U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–952 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–62 (Pt. 2)

NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL

FIRE PLAN IN THE 2001 FIRE SEASON, INCLUDING FUEL REDUCTION

INITIATIVES, AND TO EXAMINE THE 10-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE

STRATEGY FOR REDUCING WILDLAND FIRE RISKS TO COMMUNITIES

AND THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WAS RECENTLY AGREED TO BY THE

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

GALE NORTON AND SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ANN VENEMAN

SEPTEMBER 25, 2001

PART 2

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

JON KYL, Arizona

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel

BRIAN P. MALNAK, Republican Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Republican Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

JON KYL, Arizona

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JEFF BINGAMAN and FRANK H. MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

KIRA FINKLER, Counsel

FRANK GLADICS, Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 14

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington ........................................ 24

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 5

DeIaco, Rick, Urban Forester, Ruidoso, NM ......................................................... 51

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 2

Hartzell, Tim, Director, Office of Wildland Fire Coordination, Department

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 15

Hubbard, James E., State Forester of Colorado, on Behalf of the Western

Governors’ Association ......................................................................................... 39

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .......................................... 3

Laverty, Lyle, Associate Deputy Chief and National Fire Plan Coordinator,

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ........................................................ 6

Lawrence, Nathaniel, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council,

Olympia, WA ........................................................................................................ 43

Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska ....................................... 4

Nelson, Tom, Director of Forest Policy, Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding,

CA .......................................................................................................................... 56

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ................................................... 34

Woods, Trent, Save Elk City, Elk City, ID ............................................................ 65

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 1

APPENDIX

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 77

(1)

NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON

Senator WYDEN. The subcommittee will come to order, and let

me apologize to our witnesses. Obviously, these extraordinary

times make it difficult to schedule these hearings, but we very

much appreciate your patience, and let me begin by making clear

that my friend and colleague of 20 years in the U.S. Congress, both

in the House and the Senate, is both a personal friend and professional colleague, and we have worked very, very closely together on

many issues.

Senator CRAIG. And our public should not hold that against us,

right?

Senator WYDEN. I want my colleague to know that, as I begin my

chairmanship, nothing is going to change in my effort to continue

to reach out to work with you on all these issues, the fire issue,

virtually all of the Western timber debates have long been obscured

by the smoke of partisanship and acrimony, and we have lost too

much land already. We are not going to walk away from this debate, passing up an opportunity to make a real difference both from

the standpoint of the environmental and economic wellbeing of our

communities.

I am going to make a couple of comments, then turn to Senator

Craig.

It seems to me that anybody watching the thousands of brave

firefighters fight the fires that raged over hundreds of thousands

of acres this summer has to recognize that business as usual fire

control is no longer good enough. What we are going to have to do

is find a way to make sure that the warring camps in the natural

resources debate come together, and that is what we did in the

county payments bill, and that is what I think our challenge here

is with respect to fire.

We are going to actively pursue opportunities to unify communities, the timber industry, and environmental leaders to develop

creative strategies for reducing fire materials in the forest, employVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
2

ing materials in our rural communities with family wage jobs, and

maintaining the environmental integrity for ourselves and future

generations.

Suffice it to say in the past the environmental community in a

number of instances fought forest management practices that

would have lessened the severity of fires for fear the timber companies would settle in and harvest the big trees. Some in the timber

industry were willing to prepare the forests for fires, but wanted

the big trees in exchange. Debates smoldered and slowed progress,

and the West continued to burn, and the heart of the problem is,

while this contentious discussion went forward, our ecosystems got

sicker, not healthier, and that is what we are going to try and

change

The national fire plan, of course, provides an opportunity for us

to pursue that agenda. It focuses on better science, and was used

for most of the 20th century. It has five components: fire-fighting,

rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuel reduction, community assistance, and accountability, so we are going to look to make

sure that the national fire plan is our vehicle on a bipartisan basis

so that when it is fully implemented we can ensure that the money

goes to protect the resource for the long term and reduce the fire

danger on our national wildlands.

As the new chairman of this subcommittee, it is my responsibility to keep Congress and the administration focused on what will

be a difficult multi-year program. Last year, the Clinton administration proposed, and Congress concurred, on a bipartisan basis

that the fire plan should be fully implemented with an appropriation of $1.3 billion. A portion of that money was directed specifically at the urban-wildland interface to protect lives and private

property. The work began with that appropriation and will be our

work for sometime. The Forest Service tells me that they will need

the same level of funding for the next 15 years in order to address

the full extent of the fire danger on our national wildlands. In our

view, it is our collective responsibility to make sure that these resources are used in a way that benefits the environment and the

local economies, and with that I would like to recognize my colleague and friend, Senator Craig.

[The prepared statements of Senators Domenici, Johnson, and

Murkowski follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

Good afternoon. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Rick DeIaco

from Ruidoso, New Mexico, who I understand is the recently hired urban forester

for the village of Ruidoso, for appearing before the subcommittee today.

So far this year in Washington, D.C., we have held several hearings about how

the Fire Plan is coming together. I also held an informal hearing in Ruidoso, New

Mexico on July 2, 2001. Mr. Laverty was there and was very helpful. We learned

some things, and have tried to address some of the concerns in the FY02 Interior

Appropriations bill. Additionally, Mr. DeIaco was kind enough to give my staff some

additional thoughts and I would like to enter his letter in the record.

I hope that today we can really look at the implementation of the National Fire

Plan and glean information that will help determine what, if any, additional funding

and improvements are needed to make sure that we secure effective and rapid implementation of the National Fire Plan.

As you all know the implementation of the National Fire Plan is extremely important—both in New Mexico, and elsewhere in the West. Following last year’s fire seaVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
3

son—the worst fire season in the last fifty years—we know first hand the challenges

we face. During that season, over 70,000 fires burned more than 7.5 million acres.

It was during this awful fire season we learned that federal firefighting agency

budget requests were reduced before they were sent to Congress. Consequently, firefighting preparedness was not at maximum capacity, and firefighting efforts were

extremely impaired. This, in turn, left us with an even larger fire recovery need.

With the cooperation of many of my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator

Bingaman, Senator Diane Feinstein from California, Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon, and Senator Larry Craig from Idaho, we were able to act in the Fall of 2000

to provide considerable authority, support, and funding for the National Fire Plan.

I am proud that the Congress saw fit to include my $240.3 million dollars for hazardous fuels reduction work in the National Fire Plan. In addition to providing increased funding for fire preparedness, we directed and funded the federal agencies

to: (1) identify communities at risk from wildfires; (2) enhance cooperative firefighting efforts; (3) initiate hazardous fuels treatments and forest health projects; and

(4) accelerate rehabilitation and restoration work.

I have to say that I was extremely pleased with the award of approximately $4.7

million last week to New Mexico communities, in addition to $3.5 million awarded

to Region 3 in June, for National Fire Plan grants by the Forest Service. These

grants are the first step in showing the Congress’ and the Forest Service’s commitment to provide: (1) technical assistance and support to local communities and organizations for fire protection projects and assessments; as well as (2) economic action

and pilot programs that address the use of small diameter trees. These grants are

necessities in our effort to address fire risk in our forests and around our communities.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that we have a lot of work ahead of us in

addressing this problem. Our forests did not get into this predicament overnight.

Likewise, we cannot rectify the situation overnight. We have begun marching down

a path and we need to know some very specific things about the future that path

will take: Specifically, what are people on the ground presently doing, what more

needs to be done, and what can me and my colleagues here in Congress do to help?

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman: I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on an issue that

has deeply affected the Black Hills Forest in South Dakota and the forests of much

of the nation. Preserving the environment, aesthetic and industrial integrity of our

nation’s forests has been one of my top priorities during my tenure in Congress. I

am a strong advocate for a multiple use approach in dealing with public land management. Balancing the needs of the environment with responsible use of forest resources are a must for sound forest management.

Over the past two years, the Black Hills in western South Dakota have been ravaged by fires. Last summer, the largest fire in my state’s history was recorded. The

Jasper Fire started on August 24, 2000 and burned as fast as 100 acres per second,

covering a total of 83,000 acres. It took over two weeks to control the blaze. The

fire threatened private homes in the communities of Deerfield, Custer and Hill City,

the Jewel Cave National Monument and the Mount Rushmore National Memorial.

It also forced the evacuation of many residents in northwestern Custer County and

southwestern Pennington County. The Jasper Fire would have been much worse if

it were not for the herculean efforts of over 1,000 men and women, which included

over 90 different South Dakota communities.

This year, another large fire went through the Black Hills. The Elk Mountain

Complex fires took nine days to control and destroyed roughly 29,000 acres. Thankfully this fire was not as large as the Jasper Fire, but still very significant.

Although I understand that fire is a healthy part of a forest’s life, there is certainly a difference between a prescribed, controlled burn and one that threatens private property and local communities. Many of these fires are started by circumstances we cannot control. The Western United States have been ravaged by

drought-like conditions the past few years and make preventing a fire almost impossible. However, some steps can be taken so that when a fire does start, the local

communities will be in a better position to fight it. I would like to see more funding

directed towards training local community fire departments in fighting forest fires.

Also, I believe it is important that the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the

Department of Interior (DOI) fully utilize the authority Congress gave both agencies

by offering training and job opportunities for the restoration of national forests and

public lands. This will be a boon to local economies and offer high skill/wage jobs

4

for its residents. The Forest Service should continue to coordinate with state foresters and local governments and take the necessary steps to ensure that the these

plans are implemented efficiently.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony and to working with my Senate

colleagues and the agencies on implementation of the Fire Plan.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

The condition of our federally-owned forest lands and recent fires make it evident

that a comprehensive and effective plan for addressing fire risk is needed. I commend the Forest Service and BLM for addressing this issue by developing the National Fire Plan. The Western Governors Conference has also acted to develop a 10

year strategy for addressing the fire problem. This hearing will discuss the effectiveness of the National Fire Plan.

The fire problem is especially acute on the 39 million acres of Forest Service land

and the 57 million acres of Department of Interior land that have been identified

as being at high risk of fire because of abnormal fuel loading and other factors.

We are not exempt from this problem in my home state of Alaska. South central

Alaska is currently suffering from the most devastating softwood insect pandemic

in the recorded history of North America. The white spruce resources in the boreal

forests of that region have been decimated by the spruce bark beetle, with many

stands suffering more than 80 percent mortality and some areas showing 100 percent mortality.

The problem extends from the Copper River area in the northeast to the tip of

the Kenai Peninsula south of Anchorage. It crosses ownership boundaries, including

lands managed by the Forest Service, the Park Service, BLM and the Fish & Wildlife Service, as well as lands under state and private ownership. Current active infestation on federal ownership is about 35,000 acres. The total cumulative acreage

damaged by the infestation over the past 10 years is 2.9 million acres. 1.4 million

acres of that is on the Kenai Peninsula. Another 85,000 acres have accumulated

within the Municipality of Anchorage.

While state and private forest landowners in the region have made substantial

efforts to remove dead and dying trees and replant the affected lands, the federal

agencies have taken virtually no action, except to participate in discussions and

spend many thousands of taxpayer’s dollars producing reports. They have also provided some funds to assist municipalities in the region, but these focus mainly on

fire fighting rather than prevention.

This lack of proactive effort is unacceptable and must not be allowed to continue.

Unfortunately, much of the beetle-killed white spruce timber in south central Alaska has now been dead so long it retains little commercial value. An opportunity has

been lost to recover the costs of removal and reforestation, an opportunity that was,

to a significant degree, captured by the state and private landowners in the area.

That does not mean it is too late to address the wildfire risk in Alaska. It just

means that the agencies are now going to have to address the fuel loading problem

without much of a revenue stream to offset the costs. I hope that the Administration

has effective plans to address the multi-agency Alaska issue as part of the National

Fire Plan recommendations.

I will not accept that we are going to address the problem with prescribed burns.

We saw evidence of where that leads last Spring. A prescribed burn, started by the

Forest Service, raged out of control near Kenai Lake, destroying habitat and threatening homes and lives. We were very fortunate when favorable winds and heroic

efforts by firefighters prevented significant private property losses. We can’t rely on

luck or Providence to protect us from our own foolishness in the future.

Finally, I have three specific concerns that I hope will be addressed today:

1. I am concerned about what appears to be an historic pattern of measuring success by accounting for the number of acres ‘‘treated,’’ without a clear indication of

prioritizing either the economic and ecological value of those acres or the relative

value of the ‘‘treatments’’ applied. In implementing the National Fire Plan the agencies must do a better job of balancing its efforts though such prioritization.

2. While the wildlands/urban interface is important in terms of human life and

private property values, it cannot be the sole focus of our efforts. I believe we must

look to the future and give much more weight to protecting areas of high economic

and ecological importance in the more remote areas of our federal lands than the

current Fire Plan appears to do. Certainly, we should prioritize public safety. However, if we take an unbalanced approach and focus most of our effort on short term

protections around communities, we will have only addressed today’s problems and

will have compounded the problems of tomorrow.

5

3. The problem of fire risk to our federal forests calls for large and multi-faceted

action. We simply must not ignore nor minimize the effectiveness of mechanical

intervention, including timber harvests, to maintain the health of our forest ecosystems. The protection of watersheds and habitat and the maintenance of the economic values of our forests can and should be accomplished in large measure

through active forest management across a broad spectrum of public lands, especially in those areas such as national forests and BLM managed forest lands which

are designated by law for multiple use management.

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR

FROM IDAHO

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you

for your kind and generous remarks. That friendship is mutual. I

have enjoyed it and appreciated it over the years, and this relationship. It will clearly continue.

I want to thank the chairman for recognizing that it was time

to look at the national fire plan, not only to look back into this

summer, but to look forward into next year, and we have witnesses

with us today that I think can do that.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, this past week I was at

ground zero at the World Trade Center, and while we are all living

now, and this Congress is working in the shadow of that incident,

I was extremely happy to learn that the National Interagency Fire

Center had three class 1 incident command teams working in New

York and at the Pentagon, while at the same time it was manning

at least 15 large project fires in the West with both class 1 and

class 2 teams.

In all sincerity, I believe that the National Interagency Fire Center, the Departments of Agriculture and Interior abilities to fight

fire and render assistance, is a testimony to all involved, and I

think both of us honor them for that. In other words, the investment we made last year to fight fires on the public lands of America was playing itself out in the smoke and the rubble of New York

City.

As many predicted, this fire season is the second year in a row

of extraordinary fires that have consumed some 3 million acres and

some 50 homes and structures. As usual, our firefighters continue

to struggle against long odds, and you have mentioned, and have

performed admirably under what at best was difficult situations.

Last fall, the chairman and I joined with Congress and appropriated the single largest budget increase in the history of the U.S.

Forest Service aimed at dealing with deteriorating forest health

and the extraordinary fire risk that we faced on our public lands

and that we continue to face.

Today, I am interested in learning from the administration how

the implementation of the national fire management plan is proceeding, and from our panelists about what is and what is not

working. I would also like to know of the other opportunities that

the agencies might see that we are missing in directing them toward.

I would like to welcome Trent Woods from Save Elk City to the

hearing today. Trent, in all fairness, I appreciate you traveling

from Elk City Idaho. The Friday before last, I tried to make it to

Seattle and back, a normal 12-hour turn-around. I recorded over 36

hours on airplanes and in airports, so I know that your task was

6

a bit arduous getting out here from Elk City. It is just arduous getting, Mr. Chairman, from Elk City to Grangeville.

[Laughter.]

Senator CRAIG. Let alone traveling across the county. He was

well-conditioned by the time he got to the airport in Lewiston, I

suspect.

My point is that it is important we understand the challenges

faced by hundreds of small communities such as many that we

have in our States. Much of the Forest Service and the Department

of the Interior’s efforts of this first year have been focused on fire

suppression and planning. Considerably less attention has been directed toward the reduction of hazardous fuels, work that we all

know must be completed.

I am concerned that too much of the funding for the national fire

plan is being spent to hire new agency employees, rather than private contractors, which does not fully meet the original intent of

the initiative, so I hope Mr. Laverty and Mr. Hartzell can help us

understand this and other shortfalls, and what steps their agencies

are taking to ensure that we will meet the fiscal year 2002 targets,

as well as correct the fiscal year 2001 shortfalls.

Finally, I am increasingly troubled by the missed opportunities

to manage our overstocked forest in a way that provide the muchneeded small spin materials to help fuel new and existing cogeneration facilities. It is interesting that only those of us who look at

the statistics are talking about the energy crisis of today, when this

committee that the chairman and I sit on were absolutely embroiled last winter in California’s blackouts and our wakeup call

that all of us are still wanting to heed.

The opportunity to develop additional environmentally friendly

cogeneration plants powered by renewable wood products is an opportunity this country can ill afford to miss. I want the Federal

Land Management Agencies to take advantage of the resource, but

more importantly the time, the place, and the health environment

in which our public lands exist. I expect we will hear more about

this from several of our witnesses today.

And let me close with this observation, Mr. Chairman. The

American taxpayer and this Congress have invested a significant

amount of money to begin taking care of forest health problems of

our Nation. Given the events of last week and the economic impacts we are experiencing, I hope the U.S. Forest Service and the

Department of the Interior understand the need to begin showing

progress.

In addition, it is important to ensure that programs funded

through this initiative spread economic benefit beyond the agencies

and to the people and the communities involved.

Thank you for the hearing. Let us proceed.

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. Let us do just that.

Mr. Laverty, we will start with you, and then Mr. Hartzell.

STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF

AND NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COORDINATOR, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. LAVERTY. Well, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Craig, it really is a

rich opportunity for Tim and I to be here this afternoon to share

7

with you some of the really significant accomplishments that have,

in fact, taken place as a result of the implementation of the national fire plan.

As a result of perhaps years of aggressive suppression we have

seen some very significant changes take place in the landscape,

and in many cases those unintended consequences of accumulations of fuels have led us to the circumstance that we have found

that came to highlight last year and again this year. Last year we

burned well over 7 million acres. This year we have burned in excess of 3 million acres already to date, and we still experience extreme conditions in many parts of the interior West, Oregon, Idaho,

Colorado, California, Arizona, Utah. We are still in major fire season and it is not over yet.

Yet we have had extreme success across the country as a result

of the investments that the Congress and the American taxpayers

have been willing to make to reduce these kinds of consequences.

What I would like to do is share in a few minutes with you some

of the things that we have been able to accomplish and that we are

currently working on as it relates to successful implementation of

the fire plan.

Tim and I are passionate about accountability. We are passionate

about accomplishments, and I can tell you we can assure you that

these investments are, in fact, bringing the results that I believe

we are collectively working towards.

Before I start, let me just share with you a little bit about the

current situation. I mentioned and Senator Craig mentioned that

we have burned a little over in excess of 300 million acres already

this year—3 million acres, I am sorry, 3 million acres, with a cost

of approximately $600 million. That is a substantial investment.

Many of these fires that we have encountered this summer have

been in the urban interface with high expense, fires such as the

Green Knoll in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where we have been in

fact protecting communities with substantial investments. In California, we have had fires where it is costing us up to $1,200 and

acre or $1,500 an acre, just because of the importance of protecting

life and property. These fires I think are indicative of the nature

of the incredible growth that has taken place in the interior West

and really across the country.

We had folks last week up in Martha’s Vineyard talking about

the national fire plan and even in that community folks are concerned about urban interface between the threat of vegetation.

Since Tim and I were with you last year, or this past spring, we

have been working aggressively to implement the national fire plan

through a seamless interagency approach, and before I share with

you some of the significant accomplishments and some of the key

point areas, I’d like to share with you some of the things we’ve

done as a result of the interagency coordination.

Tim and I have recently completed a charter for the Interagency

Leadership Forum, which is a forum designed to bring the Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, and Assistant Secretaries together

to provide active, engaged leadership structured to ensure that we

have got clear interagency coordination on a policy, that we have

got clear interagency accountability, and that we have got effective

8

implementation not only not only of the national fire plan, but of

the national wildland fire policy.

We have recently completed with the leadership of the Western

Governors and State foresters, tribal interests, and conservation

and commodity groups and a variety of community based restoration organizations the 10-year comprehensive strategy, which was

a collaborative approach for reducing wildfire risks to communities

and the environment. The two Secretaries and the Governors

transmitted the copy of that report to each of you in mid-August,

and I think it is an indication of the strategy that reflects how we

are working together with the States and other organizations in

the long term collaborative approach on dealing with these kinds

of issues that need to be solved at the local level.

We have been aggressively coordinating our research efforts. The

joint fire sciences program is but one example. Our research agenda is now being developed by interagency resource specialists, as

well as folks from the academic community and interest groups.

We are currently working on developing a set of interagency performance measures for all Federal land agencies. These measures

are going to cut across the organizations that will reflect the GPRA

efforts so that in our annual performance plans we can, in fact,

have a consist outcome-measured set of performance measures for

line officers, and I think this is a huge breakthrough in terms of

the kinds of coordinations taking place.

Finally, I would share with you that we are conducting a series

of interagency strategic overviews across the country, in every region of the country. These reviews are designed to look at how can

we improve our effectiveness in the delivery of the national fire

plan as we move into the next program year. We are going to complete these by the end of this next month, and as soon as we complete our analysis and summary of these findings, we would be

glad to come up and share with you what we have done.

Let me just talk for a second about some of the program accomplishments. Fire-fighting readiness. As a result of the investment,

we have been able to make significant investments in new firefighters. We have hired over 3,300 additional fire-fighters just on

the forest side this year, and as a result of that we are hearing testimony after testimony after testimony across the country on how

we have been able to successfully attack these fires and hold them

in the initial attack phase. The result is that we are able to reduce

the effects of wildfire on many communities, and the result is that

we have saved a lot of structures. Even though we have lost structures, we have saved a lot of structures.

We have been able to make some significant investments, I

think, in terms of hazardous fuels, and I would just like to talk

about this for a minute. We really have been able to reduce fuels.

As of yesterday we have treated well in excess of 1.2 million acres

just on national forestlands across the country. That is a significant

investment in terms of reducing hazardous fuels, and we expect to

be successful as we move into the future.

If I could just may be capture a couple of points, and I will pass

it to Tim. In addition to the fire-fighting readiness that we have

with the fire plan, we have been able to make significant investments in human lives, and we have been able to make some big

9

changes in the lives of our communities because we have been able

to put at-risk young people to work.

I was down in Ohigh, California about 3 weeks ago, and heard

testimony from a counselor in the high school that talked about the

changed lives that are taking place as a result of hiring some of

these kids to put them to work this summer.

We also, in addition to the incident command teams that are at

the ground zero, we also have two of the new hot-shot crews that

we were able to fund as a result of the fire plan that are effectively

working in the recovery efforts in New York, the Medellin crew

from Illinois, and the Augusta crew from Virginia, so there are a

lot of positive results from the investment.

Just in closing, Tim and I are very conscious about accountability, and as we look at the future in terms of how we can in fact

be accountable so that we can with all transparency share with you

that we have good accountability for the projects, that we are making good efforts in terms of accomplishing the objectives, I am convinced that we are there, and we are delighted to have a chance

to share with you today what is going on with the fire plan, and

we would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, AND NATIONAL

FIRE PLAN COORDINATOR, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today to talk about the effectiveness of the National Fire Plan

and the recently released 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. I am Lyle Laverty, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry and National Fire Plan Coordinator of the Forest Service. I am here today to bring you up to date on what has been

accomplished thus far and what we plan to do next in implementing the National

Fire Plan.

The severe fire season of 2000 captured the attention of the American people and

highlighted the need to find ways to protect life and property and minimize losses

of natural resources. On September 8, 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture and the

Secretary of the Interior issued a report entitled ‘‘Managing the Impact of Wildfires

oh Communities and the Environment.’’ The report, referred to as the National Fire

Plan, contains recommendations to reduce the impacts of wildland fires on rural

communities, reduce the long-term threat from catastrophic fires, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future.

For the past century we have been very successful at preventing and suppressing

unwanted fire. This work was accomplished with the best intentions to protect our

growing communities and valuable forest and rangeland resources. In some locations an unintended consequence of this success, however, was the buildup of unprecedented amounts of dense vegetation that now, in times of drought and wind,

fuels devastating wildfires. These uncharacteristically intense fires threaten homes,

communities, watersheds, wildlife habitat, and the lives of firefighters and the public. Each year, more vegetation grows and the problem becomes incrementally

worse. There is no short-term solution to this problem. Now, more than ever, we

must continue to prevent and suppress unwanted fires and reduce these unnatural

fuel conditions. They have the potential to be more destructive to communities and

the environment than ever before.

While we continue with our best efforts to protect communities and forestlands

from the effects of unwanted fire, we must focus our attention to treating the hazardous buildup of vegetation that fuels these fires. An aggressive fuel treatment program and adjusting land and fire management priorities are the long-term solutions

to reduce the effects of unwanted wildland fire, restore our forests to ecologically

healthy conditions, and protect our communities on a longer-term basis. As we continue to find common ground and work in partnership with other federal agencies;

states, tribes, local communities, and Congress, we leverage our resources and

skills, increasing our ability to solve this national problem. We are at a turning

point. The National Fire Plan is the beginning of the solution.

10

Mr. Chairman, less than eleven months have passed since the Forest Service, Department of the Interior, and our State partners undertook the giant task of implementing the National Fire Plan. It is a monumental task. In that brief time, we’ve learned many lessons, and we realize we have many areas in which we can improve.

We are dedicated to expediting collaboration, providing common performance measures and budget planning models, and analyzing and managing interagency landscape scale projects.

The rehabilitation and restoration efforts in Montana’s Bitterroot Valley are a testament to community and agency partnerships. The Forest Service is working with

the State to mitigate the extent and impact of invasive plants on National Forest

System lands and private lands that may grow in after an area has been burned.

Funding for this treatment is coming from the National Fire Plan and State and

Private Forestry. Research and feasibility studies in bio-energy and biomass production are underway in Colorado, California, and the Pacific Northwest, as we look

for alternative ways to improve utilization and reduce hazardous fuels. Contracting

Officers are working on a national contract to provide engines and crews from the

private sector to assist us with wildland fire suppression and fuel treatment

projects. Today, there are unprecedented examples of interagency and governmental

cooperation occurring to meet these goals. The accomplishments so far are from a

program only eleven months old. The list of accomplishments is long, and I am

proud of the progress we have made in such a short time.

10-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

Before I focus on implementation of the National Fire Plan, I would like to briefly

discuss the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy—A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment. Congress directed

the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to work with the Governors to develop this strategy in the FY 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act. The direction requires ‘‘close collaboration among citizens and governments at

all levels.’’ In developing this strategy, we worked with a geographically diverse

group of people, representing all levels of government, tribal interests, conservation

and commodity groups, and community-based restoration groups. The multi-faceted

nature of the issues and jurisdictions addressed by this strategy necessitates broad

communication and collaboration. While the line officers of the land management

agencies are the principal decisionmakers concerning public lands, the collaborative

framework, with clear roles and responsibilities, will assist in the implementation

of this strategy across all ownerships and jurisdictions.

The comprehensive strategy was completed and released to the public on August

13, 2001. The Western Governors’ Association, the National Association of Counties

and the National Association of State Foresters endorse the Strategy. The key

points are:

• The Comprehensive Strategy emphasizes measures to reduce the risk to communities and the environment from wildland fires for the long-term. • The Comprehensive Strategy emphasizes a collaborative, community-based approach to address wildland fire issues and the importance of making key decisions at the local level. • The primary goals of the Comprehensive Strategy, which are consistent with

those contained in the National Fire Plan, are: to improve prevention and suppression, reduce hazardous fuels, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and promote

community assistance. • A set of core principles, including collaboration, priority setting, and accountability will help guide the major themes of the comprehensive strategy.

Successful implementation of the National Fire Plan and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy requires a commitment among the federal and state partners to integrate their programs, to the maximum extent practicable, to ensure that implementation proceeds in a standard, consistent, and cost-effective manner across agencies.

By May 1, 2002 a detailed implementation plan will be developed in collaboration

with the Governors to establish detailed and consistent operational ways of doing

business between Federal and State agencies and tribal entities to ensure the Core

Principles and Goals are met; financial and other resources are available and utilized in an integrated, targeted, and cost effective manner; legal and technical requirements are met; and a system is established to identify and promptly address

implementation issues.

We are working with the Department of the Interior to integrate priorities, develop accomplishment timeframes, identify performance measures, and report on

procedures that outline efforts to work with states and communities to reduce the

threat and risk in areas that need fuels treatment. Although we have made progress

11

in some of these areas, Secretary Veneman and Secretary Norton have discussed the

need for much more thorough integration of program activities between the two Departments.

Because the five land management agencies listed in the National Fire Plan have

different missions and authorities, planning requirements vary. All National Forests

in the Forest Service have action plans that guide fire suppression actions on initial

attack fires and larger fires that escape initial attack, and prescribed fires. National

forests that don’t have fire management plans have adequate direction for tactical

fire suppression initial attack and fuel treatment and are in the process of updating

their plans. By December 2003, we expect that each national forest will have a fire

management plan that meets guidelines established in the 1995 Federal Wildland

Fire Management Policy.

THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

I would like to focus on 5 key points dealing with the National Fire Plan:

• Firefighting • Rehabilitation and Restoration • Hazardous Fuel Reduction • Community Assistance • Accountability

Firefighting

The National Fire Plan made funds available to increase initial attack capability,

increase extended attack support, and provide more resources during large fire episodes. These additional firefighting resources have facilitated control of more fires

during initial attack, thereby reducing wildland fire threats to communities at risk.

Through workforce hiring and employee development efforts, the Forest Service has

hired approximately 3,300 new firefighters for the 2001 fire season. In bringing on

these new people to fill vital firefighter positions, the Forest Service has provided

training to every individual involved in the fire programs.

Additional equipment purchased under the National Fire Plan has enhanced the

organizational capacity of the fire management organization. For example, in Oregon and Washington, Forest Service units have added 58 fire engines, 4 bulldozers,

and 10 water/foam tenders. In the state of California, units have added 251 new

pieces of equipment, including 216 vehicles.

The cornerstone of the Forest Service wildland fire program is safety and adhering to fire qualification standards for all wildland firefighters. This fire training is

reinforced with daily, weekly and monthly safety meetings and annual fire safety

refresher training. In addition, safety briefings are given at the beginning of each

shift on an incident.

To enhance our readiness and attack capabilities, our scientists are conducting research to improve monitoring of fuel conditions, enhance fire risk assessments, improve fire weather and behavior predictions, and increase the accuracy of long term

prediction of fire severity, fire weather, and climatic conditions. Twenty-two research and development projects related to these improvements have been funded

using the Joint Fire Sciences and National Fire Plan programs. Managers will use

the information collected from these research projects to implement fire plans.

While these efforts will help reduce threats to communities at risk, large wildland

fires will not be eliminated. Long term and comprehensive programs in fire prevention, fire suppression, and fuel treatment, involving the States, tribes, communities,

and other federal agencies, will be necessary before the current fire environment is

changed to one that is less destructive and costly. To this end, we are currently

working on improvements to wildland fire planning systems, focusing fuel treatment

in areas where communities are at risk, working with other State and federal agencies to plan interagency landscape level fuel treatment programs, and expanding fire

prevention programs like FIREWISE.

Mr. Chairman, enhanced readiness and attack capabilities have other important

advantages beyond wildland firefighting. For example, two of the Forest Service hotshot crews established under the aegis of the National Fire Plan are now assisting

with the World Trade Center and Pentagon emergencies. The Augusta Hotshots

from Virginia and the Midewin Hotshots from Illinois are working with Incident

Management Teams assigned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to

support Mobilization Center operations.

Rehabilitation and Restoration

Rehabilitation and restoration efforts are focused on lands that are unlikely to recover naturally from wildland fire damage. These efforts are in addition to the emergency stabilization efforts that have already taken place, and are funded with

12

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) funds. For FY 2001, 437 rehabilitation and restoration projects are underway. This includes watershed restoration on

840,000 acres; more than 3,000 miles of road and trail restoration; fish and wildlife

habitat restoration on 500,000 acres; treatment of invasive plants, insects and diseases on 280,000 acres; and planting over 650,000 trees. Much of this project work

is being contracted to utilize local businesses in the restoration work. Additionally,

a large amount of planning has been accomplished to prepare for future projects.

For example, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared on the

Bitterroot National Forest to cover restoration and rehabilitation activities on over

300,000 acres of burned land.

In FY 2001, nine research projects and two new applications of technology were

funded through the fire plan in support of rehabilitation. The agency is working

with State and local agencies to set priorities for lands scorched in last year’s fires

and to reduce hazardous fuels.

In New Mexico, restoration efforts are ongoing on the Cerro Grande Fire that occurred in May 2000. The Forest Service worked with the Department of Energy, the

Santa Clara and San Ildefonso Pueblos, the National Park Service, and private citizens to stabilize high risk sloped areas after the fire was contained. These treatments were successful in protecting the watersheds and reducing post fire damage

from flooding and hazardous pollution. Implementation of treatments began in early

June after the fire and was completed prior to the mid-July storm season. Some additional emergency treatments were identified and accomplished in 2001 along with

long-term restoration measures using funds from the National Fire Plan.

In addition to National Fire Plan rehabilitation work, emergency stabilization

teams have surveyed 27 large fires on 209,000 acres of National Forest System land;

60,000 acres of which are classified as severely burned. So far this year, the Forest

Service has allocated $6 million for emergency stabilization on these burns. Treatments include grass seeding on 20,000 acres.

The Forest Service recently signed a five-year agreement with American Forests,

a national nonprofit conservation organization, entitled ‘‘Add a Dollar to Plant a

Tree for Wildfire Releaf.’’ This cooperative effort and expenditure of approximately

$4 million dollars will expand our tree planting activities all over the country on

private and National Forest lands, and will help to provide important information

to the American people about wildfire restoration.

Hazardous Fuel Reduction

We are investing to reduce fire risk in communities, municipal watersheds, and

other areas where conditions favor uncharacteristically intense fires. As of September 15th’’, treatment projects have been completed on more than 1,000,000 acres.

About 80% of these acres were treated with prescribed fire. The remaining 20%

were treated either mechanically or by hand labor. Estimates of accomplishments

projected through the end of the year continue to vary due to unseasonably dry conditions in many regions. In Florida, the state with the largest program, a third year

of drought cancelled most planned prescribed burning activities. A lower than normal snow pack in the interior West also left much of that part of the country at

high fire danger earlier in the season than normal. Currently, national program

managers anticipate that actual hazardous fuels accomplishment will be less than

the 1.8 million acres target.

The most important aspect of hazardous fuels reduction is reducing the threat to

local communities. When it comes to reducing threat, we need to protect communities and help the communities to help themselves through changing the landscape

from high risk to low risk. We will accomplish that by working closely with communities concentrating on major projects that reduce risk.

On the Sandia Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico, 21⁄2

miles of wildland-urban interface boundary with subdivisions were treated for fuels

reduction and the construction of a fuelbreak. This fuels reduction project in the

Cienega Canyon and Armijo Canyon were treated by prescribed fire, and are adjacent to the Sandia Park subdivision and Ponderosa Pine Estates. The burning will

help decrease the accumulation of vegetation to minimize the risk of a catastrophic

wildfire in the neighboring communities. Other benefits to this project include improved forest health and wildlife habitat.

In certain areas, the Forest Service has used the ‘‘Wyden Amendment’’ (Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements authorized in section 323 of P.L.

105-277) to enter into cooperative agreements to use Federal funds on non-Federal

land when a project benefits the greater watershed. Under this authority, the Agency is allowed to protect watersheds that consist of lands under multiple ownership,

including lands in the wildland-urban interface. In addition to the value of work

13

performed, significantly enhanced relationships have occurred through these partnerships.

Our work on the ground this year is based on planning done in previous years

when there was less emphasis on mechanical treatment and increased hand treatment in the wildland-urban interface. Planning underway this year and in the future reflects our emphasis on the interface and ecosystem restoration. There will be

increased costs for treatment in the wildland-urban interface.

The Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries

Service are working together at national, regional and local levels to accomplish consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, thanks to swift Congressional

action to clarify the Department of Agriculture’s authorities.

Our scientists are conducting research in ranking areas for fuel reduction efforts,

determining impacts of these treatments on wildlife, fish and riparian areas, and

developing new uses and systems for harvesting forest undergrowth and small diameter trees. Through the National Fire Plan, 24 research projects in support of

hazardous fuels reduction are funded in 2001.

