U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

44–511 u WASHINGTON : 1997

HEARING ON THE USE OF FIRE AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL AND ITS RISKS AND BENEFITS

FOR FOREST HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–45

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held September 30, 1997 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

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

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

Additional material submitted for the record by .................................... 85

Additional material submitted for the record by .................................... 140

Explanation of photographs ...................................................................... 140

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Minnesota ...................................................................................................... 2

Statement of Witnesses:

Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior ................ 5

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

Browner, Hon. Carol M., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency ............................................................................................................ 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 74

Dennison, William, Plumas County Supervisor, Board of Supervisors,

Quincy, California ......................................................................................... 45

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 107

Glickman, Hon. Dan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture ............... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 60

Mutch, Robert, Missoula, Montana ................................................................. 47

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 116

Pearson, Robert L., Radian International LLC, Denver, Colorado .............. 49

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 129

Peterson, Earl, Florida State Forester, Chairman, National Association

of State Foresters Fire Committee, Tallahassee, Florida .......................... 43

Additional material supplied:

Davis, Stanley B., prepared statement of ....................................................... 95

National Association of State Foresters, Washington, DC, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 99
(1)

HEARING ON THE USE OF FIRE AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL AND ITS RISKS AND BENEFITS FOR FOREST HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth

[acting chairwoman of the committee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Committee on Resources will come to

order.

I just want to say that these are the times that try men’s souls

toward the end of the year when the work on the House floor, as

you remember, will scare the ducks off the pond, and so, therefore,

the committees are scarcely filled and a lot of work is going on concurrently. With this hearing and actual floor work, we will try to

move as quickly as we possibly can through this very interesting

hearing.

And, as you know, the committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the use of fire as a management tool and its risks and

benefits for forest health and air quality. Under rule 4(g) of the

committee rules, any oral opening statements at the hearings are

limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, and

this will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help Members keep their schedules as well as help the witnesses keep their

schedules. Therefore, if other Members do have statements, they

can be included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.

We’re very, very pleased to have with us Secretary Glickman, the

Honorable Carol Browner, and Secretary Babbitt.

Today the Committee on Resources convenes for an oversight

hearing on the uses of fire as a management tool and impacts of

the Environmental Protection Agency’s national ambient air quality standards on that use.

It is clear today that our past success in suppressing forest fires

has led to unintended consequences, and I just want to say, it’s my

personal—very strong personal—feeling, as chairman of the Forests

and Forest Health Subcommittee, that what we’re dealing with

today in our forests is not a result of any one administrative policy.
2

These problems began in probably the 1960’s; they have been continuing through various administrations to the point that we are

at a critical mass now. And, so as we proceed through this hearing,

I just wanted to make sure that that was on the record—that we

need to work together to solve the problems not just in the forests,

but also in the air.

Despite the continued improvement in our fire-fighting capabilities and the seemingly endless budgets for fighting fire, the acreage

burned and the intensity of the fires has increased dramatically in

recent years. Scientists tell us that this is due in part to the increase growth of shade-tolerant trees that have grown up in the

understory of otherwise fire-tolerant forests. And then these smaller trees act as fire ladders to fuel intense wildfires that cannot be

easily suppressed and cause a tremendous amount of damage to

forest resources. Clearly, we need to take action to reduce the fires’

danger in our forests.

The Community Protection and Hazardous Fuels Reduction Act

of 1997, which I introduced earlier this month, is designed to address this need in the highest priority areas: the wildland-urban

interface. My bill provides the Forest Service a much-needed new

tool for dealing with this critical concern. Importantly, a problem

that has taken decades to develop can only be resolved by using all

the tools in the agency’s tool kit.

Secretary Babbitt has taken the lead on promoting the increased

used of prescribed fire on Federal lands; and I understand the Federal land management agencies intend to increase the acreage they

burn each year using prescribed fire by as much as five-times.

And at the same time, our Administrator Browner, just a few

months ago, issued new stricter national ambient air quality standards in the proposed rule to reduce regional haze which appear to

conflict with the land management agencies’ plan to increase burning. As I understand it, these rules will allow for smoke from natural wildfire, but will restrict the land manager’s ability to use prescribed fire.

At a time when the risk of catastrophic fire is so severe, I question our ability to increase burning with out first reducing the

heavy fuels in our over-crowded forests. Forest Service Chief Mike

Dombeck said 40 million acres of national forests are at high risk

of catastrophic fire and we need to act responsibly to improve the

conditions of these lands and ensure that our fire management

policies do not make the situation even worse. But it remains to

be seen whether this is possible under the constraints of the new

and proposed air quality standards.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Vento for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask unanimous consent

that all Members have opportunity to place their opening statements in the record. I put Mr. Miller’s statement in the record,

without objection, Madam?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection so ordered.

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
3

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The subjects of forest fire management and clean air are of significant concern

to many citizens in my home State of California. the fact that we have two cabinet

Secretaries and the EPA Administrator here today is ample evidence of the priority

given to these matters.

Frankly, this administration inherited a huge mess in the western forests. For

years, the professional foresters assured us that clearcutting the biggest and most

mature trees was the best way to manage public forests. While those polices may

have served the short-term interests of the commercial loggers, they have fundamentally changed the nature of our forests. Instead of fire resistant old-growth

trees, we now have too many forests dominated by small diameter, densely packed

trees.

Compounding the problem was the ‘‘Smokey the Bear’’ policy of putting out every

forest fire. Fire is part of the natural system in western forests and the result of

decades of fire exclusion, ironically, is that we now face a situation where so much

fuel has built up that wildfires tend to be larger and more severe.

Some see the threat of forest fires as an excuse to turn back the clock and let

the loggers loose on forests. But the administration is on the right track in increasing the use of preventative treatments such as prescribed burning. We have spent

over a billion dollars in just one year fighting fires and fuels treatment prevention

efforts are much more cost-effective.

Instead of building new roads and subsidizing timber sales in controversial

roadless areas, we ought to be using these taxpayer dollars to make a greater investment in fuels reductions, especially in the roaded areas near communities.

When it comes to the interplay of the new EPA Clean Air standards and prescribed burning, it appears to me that we can and should have both. Without controlled burning, the alternative is greater carbon emissions from high intensity

wildfires.

I look forward to today’s testimony and welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses to the Committee.

Mr. VENTO. Madam Chair, I appreciate you calling the hearing,

and especially from hearing from those Secretaries: my good friend,

Dan Glickman, a classmate, Secretary of Agriculture; Carol Browner, and of course, Secretary Babbitt. I very much appreciate you

being here at this hearing.

I think that the chairwoman has indicated her legislation which

she has advanced, and there are other proposals advanced along

these lines that seem to have as a goal to increase or justify increased harvest of trees in the National public domain and in the

national forests. I think we can get very concerned about that because this type of activity may or may not be related to some of

the dilemmas that we face in terms of managing forests.

I think historically with the revisiting and revamping of forest

management practices and harvest practices it’s become clear that

the reduced revenues have impinged or affected the ability of the

land managers to have some of the revenue that they need to manage these lands. Under some of the Knudsen–Vandenberg and

other laws that exist, we face real challenges with regards to that

today. As a matter of fact, the amount of prescribed burning that

occurs is very much limited by the dollars available to do that. I

think, between BLM and the Forest Service, it is something less

than $50 million is principally aimed at that type of activity.

At the same time, of course, we’re adding hundreds of millions

of dollars to other activities which are geared to assist in terms of

timber harvest. I think that some revisiting of that; if the real goal

here is in terms of trying to reduce fire, than we ought to address

it through that. Plus, I think, a goodly amount of money, nearly a

billion a year at least in some of the bad years, has been used in
4

terms of forest fighting fire. And again, if we can get ahead of the

curve here, we can shift some of those dollars, if we have some

good years, some years that aren’t so dry, to, in fact, try and deal

with avoiding the sort of catastrophic fires that all of us recognize

as being a serious problem.

But this isn’t the problem, really, of these land managers that

are before us today, Madam Chair. It’s a problem that’s been going

on because of 50 years of policy that was attempted to try and control these fires; in many respects doing so. When they failed then,

the fires end up in being very catastrophic. So, it’s really been

based on a new understanding and a recognition of knowledge.

What we’re supposed to do in this particular forum, incidently,

is to translate new information, new knowledge into public policy.

That’s the ideal that we all have.

But we’re faced with certain circumstances, given the history and

given the practices that have occurred in the past, that have compounded many of these issues that we have today. And, obviously

one of the issues that have come up—and I guess some have relished the fact that there could be, in fact, a problem between air

quality goals and trying to manage prescribed burns in the forest.

Clearly, I think most of us recognize an inability to, in fact, deal

with some of the type of catastrophic fires that are reminiscent—

like the Yellowstone fire. We’ve spent, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars, or something of that nature, and still have not been

able to have any positive effect in terms of the outcome.

And I think the gentlewoman has mentioned the urban interface,

and of course, this is something where we really need to have if

we really want to save money in terms of fire-fighting. We need a

lot more cooperation in terms of how the counties and States regulate construction of sites that are within our forests and within the

public domain. And it’s clear that we can’t rewrite history in terms

of people making tens or hundreds of thousands of dollar investments in these urban-forest interface areas, but we can ask States

to begin to address this. In fact, the Forest Service and BLM itself,

under some policies have actually promoted that. There are policies

that go back with regards to leasing, where they have actually promoted some of these long-term leases which in fact compound the

effort to manage the forest and run the risk of safety and health

problems.

So we have to deal with the safety and health issue today, but

clearly, we need to expect the States and counties, as our partners,

to work collaboratively with us to avoid further conflicts of this nature. It gets into urban sprawl; it gets into all sorts of questions—

policy questions, quite frankly—that I think, that for the most part

are not easy answers.

But I understand that the leadership being provided by Secretary

Babbitt, by Secretary Glickman, and by Director Browner are very

much appreciated from my standpoint in terms of trying to come

to grips with this in a contentious and political environment. So,

I appreciate your effort; look forward to your testimony; look forward to working with my colleagues and with the administration

on this issue.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento.
5

I agree with you in part.

[Laughter.]

Mr. VENTO. I’ll have to recheck it.

[Laughter.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That always worries you, doesn’t it?

I want to let you know that we were just called for another vote.

It’s just one vote, and I’m going to just temporarily adjourn the

committee immediately—recess the committee, immediately—to go

take the vote and come right back. There’s just one vote. And, then

they promise us that there won’t be another vote for 30 minutes

to an hour.

[Laughter.]

So this Committee is temporarily recessed.

[Recess.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Committee will come to order.

I am very pleased to introduce our panel of first witnesses: the

Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the

Interior; the Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Honorable Dan Glickman,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Before we continue, I’d like to explain that I intend to place all

witnesses under oath. And, this is a formality of the Committee

that is meant to ensure open and honest discussion and should not

affect the testimony given by witnesses. I’ve been assured by my

staff that the witnesses were all informed of this before appearing

here today and they have each been given a copy of the Committee

rules. And, so, if you would please stand and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

We’d like to proceed with testimony from——

Mr. FARR. Madam Chair?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes?

Mr. FARR. Are we going to do the same thing for Members of the

Committee?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think we’ve had this discussion before, and

I think you understand the rules of the Committee.

I’d like to proceed with testimony from the Honorable Bruce Babbitt. Mr. Babbitt?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE BABBITT,

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary BABBITT. Madam Chairman, Committee Members, I

appreciate the chance to be here and to be with my colleagues Dan

Glickman and Carol Browner. The work that we have done together over the last several years, I think, speaks for itself. And

I emphasize ‘‘together’’ because, I think one of the most unique features of the administration policy that we will discuss briefly, is

that, in fact, it is administration policy which the three of us have

worked out together and with many of our other colleagues.

Madam Chairman, the problem that we come here today to discuss is well understood. The fact is that in many, if not most, of

the inland forests of the West, we have seen large changes in the

composition and structure of forests: a shift in species composition;

in stand structure, characterized in most cases by considerable

crowding and many more trees per acre than historically. With
6

those species shifts and stand-structure shifts have come problems

of: disease; insect infestation; stunted growth as trees compete for

nutrients, and water which is sometimes in scarce supply, and, of

course, the fire hazard issue that we know so well.

The really important study of these issues was done in the Blue

Mountains right across from the Idaho border by Professor Nancy

Langston. And for those who are interested in pursuing these

issues, I highly recommend that book. She makes it crystal clear,

as you suggest, Madam Chairman, that there are related problems

and they go clear back to the 19th century: improper logging practices, over-grazing, and of course, a history of fire suppression. The

three of them together have produced the kinds of fire hazards that

we now see.

Now, the administration response began several years ago in the

form of the Federal wildland fire management policy and program

review, signed off by myself and Secretary Glickman, and concurred in by Administrator Browner. The principal conclusion of

that is, of course, that we must take management and administrative steps to restore the natural fire cycle. These forests in pre-settlement conditions were healthy and vigorous precisely because

they co-evolved with rather regular, less-intense fires that kept

them thinned out and healthy and prevented the situation—the

fuel buildups—which leads to these catastrophic fires that we have

been seeing.

Now, this document has since then been translated into budget

changes which Secretary Glickman and I, on behalf of the administration, have presented to the Appropriation Committees, and

which are, I am pleased to tell you, now being acted favorably upon

by the Appropriation Committees; and we can discuss those to the

extent that you chose to do so. I just want to express my gratitude

to the Appropriation Committees for helping us work through the

necessary adjustments in fire accounts and fire funding to get on

with the implementation of the policy that is reflected here.

Lastly, Madam Chairman, I would urge the Committee, as you

begin looking at these issues, to have a look at not just the paperwork, but at what’s actually happening out on the ground. Because

these administrative changes are now well underway and they are

working exactly as predicted, and I think that the success stories

really merit your careful attention.

I would leave you, briefly, with three examples. The first one, of

course, picked absolutely at random, is on the Boise National Forest in Idaho, where successive forest supervisors have demonstrated strikingly favorable effects with prescribed fire. The foothills fire in 1992 can be compared to the Tiger Creek prescribed

burn, which effectively stopped the wildfire. Another nice example:

the cottonwood prescribed burn-up above Boise which effectively

stopped the 1994 Star Gulch fire.

In California, the California Department of Forestry, the Federal

agencies, have a wonderfully developing experience in the Sierra

Nevada that I would call your attention to—particularly interesting

because the Federal agencies which are managing a new regime

are doing that in cooperation with the San Joaquin Air Quality

District. It’s an example of how we’ve actually handled these air

quality issues out on the ground.
7

Lastly, I would call your attention to a land management project

at Mount Trumbull, north of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, where

Northern Arizona University and the BLM have done a fire-driven,

mechanical-thinning fire restoration project which is producing

merchantable, pole-size ponderosa pine for a re-tool mill in Fredonia, Arizona. I single that one out, in conclusion, because it is my

belief that the restoration of the landscape must be fire-driven;

that mechanical-thinning has a role to play which depends very

much upon the specific landscape, and there are, at least in this

case and some others, some economic benefits that can be derived

from ecologically planned, fire-driven restoration.

Madam Chairman, I see the red light, I appreciate your indulgence in my running overtime, and thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Babbitt may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I don’t know

whether it’s the power of your testimony or what, but is that table

tilted? Or, is it?

[Laughter.]

Ms. BROWNER. Staff requested it.

Secretary GLICKMAN. We’re trying to get as close as we can——

[Laughter.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, sir.

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Browner.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ms. BROWNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Members of

the Committee for inviting us here today. I am pleased to join my

colleagues, Secretary Babbitt, Secretary Glickman, in this discussion on wildland fire management.

Let me say, right at the outset, that the Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the importance of fire as a natural part of

the forest and grassland ecosystem management. Fire releases important nutrients into the soil; they reduce undergrowth and debris

on the forest floor. Fire allows trees and grasses to be more

healthy. We know that fires—particularly planned, prescribed,

managed fires—have been, and will continue to be, an integral part

of keeping forests and our grassland healthy, and that they help

prevent the larger, unplanned, catastrophic wildfires that pose serious threat to public safety.

I want to be very clear about EPA’s position. The primary reason

for coming here today is to assure this Committee, all of the Members, that EPA’s newly updated public health air quality standards

for ozone, for particulate matter, will not—let me be clear about

this—will not hinder the government’s ability to implement sound

fire management programs. It is just that simple.

These new standards, these public health standards, will not

cause prescribed fires to be banned or reduced. They are fully consistent with measures already underway that are designed to minimize any impact these fires might have on air quality and public

health.

These standards are about protecting the public’s health. They

represent the most significant step we have taken in a generation
8

to protect the American people, most particularly our children,

from the health hazards of air pollution. Taken together, they will

protect 125 million Americans, including 35 million children, from

the adverse health effects of breathing polluted air. They will prevent approximately 15,000 premature deaths, about 350,000 cases

of aggravated asthma, and nearly a million cases of significantly

decreased lung-function in children.

