr. SCHAFFER. In terms of various agencies, different Federal

agencies, State agencies, and private lands, do we have any kind

of an analysis of where our fire—our wildfire problems are worse

and where they seem to be more easily contained or controlled, or

maybe prevented altogether?

Mr. TRUESDALE. A combination of things. With the 40 million

acres that Janice just described that are at risk, the individual fire

histories, most areas, including States and some local organizations, have fire history maps that they have used to determine

lightning patterns, for example, or patterns that become obvious

when you look at them, but where the roads go through the forests,

where people have access where fires may start, where people live,

where the wildlife interface is.

Mr. SCHAFFER. How about on an agency-by-agency basis? And

the reason I ask—I will stop, because I have expired my allotted

time here.

This Subcommittee did a field hearing in Idaho and Oregon, and

one of the things that made a big impression on me was that I

didn’t realize that forest fires sometimes stop along a straight line

and the only difference between where the fire burned intensely

and where it stopped was that the Forest Service owned the land

that burned to the ground and private interests owned the ground

that is still green.

And what it suggests to me is that—right along the property line

is where the fire stops, and what it suggests to me is that your job

changes from property owner to property owner across the country.

So this 40 million acres, can you tell me whether the majority of

these acres are Federal lands and whether they are managed by

the Forest Service or BLM or some other Federal agency, or by
125

State-held lands, or whether it is possibly owned by private lands?

My sense, without having done the research, is that the greatest

risk of wildfires is on Federal lands, federally managed lands, and

I guess I want to get a sense of whether I am close to the mark

or whether we know that at all.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. That 40 million acres is Forest Service lands

only.

Mr. SCHAFFER. So this is all forest that you have estimated here?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Yes.

Mr. SCHAFFER. OK. Step away from the 40 million then, and in

terms of where our greatest risks of wildfires are across the country, do we know what category of ownership those lands fall into?

Mr. TRUESDALE. Well, if you look at the State of Florida, for example, the risk that occurred over the past 2 or 3 months, if you

use acreage, 12.5 percent was national forest system’s land and the

rest was private or perhaps some other Federal lands down there.

But the majority in Florida impacted State and private landowners

instead of national forest systems.

In the West, probably just in some parts of your State, for example, where the majority of a particular area is Federal land, then

the risk would be higher on the Federal. But in Florida, the risk

was highest on the State lands.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. And to add to that, the State of Florida has one

of the most aggressive fuels treatment programs in the country.

Florida burns about 2 million acres a year. To give you some sense

of Forest Service, for instance, we burn about 1.2 million acres a

year, nationwide. Florida burns about 2 and still, they have this

problem. Had they not had this aggressive fuels effort ongoing to

the State, it could have been a lot worse than it was.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Truesdale, would you share with the Committee the value of our volunteers and how we can help them?

Mr. TRUESDALE. I agree with the State forester from Virginia

that they are an extremely valuable part of the fire protection

throughout the United States. We—from a Federal agency standpoint, we rely on them also as partners in fighting fires on national

forest system lands.

The Department of the Interior—I know Wally will say the same

thing—uses volunteer and State organizations, and we have found

that they have been very effective as the initial attack on many,

many wildland fires throughout the wild-urban interface, even on

Federal lands.

Mr. PETERSON. What do we currently do to help them be prepared and equipped, because—well, next week, in the next 2 weeks

at some point in time, as soon as I get a clear date, I am going to

be meeting with 20 volunteer fire departments that protect the

INF, and they are looking for help.

What should I tell them?

Mr. TRUESDALE. The two programs that were outlined in the

GAO report that provide assistance, one, primarily to the State forester to assist in developing the training, communications equipment, those sorts of things for the organizations and the Rural Volunteer Fire Program, a program that specifically funds small rural
126

volunteer fire departments; the Federal Excess Personal Property

Program where those groups are able, through the State forester—

and I apologize, I don’t know your State forester, but he runs a

very good program, I am sure—to manage that program that

brings those Federal assets down to those volunteer areas.

I think those are some of the best programs that we have at our

disposal to assist those folks not only in training and education to

help them make that transition from a structural fire department

to a wildland, but also to get the equipment, which is different.

I believe Ms. Brown in her statement said, one of the biggest

problems they had in Florida, or maybe not the biggest, but one of

the problems they experienced in Florida were the structural firefighters that, in many cases that you are speaking of, did not have

the lightweight, no-mix fire protection clothing that they should

have had for fighting wildland fires, and making that transition

not just simply to use their structural protection equipment, but

have specialized training. That is a very big help to those areas.

Mr. PETERSON. So State foresters administer those programs?

