U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

70-955 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND

FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

March 8, 2001

Serial No. 107-3

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ′′Billy′′ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

C.L. ′′Butch′′ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

VACANCY

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

VACANCY

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman

JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

C.L. ′′Butch′′ Otter, Idaho

James V. Hansen, Utah

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 8, 2001 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 1

Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Montana .....................................................................................................

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho ..........................................................................................................

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14

Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado .........................................................................................................

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

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................ 60

Udall, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Mexico ............................................................................................................

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Statement of Witnesses:

Hartzell, Tim, Director, Office of Wildland and Fire Coordination, U.S.

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 36

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Laverty, Lyle, National Fire Plan Coordinator, U.S. Forest Service ........... 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Martz, Hon. Judy, Governor, State of Montana ............................................. 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Additional materials supplied:

Charts and Pictures referred to by Laverty and Hartzell ............................. 27

Letter to The Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, and

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, dated

October 20, 2000 ........................................................................................... 54

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE NATIONAL

FIRE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Thursday, March 8, 2001

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. MCINNIS. As our audience can see, our membership is not

here yet. The reason I am going to start, Governor, frankly, is as

a courtesy to you. We have a vote expected in about three minutes,

which means I will have to leave in about 15 minutes. I want to

get your testimony. And it is also my understanding that members

that are not too pleased with today’s procedure will file a number

of stalling motions over on the House Floor, so we will have a series of votes.

Under those circumstances, Governor, I would like to have you

testify when more members of the panel are here. But if we do

that, I am afraid that you probably will not get an opportunity to

testify. So I am going to skip over initially here any kind of opening

statement on my behalf and on behalf of the ranking Committee

member.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Forests and Forest Health

It is appropriate that the Subcommittee’s first hearing this Congress is on the

subject of the National Fire Plan. No single program has a greater potential to

transform our nation’s forests and the way they are managed. The National Fire

Plan is the culmination of years of scientific analysis, General Accounting Office

studies and Congressional hearings, and is a direct response to the fundamental fact

that fuel conditions on our federal lands are the worst they have ever been, dramatically demonstrated by last year’s fires. But what was really unusual about the 2000

fire season wasn’t that seven million acres burned, but that the average size and

intensity of individual fires were much larger and hotter than they have been historically. These super-hot fires not only destroy habitat for fish, wildlife and, of

course, people, but they also put firefighters at extreme risk. I personally witnessed

such tragic consequences to brave young firefighters on the Storm King fire in Colorado eight years ago.

So it is for these just reasons that Congress appropriated an additional $1.8 billion for the fire plan for FY 2001, and for these same reasons it will remain crucial

that we continue to maintain full funding for these activities. But continued funding

2

will depend on the success of the fire plan, and success will be measured by accomplishments in the field, with tangible results such as the number of acres treated

for hazardous fuels removal or the number of new, highly trained and well-equipped

firefighters. Failure to implement the plan successfully will also result in tangible,

but adverse, results: billions more spent for fire fighting, millions of acres of destroyed habitat, billions lost in property damage and, most certainly, the tragic loss

of lives.

This isn’t to say that the agencies alone are responsible for implementing the fire

plan; much of that responsibility falls with Congress, requiring thoughtful bipartisan effort and support. So I look forward to working with all my colleagues and

the agencies on this immense effort. This, then, is the purpose of this hearing: to

review the National Fire Plan, to measure its accomplishments to date, to review

what yet needs to be done, paying careful attention to all barriers and impediments,

and to determine what role this Committee and Congress can play in its successful

implementation.

Mr. MCINNIS. Governor, welcome to our Committee. We appreciate it. I will let you proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JUDY MARTZ, GOVERNOR,

STATE OF MONTANA

Governor MARTZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for

the record, I am Governor Judy Martz. I am here today representing the Big Sky State of Montana. It is an honor to be here

today to testify on behalf of my State and the Western Governors’

Association regarding the National Fire Plan. I want to thank the

Chairman for his interest in an issue that is critical and of great

importance to those of us in the West, and that is forest health.

Please consider the testimony in its entirety that I have given to

you, and let me begin by saying that those of us in Montana are

pleased with the prospects of the National Fire Plan. For the first

time in nearly a decade, the National Fire Plan offers a ray of hope

for our Nation’s forests.

While the smoke has cleared from one of the most devastating

fires in our history, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to minimize future devastating fires. Already in Montana, at this time we

fear that the potential exists for another significant fire season. I

will not refer to the charts again that I have placed here today, but

I did want you to see just some of the devastating headlines and

what was happening in Montana. And as I just looked at those

headlines, it brought me back to the fire season last year, and

there is something very devastating that happened.

This picture I think everyone in this room is familiar with of the

elk down in the fire, as the elk were displaced by the fire. This

happened to a lot of our wildlife, but thankfully someone caught

the picture, and you have all seen it. Now, having been made into

a pin, it is a constant reminder of the displacement of the wildlife.

Drought continues in Montana, and the consequences of an extended drought impose an even greater fire danger for this coming

year.

In the interior West, the wildfires of 2000 burned nearly 7 million acres. Of the nearly 7 million acres, 900,000 acres in Montana

were reduced to ash. Three hundred homes were destroyed, and

nearly 6,000 were threatened. We had over 20 communities evacuated as a result of an out-of-control wildfire.

3

While we cannot prevent drought, lightning strikes, heat, or

wind, we can prevent some of the devastating impacts that result

from mismanagement and inaction.

We must manage our national forests. ‘‘Hands-off’’ is not management. We have successfully excluded fire from our landscape for

the past 90 years. And while the Forest Service was quick to respond to fire starts across our Nation, an action plan for forest

management sat on the shelf. Entire watersheds and landscapes

have grown dense with small trees and brush, creating unnatural

and unhealthy conditions ripe for catastrophic fires. In fact, the

General Accounting Office in a report requested by this Subcommittee identified nearly 40 million acres of national forest land

at risk of catastrophic fire within the interior West. Last summer,

we burned in Montana less than 10 percent of the acreage identified by the GAO.

Instead of focusing on how much timber we harvest, we need

now to focus on how much we leave on the land. Instead of focusing

on acres harvested and board feet processed, we need to focus on

the overall health of the forest ecosystem.

Some of our forests have grown dense and have accumulated

large amounts of hazardous fuels, making it nearly impossible to

prescribe burn. In cases such as this, man needs to mimic the purpose of fire by cleaning or clearing overgrown and over accumulated fuels. Only after successful restoration can we introduce fire

in its natural form.

The National Fire Plan offers a full range of forest management

tools, from prescribed burns to mechanical treatment. State and

local governments are active participants.

The Forest Service will follow nine operating principles guiding

their work to implement the National Fire Plan, and I am encouraged by those principles, frankly, that are outlined and look forward to working with the Forest Service on implementing those

principles in Montana.

Last summer’s fires affected private and State lands as well. In

Montana, we saw over 14,000 acres of State forest burn. Recognizing that the value of burnt, dead timber decreases rapidly with

time, our Department of Natural Resources, the DNRC, moved in

an environmentally sound and fiscally responsible manner. DNRC

quickly evaluated the affected resources in accordance with the

Montana Environmental Policy Act, similar to NEPA, and prepared

a plan to treat the area’s most severely impacted by fires. Today,

the State has completed 90 percent of the treatment plan on 5,400

acres of State land. This treatment plan has rehabilitated many of

the burned acres and generated $3.7 million for our public education system. The harvests were also conducted while adhering to

the letter of the State Forest Land Management Plan, which is to

manage for biodiversity and forest health, in effect, similar to the

USFS ecosystem management philosophy.

To date, the United States Forest Service in Montana has not removed any timber affected by the fires of last summer, and I ask

why.

Additionally, the treatment plan addressed rehabilitation measures that included soil stabilization measures, stream bank stabilization, and reseeding wherever it is necessary. This summer,

4

the State will begin the process to evaluate and address necessary

treatment of the areas less impacted by the fires.

My point is simple. If the State of Montana can move in a timely,

environmentally sound, and fiscally responsible manner with limited resources, should we not expect our Federal neighbors to do

the same? We need them to do the same.

I would like to present the balance of my testimony now on behalf of the 21 members of the Western Governors’ Association, of

which I recently became a member.

Since last summer’s fires, States have been working collaboratively with Federal agencies and other stakeholders to develop a

national 10-year strategy to reduce the risk of wildfires. The Governors of the Western Governors’ Association requested this strategy, and Congress concurred on the need for a long-term approach

in the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations report. A draft of

that strategy for public and congressional comment is appended to

my testimony. We are aiming to complete it by May 1st. I encourage Congress to remain vigilant in improving the health of our Nation’s forests. We must be dedicated to a long-term strategy that

addresses the health of our forests and reduces the risks to our

population. And we must fully fund the National Fire Plan. The

goals set by the National Fire Plan are crucial to minimizing threat

to lives and to property in our entire region.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Governor Martz follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Judy Martz, Governor, State of Montana

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, for the record, my name is Judy Martz

and I am the Governor of the great state of Montana. It is an honor to be here today

to testify on behalf of my state and the Western Governors’ Association regarding

the national fire plan. I want to thank the Chairman for his interest in an issue

of critical importance to those of us in the west; the health of our forests.

Let me begin by saying that those of us in Montana are very excited about the

prospects of the National Fire Plan. For the first time in nearly a decade, we view

the National Fire Plan as a ray of hope for our nation’s forests. And the reason we

are hopeful lies in the opportunity to work together with our federal partners on

solving issues that we witnessed last summer. Devastating and catastrophic fires

swept across vast acres of Montana and the west last summer. We need to do everything possible to avoid that scenario from repeating itself again.

While the smoke has cleared from one of the most devastating fires in our history,

we must remain vigilant in our efforts to minimize future devastating fires. Already

in Montana, we fear the potential exists for a repeat performance of last year’s fires.

Drought has hit Montana hard, and the consequences of an extended drought have

serious impacts to our natural environment.

In the interior west, the wildfires of 2000 burned nearly 7 million acres. Of the

nearly 7 million acres, Montana witnessed over 900,000 acres reduced to ash. The

State of Montana watched in horror as over 300 homes were destroyed, and nearly

6000 were threatened. We had over 20 communities evacuated as a result of an outof-control wildfire.

The Big Sky State fell under a brown hue of smoke. From August 5th to September 8th, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality issued a total of 21

‘‘very unhealthy’’ advisories and 19 ‘‘hazardous’’ advisories for communities in the

northwest part of the state. Visibility hung around 1 mile or less for most of the

summer. A state proud of its ‘‘clean and healthful’’ environment had fallen to air

quality levels worse than Los Angeles. Environmental groups long opposed to active

management fell silent amidst the smoke, chaos and personal trauma of last year’s

fires.

While we cannot prevent drought, lightening strikes or hot windy days, we can

prevent some of the devastating impacts that result from mismanagement and

inaction.

5

In particular, we must manage our national forests. ‘‘Hands-off’’ is not management. We have successfully excluded fire from our landscape for the past 90 years.

And while the forest service was quick to respond to fire starts across our nation,

they were slowly drifting away from active management of those lands. The result,

entire watersheds and landscapes have grown dense with small trees and brush,

creating unnatural and unhealthy conditions ripe for catastrophic fires. In fact, the

General Accounting Office in a report requested by this subcommittee, identified

nearly 40 million acres of national forest land at risk of catastrophic fire within the

interior west. Last summer, we burned less than 10% of the acreage identified by

the GAO.

Unless we move aggressively, with a unified plan and strategy, we can expect

many more summers like last. While spring has not eased into the intermountain

west yet, the impacts from last summer’s fires remain to be seen. Impacts to water

quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, erosion and regeneration will play

itself out with the coming spring run-off and summer rains.

As a nation, we need to move away from the confrontational gridlock we have experienced in the past. I have long maintained that there is no constituency for dirty

air and dirty water. We all want a clean environment. But a clean environment does

not happen by accident. It happens with measured purpose. And the National Fire

Plan is a move in the direction of a cleaner and healthier environment.

By focusing on the health of our forests, we can achieve many of the objectives

important to all Americans. Instead of focusing on how much timber we harvest, we

need to focus on how much we leave on the land. Instead of focusing on acres harvested or board feet processed, we need to focus on the overall health of the forest

ecosystem. We need to manage our forests for an end result; and that end result

must be a healthy forest.

Charles Keegan, Director of Forest Industry and Manufacturing Research and Research and Carl Fiedler, Research Associate Professor, School of Forestry, both of

the University of Montana, Missoula, have long advocated for healthy forests

through active management of our nation’s forests.

In a nutshell, Chuck and Carl recommend active management to bring our forests

back to a more natural and healthy condition. This management technique involves

clearing under-story and over-story of overly crowded trees, and prescribed burning

where appropriate. And the key word here is appropriate. Some of our forests have

grown dense and have accumulated large amounts of hazardous fuels, making it

nearly impossible to prescribe burn. In cases such as this, man needs to mimic the

purpose of fire by clearing overgrown and over-accumulated fuels. Only after successful restoration can we introduce fire in its natural form.

The National Fire Plan endeavors to offer a full range of forest management tools,

from prescribed burns to mechanical treatment. And by including state and local

governments and the affected public to participate in management decisions, we

have an honest opportunity to positively affect the health of our nation’s forests.

The National Fire Plan moves us in the direction of sustainable and healthy forests. The Forest Service will follow nine Operating Principles guiding their work to

implement the National Fire Plan. I am encouraged by the principles outlined and

look forward to working with the Forest Service on implementing those principles

in Montana.

Responsible agencies must use expedited procedures to implement this plan. I understand the agencies have the available procedures to expedite this plan, and if

not, then Congress must act prudently and expeditiously itself to provide legislative

language that allows expedited procedures.

We can and we must move in an expeditious manner to address forest management. Last summer’s fires affected private and state lands as well. In Montana, we

saw over 14,000 acres of state forest burn. Recognizing that the value of burnt, dead

timber decreases rapidly with time, our Department of Natural Resources (DNRC)

moved in an environmentally sound and fiscally responsible manner. DNRC quickly

evaluated the affected resources in accordance with the Montana Environmental

Policy Act (similar to NEPA) and prepared a plan to treat the areas most severely

impacted by the fires. Today, the state has completed 90% of the treatment plan

on 5400 acres of state land. This treatment plan has rehabilitated many of the

burned acres and generated $3.7 million to the school trust that will be used for

our public education system. The harvests were also conducted while adhering to

the letter of the State Forest Land Management Plan, which is to manage for biodiversity and forest health, in effect similar to the USFS ecosystem management

philosophy.

To date, the United State Forest Service in Montana has not removed any timber

affected by the fires of last summer.

6

Additionally, the treatment plan addressed rehabilitation measures that included

soil stabilization measures, stream bank stabilization and reseeding where necessary. This summer, the State will begin the process to evaluate and address necessary treatment of the areas less impacted by the fires.

My point is simple. If the State of Montana can move in a timely, environmentally

sound and fiscally responsible manner with limited resources, should we not expect

our federal neighbors to do the same?

I would like to present the balance of my testimony on behalf of the 21 members

of the Western Governors’ Association of which I recently became a member.

Since last summer’s fires, states have been working collaboratively with federal

agencies and other stakeholders to develop a national 10-year strategy to reduce the

risk of wildfires. Western governors requested this strategy and the Congress concurred on the need for this long-term approach in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations report. A draft of the strategy for public and Congressional comment is appended to my testimony. We are aiming to complete it by May 1. Once completed,

we believe this document will demonstrate that a broad range of interests are in

agreement on the need, resource levels and approach to addressing this issue.

And I would like to take this opportunity to encourage Congress to remain vigilant in improving the health of our nation’s forests. We must be dedicated to a longterm strategy that addresses the health of our forests and reduces the risks to our

population. We must, and I repeat must, fully fund the National Fire Plan. The

goals set by the National Fire Plan are crucial to minimizing threat to lives and

property. We must remain committed for the long run.