Clearly, the best available science shows us that the previous

public health air standards were not adequately protecting Americans from the hazards of breathing polluted air. Revising these

standards, as we did this summer, will bring enormous health benefits to the Nation.

Now, obviously, prescribed fires, natural fires can cause smokecontaining particles that above certain levels would fit the definition of fine particles which would pose a threat to human health.

I think what some people have done, unfortunately, is taken this

to mean that complying with the public health—the more protective air quality standards—will require a reduction, or even an outright prohibition, of managed fires on public land. That is simply

not the case. I have heard—it is a rather tantalizing argument

that’s been put forward by some, I guess you could summarize it

as: EPA air quality standards are bad for forests. Not true; that’s

not the case.

In terms of natural fires, which do occur, on the days that those

occur, the data, the air quality data for those days is excluded. It

is thrown out of the system. It is not a part of how we evaluate

whether or not a particular community’s air meets public health

standards.

In terms of prescribed fires, we think they are an essential—a

valuable—tool, and we would never allow our air standards to inhibit sound forest management practices designed to reduce the

danger of wildfires to humans and to property.

Madam Chairman—Chairwoman—we can have both: clean air,

public health protection, and sensible forest agricultural fire management. We do not have to choose.

We have worked very closely with the Department of Interior,

Department of Agriculture, to carry out their policies to allow for

the sensible implementation of prescribed burning practices. We

have agreed on how best to manage these so they do not contribute

to air quality problems. We will continue with each of these departments, with State and local officials, as we see these policies implemented.

We can accomplish both objectives and protect the public health.

We can use fire as a sensible management tool.

We look forward to answering any questions the committee may

have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Browner may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, the Honorable Dan Glickman.
9

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN GLICKMAN,

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Secretary GLICKMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and it’s an

honor for me to be here, back with some of you who I served with

for so many years.

I would like to introduce the Chief of the Forest Service is with

me, Mike Dombeck, behind me; and Mary Jo Lavin, who’s National

Director of Fire and Aviation at the Forest Service. They are very

knowledgeable about some of the specifics that you might have.

And, I have a longer statement and I would ask that it be included in the record as a whole, and I’ll just make a few comments.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection.

Secretary GLICKMAN. One is to tell you that I have enjoyed the

relationship with Secretary Babbitt, the relationship between the

Department of the Interior and our Department. And, there is an

era of cooperation and collaboration which I don’t think existed in

years past, and I think it is important that we have a national policy, not a USDA policy or a Department of the Interior policy. I believe that exists.

I also would like to say, and I’ve heard this said before, that our

fire policy is not—and I repeat ‘‘not’’—to simply put a match to the

forests. Our policy involves: mechanical forest treatment, budgetstructured changes, new planning priorities, personnel training,

new research, carefully planned prescribed burns, and dozens of

other initiatives to meet this challenge. And, I would like to echo

Secretary Babbitt’s views that the Congress has been most helpful

in terms of giving the resources necessary to do this kind of effort.

Four basic points: No. 1, we cannot eliminate fire totally from the

world, but we must manage it. As you know, and everybody in this

room, that fire is a natural part of the ecosystem; it’s impossible

to totally fireproof a forest, so what we have to do is make a forest’s condition such that a fire does not get out of control.

Fire data shows that fires are getting more frequent, more intense. So the idea is to do fuels treatment as opposed to fire suppression, not only because we keep a forest from burning down, but

the costs are extraordinarily. The Chief tells me that the costs are

about 10 times more to do suppression than to do fuels treatment,

anywhere between $40 per acre for fuels treatment to $400 an acre

for suppression. And as the Chief has stated to you before, over

nearly 40 million acres need fuels management in our forest system and in our total system. So that’s the first issue.

The second issue is: The solutions have to be comprehensive and

sophisticated. As Secretary Babbitt says, they involve a lot of

things: Mechanical fuels treatment, thinning, and harvesting are

important. We estimate that nearly one-half of that 40 million

acres needs some form of mechanical fuels treatment in order to

get into a situation where other forms of treatment are useful. The

budget structure needs to be changed to facilitate appropriate

treatment, more fuels treatment, and in fact, we are working on

that. Employee training has been changed to meet new challenges,

and land management planning addresses new understandings in

fire ecology which we are learning.

Third, is: Solutions are being implemented on the ground today.

The acres of prescribed fire treatments nearly doubled in 1997 from
10

1996, more than meeting the targets that the Forest Service, and

the folks at the Department of the Interior had planned upon. The

area of fuels treatments have doubled from 1992. Safety policies

have reduced injuries and fatalities since the catastrophic fires in

the early 1990’s. And, research programs, particularly our Research

Forest Products Lab in Madison, Wisconsin, have refocused on

many aspects of fire management as well as alternative uses for

some of the wood products that have had not a lot of value in times

past.

The fourth point I would make is: The collaboration is there.

There is effective collaboration with EPA on air quality issues, and

Interior and Agriculture are working together to coordinate policies. We are also working with State foresters, western Governors,

local units of government; we provide assistance, including monetary assistance, to local firefighters in order to facilitate more efficient and effective management.

And, I would finally point out, which you already know: When

there are fires, we do not fight these fires as independent agencies.

There is a fire center, in which the fires are fought as if there is

a war on. And the battle is to extinguish that fire; and the soldiers

in that fire are all the elements of the Federal and State and local

governments working under a management scheme that’s appropriate to that particular fire. And, you know, fire knows no boundaries, nor should its organization know any one chief, so to speak,

to run the fire. It’s based upon who has the knowledge, where it’s

located, and who is involved. And, I think that’s one of the reasons

why we’ve really made some successes in the last two or 3 years

that we want to continue forward.

And I thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Glickman may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I certainly am

pleased with the work that has been pulled together by a number

of agencies at the Boise Interagency Fire Center; that is remarkable.

Chair now recognizes Mr. Schaffer from Colorado.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I have a number of questions. One, Ms. Browner, did I hear—

you mentioned that the quality regulations are relaxed on those

days that it is known that a fire has taken place?

Ms. BROWNER. It’s not a question of them being relaxed. In determining whether or not a particular area meets the public health air

quality standards for fine particles, data is collected over an extended period of time, generally a 3-year period of time. If within

that 3-year period of time you had a wildfire, for example, the data

for that day or for those days on which the wildfire was burning

would simply be excluded from the data base.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Do you anticipate that to also be true on those

days when a prescribed burn is known to have taken place?

Ms. BROWNER. Well, the first thing with respect to prescribed

burns is that they be done following specific guidelines that are designed to speak to air quality benefits and public health and safety

concerns. What we have found—and we are working with the Department of Agriculture in terms of prescribed burns, both on for-
11

est lands and agricultural lands—is that the vast majority of these

can be sensibly managed and not in any way contribute to an air

quality problem. What it generally means is that you have to burn

under certain weather conditions. Frequently, those are the same

kind of weather conditions that you would be using for public safety reasons; you need to be monitoring in a particular way. I mean

this is just——

Mr. SCHAFFER. But, because of those guidelines, you have no

plans to exempt the measurement, similar to the way you do for

wildfires? Is that correct?

Ms. BROWNER. We’re completing our work with the Department

of Agriculture on the prescribed burning policies and that is certainly something we can look at, which is if a prescribed burn were

to perhaps get out of control, if it were to create a data problem—

again it’s many years of data that you select—of what we would

do with that particular data point.

Mr. SCHAFFER. So you are studying this and considering it, but

there are no plans to exempt those days where prescribed burn

takes place. Is that accurate?

Ms. BROWNER. No, that’s not accurate.

Mr. SCHAFFER. OK, tell me again what you said. Maybe I——

Ms. BROWNER. What I said is that we are now working with the

Department of Agriculture to ensure that we have an agreed-upon

set of guidelines, if you will, for managing prescribed burns. If

someone follows those guidelines, if they manage their prescribed

burn pursuant to those guidelines, then everything is fine; there’s

no problem.

Mr. SCHAFFER. And no exemption on those days for the——

Ms. BROWNER. There won’t—if you do it, they’re designed to

make sure that you don’t contribute to the air quality problem.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Right.

Ms. BROWNER. You know we’re preventing pollution the way——

Mr. SCHAFFER. Right, I understand the intent. I just want to establish that it’s your belief that, by burning these on effective time

schedules, that meet your concerns that there will, in your opinion,

be no necessity; therefore, there will be no exemptions from——

Ms. BROWNER. No one’s going to be taken to task for utilizing a

prescribed burn pursuant to the guidelines.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Are you familiar with the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission study in 1990? It involved eight western States at considerable cost, about $8 million over the course of

4 years. That report found that land managers, in fact, were the

largest source of air quality degradation. In fact, the 20 worst days

were linked to forest fires and controlled burns included in that.

Has—tell us how these new regulations in a prescribed burn—the

policy to increase prescribed burning by 400 percent corresponds to

the Grand Canyon Visibility Study and the recommendations that

the Commission made?

Ms. BROWNER. I mean, there shouldn’t be any problem. Again, if

it is a wildfire, and I don’t know which events you’re talking about

within that study, but if it is a wildfire, if it is something outside

of a prescribed burn, then the data point, the air quality monitoring data point——
12

Mr. SCHAFFER. I’m talking about prescribed burns. That was the

result of this Commission, was to basically fix a large portion of responsibility, in fact an inordinate portion of responsibility, on public lands managers associated with controlled burns.

Ms. BROWNER. We agree. We think controlled burns are an absolutely essential tool, both in terms of managing our forests, managing our agricultural lands, and quite frankly, managing our air

quality. We would rather have a prescribed burn and avoid, obviously, all of the problem, not the least of which are public safety,

associated with wildfires. It’s just common sense.

Mr. SCHAFFER. The increase in controlled burns is on the order

of about 400 percent by the proposal that Secretaries Glickman and

Babbitt have suggested. Once again, in studying the air quality

problems that western States have confronted, in an 8-State region,

it was determined that the existing controlled burn strategies by

public lands managers contributed inordinately to air quality problems that we have in the West. Now, increasing controlled burns

by 400 percent, is—I think you’re going to have a hard case to

make to suggest that this is going to somehow improve air quality

standards and not threaten the new standards at all—certainly not

in a way that is to the detriment to all of our other efforts, whether

it’s auto emissions or manufacturers or whatever the case may be.

Ms. BROWNER. We believe that you can manage prescribed burns

in a way that does not contribute to air pollution problems—it’s

just that simple—including the proposals that have been put forward by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior.

You know, to suggest that somehow or another people need to

choose between having a sensible forest management strategy, including prescribed burn and clean air, it’s just not accurate. I’ll be

honest with you, that is not what we—that is not a choice the public needs to make. They can have both, and they should have both,

and that’s what these policies will allow for.

Secretary GLICKMAN. May, I just make one quick comment,

Madam Chair?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Glickman.

Secretary GLICKMAN. I would note that we have seen in 1997,

about 1 million acres in prescribed burns, which is a significant increase over 1996, and I don’t believe there were any violations of

EPA standards at all in that. Because, you know, we have been

working with them very closely. I would also say——

Mr. SCHAFFER. Is that the new standards?

Secretary GLICKMAN. Well, we’ve just been working with them

based upon our general collaboration. But the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, as you mentioned, did produce some

dialog with air quality agencies, stakeholders like Federal land

management agencies in States which have led to some commonsense changes in mechanical and chemical fuels treatment and also

additional support for biomass energy production and research that

we’re doing in mitigation smoke emissions. So, I think that that

Commission has helped us in terms of making sure our prescribed

burns are done correctly and without it contributing to air quality

problems.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
13

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Vento.

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Madam Chair.

It’s sort of the way we sit here—they’ve had this Western Pacific

problem in terms of how not to manage rainforests in terms of

what’s happening there and in terms of the deforestation and some

of the problems associated with it. So, obviously, forests and burning of forests can contribute substantially to air quality problems.

But isn’t it true, Secretary Babbitt, Secretary Glickman, that in

the various management plans for the land that you, in fact, take

into account that they are, in fact, consistent with—they go

through EIS; they go through a process where you’re actually working collaboratively to say we’re going to treat this land or this forest or this BLM district in a certain manner and a part of it could

be or is prescribed burn? It is an effort to get rid of these fuel

loads; you provide for thinning and you provide, obviously in some

cases, for harvest where appropriate. Secretary Babbitt?

Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Vento, I would make this point: A properly constructed prescribed fire program will improve air quality on

a running average over the air quality you would have without the

prescribed fire program. And, I must tell you, anybody who has

ever been in a fire camp on a wildfire will understand that with

no further explanation.

Mr. VENTO. But I’m just saying that the plans that we have for

the land—I understand that, Mr. Secretary, but, obviously, there

are some questions being raised about it, but I’m just trying to reassure those that have these——

Secretary BABBITT. Oh, sure the plans——

Mr. VENTO. The plans actually provide for—and they go through

an EIS, and they go through—so they are consistent with current

and whatever future policy rules and regulations that——

Secretary BABBITT. The plans must comply with the local air

quality management regulations. We went through that back in the

1980’s, when the superintendent of Yosemite National Park, running a management prescription, got a citation from the adjoining

county for violating air quality standards. Then and there, we resolved that issue by saying we’re going to sit down in advance and

we’re going to comply with the local air quality management plans,

and it’s done routinely.

Mr. VENTO. Well, for that matter, I mean, Secretary Glickman,

when the Forest Service has a harvest area, don’t they have some

slash that sometimes is burned as well? And so that also has to

comply with the air standards; is that correct? It isn’t just this prescribed burning? Well, I mean it does, if they—if it’s a non-attainment area, if there’s some other problems, they may say you have

to treat that slash in a different way?

Secretary GLICKMAN. Correct.

Mr. VENTO. You know, so, it’s—what you’re pointing out is—and

I’m very impressed that the fact that the Forest Service has this

aggressive plan and I hope that we can continue funding it faced

with the budget realities that we do.

But, Mr. Secretary, Secretary Babbitt, I notice you have 55 million acres that you say need treatment. And you know, the best bet

that you have on the chart that I have there looks like within
14

about three or four years we might hit a million. So, based on that,

and based on sort of a recurring problem here, isn’t it—would it be

accurate to say that, you know, this 50-year plan is probably one

that should be accelerated, if possible?

Secretary BABBITT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think both the Forest

Service and our agencies have a similar fix on this. There is no way

that we can make up a century of accumulated problems in 5 years

or 10 years. Now, the targets for the Interior Department are: We’d

like to get up to about a little over 2 million acres a year by the

year 2000. And that’s against a total acreage needing treatment of

55 million. Now, if that were all the same kind of land, that would

mean a 25-year rotation. And, that’s probably not adequate, because most of this land probably needs a fire rotation of more like

the order of 5 to 15 years, something like that. But it’s a significant

start, and if we use good judgment in setting priorities, I think it’s

a very adequate approach.

Priorities, obviously, for the Forest Service would be Lake Tahoe,

urban-wildland interface; for us, similar areas around western cities. Other priorities would look at the stands that have been badly

damaged by insect outbreaks, that kind of thing, but those are

judgments that I think we can make.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I appreciate that. One of the issues I raised,

Secretary Glickman, was the issue of the urban-forest interface,

and the Forest Service especially with its leasing programs sometimes has actually contributed to that. I talked about collaboration

with the States and counties. Obviously, we need to spend a lot of

money, and much of what is spent on fire-fighting today is spent

in terms of health and safety because we have that urban-forest

interface. Do you have any comments on that, and any types of programs?

It’s, obviously, not exactly what you want to hear in terms of the

coming from Washington trying to tell people what their local zoning ought to be, but—and so it does represent a serious concern.

I’m not implying that you should do that, or Secretary Babbitt; I

think you’ve got enough difficulty with the responsibilities that you

have. But, I think we should expect States and counties to, in fact,

respond to, in fact, help us with and eliminate the need for suppression in these instances. Mr. Secretary?

Secretary GLICKMAN. I would ask the Chief to respond. Just

quickly, I would say that we are doing our best to try to train these

fire departments in the areas of urban interface, cooperatively, in

terms of how to respond better, getting information—communications—out in terms of fire prevention techniques.

I was up the Buffalo Creek fire myself, right outside of Denver

where that particular fire occurred, and seeing the number of people who were involved in camping activities very close to the Denver area, this is a very high priority. But the Chief, I’d like him

to, if possible, respond.

Mr. DOMBECK. With the permission of the Subcommittee Chairman?

Secretary GLICKMAN. Why don’t you identify yourself for the

record?

Mr. DOMBECK. Mike Dombeck from the Forest Service. I’d just

like to say our—in the new fire plans that we have—our top prior-
15

ity is dealing with the urban-wildland interface. In the planning

process, in our response, and that, you know, I think, because, you

know, these residences get there by a variety of reasons. But, when

you travel in the West, and in any parts of the country, and when

you see the 5-acre lots, the 10-acre lots, with dense forests around

them with fuel problems, I think, that really paints the picture for

us.