Mr. TRUESDALE. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON. Back to the issue of prevention, the Forest Service uses an example—I don’t have the numbers from the other

agency, but you used to cut about 12 billion board-feet a year, and

you have about—plus salvage, which was—2 to 3 billion board-feet

is what I have been told. Currently, you are cutting about 3 billion

board-feet a year, which includes salvage. And people tell me that

we really don’t cut much green timber anymore, salvage dominates

the program.

I guess the question I want to ask, with that direction we are

heading in, do you really have the ability to thin out forests that

are overcrowded and impacted by insects and disease and drought?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. We are currently working on an effort to do just

that, to deal with that issue, as well as the fuels issue. The problem is, we have done all of the easy stuff and what is left in there

is the small-diameter wood that we don’t have good markets for.

Our Madison, Wisconsin, lab is working and has done a lot of

work, for instance, in Southeast Alaska with the communities to

develop—help them develop markets for the small-diameter wood.

And we are putting together for our—as we work on our fiscal year

2000 budget, a real initiative we believe, not only to deal with the

forest health issue, but to create jobs in these communities.

Mr. PETERSON. But still, my question was a little different than

that.

I asked you, with your cut being about 3 billion board-feet a year

in your average salvage—that is, after the fact; that is, after timber

has died for some reason, or dying, has historically been there—

does that allow you—the amount of timber you are cutting per

year, does that allow you to thin forests that need thinning?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. In addition to that, sure, if we get the budgets

to do so.

Mr. PETERSON. But you don’t—if, you are not getting them presently?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Well, I don’t know that. I don’t know that.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, how about last year?
127

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Well, last year we did not have this initiative,

and we have been involving the administration in the development

of it, and so we think that there will be support this time.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Josephson, would you like to speak to BLM

land and the Interior Department?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. I would have to defer to the BLM. If you would

ask that question, we will be glad to get back to you with an answer.

Mr. PETERSON. Would you get that information for me?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. Be glad to.

Mr. PETERSON. I have no further questions.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In followup to Mr. Peterson’s line of questioning, actually in the Congress we have increases for Forest Service funding every year, so I urge those of you who have to take the

hard questions here in this Committee to look to your administrative heads to make sure that the money we allocate is properly

spent on those very necessary programs.

It is not always easy to be here in front of the Committee when

the buck stops with you, but I appreciate your candid answers, and

I look forward to receiving your reports.

I do want to say, Mr. Josephson, I am not going to let you off

the hook. I do have some questions for you. Your expertise is in

fuels management and fire; isn’t it?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. Wildland fires, that’s right.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Wildland fires. I do want to say, in Idaho,

right where we have the National Interagency Fire Command Center that deploys information, as well as personnel and equipment,

all over the United States and sometimes, when it is required, beyond our borders, we have a situation that is developing that I

mentioned earlier that has required our former Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, former Governor Cecil Andrus, to take to the

airwaves with BLM public service spots admonishing people that

because we have 400 percent fuel load in the cheat grass to be very

careful about making sure that there is no human-caused fire.

Well, that is good, but that is only a small part of the problem.

No. 1, we do have a 400 percent fuel load in that cheat grass that

not only occupies the landscape south and east and west of Boise,

but also north where fires that start can move very quickly into

private land, and as we have seen in the past, move onto public

Federal Forest Service land.

So when I was back there this weekend, we had the oddity of

having rainstorms in August in Boise, which is normally very arid

and dry. But when we have dry rainstorms or thunderstorms move

through our areas, we take an awful lot of lightning strikes, and

that is when so many of our fires are started in that cheat grass

area.

Now, cheat grass, as you know, contains a certain chemical composition and a certain oil that when it burns, once it dries out, it

burns very, very hot, and winds begin to perpetuate their own

weather system because of the fire, and so it becomes a massive

fire.

As you know, Mr. Josephson, when fire begins on Federal land,

if it moves to State land or to private land, there is no liability on
128

the part of the Federal Government as to whether they have properly tried to contain the fire early on in order to prevent it moving

onto someone else’s land. But if fire starts on private land or State

land, if it moves into the Federal land, then the Federal Government has been given the authority to hold those people liable who

did not contain the fire properly when it was on their private land

or State land. That seems to be a situation that is way, way out

of balance.

So with that in mind, Mr. Josephson, wouldn’t it be advisable for

the Secretary to be given the authority to control those fuel loads

while they are still controllable? For instance, in the interface between urban and wildland areas, wouldn’t it be advisable for the

Secretary of Interior to be given the authority by Congress to take

care of those fuel loads, either by mowing or grazing or plowing

fuel breaks, or whatever it is, around the areas so that fire would

not move from the Federal land on to other lands, so fire will not

move so quickly that we lose lives like we did a couple years ago?