We were lucky last year. With the grace of God and a mobilization of forces like

we have never before seen, lives were saved and property was protected. Unless we

seriously commit to addressing the risks posed by unnatural and unhealthy forests,

we will not always be able to say we were so lucky.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Governor.

Governor, the panel appreciates the effort that you made to travel clear across the country to make your presentation. Later in the

meeting, we intend to have the Forest Service. I am pretty positive

about some of the steps that they have taken.

There are a couple of comments that stand out in your comments

that you have made, in particular your comment that ‘‘hands-off’’

is not management. You label it directly. That is exactly correct.

You also said that, to date, the United States Forest Service in

Montana has not removed any timber affected by the fires of last

summer, and I think what is of interest, Governor, is you compare

it to what your State Department of Forest Service has done in

comparison. It is clear that one agency is able to move on a much

more rapid basis than the other agency.

Considering the fire potential that we have out there, it is important that we move on an expedited basis, not a careless basis, not

a reckless basis, but an expedited basis. And I think that we are

heading in that direction.

I think your point that the State of Montana can move on that—

and you have set a good example for us—is the kind of thing we

need to hear back here.

Governor, as you will remember, at the beginning of the meeting

we waived opening remarks because of the fact we wanted to get

your testimony in, and I want to allow as much questioning as possible. In view of that, I will waive the remainder of my time and

yield to the ranking member for a couple comments, and, members,

we will go to the 5-minute question rule. I yield my time to the

ranking member and welcome the ranking member.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I really will not have too

much of a comment here. Should we move to some questions here?

Is that appropriate?

7

Mr. MCINNIS. That would be appropriate.

Mr. INSLEE. Great. Thanks again, Governor. This is twice in two

days. You are doing yeo-woman’s service, so we appreciate it.

Governor MARTZ. Thank you.

Mr. INSLEE. I just want to ask you a real broad question, if I can,

and feel free to philosophize or rhapsodize at your pleasure. And

I will go right to the heart of a controversy that we will be talking

about, something that can be a controversy on this issue, and that

is, the need in certain instances to remove fuel from the forest

which in certain instances needs to be done because our previous

fire suppression policy has allowed tremendous growth to some degree in fuel.

But in doing so, many of our constituents have concerns that any

fuel suppression program could end up as a masquerade for, in

fact, an increase in commercial harvest. That was really motivated

not so much by fuel suppression but, rather, simply the increased

harvest levels where the law, the ESA, and various other restrictions may not allow it.

I would just like your thoughts on how you think we can structure or should consider structuring a program to avoid that second

possibility of disguised commercial harvesting, if you will, under

the guise of fuel suppression while still, you know, reaching that

goal. And feel free to give us your thoughts even if you haven’t

thought all the way through it.

Governor MARTZ. Thank you very much, Congressman. I really

believe that within my heart I think what we are trying to do is

talk about healthy forests. And if we consider that and keep the

argument of timber harvests as being jobs related or creating jobs

for the industry out of this, we will look truly at creating a

healthier forest. And that is what we have been saying for years

in Montana.

The fuels are laying there. They are laying dead. Trees can’t

even grow to the size they should grow. Thinning is better for forests. We are finding that out for sure. And I really think that for

the ecosystem the argument is that we really need to do—we need

to leave some of that dead and burnt timber. But how do we do

that in an environmentally and ecologically safe way? And I think

that has got—we need to continually take the harvesting or the removal out of the picture, but start to look and really concentrate

and focus in on the reasons we want to do this. And the reason we

want to do it in Montana is to have a healthy forest.

Our fires last year, as you know, were so large. We had the best

firefighters in the world there. And to sit in the same room with

them and hear them say these are too hot, we cannot put them out,

flames flashing over 300 feet in the air, and there was no way because of the hot box that sat underneath them.

Now we are faced with different problems—erosions, watersheds,

those kinds of things. So for a healthy forest, we must take away

the equation. The equation, yes, is going to bring some timber harvests, and we must be diligent to get that out of there. But the first

and main concern and the argument that we need to keep focused

on is a healthy forest.

Mr. INSLEE. Let me ask you, you said something to the effect of

wanting to remove the issue of harvest from this debate. I want to

8

make sure I understand you. I have many constituents who basically are looking for a level of trust in a decision-making process.

What they want to have is trust that a decision to remove any fiber

or timber from the forests under this program, in fact, would be

done for a fire suppression purpose rather than for a purpose of,

although it may be laudable at times, job creation, profit creation,

commercial harvest.

Could you suggest to us ways in fashioning this program which

would help build that trust in the public? And let me just give you

an example of some things that I have heard tossed about as far

as ideas. I have heard tossed about having a maximum diameter

of tree that can be removed. I have heard it tossed about that you

limit actual commercial use or sale of the timber. I have heard

ideas tossed about that would, in effect, artificially restrict the removal of the timber for commercial purposes.

What could you suggest to us that would give confidence to the

public on how we would structure such a program in that regard?

Governor MARTZ. First of all, you can’t fool yourself. There will

be jobs in this, and there will be tree harvest. There has to be, or

else all of the dead, burnt, standing timber right now is going to

be diseased, and each of those trees, depending on what kind of

tree they are, is a very limited time before they are diseased. Now,

we can’t have a diseased forest either because then as new growth

comes in, we start to build another tinder box. So you do have to

do removal.

When we did our State lands, Congressman, we had to designate

how many of those trees and what diameter they are to be left

standing. So in the prognosis of how you go forward, you do it by

prescribing what you want to have standing in that.

We have through the Western Governors’ Association what we

believe—concentrating on what we want to see, we have a list of

goals and outcomes, and this is just in draft form. So as soon as

it is in its final form, we will get this to you. We have several recommendations on the outcomes and what we believe we need to do.

But to get confidence in the general public, I think we have to

be very honest. There are going to be some jobs in this, but that

is not our main focus. Our main focus is to get the dead timber out

of there so it doesn’t disease, then create another hot box in several

years, which it will do. As that undergrowth goes up again, we may

have a predicament this summer in Montana that will cause us to

not be able to get back into the forest again. If we continue in the

drought that we are having right now, we may not be able to get

in. If we don’t get those trees out early that are dead standing, we

may not be able to get into the forest because of the fire danger

again.

So I think we just have to be honest with them, for one thing.

That is the greatest thing.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.

Governor MARTZ. You are welcome.

Mr. MCINNIS. Governor, I might point out, before I yield to the

next member, that I agree with the gentleman from Washington in

regards to that we don’t want to use this fire policy as a guise to

sneak in commercial logging.

Governor MARTZ. Right.

9

Mr. MCINNIS. On the other hand, Governor, we don’t want to use

this as a tool or a vehicle to prevent logical, scientific logging. If

we have timber in there that we need to harvest for forest health,

it is beyond me why we would not go ahead and offer it for commercial sale instead of, I guess, stacking it up somewhere and

burning it and so on.

I will yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. DUNCAN. Governor, I was present in 1998 when we had a

hearing in which they warned us about these fires and that they

were coming, and then again in early 2000 and the GAO report

that you mentioned with the warning that there were 40 million

acres in the West in immediate danger of catastrophic forest fires.

And then we saw those warnings that we received as early as 1998

come true, and I remember reading one article that there had been

$10 billion worth of damage from this roughly 7 million acres that

you mentioned burned.

If I had gone out there and set fire with some matches, or whatever, to even a few acres, I probably would have been put in jail.

And yet these policies that we followed resulted—the policies that

I think we followed because of radical or extremist environmentalists who seemingly don’t want us to cut a single tree any place.

Somehow, though, they have almost brainwashed the children in

this country because I think if I went to any school in Knoxville,

Tennessee, and told them I was opposed to cutting a single tree in

the national forests, I would probably get applause.

Somehow people seem to have the idea that the national forests

are national parks, and nobody is advocating going in and logging

in the national parks. And I don’t know—I agree with the Chairman on most things, but I am not opposed to commercial logging.

People have to think that if we don’t have some commercial logging

in a few places in this country, people aren’t going to be able to

build affordable houses or furniture or have toilet paper or books

or whatever.

How do we get the message out that to have healthy forests we

need to cut some trees, and to have low prices for all these products that we want, we have got to cut some trees? And if people

stop all logging, you are going to drive up prices and you are going

to destroy jobs. How do we get this message out? Because we seem

to be, I think, losing in some ways on this.

Governor MARTZ. And I am not sure that I can answer how we

get it out. We try very hard in Montana. We have what is called

best management practices that they use in the forests where they

are only able to cut so many trees in a certain area, they can’t cut

within so many feet of the watershed. There are very strict guidelines on how they do cut.

For us to pretend that we don’t want to have the jobs, that is

ludicrous. We need the jobs. The health of the forest depends on

those people bringing it out in a scientifically conscientious manner. But when we talk about that, it almost seems like we are

shifting the focus to the jobs it creates, when we really need to concentrate. In a sense, we did put the fire—we did start those fires.

In 1998, we came up with a plan where we knew better, and we

didn’t really do it. Now we know better because we are seeing the

ramifications of that, and we need to do it.

10

I think education, continually educating, if we can—if you go see

a cut, it doesn’t look pretty when it is being done. When they harvest it, it doesn’t look pretty because you have the stumps. But you

go back a year later, and the new growth, and you will see new

seedlings coming up, that is pretty. And it is usable. Cattle can

graze there, and they don’t hurt the ecosystem. They can’t graze

there probably the first year, especially after a prescribed burn, but

they can go on there and graze within the next two years and you

have a healthy forest again.

So I think education is key to what we are doing in sync with

the process that we are using to have a better managed forest.

Mr. DUNCAN. I remember reading in the Knoxville News Sentinel

that in 1950, 39 percent of Tennessee was in forest land, and by

1990 it was up to 45 percent, and today about half of Tennessee’s

27 million acres is in forest lands. And then I read in the Christian

Science Monitor where just about every Eastern State, the amount

of forest land has gone up significantly over the last 50 years, yet

very few people realize that.

I mentioned yesterday in this hearing that Congress passed in

the mid-1980’s this law that was hailed by the environmentalists

that we wouldn’t cut more than 80 percent of the new growth in

our national forests, yet today we are cutting less than one-seventh

of our new growth. And what I think it is, some of these groups

can’t raise money unless they keep raising the bar and scaring people and convincing people that we are raping the environment and

doing all of these horrible things, when really we have made great,

huge strides and, in fact, we are not even cutting enough trees to

keep these forest fires from happening.

Governor MARTZ. I could not agree more.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCINNIS. Governor, those buzzes you heard obviously were

an indication of a vote. We will be getting a couple more. It appears

to me we probably will only have time for one more set of questions.

I would request that the remaining panel members who will not

have an opportunity to ask those questions to you be allowed to

submit those questions in writing to your staff for response back.

Governor MARTZ. Absolutely.

Mr. MCINNIS. We also appreciate the courtesy of you coming.

After this next set of questions, I do not anticipate that we will be

back here for probably half an hour. I would ask the other people

to stay, certainly the second panel. Your testimony is very important. We intend to continue the hearing, but at that point I understand you need to keep with your schedule, Governor. So let’s wrap

it up. As you will see, Colorado pretty well dominates this Committee, and that is by choice. But the fine Congressman from the

State of Colorado, Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,

Governor. It is important that you are here today to share with us

your perspectives on Montana’s approach to this.

The Colorado delegation last year in the person of Congressman

Hefley, who is chairing another Subcommittee of this large full

Committee, and myself introduced a bill that would have applied

to the lands in Colorado in the so-called Red Zone. That is the

11

urban-wildland interface. And that is where we have had the most

pressure on our forests and, in fact, where we had a couple of the

catastrophic fires last year. And our emphasis has been on focusing

there to educate the people who live in those areas, but also to do

the kind of fuel reduction and forest health work that would save

lives, save property, and save people from the heartaches that come

when these fires get out of control.

Is it your sense that—I am not trying to lead you on this, but

ask if this would be the kind of policy that we first implement with

these monies and with this large-scale program that we now have

before us?

Governor MARTZ. It is, and could I just tell you some of these recommendations from the Western Governors, and I think they will

line up with what you are thinking. We believe that we must reduce the risk and consequences of catastrophic wildfires and increase public and firefighter safety, to improve conditions of fireadapted ecosystems to make them more resilient, to promote local

action by increasing public understanding and providing the tools

to enhance local responsibility. We need to maintain and enhance

community health, economic and social well-being, increase resources for protection capabilities. We need to provide the restoration and rehabilitation of fire-damaged lands and to enhance collaboration, coordination among all levels of government and stakeholders for joint planning, decision-making, and implementation.

And I think there is something further that needs to be entered

into the discussion at some time, is when people build in these

areas where the trees are right up to their houses, maybe local

planning or planning on Federal and State land, they have to have

their own buffer zone, put that in before they can build, of some

many feet before timber can be right on top of the house. I think

something has to be looked at in that way, too, because we spend

millions of dollars fighting fire over one home. And is that fair to

every taxpayer? I don’t know.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Thank you for that response. I want

to associate myself with my colleague from Washington, Mr. Inslee,

when he discussed the concerns that some of us share that we don’t

put the cart before the horse and that in the end this approach is

about making our forests healthy.

I would tell you, when you talk to the environmental community,

who I think is very well intentioned and understands that forests

are part of our economic base in the West, that we sell our views

and our recreation as well as the commodities that we bring off the

public lands, that when you say forest health to those communities,

they think that means clear-cutting. When you say sustainable forests, which is what the environmental community tends to use as

their approach, the commodity interests and other economic interests think that means lock up the forests and nobody ever has any

access. And I think we have got to work to find some additional

common ground here, understanding that in the end we all want

the same thing, which is healthy forests that can provide for our

families in recreational amenities and the views and the experiences we all enjoy in the West and the out-of-doors, but also, where

appropriate, that allow for access to those wood products.

12

I also think we have an enormous opportunity—and you mentioned leaving some of this material in the forest because it is

needed for the forests to regenerate themselves. But with the

emerging energy crisis, we had a hearing yesterday, and there is

a whole industry emerging around biofuels, and a lot of this smalldiameter material can be used with the emerging technologies to

produce ethanol. It is a cellulosic ethanol. And I hope that we will

look at that as a potential feedstock for ethanol production so that

we become more independent and we don’t have the national security issues that are tied to our dependence on foreign oil.

I am not giving you much chance to comment, but the last question I would ask you is: In our bill, Mr. Hefley’s and my bill, we

included a 12-inch diameter limit. Now, some people think that is

too big. Some people think that is too small. But we felt it was important to begin with a standard and at least put something on the

table. I am curious if you have a reaction to that particular size

limit for cutting. And, again, this would be in the Red Zone, in this

urban-wildland interface.

Governor MARTZ. We have designated in Montana certain—it

may be 9, it may go to 12, but you have to leave so many of those

standing. I mean, it doesn’t mean that you leave every one of them

that are 12 inches in diameter standing. It would mean you leave

so many in a certain area for a healthy forest.

We call it best management practices, and you are calling it

something else, but we are talking about the same thing, managing

it in a viable way that is good for the ecosystem, is good for the

ground, is good for everything that is around it.

I want to go back to the ethanol use. We are considering everything in the way of ethanol use in the State of Montana to the extent that we are looking at building an ethanol plant there right

now. The legislature is looking at a couple of bills. And so that is

something that we are seriously considering.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. We would like to work with you

through the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in

the House, which has about 180 members from both parties and is

very interested in ethanol maybe being a transition fuel to what I

think eventually may be a fuel cell economy over the next 50 to 100

years.

Governor MARTZ. Right. In fact, the next State car I have will

use both ethanol and—it is a good start.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Excellent.

Mr. MCINNIS. Governor, again, we are going to have to conclude

our testimony temporarily. There are a couple of things that I

would point out.

First of all, I do want to make note that there is some danger

in getting into specific measurement of diameters. I mean, you may

have a species that is not natural to the forest which exceeds 12

inches, and all of a sudden you have got a Federal bureaucracy,

and I think our bureaucracy has pretty clearly demonstrated in

lack of movement, as compared to your State Forest Service— which, by the way, in my opinion are closer to the soil than the

Federal agency is.