Mr. VENTO. Well, Madam Chairman, one of our best allies is

communities like Portland where they’re trying to deal with the

urban sprawl, and I just think that this all comes together and we

have an interest in it. I won’t be able to return after this vote,

Madam Chair, because of the Eximbank legislation is going to be

next on the foreign. They need my help.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Vento. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Administrator Browner, we’ve had discussions on the new clean

air standards, and, as you know, I’ve had my problems with the

new standards considering the fact, you know, California probably

cannot meet its existing standards until at least 2010. And, as was

pointed out in an editorial that was in a recent Science magazine

issue talking about the lack of science on particulates, primarily of

2.5 and below, is lacking at best. But saying all of that, my logic

obviously wasn’t listened to and we’re moving on to these new

clean air standards. There may be discussions about this in the

halls of Congress later this session; we’ll find out.

But back to the issue at hand, and that’s the forest fires and how

that’s going to be handled. You know, I’m from the South Coast Air

Basin, probably the most polluted air quality in the United States.

However, we’ve done a particularly good job, I think, in the last 50

years, and we’re celebrating our 50th anniversary of cleaned-up air.

As a matter of fact, Jerry Lewis, my colleague, wrote one of the

first clean air acts in the United States, and we’ve made great

progress. And, by the way, Jerry has his problems with this new

standard also.

But saying that, fires, when they occur—and by the way, fire

suppression in California, you know, we’ve gotten it down to an art;

we have more fires than anybody else in this country and we do

a pretty good job of getting them out, though we hear about the

ones we don’t put out. That’s one of the problems. We have a lot

of land that needs to be burned off, probably more, I suspect, then

most areas in this country. And because of that, and because of

these new clean air standards, even though you’re not going to put

them into effect until 2010, is to say that the fire days themselves

are the days in which they will be removed from the formula in

which we’re going to put together both our ozone standards and our

particulate standards. Those particulates hang around for a few

days. It’s like in-laws, you know, once they come, they stick around.

Ms. BROWNER. We’ll take those out. We’ll take the in-laws out.

Mr. CALVERT. Those things have got to be considered when you

put together those averages. Because we have the—we consider in

southern California, particularly from the district that I represent—the law of unintended consequences. I don’t think the flow-
16

er-loving, delphi sandfly was supposed to shut down the 10 freeway

either, and discussions of that occurring, you know, scares a lot of

people. And, these air standards scare a lot of people. And, I would

hope that, if in fact these go forward, that we can make sure that

these are common sense and not the irrational regulations that we

have experienced in my area before.

Ms. BROWNER. Well, first of all, we would also join you in applauding the South Coast Air Resource Board for the work that

they have done. They have not only done a good turn for your part

of the country, but in many ways for the rest of the country. We

have all learned, from many of the efforts they have been engaged

in, how best to find the common-sense, cost-effective solutions to

air pollution and provide the public health benefits.

In terms of forest fires, as I said earlier, don’t create an ozone

problem. The question is, obviously, the fine particles. And, I want

to be absolutely clear, that where you have a wildfire, a natural

event, it is absolutely our intention—we have been talking to the

States about this to ensure that—the air quality data collected

around that event is not included. You know, it just wouldn’t make

any sense to us. I mean, why do we want to put something into

the data base that is beyond everybody’s control? What this is

about is getting people clean air in a sensible manner. So you have

our commitment that those days, as you say, the in-laws on the

front end or the back end, whatever——

Mr. CALVERT. Forgive me for being suspicious, and I understand

your intent, it’s what really happens that I’m concerned about. Because, in the years that this is imposed, I suspect that many of us

won’t be here in Washington.

Ms. BROWNER. Well, I can assure you I won’t be here.

Mr. CALVERT. Secretary Babbitt may be back in Phoenix, and I’ll

be back in Riverside, and we want to make sure that these laws

are being imposed on people the way we say they are and not down

the road when we get into issues like the Endangered Species Act,

where we get into some pretty interesting fights around here.

Ms. BROWNER. But, I wouldn’t ask you to simply take our word;

we have committed, and are in the process now of, and have already put portions of the implementation strategy in the public

record. All of this goes into a Federal Register notice. I mean, no

one is being asked to take anyone’s word here. What I am explaining to you is how we have articulated a common-sense strategy

particularly designed to deal with these kinds of events, and it will

be in writing, and it will be in the Federal Register.

Mr. CALVERT. That makes me feel better.

Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield to me? Gentleman yield to

me?

Mr. CALVERT. Whatever time I have left.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I know we’ve got to go for a vote, but I was

just going to point that they don’t include in the record natural forest fires; and when the plan for this is you deal with humidity,

wind, fireload, in terms of dryness, and so forth, so there are a lot

of different factors that go into it that minimize the air quality

problems.

Ms. BROWNER. Madam Chair? If I might just——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. Browner?
17

Ms. BROWNER. There are monitors out there right now, a monitoring network measuring 2.5. We do not have a 2.5 violation

where there has been a fire. So, it hasn’t happened. I understand

why people are raising the concern, and we should speak to it and

ensure that if it ever does happen, we know how to manage it. But

we have records already, and it is not happening; the concern that

people are raising has not yet occurred. But that doesn’t mean that

we won’t speak to it in The Federal Register.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Ms. Browner. When we return, if

Ms. Christian–Green will yield her time to Mr. Farr who’s asked

for it, we’ll return immediately to Mr. Farr. We only have a little

less than 5 minutes on our vote. So——

Mr. FARR. Make a quick statement, Madam Chair, that’s all I

wanted to make.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I’m afraid we’re going to have to temporarily

recess, so we can go for our vote.

Secretary BABBITT. Madam Chair, if I may, I have a 12:30 appointment, and if you will be willing to do without my presence, I

would be very grateful.

Ms. BROWNER. I have a 12:25.

[Laughter.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Secretary, I’m very sorry about these

votes and, yes, I do see you only have 9 minutes to make your appointment. But, we do need—Mr. Glickman, if you can remain; Ms.

Browner, if you can remain.

Secretary GLICKMAN. My problem is that I think I have the same

appointment as Mr. Babbitt. But, I can be here about 15 more minutes—15 or 20 more minutes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think, then, what the Chair will do is simply

say that we will submit our questions in writing to all of you, and

if we could receive your responses early on, I would very much appreciate it.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Secretary GLICKMAN. I would also say, Mr. Dombeck, I will have

him remain, the Chief of the Forest Service, if you would like to

have that?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would appreciate that very much. And, if

Ms. Browner has to leave, if someone could remain to answer questions for you?

Ms. BROWNER. Certainly.

Secretary BABBITT. And, I will leave Jim Douglas as my proxy.

[Laughter.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, thank you very

much.

[Recess.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Committee will come to order.

Mr. Kildee?

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the way you

are handling all these votes, and I appreciate the witnesses’ understanding. I think the only person who really understood the votes

was Dan Glickman, having served in this body for about 18 years.

I have one question: It was stated that about 55 million acres of

land are candidates for prescribed burning and we’re doing about

1 million acres a year and we’d like increase that to 2 million. How
18

many additional acres, however, are being added to that figure by

the same forces of nature that have caused this present situation?

Per year, how many additional acres might be added? I’m trying

to figure out how we’re really making progress on this, because I

am sure there are additional candidates for that category.

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, the—and we will try to get—I can’t give you

a specific acreage, but we will try to be as specific as we can on

a written response. But, what I can tell you is that from the standpoint of the 191 million acres in the National Forest System lands,

our goal is to treat up to 3 million acres per year. And, at that rate

we would be where we want to be by 2012.

And, as Secretary Glickman mentioned earlier, our target this

year, this current year that’s ending the fiscal year ending tomorrow?—today—we had planned on doing 750,000 acres, and we

reached 1 million. The reason we were able to exceed our targets

is because we had a fairly easy fire year, the weather conditions,

and we had additional resources we could deploy in a—to deal with

some of the problems, rather than—we were blessed with an easy

fire year from the standpoint of suppression. I guess I can’t speak

for Interior on acreage.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOUGLAS. For the Department of the Interior, I would say

the same thing that Mike has said: We will provide more detailed

figures for the record. But, you’re correct, when there is wildfire—

natural ignitions—a lot of times those are occurring in areas that

we would otherwise be treating with management-ignited fires at

some point. Of course, not all. And, take for example, the fire that

is just happening right now outside Sacramento, that’s clearly an

area that we wouldn’t be burning deliberately, certainly under

those kinds of conditions and circumstances. So we couldn’t count

that as a fuel-treatment acre.

[The information referred to follows:]
19
20
21
22
23
24

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Douglas, excuse me.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I’m sorry.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you state your name for the record?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Oh, I’m sorry, I’m Jim Douglas with the Department of the Interior.

So there is a combination there of some of the natural ignitions

certainly will count against those acres.

Mr. KILDEE. OK. Well, get the figures both for BLM and the Forest Service about how many acres, just by the same forces of nature, might be added each year, so we’ll see how much progress we

are making hopefully by 2012. I assume you have factored that into

that expectation for 2012?

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, the challenge is a net gain.

Mr. KILDEE. Right. Knowing quite well that they are quite different, and I know they are horribly different and—but the fires

that are occurring in Malaysia, have you studied what they have

done wrong over there, and are they in turn studying what you are

doing right over here?

Ms. LAVIN. Yes. I’m Mary Jo Lavin from the Forest Service. Yes,

we have looked at those acres, and we have looked at the problem

in Indonesia. We have actually four teams that have gone in the

past, from the early 1990’s. We have had several teams that have

gone over and provided training for them in fire-fighting. We actually had a combination four-person crew that went over recently—

just returned 2 days ago—that included three members from the

Forest Service and it also had a person from Interior. What we did

was provide training for them, as we have in the past, for their

management as well as their crews. We know what they’re doing

that is a problem; that’s a decision of their government to continue

those practices.

Mr. KILDEE. I appreciate your answer. I have been very concerned about that and I encourage you to continue to do what you

are doing. I think it’s very important.

If I could ask just one additional question—I have in my folder

here, this is probably to Sally Shavers; is she still here? It says,

‘‘Projected non-attainment counties for the PM 2.5 and ozone revised,’’ and I don’t see any source of where this—is this from EPA

or not? Are you familiar with this document?

Ms. SHAVERS. No, sir, I’m not familiar with the one you have. I

know there is a projected list, but those are not based on——

Mr. KILDEE. I think—could you take a look at the one there and

see if that’s from EPA. I always like to know the source of—there’s

no authority on here.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Let me ask counsel.

Ms. SHAVERS. No, sir, that’s not ours.

Mr. KILDEE. It’s not yours. OK, all right.

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. Staff provided that for the information of

the Members.

Mr. KILDEE. Who provided that?

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. We received that from the American Petroleum Institute.

Mr. KILDEE. From the American Petroleum Institute. OK. I think

it’s very important, Madam Chair, if we could give the source for

these things, because EPA putting it out and American Petroleum
25

Institute, they might have a different perspective or different way

of counting. I appreciate that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In my desire to make sure that the Committee

was afforded as much time as possible while Mr. Dombeck was

here, I neglected a responsibility of mine and that is to make sure

that all the witnesses are identified and that they are all sworn in.

And, so, I wonder if you could stand and raise your right hands

please.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Can we start for the record with the identification of the witnesses with Mr. Dombeck? Mr. Mike Dombeck.

And then next is——

Ms. LAVIN. Mary Jo Lavin.

Mr. DOMBECK. She is Director of Fire and Aviation of the Forest

Service.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes; and then next?

Ms. SHAVER. Sally Shaver with EPA, Director of the Air Quality

Strategies and Standards Division.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Mr. DOUGLAS. And, I’m Jim Douglas of the Department of the Interior in fire policy.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. And while we knew who you were,

we wanted to make sure that the record was very clear.

So with that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Pombo.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Ms. Browner said that the forest fires would be exempt from the

standards, or that that period of time when the fire was burning

would be exempted and that something would be worked out similar to that on prescribed fires. Why, and I know she said it just

made common sense, but why is it being exempted? I mean, it happened?

Ms. SHAVER. What we are doing—we have a natural events policy which was published in 1996, which for wildfires that are under

active suppression, we discount those data where standards are

violated because those were not controlled; they were not instigated

by man and that kind of thing. What we’re looking at in the policy,

and we’ve not finished with that yet, is some—if you are in accordance with the land management plans which are part of the—go

through the NEPA process—and you’ve addressed the air quality

issues, then we don’t envision there will always be air quality

standard violations. In fact, if you manage the burns appropriately,

there probably won’t be. In the event that the weather conditions

might change, or in the event that we didn’t follow through correctly on the burns, we didn’t follow the prescription for the fire,

then we would say that there might be some—there could be a violation at that point in time. Then the appropriate response would

be taken to that. However, if you’re following the prescription, and

you get an air quality violation, then we don’t think that there

should be a non-attainment designation based on that. And that’s

the type of policy that we’re trying to put together right now.

Mr. POMBO. Are there other natural events that are not controlled by man that are exempted as well?
26

Ms. SHAVER. Yes, the natural events policy addresses dust

storms as well as volcanoes, including the wildfires.

Mr. POMBO. What about weather patterns, unnatural weather

patterns? Is that also exempted as well?

Ms. SHAVER. No; of course, the unnatural weather patterns

would be a part of the dust storm aspect, but then that’s based on

whether the soil conditions and the wind conditions in that area

would constitute an unusual event.

Mr. POMBO. I wanted to ask the Forest Service, I know, Mr.

Dombeck had to leave, but how are the wilderness areas—and this

I guess would involve Interior as well—how are they going to do

prescribed fires in those particular areas?

Ms. LAVIN. We will continue to do prescribed fires, regardless of

location, but particularly, since you asked, on the wilderness areas,

as we have in the past. We will use primarily natural causes but

we do have the authority, and will use as we have in the past,

management ignitions, if that would be more appropriate. We will

look to follow the same regulations that we have followed in the

past; there will be no change, because these are the Federal fire

policy or the new air quality policy.

Mr. POMBO. Why is it preferable to allow a fire to burn, whether

it’s natural or man-made, than to do mechanical thinning?

Ms. LAVIN. I’m sorry, sir, I didn’t hear the last part of your question.

Mr. POMBO. Why is it preferable to allow a fire to burn, whether

its natural or man-made, in preference to mechanical thinning or

other management techniques?

Ms. LAVIN. Right. There are times when it isn’t preferable. What

we do is in the preplanning process, in the planning process, and

looking at it ahead of time, and looking at what is the best way

to manage those resources, we make options and make those

choices. There are times, for example, when we cannot use fire as

an appropriate tool because the biomass is so great that we would

start a catastrophic fire ourselves. And that is basically what the

situation that you have in Indonesia, which was the question asked

earlier.

We must follow a prearranged plan, and that plan tells us what

are the most effective ways to manage that resource. And in times,

in fact, in about 50 percent of the lands that the Forest Services

manages across the Nation, we feel that we will need to use mechanical treatment prior to our introducing a regular regime of prescribed fire.

Mr. POMBO. About 50 percent?

Ms. LAVIN. About 50 percent nationally. In some of the States in

the West—for example, the State of Montana—we know that they

have told us there that only 10 percent will be able to use fire as

the first means of managing those resources. So we will work our

way toward using fire, low-intensity fire, which is a more natural

process than the mechanical treatment.

Mr. POMBO. It seems like in the last several months a real emphasis has been placed on controlled burns, on fire; and logging the

forests, cutting out the trees of any kind, has been decreased dramatically in recent years. How do you go about making that deci-
27

sion as to when it’s best to let something burn or to light a fire

versus allowing someone to go in and thin the trees?

Ms. LAVIN. Those decisions are made on a site-specific basis. So

they are made as a local decision.

In the planning process, when you’re looking at the prescribed

fire, or you’re looking at the land management plan, you’re involving the public. That’s the advantage that we have over the wildfire,

which doesn’t involve anyone when it actually happens. So, in the

planning process we’re making those decisions, but making those

decisions with the local ‘‘experts,’’ and I’m putting quotations

marks around that, as well as the public who are living there who

have very expert opinions about the place where they live. So we’re

making those decisions together on what is the best way to treat

that particular area.

Mr. POMBO. So those decisions will be made locally and they will

not be made back here?

Ms. LAVIN. Very definitely. They have to be made locally. We can

make general policy, and we do, from a national basis, but when

we actually look at implementing that policy, that is a site-specific,

local decision involving—especially in the planning process—involving all the publics.

Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I have just one additional question for the Department of Interior. One of the issues that has arisen around the forest over the past several years has been the issue

of endangered species within those particular forests. How is it

going to be handled to go into a particular forest and light it on

fire with the endangered species that may exist there, or the potential habitat? One of the issues that has been raised quite a bit in

recent years is that, even though the species may not be there currently, it’s potential habitat—and I think most of the forests that

we’ve talked about are potential habitat—for an endangered species.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me address that by also addressing the last

two questions you asked as well.

All of the work on land management practices, forest management practices, is done in accordance with the planning process.