Community Assistance

We are just completing a successful interagency effort with the States and tribes

to better define the communities in the wildland urban interface across the United

States. Using State Fire Assistance funds, we have helped states increase firefighting capability, and establish a significant new hazard mitigation program. Over 290

mitigation projects have received grants in 2001, and over 128,000 homeowners in

the Western U.S. will receive benefits from treatments. The Cooperative Fire Program has also funded 10 national FIREWISE workshops; educating 870 community

leaders from 450 communities in 41 states about methods to increase protection for

their communities. In New Mexico, every community that requested funding to complete a fire protection plan received funding from the Community Assistance Grants

Program under the National Fire Plan.

To date, Volunteer Fire Assistance funds in the amount of $13.2 million dollars

are being delivered through grants to rural Volunteer Fire Departments providing

training and equipment for small fire departments that are often the first line of

defense in the interface. The Economic Action Programs are in the final stages of

awarding grants for biomass energy systems, small diameter market development,

and community economic development and fire planning.

Other examples of Community Assistance funding include:

1. The Oregon Department of Forestry is using State Fire Assistance grant funds

to provide rebates to landowners who implement FIREWISE concepts on their property and to their homes.

2. The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) is working on seven hazardous fuel reduction projects across the State with grant funds received through the National

Fire Plan. To date, IDL has awarded over $180,000 in cost-share grants to rural fire

departments in Idaho to help them acquire equipment and training.

3. Many Southern states have joined together to use National Fire Plan grant dollars to fund an extensive assessment to evaluate the areas of the states that have

the highest wildfire risk combined with the value of homes and improved property.

The project will fund GIS mapping to display the most at-risk communities. The assessment will serve as a tool for growth planning, the determination of fire resource

allocations, and as an important source of information for community leaders and

the public.

4. The Concerned Resource Environmental Workers (C.R.E.W.) received a

$161,000 National Fire plan grant to construct approximately 25 miles of fire breaks

throughout the foothills of Ojai, CA, over eighteen months. C.R.E.W. will contribute

$49,000 to the project as part of the grant cost-sharing agreements with the Forest

Service. At-risk youth and other kids will be the workers on the project to protect

the community. As many as 45 youths are planned to be employed through this

project.

Accountability

Oversight, coordination, program development and monitoring for performance

are critical for the National Fire Plan. We are conducting a series of regional reviews to assess progress. We are committed to demonstrating sound accountability

for the funds provided by Congress in support of the National Fire Plan. We have

implemented a new financial management system that better tracks federal funding

and expenditures. We are currently developing new budget planning models and

performance standards with the Department of the Interior. We continue to use existing and new information systems to track program performance and by December

31, 2001, we will have an Annual Status Report on our accomplishments, as manVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
14

dated by Congress. The agency is using a new system to pilot an automated accomplishment reporting system for fuels, rehabilitation and restoration, and community

assistance functions. Reporting under this system is enabling prompt assessment of

output accomplishments. If deemed successful, this reporting system will be expanded for agency-wide use as early as fiscal year 2003. The output measures reported under the National Fire Plan are a key aspect of the broader agency performance measure accomplishment now being incorporated in the Annual Performance

Planning process.

The Forest Service, Department of the Interior, and the National Association of

State Foresters have jointly established an interagency website for the National Fire

Plan where people can find out more about National Fire Plan Implementation and

ways they can participate in making their homes safer from wildfire. Additionally

the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have cooperated in development of the Action and Financial Plans required by Congress. We will continue such

cooperative efforts in preparation of the fiscal year 2003 program that will improve

the consistency of information.

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, we have accomplished a lot in a short time. While we continue

with our best efforts to protect communities and forestlands from the effects of unwanted fire, we will focus our attention on treating the hazardous buildup of vegetation that fuels these fires. The National Fire Plan is the beginning of the solution.

We are hiring and training personnel to improve future fire management capabilities. We are stabilizing and rehabilitating many of the sites damaged during the

fires in 2000, and looking at the work to be done in response to the 2001 fire season.

The reduction of hazardous fuels reflects an expanded scale of action and extensive

planning is underway for 2002 and 2003. We have come a long way and we recognize there are many areas in which we can improve. In cooperation with the States,

the list of communities at risk has been revised, and will be an important tool to

plan future projects. My staff and I will continue to work closely with the Department of the Interior team, State Foresters, communities, and the Congress to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems and to minimize the losses from future

wildfires.

This concludes my statement; I would be happy to answer any questions you or

Members of the Subcommittee might have.

Senator WYDEN. Good. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hartzell, if you have some comments we will welcome them,

but the chairman of the full committee is here, Senator Bingaman,

and I want to recognize him if he would like to make any statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. Congratulations on

having this hearing. I think this is a very important issue. I know

it is in my State, and you and Senator Craig have worked hard and

long on this set of issues, and I am glad to hear of some of the successes.

I do have a concern in my State that we still hear some complaints that not a large enough proportion is going to this fire

threat that communities face, and that is something that I hope we

can examine. Also, I am concerned about the funding level, quite

frankly. For example, rehabilitation and restoration of land that

has been burned, my understanding is that the funding levels in

the appropriations bills and funding levels that were requested by

the administration are substantially below what they were last

year. That concerns me.

I appreciate these witnesses. I know we also have Mr. DeIaco

from New Mexico, from Ruidoso. He is the forester from the Village

15

of Ruidoso, and I am very pleased that he is here with us today.

Thank you.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hartzell, would you like to speak at this point.

STATEMENT OF TIM HARTZELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WILDLAND FIRE COORDINATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. HARTZELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I will keep my remarks brief. You have got my written

testimony and Lyle has adequately set the stage about how we

have been working together.

I will make some comments about the five areas of the national

fire plan. First, I want to talk about fire-fighting readiness and the

additional capability that Congress provided us. With that money,

we have hired an additional 1,900 fire-fighters in the Department

of the Interior. Fully 1,500 of those fire-fighters are frontline firefighters, and that has made a difference this year. You know, we

cannot take credit for all of our success this year. We were fortunate in having the cooperation of the weather, but nevertheless,

those firefighters made a difference. They fought hard, they fought

persistently, and we clearly made a difference this year out on the

ground.

Also, I wanted to let the subcommittee know that we have, in

fact, placed orders for all of the 110 pieces of new equipment, and

we did, in fact, contract for all of the additional aircraft to help us

fight fires this summer.

Quickly returning to rehabilitation and restoration, we had a

commitment to provide emergency stabilization or restoration on

1.4 million acres of Department of the Interior lands that were

severly damaged by wildland fires in fiscal year 2000. We have accomplished 1.2 million acres of that. The remainder of the projects

are multiyear projects. They will carry over into next year, and

they will be completed.

Before I leave rehab, I would like the subcommittee to know that

we have a Forest Service-Department of the Interior team that has

put together a strategy or a plan as to how to meet the need to

provide additional native plant materials for restoration and stabilization activities. We expect that report to be delivered to the

Congress by the end of December of this year.

Turning quickly to hazard fuels reduction, we had a commitment

to treat 1.35 million acres of hazard fuels this year. We have currently completed 619,000 acres. We expect to have 700,000 acres

completed at the end of this fiscal year, or the end of this month.

That is fully 200,000 more acres than we treated last year. I would

just like to address the shortfall. First, we will complete those remaining acres next year, but I think it is important for the subcommittee to know that our fuels treatment program was heavily

dependent on prescribed fire, and 600,000 of those 700,000 acres

that we could not get to fell in areas of severe drought, and we simply could not, in a safe manner, execute those plans.

I also want you to be aware of how proud we are of our work

with the wild and urban interface collaborative working groups.

These are groups at the State and local level that we have worked

16

with to develop fuels treatment projects in the vicinity of communities for next fiscal year, and for fiscal year 2003. This has made

our fuels treatment program much, much stronger than it has been

in the past.

This fiscal year we have roughly 230 fuels treatment projects in

the wildland-urban interface. As a result of our work with these

collaborative stakeholder groups, in fiscal year 2002 we have identified 545 on-the-ground treatment projects, and in addition we

have identified nearly 300 projects that will be in the planning

stage this year so that we get ahead of the power curve for treatment in 2003. We have a much stronger fuels treatment program

now around at risk communities.

The national fire plan called attention to providing additional

support to communities to develop their capacities to do fuel treatment, to educate their citizens about fire-proofing their homes and

providing additional opportunities for small business. We received

$10 million, as you know, in new appropriation for rural fire assistance to provide sorely needed training and equipment to small,

rural fire departments throughout the country. We made a pledge

that we could probably reach out and provide moneys to 850 of

these rural fire departments. I am pleased to report to the subcommittee that as of the end of August we had provided agreements to over 1,400 rural fire departments, and we are very proud

of this.

In addition, we have increased our level of contracting. We have

issued 375 contracts for fuels treatment and rehabilitation work,

totalling more than $18 million. In addition, we have provided over

100,638 grants to tribes for $13 million worth of fuels and restoration work.

And finally, we have provided over $17 million in community assistance grants to communities and counties to support a variety

of locally led fuels treatment and fuels education programs.

Lastly, Lyle talked about accountability. We are truly passionate

about this issue, and I would like to share a few things with you.

Lyle mentioned the wildland fire leadership charter. I am not going

to dwell on that, but I want to talk about a couple of other things

that are going to help assure we use this money wisely.

No. 1, the Department of the Interior is implementing an automated national fire plan tracking data base. We are using the same

software and data structure that the Forest Service has utilized,

and by the end of the year we hope to have an operational system

that is compatible with the Forest Service.

We have also chartered an interdisciplinary group that is going

to review the various models and assumptions that we currently

use to calculate normal year readiness resources such as personnel

and equipment. We are initiating a study to determine if our controls are sufficient for costs that are incurred in fighting large

wildfires, and we have also chartered an Interior-Forest Service

team to develop consistent format, process, and standards for developing fire management plans.

Let me just close by quickly saying that the national fire plan is,

indeed, a big effort. We are trying to fix a problem that has probably been 100 years in the making. There is no quick fix. Longterm commitment is going to be required. Collaboration and

17

leveraging of funds is absolutely essential for our success, and the

national fire plan frankly requires that we approach business in a

different manner. It requires much closer cooperation with our tribal, State, and other Federal partners, and it places a great deal of

emphasis on local insight and local solutions to local problems

within a broader national framework.

I hope you agree that we have demonstrated our commitment to

these concepts and to the accomplishments that we promised in the

national fire plan. We are clearly on the road to success. We appreciate your support to date. We look forward to your continued partnership.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartzell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM HARTZELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WILDLAND FIRE

COORDINATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

INTRODUCTION

I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee concerning the effectiveness of the National Fire Plan in the 2001 fire season. My name is Tim Hartzell

and I oversee the Office of Wildland Fire Coordination for the Department of the

Interior. I am pleased to report that the Department of the Interior firefighting

agencies have made significant progress in implementing the National Fire Plan,

and that has made a noticeable difference in our ability to fight fires this season.

We are proud of our accomplishments, but we recognize that we have more work

to do to lessen the dangers to communities at risk, restore ecosystems and the natural role of fire, protect our critical natural resources, and most importantly, keep

our firefighters and the public safe.

I would like to begin by saying that for our firefighters and the public affected

by wildland fire, safety always comes first. Firefighting is an inherently dangerous

occupation, and we cannot mitigate every hazard. What we can do is recognize risk,

manage it, and minimize it, whenever possible. When we fight fires in an area affected by endangered species, we are guided by policy that was clarified in 1995 by

the Fish and Wildlife Service—‘‘firefighter safety comes first on every fire, every

time.’’ Secretary Norton fully supports this policy. In July, she stated, ‘‘No timber,

no structure, no piece of equipment is worth taking an unnecessary risk and jeopardizing safety. Eventually, they can all be replaced—human lives cannot,’’ and in

August she said, ‘‘no emergency response is to be delayed or obstructed because of

Endangered Species Act considerations.’’

ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

The National Fire Plan directs the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior

to carry out the following activities:

• Continue to make all necessary firefighting resources available

• Restore landscapes and rebuild communities

• Invest in projects to reduce fire risk

• Work directly with communities

• Be accountable

It is premature to give you final statistics on the fire season at this time, but we

do have accomplishments to date on many key points of the National Fire Plan. As

outlined by the following summary of accomplishments, we have made significant

progress on all fronts.

CONTINUE TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY FIREFIGHTING RESOURCES AVAILABLE

Preparedness. Due to the additional resources provided by Congress in FY 2001,

we are better prepared to fight fires this year than ever before. This funding increased our ability to hire additional firefighters and purchase necessary equipment.

As a result, we are better able to respond to initial attack incidents efficiently, effectively and safely. Because of the time lag between ordering and delivery of much

of the specialized firefighting equipment, it will take up to one year to realize the

full potential from this funding increase.

18

Hiring. The Department has made hiring a top priority. In April 2001, Secretary

Norton recorded firefighter recruitment public service announcements (PSAs), which

were distributed to 5,000 radio stations nationwide. This markedly increased interest in our firefighter program. As of September 17, 2001, the Department has hired

approximately 85 percent of a total of 8,103 fire personnel (6,865, with additional

efforts ongoing). This number is approximately 1,900 more than last year. Of this

increase, approximately 1,400 are frontline firefighters.

One important component of hiring was the conversion of a large number of positions from temporary to career status. This provides the Department with additional

supervisory capabilities on large fires. The effort continues to be a work-in-progress

and will not be completed until next year. When finished, it will significantly increase large fire suppression capabilities, and further improve our initial attack capabilities.

National Fire Plan Human Resources Advisory Group. The Department has chartered a Resources Advisory Group of senior human resources and fire management

professionals from each of the four management bureaus. The Forest Service has

assigned representatives and will be coordinating activities with the Department.

The Group is tasked with promoting collaborative recruitment and retention initiatives to assure success in meeting the goals of the National Fire Plan, including development of a detailed staffing plan for the 2002 fire season and a cohesive strategy for the long-term recruitment, development and retention of fire management

and restoration personnel.

Purchase of additional fire equipment and contracting for additional aircraft. Virtually all of an additional 110 pieces of equipment have either been purchased or

ordered. All or most of the contracts for an additional 24 aircraft, including helicopters, single and multi-engine airtankers, large air transport, air attack and

smokejumper (jumpships) aircraft have been processed.

Re-evaluatinig normal year readiness. The Department and the Forest Service are

reviewing the budget planning models used to calculate the level of normal year

readiness resources, such as equipment and personnel, to conduct fire management

operations. This review is being led by the Colorado State Forester, assisted by a

team of Federal and State fire and resource management specialists and university

scientists. This team will recommend the steps necessary to develop a single Federal

fire budget model, the adjustments necessary to meet 2001 Wildland Fire Policy and

National Fire Plan direction, and the best mechanisms to implement the proposed

changes.

Agreements with Australia and New Zealand for firefighting support. The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have signed agreements with three Australian

states and with New Zealand to formalize the exchange of fire suppression assistance. Both Australia and New Zealand assisted the Departments last year during

one of the worst fire seasons in 50 years. This could provide up to 200 additional

supervisory firefighters as the fire season warrants.

Some examples of successes:

Interagency training and experience proves invaluable on Green Knoll Fire

Interagency training and experience, and additional resources provided by the National Fire Plan proved invaluable to fighting the Green Knoll Fire on the BridgerTeton National Forest in late July, 2001. With isolated homes and subdivisions

threatened, Federal and county firefighters organized structural protection in a coordinated manner. Previously established agreements between Grand Teton National Park and the Bridger-Teton National Forest provided for critical public communication, which included community-based meetings, proactive media outreach,

the Interagency Fire Information Center located in Jackson, and what came to be

a nationally acclaimed website, www.tetonfires.com.

The 4,470-acre Green Knoll Fire profoundly demonstrated the need for expanding

partnerships among agencies charged with wildland fire management. As an integral part of the National Fire Plan, these partnerships often expand beyond the

scope of basic emergency response. Although the recent financial boost from the National Fire Plan assisted fire personnel by providing necessary funds to meet the

challenge of a drought-driven fire season, the success story associated with this

high-profile fire stems from more than just additional funds. What worked was

teamwork at all levels and clarity of roles and responsibilities. Professionalism, preparedness and leadership played a key role.

Prior to the fire season, the Teton partnership provided for a three-day training

session called ‘‘All Fire Days’’ that involved Grand Teton National Park, the

Bridger-Teton National Forest, the National Elk Refuge, and the Jackson/Teton and

Lincoln County Fire Departments. Firefighters drilled for three consecutive days,

switching roles, cross-training with each other’s equipment, learning new skills and

19

getting to know each other. All agencies formed a working relationship with the

State of Wyoming to complete fuels reduction projects for at-risk forested communities. Park and forest programs fund a fuels management crew that mechanically

reduces vegetation near developed areas. Additionally, both Federal agencies partner with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and non-profit agencies to plan,

fund and implement prescribed burns that benefit wildlife habitat and provide defensible space in wildland-urban interface communities.

RESTORE DAMAGED LANDSCAPES AND REBUILD COMMUNITIES

Burned Area Rehabilitation. The Department of the Interior targeted approximately 1.4 million acres that were severely damaged from last year’s fires. We have

completed in excess of 1.1 million acres of this rehabilitation work, and additional

work is continuing. Much of this work involved multi-year projects, with immediate

site stabilization followed by restoration of native vegetation. Successful restoration,

especially on public rangelands devastated by the annual weeds and wildland-fire

cycle, is critical to the long-term health of these ecosystems and an eventual return

to a more natural fire regime and reduction of catastrophic blazes. The Department

recently revised its Manual on Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation. To implement the manual, a draft handbook was distributed for use during

the 2001 fire season. After this fire season, it will be revised in light of what worked

and what did not.

Native Plant Materials Development Program. To protect areas severely damaged

by wildfire and unlikely to recover naturally, an interagency team of employees from

Departments of the Interior and Agriculture has been formed to develop a long-term

strategy to supply native plant materials to meet this need. This team is developing

a strategy to increase the supply of native seed, with the help of our non-Federal

partners.

Some examples of successes:

Emergency Fire Rehabilitation, Mesa Verde National Park

The Bircher Fire burned 22,409 acres of public land in the fire season of 2000,

including acres administered by National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. The Pony Fire burned an additional 5300

acres on lands administered by the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation and National

Park Service. An interagency burned area rehabilitation team prepared a rehabilitation plan to mitigate impacts on lands managed by all three entities. The plan recommended mitigation for endangered species habitat, repair of fence lines, repair

of water filtration systems, replacement of burned structures, and an evaluation of

fire damage and watershed threats to known cultural resources which date to as

early as 500 AD and number well over 1500 sites.

The National Park Service’s Burned Area Rehabilitation Implementation Team is

directing work for the Federal agencies and the Tribe. The team is working to document fire damage to cultural sites across agency boundaries, as well as providing

emergency treatments to sites that have imminent damage from exposure or erosion. All of the stabilization and rehabilitation work has been contracted out to a

Native American business which employs Native American field crews. Coordination

and implementation of burned area rehabilitation (BAR) actions such as this across

all boundaries is much easier and more efficient because all five bureaus (USDA FS,

BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA) have agreed to common BAR policies and implementation

procedures under the National Fire Plan.

BLM Emergency Fire Rehabilitation of the Jackson Fire in Oregon

The Jackson fire of July 2000, burned a total of 79,875 acres, including 49,516

acres of public lands between Vale, Ontario and Farewell Bend, Oregon in the

Malheur Resource Area of the Vale District of BLM. BLM seeded approximately

22,000 acres in the burn area, approximately 12,000 acres with a native seed mix.

Included within this total area was 300 acres of unfenced private land, a potentialseed source of invasive annual and weed species for adjacent public lands. This private acreage was seeded to prevent the spread of invasive species and weeds on adjacent public lands. Cooperative agreements were used to seed these private lands

in order to protect public land resource values in accordance with the Wyden

Amendment of the FY 1999 Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, (Public Law 105-277).

INVEST IN PROJECTS TO REDUCE FIRE RISK

Hazardous fuels treatments. For Fiscal Year 2001, the Department planned to

treat hazardous fuels on an estimated 1.4 million acres. Much of this was to be acVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
20

complished through the use of prescribed fire. The Department will not achieve this

acreage due to drought conditions in the Southeast, Pacific Northwest, Northern

Great Basin, and Northern Rockies. As of September 17, 2001, we have treated

618,428 acres. Secretary Norton issued a memorandum to bureau directors in May,

2001 to ensure that coordinated, efficient and effective fuels treatment occurs on all

Interior lands. This memo established a fuels management team to provide guidance

for fuels treatment project selection and to coordinate with the Forest Service and

State agencies.

Transfer of funds for environmental consultations. In addition to the allocation of

project funds to appropriate field units, funds were transferred to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to hire personnel to facilitate threatened and endangered species consultations. The FWS and

NMFS have added staff to accommodate the increased workload, and are working

cooperatively with the land management bureaus to plan projects for FY02 and beyond. This will expedite FY 2002 and 2003 clearances for fuels treatment projects

designed to reduce risks to communities and priority watersheds.

• Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) interagency collaborative working groups. The

Department has worked with the Forest Service, Tribes, the National Association of State Foresters, the Western Governors’ Association, and other State organizations to establish locally led interagency teams that will prioritize hazardous fuels treatment projects in the wildland urban interface. Instructional

memoranda have been provided to these groups to help them select projects for

treatment. This process will guide implementation of the national fuels reduction program in the WUI for FY 2002 and provide a preliminary project list for

FY 2003. As a result of this collaborative stakeholders effort, the Department

has proposed approximately 700 on-the-ground WUI projects for FY 2002 and

is beginning to move towards implementing them. A majority of the proposed

projects are located in the west, in States such as Oregon, California, Idaho,

Colorado, Washington, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, and Wyoming.

However, projects will be performed in other States with significant hazardous

fuels problems, such as Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. In addition to on-the-ground projects, we will fund approximately 300 risk assessments

and subsequent project plans to enable communities to develop on-the-ground

WUI projects for FY 2003 and FY 2004.

Some examples of successes:

BIA fuels reduction project prevents fire from spreading

The Round Valley Indian Tribe’s fuels treatment project near Riverside, California, proved to be instrumental in stopping the recent Medicine Fire. The fire spread

rapidly uphill consuming approximately 70 acres until State and local firefighters

stopped the blaze on the Perry Ridge Fuelbreak, recently constructed with funds

provided by the National Fire Plan. Without the fuelbreak, the fire could have

spread to over a thousand acres, consuming valuable timber and watershed resources, and threatening the Tribe’s reservation and other nearby communities.

BLM prescribed fire in Arizona restores watershed health

In late June 2001, the BLM Phoenix Field Office improved watershed health by

completing a 6,000 acre prescribed fire on the Agua Fria National Monument. The

prescribed burn reduced fuels buildup, improved the quality of grasses for wildlife,

and reduced the number of non-native plant species. The Phoenix Field Office

worked with the Tonto and Prescott National Forests, the Arizona State Land Department, Black Canyon City Fire Department, and the Arizona Department of

Transportation to make this prescribed fire a success. During the prescribed fire,

resource specialists and fire managers had the opportunity to interact with the public, explain the purpose of the prescribed burn, and provide daily updates. They discussed strategy, safety concerns, progress and potential benefits. Long-term monitoring of the area will provide resource specialists and fire managers with information to help with future prescribed burn planning.

WUI fuels reduction program in Stehekin, Washington

The National Park Service conducted a hazardous fuels reduction project around

the community of Stehekin, Washington, located within the North Cascades National Park. Two fires, the Rex Creek Fire Complex (43,000 acres) and the Glory

Mountain Fire (948 acres) burned this year within a few miles from Stehekin. The

hazardous fuels reduction work made it easier to protect the community and focus

personnel and equipment on stopping the wildfires. In one day alone, the Rex Creek

Fire advanced nearly 9 miles. This extreme fire behavior captured the attention of

community members, and strengthened their resolve to help the National Park

21

Service move forward with its continued defensible space and forest fuel reduction

programs.

Spruce thinning project to protect Tanacross, Alaska from wildfire

Thinning of spruce stands to reduce the threat from wildfire has begun around

the village of Tanacross, 190 miles southeast of Fairbanks. The project is a cooperative effort by BLM, the Village of Tanacross, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Alaska

Division of Forestry, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The idea for the hazardous

fuels project came from the village, which contacted the Tanana Chiefs Conference

(TCC), and TCC arranged for the project with BLM. The project will leave a defensible space for fire suppression forces to protect the village if a wildfire occurs.

WUI Projects Funded in Marin County, California

Approximately $350,000 in Federal funds has been allocated for fourteen fire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction projects being performed this year in communities surrounding Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area in Marin County, California. Local fire agency project managers, working

through Fire Safe Marin, a non-profit organization, and the National Park Service,

are completing the hazardous fuels reduction projects and are hiring local contractors and youth conservation crews. Examples of projects are the City of SausalitoShaded Fuel Break, a seven mile interface between the City of Sausalito and Golden

Gate NRA; the reduction of hazardous fuels between Inverness and Point Reyes National Seashore; and the hazardous fuel reduction project in Homestead Valley near

Golden Gate NRA. The long-term goal of the community partnership is to develop

a systematic and strategic approach to fuels reduction and fire prevention that is

supported broadly by the public.

WORK DIRECTLY WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Contracting with local businesses and organizations. In January 2001, the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service developed policy guidance to implement

a streamlined approach to awarding contracts to local businesses and organizations

for hazardous fuels treatment projects and landscape restoration. This policy is

being implemented on an interagency basis in each of the 11 Geographic Areas currently used for firefighting coordination across the country. In each Geographic

Area, one of the Federal agencies has taken the lead for contracting. In some cases,

the geographic area has been subdivided and agency leadership designated to facilitate work. The policy requires an organized approach for community outreach and

coordination to locate and develop firms with which we can contract and assist communities developing local fuels reduction and restoration capability. As of September 2001, the Department has awarded 358 contracts worth $18.6 million for National Fire Plan activities, including hazardous fuels treatments and rehabilitation

and restoration work.

Improving local fire protection capabilities through financial and technical assistance to State local, and volunteer firefighting efforts.

Rural Fire Assistance. In 2001, Congress established a new $10 million Rural Fire

Assistance program. The Department developed policy to guide implementation of

this pilot program. The program is providing rural fire departments with needed assistance in training, equipment purchase, and prevention activities to increase firefighter safety, enhance fire protection capabilities, enhance protection in the

wildland urban interface, and increase the coordination among local, State, Tribal,

and Federal firefighting resources. The Department estimated that approximately

820 of the 3,223 rural/volunteer fire departments adjacent to Interior lands and

within the wildland urban interface would receive funds and benefit from the pilot

program this fiscal year. As of August 30, 2001, 1,386 awards have been given to

rural and volunteer fire departments, totaling approximately $7.5 million. We expect to finish obligating all funds by the end of the fiscal year.

Expanding outreach and education to homeowners and communities about fire

prevention through use of programs such as FIREWISE.

The FIREWISE program, developed by the National Wildfire Coordination Group

in 1986, provides information to homeowners, county officials, building contractors,

firefighters and others about practices that can lessen the risk of wildfires to communities. Through the National Fire Plan, $5,000,000 is targeted in FY 2001-03 for

development and delivery of a series of national FIREWISE workshops. Participants

at the State-level workshops might include representatives from the construction industry, homeowners associations, insurance industries, local governments, and rural

fire departments. The workshops are presented as a ‘‘Training-of-Trainers’’ experience, with the expectation that participants will return to their host organizations

or communities and, in turn, conduct similar workshops at the local level. The SecVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
22

retaries of Agriculture and the Interior will soon record interagency public service

announcements to increase awareness of the FIREWISE program.

Some examples of successes

Hagerman Fire Department helps protect Fish and Wildlife Hatchery

On September 7, 2001, a wildland fire burned around the Hagerman National

Fish Hatchery, near Twin Falls, Idaho. Four houses were directly threatened by the

rapidly spreading, winddriven fire. Fire engines from the Hagerman, Bliss, Bulh,

and Wendell Rural Fire Departments (RFD) assisted with fire suppression efforts.

The Hagerman and Bliss RFDs provided structure protection for the hatchery residences. This response was enhanced by equipment purchased this year as a result

of a Rural Fire Assistance award given to the Hagerman RFD by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Interagency distribution of Rural Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance funds

The Oregon/Washington BLM Branch of Fire and Aviation Management, and the

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, Directorate of Fire and Aviation Management, have been officially integrated at the State Office and Regional Office level

since 1995. The National Fire Plan is implemented seamlessly between the two

agencies. The interagency office works with all of its State, local and Federal partners in all aspects of fire management. BLM and the Forest Service were able to

use this close working relationship to combine Rural Fire Assistance awards, and

awards from the Forest Service’s Volunteer Fire Assistance program. This provided

RFDs with a ‘‘one-stop shopping’’ experience and allowed all involved agencies to

conserve resources in reaching out to the RFDs. In some cases, a very modest award

made all the difference to a struggling RFD. One small RFD had two old wildland

fire engines with tires so worn, they were not sure they could safely make it to a

fire. They asked simply for enough money for 10 new tires. Another small RFD

needed a new tank for its wildland fire engine—their existing tank was so rusted

it could no longer hold a weld, and could not be repaired. The agencies’ grant money

allowed the RFD to install a new tank on their old truck.

The Hulls Gulch Environmental Education/Wildland-Urban Interface Project,

Boise, Idaho

After the severe fire season of 2000, the McCord site, a 20-acre property acquired

by the City of Boise, was used to develop a public model home that emphasized

wildland fuels management, fire ecology, and firesafe building and property protection in a wildland fire environment. BLM’s Idaho State Office, the City of Boise, Ada

County, Ridge to Rivers Council, Boise Parks and Recreation and the Treasure Valley Fire Prevention Co-op are working together on this project to provide funds, expertise, and labor. When completed, the facility will provide indoor and outdoor

classroom and meeting space to educate audiences ranging from school children to

neighborhood associations and other community groups. The project provides an excellent chance to create interagency, community, and business partnerships. The location of this project is important—in August 1996, more than 15,000 acres across

the Boise Front burned. Hundreds of homes in the wildland-urban interface were

threatened including an inholding surrounded by Boise City’s Hulls Gulch Preserve.

The project is expected to be completed sometime in 2003.

Increasing employment and contracting opportunities in Idaho

The Department, the Forest Service, and the State of Idaho are working together

to increase opportunities for local contracting and recruiting in support of the National Fire Plan, particularly for unemployed natural resource workers, including

ranchers, farmers, loggers, and forest product workers. A joint memorandum has

been signed among all parties to formalize this arrangement.

Increasing employment and contracting opportunities in Oregon

The BLM Klamath Falls Office, OR, has started a 3,000 acre wildland urban

interface fuels reduction project that includes tree thinning, brush removal, and

slash piling in and around Bly Mountain. The project is providing temporary jobs

for up to 80 displaced farm workers in the drought-devastated Klamath Basin. The

BLM has hired four contractors who have begun recruiting workers in the local

area. The Oregon Department of Forestry and local elected officials are assisting the

BLM in planning, support, and community relations.

23

BE ACCOUNTABLE

Interagency coordination. The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior are in

the process of formalizing a charter to establish an Interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Forum, which will provide executive oversight and ensure policy coordination,

accountability, and effective implementation of the National Wildland Fire Policy,

the National Fire Plan, and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. These efforts will

be accomplished through developing common interagency performance measures,

common data elements and common reporting systems. The Forum will ensure coordinated and consistent direction, oversight and monitoring of performance.

Monitoring of implementation. The Department is monitoring fire, management

programs. The pilot Rural Fire Assistance program will be evaluated at the end of

this fiscal year to determine operational issues, administration and consistent collaboration with stakeholders. Both the Forest Service and the Department will assess the extent to which wildland fire agencies have collaborated to implement the

contracting and agreement authorities in Title IV of the FY 2001 Department of the

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act in a seamless fashion. The Council

on Environmental Quality has made several site visits to determine how the environmental review process occurs (NEPA/ESA consultation) on hazardous fuels treatment projects. The lessons learned from all of these evaluations will be widely

shared within the agencies. In addition, we have taken other steps to be more accountable:

Some examples successes:

10-Year Comprehensive Strategy

Developed by the Department and the Forest Service in partnership with the

Western Governors’ Association (WGA), this strategy is a template for how the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior will collaborate at the National, State,

and local level to implement the National Fire Plan. The Secretaries of Agriculture

and the Interior formalized the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy on August 13, 2001

at the WGA annual meeting in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. There are four goals of the

10-Year Strategy: to improve prevention and suppression; reduce hazardous fuels;

restore fire adapted ecosystems; and promote community assistance. Each of the

goals include a set of guiding principles for successful implementation and a set of

action items. The Strategy recognizes that key decisions in developing fuels management and ecosystem restoration projects should be made at the local level. The

Strategy identifies a set of core principles that provide common direction for meeting the goals of the Strategy. These core principles are collaboration at all levels,

immediate protection of communities and high priority watersheds with long term

emphasis on maintaining and restoring ecosystems on a landscape scale, and establishing uniform measures, standards, and reporting processes.

An implementation plan will be developed by May, 2002 to provide consistent and

standard direction to implement the common purposes articulated in the Strategy

and the National Fire Plan. The implementation plan will include consistent national performance goals and measures, priorities, tracking and reporting processes

and operational ways of doing business.

Development of a National Fire Plan Data Reporting System. A contract was

awarded for development of an automated database to collect data in order to track

progress in meeting the goals set out in the National Fire Plan, related documents,

and associated performance measures. The target is to have a pilot system operational and capable of reporting by the end of this calendar year. We have coordinated this effort with the Forest Service, and are using the same software and data

structure that the Forest Service uses in their data reporting system. The two systems will be compatible, and the intent is that we will be able to produce joint reports on National Fire Plan accomplishments.

National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Report

The Department has commissioned a report by NAPA, which will concentrate on

six areas from the 2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy:

• Management accountability

• Interagency coordination

• Intergovernmental coordination

• Improving risk management

• Workforce management

• Institutionalizing lessons learned

24

NAPA expects to complete the report by mid-December, 2001. Results of this

study, along with internal reviews, will be used to review oversight and coordination

mechanisms of the National Fire Plan and to assure that an effective strategy is

in place to institutionalize the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Policy.

Joint Department and Forest Service Cohesive Strategy

The Department is working with the Forest Service to develop one cohesive strategy to provide both agencies with a framework for reducing the risk and consequences of unwanted wildland fire by protecting, maintaining, and restoring land

health and desired fire cycles.

Interagency National Fire Plan website. The Department the Forest Service, with

feedback from the National Association of State Foresters, developed a joint National Fire Plan interagency website (www.fireplan.gov). The goals for the website

are to:

• Provide an interagency information clearing house

• Provide one place for the public to get information on a variety of topics

• Provide mechanisms for public involvement in implementing the National Fire

Plan

• Demonstrate that Federal and State wildland fire agencies are taking a cohesive and carefully planned approach to implementing the 2001 appropriation

CONCLUSION

I appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing. We believe that we have

made good progress in reversing the trend of deteriorating health for our forest and

rangeland ecosystems. We view the National Fire Plan as an investment that will

help protect communities and natural resources, and most importantly, the lives of

firefighters and the public.

The Department has made real gains in working with all of its partners to implement the National Fire Plan, but it has required a shift in the way we have traditionally conducted business, and a shift in the way we implement nearly every fire

management program. Just as we need time to acquire all the new, specialized fire

equipment, we will need time to continue to make fire management seamless across

the Federal, Tribal, State and local agencies, so that we may better protect lives and

resources, and restore ecosystems to a functioning condition. We are encouraged by

the signs that the National Fire Plan has made a tangible improvement in the fire

management program this year, and look forward to your continued support as we

continue to implement the National Fire Plan.

Thank you, again. I will be happy to answer any questions from the committee.

Senator WYDEN. Gentlemen, thank you, and Senator Cantwell

has joined us. She has been out on the ground in rural Washington

listening to folks, and we are very pleased that she is with us, and

Senator, if you would like to make any opening comments before

we go to questions, you are certainly welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WASHINGTON

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I

will submit a longer statement for the record, but thank you for

giving me this opportunity. I obviously have read quickly some of

the testimony that has been made thus far, both as it relates to

interagency training and experiences that were done at the Green

Knoll fire, and, obviously, the fuels reduction program in Stahican,

Washington, so thank you for including that in the information.