I wish that we could continue this meeting because I am sure

you would be interested in the follow-up panel, Mr. Laverty and

13

Mr. Hartzell. We are going to hire 4,000 new firefighters. I think

our communication with your State, with all the States on these

fires will be enhanced. I think some very positive news will be held

in the rest of the hearing.

I understand that you need to go. We certainly need to go vote.

I appreciate the courtesy, and safe travels home.

Governor MARTZ. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCINNIS. The Committee will reconvene after the vote.

[Recess.]

Mr. MCINNIS. If everyone could be seated; also, just as a reminder, no cellular phones in the room, please.

As the Committee knows, we have been delayed by a vote. I

think, however, we can wrap up the second panel. I would ask

members to submit their opening statements for the record. I also

have a statement to submit for the record from Congressman

Rehberg.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall of Colorado follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mark Udall, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Colorado

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for scheduling this hearing today. I

don’t think you could have chosen a more timely subject for the start of your tenure

as chairman of the Subcommittee.

And, as you know, Mr. Chairman, it is also a subject of particular interest to me— and to everyone back home in Colorado as well as other western States.

Across Colorado—and across the west—rapid population growth means that more

and more communities are pressing against and into our forest lands, enlarging the

so-called ‘‘urban interface’’ that in Colorado is also known as the ‘‘red zone’’—the

area where forest fires present the greatest dangers to people’s lives and homes.

The danger of forest fires in such areas is certainly not new. But last year’s com- bination of a Presidential election and very damaging forest fires—including those

in Colorado and Montana as well as the disaster in New Mexico resulted in important new developments, including the legislation whose implementation we are reviewing here today.

That legislation, which set up the National Fire Plan, resembles in important

ways a bill that our colleague, Representative Hefley, and I introduced earlier in

the year and that was also cosponsored by Representatives DeGette and Tancredo.

However, our bill would have applied only to Colorado’s ‘‘red zone’’—and it also

had some other important provisions that were not included in the legislation setting up the national fire plan.

For one thing, our bill emphasized public involvement by providing for setting up

a committee—representing a broad spectrum of interests—to establish priorities for

use of funds.

And, our bill specifically provided that fuel-reduction projects would have to meet

some essential guidelines.

For example, the bill specified that projects could not be performed in Congressionally-designated wilderness areas, that roadless areas would have to be protected, that the projects must comply with all state and federal environmental laws

and regulations, and, most notably, that projects could include removal only of trees

up to 12 inches in diameter.

That last requirement—a cutting limit based on tree size drew many comments

from people holding differing views about the use of mechanical thinning to reduce

fire risks.

Some people do not support allowing removal of trees that big, or perhaps of trees

of any size. Others see the 12-inch limit—or perhaps any specific limit—as both arbitrary and too restrictive.

I respect the sincerity of those raising those objections. However, I think that our

bill struck an appropriate balance and represented a legitimate starting point for

legislative action.

The bill recognized that where the risk of catastrophic wildfires comes from overly-dense vegetation, it is because of the build-up of small-sized materials, including

trees smaller than 12 inches in diameter.

14

It was also shaped by an understanding that cutting larger trees often can lead

to more severe fires, for a variety of reasons, and can also have other adverse effects.

The limit in our bill also reflected the fact that cutting larger trees is controversial—especially when the larger trees may have commercial value.

It is simple fact that some will see the inclusion of larger trees as evidence that

a project ostensibly aimed at reducing the risk of fire is really intended to be a commercial undertaking, by the Forest Service and by industry.

This could lead to challenges that would unnecessarily complicate necessary

projects that were otherwise not controversial.

In short, both on the scientific merits and for reasons of public acceptability, I

thought—and I still think—that there should be limits on the scope of these

projects, of the kind that would have been set by our bill.

That is why last year, after enactment of the legislation setting up the national

fire plan, I initiated a letter—ultimately also signed by 25 other Members of the

House—to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior urging that

the fire plan be implemented under appropriate safeguards and conditions.

I now have received a response from Michael Rains, the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service for State and Private Forestry. The response states that the Agriculture

Department shares the concerns expressed in our letter and outlines how those concerns will be addressed in the implementation of the national fire plan.

I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be included in the record of

today’s hearing.

Mr. Chairman, in Colorado’s ‘‘red zone’’ and other areas covered by the national

fire plan, there are very real risks to people, property and the environment—some of them resulting from past fire-management policies.

But it is very important that the need to respond to those real risks is not misused as a convenient rationale for projects that do not meet proper standards.

I think it is essential that fire-plan projects reflect public involvement, are based

on sound science, and are completely consistent with applicable environmental laws.

In fact, it is precisely to help assure that fire-plan projects meet those requirements that last month I joined in cosponsoring a bill to clarify that funds appropriated to implement the fire plan can be transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. That will enable those agencies

to review projects to assure that they will comply with the Endangered Species Act.

I think we should act promptly on that legislation, to forestall problems and to keep

the fire plan both on track and on a sound legal and environmental footing.

With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Michael K. Simpson, a Representative in

Congress from the State of Idaho

Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this oversight hearing on the implementation of the National Fire Plan. As you know, I have the dubious distinction of representing a district that had one of the largest fires in the United States during the

2000 fire season: the Clear Creek fire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The

Clear Creek fire covered an area of over 200,000 acres, outside of Salmon, Idaho.

However, it is but one of many that burned throughout Idaho and the Western

United States.

I was able to spend a couple of days on the Clear Creek fire and saw first-hand

the devastation catastrophic forest fires cause. It is unfortunate that it took a fire

season like the one we had last year in order for the Secretaries of Agriculture and

Interior to produce the National Fire Plan. However, I am pleased that the U.S.

Forest Service and the Department of the Interior responded with a comprehensive

plan and strategy for dealing with heavy fuel loads, and restoration and rehabilitation of lands already stricken by catastrophic fires. Moreover, I was pleased that the

U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior worked with the Western

Governors’ Association to draft report language ensuring cooperation and consultation between governors and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior.

We need to restore our forests. They are in an unhealthy state as evidenced by

the 2000 fire season. The Forest Service and the General Accounting Office estimate

that more than 72 million acres are at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. We must

restore our forests to a more healthy and natural state that includes managed

15

prescribed burns and thinning. We may not agree on every aspect of achieving that

natural state, but we can find common areas where we can agree that fuels reduction is better than the alternative—catastrophic forest fires.

The old adage ‘‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’’ is very appropriate. A well-funded fuels reduction program will pay significant dividends in the

reduction of fire fighting and restoration costs over time. I am hopeful that the U.S.

Forest Service and the Department of the Interior will continue to aggressively implement the National Fire Plan. In addition, I trust that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior will continue to work together with state and local officials to

improve forest health.

I am committed to working with state and local officials, the U.S. Forest Service,

and the Department of the Interior to address any barriers that might stand in the

way of successfully treating our forests. In addition, I am committed to working for

continued funding for a long-term forest health initiative.

Once again, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for holding this hearing.

I am hopeful that the information presented here will bring us one step closer to

healing our forests.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Dennis Rehberg, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Montana

I would like to thank Chairman McInnis for the opportunity to participate in this

hearing about the National Fire Plan. This is a very timely issue, as we must prepare now for the fire season to come while we continue to deal with the effects of

the wildfires of last summer. The national fire plan is an important thing for the

state of Montana in our efforts to rehabilitate affected communities and National

Forest lands.

I am concerned that though the fire management plan contains many projects and

programs that will be invaluable to the future of fire management, the President’s

Budget does not provide for continuing funding. In Montana we know that the risk

for catastrophic fire is not over. Less than ten percent of the 3.5 million acres the

GAO identified as at risk for catastrophic fire burned during the summer of 2000.

And again this year, snowpack levels are below normal. If forecasts are correct, we

are looking at another fire season that is worse than normal—perhaps even worse

than last year.

Another thing we face today in Montana is the presence of dead and dying trees

as a result of fire on our national forest lands. State, tribal and private foresters

have removed salvageable timber from their lands and I look forward to working

with the Forest Service to expedite action on National Forest lands. It is important

that we are able to get people on the ground to remove dead and dying stands while

they are still salvageable.

In addition to the devastation catastrophic wildfires leave in their wake, experts

agree that such fires will prevent the Forest Service from meeting its mission requirement to sustain the national forests’ multiple use because fires damage soils,

habitat, and watershed functions for many generations or even permanently.

I am pleased to see the Forest Service working to devise a cohesive strategy to

address barriers to reducing excessive fuels on national forest lands, deal with the

potential threats to people and property wildfires produce, and to provide affected

communities with the assistance they need to rehabilitate.

[The prepared statement of The Honorable Tom Udall follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from

the State of New Mexico

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for affording me the opportunity to comment on some of the issues presented as a result of last summer’s extraordinary wildland fire season.

The National Fire Plan identifies a strategy to deal with ecosystem health issues

in a manner that protects our communities and their citizens. It is a good start to

a complex problem: A problem that exists because we have ignored the critical role

16

fire plays in shaping the ecosystem. Now we have an opportunity to begin to undo

what 100 years of fire suppression, overgrazing, and poor logging practices have

done.

The National Fire Plan addresses several key elements that will safely and effectively manage our wildlands for future generations: 1) To adequately prepare our

Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments for fighting wildland fire when they

need to; 2) To restore landscapes damaged by last season’s wildland fires; 3) To invest in projects to reduce fire risk; 4) To work with communities to ensure adequate

protection through community assistance programs and; 5) To provide Congress

with accountable results of these goals.

Although wildland management agencies have long identified a need to address

the risk of wildland fire, the Fire Plan is not a one-time effort. Congress should be

committed to the program for the long haul and maintain adequate funding for 10

to 15 years. We should not measure the Fire Plan’s success from start to finish in

only 1 year. This process will take time.

The intent was not to set up agencies and local governments for failure, nor expect them to solve the problems in 1 year. Rather, Congress needs to provide funding and oversight to our Federal land management agencies and Tribal governments

to achieve key elements identified in the National Fire Plan.

To be successful and to comply with congressional intent, Federal agencies, the

Tribal, state, county and local governments, along with contractors, service providers, and the public need to collaborate and work in cohesive partnership. Of the

major concerns I have toward implementation of this Plan, this one has major importance because of the planning and management that led up to the escaped prescribed burn in Los Alamos last year. We must ensure all groups and agencies are

communicating and are in agreement with these efforts.

Another concern is that we must work to ensure adequate funding is made available for the long term. Although the President’s Fiscal Year 2002 budget maintains

funding levels for preparedness and other programs, it lacks adequate support for

fire facility maintenance, fire science research, and community assistance. The backlog of fire facility maintenance exists throughout the country and this funding is inadequate to take care of the backlog. The research component will guide the development of the National Fire Plan and must be adequately funded. We need to support our states and local communities through community assistance funding to ensure they can make their communities safe through FIREWISE and other treatment

methods. I believe it is important that adequate funding is made available for the

long-term strategy. The current proposed budget does not do that.

In the past, land management agencies have proposed and implemented fuels

treatment and risk reduction projects in areas that are non-controversial, inexpensive, and easy to do. Now is the time to look at the communities, watersheds, and

species that are at risk from high intensity wildland fire. These areas tend to have

the higher fuel volumes, higher resistance to fire suppression efforts, and threaten

to burn homes or other valuable resources. Consequently, it will require more collaborative planning and higher costs to safely and effectively reduce risks of

wildland fire.

The process may include commercial timber harvest, non-commercial thinning,

chipping, piling, or prescribed fire, or a combination of all. Let’s keep our focus on

sound land management practices.

In conclusion, the National Fire Plan is a step in the right direction. However,

the agencies must apply the best land management practices, be fiscally responsible,

and demonstrate that their efforts are paying off. Finally, I want to recognize all

the agencies and partners who are working together to make the National Fire plan

a success. Their long tireless hours and their dedication to make this Plan a success

is commendable.

Mr. MCINNIS. With that, we will call up the second panel. Mr.

Hartzell, thank you for attending today. Lyle, thank you for coming

out. I am familiar with both of you. I appreciate the effort.

I am very excited to hear your testimony. We had a visit the

other day, for the rest of the people in the room, which I thought

was very interesting. I think we are focusing on fire control.

Whether we discuss biomass or whether we discuss the hiring of

new firefighters, communication, of course, is the key. As the two

gentlemen know, I was on Storm King Mountain when Storm King

Mountain blew up. That was not a result of bad forest health. That

17

was a result of poor communication, unfortunate weather, dry conditions, and the lightning storm.

So, needless to say, not all efforts in fighting forest fires necessarily pertain to the management of that particular forest. Communication is critical. And we had a good discussion the other

day—I hope that one of the two gentlemen will mention that—on

coordination of firefighting. That was a major contributing factor to

the fatalities that we suffered on the mountain during that fire.

So, with that, I will turn to the ranking member very quickly for

comment, and then we will turn it over to our two witnesses.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My comments are brief. It is

my belief that we face the prospect of a fire storm in the West this

summer. It is my belief that the current budgetary projections will

leave us grievously short of resources to deal with this. And if that

occurs, it probably will not be the two witnesses’ fault in this regard. It will be the U.S. Congress’ and the White House. I am going

to look forward to your helping us figure out what decisions need

to be made on a budgetary basis to allow you to do your job to keep

this natural disaster from occurring in the West this summer.

Mr. MCINNIS. With concurrence from the ranking member or

without objection from the ranking member, I am going to waive

the 5-minute rule, because I think both of your presentations, number one, are absolutely critical and, two, based on what I have

seen, will take longer than 5 minutes.

Lyle, do you want to start off?

STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

COORDINATOR, FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Chairman, it is truly an honor to be here and

have a chance to share with you this morning actions that we are

taking regarding implementation of the National Fire Plan. I am

here today, along with Tim Hartzell, to bring you up to date on

what has been accomplished thus far and, perhaps more importantly, what we will be doing this summer to implement the provisions of the National Fire Plan.

As the Governor really eloquently addressed, the fire season of

2000 certainly captured the attention of the American people on

the need to find ways of protecting life and property and at the

same time minimizing losses to natural resources.

On September 8th, the Secretaries issued a report entitled ‘‘Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment,’’ and that report, which has been referred to as the National

Fire Plan, contains a series of recommendations to reduce the impacts of wildland fires on rural communities and ensure that we

do, in fact, have sufficient firefighting resources in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the implementation of this National Fire Plan is

well underway, and we have made significant progress to date. Cooperation between the Federal agencies, the Governors, in collaborations with the tribes and local communities probably is beginning

to set a new standard and new model of how Government can

work, in fact, responding to the needs of the people of this great

country. We clearly recognize there are many challenges to

18

complete this significant increased workload that has been designed as part of this plan.

Long term, it is going to take many, many years of a continued

commitment and investment of resources to effectively reduce the

impacts of wildland fire on rural communities. And if there is a

theme that we will share with you over and over again, it is that

this is a long-term journey; 1 or 2 or 3 years will not do it. And

we need to be able to ensure that we are in this for the long term,

but at the same time that we are responsible with the resources

that are given.

Even though it is early in the year, we have made really a good

start in some major areas of accomplishment. We have, in fact,

treated over 80,000 acres of some of the areas that were damaged

during the 2000 fire season. We have restored 713 miles of roads,

we have treated about 245 miles of trail, and we are doing those

emergency actions to protect those resources.

We have already reduced fuels on over 400,000 acres of the national forests of the 1.8 million acres that we plan to treat this

year. We have been involved collectively in terms of hiring the resources to staff the fire organizations, and we have hired over 815

permanent firefighters, and we expect to hire another 1,900 additional firefighters before April 30th.

In addition, we plan to acquire new engines, new fire engines.

We are going to bring new equipment under contract and begin to

staff the organization to be responsive to what we know is the potential for another fire season.

We have already started the process of providing funding and

training and equipment to over 4,000 volunteers just on the Forest

Service side. We published a list of the communities that are at

risk, which was prepared by the National Governors and the tribes

to begin to start the discussion on how can we begin to more effectively target and focus our fuels reduction projects on those communities that are at greatest risk.