So, whether it’s harvesting of timber or burning or managing for

a particular wildlife species or for recreation, whatever, it’s all

based on land management planning, and all of the Federal agencies have roughly similar land management planning practices. So,

in the course of that planning, we would consider all of the resource management issues involved, including endangered species:

what’s there now, what the habitat is, what it needs to survive,

what’s in the area, that sort of thing.

We would look at, in particular with relationship with fire, the

role in that particular area that fire has historically played in

maintaining and sustaining a healthy and natural system there. In

many cases, those endangered species depend on a particular vegetative forest type that’s driven by fire in order to survive. So there’s

not necessarily a direct conflict between an endangered species

population or an endangered species habitat and the use of fire,

and in fact, we may want to use fire to maintain suitable habitat

for that.
28

So, the answer is: through the planning process, through the

analysis of scientific information, other management constraints,

including socio-, and political, economic constraints, we’ll look at

what our resource options are, what makes sense from an ecological standpoint, what makes sense from other land management

standpoints, and take appropriate management actions. It may be

a combination of fire, use of mechanical treatments, depending on

what our constraints are and what we’re trying to manage for.

So, endangered species becomes one of the factors that are considered. It’s not the only factor; it fits in there along with everything else.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. The Chair recognizes

Mr. Doolittle.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me ask the

Forest Service, if 50 percent of the public forest land in the country

is deemed to be unsuitable for prescribed burn, what would be the

percentage you estimate in the State of California.

Ms. LAVIN. I can’t answer that with exact percentages, Mr. Doolittle. I can do that by checking with our region and I will get back

to you in writing.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. And, you might break it down, too, by, you

know, the sections of the State: the Sierra Nevadas, for example.

The area that’s on fire now, which I believe is Yuba County, is that

an area that is deemed unsuitable for prescribed fire?

Ms. LAVIN. Well, it would be unsuitable for the Federal Government to be doing prescribed fire there because those particular

lands that are involved in the two large fires in California, I believe, are on private land that is protected by the State of California.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What about the public lands in that region? Do

you know their suitability for prescribed burn that are on public

land?

Ms. LAVIN. I can’t speak to them specifically. I looked at the details of the two fires and I questioned the ownership of the fire because I saw that they were in—that the fires were in 60- to 70-year

old timber with a high accumulation.

I can’t answer that, but they are the factors that we would use

as we look at those and get the specific figures for you. We would

look at what was the fire regime in that area, and I would be asking the region to tell me what, how they had planned to treat that

area.

We have an interesting study that our research people have developed and that is a simulated exercise. We did it on one of the

forests in California following the Huffer fire, so it was on the

Lassen National Forest. And we looked at that, what was the historic land cover, and we have that data across the Nation for all

of the forests, national forest lands. And we looked at what is the

current land cover there, and we saw that with the current land

cover, for example, with fire having been suppressed in that area,

that the fire intensity, the length of the flame, for example, currently with the present ground cover would be much greater than

it was historically when fire was a natural part of the process.
29

And, so it’s that kind of use of research, use of the expertise that

is local to that community, that we’d use in the planning process,

and that we will use in getting back to you and giving you an answer on the question relative to the Sierra Nevadas.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. For a long time the Forest Service and the experts behind it believed that suppression of fire was the appropriate public policy. Is that not the case?

Ms. LAVIN. That’s very much the case, Mr. Doolittle. We also—

I know I used to work for the State of Washington, before I came

to the Forest Service—came into the Forest Service—and I know

that the State agencies, for example, used to call their divisions of

fire or their programs, ‘‘fire control,’’ because we thought, at that

time, that we could control fire.

Yellowstone taught us a lot of important lessons, and then we

have learned a lot since that time. And, I’m hopeful that we will

continue to learn in the process. We have learned a lot of things

about fire. We didn’t realize in the past that they had—that fires

were like floods—and that you had regular, recurring basis for both

events.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You brought up Yellowstone. It’s my understanding we do not manage the forests on national parklands. Is

that correct?

Ms. LAVIN. Let me ask Mr. Douglas to answer your question specific to the national parks, although I just was out there last week

and saw both the national park and the Bridger Teton National

Forest, and there is a difference in the way we manage. But let me

turn that question, if that’s all right with you, sir, over to Mr.

Douglas to answer.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, Yellowstone National Park is a National

park, of course, but the same basic rules apply. And that is: There

are land management, resource management plans, that are done

and they’re based on the underlying purpose of that land unit. In

the case of the national park, it’s not managed for resource production in the same way that many national forests are; it’s managed

more for its natural conditions. So they’re probably going to have

different fire policies, fire strategies, and land management strategies than they are adjacent. But they’re all going to be based on,

in both cases, what is the historic fire regime; what works best for

restoring and sustaining healthy natural systems there.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So, do they remove understory on National

parks?

Mr. DOUGLAS. If it’s appropriate to do so. One of the things we

have to remember is that a forest is not a forest, is not a forest;

and the kind of forest we’re talking about in the greater Yellowstone area is much different than we’re talking about further west

in the inland West there. Ponderosa pine——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, let’s talk, in the Yosemite area, for example?

Mr. DOUGLAS. In the Yosemite area? Well, if things were going

normally, and that is, we hadn’t suppressed fires, as you point out

for so long, we wouldn’t have to go in and mechanically remove because fire would have—low-intensity frequent fires would have—removed a lot of that understory. We believe, in many cases—and

this is what’s going on in Sequoia Kings Canyon National Park
30

right now—that we’re able to, with judicious use of fire, and I think

they’re doing that as we speak, remove some of that understory

with fire. If there are cases in which it is too thick, it’s too close

to structures or other high-value resources, we’ll go in and do some

kind of removal in order to facilitate the reintroduction of fire. But,

ultimately, we want—the goal is—to place fire back in there in a

role it played historically.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is it not, though, indeed, the case that in much,

at least in California, if not—well, we’ve heard 50 percent of the

Nation—that they, the forests, are so choked with over-growth now

that you could not safely use prescribed burning as a way of clearing out the understory?

Mr. DOUGLAS. And, that’s exactly, I think, what both Secretaries

said earlier today, which is: We need to use fire along with mechanical treatments to get back to a point where fire can safely be

used. In some cases we can go straight to fire. In many cases, I

think, that’s what the Forest Service has been talking about with

the 50 percent number; some mechanical treatments are necessary

before we can use fire. In some cases we’re always going to use mechanical because of the proximity to the communities, and so on.

So we need to use all of those tools, not any one by themselves.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Here’s the question I’ve never had a satisfactory

answer to. Let me pose it to you, or any of you there. It’s my understanding, from testimony we’ve had before this Committee and others that I sit on, that the annual rate of growth on forests exceeds

the annual removal of timber by like four or five to one. And my

question to you is one: Do you accept those figures? And, two, if you

accept those figures, how can we ever prevent catastrophic forest

fires from occurring when we talk about some mechanical

thinning? You’d have to quadruple the size of the Forest Service

and have emergency regulation to hire logging teams to go in and

log beyond historical standards to ever even hope to catch up with

this. And, I’d like to know how you see us getting out of this dilemma.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I don’t know the specific number that you’re referring to, but I will say if you think about back before at least European settlement of this continent, there was a balance: Trees grew

and either they died and fell down or they were burned or some

combination thereof.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, let me just jump in on that note. I mean,

why do we assume that these were not managed before European

settlement. We know for a fact the Indians managed the forests.

And is there any reason to believe they weren’t managing the forests before Europeans arrived?

Mr. DOUGLAS. There’s ample evidence that indigenous peoples

where in fact using fire to a great degree. My point, simply, is that

our—certainly European—settlement has increased the amount of

human intervention in the forest. But my basic point is that fire

has always been there in one way or another consuming fuel.

And, going back to your observation earlier, Mr. Doolittle, we

thought it was prudent policy for many, many years to put those

fires out before they burned very much of that fuel, so we’re left

with a lot that under other circumstances would have been consumed by fire. We clearly have a problem of too much fuel.
31

What we clearly need to do is remove some of it mechanically,

where that’s the prudent thing to do, and get fire back in there as

soon as possible. It’s cheaper; it’s more ecologically sound whenever

we can do that; and we need to use a combination of tools to do

that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, but I’m still not, Madam Chairman, I’ll be

finished here in just a minute. When we’re growing four to five

times annually in the forest what we are harvesting, the approach

the administration is taking is so minuscule compared to the problem. In fact, you’ve thrown roadblocks, frankly, every possible way

you could in the harvesting of trees, as we saw with the Emergency

Salvage Law and how that was implemented. And, I’m just amazed

how you could—why isn’t this a catastrophic problem that we’re

facing, when we’re growing annually four to five times on these forests what we are harvesting? Am I missing something? Aren’t we

compounding almost geometrically the problem?

Ms. LAVIN. Mr. Doolittle, I can’t speak to those numbers either

that you give us in the growth rate because that’s not my field of

responsibility, but let me answer the question that we’re distinguishing here. The 50 percent acres that we’re telling you are the

50 percent of the acres that we’re talking about as being not able

to treat are limited to those that we know have a problem that

needs fuel treatment, not the total number of acres that the Forest

Service is managing. So when the Forest Service speaks of that,

we’re talking about 50 percent or 20 million acres. We’re talking

about those acres that need treatment that we know of. The timber

you’re talking about as growing is green and growing timber, and

although there have been very intense fires—and there is no question about that—which have involved green and growing timber,

we usually count the green and growing as an opportunity, as a

break in the fuel. So, what we’re talking about as needing treatment are those acres which include trees that are a problem or a

biomass that is a source of fuel for us, that it’s very dry; it’s tinder

dry, and that’s what we’re talking about.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. My point is is that in forests, when they get so

overloaded with growth, they begin to die. And there you have—

and it’s strewn throughout the green and growing—you’ve got the

dead and dying. And I mean the forests in the central Sierras are

just chock-full of all of this. I doubt that you could use prescribed

burning in any area of the central Sierra forests, and you’d have

to commission—we’d put everybody to work in the central Sierra

and then some if we did the job that needed to be done, but all I

hear is, ‘‘We’re going to do some thinning and some prescribed

burning.’’

I mean, it sounds like a very, you know, Marquis of Queensburytype rule, and we’ve got a crisis out there, and we’re growing four

to five times annually the amount of timber that we’re harvesting.

How can we ever hope to catch up? And I still haven’t heard the

answer. I’ve got a panel of experts there, and you’re not responding.

I think the Chairman will back me up on those figures that we

heard. It is four to five times annually. Let’s assume for a minute

that’s true. Tell me how the administration’s approach, its very
32

careful, methodical thinning, how that’s going to respond to this

problem.

Ms. LAVIN. Mr. Doolittle, I know that in the Forest Service that

we have an action plan that will involve planning at the local level

that will get us to 3 million acres of prescribed or fuels-treated; we

will get to 3 million acres per year of acres treated for fuels by the

year 2003, and that we’re recommending that we continue that for

the next 20 years. We know that by the year 2012 we will have,

give or take a year, we will have reached a treatment of the 40 million acres that we have identified as being the most critical.

We know that this year we were able to move ahead because of

weather conditions and also that by having fewer fires to suppress—wildfires to suppress—we were able to move ahead and

treat 1 million acres. We know that this exceeded the amount of

acres that were lost to wildfire or engaged in wildfire by quite a

substantial amount. We have today—the current morning report

said we have, in the Forest Service, had 146,770 acres burned, and

we know that was in wildfire. We know that we far exceeded that

in the amount we were treating with prescription.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, how many million acres have you identified

that need treatment across the country?

Ms. LAVIN. How many? Your question was how many acres have

we identified that needed treatment?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes.

Ms. LAVIN. We have identified approximately—I believe we have

identified approximately 40 million acres.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you’ve got 40 million acres that need treatment, and you’re only doing 3 million a year. And what’s happening in all those hundreds of millions of acres that aren’t quite

as critical, but that are increasing the timber supply year after

year after year, in excess of what’s taken off? Isn’t that out there

compounding, building up geometrically? That’s my point. How can

3 million acres possibly be doing the job?

Ms. LAVIN. We think that that is an amount that we in the Forest Service can handle safely and then can handle productively.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, you may be able to handle it safely and

productively—I don’t mean to be argumentative, but my point is

these forests are overchoked with growth, and, you know, your response isn’t meeting the need. Am I the only one that sees that,

or do you see what I’m talking about?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Doolittle, I think that the fact that you had

three Cabinet-level officials here today speaks for the fact that the

administration does take this very seriously. Secretary Babbitt, in

his tenure as Secretary, has been speaking out strenuously on

these issues because of the urgency of the situation.

We are looking at from now until—in the Interior—from now

until the year 2001, almost tripling the amount of treatments that

we will be doing. That is an enormous increase in the amount of

activity, and it speaks for the urgency which we see.

When we talk in the Department of the Interior about 55 million

acres needing treatment, that doesn’t mean that 55 million acres

need to be treated every year. What that means is that’s the

amount that needs to be treated on the cycle in which naturally

there would be some kind of fire occurrence. In some cases that
33

may be every 3 to 5 years; in other cases it might be every 80 to

100 years.

So all of that rolled together in the Department of the Interior

means that we should be trying to treat something over 2 million

acres year. We’re not there yet. We’re trying as hard as we can to

get there, but we’re certainly doing a lot more than we did in the

past. And I think that we view this as one of the most critical land

management problems that we have out there, and that’s why

we’re here today, to tell you where we are and how we hope to be

doing better at it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do respect that and that your numbers are increasing, but I don’t think they’re increasing anywhere near the

point where they need to be. It’s probably an order of magnitude

or two different than what you have in your reports, and I would

ask, Madam Chairman, that the Committee’s staff ought to propound further questions and line these things up. I just—it seems

to me that there’s no way this response can meet what the need

is.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle.

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. My first question is, EPA has

organized a Federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to develop recommended policies to address

prescribed burning. It’s noted that the committee is made up of

Federal and State officials, with but one or two representatives

from the private sector. One of the representatives is from the Sierra Club, and they certainly don’t represent private landowners.

Why was this committee set up with no input from our vast resources of the private sector and private landowners?

Ms. SHAVER. Originally, when we set up this group, it was a followup to the natural events policy, and it was to primarily address

the issue on the Federal lands. And there has been much more interest in, ‘‘Does this apply to the private lands?’’ And the way the

State and Federal partnership works, we didn’t want to preempt

the States’ prerogative to address the fire issue on the private

lands within their States, so we’re trying to address the Federal

land issue first. We may extend some of that to the private lands,

but we will not do that without involving those stakeholders as

well. So we’re trying to approach this in a piecemeal fashion, and

that’s why it’s shaped the way it is.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Well, I guess I don’t understand your answer when you look at the size and scope of this

problem. I think you’re saying that you’re not dealing with private

land, but private landowners who manage huge forests have a lot

of information that Government could use. And when you only use

State and Federal employees, you’re really missing out on a huge

resource of people who do this for a living—people who make a

profit at it, people who do just as much research and care just as

much about their future and probably do more about it than public

land does, from history.

And I guess I just—as someone who’s been in State Government

for 19 years and now in the Federal Government, and in local government 8 years before that—I mean, every time we look for inno-
34

vative answers we bring in the private sector, who are professionals, too, and don’t have any stake but can give a lot of advice.

And to set up an advisory panel of just public people, I think, is

very short-sighted.

Ms. SHAVER. And I appreciate that, and that was not our intent.

Like I said, this particular advisory committee that was set up was

to address the implementation issues for ozone, particulate matter

and regional haze, and when it was initially set up—it’s already up

to 85 members—we couldn’t get all the stakeholders for the agburning issues as well as the private forest issues, and so we would

like to work with those stakeholders separately. So that’s one of

the reasons we had broken it up the way we have. It was just the

sheer numbers of it.

We will be running any policy that this sub-group develops or

recommends by the larger subcommittee, but, certainly, we do intend to seek broader stakeholder involvement from the private sector before the policy would be extended to them.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Well, I would hope; I would

hope that is the case, but I think you’re passing up a huge resource—even academia; it doesn’t appear academia was included.

The next question is—I think Congressman Doolittle just expanded on the scope and immensity of this problem, and I was on

the western tour as an easterner a few weeks ago and saw the

amount of the forest that was burned—the 100,000 acres. It was

pretty awesome, and then when you saw the huge amount of the

forests we flew over in choppers, where one-third of the forest is

dying, and I was told another third of it probably will die, and the

fuel load that’s there, and the problem and the immensity.

I guess I would suggest to all of you, your budget requests, in

my view, do not represent even asking for what is needed to begin

to address this problem. And you know, from my 19 years in State

government, I always judged departments on their budget requests,

what they asked for, if they really were serious about solving a

problem, and it’s my view that your budget requests are very inadequate to address this problem, and you’re giving us lip service.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Sir, I respectfully disagree. I believe that the

budget we’ve submitted to the Congress in 1998 and what we’re

proposing internally in the administration for future years now is

pushing the envelope in terms of our ability to actually use those

dollars effectively. We’re pushing aggressively, and as you know

dollars are not easy to come by, both within the Administration

side and our ability to get dollars into the President’s budget, and

then the appropriations committees, in living within the ceilings

that they are living within, have made them available to us.