Obviously, I was very pleased to see the efforts this summer

come together on the focus of the national fire plan and how we

need to give more attention to it. Obviously, we have been devastated in Central Washington with the deaths of several young

firefighters, and we are awaiting tomorrow the actual results of

what has been an internal report on the 30-mile fire, so I am hoping that with the results of that investigation in hand we can come

25

back and address the specifics of what improvements need to be

made in the system.

I am assuming that information is not being released today, and

is not something that is available to us, but, nonetheless, we need

to address this issue in the context of the national fire plan, and

I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions as we get back to that

process, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for holding this oversight hearing on the National

Fire Plan. The issue of how to ensure that our firefighters have sufficient resources

to fight catastrophic wildfires, as well as efforts to reduce the risk and rehabilitate

areas damaged by these fires are of particular importance to those of us from the

West, where we have seen tremendous devastation over the past two summers.

The National Fire Plan was cobbled together in response to the prevalent

wildfires of 2000, when almost 7 million acres of Western lands went up in flames.

Despite severe drought conditions throughout the West this summer, fewer acres—

about 3 million—have burned. For those of us from Washington state, however, the

toll has—in human terms—been far more devastating. Four young Central Washington firefighters lost their lives July 10, fighting a blaze in the Wenatchee National Forest. I would again like to extend my deepest sympathies to the families

of those four brave young men and women, who gave their lives to protect their

neighbors in the Thirty Mile Fire.

It is thus with heavy hearts that we from Washington await the Forest Service’s

release tomorrow of the results of its Thirty Mile Fire investigation, as well as another report on the incident from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), due later this fall. I believe the lessons that can be learned from this

tragedy deserve the Subcommittee’s attention, and I look forward to working with

you, Chairman Wyden, on a separate hearing on the Thirty Mile Fire, the Forest

Service’s report and recommendations.

Without the results of this investigation in hand, we cannot today address the

specific circumstances that led those four young men and women to lose their lives

in Okanogan County, Washington. However, I am committed to working with the

Forest Service, Department of Interior and this Committee to ensure that when we

send our young firefighters into harm’s way, they are equipped with all of the resources and training necessary to make their jobs as safe as possible. It is unfortunate indeed that the Thirty Mile Fire is not the only incident of its kind to have

occurred in the last decade. I understand that certain similarities may exist between

this tragedy, and the Storm King Fire that took the lives of 14 in Colorado in 1994.

I believe it is the job of this Committee to assess how the federal agencies’ practices

have changed in response to that fire, how policy changes designed to protect firefighters and communities are being implemented under the National Fire Plan, and

what further safeguards or resources may be needed.

In addition to making certain our firefighters are well equipped in the face of raging wildfires, how the Forest Service implements its policies for the reduction of

hazardous fuels in high-risk, fire prone areas is another topic of paramount importance for this Subcommittee. I look forward to learning precisely how the Forest

Service prioritizes areas it will address in implementing its hazardous fuel reduction

strategy—whether through predictive modeling techniques or otherwise—and how

the agency is complying with Congressional direction that it target Wildlife/Urban

Interface Zones for treatment. This is particularly true given that Washington state

had, as of August 8, more than 185 at risk communities—including towns as diverse

as Olympia, Pasco, Port Angeles, and Walla Walla. I am curious as to what kind

of progress Interior and the Forest Service have made on their respective goals of

treating 300,000 and 500,000 acres of land within these zones nation-wide during

2001.

As for how to go about this hazardous fuel reduction, I believe that the techniques

the Forest Service employs in choosing which treatment methods it will use to prevent fires—whether prescribed burning, thinning, or a combination of both—is crucial in determining the effort’s success. One of the most important factors in determining these measures’ effectiveness appears to be the type of forest under treatment. What works for the West’s dry, Ponderosa Pines, which occur at low elevations, may in fact be either ineffective or harmful for our wetter forests that exist

at higher elevations. I am convinced that it is through a combination of treatment

26

methods—tailored to specific forest types—that we are likely to be most successful

at preventing catastrophic wildfires. I thus believe it’s critical that federal agencies

have at their disposal diagnostic tools to classify these land types, sound policies for

selecting treatment methods and techniques for assessing these measures’ effectiveness.

Again, thank you Chairman Wyden for holding this hearing on a topic of such

critical importance to Washington state communities, some of which have sustained

tremendous losses—in both financial and human terms—from the wildfires that

have swept my state for the past two summers. I look forward to working with you

and other members of this Committee on crafting fire policies that will protect our

citizens, communities, firefighters and public lands, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses here today.

Senator WYDEN. We will work very closely with you, Senator

Cantwell, and especially as we get that report. Given that tragedy,

it is especially important that we move quickly, and we will work

with you to do it.

Gentlemen, let me begin by asking some questions about the

budget. Both of your agencies have repeatedly stated that last

year’s funding levels for the national fire plan need to be sustained

for at least 15 years. Nevertheless, the President’s budget request

significantly reduces funding for several components of the national

fire plan.

For example, one area that has concerned me is the President’s

request would essentially eliminate rehabilitation and restoration

funding for burned-over areas. It obviously takes years to replant

and care for native vegetation following fires, and funding for immediate stabilization is needed following more recent fires. Isn’t

some money needed for rehabilitation and restoration funding?

Mr. Laverty.

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Chairman, the answer is certainly yes, and as

the budget was put together I believe that part of the thought that

went into that was that those funds that were available in 2001

were for the treatment of the 2000 burned acres, so there was probably some discussion or some thought process, I guess, if I could

understand it, that felt that that had been taken care of and we

were now moving into an area that we did not have any burned

acres, so as we look at the work that still needs to be done, I think

the House has recognized that there is some level of funding in

that, the refunding and restoration that we do, in fact, need for

2002 to complete some of the burned area work for 2000.

Senator WYDEN. Last year, Congress appropriated $34 million for

the Forest Service community and private land fire assistance program. The President’s budget request zeroed this out for next year.

These funds, of course, are targeted to communities to help them

rebuild from past fires and obviously to prevent new ones.

Last year, the communities were so interested in the program

that they submitted requests for assistance that were wildly in excess of available funding. My question is, why would you all zero

out a program of community assistance that is so very popular with

folks on the ground at the local level?

Mr. LAVERTY. I believe the thought or the logic behind that was

that $34 million of those funds were to provide for the restoration

of those severely burned areas of the communities that were impacted by the fires of 2000, and again, looking back, that those

were for those acres and those impacts, so that is the only explanation I can provide for you.

27

Senator WYDEN. Well, listen, you all are getting your footing. I

have spoken about it, Senator Bingaman has spoken about it. Suffice it to say, I have heard Senator Craig say things on these budget issues that reflect my concerns as well. We want to work with

you on a bipartisan basis.

The Congress gets a request from the President of the United

States, and we have got to follow it up, but we need you all to more

vigorously make the case in order to get these funds. You have got

three westerners here who have really watched the ravages this

summer, and we need you all out there making the case, rather

than looking at these budgets that are zeroing out or underfunding

dramatically some of the most important programs for the West.

Tell me, if you would, how many jobs have been created in your

judgment by the national fire plan thus far?

Mr. LAVERTY. Tim and I have mentioned that we have done some

hiring and recruiting just on the agency side. We have close to

4,000 or 5,000 firefighters that we have picked up. At this point in

time, we cannot tell you how many people we have actually employed as a result of some of the contracting.

Tim talked about some of the 300-plus contracts that Interior has

let go. On the Forest Service side we have well over 500 contracts

that result in about $54 million of work that is going out there.

Our contracting folks right now are working on the assessment of

trying to determine so we can actually report to you how many people have been employed as a result of those contracts, and I think

we are going to have that information probably within the next

several weeks or so.

Senator WYDEN. Okay, if you could get that to the subcommittee

that would be very important.

As part of that, we are particularly concerned about creating

rural jobs. As you know, the Congress last year responded to the

concerns that we are hearing all over the rural West, that you appropriate money, that funds go for these various programs, and

somehow they do not get out there to local businesses, they do not

relate to local employers and contracts.

How, thus far, have you been using that change in the law to create more economic opportunities for folks in the rural West?

Mr. LAVERTY. I think as we look at the list of contracts that we

have awarded just on the Forest Service side, many of these contracts are awarded in these communities that would reflect that

rural environment. I was just looking at Oregon and Washington,

and every one of these are rural-based communities where these

contracts have been awarded. Just in the Pacific Northwest, in

those two States, there is well over $7 million, almost $7.5 million

of contracting. It is Josephine County, Union County, well all of

these basically rural counties where these funds have been actually

targeted and awarded.

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t you, in getting us the answer with respect to how many jobs have been created by the national fire plan,

do a specific breakout for us with respect to how many jobs have

been created in rural areas so that we can explain to our constituents—Senator Craig and Senator Cantwell—and when we fought

for that local preference it really did translate to something that

was important in rural counties.

28

I am going to ask you some more questions in a few minutes, but

I want to recognize my colleagues, and let us begin with Senator

Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Tim, you talked about

the number of acres you treated in BLM. You achieved a little

more than 50 percent of your stated goal. You suggest that the inability to meet all of your goal was in part a weather-related

drought situation. A couple of questions around the 700,000, or the

1.3 million acres of treatment, or proposed treatment. How many

of these acres treated for fuel reduction were considered high risk

forested lands?

Mr. HARTZELL. I do not have that answer for you, and I would

have to get that.

Senator CRAIG. Okay. I wanted that in the context of, let us say,

overgrown juniper, which may not be high risk, but from the standpoint of land management is one big weed in some instances.

Mr. HARTZELL. Senator, you raise an interesting question. That

is a vegetative community in the West that we need to treat. It is

a high fire risk, though, as you know.

Senator CRAIG. Oh, yes.

Mr. HARTZELL. Juniper used to formerly be clustered on the

rocky ridges. It has moved down slope. It has taken over the productive range sites and removed forage for livestock. When you get

a fire in these dense juniper stands it tends to be extremely severe,

eliminates the sage brush, and we get a mono type of annual grass.

So that is a very high risk area that we are concerned about targeting.

Senator CRAIG. Well, in the context of those acres, and if you look

at them in relation to what were considered high risk, while again

you suggested it was primarily an environmental situation from

the standpoint of weather and drought conditions, I would also like

to examine how many of the 1.3 might have been held up by regulation, by process, by appeal, by litigation. If we could examine the

total of that, I think it would give us a better picture of understanding what you are able to do or may not be able to do based

on those conditions.

Mr. HARTZELL. We have heard very little from our field offices in

terms of the number of projects that have been held up by process.

Undoubtedly, this is the case. It is always going to be the case in

certain areas. It does not seem to be a limiting factor. I would say

that the biggest challenge that we face is that three-fourths of our

proposed treatments were or prescribed fire-only treatments. I

think we understand the vagaries of weather and burning conditions and how that can influence your productivity.

We need to have a more balanced program. We need to have a

program that relies on a variety of treatments, particularly in these

areas that are fire-prone, and prone to catastrophic fire. We simply

need to be able to get into the forest. We need to be able to thin

the underbrush. We need to be thinning timber stands so that we

can reintroduce fire, or when wildfire comes in we do not destroy

these sites.

Senator WYDEN. Lyle, let me follow a similar line of questioning

with you. In the last 2 years, approximately 10 million acres of

land were lost to wildfire, billions of board feet of timber lost, and

29

I guess we recognize the phenomenal loss of the valuable public resource. How much of that was salvaged, or plans to be salvaged,

meets that criteria?

Mr. LAVERTY. Senator, I do not have the numbers here. I can get

it for you. We were talking about that just before we came up, trying to pull that information together. We did not have that here.

We can get that for you.

I do know that there are attempts at a number of the areas

around the country to salvage where it is appropriate, based on

those bare plans, some volume. I know in the Bitterroot they are

working hard to move volume out of there. John Twiss on the

Black Hills is working hard to salvage some of that volume that

was burned last year.

So across the country I know that we have efforts underway to

capture where it is appropriate that kind of volume that can be

salvaged. We will get you that specific information.

Senator CRAIG. Because of the fuel loading that we know has

gone on, and both the chairman and I have visited about that, this

committee has looked at that as a relationship to forest health for

a good number of years, many of these fires burn so intently that

there is no opportunity for reburn, if you will, but in some instances there is, where there is not an effort to salvage and/or reshape that landscape in a way that brings back a more productive

stand. Is there not a risk of reburning some of these areas?

Mr. LAVERTY. I believe in some cases there actually is a risk, and

one of the things that we are actually doing with some of the funds

from the fire plan this year is investing in some research that can

help us answer some of these questions from a science basis on

what is the effect of science versus not-salvage, of removing some

of that volume. We have looked at many of the areas up on the Bitterroot. We know that if we do not take some of that volume out,

that is going to end up on the ground, and the net time the fire

comes through we are going to have an added fuel base.

We need to have good answers in terms of how science can help

us do that, and we have got a good approach, I think, to help bring

a good science base for those decisions.

Senator CRAIG. In examining those acreage as it relates to how

we manage burned areas, are you factoring in also a reality of

weeds? You and I and the Forest Service, BLM and others have

been focusing in on that. We have a new legislation passed last

year that moved through this committee. We have a new initiative

out there now to put some dollars and cents to it so that you can

all become partners with States and local weed districts in managing these lands. I mean, we really have in the West 10 million

acres of potentially high risk weed patch if we do not manage it

well. How does that fit into the context of this current analysis?

Mr. LAVERTY. The investment that the Congress has made in the

national fire plan provided some incredible resource to deal with

invasive procedures, I think almost $12 million just on the forest

Service side just to deal with that. Those funds are going very, very

long distance in terms of working with States, counties, and weed

boards on how we can, in fact, be aggressive in dealing with this

war on weeds in the West, and I am convinced that with these

kinds of investments, not just a 1-year, but working on long-term

30

monitoring and aggressive action, that we can, in fact, make a difference, and again I hear testimonies from people across the country on how these investments with counties, county commissioners

are talking about how this has made a difference, so these investments are working well.

Mr. HARTZELL. Senator, if I could, just to follow up on that issue,

I mentioned that we have 1.4 million acres of severely damaged

lands that we plan to treat. We figure that we probably have a

weed problem on at least 600,000 of that 1.4 million. What we are

encouraged by is that the national fire plan increase for the rehab

program for this year will enable us to pretreat those weeds, and

then after we go in and try to restore native plants, follow up with

a post weed treatment, so we are very encouraged.

Senator WYDEN. Gentlemen, let me ask you a question, and I appreciate my colleague letting me do it, because I think my colleague is asking about a point that needs to be clarified. This fighting the weeds is an extraordinarily important natural resources

initiative in the West, and I want to make sure I understand it.

Are you using fire plan money and county payment bill money?

As you know, we are very proud around here of the county payments bill. You all called it the most important Forest Service initiative for 30 years. We are plenty proud of it, but I want to make

sure I understand where this money is coming from. Is this county

payments money, or national fire plan money, or possibly after October 1 this year it is going to be both, but why don’t you explain

to us where this money is coming from.

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Chairman, the funds that I mentioned, the $12

million, those were national fire plan fund moneys that were targeted for invasive species, so any additional fund that the counties

would elect to put into that really is—— Senator WYDEN. But thus far this is just fire plan money?

Mr. LAVERTY. Fire plan funds, yes, sir.

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague.

Senator CRAIG. Good question. Thank you.

Lyle, you referred to cost per acre in fire suppression this year going as high as $1,000, $1,200 an acre on the average from 2000— well, on the average from 1993 through 2000. We looked at about

$101 to $102 an acre, but the year 2000—let us see. Last year, I guess this year it has jumped to $337 an acre in the past fiscal

year. Given the fact that your agency has a $200 million shortfall

that will need to be covered for the fiscal 2001 fire season, can you

tell us in part—you have talked about the urban interface and we

have all recognized that, and the fire plan speaks to that.

Certainly, from 1993 to 2001 a phenomenal number of America’s

trophy homes have been built in that urban interface. Is that the

dominant cause of that increase, on the average, or are there other

factors involved?

Mr. LAVERTY. I believe there is a number of other factors.

Senator CRAIG. Because that is a tripling of cost on the whole.

Mr. LAVERTY. That is a tripling of cost, and part of—I have spent

some time this morning trying to get a good answer for you in

terms of what is going on. There are a number of factors. One of

them is the fact that as we look at last year’s cost, cost per acre,

that was spread out over about 7, almost 8 million acres. This year,

31

the cost has spread over about 3 million acres. We have added

some additional aircraft as a result of the investment in the fire

plan this year which has really increased significantly the suppression cost.

Senator CRAIG. And they are expensed out in 1 year?

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes. These are actual operations, suppression of

cost, yes. These are the suppression of costs, so those factors, and

as we talked about increase fuel for these aircraft the folks are telling me that is another factor that is increasing these costs.

We are going to look hard—and I shared with Frank earlier that

we are going to give you good analysis of that breakdown. It is a

significant problem for us, because as you pointed out last year we

had $425 million that the Congress provided in 2001 for those contingency. $275 million of that went to restore the cost suppression

deficit from the 2000 fire season, so that is one of the factors that

is leading us now to coming back again to looking at how do we

offset that loss.

Senator CRAIG. One last question, Mr. Chairman, and prior to

that question I will only make this passing comment. As these

costs per acre go up to suppress fire it looks like forest health and

fuel reduction and the opportunity to make some small amount of

revenue off of that might be a rather more cost-effective way of approaching this, along with an environmentally positive approach,

and out of it we might find some resource and some job base. I

think we have to look at all of those.

Lyle, a question of you. Tim, a question of you. Would you tell

us, the committee, what are the three things that impede you now,

or your agency’s ability to treat the number of acres that are at

risk in catastrophic fire? If you had a magic wand today, and I

would say in the context of good forest practices, and environmentally sound forest practices, what would that magic wand

produce for you? What would be the three items that it would

produce that would ease your ability to gain access to those endangered acres?

Mr. LAVERTY. Senator, I guess the first one, if I could be magic,

I would create some additional resource specialists to get the

projects planned. That is one of the ramp-ups that we are working

on right now, is to get those people in place to do the planning so

we can be effective in terms of bringing it on.

The other part of it is having to train skills to actually do the

prescribed burning and the treatments from the ground. We are

going for almost a doubling of the program, so we are on a very

aggressive ramp-up to get people in place, and I think probably the

other part is for us to continue to look at how can we refine some

of our planning methods and methodologies. We need to be able to

be more streamlined in terms of using information, and I think as

we continue to bring those pieces together, I think you are going

to see our effectiveness increase significantly as it relates to treating fuels.

Mr. HARTZELL. My number 1 would be increased contracting capacity, both internally and externally. Internally we are ramping

up, we are hiring people, we are approaching contracting in a more

efficient manner, we are sharing contracting skills, we are allowing

32

a bureau to take the leadership for contracting, and are giving the

authority to order against that contract to other bureaus.

So that is one issue, but it is going to take a while to increase

that capacity, but the flip side of that is, there does not appear to

be the contracting capabilities in many small communities throughout the West in particular. If I could wave a wand, I would have

small businesses all over the West come to us and say, we are capable of removing material. We are capable of helping you reduce

the fuels hazard and make the forest healthier.

I think another barrier very clearly is the ability to use the biomass. We have got to figure out ways to connect forest health, the

national fire plan, the national energy policy, in a way where we

can in a rational manner use the material that we need to take off

the hillside. We have simply got to figure out a way to do that.

And lastly, we are just committed to figuring out more and more

ways to work together in a more seamless, efficient manner.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WYDEN. Before I recognize Senator Cantwell, I just want

to tell you, Mr. Laverty, I think the answer you gave to Senator

Craig’s question when you could have had a wish list is very much

along the lines of the philosophy that I think has got to be modern

forestry in this century. That was not an answer that is going to

divide people and polarize people. You basically said, look, I am

going to need some resources in order to create healthy ecosystems.

It is not a whole lot fancier than that, and we are going to have

to work on the nuts and bolts to get it done, but if we can get those

kinds of answers, you are going to give us a chance to change the

debate about forestry for the long term, and that is very welcome.

I am also pleased that my friend and colleague, Senator Smith

is here. With my colleague’s indulgence, I am going to recognize

Senator Cantwell now, because she has been waiting, and then we

will have Senator Smith for any opening statement and any questions if you would like.

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank

you for conducting this hearing, and it is good to see so many of

my colleagues from the Northwest. It makes me ponder whether we

should bring up some Northwest legislation through the National

Parks Subcommittee, maybe BPA borrowing authority.

Mr. Chairman, I would like if I could to ask Mr. Hartzell to dwell

a little bit more on the hazardous fuels treatment section. In your

testimony you talked about the 1.4 million acres and the fact that

that was not achieved, and of concern to Washington State residents is this wildlife and urban interface zones, which cities like

Pascoe, Walla Walla, Port Angeles, even Olympia face the threats

of those, so what have we learned about prioritizing the various

methods for treating hazardous fuels.

Does this data base of acreage actually include prioritization

based on various techniques, and do we have an estimate of how

much of these acres that we have not been able to achieve are in

these wildlife urban zone interfaces?

Mr. HARTZELL. I do not have the acreage with me. I know that

we had roughly 300,000 acres of treatments proposed this fiscal

year in the wildland urban interface, and we have treated roughly

half of that, so we have met half of our commitment.

33

Senator CANTWELL. So you think 300,000 of the 1.4 you think?

Mr. HARTZELL. Of the 1.4, slightly in excess of 300,000 was within the wildland urban interface, that is correct, and we have treated roughly 150,000 of that 300,000, and what we are seeing as a

result of our work with these collaborative local and State groups

is a shift in emphasis of fuels treatment in the wildland urban

interface to more of a mechanical treatment, either chain saws, or

a combination of chain saws and mechanized equipment.

I think that reflects a couple of issues. It reflects a conservative

and appropriate approach around communities where fuel hazards

are great, where the forest is thick and there is the potential for

severe fire, to use mechanical means to do the treatment. It is a

less risky, safer approach around these communities, and I think

you will see our approach to treating fuels around communities reflect a greater reliance on mechanical means starting next fiscal

year and in the immediate outyears.

Senator CANTWELL. So you are saying the 150,000 acres already

designated, you think they will be done by mechanical?

Mr. HARTZELL. I think they still probably reflect a fairly high reliance on prescribed fire, and a combination of mechanical means.

I think it is important that the subcommittee understand the dilemma we faced this fiscal year. We got the big national fire plan

funding increase, and on the Interior side we had very few projects

ready to go. So essentially the projects this fiscal year that we are

funding we took off the shelf. I think you will see a different mix

of types of treatments next fiscal year as we have had time to think

about the appropriate approach and plan the best fuels treatment

strategy.

Senator CANTWELL. What does this acreage represent? I mean,

you think this represents a complete inventory of the wildlife urban

interface, that we have to go back, we think this will triple—what

is your assessment?

Mr. HARTZELL. No. The acreage that we will be treating in fiscal

year 2002 is going to be substantially larger than we treated this

year, and what that reflects is the collective wisdom of the State

and local groups to document and determine where they had the

greatest priorities and the greatest problems within their States.

This year’s program essentially reflects a fuels treatment scheme

that, while it had some outside stakeholder input, by and large reflected the program that was designed by the Federal agencies.

Starting next year you are going to see a program that was designed from the bottom up, local solutions, State solutions, States

and locals identifying where the greatest threat is, where the

greatest problem is to communities, in collaboration with us.

That is why I say, you are going to see a program that in my

opinion is probably a truer reflection of where the problems are

and where the emphasis should be, and reflects a more balanced

approach to treatment, rather than just dependence on prescribed

fire.

Senator CANTWELL. That is why I am bringing this up, because

obviously I think it is great news the level of coordination and consensus-building that is happening from the bottom up. Having the

people at the other end, where the request is for dollars, I am curious as to what you think that that means as far as potential

34

amount of acreage and what kind of dollar increase are we looking

at, given the 2000 level?

Mr. HARTZELL. Well, we know a couple of things from our work

with the States. Number 1, we asked the States to identify communities at risk. As a result of that effort, there were over 22,200

communities across this country that were identified by the States,

at risk from some fuels or wildfire threat.

Over 9,000 of those communities were in the vicinity of Federal

lands administered by Department of Interior agencies and the

Forest Service, and we know that only about 20 percent of those

9,000 communities have as of yet received any kind of fuels treatment to reduce the hazard or are receiving fuels treatment. So we

know from that inventory that the problem is much greater and

the demand is much greater than we have been able to meet.

Senator CANTWELL. So no prediction on what that level of money

would be? Putting this into context, I mean, we have these communities, and we have been impacted both the communities, their

economies, and the tragic loss of life, and what we are trying to explain to our colleagues, the consensus-building that is happened

here, and yet the fiscal side that will have to go hand-in-hand with

this. Maybe my colleagues here do not need to hear that, or understand, although Senator Craig has articulated one concept to help

finance an aspect of that, but I think not leaving the public with

the assumption that there has been a lot of consensus-building, a

lot of goals set, but here again the resources were not there and

so these goals were not met. We want a fire plan that will actually

mean something to the West.

Mr. HARTZELL. Two comments. One, we had far more projects

than we had funding for. Our level of funding in the wildland

urban interface in fiscal year 2002 was essentially level. But, we

had more projects than we could treat, and because of this it is

really important that we work in a collaborative fashion, because

we have to prioritize. We have to simply pick and choose.

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I will look

forward to working with you on that prioritization, and I will yield

my time back.

Senator WYDEN. Those are good points. Senator Smith and I

made these forestry initiatives a big part of our bipartisan agenda

for Oregon, and we welcome you here today.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my

statement be included in the record.

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the National Fire Plan.

I am thankful that this Committee is continuing its vigilant oversight on the issues

of wildfire control and forest health. I also want to thank all those who are here

today to share their perspectives.

Controlling wildfires is based on widespread public values that resound in our

laws. We protect our forests because we value recreation, wildlife habitat, water

supplies, air quality, and the natural resources upon which our country depends.

The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, the National Forest Management Act,

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA),

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act all reflect

35

these values in one form or another. Unfortunately, nature’s impulses do not always

coincide with society’s values.

In 2000, more acres burned in this country than in any year for over a century.

The 2001 fire season has also seen the loss of ten lives, including three employees

of an Oregon-based company. Likewise, more funding was used to combat wildfires

last year than in 1999, 1998 and 1997 combined.

As part of providing this additional funding, Congress directed the Interior and

Agriculture Departments, in cooperation with States and local communities, to develop a plan to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildlfires, to improve our response

to severe wildland fires, reduce their impacts on rural communities, and assure sufficient firefighting capacity in the future. I believe that Congress remains committed

to our National Fire Plan, and to long-term restoration of our forests.

On a personal note, I want to commend the Administration for its responsiveness

to our forests’ needs and to concerns regarding the implementation of the National

Fire Plan. Yesterday, I met with Chairman Connaughton regarding a request I

made that the CEQ oversee the coordination of inter-departmental issues related to

the Fire Plan, such as NEPA compliance and the potential for energy generation

from forest biomass. Chairman Connaughton assured me that restoring forest

health is a priority for the Bush Administration, and I look forward to seeing many

of the bureaucratic barriers to implementation of the Fire Plan eliminated.

I also recognize that the Administration and Congress are not the only actors in

achieving forest health goals. More than ever, the national forests need industry to

achieve ecological goals. Likewise, economically distressed communities need a firm

commitment from the federal government to the dual goals of rural and ecological

sustainability. While the timber industry holds the technology and manpower to

thin and treat our forests, the government holds the gate-keys.

Even with open gates, however, the cost of fuels treatment will require a new

form of cooperation between the federal government, local communities, and the industry. County governments, under the county payments bill enacted last year,

must use a portion of their funds for forest restoration projects.

In addition, many forest products companies have already retooled their mills to

process smaller diameter logs, purchased specialized equipment to selectively harvest smaller trees—from the ground and air—and surveyed the prospects of constructing biomass and co-generation facilities. In a time when mills continue to close

in my state, and timber offered on public lands is virtually non-existent, these actions have been taken in the hope that, at the very least, the government values

living and sustainable forests and healthy riparian areas more than charred wood,

burnt homes and scorched earth.

Again Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to review these issues of importance to our state and to the nation. I hope today will advance and strengthen a

federal forest policy that provides for both healthy forests and healthy rural communities.

Senator SMITH. I will not read it, so as to not break up the flow

of this hearing, but I think this hearing is so important, not just

to our public assets but also to our private assets as well that border one another, and I think it is important to recognize what a

win-win situation exists to help economically distressed rural communities, as well as to improve the environment. I cannot think of

any good that comes to riparian areas from public lands or private

lands consumed by forest fire, and so this is where we ought to

come together and find all kinds of solutions that help people, and

our wildlife as well.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask a couple of questions, one

of which relates to the construction of biomass a cogeneration facilities that wish to use burned and salvaged materials. Have you

had any meetings with the Bonneville Power Administration on

such a thing?

Mr. LAVERTY. I am not aware nationally that we have met with

Bonneville Power. We did meet just 2 weeks ago Monday with the

folks from Oak Ridge, with the interests that have the responsibility on the Department of Energy side for the renewal resource, and

we really have some opportunities right now to move ahead with

36

the elements in the philosophy of the national fire plan that capture some of this material.

We are just in the process right now of using our forest inventory

analysis information to bring together a West-wide assessment, actually a Nation-wide assessment to help us define what is, in fact,

the standing inventory, what does it look like, so we can relate to

the biomass industry.

Here is the situation that exists on Federal lands as well as private lands, that this is the structure, this is the composition, and

then begin to work, okay, what is then feasible to begin to move

ahead.

As part of the funding of the national fire plan, we did fund a

number of projects that were related to biomass, bioenergy pilots.

We got one in California, we have got one, I think, down in Arizona, New Mexico, and then one in South Dakota, so there are a

number of things that are underway, but the important part of it

is to bring that information so that people can make good, reasoned

decisions about what is available and what can we, over time, sustain as it relates to biomass, bioenergy, more importantly getting

that material off the ground.

For us, all the Federal agencies, the State agencies as well, none

of us want to see that material just burned up, so if we can put

that into a positive energy stream, that is going to solve a lot of

our problems for us, so this is a very rich opportunity.

Senator SMITH. Absolutely. Have you done any surveys of—I am

thinking of the energy shortage we have had, and the concern of

wildfire in relation to transmission lines. Are we okay there?

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, we are. That is really one of the screens that

come up very quickly for an incident command team, which is,

what is the relation to that power grid. One of the costs—in fact,

I saw a summary of one of the fires earlier this summer, is that

there was a lot of investment dealing with power grid protection,

so those are high on the screen.

Senator SMITH. I was in eastern Oregon about a month ago,

when these fires were all raging, not necessarily in the forest but

in grassland, and I was told that private vehicles were kept off out

of fear for some endangered plants, but those plants were all consumed by fire because the private vehicles were not allowed to help

to put it out, and I wonder who makes that decision. Is it different

from place to place, State to State, and is that the right kind of

reaction?

I mean, if you have got a private landowner bordering public

lands that are on fire, should we say no to their help in the name

of an endangered plant, and then watch that plant be consumed by

fire?

Mr. LAVERTY. I would have to look into that situation, but it does

not make any sense that we would not accept help.

Mr. HARTZELL. Yes, Senator, I have not heard anything from,

say, the BLM offices in eastern Oregon about that situation. I will

certainly look into it.

Senator SMITH. Okay. I would appreciate it. I was given chapter

and verse just outside of Ontario, Oregon, between Ontario and

Burns, where this apparently occurred in some number.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

37

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. Good questions. Just a

couple of others, Mr. Laverty, a couple of policy issues that I am

interested in that our Governor, Governor Kitzhaber has some interests with respect to these demonstration projects that he wanted

me to follow up with you on.

You mentioned that you were interested in streamlining some of

the information processes, and that is obviously going to be important. Are there ways that you can use the Internet differently down

the road as we look at forestry in this century that are going to

help you streamline those processes?

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Chairman, I would say the answer is probably

yes, because I think the Internet provides us opportunities to receive information from folks that can help us out. We are not the

only purveyors of information as it relates to resources, and once

we start that information flow I really believe that there are opportunities that we can acquire information in a much more timely

fashion than we ever have before. The Internet becomes a vehicle

to do that.

Senator WYDEN. All right. Let me give you a project, because my

other hat here in the U.S. Senate is, I chair the Technology Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee, and why don’t we start

with respect to the fire area, with respect to the fire plan generally,

but I would like to ask you to ask your people to look at how information technology, IT, the Internet can be used to better fight forest fires to squeeze more efficiency out of those dollars.

I noted when you answered earlier that you had an interest in

streamlining the information processes and increasing informationsharing efficiency, I think was how you characterized it, and could

you get back to me on how particularly you might use the Internet

more creatively in terms of fighting fire and be put on notice that

I may ask you the same questions as it relates to the Forest Service across the board, because I think there are some opportunities

out there that we ought to mine.

Mr. LAVERTY. I would be delighted to do that. Mr. Chairman, we

are conducting one of the overviews next week in the Pacific Northwest. One of the team members in that overview is the Forest

Service liaison from IBM, and the whole purpose of having Bill on

the team is to help us figure out how can we, with the systems that

we have available to us, improve our efficiency in terms of information.

Bill was out on a fire up on the Colville earlier this summer, and

was looking at it from a fire-fighting standpoint, how can technology be even more efficient in helping us deal with fighting fires,

and Bill has got some great ideas about Palms or hand-held items

in fire crews’ hands so they can actually see real-time where is the

most intense part of the fire perimeter, so there are a lot of things

going on. I would be delighted to share that with you, and we will

have a chance to test that out.

Senator WYDEN. How long do you think it would take to get me

a report done on particularly new technologies, and how they are

used in terms of fighting fires?

Mr. LAVERTY. If you give me 2 weeks I will have you a first draft

from our review in Oregon.

38

Senator WYDEN. That would be good. I was very excited when I

had my tour. Like Senator Smith, we were all out and about this

summer, and particularly looking at what happened in the 9 a.m.

updates on fires that were online, and the fire center web page

gave out a lot of valuable information, but I think we can do a lot

more, and whether it is Palm Pilots or wireless devices, this is an

area I am very interested in.

Senator Smith, by the way, is on the Commerce Committee, too,

so we would have a chance to help you both here and on the commerce committee as well.

Let me ask you a question about the Blue Mountain demonstration project, which as you know has been important to Governor

Kitzhaber and folks on the east side and in Oregon.

During the last meeting, the advisory panel established benchmarks and defined levels of success for the Blue Mountain demonstration project, and this was in preparation for the final report,

and the most striking feature remains the inability, again, to do

some of the forest health treatments, including commercial

thinning, and reduction of hazardous fuels that are important, and

this project just has not done it for the local sawmills and the long

term interests of the community.

We are still losing family wage jobs, and I think what people

want to know with respect to that project is, how do we get beyond

the meetings and the committees and the additional planning, and

the planning for more planning, and notices to send out notices,

and really get into what has been an awful lot of gridlock in these

Blue Mountains in the northeast part of the State just have these

dense stands of dead-standing trees and insect infestation, and

what is it going to take to get this done, and to get a long-term

agreement, and to work with the Governor and the environmental

folks and industry and communities to make this happen?

Mr. LAVERTY. One of the places we are going to visit next week

is Baker City, and the intent is to talk about the Blue Mountain

project and what is going on, and what do we need to do corporately to bring results on the ground. I will get back to you after

that review, and we will give you a report on what we believe we

can do on our side to make that come about.

Senator WYDEN. I would like that, because I can tell you the

whole Oregon congressional delegation wants to get this one out of

the pipes. It just seems like this has been a planner’s full employment program. It just kind of goes on and on and on, and I do not

see—Senator Smith touched on it. I do not see how it makes any

sense from an environmental standpoint, and how it makes any

sense from an economic standpoint.

Let me ask you about one other project, and I think this will be

another area I would like you to get back to me on. The Warner

Creek fire was a terrible event in our part of the world, and the

area just sits there essentially unlogged, unrestored, I gather even

unstudied, and with the money going for the national fire plan’s

preparedness and the like, we have been trying to get the Forest

Service support so that we can begin to get this data to put in place

a plan for the area.