We have initiated action on over 63 research projects, which are

what I would consider to be the intellectual mutual fund in terms

of how are we going to begin to acquire new knowledge about the

effects of fire and these actions on resources in this country.

We have developed the framework that the Governor referenced

in terms of a draft of a national 10-year comprehensive strategy

with the States and the tribes as full partners—full partners—in

the implementation of the National Fire Plan. Very, very significant.

Our success to date, beginning with the definition of the

wildland-urban interface communities, the hiring of firefighters,

and the ongoing rehabilitation and restoration of burned areas,

fire-wise education work, is evidence of the strong start. We are

committed to increasing the Nation’s firefighting capability and to

protect communities and restore resources. But it is going to take

longer than a year.

After my partner, Tim Hartzell, presents his remarks, we are

going to take a few minutes to expand on the key points and add

some additional specifics and then answer any questions that you

or any of the members of the Committee might have.

19

Thank you again for the opportunity just to share with you some

great results that we will pick up on a little bit more.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty follows:]

Statement of Lyle Laverty, Associate Deputy Chief and National Fire Plan

Coordinator, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today to talk about the implementation of the National Fire

Plan. I am Lyle Laverty, Associate Deputy Chief 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.

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

the need to find ways to protect life and property and minimize losses of natural

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

Interior issued a report entitled, ‘‘Managing the Impact of Wildfires on 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 and

ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future.

Mr. Chairman, implementation of the National Fire Plan is well underway and

significant progress has been made. However, we recognize that there are many

challenges to complete the significantly increased workload. Long-term, it is going

to take many years and a continued commitment in resources to effectively reduce

the impacts of wildland fire on rural communities.

Even though it is early in the year, we have made a good start with the following:

• Treated over 80,000 acres, 713 miles of roads and 245 miles of trails to restore

and rehabilitate areas damaged during the 2000 fire season. • Reduced hazardous fuel on over 400,000 acres of the 1.8 million acres we plan

to treat this year. • Hired over 850 new permanent fire personnel and expect to have another 1900

(650 permanent, 1250 temporary) hired by April 30, 2001 along with planning to

acquire 412 fire engines and the services of an additional 47 contracted helicopters to provide the highest practical level of firefighting capability. • Initiated assistance for training and equipment for 4000 volunteer fire departments. • Published a preliminary list of communities at risk prepared by the States and

Tribes to ensure that we increase the focus of our future efforts on reducing fire

risk in the areas adjacent to these communities. • Started 63 research projects to increase scientific knowledge in support of the National Fire Plan. • Initiated discussions on a framework and draft of the national ten-year comprehensive strategy for the National Fire Plan.

Before I talk more about our accomplishments and our planned actions let me explain how conditions on our forests and rangelands developed the level of

uncharacteristic fire risk that exists today.

BACKGROUND

Fire conditions

Decades of excluding fire from our forests and past management practices have

drastically changed the ecological condition of western forests and rangelands and

dramatically affected fire behavior. A century ago, when low intensity, high frequency fires were commonplace, many forests were less dense and had larger, more

fire-resistant trees. Over time, the composition of our forests has changed from more

fire-resistant tree species to species non-resistant to fire such as grand fir, Douglasfir, and subalpine fir.

Fire ecologists point out the paradox of fire suppression: the more effective we become at fire suppression, the more fuels accumulate and ultimately create conditions for the occurrence of more intense fires. As it became Federal practice to extinguish fires aggressively in the west, firefighting budgets rose dramatically and firefighting tactics and equipment became increasingly more sophisticated and effective.

In the early 1930s the annual acreage burned by wildfires in the lower 48 states

was about 40 million acres a year. In the 1970s because of our effective fire suppression the annual acreage burned by wildfires in the lower 48 states dropped to about

five million acres. In the 1990’s, the annual average acreage burned by wildfires was

less than 4 million acres.

20

In addition to changes in tree species and ecological conditions of forests and

grasslands more communities are at risk of wildfire than in earlier years. During

the last two decades dramatic increases in the population in the West has resulted

in housing developments in fire-prone areas, often adjacent to Federal land. This

area where human development meets or intermingles with undeveloped wildland

is called the ‘‘wildland-urban interface.’’

Reversing the effects of a century of aggressive fire suppression and past management practices will take time and money targeted to high priority areas to protect

people, communities, readily accessible municipal watersheds, and habitat for

threatened and endangered species. Although not all areas will need to be treated,

the Forest Service and the General Accounting Office have estimated that there are

around 60 million acres at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire in the interior West and

more than 72 million acres nationwide.. Many of these acres are not in the wildlandurban interface and include acres distant from habitation.

The Forest Service and its interagency partners have increased their efforts to reduce risks associated with the buildup of brush, shrubs, small trees and other fuels

in forest and rangelands through a variety of approaches, including controlled bums,

the physical removal of undergrowth, and the prevention and eradication of invasive

plants. In 1994 the Forest Service treated approximately 385,000 acres across the

United States to reduce hazardous fuels. In 2000 we treated over 750,000 acres almost double our earlier efforts.

Addressing fire conditions: The key points of the National Fire Plan

To address these changed conditions the recommendations in ‘‘Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment’’ and actions implementing

the National Fire Plan focus on five key points:

• Firefighting. Be adequately prepared to fight wildland fire.

• Rehabilitation and Restoration. Restore landscapes and rebuild communities damaged by the wildfires of 2000.

• Hazardous Fuel Reduction. Invest in projects to reduce fire risk.

• Community Assistance. Work directly with communities to ensure adequate protection.

• Accountability. Be accountable and establish adequate oversight, coordination,

program development, and monitoring for performance.

The report also recommended substantial increases in funding for the land management agencies to address the five key points.

In response to the recommendations in the Report, Congress and the Administration increased funding for agency firefighting, fuels reduction, and other fire-related

programs. We appreciate the quick and decisive actions of Congress and the Administration to fully fund the fire budgets for both the Department of Agriculture and

the Department of the Interior. (See Appendix A.)

The Conference Report for P.L. 106–291 contains explicit direction for the implementation of the National Fire Plan. The Appropriations conferees directed the

agencies to work closely with State and local communities to maximize benefits to

the environment and to local communities. They directed the agencies to seek the

advice of the State Governors and local and tribal government representatives in

setting priorities for fuels treatments, burned area rehabilitation and public outreach and education. The Appropriations conferees also directed the Departments of

the Interior and Agriculture to work together to formulate complementary budget

requests and to carry out the other tasks, including developing criteria for rehabilitation projects, developing a list of all communities within the vicinity of Federal

lands at high risk from fire, and working collaboratively with the State Governors

to develop a 10-year comprehensive strategy. (See Appendix B.)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

Implementation of the National Fire Plan is well underway. Since the very beginning we have worked collaboratively with Department of the Interior agencies, the

Governors, State Foresters, tribal governments and county officials.

Our implementation efforts focus on addressing the five key points of the National

Fire Plan. The status of our actions include the following:

Firefighting readiness

We are focusing on increasing firefighting capability and capacity for initial attack, extended attack, and large fire support. We believe our efforts will keep a

number of small fires from becoming large, better protect natural resources, reduce

threat to adjacent communities, and reduce the cost of large fire suppression.

21

The expanded capacity will be used in a manner consistent with our knowledge

and experience of the causes of fire risks. The agency will be guided by fire management plans that we intend to have updated and completed by the end of 2001.

To date the Forest Service has hired over 850 new permanent fire personnel and

plan to hire a total of over 2,750 (1500 permanent, 1250 temporary) to provide the

highest practical level of protection efficiency. This will include twelve new hotshot

crews for a national total of 74 crews. We plan to acquire an additional 412 fire engines and have contracts for an additional 47 helicopters for a total of 106 helicopters and 40 fixed-wing aircraft. In addition we will have another 500 aircraft

available through ‘‘call when needed’’ contracts. We are also in the process of awarding the retardant contract for 2001–2003 to ensure adequate supplies.

In addition, we will construct several new fire facilities and increase the level of

maintenance on existing fire facilities to support initial attack. This construction includes projects such as a new airtanker base and national fire cache in Silver City,

New Mexico, new hotshot crew housing in Ft. Collins, Colorado, and a new helitack

base in Price Valley, Idaho.

The agency is also investing in applied research to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and safety of the national firefighting effort. In addition to the progress

made in the Forest Service research and development program, the Joint Fire

Science Program (JFSP) has been increased. This additional applied research and

development will assess fire behavior and fire restoration techniques during and immediately after fire events; upgrade aircraft-based tools for monitoring fire behavior;

increase understanding about post-fire conditions, fire effects, and the effectiveness

of past land management treatments; and establish protocols for evaluating rehabilitation measures. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior have also established a stakeholder advisory committee to advise the JFSP Governing Board. The

committee plans to hold its first meeting in April.

Rehabilitation and restoration

We are focusing rehabilitation efforts on restoring watershed function, including

protection of basic soil, water resources, biological communities, and prevention of

invasive species in priority watersheds. Healthy, diverse ecosystems are resilient

and less likely to produce uncharacteristically intense fires when they burn.

Burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) teams mobilized after the 2006 fire

season. Plans were developed and approved for over $40.8 million of emergency stabilization for 235 projects on moderately and severely burned National Forest System lands. Most of the emergency treatments were completed before winter, including 62,000 acres of grass seeding, 3,606 acres of mulching, 17,886 acres of intensive

log and wattle erosion barriers, and drainage improvements on 713 miles of roads

and 245 miles of trail. For example:

• In Idaho, 650 acres were seeded, 242 acres intensively mulched, and erosion control barriers installed on 3,157 acres on the Trail Creek fire on the Boise NF.

• In Montana, drainage was improved on 410 miles of road and 4,732 acres of intensive erosion control barriers were installed on the Skalkaho-Valley fire on the Bitterroot NF.

• In California, 890 acres were seeded and 200 acres intensively mulched on the

Manter fire on the Sequoia NF.

• In New Mexico, 13,500 acres were seeded, 3,070 acres intensively mulched, and

5,170 acres of erosion control barriers installed for the Cerro Grande fire on the

Santa Fe NF.

• In Colorado, 1,000 acres of mulch and erosion barriers are being installed on the

Bobcat burn.

The remaining acres will be treated as soon as the land is accessible this spring.

In addition, long-term rehabilitation and restoration on over 400 projects is currently underway. These activities will include reforestation, replacement or repair

of minor facilities, treatment of invasive species (including noxious weeds) resulting

from fire, survey and monitor impacts to wilderness, survey and rehabilitate impacted heritage resources, reconstruct fencing, restore critical habitat and restore

impacted trails.

We are also conducting additional research in rehabilitation and restoration methods. One example is research at Rocky Mountain Research Station quantifying the

soil and water quality consequences of catastrophic fire, using the Cerro Grande and

other southwestern fires as study sites.

Hazardous fuel reduction

We are focusing hazardous fuels reduction projects in communities at risk, readily

accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, and

22

other important local areas, where conditions favor uncharacteristically intense

fires. We will remove excessive vegetation and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatment methods.

Following Congressional direction we asked State, local and tribal governments,

and interested parties to identify urban wildland interface communities within the

vicinity of Federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire. The Departments of

Agriculture and the Interior published a preliminary list in the Federal Register on

January 4, 2001. The States and Tribes each developed criteria for selecting communities that resulted in some States listing numerous communities and others listing

only a few. The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have asked the Governors and the National Association of State Foresters to help the Federal Agencies

to work with Tribes, States, local governments, and other interested parties to develop a national list based on uniform criteria.

We have completed hazardous fuel reduction on over 400,000 acres of the 1.8 million acres that are planned for treatment this fiscal year. Many of these projects

focus on wildland-urban interface areas. In the future, we intend to focus the majority of this work on wildland-urban interface areas where hazardous fuel conditions

exist near communities.

In addition to work on Federal lands, we will also provide technical and financial

support to State and local fire departments to implement 329 projects to improve

conditions on wildland-urban interface areas on non-federal lands. The States will

also be implementing projects in impacted areas using the Community and Private

Land Fire Assistance funding.

Research is also focusing on hazardous fuels projects. An example is work to characterize and map vegetation and fuels from remote sensed data to locate urban

interface areas exposed to high fire potential. These methods will be helpful in

prioritizing investments in fuels treatment.

Our success in accomplishing hazardous fuel reduction objectives will be largely

dependent on focusing our treatments in the areas of greatest need. Our goal is to

do this efficiently and with the least amount of controversy, getting the most

amount of high-priority work done. Protecting communities and restoring forests

represents the sort of win-win solution that will allow us to build a strong constituency for ecologically sensible active management.

Community assistance

We are assisting State and local partners by providing funding assistance to rural

and volunteer fire departments and through programs such as FIREWISE to educate homeowners to take actions to reduce fire risk to homes and private property.

We plan to expand community assistance to rural volunteer fire departments to

increase local firefighting capacity. Rural and volunteer fire departments provide

the front line of defense, or initial attack, for up to 90 percent of communities.

Strong readiness capability at the State and local levels goes hand-in-hand with optimal efficiency at the Federal level. We will increase our assistance for training and

equipment to 4,000 volunteer fire departments in high-risk areas.

The Forest Service has been working with the State and private landowners, the

National Fire Protection Association, and local firefighting organizations to help ensure that home protection capabilities are improved and to educate homeowners in

fire-sensitive ecosystems about the consequences of wildfires. Also homeowners are

being taught techniques in community planning, homebuilding, and landscaping to

protect themselves and their property. Efforts include FIREWISE and other high

priority prevention and mitigation education programs, as well as fuels reduction,

defensible space development, and community hazard mitigation on non-federal

lands.

We expect implementation of the National Fire Plan can create over 8,000 new

jobs in rural areas and provide economic opportunities for rural forest dependent

communities.

We are also beginning research to test the effectiveness of different models of collaboration, education, and community actions and to compare different local regulatory and incentive-based policies for encouraging residents to adopt FIREWISE

practices. These new efforts will provide useful insights and guidelines for implementing effective community-level programs for wildfire protection.

Accountability

The agency is working to establish adequate oversight, coordination, program development, and monitoring for National Fire Plan performance to ensure accountability.

A key component in ensuring accountability is tracking funding and accomplishments. In keeping with Congressional reporting requirements, the Forest Service is

23

finalizing a database to track projects funded by Title IV funds. It will include

project accomplishments and funding for work in hazardous fuels reduction, rehabilitation, and community assistance. Once it is fully operational—which is planned

for the end of this month—we will be able to report, for example, numbers and types

of rehabilitation work being done in a particular national forest, congressional district, or state.

Of course, the Forest Service must be accountable for all funding. In Fiscal Year

2000, obligations in the Wildland Fire Management Appropriation totaled $1.5 billion, exceeding available funds by $274 million. An anti-deficiency report was sent

to President Clinton and members of Congress as required by law. This violation

was caused by delays in entering suppression costs into the agency financial system.

The agency is conducting an intensive Anti-Deficiency Act violation review to more

fully determine the specific causes and implement procedures to prevent a reoccurrence.

Another recent development associated with the implementation of the National

Fire Plan is the ‘‘Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.’’ The Review and Update was completed in January 2001 in response

to a request from the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. The working team

concluded that the 1995 Federal Fire Policy is generally sound, but that some

changes and additions are needed to address issues such as fire planning, program

management and oversight, and program evaluation.

If you refer to the list of Reporting Requirements in Appendix B, you will see the

Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have accomplished several other

important tasks and reported to Congress in a timely manner. These include a report on criteria for rehabilitation projects; a report on the need for revised or expedited environmental compliance procedures; and a financial plan and an action plan

showing how agencies will spend the emergency funds.

NEXT STEPS

The following are the next immediate actions to be taken by the Forest Service

to continue implementation of the National Fire Plan:

• Complete the fuels management projects underway and continue planning for

2002 focusing fuels treatments in urban interface communities where they are

most likely to reduce risk effectively.