Would you agree that that is a proper authority to be given from

this Congress to the Secretary?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. I believe the authority is already at the local

level, and they can do interface work with the local communities;

and if that includes plowing around the communities or doing prescribed burns in local areas, that is an option they can do at this

time.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Perhaps they can, but it has not been spelled

out clearly enough in the law that they are willingly using it, and

that is why we have seen the fires in that very area that contains

the National Interagency Fire Command Center. I mean, it is just

ironic that right there in Boise, Idaho, we have had tremendously

destructive fires. And so—because it has not been spelled out perfectly clearly that the Secretary has this authority to make those

on-the-ground decisions, it has not been done; and so, therefore, we

have lost property and we have lost lives with fires that began in

those flatlands where there was a high fuel load of cheat grass.

And this, we are—we are naturally very concerned because of the

400 percent increase in the growth of cheat grass; and it has not

been contained when it could have been, in the springtime, either

by mowing or grazing or whatever it might be that the Secretary

determines would be the proper method to control the fuel load.

So would you be willing to work with the Congress and a lot of

people nationwide who are interested in making sure that that

interface is protected? Would the BLM be willing to work with us

on achieving that goal?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. Yes, we would be willing to work with you to

protect the local communities.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And to control the fuel load that does buildup,

in large part because of weather, either drought conditions or heavier than normal water years when we have a heavier fuel load?

Will you work with us to control those fuels?

Mr. JOSEPHSON. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Josephson.

Before I close the hearing, I want to yield for another question

from Mr. Boyd.
129

Mr. BOYD. Again, I thank the chairwoman for holding this hearing. I am glad that you have those questions for Mr. Josephson. I

certainly didn’t want him to feel like he had been slighted by this

panel.

Ms. McDougle, I have one final question before we do close. Can

you tell me that the United States Forest Service will seek alternative authorities for the Florida fire like they did in Texas?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. No, I can’t tell you that, because I don’t know

what the need is yet. I have to wait until the field people identify

them, and then we will take a look and see what is needed to do

that. But I have not seen what they have identified yet; it has not

been submitted.

I assure you that I will get back with you later on this week and

let you know when we can expect something.

Mr. BOYD. OK. So that is the assessment team that is in there

now doing that work, that went in yesterday, that Mr. Lawrence

told me should take a week or so?

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Yes.

Mr. BOYD. OK. That is a reasonable answer, and if you would,

if we could communicate later in the week as that assessment team

does it work, that would be helpful, because I would like to work

with you to do what is best for the health of that national forest.

Ms. MCDOUGLE. Understood.

Mr. BOYD. And that includes salvage efforts before those stems

rot. And I would like to be able to help you do that. Thank you.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want to thank the panelists very much for

your valuable time. We have held you here for a long time.

This has become an issue that is no longer just contained in the

Pacific Northwest or the Southwest, but is now a nationwide problem. So we probably come together more often and for longer, extended periods of time than we had hoped for.

But, again, thank you for your time. I look forward to the reports

being submitted to us, and I do want to remind the witnesses that

we will have additional questions for you that we will submit in

writing, and the record will remain open for 10 working days

should you wish to add anything to your testimony.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. With that, again I want to thank you, and the

hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
130

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. GARNER, STATE FORESTER, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

Good morning, I am Jim Garner, State Forester of Virginia, and I am here this

morning representing the National Association of State Foresters. I served as President of the Association in 1995, and have served both as a member and chairman

of the Association’s Forest Fire Protection Committee. I appreciate the opportunity

to discuss the role of the States in wildfire suppression and management, and to

share our perspective on how the system works and how it could be improved. I

have attached a copy for the record of a report, entitled Managing Forests, Managing Fire: A Report to the Congress on the Status of Wildfire Management in the

United States. This report was a cooperative effort of the National Association of

State Foresters and the American Forest and Paper Association. It lays out in layman’s terms the basic structure of interagency cooperation and highlights the roles

of local fire departments in fire suppression, and I commend it to your attention.

The Department of Forestry is the primary agency for wildland fire control in the

Commonwealth of Virginia. Like our colleagues in other State Forestry agencies, we

work closely with local fire departments, other State agencies, and the Federal

wildland fire agencies including the USDA Forest Service and agencies in the Department of the Interior. We also work through interstate agreements to share resources in times of critical need. In my view, these relationships are a model of

intergovernmental cooperation. There a few key features worth noting.