The folks on the ground would, again, like to use this as a local

model of collaboration. These are the people who are putting toVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
39

gether the exciting proposals for the county payment money and

the like, but they have just said point blank the Forest Service preyear watch has not been interested in being collaborative, and I

would like to know what you know about this and how we can turn

this one around, too.

Mr. LAVERTY. I know just enough to be dangerous, so I will follow up and I will get back to you on that.

Senator WYDEN. Warner Creek and Blue Mountain are important projects for our part of the world, and they really to me illustrate the lengths to which people are interested in going in order

to be collaborative. These are not people who are talking about salvage riders and all kinds of other no-cut options and the like.

These are people who are committed to coming up with policies

that will give us sustainable forestry and healthy ecosystems, and

I really want to see those two get off the ground, and I think you

do not know me all that well, but you do not want to have me asking you about those projects again and again—— Mr. LAVERTY. You will not have to do that.

Senator WYDEN [continuing]. When you come up here to the U.S.

Senate, and I want to get them done.

Senator Smith, do you have any other questions? All right. Gentlemen, we will excuse you. Thank you, and very helpful testimony.

We look forward to working closely with you.

Our next panel, Jim Hubbard, State Forester of Colorado, speaking for the Western Governors Association, Nathanial Lawrence of

the Natural Resources Defense Council, Rick DeIaco from Ruidoso,

New Mexico, Tom Nelson, with Sierra Pacific Industries in Redding, California, and Trent Woods from Elk City, Idaho.

Gentlemen, we will make your prepared remarks a part of the

hearing record. I know that there is almost a biological compulsion

to read what is in front of you, and I would just ask in the interest

of time, we will make your complete statement a part of the hearing record in its entirety, and if you could take the time, since we

have got five of you, to just capsulize the key kinds of points, and

I promise that your prepared remarks will be there for posterity,

and for all time in the hearing record.

Mr. Hubbard.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. HUBBARD, STATE FORESTER OF

COLORADO, ON BEHALF OF THE WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith. I am

Jim Hubbard. I am the State Forester of Colorado, representing the

Western Governors’ Association today. I have been working closely

with the Western Governors on this issue since the inception of the

national fire plan.

The Governors consider this one of their top priorities, and have

kept it as such for sometime now, even prior to the national fire

plan. Some of their commitments, whether they are talking about

wildland fire in terms of community protection or in terms of ecosystem restoration, are to be involved with the formulation of the

national fire plan to make sure it is a collaborative approach. Then

they moved on to make sure it had a long-term strategy to guide

it, and they are continuing to implement, to produce an implemenVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
40

tation plan that will establish the accountability and commit financial resources and support the commitment that Congress has

made.

To that end, they sent a letter to the appropriator, to Senator

Byrd, with all 18 Governors signing on. That is not something they

normally do. They are serious about continuing long-term on the

ground work on this issue.

Our problem has not gone away. In the year 2000 we burned

over 8 million acres, and we are continuing above the 10-year average. We do not anticipate in the West that this will change until

the natural system changes, and the implementation of the national fire plan as a collaborative effort could be that change agent.

Last month, the Governors signed with the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture a 10-year comprehensive strategy to reduce

wildfire risk and restore ecosystems. This was developed by a broad

range of stakeholders, environmental interests, industry interests,

tribal, local, State, Federal Government. The strategy establishes

four goals. You have a copy of the entire document, but the goals

are to improve prevention and suppression, to reduce hazardous

fuels, to restore fire-adaptive ecosystems, and promote community

assistance. The key is collaboration. The Governors agreed with the

Secretaries that they wanted full State involvement, that this has

to be all lands and it has to be for a long time.

Now we are talking about how we reduce risk and restore systems together. That is something new to us, and we want to do it,

and we do not believe it will succeed without community involvement.

We are setting priorities together, and we beg your indulgence.

In 2001 we used what was already cleared through the environmental process, NEPA, ready, off-the-shelf documents. That did not

address the priorities that we were after, but that was ready to go,

and we wanted to show some progress.

In 2002, we will do better, but in 2003 is when you will see the

results of the collaborative process. It takes 18 to 24 months to get

through the environmental clearance process, and that planning

starts now, and that is proceeding together.

So a lot has happened in the first year. We have done a lot in

coordinating preparedness, in implementing what is already available to us through the environmental clearance process, and we are

collaborating a great deal on what is yet to come in fuels treatment

particularly.

Along with the strategy, you do not see specific implementation

actions. I will not go into the reasons for that, but the Western

Governors committed with the Secretaries to produce that document, and implementation plan by May 1 of 2002. That will include

performance measures. That will include a priority-setting process.

The Governors are committed to a full partnership, and working

towards that, and believe that the stage is set for long-term solutions. We will reduce risk, and we will put systems back in balance.

The agencies are committed to this, whether that be Federal land

management agencies, or State agencies. The Governors are certainly committed to this, the administration is, and Congress has

provided support. We believe we are on the path to success.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard follows:]

41

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES E. HUBBARD, STATE FORESTER OF COLORADO, ON

BEHALF OF THE WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jim Hubbard, and

I am the State Forester of Colorado. I am here today on behalf of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA), which is an independent, non-partisan organization of

Governors from 18 Western states and three U.S.-Flag Islands in the Pacific. Let

me begin by stating that wildland fire and ecosystem restoration issues are of extreme importance to the Western Governors. Were it not for the short notice available to WGA regarding this hearing, a Western Governor would be before you today.

It was my pleasure, however, to accept the invitation from WGA to appear on the

Governors’ behalf, especially since I have been actively advising them on wildland

fire issues since last summer.

Congressional deliberation on fiscal year 2002 appropriations regarding wildland

fire and ecosystem restoration is of initial, critical urgency to Western Governors.

I would like to submit, for the record, a recent letter from 18 Western Governors

to Senate and House Interior Appropriations conferees. Western Governors are seeking continued substantial funding for wildland fire management issues, along the

lines of that received in fiscal year 2001. The attachment to that letter specifically

details, among other items, the Governors’ views on funding for restoration and rehabilitation work, community and private land assistance, volunteer fire assistance

and the treatment of emergency appropriations. Western Governors also believe

that sufficient funding needs to be devoted to the regulatory agencies, such as the

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, so their environmental compliance work does not become a barrier to allowing on-the-ground fire

and restoration projects to proceed.

Western Governors recognize that recent tragic events require an urgent shift in

our national priorities, but they ask that we not lose sight of important domestic

needs. Over time, with continued substantial up-front investment, we can significantly reduce the damage caused by wildfires, improve the health of our lands and

protect lives and property. It has taken more than 100 years to reach the current

situation of extreme fuel loads on our federal, tribal, state and private lands, and

it will take a multi-year investment of time, money and on-the-ground work to address it. If we are to reduce the threat and consequences of wildland fire to communities and their resource base, we need to continue the effort launched last year.

Stewardship over and sustainability of natural resources and communities is a

long-held goal of Western Governors. As the nation witnessed during the 2000 fire

season, severe wildfire poses a significant threat to both of these priorities. More

than eight million acres were lost. We are again seeing the impact of severe

wildfires this season. At least three million acres have burned so far. Almost a year

ago, at the Governors’ request, among others, the Congress called on the Departments of Agriculture and Interior, in partnership with the Governors, to develop a

long-term strategy to address the wildland fire threat and need for ecosystem restoration. As stated by-Congress in the FY 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291), the Secretaries are to:

• work with the Governors on a long-term strategy to deal with the wildland fire

and hazardous fuels situation, as well as the needs for habitat restoration and

rehabilitation in the nation; and,

• engage Governors in a collaborative structure to cooperatively develop a coordinated, National ten-year comprehensive strategy with the States as full partners in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of the plan. Key decisions should be made at local levels.

Last month, Western Governors and the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture endorsed and transmitted to the Congress ‘‘A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy.’’ I would like to submit that document for the record along

with a joint letter of endorsement from Western Governors and the Secretaries. Additional letters of endorsement are also included from The Intertribal Timber Council, the National Association of Counties and the National Association of State Foresters.

The Strategy was developed in a collaborative manner by those endorses, as well

as a range of stakeholder representatives. These individuals represent the spectrum

of natural resources policy interests from environmental groups to industry. Their

contribution to and support for the Strategy speak volumes to its value and to the

process by which it was developed. The Strategy was designed to accomplish four

goals across federal and adjacent state, tribal and private lands:

1. Improve Prevention and Suppression;

42

2. Reduce Hazardous Fuels;

3. Restore Fire Adapted Ecosystems; and,

4. Promote Community Assistance.

The Strategy sets forth a number of guiding principles to achieve these goals including collaboration, priority setting and accountability. The Strategy also establishes a collaborative structure to accomplish these goals, with states and local governments as full partners in its implementation.

Western Governors are pleased with progress made to date and the level of collaboration among the states and the Department of the Interior and the Forest

Service. However, we cannot hope to accomplish our ultimate goals unless Congress

provides a substantial annual level of funding and the necessary direction that the

Departments use that funding in full partnership with state and local governments.

Only through a true partnership can we tackle this threat, which knows no boundaries and is beyond the capability and resources of any single level of government.

Let me take just a moment to describe how Congressional resources have been

made available to date and how the Governors believe this needs to evolve to meet

the envisioned outcomes of the Strategy. In fiscal year 2001, most of the funds were

appropriated as an emergency supplemental appropriation. This meant that all the

projects to undertake fuels reduction and restoration work already had to ‘‘be on the

shelf.’’ In other words, they had to have already gone through environmental compliance and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes. So when you examine what was done this year with those funds, it may not be the most strategic work

possible to address our long-term fire hazard problems, nor will it reflect the gains

that we expect will come from working with multiple partners on joint projects both

in the wildland-urban interface and across the landscape.

What has become clear over recent years is that the federal land management

agencies alone cannot do all that needs to be done. They need communities, states,

tribes, and landowners to be working with them as they design projects to reduce

the risk of wildfire to both communities as well as the ecosystem. If the funds are

put into the budget, rather than releasing them only under the declaration of an

emergency, the collaboration envisioned by Congress and the Governors can take

place. And it will be meaningful, because it will actually be tied to the planning and

implementation of projects in such a way that the environmental compliance and

NEPA work can be done in a timely fashion. These processes may take one to two

years, so we will need to make this investment from our budgets for a few years

before we start seeing strategic, fire risk-reduction projects that are planned to

maximize the effectiveness of all of our resources and funding sources.

You may note that specific implementation actions are not included in the Strategy. Although the states intended to address implementation, we were unable to do

so because of the need to first integrate the wildfire management programs of the

Department of the Interior and the Forest Service. That will require great effort.

The Departments have pledged to work with the Western Governors on an implementation plan to complement the Strategy and to complete it by May 1, 2002. The

plan will address the needed integration among the Departments, as well as those

of state, tribal and local programs. Performance measures, consistent priorities and

timeliness for accomplishing the goals of the Strategy will also be established in

ways that meet all applicable legal requirements for federal and state actions.

Western Governors intend for the implementation plan to be collaborative, to set

priorities, and to provide accountability to all participants, as well as the Congress.

WGA believes that accomplishment tracking and. reporting processes should incorporate common performance goals and measures in order for the agencies to improve the link from activities and budget to performance and results. In addition,

if this effort is to be a true partnership, investment decisions made by the federal

government must be done in collaboration with states, tribes and local governments.

Finally, just as was done to develop the Strategy itself, Western Governors will employ a collaborative process among a range of stakeholder groups to seek their input

and support for the implementation plan.

Western Governors urge you to support the Strategy and the forthcoming implementation plan. We also hope to work with the Administration on additional firerelated items. One is the development of procedures within existing laws to expedite

compliance with the NEPA and interagency consultation required under Endangered Species Act. The other is the development of federal agency contracting procedures that will focus on restoration, forest health and rangeland activities recommended by local land managers.

Western Governors believe that a full partnership between the states and the federal government, and substantial on-budget funding to implement the Strategy recently agreed to, are necessary to successfully address the massive scope of the

threat and consequences of severe wildfire to communities and ecosystems. We apVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
43

preciate the recognition by the Congress of the need for state leadership and for the

resources you have provided so far to address this problem. We will need your continued support if our nation is to ensure the health of its ecosystems and the sustainability of its invaluable natural resources and the communities in their midst.

This concludes my testimony on behalf of the WGA. Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lawrence, welcome.

STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL LAWRENCE, SENIOR ATTORNEY,

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, OLYMPIA, WA

Mr. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, thank you for an invitation to appear today. Given the shortness of time, I am just going

to focus my remarks on one aspect of the national forest plan, and

that is the use of thinning in an effort to reduce fire risk.

To summarize, we know a lot less about effective fire risk reduction than is often thought. What we do not know about fire risk

reduction and thinning suggests that the forest should be regarded

as three distinct zones, one of them very close to homes and communities, which would be our top priority, is a place where we

know aggressive thinning can do a lot to reduce the risk to structures.

The second, the general, heavily managed and altered forest, is

a place to experiment with thinning and find out what we do not

currently know, which is where and how we can use it in a way

that will make things better in the forest, rather than worse, and

the third is the back country, the relatively intact roadless areas,

old growth and riparian zones which are relatively unaltered. They

are therefore much less at risk, or heightened risk from fire, they

are further away from communities, and they have much more to

lose in terms of natural values if we go in and try experimental

thinning and it goes wrong.

I said just a moment ago that thinning was experimental, and

what I mean about this, if there is one point I leave you with

today, I want it to be this. There is virtually no peer-reviewed, empirically based research that shows a reduction in fire intensity

subsequent to thinning. There are lots of anecdotal cases where

there have been forests thinned and fire came through, and it

burned down lower, and there are lots of anecdotal cases the other

way, where fire came through a thin forest and it blue up.

There is some research—it is certainly not definitive, but there

is a body of research which suggests, which tracks the increase of

fire intensity after thinning. Now, this does not mean that we

should not be thinning to try to reduce fire risks. What it means

is, we do not know how to do it in a way that lets people predict

that it will be effective, that the money used will be effective, and

that the results will get the results that we very much need.

It is an experiment. It is a complicated and dangerous experiment, one we need to undertake. We need to think about where we

are undertaking it so we get the right results and we do not put

resources at risk in doing that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]

44

1 A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. August 2001. Publisher, place, and authorship unspecified. 2Models and assessments that predict what future fire intensity might be abound, but they

do not report the actual, near or long-range results of thinning as conducted under real world

conditions. Similarly common are studies that look at occurrence and acreage of fire without

considering intensity. However, thinning does not aim to reduce burning overall, indeed lack of

low-intensity burning is seen as part of the problem. Rather, the postulated function of thinning

is to make fires less intense. Thus, studies that ignore intensity do not provide useful information about the effectiveness of thinning. One masters degree thesis appears to provide a lone

exception to this dearth of relevant research. Pollet, J., and Omi, P.N. 1999. Effect of thinning

and prescribed burning on wildfire severity in ponderosa pine forests. Paper presented at the

JFSC Fire Conference, ‘‘Crossing the Millennium: Integrating Spatial Technologies and Ecological Principles for a New Age in Fire Management.’’ Boise, Idaho. 3 U.S. Forest Service. 2000b. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. Oct. 13, 2000.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL LAWRENCE, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, OLYMPIA, WA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for your invitation

to appear today. The National Fire Plan and its constituent documents, the so-called

Cohesive Strategy and 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, have a vital set of tasks

to accomplish. Done right, they would safeguard rural and urban-interface communities, and help return vigor and resilience to forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems. Done wrong, they will at best perpetuate current threats to those communities and degradation of those ecosystems, wasting taxpayer dollars at a time we

have none to spare and failing the American public. As it stands now, the National

Fire Plan does not ensure that underlying problems will be effectively dealt with

or that funding will be well used. Congress cannot afford to ignore these problems,

but it should not allow implementation of the National Fire Plan until assured that

the needed priorities and standards are in place and will be followed.

Of the issues raised by the National Fire Plan, I want to focus on the use of

thinning to reduce future fire risks in and around federal forests. To summarize,

we know far less about fire risk reduction than many believe. What we do know

points to three distinct forest zones, each calling for a different treatment approach

and priority. The first is the immediate vicinity of homes and communities, where

damage from fire can be greatly reduced and where our top priorities lie. The second

is the heavily managed and altered forest. This is a zone where it makes sense to

experiment carefully with thinning, monitoring and evaluating its actual impact on

fire intensity and increasing our investment only if and when we have learned the

impact of what we are doing and only after dealing with the first priority, the community zone. The third is the less altered forest, largely unlogged, unroaded

backcountry, along with old growth and intact riparian areas. These forests are

much less in need of remediation, more prone to harm from active management, and

more remote from communities. Thinning here, if it is ever done, should be rare,

light, and years away.

Unfortunately, the National Fire Plan is not designed to assure that these zones

are dealt with in order of priority. Instead, it is a virtual black box, devoid of meaningful standards, constraints, or commitments about the kind and location of fire

risk reduction in which the implementing agencies will engage. This approach is in

the same vein as other trends at the U.S. Forest Service, in particular, which are

away from standards and accountability and towards increased discretion to do as

the agency chooses, notwithstanding public opinion, scientific evidence, and congressional direction. The recently adopted 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 1 is oriented

toward a number of the needed priorities and standards, but does not supply them

or assure they will be developed.

WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW: HOW TO ENSURE THINNING REDUCES FOREST FIRE INTENSITY

Above, I spoke of thinning to reduce fire risk as an ‘‘experiment.’’ This is an essential point. The National Fire Plan treats thinning as an established cure for intense

fire, something so routine that no criteria or sidebars for its use are needed. In point

of fact, however, virtually no peer-reviewed, empirical studies show that thinning

actually leads to a systematic reduction of forest fire intensity.2 The Cohesive Strategy acknowledges this, somewhat obliquely, when it notes that ‘‘[a]t landscape

scales, the effectiveness of treatments in improving watershed conditions has not

been well documented.’’ 3

45

4See, e.g. Fahnestock, G.R. 1968. Fire hazard from precommercial thinning of ponderosa pine.

U.S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-57. Portland, Oregon; 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; 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. U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station, GTR-355. Portland, Oregon; 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. 5 pages. 5Some of these phenomena are discussed in the fire effects section of the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule (FEIS). The Forest Service’s fire

specialist review of the scientific literature for the FEIS discusses a number of the underlying

studies. See FEIS, Fuel Management and Fire Suppression Specialist’s Report (available online

at http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/specrep/xfire—spec—rpt.pdf) at 22 (‘‘The Congressional Research Service . . . noted: ‘timber harvesting does remove fuel, but it is unclear whether this fuel removal is significant;’ ’’ ‘‘Covington (1996) . . . notes that, ‘scientific data to support

such management actions [either a hand’s off approach or the use of timber harvesting] are inadequate’ ’’ (brackets in the source)); id. at 22-23 (‘‘Kolb and others (1994) . . . conclude that

. . . management activities to improve forest health [such as fuel management] are difficult to

apply in the field’’ (brackets in the source)); id. at 21 (‘‘Fahnstock’s (1968) study of

precommercial thinning found that timber stands thinned to a 12 feet by 12 feet spacing commonly produced fuels that ‘rate high in rate of spread and resistance to control for at least 5

years after cutting, so that it would burn with relatively high intensity;’ ’’ ‘‘When precommercial

thinning was used in lodgepole pine stands, Alexander and Yancik (1977) reported that a fire’s

rate of spread increased 3.5 times and that the fire’s intensity increased 3 times’’); id. at 23

(‘‘Countryman (1955) found that ‘opening up’ a forest through logging changed the ‘fire climate

so that fires start more easily, spread faster, and burn hotter’ ’’). Others are discussed, along

with adverse impacts to wildlife, in two annotated bibliographies of scientific research available

from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Ercelawn, A. 1999. End of the Road—The Adverse

Ecological Impacts of Roads and Logging: A Compilation of Independently Reviewed Research.

130 pp. Natural Resources Defense Council. New York. Ercelawn, A. 2000. Wildlife Species and

Their Habitat: The Adverse Impacts of Logging—A Supplement to End of the Road. 41 pp. Natural Resources Defense Council. New York. 6 Cohen, Jack. 1999. Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: Where and How Much?

In proceedings of the Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: bottom lines; 1999

April 5-9. San Diego, CA; Gonzales-Caban, Armando; Omi, Philip N., technical coordinators.

U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-173. Albany,

CA. 7 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.

Actually, a series of studies though not definitive shows post-thinning increases

in fire intensity or spread.4 Anecdotal cases exist of both increased and decreased

fire intensity after thinning. But in general we don’t have the necessary scientific

basis for predicting confidently that a given thinning project, as it ends up being

implemented on the ground, will reduce fire intensity.

How can it be that thinning could increase fire risks? First, thinning lets in sunlight and wind, both of which dry out the forest interior and increase flammability.

Second, the most flammable material brush, limbs, twigs, needles, and saplings is

difficult to remove and often left behind. Third, opening up forests promotes brushy,

flammable undergrowth. Fourth, logging equipment compacts soil so that water

runs off instead of filtering in to keep soils moist and trees healthy. Fifth, thinning

introduces diseases and pests, wounds the trees left behind, and generally disrupts

natural processes, including some that regulate forest health, all the more so if new

roads are used.5

This does not mean that thinning will never help reduce fire risks. Rather, it

means that we don’t know whether and under what conditions thinning will make

things better, rather than worse. It is therefore only an experiment, a complicated,

tricky, and dangerous experiment.

There is one kind of thinning we do know is productive. If drastic thinning is used

within 150 feet of structures that have fire resistant roofs and siding, and saplings

are kept cleared out, the buildings don’t get hot enough in a fire to combust.6 When

trees are very widely spaced, fires physically cannot jump from treetop to treetop,7

and they don’t develop the heat to ignite properly constructed or retrofitted homes.

It is important to note that you do not really have a forest left after this kind of

thinning, but you do have safe communities.

46

8See The Comprehensive Strategy, supra note 3.

9 Belsky, A.J. and D. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on stand Dynamics and

Soils in Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology 11:315-327. 10Stephenson, N.L. 1999. Reference conditions for Giant Sequoia forest restoration: structure,

process, and precision. Ecological Applications. 9: 1253-1265; Landres, P.B., Morgan, P., and

Swanson, F.J. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological

systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179-1188. 11The illustration and attachments have been retained in subcommittee files. 12 After the erroneous description of this photograph, with its (in retrospect) obvious slash

piles among the thinned trees was pointed out to then-Chief Dombeck, along with an actual prelogging photograph of much denser conditions (see Illustration 2), the picture and description

were dropped from the final edition of the Cohesive Strategy, released on October 13, 2000. The

erroneous use of the photograph supposedly to illustrate baseline conditions was perpetuated

when the General Accounting Office included it in Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. U.S. GAO. 1999. Report no. GAO/

RCED-99-65 (Attachment B to this testimony). The mischaracterization was detailed in Ponderosa Poster Child: U.S. Forest Service Misrepresenting the Historic Condition of Western Forests and the Effects of Fire Suppression and Logging, by Keith J. Hammer, a report commissioned by Friends of the Wild Swan and Swan View Coalition. 13Gruell, G.E. 1983. Fire and Vegetative Trends in the Northern Rockies: Interpretations

from 1871-1982 Photographs. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station GTR INT-158. Ogden, UT. 14 Arno, S.F., J.H. Scott, and M.G. Hartwell. 1995. Age-class Structure of Old Growth Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir stand and its relationship to fire history. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station GTR INT-RP-481. Ogden, UT. 15The Cohesive Strategy, supra note 2, notes that in ‘‘the upper Columbia River Basin alone—

a small portion of the interior West—scientific assessments indicate that prior to European settlement, more than six million acres per year burned. Today, fewer than one-half million acres

burn per year in this same area.’’

WHAT WE DO KNOW: INCREASED FIRE RISK AFFECTS ONLY SOME FORESTS AND COMES

FROM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT CONTINUE TODAY

What else do we know about fire risk? We know that increased fire risk is traceable to human intervention. Where forests are abnormally dense and thus more

flammable, several kinds of forest management share the blame. The usually mentioned culprit is fire suppression. But also implicated are logging (especially removal

of medium to large, fire resistant trees) and grazing 8 (because cows and sheep crop

forest grasses that otherwise would shade out tree seedlings and carry low intensity,

brush-clearing fires).9

We know that many forest types are not at greatly heightened risk, because in

their natural, healthy state they burn only infrequently, so that intense fires are

normal and unavoidable. We know that it is problematic to extrapolate just how

dense or sparse forests actually were in pre-settlement times.10 Even the dry pine

forests said to be at greatest risk were sometimes much denser before management

than people tend to think. The Forest Service’s long-time poster child for supposedly

pre-management open stand conditions in the dry West is this 1909 photograph

from the Bitterroot National Forest. See Illustration 1 11 (see also Attachment A 11

to this testimony, showing the photograph presented as an illustration of desirable,

baseline conditions in a widely distributed 1998 Forest Service poster and in the

first, i.e. May 31, 2000, edition of the agency’s Coherent Strategy document).12 The

photo actually is of a just-logged stand.13 A pre-logging photo from the same area

and year shows much closer spaced trees.14 See Illustration 2.

We know that where increased tree density does make forests abnormally flammable, it is small trees that are responsible. These are the trees that started growing after fire suppression caused a normal fire event not to occur, or overstory logging and/or grazing opened up the forest floor so seedlings flourished. Large and medium-sized trees typically pre-date these events, so removing them would not return

the stand to more normal conditions.

We know that our forests are not currently burning as much as they once did.

True enough, in recent years the acreage burned annually by wildfire in the West

has trended upwards. However, it is on average still much lower than it was in presettlement times.15 Not widely publicized is the fact that much of the acreage reported as burning these days is not forest at all but rangeland and sagebrush, and

that where forests do burn, they do so with variable intensities, as they did in the

past. We do not really know much about how current wildfire intensity compares

with the pre-settlement conditions that thinning is supposed to mimic, in part because current reporting emphasizes total acreage but does not systematically assess

fire intensity.

And finally, we know that the management problems that caused small, flammable understories to develop where they did not earlier exist continue to this day,

47

16 Benedict, M.A. [Supervisor of the Sierra National Forest]. 1930. Twenty-one years of Fire

Protection in the National Forests of California. Journal of Forestry 28: 707-710. 17 Compare http://www.na.fs.fed.us/nfp/ff/ff—overview—text.htm with http://www.na.fs.fed.us/

nfp/hazfuel/reports/brief—nfp—keypoint—hazfuel—032301.htm. Some fire suppression is, of

course, essential. Missing from the National Fire Plan, however, is any awareness that ultimately all forests in the lower 48 states burn and that for those that naturally burn frequently,

putting out small fires aggressively, rather than allowing some burning, stores up bigger problems for later on. The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, supra note 1, does show some awareness that restoration of fire is an integral part of the challenge faced in our Nation’s forests. 18See, e.g. Testimony of Chief Bosworth, May 8, 2001, on the U.S. Forest Service FY 2002

Budget, before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, pointing to ‘‘past

inability of the Agency to view forest product production as an integral aspect of protecting and

improving forest health,’’ and asserting that ‘‘timber harvesting can restore forest ecosystem

health, reduce invasive species, and reduce the risks of catastrophic fires.’’ 19 Alarmingly, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, supra note 1, does not distinguish between, one the one hand, forest locales and types that naturally had and could maintain low

intensity burns and, on the other, forests that normally burn less frequently, where efforts to

reduce fire intensity would disrupt and damage forest health. The Strategy’s first listed action

for hazardous fuel reduction, is simply ‘‘[r]educe the total number of acres at risk to severe

wildland fire,’’ a goal that if implemented indiscriminately across forest types and locations

would entail enormous waste and harm.

notwithstanding awareness of their adverse consequences. The Forest Service has

known for more than seventy years that fire suppression caused subsequent fires

to burn more and more intensely.16 Nonetheless, the National Fire Plan focuses just

as uncritically as ever on massive, broadscale fire supression, almost in the same

breath with promising to address the ill effects of ‘‘decades of fire exclusion.’’ 17 And

much of the thinning done assertedly to reduce fire risk includes medium and large

trees. Nothing in the National Fire Plan prevents this. The 10 Year Comprehensive

Strategy evinces an understanding that small diameter timber is the necessary object of restorative thinning efforts. However, it is increasingly the trend at the Forest Service to try to blur the distinction between commercial logging, which is driven by economic considerations to include larger, more valuable trees, and so-called

restoration thinning, where precisely the opposite is needed.18

WHAT OUR FIRE RISK REDUCTION PRIORITIES SHOULD BE, BASED ON WHAT WE DO AND

DO NOT KNOW

When you reflect on what we do and do not know, the prudent approach to forest

fire risk reduction stares you in the face. First, very close to buildings and communities, we have an urgent need and a clear course of action. Second, further away,

in the previously managed, general forest, we have far less idea what to do, but

ample room and time for experimentation because fire is still well below pre-settlement levels. Third and finally, in the unlogged, undeveloped backcountry, we have

the least damaged conditions, the least urgency, the least idea what to do, and the

most to lose from active management.

Zone one is overwhelmingly the top priority, the zone where we must focus attention, resources, and work. It is where people and homes are at risk. And it is where

we know what will work. There we need highly aggressive thinning, combined with

up-grading of exterior building materials and regular clearing of saplings. I want

to stress that this kind of treatment does not leave much of a forest behind, just

widely scattered trees at most. But this is a zone where consideration of human

safety, for residents and firefighters alike, is paramount. And as noted above, research shows that it is very narrow, extending only about 150 feet from structures.

Because of the widespread penetration of human communities into forested landscapes, this is still a lot of acreage that will take years to treat effectively, but it

is not the general forest. By any defensible calculation, this is where the National

Forest Plan should ensure the large majority of our near term resources are focused.

Our longer range priority has to be learning the conditions, if any, under which

less drastic thinning—thinning that retains forest character—will reliably reduce

subsequent fire intensity better than do other techniques. And the place for this is

zone two, the already roaded and logged landscape. This is where management has

had far and away the greatest impact, and the forest is most altered. Thus it is

where some sort of remediation is likely needed and natural values are least jeopardized, because they are least present. And the way to do it, so we maximize the

chances of learning without making things worse, is to take out only small trees,

and only in those specific slopes and conditions where science indicates frequent fire

used to predominate and now does not.19 The National Park Service is doing some

of this already, undertaking small scale, targeted thinning of small trees and brush

48

20See, e.g., National Park Service. 2001. Environmental Assessment, Hazard Fuel Reduction

and Site Restoration, Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks, East Fork Kaweah Developed

Areas, Oriole Lake and Silver City. Environmental Compliance Document #2001-19. Three Rivers, CA. This project uses hard and fast criteria that preserve all trees over 40 feet high and

all down logs over 8 inches in diameter. 21 Babbitt, B. and D. Glickman. 2000. A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires

of 2000 (speaking of ‘‘an aggressive program to thin forest stands to reduce small diameter trees,

underbrush and accumulated fuels’’). A Cohesive Strategy, supra note 2, page 17 (mechanical

treatment will target ‘‘already roaded and managed portions of the landscape’’ where we ‘‘need

to reduce the disproportionately large number of small, non-merchantable trees, brush, and

shrubs that dominate short interval fire-adapted ecosystems’’).

with strict size limits.20 This was the original intent for the National Fire Plan.21

However, as noted above, the plan now contains no standards to ensure these objectives are met while simultaneously the Forest Service is moving back towards the

use of commercial logging on a restoration rationale.

Finally, there is zone three, unroaded areas and intact old growth and riparian

stands. Here we have the most to lose, ecologically, from experimental management,

because these are the places with the most residual natural values. Because they

are among the least altered segments of the landscape they are least in need of

intervention. And because they are typically not adjacent to communities, they are

not a priority from the standpoint of human safety. And the more sensitive these

lands are, for example municipal watersheds and habitat for threatened and endangered species, the more important it is that we go slow and tread softly. If, because

of truly exceptional circumstances, intervention is mandatory, we should look first

to ending domestic grazing, removing very small woody material by hand, and reintroducing fire under controlled conditions. As far as the National Forest Plan currently stands, however, limited federal agency funds and authorities may focus on

commercial logging of these areas ostensibly for restorative purposes.

CONCLUSION

Congress has provided billions of dollars in order to accomplish the goals of the

National Fire Plan. This spending could result in great success—in ecological, economic, and human safety terms—or resounding failure and waste. In order to accomplish the Plan’s goals, federal agencies must use federal dollars and authorizations where there is a solid understanding of the potential results and avoid activities that have uncertain outcomes. And federal agencies must be held accountable

for following Congressional direction. Based on the research that is available, the

needed course is simple—resources must be prioritized so that most dollars and efforts are focused on the urban-wildland interface, only some are focused on thinning

small trees in the disrupted and managed forest, and, for now at least, virtually

none in the backcountry. The National Fire Plan as it stands makes no effort to examine or establish these kinds of priorities, let along ensure they will be accomplished. The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy advances the dialogue about these

issues in some measure, but does not include or adequately lay the groundwork for

the needed standards, commitments, and accountability.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer any

questions you might have.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I ask him a question on this? This is a very important point, Mr. Lawrence, and I

wonder if the three categories of stands that you are talking about,

for want of a better word—would you describe it as wild, roadless,

never harvested? I do not know what percentage that is of the

total, but I wonder if it is not fairly easy to see what are the conditions that has kept it safe, and if we might not try and replicate

what we find, how nature has done it in these areas that have been

grossly overplanted and are grossly overgrown, and is that not a

reasonable way to get an answer fairly quickly so that it is not

such a grand experiment?

Mr. LAWRENCE. It is reasonable and important to try thinning in

places that we know have heightened fire risk because of dense

understories, but we do not know how to do it in a way that will

work, and there are several reasons for that. When you take out

small trees, when you open up a forest understory, you let in sunVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
49

light and wind which dry out the interior and make it more flammable.

Most of the time when you thin you leave behind the small

branches, the twigs, the brush and the needles, which are the most

flammable part of the forest fuels complement, very difficult to

take out, and you leave those behind, so you are leaving the most

flammable stuff behind.

If you use heavy logging equipment, you can pack the soil, which

means the water runs off instead of infiltrating, keeping conditions

moist and helping to nourish trees. Also, the equipment nicks trees

and brings in pests and diseases and so forth that affect overall forest health. There is a whole variety of things that cut the other

way when you try to mimic natural distribution of trees with chain

saws, and again, I am not saying that we should not do this. What

I am saying is, this is a much more complicated thing than is generally imagined, and what we need to avoid, what the national fire

plan needs to avoid is simply assuming that if you take out trees

you will make things better, and that you can do that everywhere

and you will not have to worry about fire at the same time that

we are running around putting out all the little fires.

And again, the job in my mind, and I think that the facts speak

to this pretty clearly, is to figure out where we are going to do that

experimentation, and what kind of experimentation it is. What we

do know about fire risk reduction and the changes in Western forests in particular, I think, points to the kind of zoning of the forest

that I am talking about, the areas right around houses, the altered

landscape that has been heavily managed, and the relatively

unmanaged landscape.

We know, for example, that if you thin very, very intensively, so

that you really do not have a functional forest left, right around the

immediate vicinity of homes, and you get those homes fireproof

roofs and fire-resistant siding, then they do not catch fire in a fire.

The research is pretty clear on this. This is a very small zone

around houses. It is 150 feet or so around houses. If that is where

you do really intensive thinning, you really protect homes.

We also know that the problem in forests is from small trees.

They are the trees that have come in after logging began, after fire

suppression began, also grazing, which is implicated in increased

fire risk, so we know if we are going to do this it is the small trees

we need to focus on. We know the medium-size and big trees are

fire-resistant, part of the natural ecosystem.

We know there are a lot of forests that were naturally dense, and

that they will burn intensely regardless of what we do. It is important not to waste our resources trying to reduce fire intensity in

a forest where that is just not going to work, except right around

houses, of course, because if you own a house, you do not care

whether that forest burns intensely and not naturally. You care

about whether the house is left when a forest fire does come

through, so that is where you thin intensively.

We also know that the management activities that cause problems with fire risk increases continue to this day. We know that

we are still doing fire suppression as though it was not causing a

problem. We have to do fire suppression, of course, but we need to

50

think about the way it is causing problems as well as solving problems.