• Continue work on a long-term strategy for the National Fire Plan (2002–2010) in

collaboration with Governors and other stakeholders.

• Complete the hiring of new fire personnel to produce an extremely high level of

firefighting capability.

• Complete analysis of fire risk and integrate with other resource information to

prioritize treatment areas.

We will continue to provide timely information to Congress and other interested

parties about the National Fire Plan.

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, my staff and I will continue to work closely with the Department

of the Interior Team to work with communities to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems and to minimize the losses from future wildfires on National Forest System

lands, other Federal, State, Tribal, and privately-owned lands. Our successes to

date—beginning to define the wildland-urban interface communities, hiring firefighters for the 2001 fire season, and ongoing rehabilitation, restoration, FIREWISE

education work—is evidence of the strong start. However, our continued success will

depend on what happens this field season.

We are committed to increasing the Nation’s firefighting capability and ability to

protect communities and restore resources, but it will take longer than one year.

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

the Members of the Subcommittee might have.

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you.

Mr. Hartzell?

STATEMENT OF TIM HARTZELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WILDLAND AND FIRE COORDINATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

Mr. HARTZELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tim

Hartzell, and I am the Director of the Office of Wildland Fire Coordination in the Department of Interior. I really appreciate this

opportunity to address the Committee concerning a natural resource effort that is, frankly, historic in its scope and unprecedented in both its innovation and collaboration, that is, implementation of the National Fire Plan.

I am pleased to report to you that the Department of Interior

firefighting agencies have already made significant and substantial

progress in responding to the mandate and opportunity that Congress has given us in the appropriation language for Fiscal Year

2001 to minimize the occurrence of another fire season such as

2000, to lessen the danger to communities at risk, and to restore

ecosystems and the natural role of fire, to protect our critical natural resources, and, most important, to keep our firefighters and

public safe.

We are pleased to speak to you about this historic initiative that

is truly a new approach to solving resource management problems.

The key to our initial success has been in our openness and our desire to work with States, local governments, and others as full and

equal partners in identifying and finding solutions to problems. I

certainly hope that this is a clear message that you hear throughout our testimony.

At this time I would like to forego the balance of my submitted

testimony so that my colleague and I can focus on the critical actions that we have completed to date under the National Fire Plan

and talk to you about future actions and opportunities under the

plan.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartzell follows:]

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

U.S. Department of the Interior

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee concerning a natural resource effort that is historic in its scope and presents a unique challenge, implementation of the National Fire Plan. My name is Tim Hartzell and I am the Director

of 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 substantial progress in responding to the mandate that Congress gave us in

the appropriation language for FY 2001 to minimize the severity of another fire season such as we had in 2000, lessen the dangers to communities at risk, restore ecosystems and the natural role of fire, protect our critical natural resources, and most

important, keep our firefighters and the public safe.

Background

The 2000 fire season was long, stubborn, volatile and widespread. The fire season

started on January 1st, when a small blaze ignited near Ft. Myers, Florida, and

lasted well into the fall. As late as December, more than 14,000 acres burned east

of San Diego, California, destroying fourteen structures.

In total, almost 93,000 wildland fires burned close to 7.4 million acres. While neither the number of fires nor the number of acres approached all-time records, the

37

conditions, fire behavior and potential for an even more explosive season were perhaps unparalleled in the last fifty years. The intensity of the fires was the result

of two primary factors: a severe drought, accompanied by a series of storms that

produced millions of lightning strikes and windy conditions, and the long-term effects of more than a century of aggressively suppressing all wildfires, which has led

to an unnatural buildup of brush and small trees in our forests and on our rangelands.

The 2000 fire season also caught the attention of the public. In early August,

President Clinton visited a battalion of soldiers from Ft. Hood, Texas, pressed into

duty as firefighters on the Burgdorf Junction Fire, near McCall, Idaho. During that

trip, President Clinton asked the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop recommendations on how to reduce the impacts of fire on rural communities

and ensure sufficient firefighting resources for the future. On September 8th, the

Secretaries responded with a report entitled, ‘‘Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on

Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the

Wildfires of 2000,’’ also known as the ‘‘National Fire Plan.’’ The National Fire Plan recommended that the Departments of Agriculture and

the Interior seek an increased appropriation for fire management, and do several

things:

• 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.

We are grateful that Congress took quick and decisive action once the report was

issued. As a result, the wildland fire budgets for both the Department of the Interior

and Department of Agriculture were substantially increased for FY 2001.

At present, we are concentrating our efforts in the Department of the Interior on

three main areas: tire preparedness, fire operations, and assistance to rural fire districts. Later in my statement, I will detail some of the steps that have been taken

and will be taken in the coming months to address these three critical areas.

Accomplishments to date

The FY 2001 appropriation provided an injection of critically needed support and

funding for wildland fire and resource management. Although the agencies have

managed wildland fire in the past as efficiently and safely as possible, the FY 2001

appropriation provided a much needed boost to ensure that adequate resources are

available in the face of today’s significant fire and resource management issues,

such as rangeland and forest health, the increasing size and intensity of wildland

fire that is resulting from much of the land’s unhealthy state, and the ever-expanding wildland-urban interface. Late in 2000, the Department of the Interior and the

USDA Forest Service began implementation of the National Fire Plan by detailing

support, direction and funding for wildland firefighting agencies to better manage

fire and resources on the land. An interagency steering group convened with representatives and leads from each Federal wildland firefighting agency, including

DOI’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA’s Forest Service. Each of these agencies

developed an agency-specific National Fire Plan implementation strategy to provide

field personnel with procedural guidance.

The National Fire Plan is founded on a long history of cooperation among firefighting agencies. Its long-term success depends on cooperation and collaboration

among Federal agency partners, Tribal, State, county and local governments, contractors and other service providers, and users of Federally-owned land. As soon as

agencies received the FY 2001 budget, National Fire Plan leads from the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior met with such partners as the National Association of State Foresters, the Western Governor’s Association, and the National Association of Counties, to discuss the ramifications of the FY 2001 appropriations.

Within weeks of the passage of the FY 2001 Appropriations Act, requests for pertinent data and status reports were sent to the field to determine staffing, rural fire

district, and planning needs, and to determine which hazardous fuels treatment

projects are ready for implementation in FY 2001 and which remain in the planning

stages. Deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects were prioritized and

allocated, and project tracking systems were developed. Weekly interagency and

agency meetings, satellite broadcasts and information bulletins help coordinate efforts and disseminate information throughout the agencies.

In January 2001, the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service issued

the ‘‘Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.’’

38

This report came in response to a request from the Secretaries of Agriculture and

the Interior. The National Fire Plan is built upon the foundation and framework

of the Review and Update. The Review was conducted by 14 Federal agencies and

the National Association of State Foresters, who concluded:

• The 1995 Fire Policy is still sound, but additional emphasis is recommended on

science, outreach and education, restoration, and program evaluation. • The fire hazard situation is worse than predicted in 1995. • The scope of the Urban Wildland fuels hazard problem is even more complex and

extensive than predicted in 1995. • Additional research is needed on the effectiveness of different fuels treatment options, and post-fire rehabilitation activities. • Additional collaboration and integration of all Federal agencies with land management responsibility as well as non-Federal agencies is needed.

The National Fire Plan addresses these concerns by:

• Increasing fuels hazard treatment activities for DOI to a planned target of 1.4

million acres of Federal land in FY 2001. This represents an increase from an average of 800,000 acres of fuels treatment activities. • Increasing on-the-ground fuels hazard reduction work in FY 2001 around a greater number of vulnerable communities, and by developing a collaborative partnership with the State Foresters and others to design a long-term fuels treatment

strategy in the Urban Wildland interface.

• Increasing research in: (a) the economic and environmental consequences of fuels

treatment alternatives in a variety of fuels types across the country; (b) the effectiveness of post fire rehabilitation techniques including the control of noxious

weeds and invasive species.

• Increasing outreach and partnership activities with the Western Governors’ Association, the National Association of Counties, Tribes, other Federal partners, and

nongovernmental organizations in designing a 10-year strategy to restore health

to fire adapted ecosystems and a plan of action to implement the NFP.

Also in January 2001, the Department of the Interior completed an action plan

to implement the National Fire Plan. This action plan contains proposed accomplishments for FY 2001 in wildland fire preparedness, operations, and rural fire assistance. It addresses actions needed to implement the National Fire Plan, including:

• Hiring additional personnel and obtaining needed equipment.

• Completing deferred maintenance and construction.

• Enhancing fire science work.

• Planning and implementing hazardous fuels treatments.

• Planning and implementing burned area rehabilitation.

• A financial plan for complying with Title IV of the 2001 Appropriation Act.

We divided our accomplishments under the National Fire Plan into the three key

areas: fire preparedness, fire operations, and rural fire district assistance.

Fire preparedness

Wildland fire preparedness provides agencies with the capability to prevent, detect and take prompt, effective initial attack suppression action on wildland fires.

Preparedness includes staffing, aircraft and equipment, maintenance and construction, fire science and research, and the associated Federal acquisition practices.

Interior and Forest Service personnel have been working together to create consistency in position classifications. Outreach and recruitment to obtain diverse, wellqualified candidates began in December 2000 to fill firefighter, fire manager and

support positions, and for fire and fuels specialists. Many of these positions have

been advertised jointly and centrally to eliminate duplication of effort and to

streamline the application process.

We are contracting for the use of an additional 16 aircraft, and we purchased

equipment, including 40 new heavy engines, 43 light engine upgrades, 14 crew carriers for Hot Shot crews, 7 water tenders, 5 helitack trucks, and 3 dozers and

lowboys. Although this equipment has been purchased in 2001, some of it will not

be delivered until 2002.

Within the Department of the Interior agencies, 50 fire facilities require maintenance or construction. These projects have been prioritized and the funding has

been allocated.

The Joint Fire Science Program, a six agency partnership to address wildland

fuels issues, was established in 1998 to fill the gaps in knowledge about wildland

fire and fuels. The purpose of the Program is to provide wildland fire and fuels inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Jun 01, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 70955.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
39

formation and tools to specialists and managers who make wildland fuels management decisions. The information and tools will also help agencies develop sound, scientifically-based land use and activity plans. The Joint Fire Science Program will

fund important new research to explore effective methods of mapping and treating

fuels. The program will also direct a significant portion of funding to answer questions about important regional or local suppression, fuels management and rehabilitation needs. The Department of the Interior and the Forest Service recently issued

a request for proposals for fire science projects. We expect new proposals to focus

on the feasibility of developing a locally-based biomass conversion industry. Other

proposals will examine carbon storage, soil compaction, water quality, and habitat

as they relate to fuels treatments. We have also requested proposals to determine

the cumulative effects of fuels manipulation on fire behavior and severity, wildlife

populations, and habitat structure. In addition, on January 18, 2001, we established

the Joint Fire Science Program Stakeholder Advisory Group under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the Group is to advise and assist the

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, through the Joint Fire Science Program

Governing Board, on priorities and strategies for completing wildland fire and fuels

research and implementing research findings.

The National Fire Plan calls for a dramatic increase in the amount of fuels reduction and fuels management work, and much of this work is targeted for completion

by independent contractors or through service agreements. In December 2000, an

interagency team of contract and fuels specialists met in Boise, Idaho, and developed model contracts and agreements that agencies will use for fuels reduction, rehabilitation and restoration projects, and model grants and cooperative agreements

to assist communities and rural fire departments. We created a web site that houses

these model contracts so that each field office can access them easily, saving valuable time and effort, and increasing consistency among agencies.

Although fuels management by contract has grown over the last 10 years, there

is still a need to foster growth in the number of contractors available. A primary

focus of the 2001 appropriation is to facilitate awards to firms that will hire locally.

Although the term ‘‘local’’ is undefined, managers and contracting personnel will

emphasize the use of sealed bid awards to firms that are in closer proximity to

project work and best value awards to firms that commit to specific plans to hire

local workers.

The interagency contract and agreement team has developed an outreach plan

that will:

• Locate firms that are not currently active in bidding or proposing on Government

procurement for fuels management contracts. • Introduce local independent contractors to the benefits of contracting for this type

of work with the Government. • Encourage continued participation by firms that currently have fuels management

contracts.

Fire operations

Wildland fire operations include suppression, burned area rehabilitation and fuels

management, including fuels reduction in wildland-urban interface areas that pose

a risk to people, property and natural resources. To better facilitate these operations, several steps have been taken:

First, a list of communities most at risk from wildland fire in the wildland-urban

interface (discussed in more detail later in this testimony) and hazardous fuels reduction projects within and around those communities has been developed. Work is

continuing to refine the criteria and the list of communities at risk.

Second, a cohesive fuels management strategy has been drafted that will provide

a broad, national framework for Interior agencies to ensure:

• Effective collaboration among Federal agencies, Tribal, State and local governments and other stakeholders. • Alignment of all program areas to prevent further degradation, and to work toward the common goal of reducing unnaturally intense wildland fire. • Integration of fire and resource management within and across all agencies.

Third, on February 7th, Secretary Norton approved the release of $4 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and $2 million to the National Marine Fisheries

Service, needed to perform consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act for work identified by DOI. This money will facilitate consultation for critical

hazardous fuels treatment projects as implementation of the National Fire Plan progresses.

Finally, both Departments are engaged with the Governors, Tribes, non-governmental organizations and others in an active and open partnership to develop a tenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Jun 01, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 70955.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
40

year comprehensive strategy to implement collaboratively the National Fire Plan

and to begin to effectively and efficiently manage the nation’s hazardous fuels situation. This ten-year strategy will unify State, Tribal, and Federal efforts to cooperate

across jurisdictions, coordinate activities and maximize capabilities to reduce the

impacts of wildfires on communities and the environment.

Rural fire department assistance (RFDA)

The 2001 budget appropriation provided $10 million to the Department of the Interior for a new program to enhance the wildland fire protection capabilities of rural

fire departments (RFD). In December 2000, representatives from each of the Interior

agencies met and developed basic selection criteria for the distribution of these

grant funds. Grants will be limited to $20,000 per RFD, and the RFDs that apply

will be reviewed for criteria that include:

• Having an agreement in place with the State Forester or an Interior agency.

• Serving a community with a population of less than 10,000, in the wildland-urban

interface.

• Using funding only for training, equipment and prevention.

• Sharing a minimum of 10 percent of the total cost.

An Interior work group was formed to develop an interagency agreement/contract

which will be used by field offices to facilitate the transfer of funds to rural fire departments. A draft of this document is currently undergoing field review and will

be finalized in the next few weeks.

The money for RFDA has been allocated by each Interior Bureau to field offices,

and fire managers are working with partners at the local and regional levels to establish priorities and to allocate available funds.

Communities-at-risk

The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior were asked in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 106–291) to publish jointly in the Federal Register a list of all wildland-urban interface communities that are at high risk from

wildfire.

The list was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2001. Communities

on the list were proposed by States, Tribes and local governments. The criteria for

listing varied from State-to-State, which explains why some States listed hundreds

of communities, while others submitted a much smaller list. The list also identifies

communities with ongoing fuels treatment projects and those with projects planned

for FY 2001. A total of 37 States participated and more than 4,500 communities

were listed. Since then, four more States have submitted their lists, and the total

number of communities has grown to more than 6,400. We appreciate the work that

went into the list, especially the work performed by the State Foresters and Tribes.

Developing the list of communities was only part of the Federal Register notice

published on January 4. The notice also provided a definition of wildland-urban

interface, and included suggested criteria for categorizing interface communities and

evaluating the risk to those communities. The January 4 list is a starting point. It

needs to be refined, possibly narrowed, and focused so that we can set treatment

priorities for the coming years. The list of communities far exceeds our hazardous

fuel reduction capabilities.

Revising the list is a formidable task. Working closely with the Western Governors’ Association, we have developed a process to address this daunting task.