First, local fire departments are the first lines of defense against wildfire throughout the Nation. Volunteer departments are predominant in rural areas, and it is

critical that they be well trained, staffed, and equipped to provide initial attack on

wildfires. The southern region of the United States, as was demonstrated dramatically by the recent events in Florida, experiences more fire starts than any other

region. An effective network of trained local departments, however, helps keep costs

down by catching most fires when they are small.

For instance, in Virginia we had 1,242 fire starts last year, but thanks to early

and aggressive suppression, our average fire was only 4 acres. Without wellequipped and trained local departments, our average fire size, and the costs of suppression, would be much higher. Right now, in Texas, local fire departments are coping with literally hundreds of starts each day, and they have in many cases avoided

large, expensive ‘‘project’’ fires.

There are over 26,000 rural volunteer fire departments in the United States. To

convert these small departments into full time, paid firefighters would cost over $30

billion. More importantly, as housing developments encroach into wildlands, the jobs

of these firefighters become more dangerous, more complicated, and more expensive.

The second positive feature of our cooperative program is that trained and wellequipped wildfire fighting crews from across the country can be dispatched wherever

they are needed. This is due to careful coordination by regional coordination centers,

interstate fire compacts, and, when necessary, through the National Interagency

Fire Center (NIFC) in your home State of Idaho. During the recent fire situation

in Florida, every State except two had firefighters, equipment, or overhead in Florida. My Department sent four bulldozer units, 2 Hummers, and 42 people with support vehicles to Florida. They were assigned to fires in Northeast Florida, and were

placed under a unified command under the direction of the Florida Division of Forestry. Thanks to the efforts of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG),

States and Federal firefighting all train our crews using the same standards and

similar equipment. This enables firefighting resources to be used throughout the

country, and helps states with frequent wildfires by giving their crews on the

ground, practical experience.

When a fire year becomes extremely busy, State crews and equipment can make

up a large portion of the resources that are dispatched nationally. In 1996, for example, every State dispatched at least some overhead personnel to fires out of State.

It is also important to keep in mind that many, if not most, of the firefighters who

make up State fire crews are also volunteer firefighters in the communities.

Third, the State Foresters work closely with the USDA Forest Service on several

programs that help keep our front lone of defense well equipped and trained. Three

programs help us achieve this; the State Fire Assistance Program and the Volunteer

Fire Assistance Program, both managed by the USDA Forest Service’s Fire and

Aviation Management staff, and, third, the Federal Excess Personal Property Program (FEPP), which we cooperate with the Forest Service in implementing.

The FEPP program is perhaps the most innovative of the three. Through a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service provided for by the Cooperative Forestry

Assistance Act, State Foresters are able to screen property, primarily former military equipment, at the Excess level, rather than the surplus level. This equipment,
131

which ranges from aircraft to trucks, to mobile command posts to clipboards, is reconditioned either by the State or by local fire departments and put directly into

service protecting homes and property from wildfire. On average, about $140 million

worth of FEPP is annually distributed to the State. For instance, in Virginia, we

acquired $116,000 worth of equipment through the FEPP program last year.

Two other points about FEPP are worth bearing in mind. By using this program,

we are greatly extending the useful life of vehicles and other equipment that the

taxpayers have already paid for. States and localities add value to FEPP and have

tremendous pride in keeping the equipment in service. Second, by allowing State

forestry agencies to screen at the Federal level and distribute the equipment in

their States, it is put to more effective use than would be the case if the nation’s

thousands of fire departments had to sift and screen through all of the items that

are put on the excess list annually.

The last point I’d like to make is that we will never rid this Nation of wildfire.

We can, however take prudent steps through the programs I’ve discussed to reduce

costs and protect lives and property. We can manage our lands to reduce fire dangers by thinning overstocked forests and carefully using prescribed fire. However,

as events in Florida have shown, sometimes many factors will come together to create a dangerous and complicated wildfire situation. Unprecedented drought all but

nullified the positive impacts of prescribed fire use and careful forest management.

The growth of the wildland urban interface, which in and of itself is caused by numerous, complicated factors, turned what would have been straightforward fire

fighting tasks into tremendously expensive exercises in emergency management.

And until Mother Nature changes the weather pattern, the only thing standing between the citizens of Florida and the fires was our national fire fighting forces. Situations like Florida can push these forces to the limit.

We appreciate your support for wildland fire management, and we look forward

to working with you and the rest of the Committee to see that the programs that

help with this effort are adequately supported.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) has been-awarded the following Federal Grants and Cost Share Agreements:

1. Federal Award Grant No. 98-G-037 was awarded on January 12, 1998 in the

amount of $15,000 to NASF from the State and Private Forestry Deputy Area

of the USDA Forest Service.