We know that logging, taking out big trees, continues in places

that are at risk from increased fire. The Forest Service increasingly

in recent months has been trying to blur the distinction between

restoration thinning and commercial logging, and that way leads to

real problems because the incentives for commercial logging are the

exact opposite for those of restoration thinning. One of them needs

big trees to be profitable. The other needs to leave big trees and

medium-sized trees in order to be effective, so we have gotten not

to make the mistake of confusing those two.

We need to spend some money on thinning, because we cannot

expect it to pay for itself, but given the billions we spend every

year in fire and fire suppression, it is money well-spent.

My time is long since up.

Senator WYDEN. Just on this thinning issue, which as you know

is not exactly noncontroversial in our part of the world, is there in

your view, Mr. Lawrence, a place where the three types of forest

exist side-by-side so that in effect there would be sort of a model

forest where you could zero in on this analysis that you are calling

for?

Mr. LAWRENCE. I think it depends a little bit on what you mean

by side-by-side.

Senator WYDEN. In close proximity.

Mr. LAWRENCE. I have driven around a lot of the eastern part of

your State of Oregon looking at national forestlands, and I can tell

you there is no dearth of heavily altered forest that has been highgraded starting back in railroad logging days, and probably entered

three times to have the big trees taken out, that is full of little,

brushy, dog-hair thickets. You do not have to go far from communities to find those places because that is where the logging started, is close to communities. That is where the communities grew

up, close to the logging.

It would not be hard to find a place that is relatively close to,

let us say, a roadless area, or as large as they still are in eastern

Oregon, which tends not to be too large, and put together a demonstration project looking at the three different areas and trying to

treat them in three distinct ways, using thinning differently in the

first two zones and not at all in the third, but looking to the third

as a kind of a control.

Senator WYDEN. I will have some more questions for you in a

minute, but suffice it to say, there are places in Oregon already

that we think might serve as a model forest, not just as it relates

to these three areas for consideration of thinning, but essentially

areas where people are practicing multiple use in a way that is

sensitive to all of the shared values that people have, and it is an

area of interest of mine, and we will be talking to you.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Oregon has lots of opportunities for this. I just

want to emphasize that as it is currently constituted, a national

forest plan does not look to these kinds of priorities, and it does

not contemplate the kinds of standards and criteria that create real

accountability for treating those areas the way the science indicates they ought to be treated.

51

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, pardon me. One more, Mr. Lawrence. I know in this back country zone, the wild area, I think in

your testimony you advocate reintroducing fire to do some of that.

Would that not be as experimental, as untested as just getting

some of the timber out, maybe even a little that has commercial

value?

Mr. LAWRENCE. The reason to look to fire is that it is going to

come regardless, in the lower 48. This is not true, maybe, on the

Tongass, but in the lower 48 we know one thing, sooner or later

the forests will burn. We have known that for a long time, and the

Forest Service has known for 70 years that fire suppression caused

subsequent fires to be more intense, so it is going to come anyway,

and it is a relatively low investment, low intrusive way of looking

at restoring, but I think that this whole back country zone in general is a place that we need to wait until later to do any kind of

significant, substantial restoration.

Senator WYDEN. Our next witness, Rick DeIaco, welcome. Please

proceed.

STATEMENT OF RICK DEIACO, URBAN FORESTER,

RUIDOSO, NM

Mr. DEIACO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the village

of Ruidoso, and the collaborative working group, I am honored to

be here. We appreciate this opportunity. I am going to give you

kind of a local point of view. I represent a local community. I am

a forester there, and I have got three points here.

We have had a really good, collaborative effort working with the

State, with the forests, with State forestry, with the Forest Service.

We have a group, and the impetus for all this came from the national forest fire plan to get things done, so what I want to offer

today is a template, if you will, for communities to work through

this process.

We have a had a lot of testimony here as far as the big picture,

what needs to be done on the public lands, et cetera. When you get

next to what we would refer to as the interface, which we all know

what the interface is, but I might add, different—you know, we

think of the interface as where wildland fuels burn up against

urban fuels. I mean, that is kind of a traditional definition. I might

offer another one, just where public land comes together with private land. The reason is, is because that is the way the funding

works.

Now, what we have done in southern New Mexico, around the

Ruidoso area, we have kind of taken the geographic area, we have

come up and put together basically five action plans. The first one

is, make a geographic area, define that urban interface, so we drew

a circle around a map and said, okay, these are the areas. Now let

us look at all the land-holding agencies, which include the Forest

Service, State, BLM, Mescalara tribe we have there, the Village of

Ruidoso, some other municipalities that you have, and what is your

piece of the puzzle, how do we get this thing done.

So after creating a geographic area, then we decided four other

action items. How do we work together, because when you get the

Forest Service and the State and the local people all together,

sometimes we need to be able to communicate better, so we estabVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
52

lished something—we use the unified command structure as far as

trying to work together.

Then we looked at what projects we have on the shelf that are

ready to go, they are either NEPA ready, or which projects do we

have that we want to get funded, or are seeking funding for.

The third action item, or actually the fourth action item is, how

do we speak to the public in one voice, so when Mrs. Jones goes

over to the Forest Service and asks a question, or Mrs. Jones goes

to the village of Ruidoso and asks a question, she gets kind of the

same answer, so we formed a committee to do that.

The fifth thing was, how do we get our requirements, cutting requirements together so that we are consistent, and basically we

broke that into either defensible or wildland, and wildland, depending on what your civil cultural treatment objectives are, basically

you want to thin in the neighborhood of a 60 to 90 basal area, and

around the defensible space around homes to go to about 40 basal

area, which is much, much thinner.

That is the first point. The second point I would like to make

here today is the need for the committee to look at different means

of private funding. When we look at that urban interface, the way

we look at it from our perspective is that—and there has been talk

about what types of thinning, and I agree with my colleague as far

as the zone, and the zone around the interface is most important.

It is a perfect spot to try to do some experiments in there, because

obviously when the fire comes across—and a good example was the

Los Alamos fire last year in northern New Mexico, where the wildfire swept across the wildland and after doing forensic studies on

some of the fires, the burnt structures, it was shown that it was

not necessarily the crown fire that burned all these fires, it was

lack of defensible space and the spotting.

So what we are trying to suggest is that we create that zone

where the public land side of the interface does the kind of

thinning that they need to do, but it is incumbent upon the municipalities to somehow make it so that the general public has a way

to go. In other words, has a method—people in New Mexico and

probably throughout the West do not like to be told that there is

all of a sudden going to be an ordinance that says you have to thin

trees. They like to see it, and so the gist of this is that we have

an opportunity here on the public side to show by example, and

then we can go to Mrs. Jones and say, look, you need to do this

in your backyard, because look what we have done out here.

So some of the demonstration projects, especially through, for instance, the collaborative forest restoration program, and some of

the title IV money that we had to spend, utilized through the

Wyden authority around Ruidoso, is being used as demonstration

projects, so we make a big media blitz. We bring out the hot dogs

and the popcorn and the media and say, hey, this is what you

ought to do with your backyard, and it works. We have probably

got 30 percent of the folks in our town that are voluntarily now

cleaning up their area, cleaning up around their backyard.

Senator WYDEN. They are all eating hot dogs and saying, who is

Ron Wyden?

[Laughter.]

Senator WYDEN. Go ahead. Excuse me. Go ahead. Please finish.

53

* All attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.

Mr. LAWRENCE. We gave them a hot dog and a pair of clippers.

That is how it works.

So that is an important issue for us, and that is how we are trying to get our communities to work, because the whole idea in our

mind, again from a local level, this national fire plan is about saving property and saving lives, and where do those lives and most

of the property occur? It is on the inside of the interface.

So I appreciate this, and I will end it there.

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeIaco follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICK DEIACO, URBAN FORESTER, RUIDOSO, NM

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Village of Ruidoso and the collaborative working

group in the area, I am truly honored to be here. We appreciate the opportunity

to address this committee and thank you for your leadership and assistance with

regard to the National Fire Plan. If I may, I will talk about our working group and

it’s collaborative accomplishments; describe some specific needs; and offer some

planning input for the future.

Many people around the country and around the world think of New Mexico as

a land of enchantment and a treasure chest of natural resources and cultural diversity. Ruidoso is a mountain community with 8,500 permanent residents located in

south central New Mexico at 7,000 feet of elevation. From Memorial Day to Labor

Day, the population swells to more than 25,000, staying in their second homes or

local lodging. I am proud to live in a place where families come to relax and recreate

and happily add to the economic development of our community. Recreation and

tourism are economic staples in this and many of the mountain communities in New

Mexico and throughout the West.

We are however, rapidly coming to grips with the challenges that threaten the

forests of this grand treasure chest. With regard to the wildland urban interface,

the problem is simple. There are too many trees and an increasing amount of people

living in close proximity to those trees. Is this a problem for the forest? One might

consider that Mother Nature is already correcting the problem and reducing the

number of trees through increased incidents of insect infestations, pathogens like

dwarf mistletoe, and wildfires burning hotter and covering more acres per event.

Without human intervention and a century of time, natural succession will most

likely have restored reasonable balance to our forests and watersheds. But at what

cost?

The problem, from a community point of view, is for the increasing amount of people living in close proximity to those trees, the communities the people rely on, the

economic security that sustains our lifestyles, for those who would provide necessary

stewardship of our environment, and the elected officials providing leadership. We

must continue to be smart stewards and forward looking legislators and realize it

will take 10 to 20 years to restore our forests and get ahead of Mother Nature.

There are three points I would like to share with this committee as we discuss the

effectiveness of the National Fire Plan and its importance going forward:

1. The collaborative accomplishments of the Federal, State and Local land managers

in the Ruidoso area

An element I am most proud of in terms of collaborative accomplishments is a

measured increase in public awareness. It’s relatively easy for land managers to

agree on problem identification and necessary solutions. Convincing the general

public these solutions are sound and an example of forest restoration takes solidarity of vision.

The Ruidoso Wildland Urban Interface Group (RWUIG) was created in November

of 2000 at the request of the USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest and the

New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department in response to

the initiatives of the National Fire Plan. This working group meets every month and

is hosted by the Village of Ruidoso at the Ruidoso Convention Center. The mission

of the group is to enhance public safety and economic development of the community

by addressing the challenges of urban interface wildfire hazards and general forest

restoration.

This coalition of agencies and entities has established a geographical designation

called the Ruidoso Wildland Urban Interface (see map).* Members include the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico State Forestry, BLM, BIA, Mescalero Apache

54

Trite, Lincoln County, Village of Ruidoso, Village of Ruidoso Downs, State Land Office, South Central Mountain RC&D, River Association, and local contractors and

companies (see membership). The group has established four action items:

a. Land holding agencies and entities interact and coordinate decision-making

through the Unified Command Structure.

b. Priority projects have been identified and are either ongoing, approved and

in line for implementation, or waiting for funding. The idea is that in 3-5 years,

when all of these projects are completed, consistent and meaningful treatment

will have been accomplished.

c. A common voice was established by the creation of a committee of individuals from the different agencies and entities that share new information and

ideas and project public information with a common theme.

d. Treatment standards were reviewed and similar treatment prescriptions

were agreed upon in general terms. Treatments were divided into ‘‘defensible

needs’’ (densities around homes target 40 sq. ft. of Basal Area) and ‘‘wildland

needs’’ (densities target 60-90 sq. ft. of Basal Area depending on vegetation

type). The group discussed and agreed that the ‘‘defensible space’’ around a

structure is best described in a publication by the National Arbor Day Foundation, Nebraska City, NE referred to as Tree City USA Bulletin #41 (see attached). The first zone, 30 feet minimum on flat ground, around a home doesn’t

need to be clear-cut and can include leisure and activity areas where density

is greatly reduced and specie choice and landscape materials must be considered. The Village of Ruidoso offers a forest health, lot assessment service for

its residents. The bulletin is a standard handout item at each lot visit. The idea

is that the Village along with other agencies are consistent and are providing

sound technical advice that reduces wildfire hazard, promotes forest health as

well maintaining fun and leisure space.

This working group is the professional core for planning and administration; resource acquisition and grant writing; technical assistance; implementation; and public awareness for project proposals submitted to the National Fire Plan. Specific

projects approved and in progress are included in the National Fire Plan Report (see

report) prepared by the Lincoln National Forest, Southwest Region.

The key to the success of the RWUIG is the establishment of the action items and

the commitment of the professionals involved to work together.

2. The practical definition of the ‘‘wildland urban interface’’ and the importance of

continued funding to assist private landowners.

It is logical and appropriate to consider wildfire preparedness and workforce development as a priority given the immediate devastation wildfire can bring to a

community. Prevention through public awareness and fuels reduction is a slower,

longer term and equally important objective. Generally speaking, a wildland urban

interface (WUI) is comprised of public land bordering on private land. Neither the

trees nor the burning fire recognize legal boundaries. Therefore, creating a prevention plan for an entire WUI must recognize two scenarios: first, fire entering the

community from the wildland (public lands) and second, fires originating inside the

interface (private lands).

The Los Alamos fire event (Cerro Grande fire) taught us that much of the devastation to homes and property inside the interface could be contributed to lack of ‘‘defensible space’’ around homes. The crowning fire that swept across the wildland did

considerable damage inside the WUI because it ‘‘spotted’’ into people’s yards and

onto their roofs. This is apparent when looking at destroyed neighborhoods with

green trees around burnt homes. An effective prevention plan answers two questions:

1. How to maximize the distance between a ‘‘spotting’’ crown fire and structures within the interface.

2. How to minimize the effect of a ‘‘spot’’ fire produced by a crowning fire or

a fire that originates within the interface.

The answer to the first question is to create a buffer of reduced tree density which

will transform a ‘‘running crown fire’’ back to a ‘‘ground fire’’ where suppression efforts can be more effective. Ground fires do not ‘‘spot’’ like fires burning in the treetops. The answer to the second question is to encourage private property owners to

create meaningful ‘‘defensible space’’. This requires education, technical support,

and financial assistance. It is clear the cost of fuels reduction inside the interface

is higher than similar treatment in the wildland. Removing trees in close proximity

to houses, streets, power lines, etc. is more costly due to the fact the contractor has

more liability and careful removal takes more time. A reasonable figure is $1000/

acre for treatment.

55

In FY 01 the Western Wildland Urban Interface Grant (WWUIG) program made

available $17 million for western states. New Mexico received $1.7 million to be utilized for cost sharing, private land fuels reduction. The Capitan District of NM State

Forestry has available $600,000 for three communities: $150,000 for Cloudcroft,

$150,000 for the Timberon/Mayhill area, and $300,000 for Ruidoso and Lincoln

County.

In Ruidoso the announcement of the program has produced requests for treatment

on 3,617 acres. That translates into $3,617,000 of request. Education through an aggressive public awareness campaign with regard to ‘‘defensible space’’ and recent

fires has resulted in Ruidoso property owners thinning trees and raking pine needles. More than 30,000 cubic yards of forest debris have been cleared by property

owners and removed by Ruidoso’s pick-up service this year. This debris (needle and

branch material) is transported to a mulch and compost facility for utilization. Within the Ruidoso urban interface there is more than 10,000 acres of forested private

land. Demand greatly exceeds the funding for this program. The WWUIG program

is the best (possibly the only) conduit to get Federal assistance on the ground for

private fuels reduction. It is my opinion that this program represents a key to saving lives and reducing property damage in any WUI fuels reduction program.

3. The relevance of proposed amendments to USDA Forest Service land management

plans, with regard to the urban interface, in the Southwest Region

The USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region is proposing to amend land and resource management plans that could greatly increase the effect of treatment and accelerate the implementation of fuels reduction projects around a WUI. The amendment (see more at www.fs.fed.us/r3/wui/index.html) reflects a management emphasis in the WUI and modifies certain standards and guidelines to complement that

management emphasis. In a nutshell, this amendment prioritizes resident populations at imminent risk to wildfire in a WUI above some existing restrictions imposed by Threatened and Endangered Species (T&ES) standards and guidelines.

Here’s how this could work:

• An approximate 1⁄2 mile wide strip of Federal land around the WUI would be

thinned to 40 to 60 sq.ft. of basal area (this replicates general conditions occurring approximately 200 years ago). If a running crown fire enters this reduced

tree density zone, it would be transformed to a ground fire where resources

could address it. This treatment will accomplish fire and public safety objectives

and is the first step towards forest restoration.

• Treatment prescriptions in some areas would dictate removal of material greater than 9′′ (i.e. the use of the logging industry). Merchantable material removed

will reduce industry’s reliance on Federal assistance and help to wean the local

industry from Federal grant programs.

• The Lincoln National Forest is an excellent landscape for demonstration

projects and could prove to be a template for successful management strategies.

On the Lincoln NF there are numerous Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) protected

activity centers (PACs) and some would be affected. There is speculation that

the effectiveness of some of the existing guidelines, in terms of what’s best for

the MSO recovery, is in doubt. Consultations with US Fish and Wildlife indicate

that by opening up the forest (proposed treatment within the owl’s foraging

area), the populations of MSO prey (small mammals) could increase. This proposed treatment could have the effect of promoting MSO forage and thus increasing the owl population. As a supplement to this proposal, I would strongly

recommend dollars be appropriated for extensive monitoring of the known PACs

for a minimum of two years following treatment. This gives us the opportunity

to gather some fresh data with regard to the effect of treatment.

This proposed amendment, along with the additional monitoring, represents a

good opportunity for forest restoration. A best scenario indicates this type of treatment prescription could accomplish the objectives of increased public safety and recovery of the MSO. From a municipal point of view, this is a good example of ‘‘thinking out of the box’’. The proposed amendment implies that the treatment be dictated

by ‘‘the science’’ to achieve meaningful forest restoration. This proposal, if successfully monitored, represents a rare opportunity to begin to bridge the gap between

the necessary treatment to achieve restoration and the legitimate concerns of the

environmental community. Thank you.

Senator WYDEN. Excellent testimony. I thank you.

Mr. Nelson.

56

STATEMENT OF TOM NELSON, DIRECTOR OF FOREST POLICY,

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, REDDING, CA

Mr. NELSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom

Nelson, and I am the director of forest policy for Sierra Pacific Industries in Redding, California. My testimony today also reflects

the views of the American Forests and Paper Association, the

American Forest Resource Council, the California Forestry Association, and the Intermountain Forest Association.

I have some photos that have been included in your packet, and

there are some larger ones that we are going to set up here, with

your permission.

A substantial portion of the national fire plan centers upon the

effectiveness of fire suppression efforts. I will not address this

issue, other than to state that fire suppression treats the symptoms

and not the cause of catastrophic wildfires. Instead, my testimony

focuses on four issues associated with the national fire plan and

suggestions for addressing them. These issues are:

One, active forest management, including timber harvesting,

must be an integral part of fuel reduction efforts.

Two, there are numerous risks to private forest landowners.

Three, there are hurdles that must be overcome to implement the

national fire plan, and

Four, there is an opportunity to utilize fuels reduction material

in the production of electrical energy.

My written testimony goes into much more detail on each of

these issues than time allows for my presentation today, but I

would like to emphasize several key points. First, we simply cannot

continue on the path we have been taking. The disastrous effects

of wildfires are mounting with each successive year. With just twothirds of the 2001 fire season completed, there have been almost

62,000 fires burning over 3 million acres, destroying dozens of

structures, seriously threatening the communities of Jackson, Wyoming, and Weaverville, California, and resulting in the deaths of

10 firefighters, costing the taxpayers nearly $600 million. That was

this year.

Last year, more than 7.4 million acres burned. This is equivalent

to a 3-mile-wide swath from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles and

back, destroying 861 structures, killing eight firefighters, and costing the Federal Government $1.3 billion in suppression costs.

Over the last decade, numerous reports have identified the problem we are discussing here today. There is no escape from the conclusion of all of these efforts. Our forests are in trouble. But most

of the reports that indicate a need to change avoid entirely, or softly describe, the most important tool that can help reduce the

threats to our forests—timber harvesting.

We are talking about common sense thinning to reduce the overly dense forest conditions that lead to catastrophic wildfires, and

to show you an example of this, I brought a number of photographs

taken this summer in the aftermath of one of these fires. This is

from the stream fire in the Lasser National Forest in California.

Those are the photos in your packet.

What I would like to point out here, there are two photos that

show the interior of this fire, and there are no green trees there,

and there were a number of features that were lost. First of all,

57

the aesthetic value was lost. This area is immediately adjacent to

Antelope Lake, which is a very highly used recreational area near

Susanville, California.

Secondly, there were four California spotted owl protected activity centers that were burned to a crisp inside here. In addition to

that, there were two bald eagle areas that had active nest sites

that were completely destroyed inside this fire.

The second photos I want to show you are on the perimeters of

this fire. These are areas that were thinned, and the reason I am

showing you this is that this thinned area was actually a commercial timber sale from the mid-nineties. The design of this sale was

to reduce the fuel-loading and reduce the fire risk. That is the

point at which they fought this fire and contained this fire.

The Forest Service folks that we talked to in the area said that

had it not been for this area, it would have been a 35-to-40,000,

maybe 50,000 acre fire that could have gone into the city of Janesville in California. Instead, this fire was 3,500 acres, so it may be

anecdotal, but this stuff really works.

As previously mentioned, millions of acres of national forest are

at risk for catastrophic fires. Many look just like the area around

Antelope Lake prior to these photos. Failure to treat these unnatural fuel levels dooms forest ecosystems and watersheds to catastrophic wildfires that are so devastating it will take centuries for

them to recover.

I would like to briefly mention the tremendous risk to private

landowners that accompany this situation on our Federal lands. Sierra Pacific Industries owns and manages over 1.5 million of some

of the most fire-prone forests in the United States. I have also attached in your packet a map showing ownership patterns in California, specifically the private lands owned by our company and the

neighboring Federal lands.

You will note that these two ownerships are intermingled, which

is very common throughout the Western United States. All of my

company’s management plans have one thing in common. How can

we protect our forests from catastrophic wildfire? Our experiences

and observations over the last 20-plus years have led to one inescapable conclusion, we must thin our forests to significantly reduce

the fuel accumulations.

We recognize we cannot fire-proof our forests, but we can reduce

the effects of wildfires by reducing the amount of fuel-loading within our forests, and we routinely do this in an economically efficient

manner. The exact same conditions and response can, and should

be implemented on the Federal lands that surround or border us.

There are a number of hurdles to overcome if we are to implement the national fire plan. Right now, the national fire plan’s fuel

reduction efforts are no different than other land management

projects considered by the Forest Service and Department of the

Interior. They must first go through a lengthy and cumbersome environmental analysis process as required by NEPA. Given the complexity of the ecosystems involved, there is no argument that a professional science-based analysis must take place to assure that the

proposed fuels treatment project will meet the needed objectives

and not adversely affect the environment.

58

What we have seen over the decades is that a NEPA process is

driven more by bureaucracy than the ultimate objectives and decisions on the ground. There are other hurdles that I will not go into

at this time.

When timber harvesting is used as a part of the solution, the opportunity to utilize this excess vegetation to manufacture wood and

paper products, or even generate electricity, means that a portion,

if not all of the public’s cost can be captured. My company currently operates six biomass powerplants which produce about 100

megawatts of electricity per hour from wood waste, and I will go

into that in more detail if you have questions about it.

Mr. Chairman, a very serious problem facing our Nation’s forests

has been identified and needs our immediate attention. It affects

72 million acres of Federal forest and places at risk millions of private acres and tens of thousands of rural communities. We do not

need to authorize another study or pilot project. Our forests, wildlife, and communities cannot afford any more delay. We have the

science, the professionally trained resource managers, and a workforce ready for the task. What we need is leadership to act. We

hope that both the administration and Congress will provide that

leadership in a bipartisan fashion.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM NELSON, DIRECTOR OF FOREST POLICY, SIERRA

PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, REDDING, CA

TESTIMONY

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Nelson and I am the Director

of Forest Policy for Sierra Pacific Industries in Redding, California. My testimony

today also reflects the views of the American Forest & Paper Association, American

Forest Resource Council, California Forestry Association and Intermountain Forest

Association. These organizations represent a vast majority of our country’s

forestland owners, wood product manufacturers, and pulp and paper products producers, who are committed to sustainable forestry for all forestlands, public and private. This is an industry that has sales of over $195 billion annually and employs

1.6 million people, more than one percent of the U.S. workforce.

A substantial portion of the National Fire Plan centers upon the role, preparedness and effectiveness of federal fire suppression efforts including cooperation with

state and local fire fighting entities. I will not address these issues other than to

state that fire suppression treats the symptoms and not the cause of catastrophic

wildfires. No matter how much effort is placed in fire suppression, you are only

treating the symptoms of the problem, not its cause. Substantial efforts must be

made to address the underlying cause of the problems facing our wildlands and the

associated urban interface. My testimony focuses on four issues associated with the

National Fire Plan and suggestions for addressing them. The issues are: active forest management, including timber harvesting, must be an integral part of fuel reduction efforts; there are enormous risks to private forest landowners; there are

hurdles that must be overcome to implement the National Fire Plan; and there is

an opportunity to utilize fuels reduction material in the production of electrical energy.

The focus of my testimony is on sound management practices that help promote

the long-term sustainability of our nation’s public and private forestlands. It is imperative that efforts focus on protecting forests, wildlife and communities. In order

to accomplish these important objectives, timber harvesting must be tool available

to, and used by, the Forest Service and Department of Interior.

Issue #1: Active Forest Management, Including Timber Harvesting, Must Be An Integral Part Of Fuel Reduction Efforts

Over the last decade, numerous efforts have identified the problem we are discussing here today. This committee has heard from witnesses today and at previous

59

hearings about the magnitude of this problem and what little has been actually accomplished to address it.

The disastrous effects of wildfires are mounting with each successive year. With

just two-thirds of the 2001 fire season completed, there have been almost 62,000

fires, burning over 3 million acres, destroying dozens of structures, seriously threatening the communities of Jackson, Wyoming and Weaverville, California, resulting

in the deaths of ten firefighters and costing the taxpayers nearly $600 million. Last

year, more than 7.4 million acres burned—equivalent to a three-mile-wide swath

from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles, California and back—destroying 861 struc- tures, killing eight firefighters and costing the federal government $1.3 billion in

suppression costs. The situation has a long legacy of clear warnings and little action

following the smoke of the last catastrophic wildfires as expressed in the following

events:

• The National Fire Protection Association reported that wildland-urban interface

catastrophic wildfires from 1985 to 1994 destroyed 9,925 homes. • The National Research Council and the Federal Emergency Management Agency recognized catastrophic wildfires such as those in California in 1993 and in

Florida in 1998 as among the defining natural disasters of the 1990s. • The General Accounting Office (GAO) published a report in 1999, to the United

States House of Representatives, entitled ‘‘Western Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats.’’ The GAO reported

that ‘‘the most extensive and serious problem related to the health of national

forests in the interior west is the over accumulation of vegetation, which has

caused an increasing number of large, intense, uncontrollable and catastrophically destructive wildfires. According to the U.S. Forest Service, 39 million

acres on national forests in the interior West are at high risk of catastrophic

wildfire.’’

• Escaped prescribed burning by the Bureau of Land Management created the

Lowden Fire that destroyed 23 homes in Lewiston, California in 1999.

• The Forest Service report, entitled ‘‘Protecting People and Sustaining Resources

in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy,’’ was published in 2000. The

Forest Service reported ‘‘the current condition of many of the western region’s

forests renders them susceptible to insect attack, disease outbreak and severe

wildfires. This situation is becoming more widely recognized as the most serious

threat to these forests’’ long-term health, resilience and productivity.’’

• Escaped prescribed burning by the Department of Interior created the Cerro

Grande Fire that consumed 48,000 acres and destroyed 400 homes with losses

exceeding $1 billion in Los Alamos, New Mexico in 2000.

• The Congress appropriated an unprecedented $2.9 billion in funding for the Departments of Agriculture and Interior’s land management agencies to prepare

for firefighting efforts and take proactive steps to reduce fire risk on all federal

lands in 2000.

• The GAO testimony entitled ‘‘The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not

Organized to Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan’’ was delivered to

the House Resources’’ Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health in 2001. The

GAO reported that ‘‘conditions on 211 million acres, or almost one-third of all

federal lands, continue to deteriorate and that the list of at-risk communities

ballooned to over 22,000.’’

• The Western Governors Association (WGA) released its ‘‘Collaborative Ten-Year

Strategy for Restoring Health to Fire-Adapted Ecosystems’’ in 2001. The plan

would emphasize preventing catastrophic blazes instead of just fighting them.

There is no escape from the conclusion of all these efforts—our forests are in trouble. Most of the reports that indicate a need to change avoid entirely, or softly describe, the most important tool that can help reduce the threats to our forests—timber harvesting. We are talking about common sense thinning to reduce the overly

dense forest conditions that lead to catastrophic wildfires and destroy important ecosystems.

The practice of thinning to reduce the potential for stand replacing crown fires

works. Everyday, our foresters see more and more examples of the efficiency of

thinning to effectively reduce the effects of catastrophic wildfires and substantially

aid in the success of firefighting operations. In California near our land, the Goat

Fire, Stream Fire, and many others are recent examples of the role thinning of forests plays in fire control successes. Harvesting of trees played a major role in containing and reducing the effects of each of these wildfires.

The condition of the forests determines the risk of catastrophic wildfire and ignoring overcrowded forests along with the large component of dead and dying trees is

clearly a prescription for disaster. As described above, millions of acres of national

60

1 Ann Bartuska, Letter to John Talberth, November 6, 2000.

2Dahms and Geils, 1997.

3 Ann Bartuska, Letter to John Talberth, November 6, 2000.

forests are at risk for catastrophic fires. As the GAO reports, ‘‘timber harvesting

may make useful contributions to reducing accumulated fuels in many circumstances.’’ 1 Further, a Forest Service research report states, ‘‘well-thinned, relatively open areas scattered across the landscape, interspersed with denser, less intensively managed areas, would provide a wide array of wildlife habitat, and would

be a forest less prone to large-scale catastrophic wildfire.’’ 2 In addition, as noted in

the ‘‘Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report,’’ ‘‘when slash is adequately treated

and treatments are maintained, logging can serve as a tool to help reduce fire hazard.’’ 3 Failure to treat these un-natural fuel levels dooms forest ecosystems and watersheds to catastrophic wildfires that are so devastating that it will take centuries

for them to recover.

In some cases, depending on local conditions, hazardous fuel reduction through

prescribed burning or other means may be more effective than timber harvesting.

However, in most areas of the West, the most effective and cost-efficient method to

reduce fuels includes timber harvesting, and this tool should remain available to the

Forest Service and Department of the Interior for reducing hazardous fuels. Furthermore, when timber harvesting is used as part of the solution, the opportunity

to utilize this excess vegetation to manufacture wood and paper products or even

generate electricity means that a portion, if not all, of the public’s cost can be captured. This would allow for treating more acres within the budget limitations, providing economic opportunities for rural forest communities, while utilizing material

that would otherwise simply go up in smoke. SPI and the associations supporting

my testimony respectfully suggests that language should be included in the National Fire Plan and in relevant related documents specifically stating that timber

harvesting is a tool available to the Forest Service and Department of the Interior

to maintain and improve forest health.

Issue #2: There Are Enormous Risks To Private Forest Landowners

SPI manages over 1.5 million acres of some of the most fire prone forests in the

United States. All of our management plans have one thing in common—how can

we protect our forests from catastrophic wildfire losses. Our experiences and observations over the last 20 plus years have led to one inescapable conclusion—we must

thin our forests to significantly reduce the fuel accumulations. We rely on existing

authorities of the California Forest Practices Act, the underlying science of fire management, our experiences, and the professional judgment of our foresters when we

develop site specific harvesting plans to protect our forests. We are confident that

our efforts in thinning and fuel reductions are effective in reducing the threats and,

most importantly, they are developed in an economically efficient manner.

We recognize that we cannot ‘‘fireproof’’ our forests. But we can reduce the effects

of wildfires by reducing the amount of fuel loading within our forests. Our principles

are simple—open the canopy of the forest by thinning and reduce the potential for

the most devastating of fires, crown fires. On areas nears roads and ridges where

we logically fight fire, our fuel reduction efforts remove the largest amount of vegetation and trees. This allows fire fighting forces a chance to control the fire, improve

the effectiveness of air attack and fire retardant applications and control ‘‘backfires’’

when they are necessary for wildfire control. As we move beyond these obvious defense zones, we thin our forests and leave more trees to achieve a balanced goal of

reducing the potential for crown fires while maintaining adequate growth rates on

our thinned stands.

We can only do so much on our own lands. The greatest threat comes from the

fact that our ownership, like so many other private forest landowners, is interspersed with federal lands which are in need of fuels reduction. I have attached a

map showing ownership patterns in California—specifically, the private lands

owned by our company and the neighboring federal lands. You will note that these

two ownerships, as is common throughout the Western United States, are intertwined and intermingled. Private forest products companies, like ours, as well as

non-industrial forest landowners have aggressively tried to reduce the risks for catastrophic wildfires on their own holdings for many years, largely through the use of

thinning. However, these efforts cannot be effective without the cooperation of our

federal neighbors, since wildfires do not recognize property boundaries.

According to the Forest Service, most of the 72 million acres of National Forest

System lands at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire are not in the wildland-urban interVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
61

4Lyle Laverty, USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan Coordinator, Statement before the

House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, March 8, 2001. 5 USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan: Action and Financial Plan—Title IV Funding,

http://www/na.fs.fed.us/nfp/pa/financial—plan/overview.htm, Accessed 2/22/01.

face.4 However, because of limited resources, hazardous fuel reduction in many of

these areas will be deferred for years. Accumulation of fine ground fuels and encroachment of shrubs and other vegetation beneath dominant canopies will continue. As a result, the likelihood of severe fire behavior in these areas will escalate.

The forest industry is very worried about this situation, since these areas are precisely where our property is adjacent or intermingled.

The number of acres of public land that require hazardous fuel reductions far exceeds the number of acres treated by the federal land management agencies. The

Forest Service’s and Department of the Interior’s hazardous fuel reduction efforts

have not kept pace with the steady increase in over-accumulation of vegetation, outbreaks of insect infestations and disease, and accumulation of fine fuels even though

these efforts have steadily increased over the past decade. The Forest Service estimates that 72 million acres of the land it manages is at risk of catastrophic

wildfires and at the current pace of treatment, it will take more than 30 years to

treat the existing areas. About $120 million of the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations was directed

to alleviate immediate threats to urban-wildland interface areas. To help stretch appropriations for hazardous fuel reduction work, efforts will be made to ‘‘match,

where possible, joint projects with state cooperators.’’ 5 However, as one representative of the National Interagency Fire Center noted, community representatives are

concerned there is no guarantee the federal government will continue to provide

needed funding for their projects and, thus, communities worry they will be left to

pay the entire cost of hazardous fuels reduction work.

Throughout the West, private landowners, state fire experts, and rural communities are poised and ready to implement management activities that will reduce the

potential risks of devastating wildfires like we witnessed last summer in Montana

and Idaho. A good example of this is the State of California’s program to implement

Fire Safe Councils in rural counties. The forest products industry strongly supports

these efforts. To help achieve their goals, all of the major forest landowners in the

Sierra Nevada region signed a memorandum of understanding to implement a series

of interconnected defensible space to fight fires last year. We believe that this type

of partnership between private forest landowners, the State, and local county officials is the most effective way to combat the inherent dangers to the 72 million

acres now at risk within our National Forest System lands. But this cannot, and

will not, occur without the key player at the table—the federal land managers.

Reversal of fuel conditions cannot occur overnight. Clearly, however, there is an

urgent need to prevent fuel conditions from advancing at their current pace. It is

not enough to provide funding for additional fire fighters and equipment. SPI and

the associations would request increased appropriations in the next several fiscal

years for hazardous fuel reduction efforts in areas at high risk of catastrophic

wildfires. Additionally, we respectively request that the appropriation language recognize and emphasize funding collaborative partnerships with owners of in-holdings,

state foresters, and other entities who have established strong programs to reduce

the threats of catastrophic wildfires and are pursuing long-term fuels treatment

strategies.

Issue #3: Hurdles To The Implementation Of The National Fire Plan

The National Fire Plan’s fuels reduction efforts are no different than other land

management projects considered by the Forest Service and Department of Interior—

they must first go through a lengthy and sometimes cumbersome environmental

analysis process as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Given the complexity of the ecosystems involved, there is no argument that a professional, scientific-based analysis must take place to assure that the proposed fuels

treatment project will meet the needed objectives and not adversely affect the environment.