I think that dollars are not really our problem at this point. We

do have some other resource constraints. We need, badly, more

skilled people—ecologists, fire fighters, planners, economists, and

so on, to do a lot of the analyses we need. We need to get, basically,

our capabilities up.

I think the dollars, from everything that we’ve seen, and we’ve

been working together between the two departments very closely

on this, are coming along. But we can’t turn on a dime, you know,

and I think that we need to be careful about pumping too much
35

dollars in and seeing those not used as wisely as they ought to be.

So, I’m very optimistic on the dollar side right now.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I’ll yield to Congressman Doolittle.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You know, let me just say to you that that testimony flatly contradicts what we heard in Sonora, where we heard

the Forest Service officials testify that money has been sharply reduced for the timber sale program, for example, and therefore the

sales cannot be prepared as they used to be and that is resulting

in less timber being cut.

So, how do you—I realize you’re with the Interior Department,

not the Forest Service, but we see this going on fairly widespread

in the central Sierras and I cannot, you know, hearing that the

budgets are being increased—they’re not being increased; they’re

being cut back. Now there’s always plenty of money once we have

the forest fire. We’ll spend whatever it takes to fight it; that’s

great. But, boy, don’t get the timber sale program going because

that’s looked upon as an undesirable program, and we’ve got to cut

back to save money on that.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me let the Forest Service answer that specific

question, but I want to clarify. I was referring to dollars that we’re

requesting for fuels management through the fire program, not

other land management dollars that may, in one way or another,

relate to this particular program. That was the nature of my answer.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I’ll let the Forest Service talk about the larger

issue.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I’m on Mr. Peterson’s time.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Go ahead; you can respond.

Ms. LAVIN. Mr. Peterson, Mr. Doolittle, I would like to say that

I represent the full budget of the Forest Service, but I do not. I represent a major portion of that budget, but that portion is in fire,

and I would agree with Jim Douglas that in fire it is not a question

of adding additional dollars when we’re looking at the prescribed

fire program.

We are very concerned that we do not have enough people and

we do not have the expertise, so we’re looking at other ways in

which we can increase that expertise. We’re working with the State

of Florida, which is going to testify later. We’re working with the

State of Florida to work on having improved training for both the

State and the Federal people who will be conducting prescribed

fire.

Remember that we always look at the fact that all of the prescribed fire program is for sustainability of our forests, and that’s

the only reason that we look at the fire program or work toward

that. And it does involve timber, and it does involve timber management.

Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I agree with the Congressman

from California, though, that if we’re going to deal with the forests

appropriately, it’s not just fighting fires and prescribed burns. It’s

also managing that resource and making sure that land that has

three-times the stems that it should have is adequately addressed.

I mean, there’s a whole lot to this, but I know we have a huge anti-
36

cut-down-a-tree group that thinks cutting down a tree is some sinful thing and that we shouldn’t do that; and they’re part of the

problem, but we all have to deal with them.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, gentlemen.

I want to say that we have two votes up; one is on House Resolution 255, ordering the previous question, and then we’ll have a vote

following that on the rule. And after that we will return, and I will

ask my round of questions then, so I need to have this panel of witnesses remain. But I will say that our Committee will be temporarily recessed for 30 minutes, and that will give you a chance to

get something to eat. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Committee will come to order. I thank the

panel for waiting. Like I say, this does take a fair amount of patience to work in this body and to become a part of it through your

willingness to be witnesses, all of you, and I thank you very much

for your patience.

I do want to say that one of the reasons that the Chairman

called this hearing was our—and I want to direct this particular

statement and question to Mrs. Shaver. One of the reasons that the

Chairman called this hearing was because, while we have heard

Ms. Browner testify that agricultural burning—and we heard her

testify to this in the Ag. Committee—agricultural burning would be

exempt from the standards, as well as—now we’re hearing today—

that prescribed burns by the Forest Service would be exempt.

And while that would normally, one would think, give us a fair

amount of comfort, our concern is that it puts a lot more pressure

on our point-source emitters, such as our utilities and private industry. And that’s why we’re so concerned, because of the—in fact,

this weekend I was in Denver giving a speech, and they are claiming that they are impacted by the smoke and smog that is coming

in from southern California.

And so it looks like, certainly in areas up in the Northwest where

I come from that need to be protected because of their wilderness

qualities and because of the national parks up there, it looks like

it’s going to severely impact our western part of the country.

And I have some photographs here that I wanted to enter into

the record, and I do want to say that for record, as Chairman, as

I enter these photographs, that I will attest to their accuracy and

to what I testify; I will attest to that under the penalty of perjury.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The first photograph—these photographs have

to do with the prescribed fire that was done in the fall of 1996 by

the Department of the Interior. This was the Coggins fire in the

Whiskeytown Recreation Area near Redding, California.

Are you familiar with that fire, Mr. Douglas?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Only in very, very general terms. I know they’ve

been doing some treatments in the park there and have a series

of burns that they have done and will be doing, but that’s as much

as I know at this point of the specifics.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, the photos were taken on September 19

of this year, and this is the first photograph, and I think you have

a copy of the photos there.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Right.
37

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mrs. Cubin, do you have a copy of the photos?

Mrs. CUBIN. No, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK.

Photo No. 1 shows the edge of the fire area and the adjacent

underburned area, while photograph number 2 shows a portion of

the fire area, and it does not appear that any fuels were removed

before the prescribed burn. And these photos clearly show that

there’s a lot of small trees growing underneath the larger trees,

creating ladder fuels. These photos also show that the fire killed

many of the larger trees, as you can see in photograph No. 3 and

photograph No. 4.

What was the prescription for this fire?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Ma’am, I can’t tell you precisely the prescription

at this point. I’m not familiar with that. I’d be happy to provide

that for the record.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will tell you that it’s my understanding that this

fire was conducted within the prescription—it did not go out of prescription—and the purpose of the fire was to achieve ecological benefits. And, of course, what happens when you have fire is that some

trees are killed, some trees are damaged. That’s part of the natural

events within a healthy forest. And so it’s not surprising to us that

some trees would die.

It looks to me—and we can get, certainly, more details for you

on this particular fire—it looks to me like it burned hotter in some

areas than in other areas, and perhaps there were some localized

hot spots that killed a few more trees in one spot than it would

have in another area. And, again, that’s what would have happened naturally, that fires do not burn uniformly across the landscape, but they spot, they burn intensely, then they die back.

And so we would expect to see this as a natural kind of occurrence. If the fire had been started, say, by lightning instead of by

management, you’d see the same kind of pattern of just a variety

of effects throughout the forest. You know, some big trees die; some

big trees don’t die. And that’s the point of trying to use fire in a

place like this; it is to re-create the kinds of natural conditions that

occurred for so many hundreds of years in that type of forest.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, this is my major concern because we do

have a ladder fuel situation here, and it would create a tremendous

potential for an explosive fire which really messes up our air quality standards. In fact, just September 25 of last week, we saw another eruption in this same area of the fire, which created an awful

lot of smoke and haze and extended over a long, very wide area.

So, that, combined with the fact that we may be creating more

fuel that is more explosive, while still trying to contain our ambient

air quality emittents, is creating a conflict that I worry about

greatly in the Northwest.

I also want to show—is there a graph there? Yes, air quality

graph.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam Chairman, if it would be all right with

you, I think it would be helpful for us to provide some further information on this particular fire for the record——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right.
38

Mr. DOUGLAS. [continuing] and perhaps we can provide some information to interpret each one of these pictures and help the Committee understand what the park’s objective was.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. I appreciate that, and I’ll look forward to it.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. For Mrs. Shaver—as you can see, the little red

dots on that map indicate the national parks and the wilderness

areas where these class I standards will likely be imposed.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The next graph shows—Bill, can you show her

the next graph? The next graph shows the 100-mile radius of control of the air quality out from those national parks, wilderness

areas, and which may be imposed in our class I areas.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And then the next graph then shows the 250-

mile radius that is also being talked about for imposition out from

these areas, and, as you can see, that covers most of the United

States.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now the 100-mile radius really impacts the

Northwest and has a pretty serious impact across the Nation, but

the 250-mile radius for a class I impact would be most of the Nation. So, we’re seriously concerned about the impact of prescribed

fire, agricultural fires, and point source emittents.

Mrs. Shaver, one of my concerns, too, is our elderly people who,

a lot of times, in the summer time, turn off their air conditioners

because they can’t afford to pay for the additional utility bills. And

we’re almost defeating ourselves when we realize that a lot of our

older people die in the extreme heat. And so while I think it’s laudatory that we’re trying to help the asthmatics and, of course, the

younger children with respiratory afflictions, we tend to ignore our

elderly, I think, with this program.

And the reason that we see the combination here in this hearing

of the natural resources, plus your proposed rules, is the fact that

we are very concerned about the point source emittents that normally would have come in under your standards, but with prescribed fires or runaway fuel fires, which can happen with the fuel

load that you’ve heard Mr. Doolittle and various other people talk

about, our forests are at a point now where it’s not easy to control

those fires at all, and so that is our major concern.

And with that, I’d like to just give you the time necessary to address that.

Ms. SHAVER. Well, I guess there are two issues. One, of course,

is the regional haze rule, which addresses primarily the class I

areas, and as a part of that particular rule the State and locals

would be able to establish a baseline which would incorporate the

natural role of fire. And then, certainly, in terms of making

progress on improving visibility over the long time—say 10 to 15

years—then they would work from the baseline, which incorporates

the role of fire.

Certainly we are concerned about the health of our children, as

well as the elderly, and certainly the health of everyone, but particularly those sensitive populations. That’s why we are working
39

with the States as part of this policy to do smoke management programs which mitigate the public health impact of these prescribed

burns, and we think with adequate planning and proper operation

and implementation of these plans, for the most part you will not

see significant air quality violations under those conditions.

Where we do have the data now, we have not seen that, but, certainly, we will be placing our monitors in the high population areas

and, in fact, working in those areas to make sure that we meet the

air quality standards as best we can, which is, of course, the purpose of the policies that we are developing.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you give us a little more information on

your smoke management policy and program?

Ms. SHAVER. Well, a lot of the States already have very good

smoke management programs, and I think you’ll hear from Mr. Peterson a little bit later about the smoke management program that

they have in Florida, where they burn a significant number of

acres each year and where they have not had violations of the particulate matter standard. There are other States, like Oregon,

which have a good smoke management program as well.

And so these programs account for the meteorological conditions.

There’s a mechanism for authorization of the burns and certainly

provisions for training of this kind for the fire managers. So, we’re

looking at those smoke management programs being implemented

in advance of the burns, and certainly in cooperation with the land

management planning, as well as the burn plans that occur.

So, I think that with the adequate planning up front, and the organization there and the cooperation, that we will be able to meet

the air quality standards on a consistent basis.

In terms of where we might not be able to, or where the meteorological conditions change and a fire gets out of control, you do have

a violation of the air quality standard. We certainly don’t want to

penalize the point sources in that area for that condition, and that

will be another aspect of the policy as well. Whether it’s a part of

the designation or non-designation process, if you will, that will

certainly be an aspect of it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So then there will not be a cumulative effect

that will be imposed on the point source emitters?

Ms. SHAVER. We will not be penalizing the point source emitters

for something that happens under the prescribed burn policy.

That’s correct.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that would also be true of agricultural

burning, I take it, based on Ms. Browner’s testimony in front of the

Ag. Committee.

Ms. SHAVER. Right. We are not targeting agricultural sources.

We are working with USDA’s agricultural air quality task force to

address the ag-burning issue, and that will be taken up with that

committee the end of October. That would be the first time that’s

been discussed with that group, that’s basically made up of agricultural stakeholders, and we are working with them on the ag-burning aspect of the policy.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, while you do offer us some degree of

comfort here, nevertheless, there’s a basic, philosophical concern

that I have, and that is that the government feels that their activities may be worthy of exemption, while private industries’ activities
40

may not be, and I think we’re moving into some dangerous territory here. And we’ve taken the blinders off of justice, perhaps, and

I’m very concerned about that, but I do appreciate your testimony.

Ms. SHAVER. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to say that I’ve received a letter

from the mayor of a little town in Idaho—Salmon, Idaho—and I,

without objection, will enter that into the record.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And so I’d like to now turn the mike over to

Mrs. Cubin, from Wyoming.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. To avoid any redundancy, since I’ve just very recently arrived, I will, if it’s all right,

submit questions in writing. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. One more question that I wanted to ask was

about wood-burning stoves. Will that be exempted at all? Because

that can create a national cumulative effect, or a regional cumulative effect.

Ms. SHAVER. We have some wood-burning stove policies. I’m not

familiar with the specifics of those, and, actually, some of those are

occurring at the local levels; there are local policies or regulations

concerning those. I would be happy to answer the question for the

record regarding that, but the wood stove policy would not be covered by these policies we’ve been talking about today.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK; forest fires are allowed, but wood stoves

are not.

Ms. SHAVER. No, I did not mean to imply that. I’m sorry. I just

said that the policies that we are talking about today would not

cover wood stoves.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK, let me—perhaps I didn’t hear it correctly.

Let me ask it again. With regards to the imposition of standards

for emittents from smoke, forest fires are allowed and they would

be exempted, but wood stoves would not be exempted, right?—although it’s basically the same emittent.

Ms. SHAVER. No ma’am; I did not mean to imply that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Imply what?

Ms. SHAVER. That forest fires were exempted and that wood

stoves were not.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Prescribed forest fires are exempted.

Ms. SHAVER. No, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well——

Ms. SHAVER. Wildfires that are not part of a prescribed burn are

exempted under the natural events policy. Actually, they’re not exempted. We’re just saying that where you have wildfires that are

burning out of control, they’re covered by our natural events policies. Any violations of the standards that occur because of those are

not used in determination of whether or not an area is designated

‘‘non-attainment.’’

OK, under the prescribed burning policy, we’re saying that you

have to be in accordance with your plan, your smoke programs, and

this type of thing, and we don’t anticipate that there would be air

quality violations because of a prescribed burn. In the event that

there was, or something like that, then we would address that situation. We would not penalize that area in terms of non-attainment

designation, where a fire got out of prescription, or something like
41

that, as long as you were following the prescription as it was designed.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So what we’re talking about, then, is the designation of an area rather than——

Ms. SHAVER. That’s correct.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Within that area, if a prescribed fire

should occur and it creates an air quality situation where it violates the standards, then everything in that region would have to

shut down because of the prescribed burn or the natural wildifire.

Ms. SHAVER. Not if you’re not designated non-attainment. No, I

don’t think that’s the case. You would not require those sources to

be shut down.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. I will—I don’t think we’re connecting on the same frequency here at all, but I——

Ms. SHAVER. I understand, and I apologize for that. I’d be happy

to try to answer in writing or try again now.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. I think through most of this hearing we

understood that prescribed burns conducted by the Secretary of Interior or Secretary of Agriculture would be exempt; that would be

permissible. And as I heard in the Ag. Committee the other day,

those fires—prescribed fires for agricultural fields—would also be

exempt—or allowed. Are we having a problem with the word ‘‘exempt?’’ Is there something I’m not seeing here?

Ms. SHAVER. Well, exempt is not a word, I guess, that I would

choose to say in those things. I guess what I would say is, where

a State has a smoke management program in place and where the

land management agencies have done their land management planning, where they have done their burn plans, they’ve gone through

the NEPA process, and where those are in place and are being followed, then the agency would be—in case there is a violation under

those circumstances where those plans are being implemented—

then we would not count those data toward non-attainment designations.

Now if a State did not have a smoke management program in

place, if they did not follow the burn plans, or cases like those,

then we would still have our ability to designate those areas as

non-attainment. So, I would say it’s not a free ticket to strike

matches. There needs to be a lot of planning done up front. There

needs to be a lot of evaluation of the need for that, how to do that,

and to make sure it’s done in compliance with the planning that

we’re talking about.

So that’s why I’m concerned about the use of the word ‘‘exemption.’’

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So we are—so EPA will be asking the land

management agencies to perform an EIS on their smoke management program, on their prescribed burn programs?

Ms. SHAVER. I may let them answer that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Douglas.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, what this is predicated on is going back to

something we talked about before the break, and that is everything

needs—all of our actions need to be based on land management

plans. The planning process is a multi-tiered process. It starts at

the most general level. A strategic level would be a forest or a national park or a BLM area and then gets progressively finer as
42

we’re talking about smaller and smaller pieces of ground, and

maybe particular activities, types of functions.

That planning process is subject to the National Environmental

Policy Act. Whether or not an EIS, itself, is done, it is subject to

NEPA and an environmental compliance is done. An environmental

compliance involves public participation and evaluation of environmental consequences, of different alternatives, and a finding of

whether or not there’s significant environmental impact, and so on.