2. Federal Award Grant No. 98-G-032 was awarded on December 8, 1997 in the

amount of $251,000 to NASF from the State and Private Forestry Deputy Area

of the USDA Forest Service.

3. Federal Award Grant No. 98-G-039 was awarded on January 12, 1998 in the

amount of $10,000 to NASF from the State and Private Forestry Deputy Area

of the USDA Forest Service.

4. Federal Award Grant No. 98-G-038 was awarded on January 12, 1998 in the

amount of $10,000 to NASF from the State and Private Forestry Deputy Area

of the USDA Forest Service.

5. Federal Award Grant No. 95-G-201 was awarded on October 5, 1995 in the

amount of $20,000 to NASF from the State and Private Forestry Deputy Area

of the USDA Forest Service.

6. Challenge Cost Share Agreement No. #08-98-S&PF-CCS-01 was awarded on

July 15, 1998 to NASF from the Southern Region of the USDA Forest Service.

Any further information concerning the above five Federal Award Grants may be

directed to NASF at the above telephone number.

STATEMENT OF WALLACE JOSEPHSON, WILDLAND FIRE SPECIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF

INTERIOR, OFFICE OF MANAGING RISK AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity

to appear before you today to discuss the Department of the Interior’s planning and

budgeting processes for the Wildland fire management program. The Bureau of

Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and

the National Park Service are the four land management agencies within the Department of Interior with fire management programs. These agencies work in close

cooperation on budgeting, planning, and implementation activities related to fire

management.

The Department’s wildland fire management program is guided by the principles

and policies of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review,
132

adopted by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in December, 1995. The

program ensures the capability to provide safe, cost-effective fire management by

providing appropriate planning, staffing, training, and equipment. Fires are suppressed at minimum cost considering firefighter and public safety and benefits and

values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives. The Wildland fire program also recognizes that fire is a critical natural process and must be integrated

into resource-management plans and activities at a landscape scale, across agency

boundaries, based on the best science and technology available. Whether discussing

prescribed fire or emergency suppression of uncontrolled wildland fire, let me emphasize that the protection of human life and public safety is the number one priority in all aspects of the wildland fire management program.

Funds for the Department’s Wildland Fire Management Program are appropriated to the BLM and are made available by allocation to the Park Service, Fish

and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. A small portion is also allocated

to the Office of the Secretary for program coordination activities. The Department’s

Wildland Fire Management Program is composed of two activities, Wildland Fire

Preparedness and Wildland Fire Operations, which I will summarize.

Wildland Fire Preparedness

Wildland fire preparedness involves the readiness and capability of the Department to provide safe, cost effective fire management programs. Staffing levels, training, fire management planning, equipment availability, provision and maintenance

of support facilities (such as air tanker bases and supply warehouses), prevention

activities (such as public awareness and education), and interagency coordination all

fall within the category of fire preparedness.

The Fire Management Plan is the guide for budgeting and managing the wildland

fire preparedness activity. The primary analysis tool in the Fire Plan is an economic

marginal cost analysis combined with a threshold analysis which is used to determine the Most Efficient Level (MEL). MEL represents the funding necessary to provide the most cost-efficient and technically effective fire management program that

meets land management objectives while minimizing the total cost of both suppression and resource damage associated with uncontrolled wildland fire. In other

words, given the workload of an average annual fire season, we determine the most

efficient organization and estimate the cost of supporting that organization at the

least total cost to the taxpayer. Fire planning and the calculations of MEL are updated annually to reflect such things as changes in resource objectives, values to be

protected, land acquisition, increasing human-caused fire occurrence associated with

population growth, especially in the wildland/urban interface, continued hazardous

fuels build-up, and the current year’s field conditions. Fire Plans are developed by

local field offices and aggregated at the Washington office to identify national needs.

Whenever efficiencies can be gained, Interior agencies enter into cooperative

agreements with other Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments to exchange

protection responsibilities and share scarce resources. Preparedness resources are

established in advance of fire emergencies based on analysis of historic needs to ensure our ‘‘readiness to respond.’’

Wildland Fire Operations

The Wildland Fire Operations portion of the wildland fire management program

funds the development and implementation of the emergency suppression, emergency rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction operations, and fire severity programs. Emergency suppression includes all management actions taken to suppress

wildland fires in a safe and cost effective manner. Emergency rehabilitation is carried out to prevent any further land degradation and resource damage to lands impacted by unplanned wildland fire or suppression activities. Emergency rehabilitation funds are also used to reduce any residual public health and safety risks that

may result from uncontrolled wildland fires. Hazardous fuel reduction operations

use fire and mechanical treatments as management tools to reduce fuel loadings

and restore fire to its natural role in the ecosystem. Commercial activities, such as

timber harvest or small wood product sales, are used whenever commodity production can be used in an environmentally sound manner to achieve the same objectives.