But what we have seen over the decades is a NEPA process that is driven more

by bureaucracy than the ultimate objectives and decisions on the ground. As a result, the project planning process takes years, tends to be very redundant, with little

or no innovative thinking. The NEPA process has become an impediment to professionally planned and executed land management projects and the entire NEPA process, as well as individual agency regulations and policies, must be re-examined.

In today’s reality, very few land management projects, especially if they involve

the cutting of trees, are implemented without first going through an administrative

62

appeals process or litigation. Appeals and lawsuits take an enormous amount of

time and effort, and often delay the implementation of a project for years. In most

cases, a successful challenge can be traced to simple procedural mistakes and not

the merits of the final decision. Often agency managers report that the NEPA process discourages innovation and professional decision-making because it focuses on

procedures and not the substance of decisions.

Given the critical forest health situation facing millions of acres of our western

forests, special rules or exemptions must be authorized so that the land management agencies can quickly treat these overstocked and fire prone forests. The environmental consequences of not treating these areas in a timely fashion, resulting

in the destruction of thousands of acres due to an uncontrolled wildfire, must be

part of the environmental assessment and decision-making process.

The NEPA process is complicated by the jurisdiction of the President’s Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) over the underlying NEPA procedures of agencies.

CEQ must examine its rules and the agencies must examine their procedures and

policies to ensure they are part of the solution to the wildfire crisis, and do not remain a significant part of the problem. Regardless of whether the CEQ and the

agencies revise the regulations or policies, there needs to be better utilization of categorical exclusions, emergency stay or appeal exemptions, and expedited procedures.

There must be recognition of the fact that a ‘‘no action’’ alternative does indeed have

serious and significant effects. Without these changes, more money will be spent in

planning and assessing a project than will be realized by the land management activity on the ground.

In many areas in the west, due to the number of endangered species listings, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation on land management projects, including fuels reduction activities, has become a real bottleneck. Since the existing

Section 7 regulations were put in place in 1986, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) have been asked to conduct

nearly 300,000 consultations, with a dramatic increase in the numbers in the last

several years. The first cause of this bottleneck has been a shortage of personnel

to perform the consultations. A special appropriation this year to supplement the

agencies’’ budgets for National Fire Plan support should help, but it is like buying

more fire trucks, it treats the symptoms and not the cause.

One real fix is to address the Section 7 consultation problem, which is shifting

more of the assessment responsibility to the land management agencies. A review

of the Section 7 consultations finds that less than 1 percent resulted in a jeopardy

opinion by either NMFS or FWS. Given this extremely low risk, changing the

threshold at which the land management agencies are required to enter into formal

consultation from a ‘‘may affect’’ to a ‘‘likely to affect’’ threshold would seem like a

logical proposal. This would free up personnel in both the land management and

regulatory agencies for review of activities with the much higher risks to listed species and would also allow them to get out of the office and focus on efforts to protect

and enhance the species at risk.

Another fix could be to reorganize responsibilities for ESA between NMFS and

FWS. Currently in the West, it is common for land management agencies to consult

with both NMFS and FWS on the same project, involving the same stream segment,

but involving different species—anadromous and resident fishes. One proposal is to

have the responsibility for ESA compliance for anadromous fish shift from NMFS

to FWS when they are present in fresh water. Admittedly, this is a complex proposal and would require legislation.

Existing regional land management plans and policies can also be impediments

to the implementation of the National Fire Plan. Whether it is the Northwest Forest

Plan affecting 24 million acres in Washington, Oregon and Northern California or

the Sierra Framework Plan affecting the remaining national forests in California,

regional land management plans lack flexibility for project planning to address actual on-the-ground circumstances. Allocating areas to ‘‘no treatment’’ with the objectives of providing habitat for listed species ignores the reality that the listed species

are at great risk of losing critical habitat to a catastrophic wildfire. In fact, the Sierra Framework’s selected alternative actually places more old growth forests at

risk than other alternatives, which aggressively treat the dense, overstocked forests

currently at risk.

The PACFISH, INFISH and Eastside Screen interim land management policies

also directly affect the ability to the land management agencies to treat excessive

fuel buildups and suppress wildfires. These interim policies limit the size, number

and location of trees that can be cut without allowing site-specific professional determinations based on the specific ecosystem conditions. It also appears that guidelines

of the PACFISH and INFISH management policies severely restrict firefighting personnel from dropping fire retardant within 300 feet of (and dipping water from)

63

streams that are inhabited by listed fish species. These short sighted guidelines

have resulted in wildfires growing larger than necessary, and in some cases totally

destroying the fish habitat they were intended to protect.

The ultimate solution to addressing the hurdles affecting the implementation of

the National Fire Plan is for the Administration to designate a senior official to coordinate its implementation. We feel that CEQ is the best place for this leader to

be located. As I have described, CEQ has the responsibility for overseeing NEPA

and could be empowered to facilitate coordination between departments and agencies. Without this kind of leadership, agencies will continue to operate under their

own visions and directives. Clearly CEQ could address the problems with NEPA and

facilitate the use of categorical exclusions, emergency stay or appeal exemptions,

and expedited procedures. The Council could also provided the leadership and coordination for dealing with challenges to fuels reduction projects. They could also

facilitate a more workable Section 7 consultation process and coordinate consistent

and timely products from NMFS and FWS. Finally, CEQ could coordinate changes

to regional land management plans and policies that would result in professional,

science-based decisions at the project level that address the conditions present on

the ground. SPI and the associations believe that the failure to have this kind of

leadership will result in more acres burned by catastrophic wildfires, destroying not

only productive forests, but also wildlife and fisheries habitat, and rural communities.

Issue #4: Utilizing Fuels Reduction Material To Produce Electrical Energy

For years now, forest product manufacturers and others have been generating

electricity from wood waste, or biomass. While the operations have been small, limited in their geographic distribution and most cases for internal use, the technology

is clearly available and proven. Northern California has twenty (20) operating biomass-fueled electrical generation facilities with the ability to produce over 375

megawatts of power per hour for sale into the California electrical market, and several additional facilities currently shut down but capable of being re-started. SPI operates six (6) such facilities as part of our integrated operations with the ability to

produce approximately fifty (50) megawatts of power per hour available for sale.

Given the fact that millions of acres are in dire need of treatment to reduce unnatural accumulations of small trees and that much of this is too small to be utilized in the manufacturing of lumber products, there is a perfect opportunity to utilize this material to generate electricity. Currently, over two-thirds of the biomassfueled electric power is generated from forest-related activities, which includes:

slash, brush & tops associated with timber harvesting activities; bark, chips and

sawdust from forest products manufacturing processes; and small diameter material

derived from thinning overly-dense forests identified as being at great risk to wildfire. Some have commented that there could be a biomass power plant associated

with each ranger district on our western national forests.

Let’s now focus our attention on the opportunity to meld our National Fire Plan

with the National Energy Policy. Assume that just half of the 72 million acres of

national forest lands at risk to catastrophic wildfires are available to be managed

and that these acres have the potential of producing approximately 50 tons of biomass per acre. With some simple and conservative assumptions, this material could

generate enough electricity to supply over 8,000,000 homes per year with power.

This doesn’t include other potential biomass fuel sources from private lands, state

lands, tribal trust lands, lumber manufacturing residuals, and other sources still to

be identified.

Promoting biomass electric power generation is not only fiscally sound, but also

environmentally and socially beneficial. In 1999, the Department of Energy published an independent research report entitled ‘‘The Value of the Benefits of U.S.

Biomass Power,’’ which compared the impacts of biomass energy production with the

most probable alternative fate of the residuals described above. The report also

looked at the values of non-energy benefits resulting from biomass power production

such as: air pollutants; greenhouse gas emissions; landfill use; forest and watershed

improvement; rural employment and economic development; and energy diversification and security.

Some specific societal benefits from the utilization of biomass for power generation

includes:

• Alternative To Open Burning—Without the biomass energy sector, large

amounts of woody biomass were consumed by either wildfires, prescribed fires

or field burning. While an alternative market exists for this material, millions

of tons of this waste are consumed in power generation facilities equipped with

sophisticated emissions control devices (rather than burned in the open with

uncontrolled air emissions).

64

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Healthy forests have the ability to actively store

a major greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide. The biomass retrieved from forest

thinning operations not only improves forest health (and therefore carbon sequestration) but also represents a power generation alternative to the burning

of fossil fuels for power. Furthermore, the alternative (open burning of this material described above) produces large amounts of CO2 emissions.

• Rural Jobs—Employment associated with biomass energy plants is significant,

especially in rural areas where these plants are typically sited. Activities such

as harvesting, collecting, processing and transporting wood waste to the power

plants requires skilled workers who earn relatively high wages. Highly skilled

technicians are required to operate and maintain the power plants. The plants

also contribute to the local economy through payment of property taxes.

• Community Protection—Communities located in forested regions, especially

those adjacent to national forest system lands, are at significant risk due to the

unnatural accumulation of forest fuels and for that reason the National Fire

Plan’s priority is to treat those areas first. When considering the work to be accomplished under the National Fire Plan, the ability to utilize biomass material

could easily reduce the cost of the treatment, allowing for significant taxpayer

savings.

• Energy Diversification—Biomass electricity production provides a renewable energy alternative to the use of non-renewable energy sources such as oil, gas and

coal. Use of renewables represents an opportunity to diversify our energy portfolio.

In a market economy, one would assume that with the great potential and benefits described above, that there would be an abundance of biomass power facilities

on line or under construction. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This is primarily

due to the fact that benefits of biomass as a clean, renewable energy source are extremely hard (if not impossible) to quantify in market terms. It is very difficult to

assign market values to forest fuel reduction when the benefits are clean air, watersheds, wildlife habitat and other environmental benefits. Finally, much of the potential fuel supply is located on lands that are under public ownership and therefore,

tend to operate outside the marketplace. For these reasons, we believe an appropriate role for the federal government is to make commitments and support an opportunity with such great net public benefits.

Impediments—there are four categories of impediments to an expansion in biomass energy production that need to be addressed:

• Fuel Supply—there must be a commitment to a long-term supply of biomass (at

least 10 years), through innovative government contracting and congressional

appropriations, so that investments into facilities are worth the risk.

• Regulatory Relief—there needs to be some relief from the lengthy process of obtaining the required permits to construct and operate a facility, especially clean

air permits. For SPI to construct additional biomass electricity power plants, we

must work through a horrendous maze of federal, state and local regulatory

processes that routinely takes several years.

• Long Term Power Purchase Agreements—there needs to be an opportunity to

sell the power into local and regional transmission grids at rates that encourage

investment of private capital in biomass energy facilities. There must also be

some assurances that the energy producer is paid for what they produce and

sell. For example, our company (SPI) was caught with a significant balance due

from Pacific Gas & Electric last year when they filed for bankruptcy.

• Tax Credits or Grants—there needs to be some sort of upfront tax incentives

or grants to construct and operate these facilities in locations close to the biomass supply and in rural communities lacking the needed infrastructure.

An opportunity to marry the National Energy Policy with the National Fire Plan

is not only good energy, forestry and fiscal policy, but also good environmental policy. It will take at least a decade to get new fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear

energy on line, so we need a bridge to close that gap. If not, history has shown us

that mother nature will consume these excess forest fuels, leaving in her wake destroyed homes, wildlife habitat and forest ecosystems that will require millions of

dollars and decades to repair. SPI and the associations feel that the opportunity is

clear—produce clean affordable and renewable electricity from the nation’s forests,

while supporting economic diversification of rural communities.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, a very serious problem facing our nation’s forests has been identified and needs our immediate attention. It affects 72 million acres of our federal

65

forests and places at risk millions of private acres and tens of thousands of rural

communities. We don’t need to authorize another study or pilot project—our forests,

wildlife and communities can’t afford any more delay. We have the science, the professionally trained resource managers and a workforce ready for the task. What we

need is leadership—leadership to act. Our expectation is that both the Administration and Congress will provide that leadership, in a bipartisan fashion, to address

the hurdles, provide the funding and meet the challenges of improving forest health,

enhancing wildlife habitat, protecting rural communities and utilizing this excess

forest fuel to manufacture wood products, produce paper goods and generate electricity that are so important to our nation’s economy.

This concludes my prepared remarks, I would be glad to answer any questions

you or the subcommittee may have for me regarding this important issue.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.

Mr. Woods.

STATEMENT OF TRENT WOODS, SAVE ELK CITY, ELK CITY, ID

Mr. WOODS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Trent

Woods. My wife, Marilyn is with me, and I am going to ask her

to put some slides up, or some pictures up for me. She did not

count on doing that, so I am not sure this is going to work out very

well.

In my written testimony, there are a number of pictures that I

have used to illustrate some problems that we have in Elk City,

and Elk City is a community that is located near the geographical

center of the Nez Perce National Forest. It is a forest that completely surrounds us, and it is an integral part of our lives. We

have grown up in it, we have used it, we have enjoyed its boundless beauty, its pristine waters, its wildlife habitat, and its renewable resource production. Because of these things, we also try to

protect it.

In Elk City we have a nonprofit corporation called Framing Our

Community that is a partner with the group that you probably are

familiar with in Oregon called Sustainable Northwest. We share

with them their motto, Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, and

this is our guiding light. We are therefore truly grateful for your

genuine concern for long-term forest health and pledge our support

to you for your endeavors wherever we can.

Before I get to the pictures, I might just mention that 22 years

ago I and three others from Elk City sat in front of Congressman

Cyberline’s National Resources Committee, and this is where the

Save Elk City button comes from, and we talked about a lot of

these same issues, and the issues at that time revolved around the

establishment of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.

That issue specifically was establishing the boundaries of that

wilderness, and the designated areas for multiple use. We naively

thought we had resolved the majority of these issues in a peaceable

manner, when approximately one-half of our forest was placed into

wilderness and one-half was excluded for multiple use. Had the legislative intent attached to that legislation been followed and enforced, I doubt that we would be here today.

I want to talk about some rather local problems. You have heard

about a lot of things in general about forests, and I have to be very

local in my remarks, and it is a little bit different because our forest is predominantly lodgepole pine in this Elk City area and in the

Red River ranger district. The lodgepole pine has a particular problem that is becoming predominant right now, and that is the mounVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
66

tain pine beetle, which normally is a vital part of the lodgepole forest in that it attacks the weak trees, weeds out in a natural selection process.

It does this by entering into the bark of the tree, carrying a fungus into the sapwood called a blue fungus, which blocks food transport in the tree, and then feeding in the cambium of the tree and

laying eggs, where the offspring then girdle the tree in the cambium layer and thus kill the tree.

Now, what happens is that the first year that the tree is attacked, it stays green. We have a picture—that will work. That will

work. The one behind you is a better one, but that will work right

there. Here you see a group of trees that are already brown that

were attacked last summer. All of the trees around that, that are

green, are already dead. Essentially, 100 percent of the trees in

that area are dead trees. Now, next year they will all be brown.

Now, each one of those trees with all of the dead needles that

are supported in the top of it are almost like dynamite. They will

burn just unstoppable.

The question is, why are so many trees affected, and the answer

is that since it attacks the weaker trees, it is pretty obvious that

we have almost 100 percent weak trees here, and they are primarily weakened because the stands are too dense. We also have

other things such as root rot and various other things that will affect this, but the density of the stands is the big culprit.

In 1982, the Forest Service recognized this problem, and there

was a special appropriation made to hire additional foresters on the

Red River District. They built additional housing, and then along

came packfish. Right now, that district is shuttered and closed.

Nothing is being done, and nothing has been done with the exception of one thinned area, which was done in 1985.

The reason to use this is to show you that in the area that was

thinned there are no dead trees. Now, it may burn, as some have

suggested, but it is going to be a lot later in life before that one

burns.

Now, fortunately, we do have some rather inexpensive ways to

at least alleviate this problem. We have many miles of roads that

are already in the area. The easiest thing to do is to remove

lodgepole pine that can be reached from existing roads. It means

almost zero environmental impact. It would create numerous jobs

in a county that has had double-digit unemployment for years and

years. I think that if there ever was a win-win situation, it is right

now.

Now, there are other issues that I have talked about in the presentation that you have, but the main thing that I would like to emphasize is that we have 150,000 acres of trees that next summer

will be essentially dead standing timber, and it is amazing how

much is going to be dead. You will not see a green tree out there,

and something needs to be done right now.

My time is up, and I will stop at that point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woods follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRENT WOODS, SAVE ELK CITY, ELK CITY, ID

Chairman Senator Wyden and committee members, my name is Trent Woods and

this is my wife Marilyn. We bring you greetings from the great State of Idaho, and

more particularly, from the remote mountain village of Elk City. We are a commuVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
67

nity located near the geographical center of the Nez Perce National Forest. The forest completely surrounds us and is an integral part of our lives. We have grown up

with it, we have used it, we have enjoyed it’s boundless beauty, it’s pristine waters,

it’s wildlife habitat, and it’s renewable resource production. Because of these things

we also try to protect it, which is why we are so happy to see some action in this

body to become concerned with fires and forest health. We have been at a point

where we thought that nobody else truly cared about whether our forest lived or

died, and all the pristine waters along with it. The idea that we humans should

evacuate to the urban areas and leave the forests unattended has been promoted

in same venues. The philosophy of ‘‘LET IT DIE, LET IT BURN, IT IS GOD’S

PLAN’’ is a terribly misguided philosophy with tragic consequences. We happen to

think that we humans are also part of God’s plan and that we were put here to

use our brains and our brawn to become a useful part of the plan.

In Elk City we have a non-profit corporation called ‘‘FRAMING OUR COMMUNITY’’ that is a partner with the Oregon based group known as ‘‘SUSTAINABLE

NORTHWEST’’ and share with them the motto ‘‘Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities’’. That is our guiding light and we are, therefore, truly grateful for your genuine concern for long term forest health and pledge our support for your endeavors

wherever and whenever appropriate.

Realizing that your scope is national in nature and that you will be receiving

input from many different areas, we don’t know how we might fit into the completed

puzzle but we do know that we are certainly a piece of the final picture. I don’t

know that our particular problems are common to all but I suspect that to be true.

We don’t have time to go into all of our concerns but I will try to show you some

of the most pressing, most critical problems. Let me preface the following remarks

by telling you that 22 years ago I, and three others from Elk City, sat in front of

Congressman Seiberling’s Natural Resources Committee discussing these same concerns in a different issue. That issue was the resolution of the boundaries of the

Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness and the designated uses of the areas

specifically excluded from the Wilderness. We naively thought we had resolved the

majority of the issues in a peaceable manner when approximately 1⁄2 our forest was

placed into the Wilderness and 1⁄2 was excluded for multiple use. Had the legislative

intent attached to that legislation been followed and enforced we would not be here

today.

I want to show you some pictures to illustrate very dramatically some of the problems that have resulted from the present day forest management practices. Practices that have cone about from many outside influences.

The first picture is of a small insect known as the Mountain Pine Beetle. This

insect is a natural component of the lodgepole pine timber that dominates a significant portion of our local area. Under normal conditions it serves a useful purpose

in a natural selection process of ridding the forest of weak or undernourished

lodgepole pine trees. It attacks the trees in early summer by boring into the cambium layer beneath the bark, infecting the vertical food paths of the sapwood with

a blue fungus that blocks the food transport, then feeds vertically in the cambium,

laying eggs along the way. Over the next few months, the offspring girdle the tree

by feeding horizontally around the tree, destroying the cambium and killing the

tree. This is a one year cycle so that a tree that has been ‘‘hit’’ this summer will

still exhibit green foliage but, in fact, it is for all practical purposes already dead.

The needles will not turn reddish brown until the following summer. The blaze area

shows a beetle in the center and the white spots in the surrounding bark area are

entry points for other beetles.

This next picture shows the effects of beetle infestation from one year ago, as evidenced by the red needles, and the trees infested this summer that are still green.

Next summer every tree in this picture will be brown.

In both of the following pictures the mature trees are essentially 100% dead, although many are still green, but in the foreground you will note a vigorous young

stand of lodgepole and ponderosa pine. These are the results of a previous ‘‘clearcut’’

that is ostracized by so many but still remains a viable option in certain limited

circumstances.

The question arises ‘‘Why are so many trees affected if the beetle is a desired part

of the natural selection process?’’ Since the beetle primarily attacks the weaker trees

it becomes apparent that all of these trees have been weakened and the primary

reason is that the stands are too dense. Not enough nutrients to support the wood

mass that is present. Other conditions, such as over maturity, drought, or root rot,

are contributing factors but stand density is the big culprit.

The NPF Red River Ranger District is predominantly lodgepole pine. The overstock situation was recognized many years ago and in the early 1980’s a special appropriation was made to increase staffing and facilities to implement a major

68

thinning and harvesting program. The facilities were built and the process commenced. This picture is an example of what resulted from one of their 1985

thinnings. Please note that no dead trees are evident.

Unfortunately for our beautiful forest, along came PACFISH the ranger station

that had been in existence since the early part of the century was closed, the program came to a halt, and the fuel load began to build for a potentially catastrophic

fire. One that not only would destroy all the vegetation and wildlife habitat but

would also destroy the clear flowing streams and the salmon and steelhead fisheries

therein. The current productivity of the streams is illustrated here by a few of this

year’s salmon run that have spawned, completed their lifecycle, and are now feeding

nutrients back to the stream where their life began.

The problem of dying lodgepole is enormous, running well over 150,000 acres in

the Elk City area alone. It surrounds our community and has the potential of destroying our homes, our businesses, and economically affecting the whole State. In

addition, there exists a serious safety hazard from falling trees to anyone entering

into the forest. A Forest Service consultant recently told me that before entering a

stand for survey purposes, they first determine an exit path in case the wind increases while they are in the timber. A little wind and the trees fall like dominoes.

IT IS EXTREMELY CRITICAL THAT IMMEDIATE ACTION BE TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THESE PROBLEMS.

Fortunately, some actions could be initiated now with little effort. There are many

miles of existing roads through and around the affected area. A large portion of

these roads provide immediate access to thousands of acres of trees that beg to be

removed. These are pictures alongside one such road. The removal of infected trees

that are totally within reach of the roadway would have zero negative environmental impact and would be of huge benefit to the forest. These trees should be removed now to protect the still healthy undergrowth and while some commercial

value still exists. Numerous jobs would be created in a county that has experienced

multiple years of double digit unemployment. If ever a win/win situation occurred,

it is here and now.

Due to time constraints, many issues have not been presented here. This is just

the tip of the iceberg but I hope it is apparent from what I have presented that

the forest problems in our area are now, they are critical, and to do nothing at this

point, as has been the ongoing practice, would be devastating to our natural resources and to our nation. Among other things, we must:

1. Immediately remove fire and safety hazard timber

2. Restore foresters to our Forest Service

3. Restore morale in the Agency

4. Restore common sense to the decision making process

5. Eliminate endless appeals to every decision

6. Demand that forest health not be further imperiled by tire ESA.

7. START NOW AND NOT TOMORROW

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and, for all my friends back

home, I thank you for bringing the problems of our national treasures to the attention of all Americans.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Woods, thank you.

This has been an excellent panel, and probably what you all have

done is illustrate in a half-hour or so the primary challenge ahead

of us, and what I really want to accomplish on my watch. I mean,

this is my first hearing as chairman of this subcommittee. I have

worked closely with Senator Craig for 20 years, and I think we

showed with the county payments bill that you could find some

ways to take people from very, very polarized positions and come

up with practical solutions, and Mr. Woods mentions the win-win

situation.

I am convinced, if we cannot on a bipartisan basis find some

ways to bring this panel together, what we get is the lose-lose. You

do not protect your treasures, nor are you sensitive to local economic needs, and that is just not what I think I got an election certificate for, and I come back to this summer.

I mean, anybody who was watching the thousands of firefighters

fight these raging fires over hundreds of thousands of acres has to

69

recognize that business as usual, which is bad for the environment

and bad for community economic needs, is not acceptable, and what

I want to do is see if I can find some ways this afternoon to move

you a little closer to some areas that we can pursue, both in the

fire area and in terms of forestry generally, to come up with some

solutions that will promote healthy ecosystems and forest health in

particular.

Let me begin with you, Mr. Lawrence, if I might. You have heard

Mr. Woods and Mr. Nelson and in particular folks in New Mexico

as well talk about areas that have suffered severe insect infestations, and Elk City, which Mr. Woods has talked about, or severe

fires, like I mentioned the Warner Creek area in Oregon. What is,

in your view, the appropriate way to manage these areas so as to

be sensitive to the economic needs of these communities?

Mr. LAWRENCE. Well, I think the starting point is to recognize

that insect infestations present different challenges from the general enterprise of trying to do fire risk reduction in a more general

forest. I think that most insect infestation areas have to be judged

on their own merits. It is a difficult thing to generalize about.

There are places where insect infestations appear to be truly

frightening, and then 2 or 3 years later turn out not to have had

a particularly abnormal effect. There are other places where insects

kill in particular areas almost completely, and what is left behind

is a whole bunch of dead trees whose fate ultimately is going to be

burn up, and to burn up relatively hot, and I think as between

those two polar opposites, it is very difficult to speculate or to generalize about what the appropriate approach is.

Just a couple of general principles. You may or may not know

that my organization is not a zero-cut organization. We do not oppose commercial logging on the national forests. We think the question is where it should be done and how, and I say that I think

we cannot confuse restoration logging with commercial logging.

That does not mean there should not be any commercial logging.

One place for commercial logging is places where there is a very

high percentage of beetle kill, bug kill, or in some cases, rare cases,

pathogen-killed trees, and it is an appropriate thing to look at, but

it is very difficult to say sort of, you know, a priori, let us do it,

or let us not do it.

I think another important thing to recognize is there is a big difference between going into an area before it burns, and going into

an area after it burns. Areas that have burns in particular areas

that have burned relatively hot and have suffered disturbance from

management over the years tend to be very sensitive, and they

have damage. What science we have about restoration efforts in

those areas suggest logging those areas is very tricky, has lots of

downsides.

There is less indication to show that there are big problems in

the wake of logging trees that have been killed but not burnt, so

there is some reason to think about getting in early and making

a decision early about whether to log a stand or not. Waiting until

it burns and then rushing in to do a so-called salvage logging operation often does not produce very much in the way of value for the

timber companies and the communities, and it often produces lots

of environmental harm.

70

Senator WYDEN. I would be very interested, and you could get us

this for the record, to have you try to lay out in your view what

are the appropriate management principles for those areas, because I think you are right, there is certainly, between the extremes, some differences, but could you get that for us, say in the

next couple of weeks?

Mr. LAWRENCE. I will do what I can. I want to underscore—I am

hedging here a little bit because the first thing I am going to do

is go talk to scientists who know the most about this. This is not

an area I prepared for today, and I know this much, that it has

been a couple of years since I have talked to those guys, so I have

got to track them down and hear what they have to say, read their

research and think about it, and not to dodge you, but I think a

couple of weeks is an ambitious timetable for that, given what is

on our plate.

Senator WYDEN. This is going to be an ambitious subcommittee.

[Laughter.]

Senator WYDEN. Because we have got a lot of work to do, and

it may be of some solace to you, I am going to ask the flip side of

the question now for Mr. Nelson and Mr. Woods, because Mr. Nelson and Mr. Woods are saying that they want to go on in there and

deal with dead and dying material, and insect infestations, and I

would be curious what environmental safeguards you think you

two gentlemen believe ought to be applied to this kind of timber

harvest.

Mr. NELSON. Should I go first?

Senator WYDEN. Either one.

Mr. NELSON. Well, first of all I think you need to talk about why

you have these insect epidemics. There are insects in our forests

all the time. They are natural populations out there. The reason

you have the pictures that Mr. Woods brought here is because we

have forest health conditions where we have trees under an immense amount of stress.

It is compounded by the fact that we have drought cycles, but in

general, we have vastly overstocked conditions out there that puts

the individual trees at stress, so that when these insects that are

always out there get into conditions where you have vast acreage

with trees that are growing much to close together, that are fighting for oxygen and nutrients, that is when you get insect

epidemics, so I guess I would say that first of all an insect epidemic

should be part of the fire plan, because it is the same cause. The

overstocked, unhealthy forest conditions are going to produce both

fires and insect epidemics.

The second point I think I would make is that this is truly a winwin situation, and what I heard you say, Senator, I agree with. In

that vein, I do not see where we need to make a distinction between restoration and commercial logging. if we have a good, balanced program with commercial logging that takes out the fuel, we

can generate electricity with it instead of making dirty, polluted air

when the fires come in. We can also take out saw logs and make

boards, and keep these rural communities in jobs. That is a winwin situation, so I do not quite understand the distinction between

restoration and commercial logging.

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Woods.

71

Mr. WOODS. I agree with what he said, and the thing that I

would like to talk a little bit about, you mentioned the environmental protections that we have, and number 1, in our area—and

I will just talk about our area particularly—we have a rather

healthy undergrowth of Ponderosa pine, of firs, and some other

species in the lodgepole, which everybody recognizes needs to be

protected. I doubt that anybody is more concerned with the environment than we are in Elk City on the long term.

What I talked about also was being able to establish at least

some fire breaks to take out some of these things from existing

roads, so we do not create any additional environmental damage.

Our biggest problem, quite frankly, is in the Forest Service, and it

is not that we do not have good people in the Forest Service, but

their hands have been completely tied. There are mountains of paperwork that face them, and they sit in their offices with glazed

eyes, quite frankly, and I think that is one of the reasons why the

morale is so low. They have impossible jobs. They cannot get anything done. If they do anything, it is appealed. It is appealed and

appealed and appealed, and I know that you gentlemen are more

than familiar with that story.

But there is a way to immediately attack this problem in our

area, and it does need to be done immediately, through a categorical exclusion, where these dead trees and dead pine trees that are

within reach of the roads could be placed in a category that would

not go through an appeals process and some removal could be established right now, and during this period of time, when you are

getting part of this out, you can work on the rest of the problem.

Senator WYDEN. I am going to ask you two to do the same thing

that I asked Mr. Lawrence to do. See if in the next couple of weeks

you can get me a statement of how you would apply environmental

safeguards to the harvest that you want to have, because I want

to take those two statements, I want to take what Mr. Lawrence

has said with respect to his concerns about how you deal with it

from an environmental standpoint, and his desire to talk to scientists, which is plenty legitimate in my view, with what you are

saying, because I have made it clear I want to get that dead and

dying material off the forestland.

But I want this panel to understand, there is not going to be a

salvage rider on my watch. We are not going to go back to those

kinds of polarizing days that bring you a lose-lose situation. They

are bad for the environment and bad for the economic needs of the

community. We are not going back to that. We are going to stay

at it until we find some ways to bring folks together, and you mentioned doing more of it at the local level. Senator Craig and I are

very proud of that county payments bill, because it gets more of the

decisionmaking out of Washington, D.C. It gets it out at the local

level, and that is where the county projects portion was so important in terms of getting the legislation done.

So I asked the question in the way that I did for a reason, and

that is that I am very hopeful that we are going to be able to figure

out, like we did with the county payments legislation, a bipartisan

coalition of sensible people from the scientific community and local

communities around this country, and industry and environmental

72

leaders, and make some more progress here in an area that is absolutely key to reducing fire, which we are all interested in doing.

The last question would be for all the panelists. Maybe we can

start right down the row with you, Mr. Hubbard. I actually will

have a couple of other questions, but after this I want to recognize

my colleague.

Mr. Hubbard and our other panelists, last year the Congress instructed the agencies to focus their efforts to reduce hazardous

fuels in their communities that were at high risk from wildfire.

Now, we have gotten reports that only a small portion of all the

projects are being implemented in the wildland urban interface

near communities. I would be curious whether that is your experience, and whether you think Federal agencies can be doing more

to carry out what has been an important priority.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. HUBBARD. The States were asked to produce a list for the

Federal Register of communities that were threatened by wildfire

and forest condition. They produced 22,000 communities for that

list. The process was that each State, through its own system, determined how to assess that risk, and provided that list of communities.

The Federal land management agencies were then asked to respond in field treatment projects that corresponded to protecting

those communities that were at risk. In 2001, not much of that

happened. We were dealing with projects that already had environmental clearance that had started through the process prior to that

list being produced.

We accepted that. We coordinated with those agencies on how we

could apply the resources spent on the private lands best with

what was coming forward in the future on the Federal lands, but

after the Federal agencies got finished with the preparedness implementation that achieved the most efficient level, they then

turned their attention to fuel treatment projects and the joint planning of those projects, collaborative with the State and local communities. That is very much underway, and I think in 2003, when

we get through the environmental clearance process, you will see

good results.

Senator WYDEN. All right.

Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, the answer is they can do a lot more to

identify priority communities and priority projects in community

areas, and not only for the reasons that Mr. Hubbard points to, but

also because the whole business of identifying where priority treatment priorities are going to lie is kind of a hot potato. It is not surprising that they have not made a great deal of progression it.

One critical element in doing that, I think, is going to be to work

with community leaders to work on a program, and to integrate

with a program of bringing fire resistant materials to the structures in question. As Mr. DeIaco said, in the Los Alamos fire the

majority of the structures—this is not quite what you said. It is

about what you said.

The majority of the structures that were lost were actually experienced a moderate to low intensity fire, and they either burned up

because of that low to moderate intensity fire, or because of spotVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
73

ting, firebrands that came from miles away. You can thin a very

long way away from houses and still lose them and, heaven help

us, every once in a while lose firefighters as well, if you do not

make the houses more resistant to fire.

It does not do any good to define an urban wildland interface as

miles away from communities, and then leave the houses exposed,

so an integral part of this is working with community leaders, getting that work done to make sure that when you do thin around

communities, you have got something there that can be defended.

Mr. DEIACO. Yes, I think the answer for the southern New Mexico area is a yes, too. The Forest Service there is a couple of years

ahead, probably was ahead of the curve. They had stuff on the

shelf, NEPA-ready. They have done more than 13 miles of the

interface around the community. We pretty much have an

intermixed community right where I come from. They have done a

good job.

But again, it does not do a whole lot of good if you do not get

on the other side of the interface and get the private folks in there

doing their stuff, because that is where the damage is.

Thank you.

Senator WYDEN. And that is clearly where progress has been

slow. All right.

Mr. Nelson.

Mr. NELSON. On the flip side of that, in California we have an

infrastructure setup between the State of California Department of

Forestry and the major private landowners as well as the Federal

Government. It is called the Firesafe Councils. The one I am most

familiar with is in the Quincy Library Group area, and in those

places the private entities and the State have done an amazingly

good job of getting fuel breaks—thinnings—around these communities.

The problem we have seen is that the Forest Service has not

come to the table. It has not been their own fault in all cases, but

they have been hampered by some of the hurdles I went into in my

written presentation. In our case, in California specifically, the Sierra Nevada Framework EIS would not allow them to thin down

anything below a 12-inch tree, for example. It is almost impossible

to have a fuel break that is going to reduce the spread of fire with

those kind of constraints on it. So in the case of the area that I

am familiar with, the private entities and the State have done a

very good job of trying to get at these communities, but the Feds

have not.

The second point is, and it was previously mentioned, you cannot

really stop a fire of the magnitude that we are seeing now with a

shaded fuel break. All it really allows you is a safe place to get firefighters in, to get the fire down out of the tops of the trees so that

you can get people and equipment on it and try to stop it, so the

idea that you are going to thin, you can argue whether it is 50 feet

or 5 miles around a community, that is not going to stop these raging fires we are seeing now, so we need to get out and make it beyond that. We need to reduce the stockings throughout the forest.

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Woods.

Mr. WOODS. I would just like to reiterate some of the things I

have already said, and particularly in terms of the immediacy of

74

the problem. For us, we are looking at lodgepole pine that is mature pine, almost uniformly through the forest, and I said—it is a

bad word to even bring up, but probably the best way to treat a

lot of that is just absolute clear-cut. It is stuff that has got to come

out of there. If it burns, it is going to be so intense that you are

not going to be able to stop it.

And I was reminded a couple of years ago, I think Senator Craig

was in the area south of the Salmon River with Secretary Babbitt

and Governor Kempthorne, in a fire in this type of timber, when

you cannot hardly go into it because the trees are falling so fast

and the firefighters are at extreme risk. You are at extreme risk

in this area right now if you just go out and survey a stand.