Some communities are much more vulnerable to wildland fire than others. Our next

task becomes one of identifying, again in collaboration with our Tribal, State and

local partners, the communities in the vicinity of Federal lands that are most at

risk, which are the places where we will begin hazardous fuels reduction work. The

results of this effort will be published in the Federal Register later this spring. The

Federal Register Notice will identify the full extent of the high-risk wildland urban

interface problem along with communities where hazardous fuels reduction treatments will not be planned, and the reasons why.

The revised lists of communities at risk in each State will be developed by an

interagency team consisting of representatives of the Department of Agriculture,

Department of the Interior, State Foresters, and Tribes. Representatives from other

Federal agencies such as the Departments of Energy and Defense will be included

where appropriate. Others who may be invited to participate include representatives

of county government, local fire response organizations, State emergency management offices, and community forestry organizations. A specific process for refining

the urban wildland communities list has been developed by the Forest Service, the

Department of the Interior, and the National Association of State Foresters. We envision that these teams will continue and will serve the long-term goals of identiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Jun 01, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 70955.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
41

fying, prioritizing and implementing fuels treatment projects, to ensure that the

long-term needs of communities vulnerable to wildland fire are addressed.

Existing project proposals in these identified urban wildland communities that

have approved plans and completed environmental compliance will have the highest

priority for fuels treatment, and work is already underway in many of these communities. DOI’s projects will cover about 300,000 acres. Additional projects that can be

readied for implementation this Fiscal Year will receive the next priority. Finally,

for those newly identified projects or projects not ready for implementation, the

planning process will be initiated toward future treatments and implementation

schedules will be developed.

A cornerstone of the National Fire Plan has been enhancing the communication

for preparedness and strategic planning among all partners in the wildland fire

management arena. To facilitate this objective, all of the National Fire Plan Coordinators from the Department of the Interior and its bureaus, as well as the Forest

Service, and representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, Council on

Environmental Quality and others, assembled in Denver on February 21 and 22,

2001, to share concerns and issues, clarify roles and expectations, validate the importance of success, and define a management structure for collaboration at the geographic area level throughout the country. This meeting provided a springboard to

unify State, Tribal and Federal efforts to cooperate across jurisdictions, coordinate

plans and activities, and collaborate with local governments to implement efficiently

and effectively the goals and commitments outlined in the National Fire Plan.

Conclusion

We appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing. We are grateful that Congress has afforded firefighting agencies an opportunity to reverse the trend of deteriorating health for our forest and rangeland ecosystems. We view the funding for

FY 2001 as an investment that will, in the future, help save communities, money,

our natural resources, and the lives of firefighters and the public.

Like any long-term investment, it will require patience. It took many decades for

fuels build up to reach their current levels. The demands on public land and its resources will only increase in the future. It will take time for all of us, the Federal

agencies, our Tribal, State and local partners, rural fire districts, elected officials

and others, to ameliorate the volatile and dangerous situation that currently exists

in many parts of our country. The Department of the Interior has made a commitment to see this process through to a successful conclusion. We intend to honor this

commitment, and we look forward to your continued support.

Thank you, again. I will be happy to answer any questions from the committee.

Mr. HARTZELL. With that, I would like to call your attention to

the five key points in the National Fire Plan which we have up on

the poster board. Those are firefighting, rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuels management, community assistance, and accountability. And we would now like to spend a little bit of time

talking to you about each of those key elements of the plan.

The first component that I would like to talk about is firefighting

and tell you what we have done from an Interior perspective to

date. Firefighting is that component of the National Fire Plan that

enables us to be adequately prepared to prevent, detect, and initially attack wildfires. To date, the Department of Interior has been

successful in hiring 875 new employees. We have committed $30

million to reconstructing and repairing over 50 facilities. The facilities are necessary to provide and meet minimum housing standards

for crew quarters, adequate storage for our engines, and to provide

helitack bases.

In addition, we have ordered a significant amount of equipment,

including the contracting of 24 helicopters, requesting 62 engines,

6 bulldozers, a variety of crew transport vehicles, and 8 water

tenders.

In addition, I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, since you

mentioned Storm King Mountain, that with the additional firefighters that we are hiring, training is going to be a key issue for

42

us. We will put no firefighter in a position where they have not had

adequate training on basic firefighting and behavior, standards for

survival, and the importance of communication under duress. We

will not place a firefighter in a position without adequate training.

Safety is, under the National Fire Plan, job one for both our firefighters and the public.

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the components that

Tim described in terms of the efforts that are underway in terms

of the firefighting efforts, the funding that has been provided by

the Congress is incredibly unique. This is probably the first time

that I can recall in Forest Service history that we have been funded at this level of suppression forces and preparedness. Not only

does that install the firefighting capability in the human resource,

but it brings us on board with a lot of the equipment that Tim referred to. In addition to the engines, we are making some investments in a number of air tanker bases across the country that can

help us in terms of being prepared. It brings on additional helitack

bases so that we can have these resources in place in the right locations to deal with the kinds of field conditions that we have

across the country. It is a major, major step forward, and I just

cannot tell you how significant that is to both of the agencies.

Recruitment has been a major, major task for us. We have never

hired this many people in one block in the Forest Service history

that I can recall. And the fact that we are trying to recruit and fill

about 5,000 positions is an enormous undertaking, particularly as

you look at the state of the economy. In Colorado, you can’t go anywhere but you find help-wanted signs, so there are just not a lot

of people waiting to come to work for us. So we are really creative

in terms of going out and holding job fairs. We have held job fairs,

over 35 job fairs across the country, to try to recruit people and

identify candidates for these jobs.

Between us, I think we have had in excess of 15,000 applications

for these jobs, so this is a major undertaking as we begin to prepare not only for this season but make that equipment in place for

the long term.

The other part that Tim addressed is the training and the supervisory capacity in terms of how do we supervise brand-new people.

If there is a caution that comes to my mind, it is that we need to

make sure that we are making those kinds of investments in the

supervisory skills so that we are not going to put these new firefighters in harm’s way. It is an enormous undertaking.

Another area is the coordination that is taking place between the

agencies that Tim and I have talked about. We are really focusing

on how we can most effectively train these new people so that we

are not duplicating efforts and we are being as efficient as we can

with these funds that have come to us.

Maybe we will go on to the next one, which deals with the restoration and rehabilitation of the burned areas. The second key

area of the National Fire Plan addressed and recognized the need

to rehabilitate and restore these intensively burned areas from the

fires of 2000. You can see that between the two of us we have got

probably in excess of four to five million acres that we plan to treat

with a variety of techniques. Just as the Governor of Montana

spoke about, the restoration and rehab, these activities are well

43

underway. We responded back to the Congress in January in terms

of a framework on how we were going to prioritize projects that

came in for rehab and restoration. We submitted that in January,

and those criteria have been applied. That was an interagency effort between the Interior Department and the Forest Service.

We are well underway in terms of implementing rehab and restoration projects. Many of those projects started even before the

smoke was out on the ground. We started doing much of that emergency work, and that is going to continue on through the summer.

I should tell you that between the two of us, the two Departments, we received about $250 million in appropriations for rehab

and restoration. The projects that came in just from the Forest

Service were well in excess of $260 million. So there is a lot of

work out there that needs to be done.

Tim?

Mr. HARTZELL. I think it may be helpful to mention that in the

congressional report on rehab, we were asked to indicate what criteria we would use to direct our rehabilitation and stabilization efforts. In summary, they were that our actions would be compatible

with existing land use plans; we would take a full and open look

at the projects and alternatives to complete them; rehab would be

conducted in full cooperation with other partners; and rehab would

be restricted to within the perimeter of the burned area.

I would like to mention two important points regarding the rehab

program that result from the National Fire Plan. Number one, we

now have the flexibility and the opportunity to conduct rehab for

up to three years after a wildfire, and during that period we can

use these rehabilitation funds for replanting native shrubs, forbs,

and grasses, and this is a significant addition and improvement to

our rehabilitation program.

Mr. LAVERTY. One of the other areas that I would just tag on to

the rehab and restoration recognizes the issue of noxious weeds.

And as we deal with noxious weeds and invasive species, this is a

long-term commitment. It is more than just simply sending a crew

out and monitoring some of these disturbed areas from the fires of

2000. But it is a long-term investment. If we do, in fact, find species coming into these sites, we are into really a war on weeds, and

these rehab and restoration plans recognize the importance of monitoring and aggressive action on invasive species.

The bar chart that Mary has up there just kind of gives you a

graphic display of the rehab and restoration acreage, and you can

see—in fact, as the Governor referenced this morning—that we

burned in excess of 7 million acres, and between the two agencies

we are treating about close to 5 million acres of that, the remainder being on State and private lands.

This is a huge undertaking, and it cuts across not only just the

Federal boundaries but it deals with State and private lands as

well.

Mr. HARTZELL. I think at this time we should move on to our

next key point, the hazardous fuels program. Under the hazardous

fuels program, we have on the Interior side $195 million that is

going to enable us to treat almost 1.4 million acres; 309,000 of

those are wildland-urban interface acres, acres around commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Jun 01, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 70955.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
44

nities that are vulnerable to wildfire. The remainder of the acres

are in priority watersheds.

Our hazardous fuels program concentrates on those actions that

we take to reduce fuel loadings and fire behavior potentials such

as prescribed fire or mechanical or manual thinning or chemical

means or any combination of the above.

Lyle and I have a series of photos that we would like to share

with the Committee, one, to give you an understanding of the fuel

problem in inter-mountain shrub lands and another to give you a

sense of the problem of fuel loading in our forest and timberlands.

Mr. LAVERTY. The two photos that Mary has posted there show

really a very graphic representation of what has happened across

the interior West in terms of fuel conditions and in terms of structure and composition of the stands. That first photo in 1871 and

the same photo back in 1982 just shows the dramatic transformation that has taken place. This could be replicated literally in

100 billion acres across the interior West. I think this is a great

example of the kinds of situations that we are talking about. And

as we begin to look at that wildland-urban interface in terms of everybody wants to live in the woods, this is the kind of situation

that we are beginning to address.

This is just another one. This is a photo series that many of you

have seen. This represents the Lick Creek area in the Bitterroot

National Forest in Montana. What it shows is the changes in stand

structure and composition that takes place over time. The 1909

photo on the upper left there does, in fact, show some treatment

on there, but I think what is important is you look at the relative

changes in terms of the numbers of stems, the composition that has

taken place on that same photo point over the next 80 years. So

it is a graphic representation of the kinds of changes that we are

talking about, not that that is a pure natural stand on the left side,

but it does, in fact, give us a benchmark to measure what has

taken place.

Mr. HARTZELL. I would like to spend a little time showing you

a fuels problem that we have in shrub lands. This is a photograph

of what we call a sagebrush steppe community in the Northern

Great Basin. I would tell the Committee this is probably what the

early explorer John Fremont saw when he came through the West

and he described the sagebrush plains in his writings. The plant

community you see right here is dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush, and the grass that you see, the very healthy and lush grass

you see there is bluebunch wheatgrass.

What this picture shows is ‘‘healthy range’’ or ‘‘healthy lands’’ or

a ‘‘healthy ecosystem.’’ This is an excellent photograph to demonstrate what healthy rangeland looks like. It has a low density of

shrubs that represent a variety of age classes, an abundance of

bluebunch wheatgrass, a variety of small forbs and flowers and

ground cover, which provides a variety of food for wildlife.

This is an example of what happens when a wildfire occurs in

a healthy shrub community. Historically, these sagebrush communities burned in a mosaic fashion with low fire intensities. And

what you get, as you can see in the photograph, there are these

pockets of unburned or lightly burned vegetation. The pockets of

unburned sagebrush and grass provide a seed source for the

45

burned areas within the perimeter of the fire. Typically, in these

healthy sagebrush ranges fire recycled every 50 to 100 years, and

it was vital to the renewal of these communities.

The next photo I have got on display for you here typifies much

of what we have in many areas of the inter-mountain West. This

is a problem that probably is common on somewhere between 100

and 140 million acres of rangelands in the inter-mountain West.

What we have when we have these hot fires in cheatgrass, which

is the golden grass you see there, forming a dense stand in the formerly open inner spaces between the shrubs that were inhabited

by native plants, and this significantly increases the fine fuels.

Now, once cheatgrass dries out, usually in mid-May to mid-June,

it is highly flammable and it easily carries a fire throughout the

entire shrub community. Cheatgrass in this situation entirely

changes the frequency, the intensity, and the behavior of wildfires.

As a rancher said in 1928 in an Idaho Statesman article about

cheatgrass, ‘‘It grows in a day, it ripens in a day, and it blows away

in a day.’’ Let me just say that this site right here represents a site that

is salvable, both from a fuels management standpoint and a rehab

standpoint.

However, this is a photograph that shows what happens once a

sagebrush community is totally invaded by cheatgrass and it

reburns. The vegetation here, which used to be the beautiful

bluebunch wheatgrass and a mixture of sage and forbs and flowers,

has been totally converted to a monoculture of cheatgrass, which

is an annual species, but, more importantly, it has been taken over

by invasive weeds. We used to think cheatgrass was the bottom of

the ecological spiral. No more. Now we have noxious weeds invading cheatgrass.

I think you can all appreciate that this type of situation has negative impacts on rangeland health of the site as well as its value

for a variety of multiple uses.

The fire cycle in this photograph, rather than being 50 to 100

years like healthy rangeland, is probably something in the vicinity

of every 3 to 10 years. But, most importantly, those fires are considerably more dangerous for our firefighters to fight. An Oregon

study found that fires in this type of range system are 500 times

more likely to start and burn than in healthy native rangelands.

I have got two photos here I would like to close with that depict

the fuel system conditions on our inter-mountain brush lands. This

fire right here shows what was very typical throughout much of the

Great Basin in 1999. In five days alone in the State of Nevada,

there were literally tens of thousands of lightning strikes, and

more than 1.5 million acres were consumed in that five-day period.

As one veteran engine foreman said when he was dispatched to a

fire and topped the ridge, when asked by dispatch, ‘‘What is your

situation?’’ He said, ‘‘I don’t know. Everywhere I look there’s fire,

and it’s roaring.’’

Fires in this kind of situation are much larger and much more

intense than the historical norm.

I would like to leave you with an impression from this last photograph, the aftermath of these fires. Fires in these cheatgrass- and

weed-dominated shrub lands burn at an incredible pace. It is not

46

uncommon for these fires to consume 5,000, 10,000, or even 20,000

acres in a day.

What you see there is a burn that occurred in one day. What is

left behind is certainly not encouraging?

Mr. LAVERTY. To respond to these kinds of situations between

the two Departments, our plan in the hazardous fuel component is

to treat together about 3.2 million acres across the country, and,

again, recognizing that this is a national plan, we will be treating

lands in the West, as well as maintaining some of the conditions

that we have been able to sustain in the East. In addition to the

Federal land component, the Congress provided funding that has

gone to the State foresters, and in addition to the Federal land

treatment, we expect that there will be in the neighborhood of

400,000 acres treated on State and private lands as well. So it really becomes a part of a system rather than just simply a Federal

land activity.

Let’s go to the last one there, just a reference photo. This is a

photo from, I think, Mr. Otter’s country, Mr. Simpson’s country

that shows a little bit graphically what can, in fact, happen in

terms of treatments versus burned areas. You can see on both the

left- and the right-hand side of that photo burned areas from the

season of 2000. The area in the middle was pretreated. There had

been some activity, some pre-commercial—I am guessing there

were some thinnings, some type of fuel activities, but it did have

a prescribed fire in that center area. So we can begin to show

anecdotally that we can, in fact, make a difference in terms of what

happens with fire behaviors and fire effects in treated stands. Not

that there is one prescription for all stands, but the fact that we

know—and that really becomes an important part of the investment that Congress is making in the hazardous fuels, is that we

have a focus on research in terms of helping us clearly identify and

track the effectiveness of these investments over time. Can we, in

fact, by good scientific modeling replicate these activities and come

back and tell you that this is a good investment?

The other part of the hazardous fuels, I would just share with

you that we have been working with the Governors following the

direction in the conference report. We published a list in January

of communities that were at high risk. We worked with the Governors across the country. We published that list, and there are

about 4,500 communities that were identified to be at high risk

that are in the vicinity of Federal lands across this United States.