The organizational structure developed during the fire planning process is based

on the average annual workload because it is not cost efficient to develop a fire organization for the most severe fire season that occurs in a decade. Therefore, when

abnormal conditions do occur, suppression funds can be used upon request to increase local preparedness capabilities. Such extraordinary capabilities may include

a temporary increase in firefighters or fire engines, propositioning of personnel and

equipment in areas of abnormally high risk, or standby aircraft availability.
133

The overall goal of wildland fire operations is to protect natural resources for defined management objectives and to preserve their capability to contribute goods,

services, and amenities to the Nation. For fiscal year 1999, DOI’s budget request

of just over $140 million dollars for wildland fire operations is based upon the last

ten-year average for emergency suppression and rehabilitation, plus an addition for

projected hazardous fuel reduction projects.

Coordination and Dispatch of Suppression Forces

Uncontrolled wildland fires occur unexpectedly and create an emergency in which

firefighters must respond rapidly to minimize risk and damage. Despite public expectations, when the combination of excessive fuel build-up, topography, extreme

weather conditions, multiple ignitions, and extreme fire behavior occur, it is impossible to immediately suppress all fires. Firefighter and public safety, and the ability

to contain the spread of fires, can best be met only with adequate preparation ahead

of time, excellent interagency coordination of personnel, supplies and required services, and safe but aggressive implementation of fire control tactics. To meet these

needs, the BLM, in cooperation with the other DOI Bureaus, the Forest Service, and

the National Weather Service, maintains and operates the National Interagency

Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho. NIFC provides logistical support for the coordinated movement of suppression forces when local capabilities are exceeded. Other

national services provided by NIFC include a cache for firefighting supplies, equipment and radios, a technical support group for communications, remote sensing programs, and the National fire training development center.

The National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) resides at NIFC and is

staffed jointly by the BLM and Forest Service. NICC sits at the top of a three-tiered

firefighting coordination pyramid. When activity warrants, NICC operates 24 hours

a day, seven days a week. NICC is also an ‘‘all-risk’’ coordination center, and can

provide support in response to other emergencies such as floods, hurricanes, and

earthquakes.

The three-tiered coordination system operates under established ordering protocols. Federal, state, and Tribal dispatch centers located throughout the United

States generally receive the first requests for personnel, equipment, and supplies in

response to emergency situations. When local dispatch offices can no longer fill requests, they turn to one of eleven Geographic Area Coordination Centers (GACCs)

to fill the requests. When GACCs can no longer meet the requests, either because

they are supporting multiple incidents or are competing for resources, requests for

equipment and supplies are referred to the NICC. NICC coordinates supplies and

resources across the entire United States, and also has the authority to obtain or

provide support for incidents in foreign countries. When the nation’s fire business

involves multiple geographic areas and resources are no longer plentiful, the National Multi-agency Coordinating Group establishes national priorities for personnel,

equipment, and supplies. Response to requests is based upon the concepts of ‘‘closest

forces’’ and ‘‘total mobility’’ which seek to dispatch the closest available qualified resource, regardless of agency affiliation. The Fire Center and its NICC component

are recognized around the world as a premier organization for wildland fire management and the coordination and dispatch of resources, supplies, and technical knowledge in support of emergency situations.

Florida Support

We were asked by the Committee to identify both jobs well done and lessons

learned as a result of the recent devastating uncontrolled wildland fires in the state

of Florida. Review of the total Federal response to the Florida fires has barely

begun. Wildfire season typically shifts around the nation in response to seasonal

weather patterns. As is illustrated this year, fires in Florida have been followed by

extreme conditions in Texas and Oklahoma. It appears the fire season is following

the typical pattern and severe fire control conditions are shifting to the Northern

Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, and the Great Basin states. Our focus at this time

of the year is staying ahead of the curve. While review of past actions can always

show us potential for improvement, the Florida fires did not indicate a major need

for changing our programs or processes. The DOI and NICC, for the most part,

served primarily in a support function. Most of the Florida fires, including most of

the high profile, highly publicized fires, were under the control of the State. The

NICC, with the support of both the military and private sector, did an excellent job

of coordinating the transportation of western crews and equipment to support their

actions.