So, we don’t necessarily do an EIS in every case, but we follow

the National Environmental Policy Act in ensuring that the environmental consequences are identified, of the various alternatives,

and that the one selected is appropriate. That underlies, then,

our—in the case—if we’re bringing this specifically back to fire—

underlies our management decision to use fire in certain circumstances: ‘‘Yes, that’s appropriate. This is how we’re going to

manage that fire.’’ We get into the prescription that we’re going to

use, weather conditions, fuel conditions, and that sort of thing.

Those are all of the types of things that we’re committed to is

that we will go through planning processes and take every step we

can to minimize our emissions—burning techniques, times of year,

meteorological conditions, and that sort of thing, in order to keep

from putting more than absolutely necessary into the air.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Douglas, I think you’re right, because it

is a major Federal action. And let me ask you, have you done an

EA or an EIS under NEPA on the other prescribed burns?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Absolutely. There’s always environmental compliance. Environmental compliance doesn’t mean that there’s necessarily an EIS done, but the NEPA is followed and the appropriate findings are made. In major cases, it results in an EIS. In

smaller actions, it’s an environmental assessment, but environmental compliance is done in each and every case.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Ms. Shaver, is the EPA prepared to do an environmental impact

statement, especially if you impose the 250-mile radius criteria on

all of these areas? As you can see from the overlays there, that decision is a major Federal action requiring an EIS. Has EPA, or is

EPA preparing to do an environmental impact statement on this,

on the new standards?

Ms. SHAVER. On the new standards? I’m not——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. On the environmental impact of the new

standards.

Ms. SHAVER. I’m not sure I can answer that today.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think that the courts have said, any time

there’s a major Federal action by an agency that there must be an

EIS, so could you let us know?

Ms. SHAVER. Sure.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK.

Mrs. Cubin, do you have any other questions?

All right, I want to thank this panel very much for your patience

and for your time. I, again, apologize for all the votes that have

taken us away. This is no way to run a railroad sometimes, I think,

but it happens, and it’s the best system in the world. But, thank

you very, very much. And I will be submitting additional questions
43

to you, and the record will remain open for about 3 weeks. Thank

you very much.

I want to call the next panel of witnesses up. Mr. Earl Peterson,

Florida State Forester, chairman of the National Association of

State Foresters Fire Committee in Tallahassee, Florida; Mr. William Dennison, Plumas County Supervisor, Board of Supervisors,

Quincy, California; Mr. Robert Mutch, Missoula, Montana, and Dr.

Robert Pearson, Radian International LLC in Denver, Colorado.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your patience, but Mrs.

Cubin and I will make up the difference. These are the days toward the end of the year when things get a little wild out there,

but you are contributing to a very, very, very important record, and

I thank you very much for your expert testimony.

So before we get going, I wonder if you wouldn’t mind standing

with me and taking the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. We’ll begin with Mr. Earl Peterson. Mr. Peterson.

STATEMENT OF EARL PETERSON, FLORIDA STATE FORESTER,

CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

FIRE COMMITTEE, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

Mr. EARL PETERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate

the opportunity to appear before the Committee. I look forward to

sharing with you some observations about the use of fire as a management tool, both in Florida and nationally.

As the director of the Florida Division of Forestry, I’m involved—

my agency’s involved—with the management of over 1 million acres

of land in Florida, purchased by the Florida taxpayers to ensure

that some of the unique ecology enjoyed by the citizens and the

millions of visitors who come annually, each year, will be there for

generations to come.

Without hesitation, I can say that one of the primary contributors to the current State of Florida’s wildlands has been fire. In

Florida, we call the use of fire as a management tool ‘‘prescribed

fire.’’ And like a prescription issued by your personal physician, the

medicine is aimed at curing a specific problem, while at the same

time it can and often does have side effects. We must work to minimize those as they affect the other parts of the body. The trick is

to make sure that these side effects are not worse than the cure.

So too, with prescribed fire.

Fire’s role on State and private lands in Florida has been that

of the sculptor, molding and shaping the system over many thousands of years. As a result, many of the flora and fauna have come

to depend on periodic fire for their existence. If this element is excluded, the result will be a system that is far less diverse in both

plants and animals. In addition to this, many of the timber species

that the forest industry depends upon shall disappear and will not

survive.

Many other forest and grassland ecosystems also evolved with

fire, including much of the southeastern pine forest, as well as

many coniferous forests in the western United States. Recent research has also indicated a larger role for fire in regenerating hardwood species, such as oak. Each type of forest evolved with dif-
44

ferent types and intensities of fire, so prescriptions must be carefully matched to forest type. In some instances, prescribed fire

would not be the preferred tool for management on many of these

stands.

Floridians place such a high importance on prescribed fire, that

in 1990, the legislature passed statute 590.026, the Florida Prescribed Fire Act; you have copies in your packet. The law provides

civil liability protection for responsible prescribed burners. You also

have an article in your packet from the Journal of Forestry, May

1992, that explains this act. This means that as long as the burners adhere to the law and associated administrative code, they cannot be found civilly liable for the potential negative effects of their

prescribed burns, including smoke.

The South’s fire heritage has allowed it to lead the Nation in promoting and practicing the art of agricultural and prescribed burning, and Florida leads the South, as well as the Nation, in prescribed fire activities. In 1996, Florida burned 2.2 million acres,

most of it under canopy, and issued over 118,000 permits to reach

this objective.

We’re also cognizant of the fact that we’re graced with both a favorable climate and topography to accomplish the mammoth

amount of prescribed burning that is necessary to keep up with the

rapid vegetative growth on our wildlands. In areas where mountainous terrain tends to trap smoke from wildfires for days, weeks,

and months at a time, the amount of burning done in Florida could

not be accomplished there.

Coupled with this, the policy of fire exclusion over the past 75

years has resulted in an enormous fuel accumulation from downed

timber, insect, and disease attack. The future of fire in these areas

seems to be almost an impossible task. Because of this we have,

curiously enough, tended to place the responsibility back in the

hands of fire to solve these problems. Once the fuel loads get to the

point where we can no longer control the wildfires they start, the

system is swept with catastrophic fires that can leave the land

scarred for centuries.

In short, we have two choices in managing our wildlands: exclude

fire until the system is overloaded and disaster strikes, or manage

both wildfire and prescribed fire in a balanced system. Floridians

have chosen the latter solution. In addition to the prescribed fire

act of 1990, almost all of our 67 counties have passed resolutions

or ordinances in support of prescribed fire. In March of this year,

Governor Chiles and the Florida Cabinet named the week of March

11 Prescribed Fire Awareness Week.

There are mechanical and chemical methods that can duplicate

some of the positive effects of prescribed fire. Reduction of fuel load

to reduce the potential negative effects of catastrophic wildfires can

be accomplished to some measure by thinning the overstocked forests. This process is very labor-intensive and in some instances can

be very costly, and there isn’t a market, always, for the material

which is to be removed, in the way of poles and firewood. However,

such methods may be necessary where prescribed fire has not been

used as a regular management tool, and fuel loads are too high to

allow for immediate reduction by fire.
45

The negative side effect of prescribed fire is the impact resulting

from smoke. You are aware, as you’ve heard here today, of EPA’s

plan to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the

visibility standard. These changes to the standard could have a significant impact on the use of prescribed fire, depending how the

EPA intends to treat the contributions made by prescribed fire.

We believe the intent of the Federal Clean Air Act is to prevent

the deterioration of air quality from human causes. Since fire is

part of the natural system, as pointed out earlier, and necessary

for the survival of our wildlands, we believe that the resulting

smoke should be considered natural and excluded from consideration if these is an exceedance of the standard.

Prescribed burn practitioners are trained to reduce the impacts

of the smoke from prescribed burning to a minimum. This will not

eliminate the possibility of exceedance of the air quality standards

or the visibility standard, but we believe the number of potential

problems will be held to a very minimum. The reason for this is

simple. Prescribed practitioners understand that the future of fire

depends on the good will of the general public and their responsible

use of this important tool.

It is important to note that in some of the areas of the country,

there is a limited public tolerance of smoke from prescribed fires,

and this has led to efforts to limit or end the practice. Many of

these decisions will be in the hands of State air quality agencies,

along with other State agencies.

NASF and its member State Foresters are working and will continue to work with State and Federal air quality officials to craft

regulations that will allow this ecologically important management

tool to continue.

Thank you very much.

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

end of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson.

And we’d like to hear now from Mr. William Dennison, our

Plumas County Supervisor. Mr. Dennison.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DENNISON, PLUMAS COUNTY

SUPERVISOR, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, QUINCY, CALIFORNIA

Mr. DENNISON. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and staff. I appreciate your tenacity to stick with this today. I’ve submitted a written

statement for the record, if you would, please.

My goal is to convey to you both support and concerns for the utilization of prescribed burning on national forests and national

parks. Our support is based on the belief that prescribed burning

must be reintroduced into the national forests if we’re to attempt

to restore their health. You’ve heard a lot about that today.

The concern is that prescribed burning will be utilized in northern California without first removing heavy fuels. The photos

which you showed earlier today speak to that concern that we

have. My written testimony contains statements about the amounts

of material that must be removed prior to introducing fire, in our

neck of the woods, at least.

Next, we find it difficult to believe that the new PM2.5 requirements under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards can be
46

met if prescriptive burning is used on as many areas as necessary

to make a difference in our forest health, particularly without emphasis on mechanical removal of fuels prior to burning. We’ve had

to curtail open burning in parts of Plumas County to even meet the

PM10 standard, and without significant amounts of prescriptive

fires to date.

If National Ambient Air Quality Standards are broken by prescriptive fire, based on recent announcements by air management

districts and now the proposed EPA regional haze requirements,

there is good reason to believe that it will businesses and individuals who will suffer financially when the standards are violated.

We have statements from our air management district that use of

wood stoves, in fact, in our area, already are under jeopardy.

In addition Madam Chair, I have included testimony in my written statement based on the July 30th Huffer fire on the Lassen

Volcanic National Park that sheds uncertainty on the Department

of Interior’s ability to effectively control fires through their current

management of prescriptive, natural fires. We’ve listed six pollution and financial issues about the Huffer fire that should be addressed through a review of that policy.

A recent quote that covers our point most succinctly was made

by Neil Sampson, president of Sampson Group, in a recent magazine article in which he said, ‘‘Fire introduction is supported by a

broad array of scientists, foresters, and conservationists . . . but it’s

not as easy as it sounds, and to simply propose lighting fires on

most western forests is irresponsible and destructive.’’

We’re concerned that there are some within departments and

agencies who will peddle the medicine without revealing the costs.

I’m talking about the real costs of the fire prescriptions if they’re

administered in a way that will maximize the goal of obtaining

healthy forests that will give the less prone wildfire effect, while

assuring that air pollution and escaped prescriptive fires do not impact our citizens, as you suggested they might.

We are on the right track with the reintroduction of fire, but let’s

recognize and resolve at least five conditions that have been posed

by the Quincy Library Group, which prevent the immediate use of

prescribed fire at large enough scale to address the hazard areas,

at least where I live.

First, the QLG says the current high fuel loads make it too dangerous to use prescribed fire in any but the most favorable conditions, and even then it takes only a small weather change to put

those out of limits. To be within acceptable limits, we must first

reduce fuel loads.

Second, they say the continually reduced availability of expert

fire managers makes it more difficult than ever to manage prescribed fire safely and effectively.

Third, the historic rate of prescribed fire usage is about 10 percent of the treatment required, and that has been done on the easiest terrain and the least hazardous fuel areas.

Fourth, major components of the current fuel load are unnaturally thick stands of small fire ladder trees—that you talked

about—that carry ground fires up into the crowns and kill the

large trees that would otherwise be nearly fireproof. The lower material, again, must be removed.
47

Fifth, the QLG says, significant increase in the use of prescribed

fire comes into direct conflict with the air quality standards. In the

long run, this conflict must be addressed in a way that provides

those benefits and processes that only fire can supply.

Meanwhile, the Quincy Library Group has said that it will take

at least 10 decades—I’m sorry—at least a decade of thinning and

other fuel treatment by non-fire means to make it feasible to employ prescribed fire at whatever level is found to be necessary for

sustainable, long-term health.

In summary, we share the urgency to reintroduce fire into our

forests. At the same time, there are problems with prescribed fires

in both national forests and national parks, and conflicts with

NAAQS. We respectfully submit that the issues we’ve emphasized

are not new, but they are important and worthy of consideration

before the Departments of Interior and Agriculture launch into the

prescriptive fire program in northern California.

As noted by Congressman Peterson, the private sector needs to

be involved in this process as well. We also emphasize that we do

not wish this testimony to in any way cause a stumbling block. We

would rather have this as an open door to relate problems, and in

which we can work together toward a reasonable use of prescriptive fires. And if I could answer any questions later, I’d certainly

be pleased to do so. Thank you.

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

of hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Dennison.

And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Mutch.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MUTCH, MISSOULA, MONTANA

Mr. MUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’m very glad to have

the opportunity today to meet with this Committee, and especially

to talk about the critical importance of combining silvicultural prescriptions, thinning, timber harvest, and fire prescriptions to restore the health to the forested ecosystems of the western United

Sates.

I base my observations today on 38 years in the Forest Service,

17 years at the fire laboratory just over the mountain from Idaho

in Missoula, and 21 years in operational fire management.

A recent survey conducted by Forest Service research has indicated that 5 million acres are burned annually in the United States

by Federal, State and private prescribed burners. Three-and-a-half

million of this 5 million acres, or over 70 percent, occur in Mr. Peterson’s southeastern part of the country.

When one considers the area managed by just the Federal agencies, an annual nationwide prescribed fire program of just 5 million

acres for all burners is woefully inadequate. This is especially true

in the West, where the prescribed fire programs of Federal agencies

have been extremely modest in the past.

Let’s cut to the chase by referring to this first bar graph. This

graph depicting wildfire acreage burned in the 11 western States

managed by Federal agencies between the years 1916 and 1996

should be of concern to everyone in this room, and it should be of

concern to the American taxpayer. Look at this almost perfect Ushaped curve. For decades, Federal agencies went before Congress
48

and said, ‘‘Give us more money for bigger and better fire departments, and we will continue to reduce the area burned by

wildfires.’’

That strategy worked very well for several decades until we hit

the point of diminishing returns in the middle of the 1980’s, when

widespread drought, insect epidemics, and our natural fuel accumulations reached a critcal point. And we can see an escalating

problem in wildfires at the latter part of this century equal to what

was occurring during the early part of the century, 1900 to 1919.

The next graph shows very clearly what a forest looks like after

being affected by what some have called the grand ecological experiment, the attempted exclusion of fire from fire-adapted ecosystems.

Here is the same camera point on the Bitteroot National Forest

between 1909 and 1989 and photographed periodically over those

many years. One can easily see, in that upper left-hand photograph, the low intensity surface fires that would have characterized

that kind of open forest with one-foot flame lengths, historically.

Compare that upper left-hand photo with the photo in the lower

right-hand corner, taken in l989, with dense understory thickets of

Douglas Fir, the ladder fuels that you have talked about earlier,

and are contributing to crown fires today with flame lengths of over

100 feet.

If you had a home in the Bitteroot Valley, would you want it in

that site pictured in the upper left-hand corner or in the lower

right-hand corner? Or if you had a daughter or a son fighting fires

in the West, would you want them fighting fires in the upper lefthand photograph, with open, grown, low-intensity fire conditions,

or would you want them fighting fire in the photograph illustrating

today’s sorry state of affairs?

The next poster will show you current and projected prescribed

fire programs of the four Federal agencies. The agencies know that

an expanded burning program is necessary, and we’ve heard that

testimony today. And several are projecting a doubling or tripling

of their program by the year 2000 and an increase beyond the year

2000 that’s already been discussed.

But this increase in prescribed fire, Madam Chairman, will not

be easy, and a double standard impairs the ability of agencies to

increase prescribed burning easily. Perhaps we will have some time

later to examine this double standard in more detail.

I would like to conclude with the last poster now, with six lessons learned that can be applied in dealing with the declining forest health issue in western forests.

First, most forest ecosystems’ plants and animals are adapted to

recurring fire. The beautiful elk herds in the Selway Bitteroot wilderness in Idaho are dependent in large part in their diet on red

stem ceanotheus. The germination of red stem ceanotheus seeds is

triggered by fire that cracks the seed coat so that the seed can imbibe moisture and germinate. Mechanical treatment will not do

anything for those beautiful elk herds in the Selway. They evolved

with periodic fire.

No. 2, it is not a question, as we know, of if a fire will occur. The

question is only one of when and where. Fires will occur, and there

will be smoke.
49

No. 3, we can either pay now for a more balanced program of fire

prevention, fire suppression, and prescribed fire use, or we can pay

a dear price later, as we have been paying recently, for escalated

losses of people, property, and their natural resources in uncontrollable wildfires.