We are currently working with the Governors, with the National

Association of State Foresters, and the tribes to refine that list.

And as you would expect, we have 48 States in this part of the

country that all interpreted the direction one way. We have got 48

different interpretations. So we are working with the Governors

and the tribes to refine that list, and our direction is to republish

that list in May.

Along with the list of revised communities will be then which of

those communities do we actually have projects planned in 2001

and which communities do we have projects planned for 2002. And

we are working with the communities, with the States, with the

Governors, with counties, to begin to identify where we should be

placing—finding the criteria to place those projects in the out-years

47

so that—recognizing that we don’t have enough funds to treat all

communities, but we can begin to assess some criteria in terms of

ranking on how we are going to make those investments. It is a

huge—and I say that recognizing that this is a monumental effort

in terms of how we have been able to engage Governors, tribes,

counties, and a variety of interest groups in this process. And I

really believe that this is a model in terms of how we can show

that we can manage America’s resources in a fashion that really

is responsive to the needs of people.

Mr. HARTZELL. Well, Lyle, before we leave fuels, we ought to talk

to the Committee about contracting. The contracting procedures

that we have in place are another excellent model or example of

how the Federal Government can work together with States and

locals in a more efficient manner. The Fiscal Year 2001 appropriation was very specific that we should focus as much of our fuels

treatment work through the contracting process as possible. We

were concerned that we needed to minimize the duplicative work

of agencies independently developing and administering their own

contracts.

So back in December of 2000, we called 75 to 90 interagency

fuels and contracting specialists together at the National Interagency Fire Center. We invited States and tribes to that meeting.

And the purpose of that meeting was to sort out what contracts everybody had in place for doing fuels treatment work and rehabilitation work and find the best of the best, and then use those contracts as models for conducting fuels and rehab work. The concept

being we would identify these model contracts, we would refine

them as appropriate, we would get them posted up on a website so

that no matter what part of the country you were in, whether you

were in Florida or Battle Mountain, Nevada, or eastern Oregon or

Grand Junction, Colorado, if you needed to do a mechanical

thinning, you could go to this website and pull down the appropriate contract and utilize it to complete your work rather than invest precious staff time in redeveloping a contract.

The way we see this working in the model we have in place is

that we have established 11 national geographic areas for contracting, and there will be a lead agency and a designated lead contracting officer for each of these areas, and then every agency within that geographic area can order against the lead agency contract.

We believe that this process is going to have several important

benefits. One I think I have already alluded to, minimizing the

time of everyone developing their individual contracts, but also we

think that through this process we are going to be able to create

significant opportunities at the local level for jobs in small communities for fuels hazard reduction and rehab work.

I think that the Committee can expect our contracting capacity,

both internally and externally, to increase over the next few years.

Right now I can tell you that this model contracting process is up

and operable in three of the 11 geographic areas: the Pacific Northwest, the Northern Rockies, and New Mexico and northern Arizona.

Mr. LAVERTY. In addition to the contracting model which has

dramatically changed how we do business together, our expectation

is that 50 percent of those contracts will be local awards. This is

48

a major effort as we look at trying to build capacity for the long

term and how we are going to treat these kinds of landscapes so

that we can deal with the kinds of outcomes that the Governor addressed this morning.

One of the benefits will be, in fact, that we are going to employ

people, but the long term is that we are going to improve forest

health conditions across America. This is a major, major part of the

fire plan, and huge benefits will come from this.

The next key point is the issue of community assistance, and this

one is a fairly broad and encompassing program area because these

are in many cases funds that go back to the States and right into

the local communities. The item that we have displayed is rural

and volunteer fire assistance. And between the Forest Service and

the Department of Interior, we will be providing funds and resources to 4,800 volunteer fire departments across America.

For any of you that have been involved in fire departments, most

of the funds are done by cake sales, cookie sales, raffles, and those

types of things, just to buy fuel for the engines. Well, these funds

go to these rural fire departments to provide personal protective

gear for the firefighters. It helps them in terms of the acquisition

of equipment so that they can be in place to respond.

In most places across America, these are the people that are first

responders even to wildland fires. Most of those folks are trained

in structural fire. So these funds also provide us the opportunity

to work with volunteer fire departments to help them in terms of

training so that we can put those in a fire situation that will protect those folks from harm.

Tim?

Mr. HARTZELL. We were delighted in Interior that the appropriation included a new $10 million appropriation for us to target rural

fire departments. The purpose of that $10 million is for us to enhance safety and strengthen the wildfire protection capability of

small rural fire departments that support suppression on adjacent

or intermingled Federal lands. Lyle talked about this, alluded to

this, that in strengthening the capability of small fire departments,

we are also going to increase the overall preparedness or readiness

capacity of all partners in wildland fire protection.

Now, the dollars that we got are going to be specifically targeted

to these small communities, communities with a population of less

than 10,000, and the money is going to be targeted for technical assistance, training, supplies, and for public education. The criteria

for small fire departments obtaining this funding are actually just

two: one, they have to have an agreement with the State forester

or directly with a Department of Interior agency; and, secondly, the

rural fire department needs to be able to provide 10 percent of the

cost, whether it is dollars or in-kind services, we will provide the

remaining 90 percent of the funding.

How these rural fire departments can gain access to this money

will be through a standard application that we have just finished

developing, and that application must also be coordinated with the

State forester. In order to get the money, we have to have an

agreement with the fire department outlining each partner’s roles,

ours and theirs, before the money is transferred. And we also hope

49

to have the standard agreements that each partner will enter into

available on a website.

We are very excited about this. I know we are going to have

some big dividends and payoffs here. It is a pilot program, and we

are going to be reviewing it and monitoring it carefully through the

year, and we will make adjustments as needed.

Mr. LAVERTY. Additionally, on the Forest Service side, there are

funds that go straight to the state foresters to work with communities in terms of education. And the Governor addressed that this

morning, that this becomes a very integral part of the whole fire

plan, is what can landowners do in terms of personal responsibility

to treat their landscapes to make them in fact more defensible.

We have hosted a series of what we call Fire Wise Workshops

around the country. In fact, a week ago Friday I was in Cedar

Ridge, Colorado, with the State Forester’s staff, the BLM staff and

the Forest Service, we trained about 50 American Red Cross volunteers, that that is what they are going to do, they are going to go

out, work with landowners, help them make an assessment of what

do they need to do on their own lands to make them more defensible.

In addition, these funds provide a capacity many times for the

state foresters to work with landowners to actually do some land

treatments. And these are really an important part of the entire

system.

The other part of the community assistance that I will just talk

about deals with the Economic Action Plan. And in the Economic

Action Plan, we are looking at some of the ideas, you know, what

can we do with some of the small-diameter material? Can we in

fact utilize some of these materials that you have seen graphically

today? Can we use that to deal with some of the energy issues that

we have in this country today? We believe that there are some opportunities for bioenergy. We have got some proposals. In fact, in

California we have received probably responses in terms of 20 to

1 in terms of what we have capacity to fund versus what the proposals are. Many of these are focused on what we can do with

small-diameter material and how we can utilize that material to

deal with some of the energy needs that we have in the country.

But the last point, and perhaps the most important one for Tim

and I, deals with the issue of accountability. And if I could leave

you with a term, we are the ‘‘junkyard dogs.’’ We are passionate

about sharing with you very candidly that we are tracking agencies’ performance. We are tracking our accomplishments on the

ground so that we can come back to you with full integrity and tell

you that this has been a good investment. We are working with

GAO to look at can we in fact design monitoring systems to track

our performance? We have research in place that I think will help

us answer those questions on the real science basis behind these

investments that we are making. We have put together a series of

performance elements in line officers’ performance standards, so

that we can actually hold line officers accountable for these accomplishments. And we plan a series of program reviews in the field,

and we have invited—the idea of bringing legislative staff along

with us to spend time looking at the field in terms of are we asking

50

the right questions, and really looking at the monitoring to see that

these things are in fact meeting your expectations as well as ours.

Congress has made a huge investment, and we believe that with almost $2 billion of new money, that we need to be as open and

transparent as we can in terms of the tracking systems. We have

invested in a framework that we can, probably by the end of this

month, we will be able to, in real time, give you what has happened in each one of your states and each one of your congressional

districts in terms of these projects.

It is a huge step forward. Again, it is becoming a model, I think,

in terms of how government can work. Tim?

Mr. HARTZELL. And each of the departments has regular weekly

meetings to track the status of the National Fire Plan. Interior people participate in the Forest Service meeting. Forest Service people

participate in the Interior meetings, so that we are lock-step and

know what each other is doing. At the Interior Department, I can

tell you that we have regular weekly meetings, where our four bureau directors report directly to the chief of staff on status and

progress of implementing the National Fire Plan. We have safeguards in place to assure that the funds are only disbursed with

the appropriate fund and project code, and that each of the individual bureaus involved in this program has assigned a lead and

co-lead for implementing the National Fire Plan, and each of those

bureaus has developed an implementation strategy document to assure that the five key points in the plan are carried forward.

Also I think we probably need to call the attention to the fact

that—I don’t know how many, we have delivered numerous reports

to the Congress as required in the 2001 Appropriations Act, in addition to a very detailed Financial and Action Plan which we have

shared with you, and which we are monitoring diligently, and there

are still several more reports to come.

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Chairman, I would just tell you thank you for

waiving the five-minute rule. We thought we could get through this

quicker, but we have got a lot to share with you, but we truly appreciate your time and your interest in the National Fire Plan, and

Tim and I would be honored to answer any questions you might

have for us.

Mr. MCINNIS. Clearly your testimony in the situation that we

face is critical. That is why we have taken the time this morning.

I would advise the Committee members, as well as our guests, that

the meeting must adjourn at 12 noon. I expect a vote at that point

in time anyway.

In light of that, I would like to give an opportunity for members,

each of the members, to ask a question. So I would ask the members to keep their questions abbreviated, and to not take your full

minutes so that we can get all of the way around. In turn, I would

also ask that our witnesses keep your answers very brief in consideration of that.

I will ask three quick questions. If you can give me three quick

answers, then I will go to the ranking member.

What was the overall budget for these activities last year? Question No. 1.

Question No. 2: How much was this increased for this fiscal

year? Question No. 2.

51

And Question No. 3: What do you see happening to this level of

funding in the next fiscal year?

So if you could quickly respond to those three questions, then I

will yield to the ranking member.

Mr. LAVERTY. Let me start quickly on the Forest Service side. In

Fiscal Year 2000, all of the programs that dealt with the prior

plan, we had about $1.2 billion. In 2001, the total, including the

Title 4, brought us up to about $2.1, almost $2.2 billion. So we experienced almost a $2 billion—or a $1.1 billion increase on the Forest Service for all of the programs associated with the Fire Plan.

Mr. MCINNIS. So approximately 100 percent increase?

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCINNIS. And the next fiscal year?

Mr. LAVERTY. Fiscal Year 2000?

Mr. MCINNIS. 2002 is the one I meant.

Mr. LAVERTY. 2002, we are waiting to see.

Mr. MCINNIS. What is your proposal?

Mr. LAVERTY. We think it is going to be solid. Our proposal is

that we would like to see a continuation of what we have in 2001

as the minimum.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Hartzell?

Mr. HARTZELL. Mr. Chairman, in Fiscal Year 2000 in the Department of Interior, our money for the fire management programs was

$490 million, almost $491 million. In Fiscal Year 2001, it was nearly $978 million, a $486 million increase, nearly a doubling.

Mr. MCINNIS. Another 100 percent. Well, it is clear from a bipartisan point of view that the funding of this is a high priority. The

President has made it very clear that it is a high priority for him.

With that, I will yield to the ranking member.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had an earthquake in Seattle the other day, and the Federal Government did not predict it,

but we are not being critical. Earthquakes are somewhat difficult

to predict.

Mr. LAVERTY. It is a different department.

Mr. INSLEE. Right. But it seems to me with the incredible

drought in the West we have got up in the State of Washington,

as you know, snowpacks, water levels in the 50 to 60 percent level.

It seems to me we have very, very clear indications this is going

to be a severe fire season. And I am concerned because at least the

information I have received—and I am just looking at the proposed

budget, as I understand it, from the White House dated February

28th—it actually would reduce the total fire plan spending, as I un- derstand it, for both agencies by $500 million, which is about a 20

to 25 percent cut.

Now, I understand a lot of that comes from essentially backing

out emergency fire contingency which had occurred in previous

years. But if you were to assume, as I do, that this year has every

prospect of being as severe or more so than in previous years,

aren’t we looking at a demand that is likely to be as much or greater? And if so, ought we not to be looking for more resources in this

budget cycle in advance rather than afterwards?

Now, I understand it is difficult for you fellows in your position

to talk about budget issues, but if you can talk about the threat

fire-wise, perhaps we can get the sense of your drift.

52

Mr. LAVERTY. Just to respond, I believe that, you know, part of

the action that we will be able to take as agencies with this increased funding that we have in 2001, we will have—historically,

we have been funded at about 60 to 70 percent of what we call the

most efficient level. This new funding that Congress has provided

for us in 2001 will bring on additionally these 5,000 new firefighters plus the additional equipment.

Part of these firefighters, we are going to add 12 new Hot Shot

crews. We ran out of crews this summer. If we had had more

fires—in fact, in Colorado, we were at the point where we would

have had to say we are going to let this one burn and we are going

to have to address this. So I think we are going to be in a much

better position with increased capacity and capability for firefighting, and we have been talking already about how we can mobilize and move resources around strategically to deal with the different fuel conditions that we have across the country.

So I think we are going to be there in a good position in 2001.

I think for 2002, you know, we are optimistic that the President’s

budget is, in fact, going to help us sustain that preparedness level

and make those levels of fuels investment.

Mr. HARTZELL. I concur with my colleague. We will be able to

maintain a level of funding that is going to help us reduce fire risk.

We are going to have significantly more capacity because of the

equipment we are bringing on this fiscal year, the majority of

which will be online next year. In addition, we have and will continue to utilize the option of severity funding to pay in advance to

bring resources online to deal with serious potential fire hazards

such as you mentioned.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I appreciate your efficiency, but I have to tell

you that if we end up in a fire year as we did last year, which I

believe we are looking at this year, I can’t see how even Superman

would wring out 25 percent efficiencies at the Federal budget, and

you are looking at $500 million decreases. So I want to tell you I

am concerned about that. I am sure there are others on a bipartisan basis very concerned about that. And we are going to work

through this project.

Jumping ahead to a more long-term plan, on a long-term issue,

on our issue of fuel reductions, you are engaged in a major effort

in that regard, and I think many people understand that our previously shortsighted policy of total fire suppression has, in fact, led

to a major build-up in fuel loads. But there is a concern in the public—and I hear this a lot—that, in fact, there will be harvests driven by commercial incentives rather than for good thinning science.

And I just wonder if you can tell us what measures have been

adopted to date that we can tell the public to give them confidence

that this is not being driven by commercial incentives rather than

good science in thinning. If you can address that, I have heard

some reports that we have dropped some of those requirements,

like maximum diameter of harvest as well.

Mr. LAVERTY. Maybe I could just take a start at responding to

that question. If you consider—

Mr. MCINNIS. We need to keep it brief. Let me interrupt for just

a moment. We need to keep it brief because I do want to give an

53

opportunity to other members to ask questions. We have got about

10 minutes.

Mr. LAVERTY. If you talk about commercial harvest, commercial

harvest is one tool to help us accomplish that, but it should not be

the objective. The Governor was perfect this morning. We talk

about, you know, what do we need to leave on the landscape. That

should be the starting point. And then what do we take off that is

the important part of it. But how we take it off, we shouldn’t constrain ourselves. We talked about diameter limit. I appreciate the

question. But I think we need to let that local prescription based

on, you know, what is good science, what do the specialists tell us

in terms of what needs to stay there, let that drive the prescription. Don’t artificially constrain.