Conclusion

Madam chairman, I would like to thank the Congress for its direction and support

for interagency coordination and collaboration in regard to the overall Federal fire
134

management program. We continue to strive to conduct an integrated, intergovernmental approach to the management of wildland fire, as endorsed by our 1995 fire

management policy program and review. It is our belief that we provide world class

capabilities for the suppression of uncontrolled wildland fire. We hope to extend this

highly successful approach into our prescribed fire program as well.

This concludes my statement. I’ll be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185

STATEMENT OF JANICE MCDOUGLE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE

FORESTRY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE

MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

I am Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry

with responsibility for fire and aviation, forest health, and cooperative forestry programs. I am accompanied by Denny Truesdale, our Assistant Director of Fire and

Aviation Management for Operations. The wildfire suppression program in the

United States is a partnership with a broad array of Federal agencies, state, tribal,

and local governments, and private companies; its first priority is protecting human

life.

As you requested, I will briefly discuss the highly organized and strategic approach of the Forest Service’s wildfire suppression program. When a fire occurs, we

respond immediately, implement attack strategies, identify additional resources

needed, and expand the organization as needed to protect people and property.

BACKGROUND

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy resulted from a 1995 interagency

review, which I have provided for the record. This policy is applied on all Forest

Service and Department of Interior managed and protected lands and has four priorities: (1) firefighter safety and public safety is the highest goal; (2) we support the

role of fire in restoring and sustaining healthy ecosystems; (3) we integrate fire

management into land management planning, and (4) the policy stress of improving

fire and aviation accountability within the Forest Service.

Several factors influence an effective and safe fire suppression program, including

the expansive wildland/urban interface, hazardous fuel conditions, the increasingly

broad array of partners involved in suppression, and the increased role for the Forest Service in providing international assistance.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

We have an outstanding track record. The Federal fire fighting agencies have consistently suppressed 98 percent of all wildfires during initial attack; only 2 percent

of all fires account for the greatest cost and most acreage burned.

We rely on strong cooperation with the states, providing equipment and funds to

help states help us. The USDA cooperative fire program currently has more than

$800 million in surplus Federal property on loan to state and local governments for

use in fire suppression. USDA annually provides approximately $15 million in costshare grants to strengthen state programs, and an additional $2 million to help

train and equip volunteer firefighters in rural towns.

The Forest Service is a world leader in fire behavior and management research.

We have an ongoing research program on the effects of fire on vegetation and wildlife, smoke management, and reducing fire hazard by finding markets for small diameter trees.

The five Federal wildland fire management agencies, the Forest Service, Bureau

of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau

of Indian Affairs, are strengthening the common features of their respective

wildland fire management planning processes. This structure is a nationally recognized decision-making, planning, operational, and logistics structure that all

wildland firefighters understand, and use. It includes an incident commander and

their operations and support staffs, providing a framework for wildland firefighters

to respond to any incident. It has the flexibility to expand staff and organization

as an incident becomes more or less complex.

INITIAL ATTACK

Initial attack analysis and planning is the backbone of our success. The National

Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) is a model we use to identify the most

efficient firefighting organization. Developed locally to determine what mix and distribution of initial attack resources will provide a cost effective fire suppression program, the results of the local analyses are aggregated into the national program.

This assures the most responsive organization possible.

The NFMAS model takes local suppression resource productivity, historical fire

occurrence, hazards and values at risk, interagency commitments, and fire management objectives, and projects estimated fire suppression costs and net changes to

natural resource values. Wildland/urban interface areas become a priority for the

commitment of resources because of the private property values at risk. The budget

for the most efficient preparedness organization identified by the analysis is the one

that results in the lowest program cost, including losses, over time. This information

is provided to decisionmakers in the development of program budgets and the effects

of alternative budget levels can be analyzed.
186

Once we identify the best mix of resources within available budget, forest supervisors provide the identified number of crews, engines, helicopters, or other initial

attack resources, including airtankers needed to respond to the normal fire season.

Average fire seasons have been established through our assessment and planning

processes. That average season has a beginning and ending date, anticipated days

of each kind of burning risk, as well as norms for the intensity with which a fire

would burn.

Effectiveness of a suppression program is directly related to local fuel treatment

efforts. The value of prescribed fire as a tool to change wildfire behavior was demonstrated in Florida where treated areas were defensible but fire crews had to retreat from flames in untreated areas.

When predicted or actual burning conditions exceed those we expect and wildfire

ignitions are imminent, when fire season starts early, or extend beyond normal,

local units can request additional funds from the Washington Office to increase

their level of fire preparedness through our fire severity program, which allows for

additional staffing for serious fire risk outside of the normal season.