Four, and most importantly, silvicultural prescriptions,

thinnings, harvest cutting, and prescribed fire must be integrated

on a much larger scale to restore the health of fire-adapted ecosystems. This will require many strategies, including removal, to

accomplish this objective. Many stand conditions, as we’ve heard

today, are so highly flammable as a result of fire exclusion that

prescribed burning without prior silvicultural treatment would be

tantamount to igniting a conflagration. We need both—mechanical

treatment and prescribed treatment.

Five, fortunately, silvicultural cutting treatments designed to

maintain healthy forests, often will pay the way for followup hazard reduction treatment by burning.

And, finally, the buck needs to stop here. Risks for expanded prescribed fire projects must be shared among all stakeholders: agencies, the politicians, and the public.

That concludes my verbal testimony, and I thank you very much,

Madam Chairman, to present these issues to the Committee today.

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

hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mutch.

The Chair now yields to Mr. Schaffer, from Colorado, to introduce our next witness.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’m pleased to introduce Dr. Robert Pearson. Dr. Pearson is a scientist in the area

of western region air quality, and has been for the past 25 years.

In fact, he served as an appointed member of the public advisory

commission to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

for 4 years. I’d like to mention that Dr. Pearson received his Ph.D.

in remote sensing of natural resources from Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, and Dr. Pearson, we look forward to

your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. PEARSON, RADIAN

INTERNATIONAL LLC, DENVER, COLORADO

Mr. PEARSON. Thank you, Congressman, and I might add that I

was doing my graduate work in the College of Forestry and Natural Resources at CSU in Fort Collins. So, while I’m not a forester,

I do have a fair acquaintance with some of these issues.

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission was set up

by Congress as a result of the 1990 amendments to the Clear Air

Act. The public advisory committee of that Commission was the

group that I was appointed to by Colorado Governor Romer. We

spent 4 years reviewing the science that had been collected on the

subject of regional haze in the West, including new visibility data

gathered specifically for the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission.

The public advisory committee then formulated policy recommendations for the Commission to consider. You may recall the

Commission was made up of the Governors of eight western States,
50

plus tribal leaders of several Indian tribes. Throughout the conduct

of this scientific study for the Commission, every interest group

was represented, including environmental groups, the Federal land

managers of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,

and the National Park Service.

On June 10, 1996, the Commission published its findings in its

report, entitled ‘‘Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas.’’

This report discusses in detail the scientific study that was done

and the recommended control strategies for all of the categories of

sources of air pollution located throughout the West. One area of

much study and discussion by the Commission was the subject of

today’s hearing, the impact of regional haze on class I areas from

the use of fire in forest management, commonly called prescribed

burning.

I’m here today to relate some of the information we learned as

we struggled to craft a workable regional haze improvement plan

for the West, as required by the Clean Air Act. Forest fires, either

intentionally set or accidental, release quantities of fine particles

made of carbon and other elements in the smoke. These fine particles cause several impacts on air quality.

First, the concentration of fine particles in forest fire smoke may

cause the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, recently

adopted by EPA, to be violated near the fire. In addition, the fine

soot particles in the smoke will affect visibility by both scattering

and absorbing light. At times, smoke containing fine particles travels hundreds of miles and across several States.

I can vividly remember seeing the effects in Denver of several

California wildfires, and also the 1988 wildfires in Yellowstone.

These effects were much reduced visibility and a smoke smell in

the air.

During the Commission’s study of western regional visibility, we

also saw photographs taken at Hopi Point at the Grand Canyon

when a small wildfire on the South Rim of the canyon was brought

under control and extinguished. Even such a small fire, which

lasted only a few hours, filled the canyon with smoke. The point

is that even a small fire in or near a class I area can cause dramatic effects on visibility and the concentration of fine particles in

the air, similar to the effects seen at long distances from large

fires.

The Federal land managers, the Forest Service, and the National

Park Service, in particular, told the Commission that they intend

to dramatically increase the number and extent of prescribed fires

over the next several years to, quote, ‘‘catch up from many decades

of fire suppression,’’ close quote, by reducing the amount of fuel

available to burned by wildfires in the Nation’s forests.

The Commission analyzed the effects of this increased use of fire

as a forest management tool and concluded the effects on regional

visibility could easily wipe out the gains made by all other sources

categories combined, and that would include point sources as well

as mobile sources. They also include power plants, copper smelters,

cars, trucks, and area sources such as fugitive dust.

Note in the Commission’s report, they combined all fires, both

man-caused and wildfires, into a natural category for our analysis,

and that’s shown by slide 3, attached to my written testimony.
51

Such natural causes contribute almost half of the visibility impairment in the West.

To some extent, then, the Commission report is biased by considering smoke from intentional man-caused fires as, quote ‘‘natural,’’

close quote. This also, in effect, exempts the smoke from prescribed

burns from being considered against your goal in the Clean Air Act

of remedying man-caused sources of visibility impairment.

The point is that all of our hard-won incremental improvements

in regional visibility across the West could be overwhelmed by the

increased use of fire as a land management tool by Federal land

manager agencies, even though their contribution is considered,

quote, ‘‘natural.’’

One other point needs to be made in this regard. The EPA has

recently proposed a set of regulations to protect and improve regional visibility in the U.S. One provision of current law, as well

as in the proposed rules, allows the Federal land manager of a

class I area to identify a source or some group of sources, some distance away, which could be impacting visibility in the class I

area—and Madam Chairman, you were getting at this point a little

while ago.

The State in which the source is located would then be required

to evaluate the allegedly offending sources for the retrofit of air

pollution control technology. In effect, this gives the Federal land

manager land use control over lands outside of the wilderness area,

despite the fact that wilderness legislation passed by Congress specifically prohibits the establishment of buffer zones around wilderness areas.

The Federal land managers have the authority to trigger cleanup activities on all other sources, while at the same time increasing

their own air pollution activities through increased prescribed

burns. This apparent ‘‘Do as I say, not as I do’’ philosophy of the

Federal land managers suggests a double standard for allowing

Federal agencies to emit fire smoke at will, but at the same time

requiring others to spend large sums of money to reduce their

emissions even a small amount.

While this may sound far-fetched, it has been going on for some

time in northwestern Colorado. The Forest Service manager of the

Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area accused the Hayden power plant of

polluting wilderness areas some 30 miles away. The State of

Colorado——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Pearson?

Mr. PEARSON. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wonder if I could interrupt you.

Mr. PEARSON. Sure.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. We have to run for a vote—and this is very

interesting testimony. I am very sorry. We only have about 3 minutes left to scoot over there, but we look forward to your continuing

when we get back.

Mr. PEARSON. OK.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. There’s just one vote. It’s on a motion to rise,

meaning they want to go home.

[Laughter.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But we’re obligated to make the vote, and so

we’ll run right over and be right back.
52

Mr. PEARSON. I understand; thank you.

[Recess.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The hearing will come to order—my golly,

we’re going to get down to business here. We’ll resume with the

testimony of Dr. Pearson.

Mr. PEARSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me just conclude with a couple of final comments.

The point I was making when you had to leave for the floor vote

was that Federal land managers can indeed influence land use policy outside of their wilderness areas, and I was trying to make the

point in concert with the earlier maps that you showed with the

red circles around the class I areas, that indeed that is the case

right now in Colorado.

In the Yampa Valley in northwestern Colorado, there is the

Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area, and the Forest Service which manages that area has accused the Hayden power plant at Hayden of

polluting the wilderness area some 30 miles away. The State of

Colorado Health Department, along with the Forest Service and

the Colorado utilities conducted a $3 million scientific study to determine the sources of visibility impairment in the wilderness. The

recently released results of that study show that the Hayden Power

Plant was only a minor contributor to visibility impairment in the

wilderness.

Despite this evidence, however, the source owners have committed to spending over $100 million to reduce the emissions from

that plant. All the while, the Forest Service can go ahead and conduct prescribed burns or allow wildfires to burn at will to reduce

forest fuel levels in and near the wilderness area. The other Federal land managers can do the same in other areas.

There’s also an irony here that we need to keep in mind, and

that is that there’s a great concern now about global warming, and

fires release carbon as carbon dioxide. It is to be noted that if you

burn the forest, you’re putting the carbon that is locked up in those

trees back into the atmosphere, thus possibly exacerbating the

global warming issue. And also, by removing some of this material

from the forest, you’re reducing the forest’s ability to lock up carbon that they would be putting into wood over the next several

years.

While I’m extremely concerned that prescribed burns will hamper and even possibly prevent our attainment of the goal that you

set for us in remedying man-caused effects of visibility impairment

in the West, we recognize that forest fires can and will occur.

Therefore, the Federal land managers must take this into account

and work out other options for reducing timber in the forest, while

still helping us achieve the class I visibility requirements set out

in the Clean Air Act.

And with that I will say thank you, and answer any questions

you may have.

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

hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Dr. Pearson, and the Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer for questions.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you.
53

Dr. Pearson, my first question deals with the second issue that

you touch on, which is the ability of land managers of various

sorts, with respect to the Forest Service, in particular, to have

some impact on the operations of various human activities in other

jurisdictions. You mentioned the Mount Zirkel incident, which I’m

familiar with. To what extent does occur throughout the rest of the

country?

Mr. PEARSON. Well, I’m most familiar with Mount Zirkel, but I’m

sure that it has happened elsewhere. Let me say that the Federal

land managers’ authority in this regard is written into the Clean

Air Act as an advisor capacity, but the most recently proposed EPA

rules on regional haze make it an out-and-out right, if you will, of

the Federal land managers. So, again, I’m most familiar with

Mount Zirkel, but I’m sure it can and has happened elsewhere, and

will probably happen more with these new authorities.

Mr. SCHAFFER. I want to go back to the questions that I asked

of Carol Browner at the EPA with respect to the Grand Canyon

Visibility Transport Commission. She said, when I asked, that the

findings of that report were somehow built into the new air quality

standards, and with the contemplation of a 400 percent increase in

prescribed burning, as one who served on that Commission, I’d like

to get your perspective on whether the findings of the Commission

were acknowledged by the EPA.

Mr. PEARSON. Well, they acknowledge that such a study took

place, but they do not in any way, in any major way, anyway, incorporate the findings of the Commission into their proposed regional haze rules. And, in fact, I testified in Denver a week ago before EPA on this very rule and made that comment, that they ignored the Commission’s findings across the board when they drafted these rules.

So, I don’t know how Carol Browner can say that the Commission’s findings are incorporated in the rule, because they simply are

not.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Do you think it’s appropriate that those secondary standards for visibility should be as stringent as the primary standards that are intended to protect human health?

Mr. PEARSON. Oh, not at all. And, in fact, when the Clean Air

Act was first passed by Congress many years ago, the primary

standards of the health standards were given much more significance because they are based on protecting human health, whereas

secondary standards, those protecting human welfare, must have a

lot more flexibility and ability of parties to meet them in an economical and feasible way. So, no, they’re not intended to be at all

equivalent, and I agree with that.

Mr. SCHAFFER. I’d like you to discuss, if you would, Secretary

Babbitt’s assessment that the costs of prescribed fire versus the

costs of mechanical removal—let me find this. He said that prescribed fire is by far the least expensive method of treating hazardous fuels. He said that the average national costs run about $20

to $30 per acre for fire, while mechanical fuel reduction or multiple

treatments can cost $500 to $1,500 per acre.

Can you comment on that from your scientific perspective and

background?
54

Mr. PEARSON. Well, I don’t really have any background in the

cost of burning a forest versus going in and doing mechanical removal. Let me just say that if one chooses to burn the forest and

pollutes the environment as a result, then someone else, presumably private industry, has to then reduce their emissions at a huge

cost to make up for this added smoke from the forest. So I think

one needs to look at those costs as well.

Mr. SCHAFFER. And one last question, just from an air quality

standpoint. Are the EPA’s new standards and proposed rules reasonable?

Mr. PEARSON. It depends on who you ask. I think in some regards they are and in other regards they are not, in my personal

opinion, and——

Mr. SCHAFFER. That’s what I’m after.

Mr. PEARSON. [continuing] we could get into a discussion as to

which is which.

Mr. SCHAFFER. From your perspective.

Mr. PEARSON. Well, in terms of the PM2.5 standards, I think

they’re probably needed to protect human health but not at the levels set by EPA, they are too stringent. In terms of regional visibility, that is a goal that Congress set to improve regional haze,

primarily in the West. And while that is a nice thing to do and we

all strive to do that, and we’re working very hard in that regard,

let’s do it in balance with other objectives—economic objectives, removing fuel from the forest, and so forth.

So we need a balanced program, and that is indeed why the

Commission, the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission,

was set up by the Congress to look at these various aspects and

weigh them into a balanced program, which we did. EPA now

chooses to ignore our recommendations.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. That’s very interesting.

And I’d like to ask Mr. Dennison, do you agree with Secretary

Babbitt’s assessment of the cost of prescribed fire versus the cost

of mechanical treatment in the forest?

Mr. DENNISON. Thank you for asking that. I do have some background in that, having done some of that sort of removal after I

retired. I don’t know where those figures might have come from.

The $20 to $30 per acre had to have been on a national average,

and I think he mentioned a national average. That would include,

then, a lot of acres where you didn’t really have to do very much;

you torched it and you let it burn, across grasslands and areas like

Florida, possibly, but certainly not in California. So, I don’t know

where they could do that in California for that.

On the other end they noted, I believe, that it was $500 to $1,500

an acre for mechanical removal. I know that in California, under

service contracts that the Forest Service have had, they’ve had as

high as $275 per acre. Currently, those service contracts—and by

service contracts I’m talking about the removing of the biomass

without any other material, just trying to get that fire load down—

those service contracts, the last I checked, were around $100 to

$125 per acre, so, not near that figure.
55

In addition, though, Madam Chair, I think it’s important to note

that if we have contracts that are strictly contracts to do the end

product job, what we call merchantable product sales, where you

remove the small trees and you remove the biomass together, those

are net income to the Federal Government. And so that gives them

some extra money, then, to use on prescribed burns if they wish

to later on. So I would question those figures, at least based on

where I’m from.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Dennison. I just introduced a

bill to that effect, the Stewardship Contract——

Mr. DENNISON. That is very much needed. I’m aware of that. We

tried it once about 20 years ago, and we couldn’t get enough cooperation from anybody, but I look forward to that being in effect.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Good, good.

Mr. Peterson, I want to ask you, could you—what do you see as

the biggest threat to the continued use of prescribed fire down

there in Florida, or any place?

Mr. EARL PETERSON. Madam Chairman, we have a unique situation in Florida, as I mentioned. I think the biggest threat would be,

of course, the concern for public health and the public perception

of people who are not familiar with the history of prescribed fire,

who might have moved into the area from outside of the area; so,

I think those would be the biggest threats.

Prescribed fire, or controlled fire, as it used to be called, has a

long history in Florida, generally accepted as a part of the landscape, as a part of the strategies there. But these two issues will

impact its future.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I see. Could you tell me why your office and

the State in general felt it was necessary to develop and pass the

Prescribed Fire Act in Florida?

Mr. EARL PETERSON. Yes. It was thought necessary because, No.

1, prescribed fire is very central, as I said earlier, to Florida—both

to the ecology, the ecosystem. Many of our species are not only fire

tolerant, they’re fire dependent.

And then, of course, with the massive amount of people coming

in who are not familiar with all of that, it was just thought it needed to be done because prescribed fire needs to go forward as a part

of the management tool in Florida, and we needed to protect its

proper use from civil liability, if done properly.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Mr. Dennison, you noted there are data which show the amounts

of fuel which should be removed prior to the use of prescribed fire.

Could you give us an example of that?

Mr. DENNISON. Yes, as a matter of fact, one of the people who

provided data—and it was also in Mr. Babbitt’s testimony, his written testimony, at least—researcher Wallace Covington. He referred

to that particular person, who does studies at North Arizona University, conducting studies there in order to determine means of restoring ponderosa pine forests through prescriptive fires. He reported in a recent study that in order to put a forest stand of trees

back into a normality where they could use prescriptive fires, that

he removed 5,500 board feet per acre, and as much as 5,800 tons

per acre of unmerchantable slash and duff.
56

That unmerchantable slash and duff is something that in California we utilize for chips and co-generation in developing energy.

So, those are the types of materials that we think ought to be removed. Now those are in certain stands. They wouldn’t be the same

volume everywhere, but that was an example.

In addition, in northern California, there’s Wheelabrator Shasta

Energy Company, who does have co-generation plants who do utilize those unmerchantable materials and do convert it to electricity.

Their forester, Steve Jolly, has done studies and finds that they remove about 30 to 35 tons per acre prior to prescriptive burning.

Putting that into something maybe we can grasp a little bit better,

the large vans that the chips are in, that’s about—oh, probably one

to one-and-a-half truckloads per acre of material, a lot of material

that has to be removed.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How big is that co-generation facility down

there in Shasta Power?