In fact, as I mentioned in my testimony, one of the consultants

told me that they first of all, before they enter a stand, try to figure

an escape route. If they get caught in that lodgepole timber when

the wind comes up, there is no escape route, and I guess that my

main thing is, now is imperative, and we do not have time to go

through study after study.

Senator WYDEN. That is why I asked you both for your principles

and how you would approach it in a couple of weeks.

Mr. WOODS. And we will have a plan to you in 2 weeks about

environmental concerns.

Senator WYDEN. That is how we are going to have to do this,

folks. If you all tell us how you are going to comply with the environment, Mr. Lawrence will tell us what he thinks the best science

is that makes sense for handling these areas so as to promote sustainability, then we can do what people give us an election certificate for, and that is to come up with a way to make our forests

healthier and deal with these issues.

So it has been an excellent panel, and we will go to Senator

Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I wanted to get back

here to thank Trent for being here, and I see his wife in the audience. We have over the years worked together on a lot of issues.

It is not unique that they wear a pin or a button that says, Save

Elk City. For any of you who have not been there, it is this unique,

private enclave, private property enclave in the middle of the Nez

Perce Forest. It is a community whose relationship to the forest

causes its existence, and I would like to think that the existence

of the forest could be caused by the community itself.

To lose the kind of infrastructure, Mr. Chairman, we are in the

process of losing in many of our small communities, mills, the very

tool that the Forest Service now needs to make any value whatsoever of a forest practice toward improving the forest health is really at risk here at the moment, and I think it is something that all

of us have to face and deal with.

I would have to take some issue with Mr. Lawrence, and the fact

that he says there is no science that argues thinning. Well, we

have not done enough thinning, although we have had a lot of pilot

programs out there that would suggest that changing the character

of the stands by removal, or replicating what Mother Nature would

have done 100 years ago, does substantiate. I think what we are

attempting to do here is to get back into our forests and try to repVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
75

licate what Mother Nature would have done here 100 years ago before we got at the business of putting out fire.

The introduction of fire into the circumstances of what we are

talking about today is catastrophic, and we have had 2 full years

demonstrating that now. Even in 1994 it was being demonstrated

in a very real way, before we got into another wet cycle in the

Great Basin regions of the West, and now we are back out of that

and into the drought cycle.

We are back into ever increasingly hotter and totally stand-destructive kinds of fires of a nature that is well beyond, I think,

what any of us had imagined, or even some of our friends on the

other side who are advocates of no management whatsoever on our

public lands are beginning to recognize is in itself an almost indefensible position.

Having said that, I would agree with you, there are not going to

be any salvage riders, nor would there be any that I would support,

but we are frustrated, tremendously frustrated when we suggest,

or as some have suggested here that you do not thin in roadless

areas. Then let me count the times the fire either started in the

wilderness, roadless areas, and moved into the roaded areas, and

then moved to the urban interface.

I am not sure on which end you start. If it is only the urban

interface that we are allowed to enter, then that will not change— it will only save the trophy homes, and some of the suburban areas

are the urban areas that have grown out of these communities that

were once beside the forest that are now in the forest. It will not

save the forest.

And clearly, public policy and this committee ought to be at the

business of saving the forest, and changing the character of the

stands so effectively outlined by the bug kill that is now so clearly

evidenced in the Great Basin West, that is in part a combination

of the uniqueness I think that Mr. Nelson outlined.

We had situations in the West this past 2 years in which standing trees had less moisture content than had they been dropped,

sawed, and run through a dry kiln, and when that happens, and

the pitch comes forward in its defense of itself for the purpose of

saving the tree against the bugs, the tree inevitably dies, or it

weakens itself to a point where only the strong survive, and that

is one in every 50 or 60, and we set ourselves up for catastrophic

events that will ultimately fall out.

I would hope that we have started down a road where we can

gain public support and gain some of those who were once our critics, will work with us becoming cautious advocates of a way to save

our forests to ensure their health and their watershed qualities and

their wildlife habitat.

Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked closely on a lot of these

issues. There are a good many questions I could ask, but the reality

is that you do not just start at one end of a problem and suggest

that you solve it by messing around down at one end of it. Many

fires, and the fires that we saw over in the Quincy area, that took

out phenomenal habitat, did not start in the areas that were once

treated. It started in the areas that were not treated, and those

were the unroaded areas, and in some instances the wilderness

areas.

76

Now, we are not going to go into wilderness, and neither you nor

I would support that, but to suggest that we do not even look at

the unroaded areas, or that we are not allowed to develop a

roadless policy, a new roadless policy that will allow us some flexibility there to regain forest health, Mr. Chairman, is in itself a half

a solution at best, to a problem that will only increase as we cycle

ourselves through these forests, and as we now bring ourselves to

it.

I want to thank the folks for traveling from Idaho, but I want

to thank all of you for being here. As the chairman and I and our

colleagues in the Senate work with this new administration and

the policies that are at hand, and hopefully the ability to adjust

those policies a little bit, and to do so in the bright light of the public eye and the public attention—these are public lands and, frankly, I do not want to see Idaho burn. I do not want to see any other

area burn, but we have literally millions of acres in my state today

that are unroaded, that are ready to torch, and if we go through

another year or two of the kind we have experienced in the last

two, they may well go.

I would feel not only neglectful, but I would feel that I had acted

in an irresponsible way, Mr. Chairman, if I had not tried to set in

place policies that tried to save those forests in the name of the environment in which they now are.

Thank you. Thank all of you very much for being here. We appreciate your testimony and your involvement in these issues.

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague for a statement that, as

has always been our tradition, indicates that you are willing to

meet me more than halfway in terms of trying to work these issues

out, and I say to the panel members, what we can do if the people

from the industry give us the essence of how they would approach

these issues from an environmental standpoint. If Mr. Lawrence

and his associates in the environmental community talk to us

about land management practices you all will follow, Senator Craig

and I will perform as we did on the county payments bill. We will

work with Chairman Bingaman and the Ranking Republican, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, and work with you on an ongoing

basis to put in place a new approach that will keep forests in this

country healthier. This will allow us to have more sustainable forestry, and will address both environmental and economic needs, so

that is why we put you on that tight time frame.

It has been an excellent panel, and unless you all have anything

you would like to add further, we will excuse you at this time. Does

anybody have anything further they want to add?

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(77)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS,

Washington, DC, August 10, 2001.

Hon. ROBERT C. BYRD,

Chairman, Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington,

DC.

DEAR SENATOR BYRD: The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is

pleased to support and recommend implementation of the document titled, ‘‘A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A Ten-year Comprehensive Strategy.’’ The NASF is a non-profit organization that represents the Directors of State Forestry agencies in all fifty states, eight U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia.

The need to improve public and firefighter safety, reduce hazardous fuels, and restore forest ecosystems is of nationwide concern and affects private as well as public

lands. Our members are committed to working collaboratively; across jurisdictional

boundaries, to promote the health and sustainability of our nation’s forest resources.

The NASF appreciates the language from Congress in the FY 2001 Interior and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291) which directs the Secretaries of

Interior and Agriculture to work in full partnership with state and local governments in responding to the current wildland fire and hazardous fuels situation.

We were also pleased to be included in the core group of stakeholders that drafted

this strategy. We commend the entire drafting group for their dedication to the effort and for the commitment to partnership and collaboration reflected in the document.

As the strategy moves forward to implementation, the NASF encourages both

Congress and the Secretaries to maintain the emphasis on full state-federal partnership, to focus on local involvement, prioritization and decision-making, and to encourage actions that transcend jurisdictional and/or ownership boundaries to address landscape level resource needs.

Thank you for your interest in and commitment to the sustainability of our nation’s forests and communities. We look forward to working with you, as well as our

federal and non-federal partners, to implement this strategy.

Sincerely yours,

CONRAD MOTYKA,

President.

August 13, 2001.

Hon. ROBERT C. BYRD,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We endorse and commend to you the enclosed document,

A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the

Environment: A Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy.

In October 2000, the Congress passed and the President signed the FY 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291). The Conference Report

accompanying P.L. 106-291 directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture

to ‘‘work with the governors on a long-term strategy to deal with tile wildland fire

and hazardous fuels situation, as well as the needs for habitat restoration and rehabilitation in the nation.’’ They are to ‘‘develop a coordinated National 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy with the states as full partners in the planning, decision making, and implementation of the plan.’’ The Conference Report also stated that a collaborative structure with the states and local governments as full partners, will be

78

the most efficient and effective way of implementing a long-term program. We believe the Strategy meets these important objectives among others.

A number of stakeholders, many of whom are listed in Appendix II, assisted the

Governors in the development of this strategy. We appreciate the work of these individuals and all others who contributed to this important effort.

Over the next nine months, we will prepare a detailed implementation plan for

the Strategy that will seek to improve the integration of the wildfire management

programs of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, establish consistent

priorities and performance measures, provide timelines for accomplishments, meet

applicable legal requirements for federal and state actions, and continue to build

upon the collaborative approach undertaken thus far. We expect to complete the implementation plan by May 1, 2002.

ANN M. VENEMAN,

Secretary of Agriculture.

GALE A. NORTON,

Secretary of the Interior.

DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

Governor of Idaho,

Western Governors’ Association

Chairman and Lead Governor.

JOHN A. KITZHABER, M.D.,

Governor of Oregon,

Western Governors’ Association

Lead Governor.

JANE DEE HULL,

Governor of Arizona,

Western Governors Association

Vice Chair.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES,

August 13, 2001, Washington, DC.

Hon. ROBERT BYRD,

Chairman, Interior Subcommittee, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC

DEAR CHAIRMAN BYRD: The National Association of Counties (NACo) endorses ‘‘A

Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the

Environment: A Ten-year Comprehensive Strategy.’’

Over the last decade, county officials have witnessed the ecological and economic

devastation wrought by increasingly severe wildland fires across the country. As a

direct result of this firsthand experience, we are convinced that the approach outlined in the Strategy is exactly what we should be doing to protect our communities

and our natural resources.

NACo was heartened by the fact that Congress directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to work with the states and local governments as ‘‘full partners’’ in developing the Strategy. We commend the Secretaries and Governors for

the deference to local perspectives that permeates the Strategy, thus fulfilling both

the spirit and the letter of the law.

Ultimately, however, our support for the Strategy is based not on the process by

which it was developed, but on the promise it holds for achieving measurable outcomes on the ground. We believe that the Strategy lays out a roadmap for (1) improving wildland fire prevention and suppression; (2) reducing hazardous fuels; (3)

restoring fire adapted ecosystems; and (4) promoting community assistance. America’s counties are committed to meeting each of these important goals and look forward to working with the Secretaries and the Governors to implement the Strategy.

We thank you for your vision and look forward to working with you to achieve

our common aims.

JAVIER GONZALES,

President, NACo,

Commissioner, Santa Fe County,

NM.

GEORGE ENNEKING,

President, NACo Western Interstate

Region,

Commissioner, Idaho County, ID.

79

INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL,

Portland, OR, August 17, 2001.

Hon. ROBERT BYRD,

Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior and Related Agencies, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. CONRAD BURNS,

Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. JOE SKEEN,

Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior and Related Agencies, U.S.

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. NORM DICKS,

Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior and Related Agencies, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMEN AND RANKING MEMBERS: On Monday, August 13, 2001, the Western Governors Association issued ‘‘A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland

Fire Risks to Communities and Environment,’’ a ‘‘10-Year Comprehensive Strategy’’

developed by a stakeholder group led by the Western Governors Association (WGA)

that hopes for the Strategy’s adoption by the Congress and U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior.

The Intertribal Timber Council, an organization of seventy forest-resource owning

Indian tribes and Alaska Native organizations, attended the development sessions

of the stakeholder group, and we wish to take this opportunity to state the Intertribal Timber Council’s (ITC) position on the Strategy. We must also note that this

statement of position is that of the ITC alone and is not intended to represent the

specific views of any individual tribe.

The Intertribal Timber Council is supportive of the Strategy, to the degree that

tribal participation can be fulfilled within the well established and overarching policy of the government-to-government relationship directly between the United

States and Indian tribes, and within the unique treaty and trust obligations of the

United States to Indian tribes, our people, and our resources. With the Nation’s forests—and their potential for wildland fire transcending ownership boundaries, the

need for communication and collaboration among all involved parties is essential to

comprehensively address wildland fire issues. We were pleased that our representative was able to take part in the WGA-led stakeholders group that developed the

Strategy, and we hope we will continue to be involved in the development of the

Strategy Implementation Plan.

There are, however, several issues within the Strategy that are of concern to us.

First, application of the Strategy’s ‘‘priority setting’’ to Native American communities and resources must be clarified to fully recognize and adhere to federal trust

and treaty responsibilities to tribes and their resources, and the tribal—federal government-to-government relationship.

Currently, the Strategy’s Framework for Collaboration’s description of Local Level

activities includes tribes as participants in local stakeholder groups that are to help

‘‘establish priorities’’ for the application of wildland fire assistance, raising the question of whether tribal participation in local stakeholder groups is to subject tribal

wildland fire funding to the collective priority determinations of the local stakeholder group. The Strategy’s Summary discussion of the Framework for Collaboration underscores that question by noting the Framework is to apply ‘‘across all ownerships and jurisdictions.’’ These raise the prospect that, within the Framework,

parties other than the tribes and the United States could seek to become involved

in determining the national level of funding for wildland fire activities on Indian

trust lands, and in determining how that money is to be spent within Indian trust

lands. That is not acceptable. Quite simply, no parties other than the U.S. and the

tribes should have authority to determine how the U.S. fulfills those obligations.

While tribes certainly are willing to work with all their neighbors in coordinating

the most effective application of their respective funds and resources, it must be

clear that the determinations for Indian Country remain solely in the hands of the

U.S. and the tribes.

Second, we are concerned that, within the Strategy’s Framework for Collaboration, tribal governments have been deleted from participating at the National Level,

and that only the governors are to sit as ‘‘full partners’’ with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior. Earlier drafts of the Strategy included tribes and local governments in National Level participation, but the final version issued on August 13th

unexpectedly deletes all but the governors from the National Level.

80

While we have been assured that the Strategy is to operate within all existing

law and regulation, and that the Strategy says ‘‘line officers of the land management agencies are the principal decisionmakers concerning public lands’’ (note: Indian trust lands are not ‘‘public lands’’), the Strategy also makes clear its intention

that the governors, as ‘‘full partners’’, have a substantive role in national budget

and policy decisions regarding wildland fire. Such decisions could impinge upon the

availability and application of wildland fire resources for federal trust obligations

for Indian tribes and Indian resources.

Tribal governments are separate and distinct from state governments, and have

a direct and unique relationship with the United States founded in treaties and fiduciary obligations. Given such interests, it is altogether appropriate that tribal governments also have a seat at the federal table. Tribes may be willing to participate

in the coordinative efforts of the Framework for Collaboration, but in no way does

that mean representation of tribal interests at the federal level on this issue is to

depend upon agents of state government. Accordingly, the ITC asks that, in any

Congressional or Executive adaptation of the Strategy, tribal governments be provided a tribal representative in National Level forums on wildland fire issues.

As mentioned before, the ITC is pleased to have taken part in developing a comprehensive collaborative and cooperative Strategy for all aspects of wildland fire and

communities at risk. The ITC understands the need for and is supportive of such

plans, and we hope to participate in developing the Strategy Implementation Plan,

where we may have an opportunity to pursue the necessary and appropriate clarification of tribal roles in ‘‘priority setting.’’ We also hope to work with the WGA on

assuring appropriate tribal participation in National Level decision-making on

wildland fire issues. But ultimately, we ask that the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch fully recognize and exercise your unique federal trust and treaty responsibilities to protect tribal governments, our communities, and our resources.

Sincerely,

NOLAN C. COLEGROVE, SR.,

President.

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION,

September 11, 2001.

Hon. ROBERT C. BYRD,

Senator of West Virginia, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR BYRD: We seek your continued support for substantial funding for

wildland fire management activities. Based on the agreement with the previous Administration and with the Bush Administration under the recently endorsed 10-year

Comprehensive Strategy, ‘‘A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire

Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy,’’ the

Western Governors’ Association (WGA) fully supports substantial funding in the

areas of fire preparedness, rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuel reduction

and community assistance.

WGA believes that the reduction of fuel loads on public lands and in those areas

adjacent to communities in the wildland-urban interface is critical for protecting the

health of the nation’s resources and ensuring public safety. We support hazardous

fuel mitigation through increased prescribed fire, thinning and the restoration of degraded watersheds. Active management and restoration treatments will require not

only investment by the federal government if the forest health and reforestation

goals are to be achieved in a timely manner, but will also require partnerships with

the states and implementation at the local level on all land ownerships as called

for by the Congress in the committee report for the FY 2001 Interior and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291). In fact, the report calls for states to be

‘‘full partners in the planning; decision-making, and implementation’’ of the 10-year

Comprehensive Strategy. This same language, along with the associated language

addressing the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy should be incorporated in the conference report of the FY 2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

81

Wildland fire threats, impacts and consequences across the nation are real and

substantial. Our states are again feeling the impact this summer. In 2000, over 8

million acres burned in the United States, and suppression costs alone reached a

record $1.6 billion. At least 3 million acres have burned so far this year. We can

significantly reduce these figures in the future with up front investments to improve

the health of these lands. Accordingly, we urge your support for the provisions of

the Senate and House marks as detailed in the attachment.

JOHN A. KITZHABER, M.D.,

Governor of Oregon.

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW,

Governor of South Dakota.

RICK PERRY,

Governor of Texas.

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,

Governor of Utah.

GARY LOCKE,

Governor of Washington.

JIM GERINGER,

Governor of Wyoming.

[Attachment.]

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION (WGA), FY 2002 INTERIOR AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT NEEDS

Western governors are committed to accelerating restoration of unhealthy forests

and watersheds, working in partnership with stakeholders, and federal and local

partners.

Restoration Rehabilitation, Fuels Treatment and Suppression

WGA supports the House mark regarding funding of restoration and rehabilitation work and accompanying language allowing for the funds for fuels and rehabilitation in the National Fire Plan of the Forest Service to be used for projects on adjacent non-federal lands in the wildland urban interface. We also support the fire suppression and hazardous fuel reduction funding in the House mark for the Forest

Service account.

Emergency Appropriations and Volunteer/Rural Fire Assistance Programs

WGA supports the emergency appropriations designation for the Department of

the Interior under wildland fire operations in the Senate mark. We commend both

the House and Senate on its continued funding of the state and volunteer fire assistance programs of the Forest Service and we support continued funding of the rural

fire assistance program for the Department of the Interior. Rural fire departments

are a critical link for fire preparedness throughout the West.

Community and Private Land Assistance

WGA supports continued funding of the community and private land fire assistance account under State and Private Forestry of the Forest Service that was established in last year’s appropriations bill. This account enabled federal and state partners to more directly engage private landowners and communities to recover from

and respond to severe wildfire. For FY 2002, neither the House nor Senate marks

provide funding in this account. We would strongly encourage agreement during

conferencing to provide continued assistance through this account.

Forest Resource Information and Analysis (FIA)

WGA supports the FIA work of the Forest Service with the states and supports

the four-year ramp up of forest inventory and analysis funding according to the FIA

business plan developed via direction from the 1998 Farm Bill Research Title.

States cannot accurately and effectively plan and respond to wildfire without the

timely and thorough information provided by the FIA program.

82

OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL,

WESTERN FIELD OFFICE,

Eugene, OR, October 5, 2001.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS,

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Building, Washington,

DC.

Subject: Written testimony for the Sept. 25, 2001 hearing on the National Fire Plan

DEAR SENATOR WYDEN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: Please accept the following written testimony from Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund (ONRC)

concerning the effectiveness of the National Fire Plan, including fuel reduction efforts, and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to

Communities and the Environment that was recently agreed to by the Western Governors’ Association, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman.

We’d like to supplement the record with the follow principles relating to wildland

fires and fuel management:

1. Let’s stop doing things that exacerbate the fire/fuels problem, e.g., inappropriate fire suppression, timber harvest that removes large wood and leaves small fuels,

livestock grazing that shifts vegetative composition and structure, etc. If the lack

of fire management plans are an impediment to letting fires burn, by all means let

us make it a high priority to prepare these plans.

2. Fire suppression must be radically rethought. When conditions warrant, we

must learn to let fires burn. Fire suppression is what got us in this situation. We

should now view most fires as our friend. Aggressive fire suppression should be the

exception rather than the rule.

3. Fuel reduction and fire suppression efforts should be focussed on the urban

interface where human lives and infrastructure is most at risk. Wild unroaded forests and rangelands should be the last place we spend precious fire plan dollars.

4. Fuel reduction should focus on landscapes and forest types that were naturally

visited by frequent fire. Many areas of the west, such as north slopes and high elevation areas, naturally had high vegetation density.

5. Use prescribed fire to implement fuel management objectives when ever possible. Prescribed fire (appropriately used) is much lighter on the land than logging.

Whenever logging or heavy equipment is proposed, the land management agencies

should be required to first analyze prescribed fire as an alternative management

tool.

6. We must be mindful that fuel management efforts may increase our ability to

control low intensity fires while doing nothing to help us control the high-intensity

fires. The irony here is that most Americans probably want and expect us to control

the high-intensity fires that we can’t realistically do much about, while control will

be exerted over low-intensity fires that we should let burn in the interests of restoring ecosystem processes.

7. Fuel reduction efforts should focus on removing only the material that has accumulated since fire suppression has become prevalent, i.e., big old trees are not the

problem and should not be cut in the name of fuel management.

8. Post-fire salvage is virtually irrelevant to reducing fire risks. We must learn

to leave these fragile landscapes to heal without human intervention. First, the high

risk fine fuels are mostly consumed while the large wood that remains is not highly

inflammable. Second, the post-fire landscape will be severely harmed by salvage logging. Soils, water quality, and wildlife are all vulnerable to disturbance and logging

will almost universally retard recovery of the ecosystem.

9. We should support studies to better understand fire recovery under natural

conditions. To that end, the Forest Service should designate a system of representative burned but unlogged areas such as the Warner Fire Recovery Area on the Willamette National Forest as Research Natural Areas.

Please review Oregon Natural Resources Council’s attached policy statement on

wild and prescribed fire in the Intermountain west.

Sincerely,

DOUG HEIKEN,

Western Oregon Field Representative.

[Attachment.]

83

* Statement was peer-reviewed by noted fire and forest ecologists of the Intermountain West.

[Oregon Natural Resources Council Policy Statement] *

WILD AND PRESCRIBED FIRE IN FORESTS OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST

Over a hundred years of logging, grazing, fire suppression, road-building, and development have resulted in widespread fragmentation and degradation of the magnificent coniferous forests of the Intermountain West. Many of these forests are recognized by the scientific community as being critically destabilized. Still, significant

areas, including wilderness, roadless areas, and moist forests, remain relatively unchanged.

Originally, most ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests of the Intermountain

West were open and park-like, with large, majestic trees underlain by dense grass

swards. These low- and mid-elevation forests were shaped by millennia of recurrent

forest fire, which helped maintain the forests’ ecological integrity by reducing tree

densities, controlling forest pests, and releasing a steady supply of nutrients into the

soil. Many of the plant and wildlife species in these arid western forests evolved

with fire-return intervals as short as 7-30 years and are dependent on the conditions created by fire for regeneration, rapid growth, food, and shelter.

Due to nearly a century of active fire prevention, fire-fighting, and livestock grazing, which eliminates the fine fuels necessary to carry low-intensity surface fire,

ever greater numbers of tree seedlings and saplings have survived to maturity. Forests that were once open and park-like due to periodic thinning by low-intensity

ground fire now develop into dense thickets. During dry seasons and prolonged

drought, these trees become stressed, limbs fall to the ground, and trees die. Consequently, dead woody debris accumulates and forests become increasingly prone to

intense fire. Without periodic fire to reduce this fuel load and limit tree numbers,

species composition of the forests changes from dominance by fire-tolerant, sunlightloving species such as ponderosa pine and western larch, to dominance by fire-sensitive, shade-tolerant species such as Douglas-fir and true firs. These changes, in

combination with selective logging of large, fire-tolerant trees, have created conditions in which many of the original park-like forests have been converted into dense,

fire-prone, and increasingly disease- and insect-prone stands.

Nevertheless, many forests in the region have not been significantly affected by

recent changes in the fire regime. Riparian forests and wetter forests on north-facing slopes and at higher elevations traditionally experienced fewer fires. And forest

types such as high-elevation lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir

have always developed into dense flammable forests, which were periodically consumed by stand-replacing fires.

Because of drought, selective logging, high tree densities, high fuel loads, and the

loss of a mosaic of burned and unburned forest stands, low-elevation forests and

those on south-facing slopes are now more vulnerable to destructive fire, insects,

and disease than they were formerly. ONRC advocates that land managers initiate

measures that mimic nature in reducing fuel loads, so as to return forests to their

pre-EuroAmerican-settlement densities and fire regimes. These activities (see next

page) include prescribed burning, thinning of small fire-sensitive trees, removal of

livestock, a let-burn policy in some areas, and less destructive fire-fighting techniques. Salvage logging, as currently practiced, should be prohibited since it damages already disturbed soils, watersheds, and wildlife habitat. Despite pronouncements by the timber industry, commercial thinning and post-fire logging may not

reduce the frequency of fire. In fact, these activities often increase the intensity and

rate of spread of fire because of increased fuel loads from logging debris left on the

ground. Consequently, salvage logging is incompatible with ecosystem-based management.

PRESCRIBED FIRE

The long-range goal of fire management policy should be to restore forest types,

fire cycles, and habitat mosaics to those found before EuroAmerican settlement. For

some areas, this is best achieved by manually igniting fires, which thin the understory and remove excess fuels.

A region-wide, long-term plan for restoring intermountain forests needs to be developed. The plan should include a 30-year schedule of prescribed fire to reduce

fuels, as well as district-by-district maps delineating areas targeted for a let-burn

policy, fire prevention, or fire suppression.

84

Priority for prescribed burning should be given to forests near developed areas

(the urban/wildland interface), low-elevation or south-facing forests most transformed by past fire suppression, and areas with unnaturally high fuel loads.

Where absolutely necessary to reduce ladder fuels that carry fire into canopies,

small noncommercial trees may be thinned, lower limbs pruned, and litter raked

away from large tree trunks and snags.

FIRE PREVENTION

Fire prevention should not be a goal of forest management in the Intermountain

West except when human life and extraordinary ecological values are at stake. Since

fire is an inevitable and ecologically essential component of forest ecosystems, managers should focus on restoring historical fire regimes.

Artificial firebreaks should be constructed only where proven effective, and not at

all in wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, roadless regions, municipal watersheds, or

ecologically sensitive areas.

Livestock grazing should be eliminated from public forests and wild ungulates

maintained within their year-round carrying capacities so that dry grasses can once

again fuel low-intensity surface fires.

Private property owners should be required to take measures to ‘‘fire proof’’ their

property by clearing flammable vegetation, adding fire-resistant roofs and shutters,

and taking other reasonable precautions. By choosing to live in or adjacent to

wildlands, homeowners must assume the risk of protecting or replacing their property rather than relying on taxpayers through their funding of firefighting agencies.

FIRE SUPPRESSION

Fire suppression activities should be conducted only when absolutely necessary

and with utmost care for the long-term integrity of the ecosystem. Low-impact firefighting techniques should be used.

Fire suppression should be conducted only where human life, developed property,

or irreplaceable ecological values (e.g. rare forest types or a major portion of the

population of an endangered species) are at stake, or in areas that should be protected until prescribed burning can reduce excess fuels.

Fire suppression should not be allowed in wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and

roadless regions, unless these areas have irreplaceable natural values and are

scheduled for prescribed burning.

Fires should not be actively fought where nearby natural fire barriers such as

bodies of water or rocky ridges are likely to extinguish the fire.

Due to the risk of de-watering, surface water should not be taken from small

streams and lakes for fire suppression. Fire-fighting retardants and foams, which

are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, should never be used near streams.

Bulldozing and other forms of disturbance should be prohibited in stream channels, riparian areas, wetlands, and on sensitive soils and steep slopes.

As much funding should be available for restoring natural forest ecosystems as

for fire suppression.

POST-FIRE ACTIVITIES

‘‘Restoration’’ activities such as salvage logging, grass seeding, bulldozing, and

stream clearing may be as damaging to forests as fire suppression and should be

prohibited unless proven effective and beneficial.

Note: Municipal watersheds should be evaluated for non-commercial thinning,

prescribed fire, and fire suppression on an individual basis. These activities are appropriate for some, but not all, watersheds.

Yakima, WA, October 15, 2001.

Hon. CHAIRMAN WYDEN,

Forest and Public Lands Committee, U.S. Senate.

I am Kathie Fitzpatrick, the mother of Karen Lee Fitzpatrick. Karen, at only 18

years old, died working on the 30-Mile Fire on July 10, 2001. She had only worked

for the U.S. Forest Service for about three weeks. Karen had completed a 40 hour

training course, and was supposed to be working as a ‘‘Forestry Aid,’’ which could

include firefighting. But Rookies are supposed to be kept at the ‘‘hind end’’ of a fire

mopping up, and working under the protection, supervision and direction of more

experienced firefighting staff. But after only three weeks, and on only her third fire,

suddenly she was an ‘‘Initial Attack Firefighter,’’ on the 30-Mile Fire. That’s what

it reads on the bronze plaque that will be inset on her gravestone.

85

Karen was excited to be working for the U.S. Forest Service over the Summer to

earn money to use for College in the Fall. She was going to start courses toward

her Associate of Science degree in Fire Science at Yakima Community College, and

eventually wanted to become a bi-lingual EMT for the City Of Yakima Fire Department, she hoped. Now that dream will never be realized. How many people may she

have helped in her future? She was very athletic, and talented; a 4.0 student and

a member of the National Honor Society at West Valley High School. Karen was

a young woman who could always seem to rise out of a difficult situation, and win.

She was like the clever, quick cat who always seemed to land on her feet, seldom

caught by surprise or defeat. But Karen didn’t know that she would report to a fire

on July 9th, 2001, and be dead by the early evening July 10th because her Incident

Commanders, whom she entrusted with her very life, would disregard every safety

rule she, and all other firefighters had just learned in fire training school. Karen

didn’t know that the ‘‘experienced men’’ who would lead them around that deathtrap canyon, would not even regard the most common sense danger-reaction to this

fire. She was too young to know that things like this can, and do happen. She and

her other three colleagues. Tom, Jessica, and Devin didn’t know they might as well

have signed up for a suicide mission. They all loved life way too much for that!

This fire was no ‘‘Sudden Surprise.’’ This fire, which started out small, grew at

a steady rate, always leaping far ahead of them. There was no reason to believe it

would ever be contained by a 21-man crew! The Entiat Hot Shot Crew who came

in originally to work on the fire, late in the night of July 9th, later ordered a helicopter at 2 AM to drop water on the fire early the next morning. Because of the

distraction of the South Libby Fire, some 40 miles south, no helicopter, no fire retardant, and no water came. In the words of the Entiat Hot Shot crew still present

about 9 AM, ‘‘You’d better get out of here or you’re gonna die!’’ Since when should a crew be expected to fight a fire with only a pulaski?

This is pretty ridiculous! Some water was pumped from the creek, but this proved

to be too feeble of an attempt to put this fire out. Other delays had to do with questioning whether or not to dip water out of the Cheweuch River, as it was home to

endangered fish! Meanwhile, this fire was spreading at a dangerously fast rate. A

fairly accurate summary from the investigative report dated September 2nd, done

by the Yakima Herald Republic, chronicles the day from the log, and also describes

how fast the fire was spreading. These unfortunate young people were put in a dead

end canyon without adequate escape routes, and the only road out, which was also

the only road in—was eventually cut off, causing a fatal entrapment for four of the

firefighters. Their Commanders led them into a frontal assault on a fire that

brought them squarely into an entrapment! Not very smart.

The summary of the day at the fire site plainly demonstrated that the Incident

Commanders overlooked every danger signal, and every warning sign that should

have obviously lead them to dis-engage their crew from the fire. Where did common

sense go that day? Where did a respect for the fire go? Was somebody drunk, insane,

or a little too seduced by the fire? Were egos raging out of control? Yes, the fire

blew up. But this happened late in the day about 5 PM. The crew had already been

kept there all day at highly unreasonable risk. The U.S. Forest Service wants to

retort, ‘‘Firefighting is dangerous work.’’ Yes, sometimes. But so is crossing the train

tracks when the light is flashing, and the whistle is blowing. You can walk across

the tracks safely, by using good judgment—or you can lie down and wait for the

train to come and run over you! What happened at the firesite of the 30-Mile fire

on July 1Oth was just as extremely reckless, and the lives of four very talented individuals were needlessly sacrificed—for what? Flowers, and brush that will grow

back next Spring? The Forest Service should have just closed the road and let it

burn! It’s necessary for the health of the forest to let it burn once in awhile to clean

out underbrush, and diseased trees, etc. When God managed the forests, and lightning strikes ignited fires—this is how it used to be!

This brings up another matter. This crew was sent into fight this fire because it

was not a lightning strike, but was man-made—originating from a campfire that

‘‘got away.’’ This is ridiculous. When a fire starts in a heavy, dense, designated research area, it needs to be put out as quickly as possible by the nearest fire department, or private agency. It ridiculous to call in young kids from 200-300 miles away,

and two or three states out, because they need to earn their college money! The

Cheweuch Canyon, full of dry pine needles, old, dry wood, full of turpentine, and

heavy fuel load—had not burned in over 200 years. It was a tinder box—a bomb

waiting to happen! We stuck prime young people in this situation on purpose? Talk

about being seriously violated. The Forest Service pays personnel to take the inventory of the fuel load up there acre by acre, so they will know what will happen when

a flame gets into it. They had no excuse for not knowing what would occur up there

that day! A computer print out would show that there were 74 private/contractors

86

or agencies in the region that could have reported to that fire immediately and had

it put out before the fire was the size of a house.

Whether a fire starts from a lightning strike or a campfire—it burns the same,

and it kills the same! This should never be an issue. Don’t you think some cave men

had a fire get away from them? Any fires in heavy, dense research areas should be

put out as quickly as possible—or get the crew out as quickly as possible! The main

consideration should always be: can a ground crew realistically be put out in a particular setting to effectively and safely put out a fire? Do they have the tools and

resources to fight the fire? If not, they should by no means be there! Some fires

should only be fought from the air with water and fire retardant, as ground crews

would too easily be entrapped or consumed, as was the case at the 30-Mile Fire.

Incident Commanders who put crews at an unrealistic risk, need to be disciplined

in a way that stings . . . in a way they will definitely remember! They need to be

liable in some way, so they will be sure to exercise proper caution. They need to

be thinking: ‘‘I could get in trouble, I could loose my job . . . I could go to jail.!’’ Unfortunately, at the present time, nothing at all happens to them! Pete Kampen,

and Ellreese Daniels still hold their jobs with the Forest Service. I understand from

some of the crew, that Pete Kampen even got a raise, and a promotion! I consider

this very strange, indeed!

Other primary issues are: The U.S. Forest Service should not be allowed to investigate itself! If someone commits a crime, they don’t get to be their own judge, jury,

and set their own disciplinary action! No one else does.

Fires in heavy, dense research areas should be treated with extreme caution.

They are bombs waiting to go off! Policies prohibiting them from burning on their

own should be lifted, regardless of their origination! If they are curtailed, they

should be hindered and fought only by air attack crews, not ground crews. Crews

on the ground are far too vulnerable.

Any reinforcements that show up to assist in the fire, first need to check in with

the Incident Commander on the status of the fire. At 30 Mile—there was no communication whatsoever! The two fire engines from Twisp, radioed by the heli-attack,

and came in from about one hour away, had no idea what the status of the fire was

when they arrived about 2 PM-on July 1Oth, and they didn’t ask! They arrived, unexpected key the ground crew. They immediately pulled crew from Tom Craven’s group, and Tom Taylors’s group, and started ordering them around to put out spot

fires. Ellreese Daniels needed to tell them, ‘‘We’ve decide to dis-engaged from this

fire. We just need to get out of here so we don’t die!’’ This did not happen. About

4 PM, one of the fire engines radioed, and reported that the fire was seriously encroaching on the road. The fire engines pulled out, but a crew of 14 were ultimately

trapped inside by about 4:45 PM. It is not clear why the IC’s waited so long to try

to pull everybody out. Once again, they obviously did not take this fire seriously!