EXTENDED ATTACK

When initial attack fails, and local resources are not capable of controlling one

or more wildfires, we shift to extended attack and assign national resources such

as Incident Management Teams, Interagency Hotshot Crews, large airtankers, and

infrared detection aircraft to the fire.

We are conducting interagency studies regarding the national shared resources

used in extended attack. We are assessing the most efficient staffing levels; best

procurement methods of airtankers, medium and large helicopters, and

smokejumpers; and the improvements we need to make to support facilities. Studies

have been completed on the most efficient medium and large helicopters and large

airtanker support needed for the national fire suppression program. The studies

have also identified that the location and quality of base facilities is as important

as the aircraft themselves. Other studies are underway that will provide managers

with options for management of smokejumpers, helitack, and rappel crews as well

as aircraft support and base locations. All will be used to improve the effectiveness

and efficiency of the national suppression program.

NATIONAL INTERAGENCY PROGRAM

The protection of people and resources is very complex in today’s world. Planning

and coordination occur at all levels to assure the safe delivery of an interagency fire

suppression program. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise has

dispatched over 35,000 people at one time in response to fires across the United

States. NIFC, the heart of the national fire suppression program, serves as a coordination, dispatch, communications, and warehouse center for all wildland fire agencies. At the center, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs are collocated and

work closely with state and tribal foresters. Center directors serve as a national

Multi-Agency Coordinating Group to improve technology, skills, equipment, integrate wildland/urban interface concerns, and program delivery, resulting in better

suppression response and reduced costs.

THE 1998 SEASON

In 1998 the Federal agencies are fully staffed for the fire season. We have adequate resources in every region for effective suppression, assuming that this is, and

will be, an average year.

Florida has experienced extreme fire behavior and significant losses to property

and resources due to extended drought, which caused highly flammable fuels. In

late May and early June, Florida got a highly unusual amount of dry lightning, and

suffered its most severe fire season since 1985. At the request of State Forester Earl

Peterson, we provided Federal assistance which at the peak, totaled 1200 fire managers, 27 Interagency Hotshot Crews, 22 suppression crews, 165 engines, 4 tractors,

and 98 aircraft. The Florida Division of Forestry and the local Forest Supervisor established a unified area command structure to assist in prioritizing suppression efforts and suppressed almost a half million acres of wildfire in very complex environment with minimal losses ant injuries. The success this year can be compared to

the losses in the 1985 fires when more homes and businesses were lost in a day

than over the 1998 month-long siege. The Forest Service still has 75 personnel assisting in closeout of the Florida fires.

The Florida efforts affixed value of a prescribed fire program to create more fire

tolerant ecosystems and better protect homes and improvements. It also reinforced

the value of our safety program. In Florida, we had to educate crews from other regions of the health and fire threats unique to Florida.
187

The other high profile fire situation this year took place in Mexico and Central

America. The U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of Foreign Disaster

Assistance coordinated the U.S. response. Mexico requested the most assistance, including technical assistance, large helicopters, an incident management team, an infrared aircraft, 3,000 sets of personal protective equipment, and communications

equipment. We also assisted Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.

The 1998 fire season has occurred locally, with few situations where national incident command teams were dispatched in more than one region simultaneously. A

total of 75,932 acres of National Forest System lands burned during the month of

July which began with fire danger in the very high to extreme categories in Arizona,

New Mexico, Texas, Georgia, Colorado, Utah, California, and Florida. In Florida the

drought was one of the most severe experienced in the past 50 years, and firefighters battled on average of 70-80 new fires each day.

Three National Fire Prevention teams were active during the month of July in

Florida, Utah, and Texas where team members worked with state, county, and local

fire service organizations to reduce the potential number of human-caused fires.

Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Southern Arizona, Washington,

and Oregon are currently experiencing increased fire activity. The 90 day outlook

indicates that the extreme southern tip of California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, western Texas, and southwestern Utah are most likely to have increased fire

activity because they are predicted to be warmer and drier than normal over that

period. We will take actions needed to assure that adequate resources are available

for dispatch within, and to, that region.

The remainder of the United States is experiencing fewer than normal wildfires

for this time of year. More than one-half of the fires occurred in the southern part

of the United States. In many areas, the lower than normal fire danger can be attributed to unusual spring rain and snow.

CLOSING

The Forest Service fire suppression program is professional, responsive to the concerns and needs of partners, and based on the continuous study of historical fire

occurrence and risk. We are very proud of the program, its value to the public, and

the firefighters who work endless days, and get great satisfaction from the protection of people and resources.
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234