Mr. DENNISON. I think it’s a 5-megawatt, and we have five of

them in California and are ready to utilize some of those materials

if we have them available to us. In addition, we have ethanol

plants that now are looking to come into our area, as well, that can

utilize some of this same material that can be removed prior to prescriptive burning.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The pine needles and that type of thing?

Mr. DENNISON. Well, that gets in there inadvertently. They can

take anything. Of course, what they do is they chip the material

in the woods, blow it into a van, haul it in, then, into the facility,

and then burn it at that plant.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask Mr. Mutch, can the agencies

significantly expand prescribed fire programs and still safeguard

air quality, in your opinion?

Mr. MUTCH. It seems like a conflicting dilemma, the choice of the

words you used, but my answer to that question based on reality

is, yes, we can. And I base that on quite a few different examples

of research that are going on around the West today.

For example, the Westar Group, which is a combination of 14 directors of the western States’ air quality bureaus, are on record as

saying that a large increase in prescribed fire can mitigate against

future wildfire smoke. The same thing applies as my point three

on the board here: pay now in a more balanced program, or pay

a dear price later in wildfire smoke emissions.

For example, the wildfire called the Silver Fire in southwest Oregon in 1987, burned over a period of 58 days. Research has shown

that it released 53 million pounds of respirable particulate—in

other words, particulate matter less than 10 microns—into the atmosphere over a 58-day period.

The wildfire smoke, in my view, is the bad smoke. That doesn’t

mean that prescribed fire smoke is good smoke, but it is better

smoke because we can time the period in which it is emitted; we

can burn under certain wind directions and speeds to avoid smokesensitive areas. We operate under smoke management plans in our

burning programs, and all of this prescribed burning, as you know,

is done in concert with smoke management plans in the States to

apply best-available control measures to minimize the amount of

smoke and emissions into the air from prescribed burning.
57

Another study I will cite, Madam Chairman, is some work that’s

ongoing in Oregon between the Forest Service, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and DEQ in Oregon, that’s showing, with data,

that probably a great increase in prescribed fire over a period of

years will ultimately reduce the total emissions from wildfires and

prescribed fires in the future.

When you look at what’s happening in the Blue Mountains of

eastern Oregon and the Boise National Forest, we’re seeing one

wildland smoke episode after another from wildfires covering

multi-State areas under conditions that are totally random and beyond our control.

Let me just conclude by saying I might take a different stance

than what we heard from the EPA today under this premise that

the wildfire smoke is the bad smoke. We might say that wildfire

smoke should not fall under a natural events exemption, which we

heard about. The wildfire smoke is not stringently regulated like

prescribed fire smoke.

I would say that Federal agencies should be penalized for the

wildfire smoke they put into the atmosphere, because that’s the

bad smoke, and there should be some leniency addressed to the

prescribed fire question so that we can ultimately reduce total

emissions by a more rounded program of prescribed fire.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That’s very interesting. Is there a logical way

that one can tell whether a fire is caused by man or by an act of

nature in time to impact other air emittents? I mean, sometimes,

doesn’t it take days and weeks to determine how a fire started,

whether it was caused by man?

Mr. MUTCH. Take days and weeks in terms of fire cause?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.

Mr. MUTCH. We know pretty well from fire reporting where the

fire starts and what’s gone on in that area in terms of human activity and lightning storms. We know very carefully—you know, 95

percent or better, probably—whether fire is caused by lightning or

by people.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Very interesting, gentlemen. Your testimony

has been very instructive, and I thank you so much for your patience today. We are putting together a very, very important and

interesting record, and I thank you for your personal contribution,

the contributions of your associations and companies that they

have made by having you be willing to come to Washington and

participate in this hearing.

Mr. Schaffer, do you have anything you would like to add?

Mr. SCHAFFER. Yes. You know, it’s interesting. I don’t represent

Idaho, but I had a chance to fly over the Boise National Forest

with the Forest Health Subcommittee, and it was remarkable how

often some of the wildfires there stopped in this remarkable

straight line. And it was not as a result of previous burning as

much as it was a result of sound forest management and thinning,

and so on.

So this concept you mention of good smoke versus bad smoke—

you know, it’s abundantly clear to me that in many areas of the

country it’s possible to prevent forest fires with no smoke by just

applying the sound practices that forestry has taught us, and realizing that the taxpayers throughout the country have billions of
58

dollars worth of resources that can be utilized and harvested in a

responsible way to maintain the integrity of the environment and

improve critical habitats and prevent erosion in many cases, as we

saw in the Boise National Forest, and so on.

I understand the necessity of controlled burns in some cases, but

this notion that we hear today from some that controlled burning

is always preferable to sound forest practices is a silly notion, I

think, and, unfortunately, one that has seeped into the Department

of the Interior and Department of Agriculture and is being excused

in many ways by the EPA in a way to make the administration

look more responsible on paper than they actually are in reality.

That’s my comment. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. MUTCH. May I respond to that, briefly?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.

Mr. MUTCH. I would certainly say that you’re exactly right, and

I began my testimony by saying that the combination of mechanical, pre-commercial thinning, harvests, and all of those other tools

must be done in concert with prescribed fire when necessary.

And I also would have to add to your comments that many of the

vistas and landscapes that the public of this fine country enjoy are

based on an evolution of plants and animals with periodic fire, and

many of the functions of ecosystems are very carefully associated

with the periodic occurrence of fire in these ecosystems, whether

it’s the germination of plants or the control of brown spot disease

in longleaf pine, fire, for evolutionary periods of time, has

interacted with these plants and animals.

So, you’re exactly right. It’s a program that’s needed of balance

and thought and judgment and wisdom. And we need mechanical

thinning; we need harvests; we need the use of that material for

economic benefit to the people of this country, at the same time

that we afford those people some of the vistas that they enjoy in

our wildlands that are there partly because of fire, not because we

kept fire out.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much and—yes, Mr. Peterson?

Mr. EARL PETERSON. Madam Chairman, I would be remiss if I

didn’t say that I hope as we proceed through this process, which

is very important because of all of the issues we heard here today,

that we’re not talking about just Federal land management issues.

There’s an enormous private sector out there who has some of the

same concerns, some of the same needs.

There are other public land management agencies that are State

and local who have these issues, and then everything from the

fuels to the history to the strategies are different, so a one-size-fitsall, or a Federal blanket, shall we say, should not be one that we

take for granted here. There are a lot of variables in this mix.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I agree with you, and I thank you for that contribution.

I also want to say that the visionaries in this country, people like

the individuals who built co-generation facilities when PURPA first

came into being—the vision of being able to use the fuel load is a

very good one and especially in this day when we’re facing deregulation and throwing the production of energy out onto the free mar-
59

ket system, which I like, so long as we have an even start. I think

those visionaries have got to be commended.

And it’s my personal concern to see to it that those co-generation

facilities always have the fuel available to them, and I just wish

we had more of those facilities, because they can produce power

from a renewable resource that helps clean up our forests and gives

us the ability to have the right kind of prescribed fire conditions.

So my hat is off to them.

I appreciate all of your testimony. As I said, it’s very instructive.

I have more questions for you, but I have been instructed that—

your bacon is saved at this minute, because not only do we have

a vote, but this room needs to be used by other people.

And so, we will be submitting our additional questions in writing. The record will remain open for 3 weeks, and if there are no

other questions or comments this hearing is adjourned.

Mr. MUTCH. Thank you for inviting me.

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject to

the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
60

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to appear today before this Committee to discuss the Administration’s fire management policy with Secretary Babbitt and Administrator Browner.

I want to highlight three issues in my testimony today and submit with Secretary

Babbitt and Administrator Browner some further technical background for the

record. First, I want to talk about how our resource conditions have changed because of past fire suppression policies. Then I want to discuss how we have changed

our policies to address emerging problems, including the Forest Service’s Fire 21

Agenda. And finally, I want to highlight some accomplishments of the Department

of Agriculture in meeting changing demands.

The Federal Government has a long-standing tradition and record of fire management. 100 years ago, the creation of our National Forests was inspired by the need

to protect forest resources from slash and burn logging that was decimating productive lands and threatening rural communities in the upper Midwest and far west.

In 1911, after the Forest Service had begun serious fire suppression on Federal

lands, the Weeks Act directed the Secretary of Agriculture to work cooperatively

with the States to fight fires across ownerships. Today the Forest Service, in partnership with several Federal agencies, operates the most advanced, innovative, and

effective fire fighting organization in the world.

Changing resource conditions

For 50 years we have had the technology to fight fires with incredible effectiveness. Our national policy, championed by Smokey Bear in one of our most successful

public education programs, was to quickly and effectively put out fires. It is ironic,

but we are now paying the price for our success.

Fire is a natural part of any terrestrial ecosystem in the country. In some areas

such as southern California, wildfire came through on an average of every 10 years.

In the ponderosa pine forests of the intermountain west, fires burned in 30 year cycles. In the east and the Pacific Northwest, some forests burned once in 100 years.

In every case, fire was a regular part of the ecological process. While we have known

that fire was a natural occurrence in wildlands, we recently began to understand

that it is necessary.

Today, the legacy of seven decades of fire suppression is a changed landscape.

Forests where young seedlings were regularly thinned out by periodic fire are now

thick with small diameter trees that outstrip the sites’ moisture supplies and soil

nutrients. These dog-hair thickets are especially subject to drought, disease. and ultimately intense wildfires that wipe out nearly the entire stand. Other forests where

fire resistant trees used to be the dominant species are not crowded and sometimes

replaced by trees not native to the area. The result is changed habitat undesirable

species mixes, and increased susceptibility to fire. Even rangelands show the evidence of fire suppression with exotic plants, over abundance of sagebrush, and the

encroachment of shrubs and unpalatable plants. In all cases there is simply an incredible accumulation of fuel in the form of needles and organic material on the forest floor, woody shrubs, overstocked stands of small diameter trees, and deadfall

trees lying on the ground that exceed the levels necessary for soil formation native

habitat, and forage.

These conditions have led to a serious change in wildland fire activity. Since the

1920’s wildfire has typically claimed 400,000 to 500,000 acres of national forests

each year. From 1920 to 1987—a period of nearly 70 years—fire never burned more

than one million acres per year. However, in the past 10 years, we have had four

years during which more than one million acres have burned.

These unnatural, fire-prone, forest conditions exist on 39 million acres (20 percent) of our national forest system. This fact, combined with the tragic loss of 34

skilled firefighters in 1994, is why Secretary Babbitt and I have taken such an aggressive role in changing fire policy in the Administration. Contrary to some claims

of critics, our changed policy is not, I repeat, not to simply put a match to the forests. Our policy changes involve mechanical forest treatment, budget structure

changes, new planning priorities, personnel training, new research, carefully

planned prescribed burns that continue to include air quality considerations, and

dozens of other initiatives to meet this challenge.

To meet the changing needs for the 21st Century, the Forest Service has integrated the concepts of the Federal Fire Policy Review into a program we call Fire

21, which realigns and emphasizes our priorities. The four commitments of the Fire

21 Agenda are: 1) Putting firefighter safety and public safety as the highest goal;

2) Supporting the role of fire in restoring and sustaining healthy ecosystems; 3)
61

Supporting the integration of fire management into land management planning; and

4) Improving fire and aviation accountability within the Forest Service.

One of the most important steps necessary to returning fire to the landscape after

70 years of fire suppression includes removing small diameter trees which can be

tightly packed, susceptible to fire, and serve as fuel ladders that allow low intensity

ground fires to burn up into the treetops. Old growth trees that have survived dozens of fires over several centuries are threatened by these intensely hot crown fires.

At lease half of the 39 million acres that are potentially subject to damaging wildfire

need some kind of mechanical fuels treatment before fire is reintroduced. The Senate Interior Appropriations Report for fiscal year 1998 includes $50 million for this

type of fuels management, an increase from $29 million in 1997.

Another important step is providing the resources to implement prescribed burns

in the very narrow windows of time when weather, moisture levels, treatment objectives, air quality, and other factors converge to allow a carefully controlled burn

across a discreet area. In 1996, the Forest Service treated 532,000 acres. In 1997,

we have burned nearly one million acres. By 2005 we hope to treat 3.5 million acres

annually, so that by 2015 we will have addressed nearly all of the 39 million acres

that need fuel management and fire reintroduction. The fiscal year 1998 Senate Interior Appropriations Report moves hazardous fuels management funding out of the

fire preparedness function into a fire management operations account to ensure that

it is available to supervisors who are managing fire through prescribed burns and

fuels treatment. This will increase our ability to restore ecosystems with fire management techniques.

There is another changing condition which has nothing to do with out past fire

management policies, but has a very significant impact on future fire policies—the

growing wildland/urban interface. As more people recognize the beauty and value

of public land, more people are locating homes in and around it. Many of these people choose to live in wooded environments with trees that grow right beside their

houses. This has become a very significant challenge for the Forest Service; how to

balance the risk of suppressing wildlife with the risk of reintroducing and managing

fire. We do not have all the answers to these questions, but we are working very

closely with our partners, especially the state foresters, to develop appropriate balance between federal responsibilities and private responsibilities for total fire management across mixed ownerships. We have developed an education program with

local firefighters using radio announcements and other venues to teach homeowners

the importance of managing fuels such as shrubs and trees next to their homes.

Through Fire 21, the Forest Service is changing the fundamental skills and training of federal fire fighters. Instead of focusing exclusively on fire suppression, the

new fire management workforce will have training that allows them to serve as a

resource to forest supervisors who need to reintroduce fire to the ecosystem. Comprehensive fire management will include fuels evaluations, collaboration across ownerships, land management planning, prescribed fire implementation, and fire and

vegetation monitoring. Our people will be trained and equipped to fight fires as effectively as ever, but their skills will reflect the changing demands of a comprehensive fire management program.

We are also making progress in addressing one of the most controversial aspects

of an aggressive program of prescribed burning—smoke management. Unlike some,

we do not see air quality standards as an obstacle to the use of prescribed fire.

Rather, these regulations recognize the importance of protecting air quality in carrying out management activities. We are working with the Environmental Protection Agency and State air quality regulatory agencies to develop practical policies

to mitigate and manage visibility and health impairment from smoke emissions. We

are encouraged that other governmental entities, such as the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, recognize that air quality is affected by smoke not only

from prescribed fires but also from wildfires and that a strong prescribed fire program can have much less impact on air quality in the long run.

Through Fire 21, the Forest Service is also changing the fundamental skills and

training of federal firefighters. Instead of focusing exclusively on fire suppression,

the new fire management workforce will have training that allows them to serve

as a resource to forest supervisors who need to reintroduce fire to the ecosystem.

A total fire management program will include fuel evaluation and treatment, collaboration across ownerships, land management planning, prescribed fire implementation, and fire and vegetation monitoring. Our people will be trained and equipped

to fight fires as effectively as ever but their skills will reflect the changing demands

of a comprehensive fire management program.
62

Accomplishments

Finally, let me explain a few of our accomplishments in the overall fire management area.

The outstanding track record of fire suppression will continue. The federal fire

fighting agencies have consistently suppressed 98 percent of all wildfires during initial attack. The remaining 2 percent of the fires account for most of the loss of life

and total acreage burned. However, even as we shift to broaden our management

objective, we intend to maintain our capability to stop most fires before they threaten people or property.

Our cooperation with the states will also continue. Through the USDA cooperative

fire program, we have loaned state and local governments more than $800 million

dollars in surplus federal property for use in fire suppression during our long-standing partnership. With the support of Congress, USDA provides approximately $17

million in cost-share grants to strengthen the state programs and an additional $2

million, through the states, to help train and equip volunteer firefighters in rural

towns across the United States.

The Forest Service is a world leader in fire behavior and fire management research. We have extensive expertise and research underway on the effects of fire

on vegetation and wildlife, smoke management, impacts of harvesting on fire risks,

and opportunities to create markets for small diameter trees—especially in California and the Southwest. While there is almost always a market for the mature

large diameter trees, we need to make sure there is a capacity, and hopefully market demand, to facilitate the removal of smaller diameter trees. We cannot afford

to sell off traditional forest products and leave behind trees that have traditionally

been ‘‘non-merchantable’’ because this will not address our fire management needs

and will leave the forest in worse condition.

Finally, we have working and will continue to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to address the complex questions of airshed management in fire dependent ecosystems. We are on a work group with the Department of Interior and

state land managers to develop recommendations for an EPA policy on wildland fire

emissions. The Forest Service is committed to incorporating public health and environmental quality considerations into its fire management plans. Air quality criteria

will continue to be incorporated in fire prescription and smoke management plans.

USDA’s partnership with EPA is a strong one—across many program areas—and

we look forward to its further growth.

Summary

I am very excited about the new directions in fire management. We have recognize the trend of ecological changes and dramatically changed direction. Our

changes are keeping firefighters safer, restoring the environment, enhancing wildlife

habitat, protecting streams and forests from intense and damaging fires, and managing air quality. The Forest Service and its federal partners continue to be leaders

in developing a total fire management strategy that protects both people and the

environment.
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141