Rookies need more training, and time in less vulnerable and dangerous situations!

There also needs to be more training on correctly deploying shelters. The manual

says that rocks are a good place to deploy. There are not. It creates extra heat that

bakes you!

The U.S. Forest Service promised the families of the victims, after the tragic loss

of life in the South Canyon Fire in Colorado in 1994, that this would never happen

again.

The policies and procedures that were developed after that tragic loss of 14 young

firefighters in Colorado, after similar circumstances as the 30-Mile Fire, were supposed to have been put into effect by 1999 (The Tri-data Study). However, they were

not. These ideas also included stern discipline for Incident Commanders who put

their crews at unreasonable risk. Do you think Ellreese Daniels and Pete Kampen

were thinking about any promises made to the families of the Storm King victims

while they were out at the firesite July 10th? I doubt it.! But they might remember

that they themselves might be liable, or seriously ‘‘Get in trouble.’’

Unfortunately, IC commander Ellreese Daniels, claimed he gave a command to

‘‘Come down off the rocks to the road.’’ In this case, those who deployed their shelters on the road because they already were there, lived. The facts, and eye witness

accounts of those present, proved that a command like this never happened, and exposed this to be a lie. This was a serious attempt by the Forest Service to put blame

on the dead who could not testify for themselves.

It seems like we know the answers, but will we have to lose even more of our

brightest and best young people? How many more will die before something is done?

Myself and the families request additional Senate hearings, and Congressional hearing to fully and truthfully lay the facts on the table. Some individuals and evidence

will only be available through subpoena power. We hope as things in our nation stabilize, this will be one of the issues that will be given priority. As long as firefighters

are going out to fight fires, and new Rookies continue to be trained, and put out

87

in the fields and forests to fight fires, we owe it to all of them to solve these important issues. Thank you for your help, and support!

Yours Truly for More Safety In Firefighting,

KATHIE FITZPATRICK.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. PYNE, PROFESSOR, BIOLOGY & SOCIETY PROGRAM, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

[Wildlife Fire in America: A Commentary]

INTRODUCTION

Let me express, first, my regrets that I could not attend the hearings. The invitation came with too little time to unravel my prior commitments, all of which involved other people and two of which required travel out of town. The staff suggested that I submit instead a written testimony. They indicated its substance

should address the National Fire Plan and the prospects for a repetition of the 1910

fire season. I’m pleased to do so.

I am not a member of any fire agency; federal, state, or private. Nor do I presently

receive any funds for research from any such agency. From 1967-1985, I worked seasonally for the National Park Service (save 1982). I have once operated under a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service, 1977-81. I may become a subsidiary

partner to a contract, now under negotiation, to write a history of fire management

in the national parks. And, shortly, I will receive funding from the Canadian Forest

Service to inaugurate a history of fire in that country. The only official connection

I hold with American agencies is that I serve, as of last summer, on the stakeholders advisory committee for the Joint Fire Science Program. The good news is, I am

not obligated to any of the parties of the National Fire Plan. The bad news is, I

do not have detailed, current knowledge about its particulars. This matters because

the program will triumph or collapse to the extent that it can produce local, sitespecific projects that address the true hazards and opportunities for fire management.

A SPECTRUM OF COMMENTS

The West’s fire problem

The American West does not have a fire problem: it has many fire problems. Some

are old, some new. Some have technical solutions, some must rely on cultural

choices. We can keep houses from burning. We can’t as easily determine how best

to administer fire in wilderness or roadless areas or how to cope with wildlands that

suffer poor ecological health, including disturbed fire regimes. These involve judgments, not simple engineering. The National Fire Plan will achieve useful goals to

the extent that it splits the lumped flames that floods TV screens into specific problem fires. A generic solution will only yield a generic failure.

The intermix fire

The most visible crisis—the intermix fire (what the agencies prefer to call the

‘‘wildland/urban interface’’ fire)—is a dumb problem to have because technical

means exist to fix it. It will more or less disappear if we abolish wooden roofs, do

some basic yardwork, and provide minimal on-site fire protection. Zoning and building codes would help enormously; so would a broader-brush manipulation of surrounding wildlands. The most critical reforms, however, pertain to the houses and

their immediate environs. Such fires often spread house to house, particularly roof

to roof, without regard to intervening vegetation. Conversely, some houses at Los

Alamos burned from, simple contact with burning pine needles piled against the siding; someone with a whisk broom and squirt gun could have extinguished them. A

solution requires us to imagine these settings not as wildlands but as exurban environments that demand, for fire protection, the same kinds of standards that have

lessened free-burning fire in cities. This is something that existing fire institutions

can do.

The larger drivers behind this process, however, lie beyond the control of fire

agencies. Rural America is, in effect, being recolonized. In the 19th century, colonization meant clearing, which heaped fuels about the land, and wooden structures, which were vulnerable to burning. In more recent years colonization has

meant not clearing, which has also bloated the land with fuels, and wooden structures, again susceptible to fire. The current process, however, does not involve rural

folk living off the land but rather urban outmigrants who bring urban values and

expectations and whose livelihood does not require them to engage the land on

88

which they reside. The agencies cannot influence the larger social and economic

pressures behind this outflow; they can reduce the prospects that such sites will

burn. My reading of the NFP is that it clearly identifies both the nature of the problem and its scope.

Some qualifications: Not all intermixed landscapes are at risk. Those that are

most susceptible are those with a natural disposition toward fire, which means they

exhibit regular patterns of climatic wetting and drying, they have abundant combustibles, and they have routine ignition. Places like the American West that experience annual dry seasons, hold public wildlands, and know dry lightning are particularly vulnerable. Places like New England are not. It is also clear that the most critical sites are the structures themselves and their immediate surroundings. This argues that broadcast treatments have far less effect than raking and trimming adjacent to buildings. It means that, except where public lands abut housing developments, the federal agencies have only limited control over, and responsibility for, the

necessary treatments to create a defensible space or to shield those houses. I believe

the agencies’ most powerful role is to advise, to set examples, to work with rural

fire districts, and, where public and private lands meet, to render less fire-prone the

public lands.

All this will take time because it will involve intimate working with local communities and specific sites. A crash program of clearing or fuelbreaks based on global

prescriptions, couched as a program of rural jobs, will more likely wreck rather than

reform. Over the last century, problem fires like the intermix seem to come and go

on a rhythm of 20 years. If that pattern holds—and I believe it does—then by my

reckoning we are halfway through its the intermix era. The crest of the wave will

pass over the next five years. It may be time to begin imagining fire’s new new

thing.

Fuel treatments

This is an immense topic on which I will offer only two observations—on

fuelbreaks and on more broadacre mechanical thinning.

Fuelbreaks rarely succeed. They flourish best when they are built into a larger

pattern of land use; they work least well when they are retrofitted, usually by simple cutting or clearing. They can help in, say, tree farms, where they are integrated

into the planting scheme. But slashing swathes through dense forest is worthless.

Such fuelbreaks fail precisely when they are most needed, during extreme conditions when winds carry firebrands across them. A fuelbreak around a community

offers no more protection than a moat around a wooden stockade. It’s a nuisance,

not a barrier. Moreover, fuelbreaks demand endless maintenance. Typically, a decade or two after they are installed, labor-intensive upkeep tends to fade and the

fuelbreaks vanish. This, in fact, is precisely what happened to the thousands of

miles of fuelbreaks constructed by the CCC during the Roosevelt Administration.

Fuelbreaks need to be broad, sustainable, integrated into the life of a community

or forest. A greenbelt half a mile wide will help; a 20-foot-wide gouge through the

woods will not. The protection the latter offers is wholly illusory. Better to lay out

a network of recreational trails and parklands or even a golf course. (For the record,

I do not golf.)

Secondly, if narrow belts are problematic, then perhaps a more expansive cutting

program could succeed. Again, it depends. It depends on the kind of forest, it depends on site-specific features, it depends on how such a project might be conducted.

For almost a decade I have watched the treatments proposed for ponderosa pine

around Flagstaff, Arizona, under the direction of Dr. Wally Covington and his colleagues. The treatment calls for extensive thinning of small trees, for sparing the

large trees, and for various other measures to reestablish grasses and forbs and

some regular regimen of burning. This seems to me an entirely justified experiment

that merits expansion. The prescriptions, however, are particular to ponderosa.

There may or may not exist analogous prescriptions for other environments.

The aggressive thinning has encouraged some observers to label it ‘‘logging.’’ Some

logging companies would like to call the practice logging since that might help justify the cutting of larger trees. Similarly, some environmental critics want to tar the

practice as logging in order to prevent any kind of cutting. Both—in my mind—involve deliberate distortions. A better expression would be ‘‘woody weeding.’’ To leave

the most robust timber trees is hardly logging according to any conventional definition; the thinning is not conducted to advance specifically silvicultural ends; the outcome may very well expend more money than it takes in. (But we have long subsidized logging on the public lands anyway.)

For the record, I dislike the expression ‘‘restoration.’’ But the calculated confusion

sown by critics intent on smearing the technique as ‘‘logging’’ is a disservice. Whether adjacent to exurban developments or not, such treatments may well deserve supVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:43 Mar 05, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\77-952 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
89

port. As always, the devil will reside in the details. Broadcast treatments will almost certainly fail. Site-specific ones have a chance to yield real improvement.

Would outright logging bring improvement? Not likely. Nearly every large fire of

American history has been associated with landclearing or logging, and lands so cut

that were not quickly converted to agricultural fields became highly flammable as

slash and reproduction mingled. Not only do clearcuts burn, they tend to burn with

far greater ferocity than uncut forests. The only strategy by which logging might

enhance security from wildfire is if it occurs within a context of intensive cultivation, if logging is part of a suite of other practices that in effect render wildlands

into tree farms.

It is worth repeating that biomass does not equate with fuel. Large living trees

tend to be heat sinks, not heat sources. From the perspective of fire, the critical

vegetation is the fine stuff—the grasses, branchwood, slash, brush, densely-needled

canopies. Large-diameter material is not a fire hazard, save as standing snags that

are capable of throwing sparks.

Likewise, doing nothing does not solve the problem either with regard to fuel

buildup or to ecological hygiene. Many of the most disturbed forests are, like the

ponderosa pine, those that had experienced a long history of frequent, light, surface

fires. This fire regime began to unravel in the 1870s throughout the West because

of overgrazing and the removal of a major source of ignition, the American Indian,

and then because they became permanently part of a public domain for which fire

exclusion was a goal. Many of such sites are no longer ‘‘natural’’ in any meaningful

sense. They are currently primed to burn in ways far outside their evolutionary adaptations. The fact is, fire can be as ecologically powerful removed as applied. There

is no neutral position possible.

Fire suppression

Over the past 20 years, the American fire establishment has decayed. It has shed

experience, suffered from confusion over its purposes, and relied on sheer brute

force—the ability to spend enormous sums of money—to address crises when they

occur. The dollars are there to fight fires; they are not there to do all the

unglamorous things a fire agency must do. It is as though the nation committed to

a health care system in which unlimited funds were available for emergency medicine, but little for much else. It makes good theater—great TV—but lousy land or

fiscal management.

The NFP addresses many of these issues. Some matters it can resolve quickly—

a buildup of personnel, for example. Other concerns are more subtle and will require

patient attention. The simplest approach to an anticipated outbreak of wildfires is

to close off public lands to public access, to position suppression forces to detect and

attack fires while they are small, or if they escape, to mass firefighting forces to

beat them back. This approach can work, for a time, much as a declaration of martial law can quell a riot. But it is not a formula for governing those lands.

What is missing is experience—not bureaucratic longevity, but on-the-ground,

bred-in-the-bone knowledge. This is tougher to acquire: it can’t be bought. Since only

so many fires occur (and many happen simultaneously), a larger permanent staff

means, paradoxically, that there will be fewer fires by which to acquire that experience. Clearly, the agencies need better methods of training. Probably they need better ways to integrate firefighting and fire lighting so that real field knowledge can

accrue, year in and year out. This will demand a more robust approach to the overall mission of wildland fire management, of what precisely one needs to know and

do and of how one can acquire not merely those skills but the wisdom to apply them

in the field.

There will always be breakdowns in fire managment—wildfires will evade initial

attack, prescribed fires will fizzle or escape, firefighters will suffer injury or even

death. ‘‘Experience’’ alone is not sufficient insurance against such events. But I believe a good case can be made that the usual guidelines for fireline safety, for example, are simply inadequate. They are so generic that they have no meaning in particular circumstances. The ability to recognize how a unique set of environmental

conditions actually expresses more global guidelines is something learned by doing.

There must occur a great deal of systematic doing over the next few years if the

agencies are to reacquire the experience they have lost.

Prescribed fire

Many of the fire problems of the public lands have resulted from the loss of fire—

the absence of fire as an ecological catalyst, the disruption of erstwhile fire regimes,

the active and de facto removal of flame from lands that had long accommodated

it. The problem is not simply that we have suppressed fires but that we quit setting

them. It would seem that restoring fire must be an essential task of the agencies

90

and that fire lighting could begin replacing fire fighting, that fire is ‘‘natural,’’ that

it is an inevitable ‘‘tool’’ for land management.

The best answer is, yes and no. It should be clear by now that the process by

which fire was removed is not easily reversible. Restoring fire is much like restoring

a lost species. It will flourish or falter depending on whether a suitable habitat exists. Thrusting flame into a site that bears little resemblance to one that existed

in the distant past will not only fail to restore fire but possibly lead to a detonation.

A century and a half ago Mexican grey wolves likely roamed through Glendale, Arizona where I now reside. But dumping a wolf into Arrowhead mall will restore neither the wolf nor the land. So it is with fire. Flame is not some kind of ecological

pixie dust that one can sprinkle over the land and convert the ugly and dangerous

into the beautiful and benign. Fire will synthesize its surroundings. Messed-up

landscapes will only spark messed-up fires.

Free-burning fire is mandatory in some places, useful but optional in others, and

either too hazardous or too alien for still others. It is essential in those landscapes

in which it does biological work for which there is no surrogate. In such places, we

must create a context for fire, and we must expect to continue burning in perpetuity. In other places, fire may be cheap or useful but not necessary. It is not required,

for example, to use fire to reduce fuel buildup. In fact, a first fire may yield more

fuel than it consumes, and an overgrown site may not burn in benevolent ways but

with overgrown fires. It will likely prove necessary to prepare the place to burn

properly. If you want to reduce fuel, there are many ways to do so. Fire is not mandatory for all of them.

The problem is not to restore fire (or to reverse suppression) but to oversee the

right mix of fire applied and fire withheld—to manage the right fire regime. This

requires a relatively firm conception of what we want the land to be. Our inability

to agree on that objective results in confused, sloppy, contradictory, often ineffective

fire practices.

But is not fire a ‘‘tool’’? It is certainly a technology, though an odd one. A flame

can sit on a candle as an axehead does on a handle. Here is concentrated heat and

light, a tool. But much burning (in fields, for example) more resembles a domesticated animal. It must be bred, fed, trained, directed; its power derives from the

larger landscape, also domesticated, in which it roams. In yet another sense, controlled fire behaves like a captured ecological process, analogous to an elephant

taught to haul logs or a grizzly bear to dance. Its ‘‘wild’’ properties are its strength,

yet it remains ever prone to go feral. Its context determines its character. The image

of fire as a ‘‘tool’’ is not only inadequate: it suggests a potential degree of manipulation and a style of use that wildland settings cannot provide.

Controlled burning may well—in certain landscapes—be necessary or helpful. But

it is not intrinsically easier, cheaper, or safer than suppression. Many of its costs

lie buried in the infrastructure provided by fire suppression. The agencies often trot

out statistics showing a small number of prescribed fire failures (1-2%). I have no

confidence in such numbers, which depend entirely on definitions. They do not

record frequent slop-overs, only those fires that require major suppression campaigns to recontain them. They say nothing about fires that fail to do the job expected of them. In fact, the public failure rate from major escapes is eerily similar

to that for suppression in which about 3% of wildfire starts account for 95% or more

of the burned area. The failure rate, as measured by the number of fires that evade

initial action, is almost identical. Why this means prescribed burning is successful

and suppression a failure is not clear.

Since the reintroduction of fire as a formal policy, some of the largest and most

damaging fires in certain years have been prescribed burns that went bad. The two

most costly fire campaigns in American history began as prescribed burns that blew

up—the Yellowstone complex in 1988 (which commenced as ‘‘prescribed natural

fires’’) and the Cerro Grande fire of 2000 that savaged Los Alamos. That the National Park Service lost two such fires in the spring of 2000 (the other forced the

evacuation of the North Rim of Grand Canyon) suggests that there is some systemic

bias at work in favor of burning, even when conditions don’t warrant the risk.

Prescribed fire’s failures and costs will likely rise in the near future with no noticeable reduction in suppression efforts or expenses. A significant shift in funding

will probably require 20 years, for the reason that prescribed burning, in order to

work properly, demands that we fashion suitable habitats to accept the kinds of

fires we want. This will take time, money, and ingenuity; and it will not involve

a simple trade-off of controlled fire for wild fire. Both will co-exist for many years,

and indeed prescribed burning may become itself a significant source of wildfires.

For a number of landscapes, prescribed fire is the right choice, even an obligatory

choice. That decision derives from biological and cultural values. It does mean burning will be simple, cheap, or safe. The choice is not between starting and stopping

91

fires over getting the right fire regime for a particular place. That is not a decision

that will likely reside within the hands of fire managers.

The limitations of policy

The 2000 season might well suggest to someone with an open mind that the

United States could no longer either suppress or start fires with anything like the

outcomes its fire administrators intended. The National Fire Plan was one response

to this reasonable perception. One might also question, however, to what degree the

problems even reside within the realm of policy.

The National Park Service installed a new policy to better balance fire use with

fire control in 1967-68; the Forest Service modified its policies in 1972, and converted fully in 1978-79. The other federal agencies have steadily fallen into alignment, with a wholesale reconfiguration in December, 1995. The fact is, policy has

been adequate to support a more pluralistic program for 25-35 years. Yet results

have not appeared in the field commensurate with announced ambitions. One

should not be surprised that, after less than a year, the National Fire Plan has also

failed to create new facts on the ground. One might well conclude that flawed policy

has not, in truth, been the problem and that more policy will not solve it.

I confess to being a policy skeptic. The intermix fire problem does not depend on

policy for a solution: it requires homeowners to better fire-proof their homes and

lands. Since fire folks are familiar with ‘‘fire triangles,’’ I propose a triad to replace

a naive belief in policy. We need, along with policy, both practice and poetry.

By ‘‘practice,’’ I mean a suite of techniques and tools that can actually make policy

happen in the woods. I don’t believe we have those techniques. Even current strategies for fire restoration revolve around simple variants of slashing and burning. We

need a wider, more nuanced approach, more akin to integrated biological control

than starting and stopping fires and shoving biomass around. We need crews that

forage fire. We need more varied controlled burning techniques (current practices

work in slash and grass, but stumble in more complex landscapes). We need to trail

fires, to spot burn, to kindle prescribed crown fires. We can’t treat controlled burning as fire suppression stood on its head. And not least, we need practices to allow

new fire regimes to appear; that is, we need to look at air quality, endangered species, liability law, labor restrictions, and the rest. Fire is not a bureaucratic category. Fire management is not a 9-5 job. This is where I would put the bulk of my

research dollars, where I would concentrate my training efforts, and where the federal agencies can best assist local authorities. Policy per se is mere blather until

practical links connect it to the field.

By ‘‘poetry,’’ I mean that we need compelling reasons to change the existing system, preferably wrapped in a story. The Great Fires of 1910 bequeathed a magnificent story for fire suppression. We have no equivalent tale for a mixed program of

fire fighting and fire lighting. Why should we expend billions of dollars on ecosystem

health when public health may be starved for funds? Why should we deliberately

burn instead of mincing the forests into woodchips or letting nature roar on as it

chooses? Why should fire claim pride of place, if or when it conflicts with other environmental values? It is not enough to say that fire is natural. The present regimes—

and, I would add, North America’s fire regimes throughout the Holocene—have always been the outcome of humans and nature interacting. Nor is it enough to say,

suppression is the problem. Fire suppression is not the problem. The problem is that

we don’t have the right fire regimes, and that requires we agree on what we want

the land to be and why and how we can shape those regimes. I don’t see that denouncing suppression tells a story about why we should, at considerable cost and

risk, create a new geography of fire.

The fire agencies have understood the general issues for some time and appreciate

the limitations to what they can do. I do not know, however, that they appreciate

the limitations of policy alone or of funding. It may be that we have to reconstitute

the entire fire establishment. If one will pardon a military metaphor, we have the

capability to wage extensive (if indeterminate) campaigns against large fires. We

have the logistical capacity to fight the fire equivalent of the Gulf War. It is not

clear we have the mixed capabilities to cope with more elusive, post-Cold War

insurgencies or the fire equivalent of terrorism.

Could the 1910 season repeat itself?

The Great Fires of 1910 remain the fire season of reference. Could they happen

again? The answer must be, yes and no. It is extremely unlikely to reoccur today

as it did in 1910 for the same reasons that the stock market crash of 1929 is unlikely to be recycled, while it is wholly probable that other, analogous crashes might

occur (as in 1987 and 2001). Large fire complexes can return: they did so in 2000.

Whether similar damages could result is trickier to assess.

92

The environmental conditions underlying large fires persist. Drought, vast quantities of combustibles, dry lightning, and moistureless cold fronts—all these continue. They made the 2000 season in the Northern Rockies an eerie echo of 1910.

The heaping of fresh slash that helped stoke the Great Fires is far less today because of diminished logging and landclearing. Against that plus, however, stands

the onslaught of wooden houses and overgrown lots, often planted amid forests

turned into conifer-thicket jungles, that can stoke fires of equivalent fury. If largescale logging were to renew and punch into uncut lands, these could also become

points of fire infection. So while the fuels situation has changed, it has not been

abolished to the point that free-burning fire will starve. Similarly, while the old settlement pattern of homesteaders, miners, and townfolk no longer exists, the contemporary swarm of tourists and exurbanites has proved just as vulnerable.’

What differs are two factors. One, we can shut down the forests to human use,

which will squeeze the number of fire starts. And two, we can attack fire with considerable force, particularly as new ignitions begin. How large fires might become

during a crisis season will depend on our ability to fight them, especially our capacity to catch new starts before they scale up. For the 1910 season to truly repeat

itself, our suppression capability would have to collapse. Could it?

It could happen because of over-extension from multiple large fires or disasters;

or from a loss of firefighting forces and supporting equipment, a falling off of funds

and training because of several lax seasons; or from a breakdown in modern communications—a critical satellite or two disabled; or, more generally, from a condition

of war that would drain attention and commitments elsewhere. Even a mass death

of firefighters is possible. The 1985 Butte fire in southern Idaho entrapped 73 firefighters. Had they not had a bulldozed clearing in which to plant their fire shelters,

they might all have perished.

There is no reason to believe the country is exempt from fires of historic magnitude. Rather, our whole history of fire management on the public lands has, paradoxically (perhaps perversely), ensured that the necessary conditions have endured.

In such circumstances, one either has to convert the landscape to something less

flammable or do the burning oneself. Without such steps, suppression cannot forever

keep the lid on the cauldron.

Coda

I apologize for being both wordy and sketchy. Wildland fire is a complicated topic,

and while some general principles exist, the subject is best treated in particulars.

I hope you can find my observations useful. And I look forward to being able to testify directly at some time in the future.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW O. MOORE, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC & GLOBAL AFFAIRS,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE AND CONSERVATION CORPS (NASCC)

NASCC, the national membership organization for 116 state and local youth service and conservation corps operating in 31 states and the District of Columbia, appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony to the hearing record.

NASCC has worked closely with the Federal land-managing agencies and Congress to ensure that the energy and conservation service commitment of the nation’s

youth and young adults is brought to bear on the fire prevention, education, and

restoration needs of the nation. Language in the FY2001 appropriations bill encouraging the involvement of conservation and service corps as a community partner—

language repeated in contracting guidance on paper and on the Internet—has

helped open doors and led to several early successes. Corps partnerships are underway in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah.

Notably among those successes NASCC would point to:

• The Fire Fuels Reduction Program of the Southwest Youth Corps (profiled

below) working with the National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management in the Four Corners states of New Mexico, Colorado,

and Utah; and

• The Fire Education Corps of the Student Conservation Association (also profiled

below), active in Idaho and Nevada.

In two puzzling cases, efforts to further corps partnerships in pursuit of Fire Plan

objectives have met with what are apparently bureaucratic slowdowns or resistance,

as follows:

• Forest Service staff informed the Washington Conservation Corps-Department

of Ecology that a proposal to train additional corpsmembers in fire fighting and

93

prevention could not go forward—that the Forest Service could only train Forest

Service staff; and

• A letter from Forest Service headquarters, informing field personnel of opportunities to enter into Fire Plan partnerships with state and local corps, has remained marooned at headquarters for some six months.

To get more young people involved with fire-related work, NASCC suggests:

1. Continued emphasis in legislative language and guidance on partnerships

with corps, and consideration of setting aside funds for such partnerships;

2. Instructing Federal land-managing agencies to promote corps partnerships

among field personnel, and requiring the agencies to report on such promotion

and its results.

[Attachment.]

FIRE PREVENTION, EDUCATION, FIGHTING, & RESTORATION:

HIGHLIGHTS OF CORPS PROJECTS

Coconino Rural Environment Corps of Flagstaff, Arizona

Engaged in numerous projects with Coconino, Kaibab, and Coronado National

Forests; Grand Canyon National Park; several National Monuments; Coconino

County Parks; and the Arizona State Land Department in 2001. Projects included

chainsaw thinning Ponderosa pine forests, preparing for prescribed burns, felling

and piling beetle-infested Englemann spruce, constructing fire lines, surveying forests with GPS, constructing and maintaining trails, closing forest roads, eradicating

exotic weeds and revegetating with native species. The corps also specializes in

thinning projects adjacent to private homes.

Minnesota Conservation Corps

Trains all participants in wildland firefighting (S130/131/190) and participates in

wildfire suppression, prescribed burning for habitat improvement and fuels reduction, as well as fire prevention. MCC has also assisted with fire pre-suppression related to the 1999 blow-down event in the Boundary Waters.

Montana Conservation Corps

Works with the USDA-Forest Service, Montana Department of Natural Resources,

rural volunteer fire departments, BLM, and the National Park Service on a wide

variety of fire prevention and restoration projects.

Northwest Service Academy of Vancouver, Washington

Received $48,000 in National Fire Plan grant funding to support the training, supervision, and transportation of three AmeriCorps members attached to local fire

departments in three counties in Central Oregon. An Oregon Department of Forestry staff person will coordinate the efforts of the three as they initiate communitywide Firefree volunteer events and encourage hazardous fuels treatment in targeted

interface communities in the area.

Northwest Youth Corps of Eugene, Oregon

Deployed two 10-person youth crews for a total of three weeks this summer to rehabilitate wilderness trails within the confines of the Hash Rock Fire, using National Fire Plan Funds. Another recent project include removing non-native thistles

introduced during suppression and post-fire soil stabilization efforts from hundreds

of acres of burned forest ground. In 2000, for Oregon State Parks, NYC reconstructed an extensive array of stairs, boardwalks, bridges and puncheons at a park

that had been heavily burned. NYC has also done a significant amount of work to

reduce fuels prior to prescribed burns intended to both restore natural ecosystems

and reduce fuels near the urban interface.

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps of Taos, New Mexico

Has a crew thinning privately-owned forested land as part of National Fire Plan

efforts, in a cooperative venture involving RMYC, Red River Fire Department, New

Mexico State Forestry, and Carson National Forest-Questa Ranger District. This

Wildland-Urban Interface project shows landowners how to thin the timber they

own, what building materials to avoid, and other safety measures.

Southwest Youth Corps, Durango, Colorado

With the assistance of three Federal agencies, SYC has mounted a large effort

under the National Fire Plan. See attached description.

94

Student Conservation Association

Supplies numerous highly educated interns to assist with community outreach

fire education, and is increasingly involved with GIS mapping and fire audits as

well as part of National Fire Plan. SCA interns worked with state and private forestry officials in Idaho and Nevada in 2001 and will soon carry out activities in

many more western states. See attached description.

Utah Conservation Corps, Logan, Utah

The Utah Corps received $8,000 in National Fire Plan funding to underwrite four

weeks’ of work in the Blackrock Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Corpsmembers rehabilitated eight miles of trail, putting in 150 checkdams and

50 waterbars to restore recreational opportunities in a burned area.

Washington Conservation Corps (Dept. of Ecology) arranged for USDA Forest Service

training for participants. The trained corpsmembers have aided the Forest Service and local agencies in responding to wildfires throughout Summer 2001.

Youth Conservation Corps of the USDA Forest Service

Placed 93 participants in the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the

Crooked River National Grasslands in Oregon to handpile hazardous fuels, using a

mix of National Fire Plan fuels treatment funding and other FS recreation, wildlife,

fisheries, and hydrology funding.

Youth Corps of Southern Arizona

Having performed well on trails and related backlog maintenance projects funded

by the NPS Public Lands Corps initiative at Chiricahua National Monument, entered into a $30,000 fuels reduction project at the Monument in Autumn, 2001.

SOUTHWEST YOUTH CORPS FIRE FUELS REDUCTION PROGRAM

In 2001, Southwest Youth Corps (SYC) piloted a specialized conservation program—the Fire Fuels Reduction Crew (FFR). This program was developed to help

reduce the threat of wildfires and improve the health of forested public lands in the

Four Corners Region. Primarily, the FFR Crew has worked with Public Land Agencies to complete priority fire management projects, including urban interface

projects (protecting archeological sites and modern buildings), thinning acres in

preparation for Management Ignited Fire, as well as thinning projects that are

aimed at wildlife habitat protection and improvement.

The Crew

The FFR Crew consists of two Crew Leaders (supervisors) and eight Corpsmembers 18-25 years of age. SYC recruits, hires, and provides the administrative

oversight for all employees. The Crew has its own transportation, tools, equipment

and safety gear, including chainsaws and extra parts, fuel, chaps, eye & ear pro,

safety helmet, etc. The Crew also has adequate insurance coverage (workers comp,

vehicle, general liability).

Southwest Youth Corps is a job training program. During the first week of the

23-week long program, all Corpsmembers are required to complete and pass the

USFS Power Saw Training Class (S212). Additionally, the FFR Crew completed the

S 130/S 191 Fire Fighting Classes and passed the Pack Test.

SYC completes all payroll for the crew. Crew Leaders are paid a weekly salary

and Corpsmembers are paid $7.00/hour and earn a $2,400 AmeriCorps Education

Award upon completion of the project. The FFR Crew works four 10-hour days typically; however, the Crew camps near projects that are more than a two-hour drive

from the SYC headquarters.

Project Sponsors

During the 2001 Program Year, the FFR Crew has worked with the National Park

Service, Bureau of Land Management, and United States Forest Service (specific

contacts listed below):

National Park Service

El Malpais Nat’l Monument (NM)

Herschel Schultz or Mike Kessler

(505-783-4033)

Mesa Verde National Park (CO)

Jim Kitchen or Scott MCDermit

(970-562-5069)

USDA Forest Service

San Juan National Forest (CO)

Ken Reed (970-882-7296)

Bob Frye (970-264-2268)

Bureau of Land Management

San Juan Field Office (CO)

95

Mark Lauer (970-247-4874)

Southeast Utah Field Office (UT)

Brenda Zimple (435-259-2194)

Fannington Field Office (NM)

John Hansen (505-599-6325)

Work Projects

The chart describes the type of projects that the FFR Crew has completed as well

as revenue sources.

Project sponsor No. of weeks Revenue

source Project description

Mesa Verde

National

Park.

4

(1,404 hrs.)

75% PLC

25% Park

Unit*

5 miles (66 ft. wide) firebreak created

around three Pithouse ruin sites)

and 62 truck loads of debris loaded

and removed.

Tree type: Pinon, Juniper, oak brush.

Additionally, the Crew helped the

Park Fire Crew dig a fire line on a

wildfire that broke-out in the Park.

Also cleared an old canyon trail that

provides access for grazin permittees.

El Malpais

National

Monument.

3

(1,062 hrs.)

75% PLC

25% Park

Unit*

8.2 miles of firebreak created (66 ft.

wide).

Tree type: ponderosa, pinon, juniper.

BLM Utah ... 1

(310 hrs)

BLM Fire

Budget*

Thinned/cleared area for visitor center

and created defensible space around

three structures.

Tree type: Pinon & Juniper.

USDA-FS

Dolores

District.

4

(1,098 hrs.)

Fire Budget* Dolores Rim—Thinned/treated 47

acres in preparation for Mgmt.

Ignited Fire Spring 2002. Tree type

Ponderosa Pine.

USDA-FS/

BLM.

1 Fire Budget* Edgemont Ranch—Thinned/treated 7

acres to create defensible space on

public lands interphased with private homes. Primarily removed the

Oak Brush (underbrush). Mechanical thinning with Chainsaws is less

disruptive than other thinning devises.

Tree type: Oak Brush

USDA-FS

Pagosa

District.

2 Fire Budget* Thinning to prepare for prescribed

burn in Spring 2002. Also, protected

snags for wildlife habitat in the

area. Project currently being completed.

Tree type: Ponderosa Pine.

BLM-Farmington.2 Fire Budget* Thinning to reduce risk of wildfire.

Project scheduled to be completed at

the end of Sept./beginning of October.

Tree type: Pinon and juniper.

* National Fire Plan Funding directly supported the Agency Fire/Fuels Budget used to pay

for the Services of the SYC Fire Fuels Reduction Crew.

Cost

The cost of the FFR Crew operation for one week is more than $7,000.00 (including everything . . . wages, insurance, transportation, tools, supervision, administrative oversight, etc.). SYC has been fortunate to secure other sources of funding to

96

offset up to 30% the weekly fee for Project Sponsors. Thus, Project Sponsors are required to pay at least 70% (or $5,000/week) for the services of the FFR Crew. In

order to be financially sustainable, SYC strives to receive $6,000/week for the FFR

Crew; however, as a pilot program in 2001, the $5,000 weekly fee was accepted.

Mechanisms

Southwest Youth Corps carried out its FFR Crew work under pre-existing cooperative agreements and challenge cost-share agreements, and developed new agreements with the Bureau of Land Management to pursue additional projects.

STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION FIRE EDUCATION CORPS

The SCA Fire Education Corps is a volunteer community education program for

property owners along the wildlands interface in Idaho and Nevada, conducted in

cooperation with numerous federal, state and local agencies.

During July and August of 2001, 50 SCA college-age volunteers have aided 1.3

million area residents in the identification of wildfire risks and the adoption of

proactive fire management strategies including the creating of defensible space

around their homes.

The project is funded through a National Fire Plan grant and partners include

the USFS, BLM, Idaho Dept. of Public Lands, local Resource Conservation and Development Councils, local fire departments, and Home Depot.

USFS Chief Dale Bosworth has cited the SCA Fire Education Corps as a national

example of community education for fire prevention along the wildlands interface.

Other supporters include Interior Undersecretary Dave Tenny and Idaho Gov. Dirk

Kempthorne.

The SCA Fire Education Corps methods include home fire safety audits, defensible space seminars, safety demonstrations with local fire officials, community and

event presentations, and information stations at regional Home Depot stores.

Plans are already underway to expand the SCA Fire Education program in 2002

to nine western states (CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY) involving more than

250 volunteers.

Founded in 1957, the Student Conservation Association (SCA) is the nation’s leading provider of conservation service opportunities, outdoor education, and leadership

development for youth.

SCA volunteers annually provide more than one million hours of conservation

service in parks, forests, refuges and urban areas in all 50 states.

For more information on the Student Conservation Association or the SCA Fire

Education Corps, contact Kevin Hamilton, SCA Communications Director, at 603-

5431700 or kevinh@sca-inc.org or contact Jody Handly, SCA Fire Education Project

Leader, at 208-241-8881 or jody@sca-inc.org

Æ