Mr. HARTZELL. I would also add that the prescription needs to

be driven by conformance with local land use plans, and it needs

to be driven by local collaboration to find the appropriate solution.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we need to have a little more dialogue on this,

and we want to defer. Mr. Chair, if I can put in two letters in the

record by Mr. Udall, a unanimous consent request, signed by 26

members requesting environmental standards to be incorporated in

any fire plan.

Mr. MCINNIS. No objection.

[The letters follow:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

FOREST SERVICE,

Washington, DC.

Hon. MARK UDALL,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN UDALL: Thank you for your October 20, 2000, letter from you

and your colleagues, to former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman regarding the

Fiscal Year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) shares your concerns about the implementation of the fuels reduction program. As directed in the Interior Appropriations Act,

funds provided to reduce hazardous fuels will be focused in and around communities

at risk. In these areas, protecting life and property from catastrophic wildfire will

be the primary objective of the treatments. In complying with existing environmental laws, we will work closely with the local communities to design and implement these treatments. I assure you that environmentally appropriate safeguards

will be maintained throughout the planning and implementation efforts to restore

lands damaged by recent wildland fires and to mitigate future wildland fire risks

through fuel reduction projects.

The USDA Forest Service has developed the Cohesive Strategy, Protecting People

and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems—A Cohesive Strategy. A suite

of Federal laws and regulations guide management of fire-related activities on those

lands. They include the Organic Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered

Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), among others, that

will ensure clean air, clean water, and biodiversity in fire-adapted ecosystems. Longterm sustainability is a consistent theme embodied within these laws. The Forest

Service’s efforts to reduce hazardous fuels compliment long-term sustainability and

will fully comply with these laws and regulations. All Forest Service activities will

be in full compliance with procedures established by the Council on Environmental

Quality for implementation of NEPA.

The National Fire Plan is in response to Managing the Impact of Wildfires on

Communities and the Environment, A Report to the President in Response to the

Wildfires of 2000, which was submitted on September 8, 2000. The Plan discusses

the Forest Service’s strategy to remove excessive fuel through vegetative treatments

and prescribed fire in order to protect communities at risk, help prevent insect and

disease damage, and generally improve overall ecosystem health and sustainability.

It also discusses how the Forest Service’s locally-led, integrated teams should coordinate environmental reviews and consultations, facilitate and encourage public participation, and monitor and evaluate project implementation.

The 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review reinforces the Forest

Service’s efforts to utilize the best available science that incorporates the role of fire

in land, resource and fire management planning. Recently, the Agency requested a

review of the 1995 Policy. The review found the basic policy sound. The review

group made 11 recommendations, which were accepted by the Agency, on ecosystem

sustainability, restoration, science, communication, and evaluation. As the Forest

Service continues to implement this Policy, planning efforts will ensure that full environmental safeguards, as required by laws and policies, are more than adequate

to address all concerns raised in your letter.

Thank you again for your thoughtful letter and expressing your concerns. Identical letters will be sent to your colleagues. I appreciate your continued support for

our forest health and restoration program. Please do not hesitate to contact me at

(202) 205–1657, if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL T. RAINS,

Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. MCINNIS. I might add that reductions that were just being

talked about, it is my understanding those are reductions for 2002.

Your firefighting season that is coming up here in a few weeks is

not suffering. There is no cut in firefighting operations. Isn’t that

correct?

Mr. LAVERTY. Correct.

61

Mr. INSLEE. I think the concern is historically what has happened, there has been a backloading of contingency in the next fiscal year, and what I am suggesting is, if this budget—we shouldn’t

fool ourselves. If the fires occur this year like they are likely to

occur, we are going to be looking at another $500 million in the

next fiscal year to make up your contingency funds. Isn’t that a fair

statement?

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes. Historically, our 10-year average would be about $423 million just on the force in terms of suppression costs.

Last year we were over $1 billion.

Mr. INSLEE. Just as one Democratic modest partisan statement,

this is the kind of issue we are concerned about in our tax cut vote

today as well.

Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. I just want to make this clear, because I don’t

want there to be a set-up situation where a fire occurs and all of

a sudden we hear from a slightly partisan point of view that we

didn’t adequately fund the Forest Service. Let me repeat the question. You have been fully funded for the 2001 firefighting season.

Isn’t that correct?

Mr. LAVERTY. That is correct.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Simpson?

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Lyle, Tim, welcome to the Committee, and thank you for your

testimony. I appreciate, Lyle, you keeping me informed of what is

going on with the fire plan and the update of it. I was unaware

that commercial harvesting was actually a bad thing, but I know

we do do some of that stuff, and it actually can be used to help prevent fires.

But since we have had a slide show today, let me just show you

one slide show. This is what we are facing in Idaho. And while you

can’t predict an earthquake in Seattle, I can guarantee you you can

predict one thing. This is going to burn, and it is going to burn very

hot. And that is what we had last year on the Kerr Creek fire. And

because we have not gone in and done the necessary thinning and

so forth that is necessary to reduce the possibility of catastrophic

wildfires—and I appreciate what you are doing in that area now

and how we are going to be able to treat some of the lands and

a few things like that and actually maybe some of them we may

actually commercially cut a tree. Who knows? Somebody might

want a two-by-four in their house.

But tell me about the consultation process that is going on. Are

we having problems with that between different agencies, with

NEPA, the NEPA process, and other types of things? As I understand it, talking to some of the local forest managers, we have got

more biologists from NFS on the ground trying to have their say

in what we are doing in these rehabilitation efforts and so forth.

Are we using the categorical exclusions? And even when we have

used some of those, I understand that they have complained that

we shouldn’t have used them and so forth. Could you talk to me

a little bit about that?

Mr. LAVERTY. Just a very quick response, Mr. Simpson. We are

working right now with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, the

62

funding for 2001 provided funding to the agencies to support the

NFS and Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation. We are

working right now to move that money over to Fish and Wildlife

Service to do that. The Fish and Wildlife Service is probably going

to hire an additional 100 biologists to do this Section 7 consultation

work.

The processes are really not a problem for us. It is just a matter

of having the staff to complete the process. And I think the Congress recognized that with the funding.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, let me ask just a follow-up. Is there something or anything that Congress needs to do to streamline this

process so that we can actually do some of these rehabilitation

projects and so forth?

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes. Thank you for asking that question. One of

the things that we are working on right now—in fact, Mr. McInnis

is giving us some support—is we have a bill that will provide us

the legislative mechanism that we can move those funds over to

Fish and Wildlife Service. That is a problem for us as an agency.

And with that out of the way, we will get that Section 7 consultation work done on most of the 2002 projects. So that will be a great

help.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and thank you for all that you have

done on this.

Mr. LAVERTY. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Tancredo?

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Laverty, good to see you here today, sir. In the political

world, in the elected political world, the presence of an individual

who has the courage of his commitments and who lives up to them

is somewhat rare. In the bureaucratic world, it is even more rare,

I think. You are an exception to that rule. You, from my point of

view, are an individual who does have the courage of his convictions and has expressed them articulately, not just here today but

in my brief history I have had with you, that has been my observation. And I just wanted to essentially thank you very much for

being a strong supporter of good forest management, even when

that support could get you into trouble.

The question I have for you is: Although I am encouraged by everything you have said in terms of the appropriations that have

been made available to the agencies to suppress fire and to fight

it, I am concerned about the degree to which you may be facing

other obstacles, that is to say, more bureaucratic, more regulatory

in nature. And if you could, sir—and if there isn’t time today to

complete your answer in a definitive way, even if you could submit

to us some response on paper, that would be fine—I am interested

in the Clean Air Act, NEPA, Endangered Species, roadless area,

that sort of thing, where you may have all of the equipment now,

you may have all of the firefighters in place, but not be able to do

the job because of the regulatory burden.

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Tancredo, one of the actions that Tim and I

have been working with CEQ is to actually go out and do some

field reviews in terms of the work processes that are going on with

NEPA. We believe that there are some opportunities just for us to

examine closely what we do and how we go about doing that work.

63

We think there are some efficiencies to be gained there. In fact,

Dinah Baird from CEQ has been very open with us about helping

us, you know, find those ways that we can actually make NEPA

work more effectively for us.

I think those kinds of findings will help us integrate really a tapestry of laws that we all deal with. Between the laws and regulations, we need to figure out how can we make those things work

effectively for us. Many times, you know, training is a key tool to

help people understand here is what you have to do, and perhaps

we are doing many times more than we really need to do. But I

think as we go through those kinds of field reviews, we can learn

from that and then make those adaptive changes in terms of our

work processes to be more effective and efficient in terms of responding to the situation that we have.

Mr. HARTZELL. Congressman, Lyle and I also have an interdepartmental environmental compliance group that has members

from both departments and other agencies that meets on a regular

basis to look at existing regulations and procedures to make sure

that there aren’t any roadblocks in the process and to help us be

more efficient.

Let me just say that right now, from our perspective, we don’t

see any problems in meeting our fuels reduction acres because of

regulations and environmental compliance. But one area we are interested in is possibly getting categorical exclusion status for rehab

projects because they clearly are emergency in nature.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you both, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. SIMPSON. [Presiding.] Mr. Otter?

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, surprise.

I have got just a couple of questions, and I know, Lyle and Tim,

we have talked an awful lot about this, and I appreciate the time

that you have spent with me as the bottom of the political food

chain and being a freshman. But you have given me an awful lot

of time. But there are a couple of things that I would like to ask

you.

Number one, where does the money go if we should actually get

a return on a harvest? Where does that money go?

Mr. LAVERTY. On the Forest Service side, those receipts go to the

general treasury.

Mr. OTTER. And so couldn’t that then be used to help fund future

firefighting and also future planning and rehabilitation and your

five-point program?

Mr. LAVERTY. It goes into the big mix of the issues that you are

dealing with on the Floor today.

Mr. OTTER. Okay. I think that is interesting because it seems to

me that if you will recall, historically speaking, the Panhandle, the

Clearwater, and Payett practically burned in total in 1914. Right?

And then it was replaced by an invasive species or two, one fir and

one a white pine. And their life cycle is about 90 years. Is that not

right?

Mr. LAVERTY. Ninety to 120 years.

Mr. OTTER. We are on the threshold right now. My point is this:

We are at the threshold right now. And if you lock yourself into a

management plan that said simply we are going to do this for fire

64

prevention and we are at that threshold of 90-year life for those

trees right now today, wouldn’t it be reasonable to go in and clearcut that if you were only going to go fire prevention? Because they

are going to die. And then they are dead, and then they are fuel.

Mr. LAVERTY. I think maybe the short answer is that, depending

on the situation, you want to take the right tool for that silvicultural treatment. It may or may not be a clear-cut. I would liken

it to if you were a cabinetmaker, you want to have the right tool

for that job. And I think the same way is true in terms of coming

up with a silvicultural prescription depending on the outcome and

the objectives that you are searching for. You want to use the right

tool. In some cases it could be a clear-cut.

Mr. OTTER. My point is this: If they were thinned over a management period of time, allowing the trees a larger base per acre,

wouldn’t they be a lot less likely to have a fire, a devastating fire?

A clear burn, let me say?

Mr. LAVERTY. One of the issues—and I think the Lick Creek

photo series that we showed indicates the changes that are taking

place in those stand structures. When you do, in fact, have that

density of stands, that is when you invite insects, you invite various types of disease as well. So keeping those stand conditions in

a healthy, functioning capacity, you know, provides benefits not

only of general forest health, but I think the whole watershed systems begin to function effectively.

Mr. OTTER. Okay. One final question, if I might, Mr. Chairman.

Is there any chance that you can train the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National

Marine Fisheries Service people that are on the ground out there

to fight fire?

Mr. LAVERTY. We get a lot of people from Fish and Wildlife Service as crews. We have used—I am not sure if we have used Corps

of Engineer people, but we have a lot of interagency teams that

bring people from all the agencies together.

Mr. OTTER. So cross-training is possible.

Mr. LAVERTY. Oh, absolutely.

Mr. HARTZELL. There is nothing precluding that. As long as they

meet our rigid physical standards and they take the training, they

can participate.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SIMPSON. I think the ranking member has one question he

would like to ask.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I appreciate it.

I want to tell you a concern I have. The concern is that we are

going to repeat some mistakes of the past. Our fire suppression policy has resulted in the accumulation of fuel loads that have resulted in some of these catastrophic fires. I think that is abundantly clear.

My concern is that when we get into some cataclysmic fires,

which we may be back in that season again this year, that it will

remove us from the long-term goal of getting back to a situation

where fire is part of the natural cycle and we accept it as part of

the natural cycle and we recognize that fire is necessary for a

65

healthy ecosystem in the long term. Ponderosa pines developed

with fire, and the only reason they are healthy is with fire.

I guess the question is: How do we keep the twin goal of not allowing property damage in the West but realizing a long-term goal

which I think should be—and you tell me if it is—of getting to a

point where we can accept fire as part of the natural ecosystem and

a necessary part of one?

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Inslee, I believe that the fire plan, the objectives are very, very consistent with what you described. But our

challenge is how do we make those investments to bring that landscape back to that kind of a condition. And because, as we talked

earlier, we have excluded fire from these landscapes for such a long

time, we are no longer in the position because of the long-term effects of just letting nature take its course.

In Colorado, we have an example of a fire that burned four years ago, and that fire, it cost the Denver Water Board $12 million to

clear the sediment out of the watershed reservoir because of the

rain that came after that. It burned with such intensity that we

actually changed the structure of the soil. It is going to take literally centuries for that to recover.

The loss is not only in the function of that watershed, but at the

same time we have lost the productive capacity of species habitat.

And I believe that the goals that we have for the fire plan will

allow us to begin making those kinds of treatments where we can

keep fire in a more natural role that it plays on many of these

landscapes across the interior West. However, that is not a simple

answer because we now have this huge influx of people that want

to live in this same type of a fire-adapted ecosystem, so the introduction of the human component makes that challenge much, much

more difficult.

Mr. HARTZELL. Let me just quickly add that long-term fuels hazard management is the answer. It gives us options. It lowers fire

intensity. It gives our firefighters more options when they do initial

attack and respond to the fire. And that generally results in fewer

resources and lower costs being needed for suppression.

Mr. LAVERTY. I would love to take you out and show you some

of the areas where we have done some treatments on the ground,

and I think we can show you exactly what happens in terms of

changing fire effects in treated stands. And it can be done in such

an environmentally sensitive fashion that it really does accomplish,

I think, the items that you have shared with us, and I appreciate

your comments.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that response and the fact that fire is

a natural part of the ecosystem and will always be, and we are

never going to put out all fires, nor should we put out all fires. But

there are differences between catastrophic fires. We have in Idaho

places from the 1910 fire where the soil is still sterile and nothing

grows on it because it was so hot that it burned it—how far down

was it?

Mr. OTTER. Eighteen inches.

Mr. SIMPSON. Eighteen inches. So, anyway, I appreciate that.

I would like to close this hearing today by taking a look at the

weather, as was mentioned by the ranking member. Below normal

66

precipitation to date throughout much of the Western and Southeastern States indicates that we may be in for a big fire season

again this summer. This makes it essential that time is used wisely

and efficiently in the near term, preparing for the thousands of

newly hired firefighters because if we don’t adequately train and

equip those people, we are unjustly putting them in life-threatening positions, which, of course, is unacceptable.

In the long term, we are looking at 73 million acres of Forest

Service lands that are at high risk of catastrophic fires, more than

a third of the national forest system. It will be a daunting task to

reduce the hazards on these and other Federal lands, but a task

we must accomplish.

So the Subcommittee will continue in its bipartisan effort to scrutinize these and all other aspects of the National Fire Plan as it

is implemented. I look forward to working with you as we work on

this endeavor to make sure that we can address this issue.

Does the ranking member have a closing statement?

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you very much.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the witnesses on the second panel for their

insight and the members for their questions. The members of the

Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you please respond to these in writing. The

hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these responses.

I would like to thank Mike Williams of the Subcommittee staff

for his excellent work on this hearing.

If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, the

Chairman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and our

witnesses. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